Then let us move things along. This is the July 23rd meeting of the Municipal Land Use Board of the Bureau of River Edge. It is now 7:30. Uh this meeting of the M municipal land
use Board of the Bureau of Riverage is being held remotely and recorded via Zoom due to the Burough Council Chambers unavailability and is in compliance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act and associated regulations. Notice of this remote meeting was published in the Bergen record, posted
on the front doors of Burough Hall, and posted on the Burough's website. The notice included the dialin login information necessary for public participation and access to this meeting remotely. A copy of the agenda for this meeting was made available on the bureau's website near the posting of the
meeting notice and included the dialin login information. During the public comment period of this meeting, if you would like to make a public comment, please press the raise hand button on Zoom or dial star9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand. The board will address you by name
or by the last four digits of your telephone number. 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 prior to making a public comment. Um, Miss
Styley, would you like to call the role? >> Yes. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, >> here. >> Mr. Kaslin is excused. Miss Boland >> here. >> Mr. Craig >> here. >> Mr. Gibbons is excused tonight. Um, Mr.
Kenigo >> here. >> Mr. Feffer >> here. >> Councilman Glass >> here. >> Mr. Goier >> here. and Mr. Salvo >> here. >> Also present, we have our board planner,
Mr. Barren. >> Okay. Um, first order of business is uh approval of the minutes from the June 25th meeting which were distributed earlier this week. Um, are there any
comments, changes, edits, modifications that need to be made to those minutes? There being none, I'll take a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. >> So moved. >> Okay. Do I have a second?
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> if if this was for the last meeting, I have to abstain. I wasn't at the last meeting. This is for 625 and the only eligible members are Miss Boland, um Mr.
Feffer and Mr. Goier. Is everyone else? >> Well, let's do that again. Out of the three who are eligible, >> I in favor any opposed? Any opposed? Any abstain? >> Okay, minutes are accepted.
Um, now we did not get the July 9th minutes, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, we can move on from there. Um, next order of business is the
amendments to the Burough River Edge ordinance number 25-14 amending and supplementing the Burough code um specifically the swimming pool and uh coverage uh
items. Um I think if we would like to have some discussion of that. I mean we we received that the draft uh earlier this week. Um I don't know if uh Miss Styly or Mr. Barrens you want to kind of walk through the the document.
So, this was the ordinance that the board had prepared a few months ago about changes to um some of the swimming pool regulations and the council first introduced it last month. Um they sent
it to us for our master plan consistency review and then they're going to do the second reading I believe tomorrow. Um so this is more of a formality. We are the board prepared this draft and um I don't know if you have any specific questions
or if Tom wants to just do a brief summary. We can >> No, I I'll give my two cents. Uh be fairly brief. Um so as stated, this is the document that was prepared by the board and recommended to the council primarily to clean up and clarify some of the ordinance terms that the board
had recommended about a year ago that the council adopted and implemented. And it turned out that once they were put into practice, there was some further clarification warranted. And specifically, this ordinance, uh, ordinance number 25-14, as Marina mentioned, was introduced last month and
scheduled potentially to be adopted by the council tomorrow night. Um, clarifies a few sections uh, specifically pertaining to definitions related to building area and building coverage. uh terminology around accessory structures as far as um how
decks, pools, and patios qualify. Um if you recall, we we gave that additional exception for garage height for excuse me, for detached garages where there's a pitched roof and also clarifying that swimming pools do not count as impervious coverage. So again, there's
maybe five or 10 cleanup items as as I characterize them. Um, and the task before the board is to in accordance with the municipal land use law is to conduct a master plan consistency review specifically to determine the extent to which these ordinance changes or
amendments are consistent or not consistent with the burrow's master plan and then offer any recommendations to the council for consideration. Obviously, because the board prepared this document, we probably don't have much in the way of recommendations. It looks like they introduced the document uh verbatim from what the board had
recommended. So, if you just give me a minute to touch on briefly on the master plan aspect. So, the original ordinance that was adopted about a year ago um came from recommendations from the burrow's May 2022 amendment to the re-examination
report which this board adopted. Again, that dates back to 2022. the board filed suit and drafted a uh ordinance amendments which the council ultimately adopted. So I would offer that the amendments are very consistent with that document itself but because it's a
re-examination report technically not the master plan. I also took a look at the 1984 master plan um which uh has several goals and policies related to residential development. I would offer that most of these definitions and terms and policies relate specifically to
residential development. I think that was the intent to um again clarify what people could do with their uh properties and also to grant some relief and um uh flexibility given the the nature of applications the board was getting. So
without further ado, a couple of those specific master plan policies from the 1984 master plan include um to maintain the character and viability of all established uh residential neighborhoods. uh to prevent the development of incompatible land uses.
Um I would say I'm just skimming through here. Um encourage rehabilitation of substandard and deteriorated housing. Um and then finally enforce building codes, housing codes, and other regulations designed to guide and upgrade structural conditions.
So, I believe this ordinance has the effect of allowing people to update and modernize their homes in in accordance with current um we'll call them taste or you know really things that people come to expect to have in River Edge these days to some extent. Um so I I think
from that sense it makes good sense. Um the board has discussed these issues at length and so I can conclude that at a minimum these provisions are not inconsistent with the master plan. Uh, however, the board can find whether there's any inconsistencies,
take a neutral stance, or even find that the ordinance amendments are consistent with the master plan. >> That's all I have. >> Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Um I guess uh we will kind of walk through the board see
if there are any questions, comments uh on the uh on the amendment and whether uh you know we send it through again with that determination that it is consistent or or not. Um mayor, do you
have any question comments on this? >> I don't other than I support it. >> Okay. Uh, Miss Boland, >> I I do have a question and I I I'm sorry if it's going back at something that was already discussed, but >> is a detached garage an accessory structure?
>> I believe it would be. Do you have reasons? >> The reason >> the reason I have a I'm worried about it. It says it shall not not exceed 150 square feet. >> There I believe and I'm looking it up right now. I believe there's a separate
exception for garages. >> Okay. >> We had discussed this and I I want to get you the exact provision. >> Okay. So, yes, I'm looking at 416- And I know you don't have the benefit of the full I don't have it, right? Okay. >> So, section 416-27
C 3A has an exception which allows up to 450 ft for two-car garage. So that standard exception for garages rema remains in place. >> Okay, that was that was it. That's the only thing that stood out. >> I can understand how that wasn't clear.
So thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Kaneo. >> Uh yeah, just on section 5B. Um I think the first and maybe it's just me that it's just not uh making sense to
me, but I think the first sentence might be missing a word. Swimming pools, hot b hot tubs, and other bodies of water shall not encroach on any front or sideyard required by this chapter. I'm not sure what that means.
>> It should say setback. I think >> setback, right? It's missing the word setback. >> Well, not necessar they're two different things. So, the the the setback is the line at which you can build. Essentially, the the required yard is the distance. Let's say let's
use a front yard required front yard. That's the distance between the front lot line and the setback is the required front yard where you cannot encroach. So there is a distinction. I I understand that it doesn't make you know normal
grammatical sense but I think in in land use parliament it seems to apply. I'll ask others to chime in. Is there a way that we can just phrase it so it makes sense because it does I don't understand it when I read this and I'm I'm just wondering if >> uh >> just a homeowner comes in here and tries
to figure this out. >> I I think we can clarify it without it being a substantive change and so >> shall not encroach on any required front or sideyard area. Well, uh I I get your point. So I think perhaps Marina and I
need to put our thinking caps on. Yeah, because when when you say required by this chapter now, you're you're you're you're referring the reader of this particular sentence to this chapter, but it's not really making sense as to what it is that we're talking about other than this particular
section B. >> You you might say by the required by the zone. Maybe that's more clear. Uh meaning so I give you the case of a single family property in the R1 zone. So this this would mean that um a a swimming pool or body water cannot
encroach within that 30 required 30 foot front yard area because we have a 30-foot front yard setback. So the the required area is that space within the 30 feet. >> How would a swimming pool encroach within a 30 foot?
>> Well, that's sort of that's sort of the point is that you cannot locate it in that area. So like give the the context of a corner lot for instance you're saying okay the point is you can't here maybe another way to put it you can't impede beyond the required setback
um but that's that's the language I would say that that language is somewhat common in zoning ordinances but if it's not clear we should clarify it and I don't think what you're bringing up is a substantive change it's just a matter of clarification >> no it's a clarification and and look I mean if everybody else understands it then it's just not sinking into my head
so >> I I get how >> let everybody else chime in. >> No, I I fully appreciate how the the tip the homeowner would look at this and go, "What the heck does that mean?" and then call the building department and say, "What does this mean?" So, I I I fully appreciate that. So, if there's a way,
Marina, we could better articulate that. Um which must go to the council, you know, so they can uh adopt it properly tomorrow. Uh >> isn't it just that it's not allowed in the front or the side at all? >> Yeah. So can you just stop at yard
not say as required for this chapter? >> There is there is a distinction and I don't not to get super so you could still be in the front yard at the setback line. So there's the the required yard uh in
the case of let's say a uh the front the front yard setback requirement in the single family zone is 30 feet. The 30t is the required yard area. Let's say you're beyond you're at 31 feet. You're still in the front yard, but it's not the required area anymore.
>> I'm surprised we would allow it even there like >> in the front yard at all. So maybe maybe that's a clarification. >> So maybe shall not encroach into any front or side yard. not encroach beyond any front or
sideyard setback or but do you want >> I think the point miss bowl saying there are cases where it could still be in the front yard and comply with the setback which you would not typically >> is there a property in town that that would even be possible though
>> you'd have to think of a front of a property with a deep front yard off the top of my head I'm I'm not coming up with many um again corner lots would be the typical situation that I would think of >> and it property where the house gets knocked down and it's a now now the construction
is being placed wherever the person wants. Why can't we just and I I don't know if this really solves it, but can we say maybe just in one sentence uh something like notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary there shall be no
uh pool constructed that enters enters upon the front yard or sideyard of any property something like that. I think if we if we make too many >> changes,
>> wording changes, it's beyond like a minor revision clarification and it's a substantive >> Yeah. >> change. This is the this is the text that is current that's been in the ordinance. Um >> Right. I don't we didn't change this and and so I I think again what it what it
reads or what it's intended to say and it's been there for a while is that you can't encroach into the front yard or beyond beyond the front or sideyard setbacks. That that's basically what it says to Mrs. Bolan's point. Well, you could still be in the front yard and within the setback, but it's still in
the front yard. And maybe maybe that doesn't matter. Maybe there are a few instances where that actually could occur. Again, I think a corner lot is probably where that would be the most likely place to occur. Um, >> can I could I just ask So,
I don't mean to be flip, but >> I'm just clarifying what? >> No, Tom, let me I'm sorry. >> I'm just I just want to ask the board, what are we trying to prevent? You know, if someone has a big front yard
and part of their pool is in it because they have a big front yard, like do we are we saying that's unacceptable to us? I just want to understand what we're trying to do here. >> Yeah. If I could chime in on this. Um Tom, if you would, uh if a house is on
the corner, does it have two front yards? >> Yes. >> Okay. So that's one area to consider. So corner houses have two front yards. Second is residents really don't want to see someone's pool. So we want to make
sure that the ordinance doesn't permit um the to be in the front yard. But then we have the unusual cases, well not unusual cases, but the uh exceptions where you have two front yards because you're a
corner lot. And I don't know how to solve that. I'm just throwing that out. >> I I you might consider that if it's been in place for as long as it has and there haven't been issues. Not to say there can't be any future issues, but um I
think if we tweak it too much, it becomes a substantive change. >> Can we just take those words out required by chapter by this chapter? Doesn't that accomplish exactly what we need to do? >> Uh so required by this chapter that makes no sense in that sentence. on any front or sideyard.
>> The the distinction, so in a you may allow it in a sideyard area, and I know that's convoluted, but it the distinction is is again, you could be in a a yard area, but the required yard area is goes up to the setback line. And
the yard itself is is all-encompassing. It's the area where you can't build and the area where you can build constitutes the full yard. It's the required yard is the area that you can't build that goes up to the setback line.
Look, I think we can probably re you guys you and and Marina can probably figure out a way to rephrase it that doesn't >> alter what you're trying to do here. Doesn't take it out of the council's hands tomorrow and fixes this problem because >> I think it's confusing and I don't think we need to have something confusing. We
we see that there's an issue and we have to address it. >> Okay. I I understand the point. I I think um again without changing the policy or intent we would make it more clear. >> Yeah, that's all. Maybe Tom and Marina, adding a
clarifying sentence instead of uh revising the current sentence may be the simplest way to avoid having a substantive change and therefore returning us to you know introducing reintroducing it,
>> right? We we understand the goal is to get this adopted. So >> So who's going to challenge it? like how like just from a from a practical standpoint like if we do change a little too much who who's going to challenge it?
>> I mean you don't but the the relative likelihood is very low I would say but it's not zero >> but it could be someone who wants to put a a swimming pool in the front yard and then they say your ordinance is invalidated and I can put the swimming pool in the front yard. Plus, our
burough attorney will has to make a judgment of whether it's substantive or not. And um I think he if it's substantive, he's he's going to say that and we're going to be back at the beginning. >> We want to get it right. We don't want to rush it, but at the same time, we
want to be timely. >> Well, for it to be substantive, I mean, our our our int the intent is we don't want pools in front side. Um, so whatever language we want to use to to change to, I mean, it's not a
substantive change in the impact. It may be wording, but I mean, we're effectively I don't think anybody's arguing >> because because that's the spirit of the current law. Correct. >> Right. Exactly. >> Yes. And and I'll just add I'm I'm looking through the definition section
of um the zone new ordinance and the definition, let's just look at front yard. It says an un an open unoccupied space extending the full width of the lot between a principal building and the front lot line. It goes on, but that would be the
portion from the front lot line to the principal building. That's everyone's understanding of what the front yard is. And that's um that's the same that goes the same for the sideyard. An open unoccupied space between the sideline of the lot and the nearest line of the
principal building. So based on how we have it worded now, you can't put a swimming pool in the front yard or the sideyard regardless of the setback. >> Mhm. >> Because the definition of front yard is the front lot line to the principal
dwelling. The definition of sideyard is side lot line to principal dwelling. Or if it's a corner lot, it would be that other front yard. >> That makes sense. So, so where there's no building, is it still a front yard?
>> Interesting question. >> Yeah. So the the is the issue could be on a corner lot where the front yard is technically a sideyard but the space behind the principal building
but it is >> I guess then it would be then it would be at that point >> or a side. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. If if you had an undeveloped lot, let's say it didn't have a house on it and you wanted to put a pool or amenities, it would be either the lots
would be merged by through case law because they're under uh undersized or there'd be a use issue from not having a permitted. You know, you can't just have a pool that's accessory to a principal structure on another lot, for instance. I know getting super technical, but >> and we have a we have a few properties
also in town that have like three frontages, right? I remember there was a pool a couple years ago that there was three front yards >> and Yeah. >> They didn't really have a backyard. They just had like three front and a side or something. >> There's a few back then. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Mr. Chairman.
>> Yes. >> I I would just say one last thing on my part. Uh, I I agree with the mayor that this probably can be resolved just by adding a clarifying sentence. And um with the concern in mind that u this not
be viewed as a substantive change, I I would just suggest you can write it however you want to write it. I would just suggest that we start the sentence with something like for clarification purposes only and and then you follow that with whatever clarifying language
you want to have so that it's clear that we're this new sentence is not changing anything substantively but just clarifying what our intention is what the intention of the ordinance is. Um so that's my suggestion.
I don't think we can write it by committee but suggestion. >> Okay. Thank you Mr. Fever. Um Mr. Goier, any thoughts? >> Uh no questions at this time. Thank you.
>> Okay, Mr. Salva. >> Uh no questions. Thank you. Okay. So, I it sounds like where we are is at the point where we all
agree that the amendment does meet with our understanding and is consistent with the master plan, but we have the one item that needs some clarification. Um, >> Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, you you didn't >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
>> It's okay. I know there's a lot a lot of moving parts here. I just wanted to mention briefly that um I wasn't able to deep dive into this like I sometimes do and read every word which I like to
try to do. So I'm vote but in concept I agree with everything. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you M. Council Glass. Um, so are we in agreement that we would be uh comfortable with having Mr. Barrens and
M. Steinley maybe write uh either modify that that particular sentence or add some language that would clarify our intent there? Uh and with that being the case, would are we comfortable uh with
uh returning this to the council uh as being uh determined to be consistent with the master plan? >> I am. >> Is there anyone who would like to take a different approach or is not comfortable with that?
Okay. Um that being the case, um do we have a motion to accept the uh this amendment as discussed uh with the further uh modification to be provided by uh Miss Steinley and Mr. Barren?
>> Moved second. >> Thank you, M. Thank you, Mr. Kgo. Second was I missed >> Mr. Feffer. >> Mr. Feffer. Thank you, Mr. Feffer. Um Stanley, you want to Call the roll.
>> Uh, yes. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Mayor, >> yes. >> Miss Boland, >> yes. >> Mr. Cray, >> yes. >> Mr. uh, Kenigo, >> yes. >> Mr. Feffer.
>> Yes. >> Councilman Glass. [Music] >> I think we lost him briefly. Uh, Mr. Goautier. Yes, >> Mr. Salva. >> Yes. >> And Councilman Glass, are
your vote? >> I'm going to abstain. Thank you. >> Okay, the motion passes. And Tom and I will um come up with a clarifying sentence to add to that and send it to the council tomorrow or to
the clerk tomorrow for the council's review. And just as a point of clarification, um normally I have Mr. Gibbons sign um the certification, but since he is um absent tonight, if we could just appoint um an acting
secretary to sign these um maybe Mr. Feffer or Miss Boland because they were at all at the meetings that apply. fine with me unless Miss Bolan wants the honor.
>> No, that's okay because I have a meeting tomorrow night. I think it has to be signed tomorrow. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I'll I'll be around. >> Okay. >> You know, during the day. >> Thank you. >> And you now moving on to the
memorializations, we have the 124 Jefferson Avenue, block 613, lot 13, uh, proposed detached garage, uh, for David Allen. I believe the, uh,
mot the the the documents were sent out to on the board. Is there any uh, modifications, changes, etc. or um, are they accepted as submitted? Being that there's no objection, um can
I get a motion to accept the amendments as as provided and have them memorialized? >> So moved. >> All in fa. Thank you, Mr. Gier. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Feffer. >> And the I'll only call those eligible. Um there were some absences. Miss Boland. >> Yes. >> Mr. Feffer. >> Yeah. >> And Mr. Goautier. >> Yes. >> Okay. The motion passes.
>> Yes. And uh second memorialization is for Daniel and Danielle Rapaort, 726 Center Avenue, block 411, lot 9. uh a proposed addition, alteration, renovation. Um again, uh this has been
shared with the members of the board. Um any any comments, any modifications uh that anyone deems necessary? Okay, if they're accepted as is, can I have a motion to approve?
>> So moved. >> Thank you, Mr. Goautier. A second >> you Mr. Was that Mr. Kenigo? >> It was Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Miss Sley. >> Well, uh Mr. Kigo was absent at that
meeting, I believe, >> on the 25th. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. Second. So, Miss Bolan. Um, I'll just call those eligible. Miss Bolan, >> yes. >> Mr. Feffer, >> yes.
>> And Mr. Goautier, >> yes. >> Okay, the motion passes. >> And that is everything on the agenda. Are there any issues items that uh any of the board members would like to bring
to the attention of the rest of the board? >> Uh it's 801. Congratulations. >> Just a note, >> our next meeting is August 13th. We have a residential application scheduled that
night. So if you can make it, please do. I will have the envelopes with all the documentation at the police department by Monday. >> Mr. >> Mr. Alter, that's the one I I let you know. I'll have to refuse myself, right?
>> Okay. >> Right. That's on Park. >> Yes. >> Y right across the street from me. So, I can't can't comment on that one. Um Okay. That being the case, uh do I have a motion to close the meeting?
So moved. Okay. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I'm assuming nobody's going to oppose or abstain. So thank you. Thank you all. >> Good night everyone. >> Have a good night everyone.
>> Night. Thank you. In height.