Okay, good evening. This is the meeting of the Municipal Land Use Board for the Burough of River Edge. It's Wednesday, July 8th, 2026 time now, 7:34 p.m. This meeting of the Municipal Land Use Board of the Burough of River Edge is being held both in person and remotely via Zoom in compliance with the provisions
of the Open Public Meetings Act and associated regulations. Notice of this hybrid meeting was published in the Bergen record, posted at Burough Hall, and posted on the Burough's website. The notice included the dialing and login information necessary for public participation and access to this meeting remotely. Copy of the agenda for this
meeting was made available on the burough's website near the posting of the meeting notice and included the dialin and login information. This time, we ask you kindly silence your cell phones. During the public comment period of this meeting, if you would like to make a
public comment, you may step up to the microphone if you're in person and wait to be recognized by the chair or press the raise hand button on Zoom or dial star9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand. You may mute and unmute yourself by pressing the microphone icon
on Zoom or dialing star six on your telephone keypad. You must state your name and address clearly prior to making a public comment. With that, at this time, I ask everyone to please stand and we'll salute the flag. Mr. G, would you do the pledge
allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with justice for all. Okay, at this time I'll ask our board
attorney to call the role, please. >> Thank you. Uh, the mayor is excused tonight. Mr. Kaslin >> here. >> Mr. Cray >> here. >> Miss Boland is excused tonight. Mr. Gibbons >> here. >> Mr. Kigo is absent at the moment. Uh,
Mr. Salva and Mr. Goier are excused tonight. Councilman Glass >> here. >> And Miss Lavine >> here. >> Also present. We have our zoning officer, Mr. Deepkin, on Zoom and our board engineer, Mr. Costa. >> Okay.
Our first item, we have no items under correspondence, approval of minutes or discussion items. We're going to move directly to memorializations. First item applicant is Melo Bagels and Cafe LLC. The property is 101 Midland Avenue,
block 206, lot 3. It's an application for food handlers license. no exterior improvements except changing the name on the existing signage. A draft of the resolution was submitted for the board's review and comment prior to the meeting this evening and I opened the board for comments or questions.
>> And my apologies for the delay on this. This one did not um require any variance relief. Um, and the applicant had agreed to conditions regarding working with the burough and board professionals for any
odors. Um, coordinating deliveries so they wouldn't impede driveway access, installing signage to discourage parking in adjacent the adjacent southern lot. Um, and complying with all other comments and recommendations um in the
board professional reports. Okay. >> Questions, comments from the board? There being none, I'll look for a motion to approve the resolution. >> So move. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> First from Councilman, Mr. Cra. >> All right. And I'll only call those
eligible. Mr. Kaslin, >> yes. >> Mr. Craig, >> yes. >> Mr. Gibbons, >> yes. >> Mr. Glass, >> yes. >> And Miss Lavine, >> yes. >> All right. The motion passes. >> Okay. Thank you. Our next item under memorializations, the applicant is Sweet
Spot River Edge LLC. Property is 75 Route 4 East, block 14:15, lot 1.01. Application for variance for square footage of main and secondary signage to improve visibility from traffic. Uh,
draft of the resolution was submitted to the board's consideration prior to this evening's meeting. Open it to the board for comment questions on the resolution. And again, my apologies for the delay. One change I did realize um I had listed that the
um there was a condition that the applicant would remove the freestanding signage on the regency's pylon um if they received DOT approval for the easternmost driveway. In the resolution, I had it dual access, but they're just asking for ingress only at that third
driveway. Um so I'll just update that in the resolution. Otherwise they are getting var they um were approved for variances for the total number of signs the signage area the freestanding sign and
the setback of that pylon sign from the front yard. >> Okay questions or comments for the board? >> Okay with that modification just read I'll look for a motion to approve the resolution. So I'll second.
>> Okay. Mr. Cray on a first and Mr. Gibbons on a second. All >> right. And I'll only call those eligible. Mr. Kaslin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cray. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gibbons. >> Yes. >> And Miss Levy. >> Yes.
>> The motion passes. >> Okay. Thank you. Our last item of our memorialization for the evening is a resolution appointing our uh board at conflict board attorney for the application of IAT Services LLC.
Subject properties 41 Grand Avenue block 1405 lot 4 draft of the resolution was submitted to the board for review and consideration. Open it to the board for comments or questions. Resolution >> and this is for Mr. Leman's continued representation of the board in the
litigation that was filed um by this applicant. >> Questions, comments? >> There being none, I'll look for the motion on the applica on the resolution. Excuse me. >> So moved. Mr. Gibbons on first, Miss Cray.
>> All right, Mr. Kaslin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cray, >> yes. >> Mr. Gibbons, >> yes. Um, Councilman Glass, >> I don't know if I can comment on this. >> Oh, >> right. >> You didn't participate in the res. >> It's just for the conflict council. You
could just recuse yourself if you'd like. That's fine. >> I recuse myself. >> All right. And Miss Leavine. >> Yes. >> Okay. The motion passes. >> Okay. Thank you. We're going to move on our agenda this evening into old
business. Applicants are Michael and Melanie Schwiger. Subject properties 265 Adams Avenue, block 506, lot 3. Application seeking approval for construction of an outdoor living space. If you folks want to come forward
and just for the record, um the applicant and their contractor were previously sworn at the June 10th meeting and they remain under oath tonight. The application was deemed complete on June 10th and was carried to June 24th and
then without further notice and then on June 24th it was further carried to today's date without further notice. >> And could you just make sure that that microphone's turned on? You just press the little um gray square. Yep.
>> All right. Good evening everyone. >> Good evening. >> Okay. Um let me get myself a little organized here. Okay. Um thank you for allowing us to return um to discuss our application for a covered deck. I'm going to read a statement that we created together. Um my husband and I
have been River Edge residents for more than 10 years. We purchased 265 Adams Avenue in September of 2025 after construction and inspections of the home were completed. At the time of the purchase, we had no knowledge that the property was
undersized for the zone or that we were purchasing a non-compliant house. Thank you to Mr. Deppkin for providing clarification documents and a zoning review memo. After analysis, it was clear that these conditions existed before we purchased the home. And again,
it was unknown to us at the time of our closing. So to us, we think that the hardship is straightforward. This is both an undersized lot and a pre-existing non-conformant property. First, the lot contains only 600 square ft in an R1 zone where a conforming lot
would contain 7,500 square ft. Because the lot Oh, sorry. Did I say that wrong? Okay. Because the lot is significantly undersized, it does not enjoy the same development flexibility as a conforming lot. a homeowner on a conforming lot um would reasonably construct similar
outdoor amenities without seeking the relief that we are requesting tonight. Had this been a conforming lot, we would likely not be here today. Secondly, um we purchased a newly constructed home believing it had been built and approved in accordance with applicable requirements. Our purchase documents
specifically state that the home was constructed in compliance with applicable building codes, zoning ordinances, and other legal requirements. We again we had no knowledge of this non-compliance and were not informed of any such information prior to our closing. Additionally, when we purchased the property, we understood the bureau's
ordinance preserving 5% of block coverage for outdoor amenities. Based on that ordinance, we intentionally designed our proposed deck to remain within the 5% allowance. Instead, because of some mistakes that predate our ownership, we are now seeking this
variance relief for a 277 square foot covered deck that falls within the type of outdoor amenity that this ordinance was intended to accommodate. So, for our family, I mean, this project is so much more than a deck for us. I mean, as two parents with two young children, we hope to create a safe
and a functional outdoor space where we can play games, host family gatherings, and just simply enjoy everyday moments together outside. Um just as we did in our previous home on um Monroe Avenue, um I will direct your attention to the poster board here um to visually show
the backyard on all three sides. So the picture all the way on >> I'm sorry. Were these previously submitted to the board? >> Um yeah. >> No, we're bringing them. >> Okay. So I just have to mark this as an exhibit. >> Okay. >> Um so if you could write or do you have
a digital copy of this? Um, I could take a picture of it and send it to you. Or I have the individual photos that I can also send to >> at the end of the You can just write on that board exhibit A1. >> Okay. >> And take a photo of it and send it to
our clerk Jessica for our records. >> Okay. >> And then if you could just describe the photos, who took them, the date they were taken, and what they depict. >> Okay. Who took when. Okay. Um, if I could direct your attention to the bottom
right photo. Um, so that is the property on the west side. So that is up the hill from our property. You'll see that there's a retaining wall as well as a fence. Um, so significantly um significant privacy um allows from that um neighbor on that one side. So um having this coverage deck here
definitely I do not think that that would impact them. If I were to go to the bottom left, that's the house that's to the east of us. They have the fence. Um we've spoken with both neighbors on Adams a on the west side and the east side. Um both um have not had any um
water damage and neither one has um any um issues um with our um proposed project. >> Yeah. On that side you can't actually see anything. There's no windows except for the first like look up through that's just >> um and then I I I leave the the top
photos for last because that's the the rear. So again, this this picture was taken from um from the back um door. Um and so you can see that there's the six foot fence. Um and if you actually just think about from a scale perspective how high those dense shrubs are. Um the
picture on the right, um again, I took this kind of standing on the retaining wall myself, but that's the side view. Um so again, I didn't quite measure it myself. I think four is probably on the minimum side. I think it's probably close to 5T, but that's how dense the shrubs are um behind our property. Um,
>> just just backing up the comment where I made the comment that I never I don't even know what color the back of their house is. I can't see. There's no visibility. >> And did did you take those photos? >> I took them. >> And do you know about the date that you took them?
>> Um, I'd say like last week. >> So 712. >> Sure. Okay. >> All right. Um, and then last thing I'll say is here that we are committed to working with the town to make improvements to protect our neighbors. Um, and more specifically
for storm water. Um, and that brings us this next topic. Um, so we did take the board's concerns seriously regarding storm water. Um, and it resulted in our professionals professionals to develop a plan that addressed those concerns. So I'm going to just pass the baton to Sean now to talk a little bit more about that plan.
>> Yes. So we we got some information from the engineer regarding the existing uh storm water system that was there. Um we had the plan updated to show the location of that and then uh include another colt 150 to basically capture 3
in of storm water over the square footage of the increase of the 277 square foot of imperous coverage. So the plan addresses that. Um, and I think that's what you guys were looking for at the end. So hopefully
that addresses storm water and we can go from there. >> Okay. >> So I'm sorry. I just wanted to clarify some of the dates on the drawing the revised drawings that were provided.
We received um a full-sized copy of plans titled site plan, deck plan, perspective overview consisting of three sheets. It has a date of 7626, but then it also has a um like an it has an original date of
7626, but then it was revised 41026. And then we received a similar exhibit that consists of three sheets just titled site plan perspective overview. Um
that has an original date of July 3rd 26 with revision date on July 3rd 26. So if you could just clarify those two. >> Um this would be the copies that I just gave you, right? The physical copies.
This f the one that we the physical large scale set is dated 7626 and then the one that was provided last week is dated 7326 >> right there was an update for the storm
water >> so that's >> yeah the only update was the storm water management basically the calculations and uh the uh the calltech chamber detail on page Okay. >> There was a there was a note on the site plan as well just denoting the location
of the existing and proposed. >> Okay. >> We should clean up the references though because you have a submission here that does have a revision two with the July 3rd date. But your July 6th submission does not have that similar notation.
So, just for purposes of keeping things, >> you know, clear to what we're reviewing and approving, >> we need that to catch up and be accurate. >> Yeah, we can get a letter on that for you. >> Okay. >> Mr. Sava is here now. Yes.
>> Oh, thank you. Sorry. Sorry. >> Thank you. Sorry. Mr. Costa, >> Mr. Chairman, how are you? >> How you doing? >> I apologize. >> Not at all. >> So, after last meeting, we went back next morning. I went back to the office. We pulled the old file. Um, we had
photos of where the tanks were. I spoke to the uh the builder. We provided that information and they put it on, excuse me, on the plan. It actually might be a little bit closer to where the actual proposed addition is going. But again, the only
way you're going to find out is if it was approved and you dig it up to find out exactly where it is. The as that was provided to the office was inaccurate. >> Inaccurate. >> Inaccurate. And that's where I think the problem
lies. And again, I know you heard an opening statement and a letter read. So when that answer was provided to Mr. Deepkin, the construction official, and to our office, it's not correct based on the new
drawings that are from the board. Who's to blame? Who's to go after? I I doubt I I know that one, but I think at a minimum right now, they based on the information in front of you tonight and Marina, you can
certainly join in. They have a house that's actually not in for. So, at a minimum, the board might want to consider if they don't approve this to at least approve what they have there today that it isn't
a non-conforming situation. And again, I don't think it's it's not because of them. Obviously, they took ownership in September. >> Yes. and the documents that were submitted. And Steve, you can chime in anytime you want, but based on what I reviewed, that's what I think.
>> That doesn't really answer the question though. >> How? >> No, that doesn't answer the question. I mean you're talking about asphalts. What about when the application was submitted for construction of the house? Was that conforming the build when they when they went to
pull a building? I have to ask Bill >> that my my office does not review. >> All right. Go to Steve. Okay. >> But um what I said to Steve from now on >> it's very simple with CAD we can check
to to a millimeter. So if we get those files, we will check the coverages to them literally. >> Okay. >> Very closely, very easily. >> All right. But I want I want >> I don't know how it got to that point that I can't >> I think that's what the mayor was asking.
>> What What is the inaccuracy? >> I think >> they had a conforming basically the aspelt said they were conforming their plans to my knowledge were conforming. But in actuality, based on this submission, based on what's there today, >> what got built
>> and what got built, it's it's not and the asbuilt that was certified to the town is is not correct. >> There there's at least four or five% >> issues on the as there's there's
percentage there's miscalculations. There's seage pins that aren't where they're supposed to be supposed to be. There's permeable pavers that are shown on the asbill that are not there. And the whole point of us coming forward and just documenting all this on these new plans is to kind of protect them because
they bought it under >> the important. But what's really important, I really want to understand why this house was built. It wasn't conforming and it didn't have the variance. That's what I want to understand. >> Maybe Mr. Deepkin could go through his
memo of June 18th to just explain the history. >> Thank you, attorney. Um, did everybody receive the uh letter of interpretation that I sent out with all the documents? I
>> think it was circulated by by Jessica >> and I sent it to the professionals and also to the applicants. Did you Did you receive that June? >> June 26th, I believe it is. >> Oh, June 26. Okay. >> June June 18th.
>> Okay. So um the what I did was I went back I researched how this started from the very beginning before the uh house was renovated um and the uh builder was proposing what they
wanted to do. So document number one was the zoning review um and that zoning review um was uh amended uh in February 21st 2025. Um they proposed building coverage at
24.95% lot coverage at 29.93%. Therefore we issued a compliance letter stating that it complied with the codes um and then they could proceed with their construction.
Document number two architect um you know the architect's proposed building coverage also stated the same. If you if you have those fine if not I'll just go through them. They also indicated 24.95%
for building coverage and n 29.93% for lot coverage and that would be under the 30% and then plus the 5% for amenities. Um when they did the final asbuilt
um and it was completed uh that was in um September 2nd 2025 it indicated uh 1500 square f feet 25% building coverage which was compliant and then lot coverage was turned out to
be 34.48% without any amenities. So when we did the asbuilt when it was submitted, uh it indicated on there that they were um over they were under the total 35%
uh but they uh encroached into that 5% amenities. Um and we uh at that point suggested that they um the only thing uh to rectify that at the time was to put permeable pavers in the driveway and a
walkway. Um I think um uh you know for the sake of the applicants um I think there should be some consideration in regards to the amenities uh but unfortunately the project that they're doing uh also includes building
coverage. Um and in that respect they would be over uh the building coverage um by 31.5%. Which is not compliant and a lot coverage would be 47.8%.
And the rear yard setback would be 12.95 ft. Um so um you know giving the um approval for say a patio um you're eliminating the building coverage that would remain
the same. Um and uh they could use the patio as living space um you know on the exterior as they u you know as they go through the summer and uh spring and fall months. Um and then um as far as
the variance needed um I Rob is right you know if if nothing's going to be done issue a you know a variance for the nonconformity with the uh lack of the 5% uh but the also the u it would be the
building coverage lot coverage and rear yard setback. That being that being said and you know we can talk about this further. There always seems to be a problem with these amenities. Um the architects don't
understand it. I have to explain it to them. The building uh you know uh contractors uh don't understand it. I have to explain it to them. Uh and property owners don't understand it. Um I I think you we really should look into
um you know amending the uh the ordinance. Um I would recommend a for lot coverage 40% um and building coverage 25%. You know with that that all encompasses the size of the lot, the minimum size
and um the uh you know the uh coverages makes it a lot easier. The 40% isn't that much more than your 35%. Um and the um I it's it's easy for the amenities to uh exist if they
>> have for a separate conversation. >> That's fine. That's that's all I put that out. If you want to talk about it, fine. >> See, that's the issue though because you you just explained they submitted a compliant set of plans when they applied for a building permit. So they understood because they came right in at
30. >> You're talking about the builder. Yes. Yeah. So they submitted a compliant set of plans, then they built something different, and then they maybe even accurately reflect final conditions on the AS bill.
>> So I I don't know, you know, we need to probably maybe think about taking some kind of action against the architect that's filed those plans. >> Okay. >> Um >> I just I have a I have a question. I I believe that you said that that it was
realized on September early September that the asbuilt was incorrect. Is that >> is that what you had said before the house was sold that it was known? >> Yes. >> So how did they get a co? >> Well, it was inadvertently a missed. I
stated that in my in my number. >> But how was that? When when it came up, excuse me, when it came up, I stated to the contractors that now what can you do? They asked me what you can do, and I says, "Well, you're in a spot. I would suggest maybe making the driveway and
the walkway permeable because they changed the um the size of the driveway and they saying they changed the walkway." So, um, uh, if I guess maybe at that time I should have went after them, uh, to, um, to amend
everything, rip everything out and go forward. Um, but, uh, you know, apparently, um, you know, we we did not. >> So, I'm I'm just I'm asking again because if they got a CO, that wasn't relayed to them as buyers. If we knew
that they were they needed the variance, why are the Schwaggers asking for a variance? and not this the builder asking for a variance. >> As I said, >> if it was realized before if it was realized in early September that it was wrong, >> right?
>> They should have gotten the variance to amend. They shouldn't have gotten a co to sell the house. >> No, that's Steve. I think you're incorrect. They submitted an asbelt that said it was conforming. >> But Mr. Deppkin just said that he knew
in early September that it was wrong. The asbuilt that we pulled and again >> No, but it was it was like 34%. >> No, absolutely not. He just said it was >> Steve the as says it's all conforming. >> No, he said lock coverage was 34%. >> No.
>> Okay. >> But we're hearing two different things here from two different professionals. >> Mr. Deepkin just said that he knew in September >> that it was wrong. Now, the as I just want to make sure I get the
right. >> Okay, >> that's Rob. That's Kesner's. Look at Kessner's asbuilt. >> Correct. And Kessner's asbuilt puts it in compliance. >> Well, no. >> Well, it says, do you have Kesner's uh
survey there? As >> what he wrote, right? >> Yeah. It says 27 is less. >> Says 27 is less than. But he says the the number is is less than 25. It's 24%. >> That's that's building coverage. That's compliant. There's not an issue. >> What about the lot coverage?
>> The approved lot coverage just underneath that >> is compliant. >> So it was less than 30. >> It's compliant. It's complant for the 30 >> less than 30. >> But you it's not compliant for the amenity because you got% for the correct.
>> That's what I'm saying. that wasn't on there. >> Okay. >> But as far as compliance with lot coverage and building coverage according to that ASB bill, they met it. >> This applicant submits a set of drawings
with different numbers on it than that as bill. So now we pulled after the last meeting, we pull our file from the soil movement, which all we do is soil movement. Move the soil. Don't bring it in. Don't raise it up. don't affect your neighbors with drainage. Thank you very
much. And then Steve handles the rest. When we compared the two, I said, "Well, now what?" Then I called, I believe, I believe I called you and said, "Well, who did the who did the numbers on this?" I said, "Let's get to the bottom of it. Let's do our own calculations,
read the CAD, and get down to what's going on. That plan is inaccurate. This plan is accurate." So when they purchase the the property, it's not that number, it's this number. And they're not in compliance with building coverage, lot
coverage. Forget about the amenity coverage right now. >> But those two things which exist today, >> but what was the lot coverage on the on the as bill submitted? >> 24. >> No, the lock coverage >> lock coverage was 30 34.
>> That's nonconforming because they had no amenities. And it's not accurate though. It's high. >> I know it's not accurate, but to think it doesn't exceed the lot coverage, >> but but it does if there's no there's no deck in this property. So,
>> right. So, we at least But the good news is it didn't exceed a lot coverage, >> right? But but the borrower knew that that this was built wrong and a CO was given and a seller knew and they purchased a
property were lied to I guess by the potentially by the seller and they were given a CO on something that had 34.5% where they should be getting the variance not the Schwag groups. >> I agree. So, so it was known that they
were over and it was allowed and that >> right >> that's a problem. >> That's that's a little bit on us. I think >> that's on the borrow. Yeah. >> Right. >> I think that's an important consideration. >> All right.
>> That being said, they will now be over on building coverage. That that's not a deck that gets a deduction for amenities, >> right? It's a It's a living space. It's got a fireplace. It's got a roof. It's got a structure. It's got a screen. Um,
so it would be building coverage also. >> Although it won't be a four season house or or addition. It's room. It's this is just for the summer months. This is just for us to enjoy some days like today just be able to be able to be outside as a family. I I I appreciate that and I understand
and I don't think you would want to go any further, but it could be very easily converted into another room. >> But but they would need approval to do that. >> No, it's all about lock coverage. It's about runoff and what it does to the
neighborhood and storm water. No, >> I disagree. I think it's also building coverage in the rear yard setback. >> Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. What's the topography in the rear yard? >> By the way, I think you can find the
whatever existing storm water retention um device is buried in the backyard without digging up. You can do geopysics. Well, I'm saying you could do round penetrating. >> They're plastic. >> Yeah, you don't have to dig anything up.
Get it. >> Sorry. >> No, that was quite quite >> just No, the facts are important, but it's quite it's it's unfortunately quite an issue which unfortunately you are
involved in which you have no doing on you know involvement with I should say. So the the the difference between the lot coverage that was indicated the difference between the lot coverage
that was indicated in the final ASB built and what is actually existing is around 5% or no 8% difference because in the asbuilt it said 34.48
and the existing is actually 43.2. >> Yes. >> What do you know what the physical improvements were that pushed it over? Was it like the building was a little bigger? Was it Did they add a little bit of patio or
>> Yeah, there's multiple. So the approved plans the approved plans that they submitted um show the driveway in a different shape than what they actually built. This is what was approved. Um it was revised to show permeable pavers which are not there either on the
driveway or the sidewalk. Um the asbuilt again there's at least five different calculation issues with this. They show it as 25% right to be conforming saying the dwelling is 1500 square f feet but the dwelling itself is 1500 square f feet. There's a covered porch on the
front that sticks out beyond that. So they're actually not conforming in building coverage like Mr. Dean had alluded to. They're over there. There's just nothing but errors on this. And I mean you know this is this is somebody saying that this is what's here but it's not what's there. And you know I think
they did their due diligence. They tried to research this and protect themselves and make sure they looked at everything. And when you get a document like this that says, "Hey, this is what's here." You assume it to be true. Um, so there's building issues, there's lot coverage
issues, there's there's a number of issues on here that are not reflected accurately. It also says that the coverage is 27.17% which is less than 25% which we all know is not true. There's just a number of inaccuracies in this that,
you know, nobody really caught until this point, I guess. But >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And I get I think as Mr. >> What what since the last time you guys were here, >> what what did you what modifications
were made to improve your application? >> You know, to to improve your application in the eyes of this board. What modifications? So the biggest concern as we understood it from the mayor was addressing storm water. So um we got the existing system to the best of our
knowledge what's there where it is. We're proposing to capture all the storm water for the 277 square ft 3 in of rainfall over that coverage store that on site the cult chamber. >> So So again what what what change did
you make since your metal last time? >> Storm water management system. Yeah, the actual >> What's the change that we didn't change? >> What's the change? >> There was no storm water management. >> They're adding You're adding an additional chamber. >> An additional chamber. >> Okay, that's that's what I'm trying to get. Thank Yes.
>> There was some on site and they're adding they're adding. >> Okay. >> We're installing additional to cover every square foot of coverage that we're installing. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any other members of the board have questions for the applicant?
>> I I had a question just for Rob. Will with the existing storm water management and the proposed will that capture the runoff for all of the improvements? >> Yes. >> On the property. >> What's a 3-in storm
>> 100ear storm? >> Okay. >> So, basically it's the intensity. It's 3 in in an hour. >> Okay. >> Once you get to six, I'll go out of the house. I'd just like to address the um what Mr. Depp was talking about with the the roof
having it being closed in. So, this is a very expensive home that we saved up for years and years to purchase. And in our previous home, we made a big stretch and bought a louver we put a louvered roof on. And it was very disappointing because we got the shade, but the sun
would still come in on an angle. And then you' still have the insects coming out there. And if it rains, you still got hit sideways. So this we're like, "Oh, what's the next logical bet, you know, to have something equal." So this is going to have a little overhang with the real roof to protect us so we don't
have to run in if it starts pouring out. And the screen part is strictly because I can't stand insects. So we go barbecue and then bees and flies are on my food immediately and everyone runs inside. So it's not like an indoor medicinal addition. It's just to eat outside. But
just clear that up. The the the problem though is that while you're you may be fine with using it just as a threeseason room as you intend to use it when you go to sell it the next owner might just out of speculation could possibly convert it
into additional living space. So that just factors into the equation. What? So, if you if I may, um, are there any other changes on the site that you could make to I know that you purchased
it. How basic everything's new, but are there anything that you could change to make the coverages a little bit more compliant? Like, could you install some permeable pavers on a walkway or something? Um >> um we haven't really considered that
because with the last meeting there was a lot of confusion which we just talked about for half hour. So we feel like we didn't even really get to discuss the proposal that we have in mind. So we wanted to of course ask for what we want. I mean changing the size of the the addition isn't really
feasible because it's already very narrow with the setback issue that we have. So with the furniture layout and you know it's it's also a very big investment. So we don't want to cut it down. So it looks kind of ridiculous. So I didn't really we didn't think 277 was it's in within the 5% that we thought we
had. >> No, but I think what the question was if you would consider so every what's there now there's nothing. It's all impermeable sir. >> Standard pavers. >> Standard pavers. >> So there is some bad there is a discount. Excuse excuse me. Um on the
survey Kessner's survey it says permeable paver drive weight. Well, I think I think that's been proven to be incorrect. >> This is the NASbuilt survey. >> Okay. Well, it's not representative of what the field conditions are. What
>> this is that's what the asbuilt survey is. >> Again, Mr. Deepkin, that's not what's being represented in field condition today. when they do it when they do an asbuilt survey, they go out and they document everything on site and whether it's permeable or not and they stated
that it's permeable pavers. If it was if that's the case and it's not there, then there's a major issue with that. >> I think we've already established we have a major issue. That was the reason to try to correct the situation was to put permeable
pavers in there. So they stayed under the 30%. Or they had a 5% that they could use. >> No. So right now they're at 43.2. That accurately reflects existing conditions. >> That's proposed.
>> No. 47.8 is proposed. >> 43.2 to is existing based on actual verified field conditions not the inaccurate aspill drawing >> Mr. said 43.2
I think what the chairman's trying to understand is if or whoever it was Mr. Craig if if there's other opportunities to lower the lock coverage somehow >> I'm sorry Mr. Mr. Costa was going to make a point. >> Here's
what we know is that there was an asbuilt that was provided to the town and certified which is incorrect, >> right? >> Inaccurate. >> I think Councilman, you said it earlier. I think this has to go to a higher level. This board doesn't have police
powers. I think it's got to go to the mayor and counsel. And then I think the builder possibly needs to be dragged in or Mr. Kesner who did the asbuilds or combination of all the above and say gentlemen
something needs to change and you fix it. But I don't think this board unless this board says you know what we're not going to go through that and we're going to approve the variance otherwise I think it has to get to that level. Yeah, because it's just uh
>> but we we can't fix what's built. >> But maybe we need a lawyer or some some type of like you said different authority to >> Well, >> yeah. I mean, I think the enforcement >> this board doesn't have police. >> Yeah. I mean, what you've raised is a very fair point and probably not
something that we can address this evening. It's certainly a topic for another conversation amongst >> well I'm saying here's and again jump in this board has an application in front of it so you have to do one of two things you could say come back again you
could say thank you very much it goes down in flames or you could say we approve it >> the board can clean up the pass if it wants to >> if it doesn't then I think it's got to go to the next level to the mayor and counsel to the burough attorney
I need to probably get involved. Steve needs to get put in and say, "Okay, now what? Bring these people in and say >> otherwise, how can this be?" >> But but I don't but what is there is there like a house was built and the Schwaggers own this home? >> I understand that. But if the house was built and there's an asbuilt that says
there's permeable pavers and the and the builder had to put them in and for whatever reason makes an executive decision and does not then I think he needs a phone call to say come on down rip up the driveway and put in what you were supposed to otherwise you possibly
could fall into litigation with the community with the town. >> Absolutely. the people who did this, right? >> You need to answer for what happened and say, "And now we're going to go after your builder's license." I mean, there's things you can do, >> right? But that's outside of our purview
and we have a homeowner here. >> Yeah. That is asking >> I understand where you're going, but this is already a mess. So, we can't we have nothing to We can't start here. This is not a good starting point. I think to Rob's point, we have to work
all this out the right way and then we can move forward with the application because it's just too much of a mess right now. And I think to Rob's point, it's not really for us to resolve. I think some of the history has to be like we we don't have a clear path forward
now because everything's just like >> how much relief do we get if it's permeable pavers for the driveway? >> You pick up you pick up How big how big is the driveway?
>> 6% 7% I think it's 50%. So how would >> the the just an in the property survey that was from Lanteli would that is that an accurate survey that's dated September 4th 2025?
Yeah, >> because that was prepared for for the Schwaggers. >> Well, the the plans that the big plans we have in front of us here say the driveway is 764 square ft. >> So, we don't I believe we're
>> in agreeance that that's accurate. These plans we've >> All right. So, half of that would be the credit. >> So, 38. So this is accurate this >> on a on a Ker survey they they took the permutable payer discount
>> but that's not in the current drawings we're looking at. >> Yeah. >> So >> it was determined by the Schwagger's con contractor that that did not actually occur. That's just regular pavement. >> Listen, we could pretend that it's there. I don't think it helps their
outage. Right. I think the best thing to do here is clear the air and and just put all the facts on the table so that they're protected moving forward. This board can do that, right? They can they can decide to write the wrongs and say, "Hey, listen. This is a mess. We're going to move forward. We're going to do
that. Obviously, there's a ton of issues in every direction. None of them were caused by the Shriers." We get that and certainly what we're attempting to do here is try to balance our obligations as a public body >> but also look at it from the equitable
side because they're coming into this with clean hands so to speak. So >> yeah, we want to do everything we can for them. >> Yeah, >> we got to do it the right way. >> We're trying to balance it between process compliance,
you know, equity. It's your home. We We obviously are um sensitive to that. We appreciate that. So, it all comes together at some point. So, that's what we're trying to >> I know sitting on this board a number of years ago, we had a similar application.
Someone was coming in for a patio and they had bought a house from a builder, different builder, but a builder nonetheless. And it was realized that they were over and they had to get that variance. and and we did as this board, we did approve that and forgive the sins
of the seller or the builder. I don't know what the borrow did after that. That's obviously not our purview. Um, but I I I would think that we have the ability to approve what is on site and still go after a builder, an
architect to whomever to take care of that because that the house is not going to be taken down because they own it and they're not going to allow that to happen. So, I I don't see why we, you know, it's up to us to approve or not. But
>> I have a question. Um I guess my concern is down the road you sell want to sell the property taught to report CEO a lot of other stuff. So if we make an approval do we compound the problem you know
without going through the process that um Mr. Costa has laid out. I guess that's my concern is it are we are we making a problem obviously wasn't their fault. Are we making it worse? And then exposing um unintentionally exposing the
applicant and even the town to further liability if we if we sort of compound the problem. >> If if the board approves an application for whatever either what's existing right now or what the applicants are
proposing that would protect the applicant in the future. So we wouldn't have this problem going forward. Yeah. >> With this property. >> Yeah. >> If we if we looked at this from a standpoint of saying we know we're going
to go after the builder for corrective action. He he he fraudulently submitted as built drawings. Um he you know did not uh actually execute things. he committed to
doing like putting in the the the permeable pavers, etc. But meanwhile, we've got a family that wants to do something. If we take 382 square feet of relief for permeable driveway, that brings the proposed
lot coverage down to like 41 and change, something like that. Okay. So, it's getting within hidden distance. If we approve it based on the assumption that this burrow is going to take action against the builder to correct the paper
issue. You know, does it make sense to say, "Okay, they can proceed if we decide we want to approve the addition uh you know, the additional patio uh as is so that we don't stop them from moving forward." But, you know, recognizing
that the other problem has to be addressed, but it's not their problem. They didn't cause it. So, you know, and obviously there's some um we missed somewhere uh by accepting an ASB bill that was incorrect and
certifying and getting CO and all that other stuff. So, we take that under our wing to get that corrected. In the meantime, you know, if we can live with the 41 and changees coverage, you know, can we let the uh the applicants move forward? Well, certainly there's a cost
to them, you know, to to do that. >> Well, and that's what I'm saying. The papers being, you know, we leave the papers as is until we adjudicate it with the builder. You know, the assumption is we're going to we're going to go and and bring the builder and say, "Hey, you
know, here's the situation. You didn't build it. You you submitted an inaccurate pass build, etc., etc. Go fix the paper issue. It's your responsibility. And if you don't, we're going to take action. meanwhile they can do what they need to do about that. Um it's it's almost it's
not that they're two separate issues, but it's there's two steps to solve it. Um one is do we accept 41% assuming the papers get done and two make the papers a separate issue that we're going to take care of. I don't think we
>> I don't know if we would want to to condition an approval on a potential burrow action because we can't force the burrow to to take that action. Um, and
the applicants purchased the home as you see it today. I mean, maybe not to the untrained eye, you wouldn't be able to tell that it's not a permeable paver driveway, but they purchased the home with the driveway that exists today. Um, so I think that
would add an additional burden on the applicant if that were pursued. Um >> that if that were the condition and then for some reason you decide to sell before that all gets resolved that's going to hold up financially.
>> Brother is 9 years old. >> We love our >> believe me. I'm sure you're not. But life is funny as we all know it. >> So that's one of the things we have to take into account. What is the
life cycle of a paved driveway? >> Permeable or >> the one that's existing right now? >> 20 years. >> 20 years. >> I mean, it's probably style before it fades out of >> maybe would the board or the applicants
consider when the when the driveway is replaced, it'll be replaced with permeable pavement. Maybe you won't own the driveway in 20 years. some I don't know something like that. >> I think what the issue is because of these documents are now here.
>> Mhm. >> They have a non-conforming situation. >> Yeah. Approve approve what exists. >> Require like a deed restriction or like a an easement to for that to be
enforceable. So that that's a going to a whole different place. Well, do you need do you need a permit to replace a driveway in the burrow? >> Zoning permit only. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So, it would be in the burrow's records that this resolution says that
>> Yeah. But right now, because of these documents that were submitted to the town and the previous documents, we know there's whether it's a an error, negligence, or
fraud. Pick one of the above. You have that and now they closed on a home that's existing non-conforming where they thought it was conform and now they have on the record it's non-conforming.
So you either need to make it conforming and I'm sure there's these big words a stoppple and detrimental reliance and all that other good stuff. However, that's the reality. The reality is this board can grant a variance, say, you
know what, we're going to grant the variance, thank you very much, and not put you through any of these hassles, or it's going to go probably to to the burough attorney, whether it's Steve that's going to do it, whether it's myself at this point
now that I know about it, and it's going to play its course. >> Yeah, I think that makes sense. That's where it's it has to head to because here here's the issue >> there's Rob you left one part out too like we we issued a co CO to uh
>> but if it was done on the forge one basis it's >> but it was nonconforming we issued a CO so this all has to be worked out we issued we issued a CO to a non-conforming bill without a >> right >> sorry interrupting
>> it needs to one way or another it needs to get cleaned up and it needs to get cleaned up for you because now you all can you have a cloud on your title. >> Can both things be true where we again provide variances
get them clear and then still have the bureau pursue the builder? What? I mean, why can't >> chairman, excuse me, uh, as construction official, I could send out a notice of violation and penalty for falsifying
records. Um, and, uh, if they want to make changes to correct that, um, that would be their option. If they decide that they don't, then it would be whether the mayor and council want to go legally after them.
That being said, um this is just the lot coverage. Say the lot coverage is conforming. You're still dealing with building coverage and rear yard setback. >> They would have the right to ex their administrative remedies, which could be
this board denies, they take on an appeal, and the game continues. Here's what you need. I mean, >> before you go, just >> I'm not going to say another word question. Who are you issuing the violation to, Mr. It would be the builder that did the project.
>> Okay, >> Lance, I I >> I think at the very least we need to fix the problem that happened. And at the very least, I I think a variance is appropriate for someone who bought a house that didn't know that there was an issue. And the bureau issued a CO on a
house that needed a variance. And now we're asking homeowners to get a variance for something they didn't do. So, at the absolute very least, if we don't agree that this project should happen, I think a variance has to be approved or variances to make their property whole. So, if
they did want to sell the house tomorrow that they can sell the house tomorrow and not have any issues. At the very least, I think that has to happen. >> You know, what I would like to see is like a qualified legal professional give us an opinion about how to move forward with this. That and I think that's what
Mr. Costa is suggesting that makes I think that's a rational approach for a municipality. >> So the Mr. Deepkin's issuance of any notice of
violation can occur separate from the bureau the board's review of the application. The board could there's many avenues that the board could
consider. What is being presented right now granting the variances that are proposed for rear yard setback building coverage lot coverage for this new covered deck. saying, "We're not approving the
additional deck, but we'll approve what is existing today to at least protect the homeowner for what they purchased as existing." Or the board doesn't have to do that at all and say, "We need to
pursue the process in full." And once that's sorted out, then the then the property owner can come back to the board with the with all the correct information and make the application.
But it's up to the board. If you want me to put together some sort of memo about all the board's options, I can do that. But I don't know >> if if we were to just approve what is existing on the property, that doesn't necessarily change the application that's in front of us. So, so could but
could we >> is it an option to approve what is currently on the property and still leave this open for a second approval tonight, next week, whatever it might be. >> There's no way we can approve what's existing on the property. We don't have an application. We have no paperwork.
Like what what are we acting on? There's nothing that all the time. >> You can't just like throw out approvals or something. >> That's what they do. the the board the board >> there's no submit we're not re we act on submitt >> the the applicant did submit what is
existing on the property the board could say we're not approving the deck but we'll we'll codify what is on the property existing that that's an option that the board could do that's Mr. coster re or stated that >> and I I no disrespect to anybody here.
Here's the caveat. >> If the board if they amend if they get up right now and say I want to amend this application what's existing today and grant these variances and the board does it and the board can do certainly has the power to do it. I think it opens up a Pandora's box that if anybody does anything wrong no big
deal. You come into the board and you just no problem. >> We don't have a complete application for these existing variances. I don't see >> we change plans all the time. >> We don't have even the the start of an application for the existing variances.
>> We have what is on the property here. We know we know what the variances would be. >> We don't have a submit a a survey and >> we have a request right here. >> We don't have a formal request to approve the existing variances. They're
denoted by >> the applica I mean the application is part of deck >> but is it do we have sufficient standing at this point with that application being made to approve the variances for what the current conditions are? Do we
have we have authority right now to do that? In other words, because of the fact the applications for a deck, outdoor deck, right? >> It's a site plan approval for a deck. >> But what but what instead of approving the deck, do we
have the authority to approve just the current conditions, the house, the driveway, everything that's that's a existing condition today? We know it exceeds the exceeds the
permitted coverages. So, can we take action alone just to approve that on this application or does a new application have to be made by them just as a procedural map? Do they have to file a new application before us to say we want you to approve the existing
conditions plus the deck if that's so true? >> No, I don't I don't think that's necessary. The board has done that in the past where they've approved what's existing. we've approved what's existing and not the proposed addition or change.
Um I don't think the applicant would agree to that. It's made it clear. They've made it clear that they want the deck application to go forward. >> So I don't understand what we approve. You're saying we can approve all the existing conditions which all require
multiple variances without an application for any of those variances. a review by our our burrow engineer or view by our building professional. I believe no existing conditions that require variance. You're
>> saying the variances that are being asked for >> are building coverage, lot coverage >> are the building coverage, the lot coverage, and sideyard. Now, there's some manipulation of coverage. Okay.
driveway versus the new structure, etc. We do that all the time. Will you take out that piece of the of the patio and where you put in pavers over here and will you cut back that room? >> Our professionals didn't evaluate any of the existing variances.
They didn't evaluate any of the existing conditions. They they all they were just taking >> they got an application for a deck, >> right, which accompanied variances for the construction of the deck and they evaluated that.
>> But but all they're doing all they're essentially doing if they if if we adapt and take this project off is we're decreasing the lot coverage and the building coverage that they are asking for a variance for. So instead of whatever the numbers are, we're just
taking that deck off, doing the math, which we do on every single meeting. Like we said, like sometimes you take a patio out, you take some pavers out here or there. They would be taking this out for now, changing the lot coverage to whatever that number would be. The building coverage would change, and we
do that every month. >> That's not true. That's true. Have you ever reviewed an application for variance? Have you ever looked at one and looked at all the information that the applicant has to pro provide to justify the variance? There's none of that in the existing application. >> But it's it's it's there because they're
asking for more than what they would be asking for. They're decreasing what they asked for. >> And we have the ability to change what was >> actually no. Right now, your your assumption >> you should look >> when they first came in. The assumption
is this. the existing conditions are this and one would have would think there was relief given to get it to that. There wasn't. And now they're going for additional. So if you approve what's in front of you
tonight, it's not really correct because what the existing condition was never it's it was never permitted in the first place. It's coed, but based on the documents that have been submitted to this board,
it was incorrect. >> But the burrow gave a CO >> doesn't matter if the CO was given and it was done >> negligently. It's been testified that that we that the burrow knew that part of that was was not right and it was
allowed. Mr. Deppin testified to that this evening. >> That's what he said. It's only one thing. But but it doesn't matter. The borrow the borrow knew >> it does matter. >> The burrow knew that that it was not in compliance that a variance was required.
>> That's fine. Wrongs don't make a right. >> You hear that? >> So we we made a mistake. The bureau made a mistake and we're penalizing a home. >> That's that's why we have to get you suggested a memo. Whatever. We need a
legal opinion for a path forward. Maybe we need an application for the existing uh conditions that vary from the code. I don't know. Sounds to me like we might. Um and then we can evaluate path
forward. We can't just I I don't even know what we you're suggesting we approve because we have nothing before us to approve. We don't have an application for the existing variances. Is there not also the issue that they
closed on the house after the ordinance was approved and put into effect that reserved the 5%, right? Like is that not also an issue that >> Right. >> Yeah. >> I mean, let's just >> Yeah, they're grandfathered out potentially of some stuff.
>> Well, but let's just call it what it is. We're talking about going after the older builder, possibly the professional that prepared the eyes as all things you can do, right? I think you could agree none of that happens overnight and that can be a long expensive
journey for whoever is involved in it, right? There's the word inadvertent was used multiple times in this by different people. I mean that just sounds like a long drawn out expensive thing. There's a solution to fix this tonight. At least make them whole. I'll leave it at that.
Okay. But what's what is the basis of the variance? the basis the variances that the builder didn't do what he was supposed to do. He'd submitted fraudal and possibly or negligent documents and the board should just approve it. I mean, is that is that the basis of getting your variance? No. Well, that's
my as as the burrow I'm a burough official, right? based on the last meeting you guys came and based on pulling the old file and based on what Steve pulled from his files, there's there was either whatever it was, there was an error that took
place, there was a mistake, but the reality is this couple purchased the house and as says permeable papers, which you get credit for, they don't exist. >> They don't exist. So rip them out and put in what was said
on the asbuilt and put in what was and that number will come come down into compliance, >> right? The the walkway and the and the driveway, >> right? But that shouldn't be there. >> Well, here's the sad reality. They own the house.
It's theirs, right? whether they they they want to take an action against somebody or or so on and so forth. But the reality is the document that was issued, however it was issued incorrectly, fraudulently, however, who knows? But
that's what exists today. And the board would have to grant relief on that. And what's the basis of the relief? that okay the builder didn't do what he was supposed to do so I should and I
bought it. I don't I don't think it rises to that level quite frankly. That's where I respectfully disagree. >> I think that is essentially is the hardship is >> not it's not a hardship. You can't self-create a hardship because you the builder didn't do the right thing and you and you >> I don't say you do your diligence but
quite frankly every town knew and I think that's a little bit >> it's frustrating. I think I just to to add to in aid of the applicant in support of your requested variance relief. >> There are certain under the municipal
land use law there are certain elements that can be met to establish a variance. >> You have to be you have to at least provide some testimony as to why those var that variance relief can be granted before the board. you've addressed the storm water issue, but there are other
variances requested. And if you want if you want relief for the existing, I know it wasn't caused by um by you necessarily, you need to at least present something to the board to say why the board can grant that even the
existing var the the existing overages. And you have to look at the municipal land use law to see what actually is a hardship and what or there's an al alternate forms of relief based on the balancing of b public benefits um and
negative. >> Okay. So the burden of the variances of the house that we purchased is now falling to us. Just I just want super clear here. >> Well because you're coming to because you're coming to the board to ask for additional relief. Now the burden is yes on you the applicant to explain why we
should grant the grant the application. >> Do we think that's fair for a river homeowners? >> That's what every applicant that comes before the board is required to do fair. >> It's not fair. It's not fair. >> One thing real quick
>> technically I mean isn't that what you submit for the letter of denial for? Right. We submitted a plan detailing the existing conditions. Isn't the letter of denial supposed to stipulate specifically what variances were to obtain? >> It's up to the applicant to request
specific variances from the board. It's not up to the zoning official to to to tell you what you need to ask for. You're the one who is asking for the relief, >> right? But it's either approved or it's
denied. And it's denied for said reasons. And that's why you go in front of the board, right? I mean, we have the letter from him that was revised a couple times, but >> I thought that was the first thing we spoke in the first meeting. We're we're here to discuss variance relief for one, two, and three. Just talked about lot
building and setback, which is all related to >> and you have to just provide explanation as to why the board can grant that. You have to provide the proofs to the board as to why based on the municipal land
use law why how we can grant that those requests. >> Well, I think we know how, >> right? I appro >> So you're requesting relief for building coverage, lot coverage, and setbacks,
correct? there's in order for the board to consider those variances, you have to explain to us why we should grant them b using criteria that's set out in the municipal land use law. And I can't tell
you what I I can't give you that legal advice. You have to to do that. Okay. So, I'm not sure, Mr. um Scott if you've you've presented before land use boards before. So if you could provide some of that just to aid the board in their
decision-m process. >> So there's obviously a few things going on denoted on the plan. There's some existing nonconformities. The biggest one being the lot size, right? It's an undersized lot for the zone. 6,000 ft or 7,500 ft is required. The lot width is
also non-conforming. 60 ft or 75 ft is required. These are all approved conditions when the lot was subdivided and built upon. There is an existing sideyard setback that is existing non-conforming of 4.6 ft where 10.5 ft
is required. Those are all existing nonconformities that were approved on prior plans I would assume. Right. Um there is an asbuilt that shows that there is an existing non-conforming
or shows that there is a coverage of 27.17% that is less than 25%. We know that not to be true. We know that that ASB belt shows permeable pavers when in fact they are not permeable pavers. There is an
existing building coverage of 26.8% or 25% is permitted. That is an existing nonconformity. There is a existing lot coverage of 43.2% 2% where 35% is permitted. Another
existing nonconformity. What the Schwaggers are seeking relief for is the building coverage of the proposed coverage 31.5% from the 26.8% non-conforming and 47.8% lot coverage from the existing
non-conforming coverage of 43.2%. within the 5% of what they thought they had in the allowable amenity coverage as proposed in the ordinance. And um I know we're talking about building coverage 26.8.
We thought it was conforming. It was conforming. If you add up the numbers on the asbuilt that was here that was submitted to the town, they add up to those numbers. They don't add up to what's here. Okay? If you add up the 1500 square foot and the front porch,
these numbers are there, right? It's just there's a lot of mistakes on this, right? But >> building coverage when I did it was accurate. Um I don't I go by the foundation. That's how I get the square footage of the house. And there's an
overhang. So maybe you're calculating that overhang in your building coverage. >> There's a covered front porch. I mean what typically an overhang is determined by a maximum height or a maximum width of 18 inches I believe I don't know river edge in particular
>> you got a two you got a twoft overhang on the asbuilt >> the entire entire back of the of the structure >> again we know the asbuilt is not accurate um >> yeah possibly
>> uh right so that is in effect what we are asking permission for. The only non-existing condition we're proposing relief for is the rear yard setback. We are proposing 12.99
9% where 25% is required. The existing is 26.66. And you've provided testimony that there's fencing and shrubs in the rear yard. There's the neighbor. What the sideyard setback encroachment is that
the sideyard that has where the neighbor doesn't have any windows facing. >> The sideyard is existing. The proposed does not fall into that. The proposed meets both sideyard requirements. >> Do we have anybody in the public?
>> There is somebody in the public. I don't >> if you want to open to the public. >> Okay. >> Unless anybody has any further comments. >> Motion to second. >> All in favor? >> I opposing. >> We're now open to the public for comment
on this specific application. If you wish to be heard, please identify yourself. >> You can press the raise hand button on Zoom. >> Nope. No. >> All right. >> Motion to close to the public. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I
>> We're now close to the public for comment on this application. Um, candidly, I I'm at a loss as to where to go at this point, but I will leave leave it open to the board for
discussion. >> I guess I'll ask again. Can they ask to have the variances that are needed to allow what is currently on the property
to be passed and have a vote if that's how they so choose and still not affect potentially doing what they want in a second vote or tableabling that part of it to another day until more information can be had. that would require an additional we would be essentially
denying unless they amended the application. We would be essentially denying the deck request under the under those circumstances. >> So I guess they have the option of seeing how it goes with a vote.
I mean they can I mean it can still be voted on if it's motioned and seconded. >> They can ask us continue >> or we can continue and they can decide on how they want to. Just want to make sure everyone's clear what options are on the table for them to get this,
you know, and and if and if they just asked to to fix what's on the property and that's passed or not passed, what they would do after today just so there's some clarity. I don't I don't know the answer.
>> Chairman, excuse me. Um, would it be possible for you to take a poll of the board to see what they want? Take the lot coverage issue out of it and would those other two variances uh be acceptable? Kind of gives the applicant an idea of
where they're going and what they would need to do to uh to correct the situation. >> Yeah, you can see. And if the board wants additional information either from my office or from the other professionals before they make a decision.
>> So just so so your suggestion is I'm sorry take out the the variances for the the deck >> and the lot >> for the lot coverage. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Take out take out the lot coverage. say that is compliant and they
could uh you know build whatever they wanted with the lot coverage. Um would you be amanable to uh the increase in building coverage uh and the rear yard setback? >> That's fine. I'm okay with that. I don't know what that gives us.
>> I'm not sure what that Yeah. I mean I I mean I guess giving your opinion. >> If you want to hear my opinion on that I mean I'll be happy to share it but I don't know how that advances. >> Let's go around the board. Let's start with you. >> It's nonbinding.
>> Okay. Um, uh, I guess I'm okay with I'm I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the setback, but we have the buff, you know, we have the screening. So, I think I'm I'm generally okay with
the building coverage and the variance. So that we are set back. I'm not well I guess I won't give my opinion on that. Okay. I I mean I think I've made myself clear.
I think it's you know unfortunately there was a mistake. Wherever it happened it happened. Um you know property owners buy property and you know assuming they can do something that they can't at this point. So, you know, seeing that the the
backyard neighbors aren't going to see anything, I I would be inclined to, you know, approve because it's it's the the builder's issue is a different issue and I think that should be pursued. But, you know, we have someone that's trying to be reasonable
and build something for their backyard. So, I would be okay with the application as proposed. >> So, >> yeah. I know I I have concerns about the um existing problems in the CO that was issued. So, you know, as long as, you
know, we're certainly not exposing uh you know, the applicants to any further um you know, any further exposure. Um I do agree with Mr. gibbons that we can move forward and then um I guess you at the same time uh working with the town
and try to clean up what happened and hopefully grandfather and um well you know what what uh you know what wasn't uh what should have been at least been variances years ago grandfather them and now I just want just one thing I forgot to
so we can also stipulate in our resolution if it's were to pass very clearly that this cannot ever turn into living space, have it on the record. I know it's they would the next people or them would have to come for a permit anyway, but I would have that as a
stipulation in clear letter and this can never be turned into living space and have real walls or however it needs to be said. So, make it very clear to them and whoever may buy it next that that's where it is. >> Yeah, I would agree with that, Ryan. Sorry, Mr. No, no, I I agree Mr. Given's
uh stipulation. Okay. Thank you. >> Well, I'm inclined to agree with both Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Salva. I don't think that um I think they should the variance should be granted for them, but also pursue the
other issues with the town and and so that there's no fallout on them down the line. Um who knows how long that'll take. I don't think they need to. I don't think it's fair to make them wait.
So I tend to agree with like I said Mr. Salva and Mr. >> Mr. I want to make sure I understand what we're discussing. We were talking about granting the variance as
>> the this the question was just are you okay with the application not considering the lot coverage discussion that was held. >> Right. So I guess what I'm I'm not sure I understand what that looks like.
>> Can I take a shot at this? So, all we're asking is if you're okay with the variance for the rear yard set pack and the variance for building coverage. >> Okay, got it. And >> that's the short answer is yes. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Assuming there's some way to get >> I don't know where this gets us, but >> I don't I don't either because the thing I'm the thing I'm struggling with is is trying to first of all, we're trying to write the wrongs. you had no
responsibility for, which clearly we understand. The problem though is is trying to is opening up this board for future applicants who come in and basically say, and I think Mr. Costasa was alluding to this earlier, there's an
issue. You need to help us fix it. And that's really not I mean, that's not what this board is here for. We're here to help with hardships that exist that may or may not impact the use of
someone's property. So that's where I'm I'm, you know, trying to balance, you know, our obligations as a board to make sure that, you know, land use in this in in the burrow is done in compliance with
the applicable code and regulations, but also enabling people to use and enjoy their their homes. I I mean one time I think I heard you say um your office could
do a thorough evaluation provide recommendation like that for it. I think that's a good way to go. I think that's the proper thing to do because all this is just you know a bunch of opinions a mishmash. I
mean, I think that we're getting to a lot of the facts, but they need to be like all in one place, clearly described and evaluated. And then recommendations, a legal basis,
like Chris said, in compliance with code and regulations for pathold because you know, we all have experience. We all have opinions, but you know, I think we need it all in one place. It needs to be calmly and
professionally analyzed and documented and reported on and a clear recommendation. >> I mean my suggestion would be this is not the outcome. My suggestion would be to carry this so that further analysis
can be done without prejudicing them in terms of noticing going >> what what do we need to do we need to understand our legal standing on what we can I mean I think we understand what is here what is on
the property what is being asked for so what what further information do we do we need >> it's more procedural to understand. It's not so much the technical side of >> where you're going. It's more the procedural what happens if there is
approval, there's denial, where does that leave this the state of affairs depending on what action is taken? Is it? But if we have what seemed to be general consensus that this is an application that can be approved,
why can't we have a vote and approve what has been asked for? >> So I've heard every one of you say that you want them to be on solid ground in the future. >> So that's what we're trying to get them to. >> And I think >> so there's no walking anything back. We
have a firm solid basis for whatever action we take. It's documented in a memo or a letter and they're totally clean with whatever we >> So, are you suggesting are you suggesting a legal memo or legal opinion or something
>> something more official >> that will the applicant >> approving >> the conditions on site and what is proposed because we know that this setback and this setback and coverage. we know what
the numbers would be and the variances that would be required to make this property whole. If we know what that is, then why do we need to because you're looking at it from the land use aspect. There's procedural aspects that has to be taken into account. And I know we're
we're all looking at this trying to go arrive at the the best decision, the best analysis we can on this. The problem is while while we take action that has good intention and best intentions to get to a reasonable
outcome, it may in the end not be the way that things should have gone. That's why I think >> how are we going to know that >> based on the guidance we get from legal? And I think it's important to also lay out how
any decision of the board could impact any potential u violations issued by the town >> and future sale. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> This is all >> I just want to understand why you know just how we make this because I think
the most important thing is making sure that their whole and their title is clear. Yeah. and if they want to sell the house tomorrow, but also allow them to do the project that they came here for if it's so inclined to have it. >> There is a tremendous amount of balancing that's going on here, >> more so than I think that we've we've
encountered in a lot of applications of recent vintage. So without trying to without certainly prejudicing the applicant and without putting ourselves in some issue of pre that's caused by
precedent based on action we take I think that's just that's the the proven course but >> now that we have more information from the applicant and from Mr. Depp and Mr. Costa about the history of what
happened. I think my office can just summarize that to provide some options. >> Can I make another a question please? um if their application is going for the maximum which is over you know what is
uh required um negating the fact that there was an error with the uh with the survey and the builder um couldn't it be approved for that total uh coverage that is going over so they don't have so because it seems to be uh you're so
doing the poll that you would be in favor of the building coverage and rear yard setback um doing the maximum lot coverage which would be over the uh the required amount uh and then
give them those variances. Uh we could go you know after the builder and the surveyor and so forth at a later date. >> I don't I guess that's more for uh Marina to answer.
I don't see any benefit doing a peace meal quite quite honestly but tell me >> can't they both be true though can't the board grant the varants and the schwiggers agree to you know if there's any movement on the thing with the builder that they will comply with
whatever to put in the permeable papers or you know allow that to happen I mean >> if there needs to be >> Steve you wish CEO based on the the as that said it permable pavers. Today, we know they're not permittable
papers. So, if if they rip out the pavers in the driveway and the and the sidewalk going into the house, then it's what you issued under your CO, right? So the board then it would reduce
the the amount of lock coverage based on that based on what they're allowed to do under the ordinance is what you issued the co if you're willing to do that then then your existing condition falls under and if if Steve's correct
with that you added in the overhang then you meet building coverage today and you meet lot coverage you don't meet the 5% % amenity because you probably get 309. >> They wouldn't need lot coverage. >> Sure you would. >> What would the lock coverage pay?
>> Because you have almost 900 square ft. So you divide you're taking out 450 square ft. >> Okay. >> So that's roughly >> 70%. >> And I think that's they need 12.8 Rob.
They need 12.8%. to get >> No, they need 8% to get to 35. Forget about the 5% amenity >> because they're providing the amenity. >> You understand what I'm saying? >> Yeah. >> But that's what was sent to the construction official. That's what he
issued the CEO on. But in reality, based on this permutable papers based on the >> testimony, they don't exist. So you can't credit what's there. If you're willing to rip it out, >> okay, so that's a different I'm sure they'd be willing to let the
builder do it. I just obviously expense. >> Well, the question becomes this, >> and this is where you what I said in the beginning. If the builder comes back and does what he said he did, no harm, no fact except for the 5% on the amenity that was supposed to be there. But
you're saying that that took place after the fact, so it probably doesn't even fall into your uh into this. >> No, it should have. The ordinance took place before house was sold. >> So, it was okay. >> Right. >> So, the 5% you needed a variance because the 5% wasn't left over.
>> Okay. You have the CO, but you're underneath the 35% lot coverage if you put in the permeable papers on the driveway and the walkway. >> You're asking me like I'm paying for it. >> What I'm saying is they purchased a house based on those documents that got
a CO. Let me put it another way. If Steve tomorrow morning and it's not Rob Costa, it would be Steve saying, "Wait a second. This is not right. And we're going to revoke your CEO." Now, the builder is going to come in and now you're going to get into ridiculous
litigation based on why did he do it? Why is there fraudulent documents? So, you might want to call your builder tomorrow and say, "Look, this is what I don't know who the builder is." Who was? >> He wasn't a builder. build the builder is one part of it, but
>> what about the professional that they're river what I'm trying to say is if you do those two things you fall under and then this application >> I don't stand on its own >> I'm going to suggest this at this point we've heard a lot of information tonight
>> and the last thing anybody wants to do is force anybody's hand in making a decision because I think there's still a fair number of questions that left to be resved olved. My strong recommendation
is that you look to carry this. I have a question. Um, an estimate before a legal opinion is obtained. Are we talking about a week, couple weeks? Are we talking about months? >> No. No. I would have it before the next
meeting. >> Okay. So, you'd be responsible for that. Okay. No, I didn't know that. Okay. No, thank you. Okay. >> And I just wanted to ask, Mr. Salva, did you watch the video for the six the June 10th meeting on this? >> I did. >> Okay. >> And is there room to table this to the
next meeting? >> Do we have anything scheduled? Oh, we do have >> the billboard on the 22nd. >> That's that's I'm I'm willing to push them. >> I would do this, >> but we would this would be first. >> I would do this first. That's what I'm saying on the agenda. I'm I'd be willing
to push them down the agenda. >> Change. >> Oh, so there that's the only thing that's on the June July 22nd. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, we could get you back in here in two in two weeks. >> Just to be clear, um I thank you for
your recommendation. Um but is there anything else that we would need to do or we're simply waiting for because you before you said you can't give us any? >> Yes. So you did prov your expert or your contractor did provide some background
on the reasons for the variance relief, but if you have additional support for that, that could be considered by the board to as a reason to grant what is above existing and what is existing.
>> I just wanted to say one other thing. We were talking about the building being as of right, the house being 15. I I don't think that's accurate because the steps going into it aren't calculated either and I I think either way the number is over 25%. >> I think the board's willing I don't
think that's where the I think I would call the the sell it tomorrow morning I would do that and say >> let's >> that's what that's what I would >> I I think let's hear from the applicant if they're willing to carry the
application to the next chair. I apologize. Sorry, just this is my first time doing this. So fine. If I say that I'm allowed to actually we can say we do want a vote now on on this or is that not an option? >> Okay. >> I'm just
>> You could ask for the you could ask for a vote now, but if the application is denied, you can't come back for the same application. It would have to be substantially different. So, I'm strongly suggesting that you consider a request to carry your
application. >> How many? >> They need They would need four. There's six members here. Four. >> Well, okay. Um >> Okay. >> So, if we're just waiting like I don't know what else we could provide. This is
a rectangle with a roof and the screens just like there's we know the dimensions. So I don't have anything if there's other things that we're going to figure out on your end that you guys need to sort out and we can carry the meeting. I'd really appreciate that. So it's and I I do appreciate how you're trying to protect us. That was said
multiple times by multiple people. So I think we're okay with carrying. Is that right? >> Sure. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. So just a motion to carry to July >> July 22nd. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Any oppose? Stay. >> Okay. So with that, you will >> So the application for 265 Adams Avenue, Block 506, lot 3 will be carried to the July 22nd meeting without further
notice. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. And with that, that is our last item on our agenda for the stimulus. The board has anything further. I'll look for a motion to adjurnn. So move. Is >> there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I any opposing abstain? >> Stand adjourned. 9:15 p.m.