Okay, >> there we go. Lisa, you all set. >> Okay, >> thank you. >> Okay, I think we got everybody here. All right, let's call call the meeting to order. Good evening, everyone. Time now is 7:31 p.m. It is Wednesday, August 13,
2025. This is the meeting of the Municipal Land Use Board of the Burough River Edge. Miss Steinley, if you do the honors on the formalities on the announcement of the open meetings act, please. >> Yes, thank you. This meeting of the municipal land use board of the Burough River is being held remotely and
recorded via Zoom due to 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
dial 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 bro website near the posting of the meeting notice and included the dial and login information. During the public comment period of this meeting, if you'd 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 your name by address you by name or by the last four digits of your telephone number. You may mute or 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. >> Okay. >> Okay. If you catch your breath, if you could call the role, please. >> Yes. >> The role. Uh Mr. Mayor
>> here. >> Mr. Kaslin, >> here. Miss Boland. >> Oh, I think she was here, but she dropped off. So, we'll just >> She dropped out, I think, because she saw the
>> um Mr. Cray is excused tonight. >> Mr. Gibbons. >> Hold up. Mr. Cray is is here. >> I'm here. >> Oh, >> he's >> There you are. Okay. >> I thought you uh >> I'll be recusing myself, but I'm here.
It can count towards the quorum. >> Yeah, but we'll need Eileen to do the vote on the application. >> It's not a D. >> But you need to have a quorum to hold the to have uh the vote on the application.
>> Uh that's not what my Lima told me. As long as we had a quorum to open the the meeting, we were good. >> Well, we can proceed for now and see. Okay, Mr. Gibbons. >> Yeah. Mr. Kenigo >> here.
>> Mr. Feffer was excused. >> Mr. Goautier >> is absent. Um >> I believe he's excused. He he had email dead. >> Okay. >> Councilman is excused.
>> Mr. Salva is excused. Also present um our zoning officer, Mr. Dupkin, and our board engineer, Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you, Miss Steinley. We're going to move into our agenda for the evening. First item is under approval of
minutes. We have uh minutes from our meeting of July 9th, 2025. Draft set of the minutes was circulated to the board prior to this evening's meeting for review. open it to the board for comments or questions on the draft minutes. >> No comment.
>> There being none, I look for a motion to approve the minutes as drafted. >> Second. >> Okay. First to Mr. Given and a second for Mr. Craig. >> Uh Mr. Craig was not present on the >> July 9. Oh, was that I'm sorry. Was that
79? I thought they were doing 79. I'm sorry. So we had >> Mr. Gibbons is the only one >> and Mr. Kenigga. >> No, he was absent.
>> I missed one. I don't remember which of the two I missed. >> Yeah, he's marked as absent for the ninth. >> Mr. Coslin, you could second. >> Okay, I'll second it. >> Okay. >> All right. So then only those eligible are Mr. Kaslin.
>> Yes. >> And Mr. Given. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Okay. >> Okay. >> Sorry about that. >> All right. Next item. Uh under approval of minutes. We have a draft set of minutes for our July 23rd meeting.
Circulate to the board prior to this evening's meeting. Open it to the board for comments or questions on the draft of those minutes. There being no question or comments, I'll look for a motion to approve, please. >> On this one, I have Mr. Keniggo is
present. Uh, Mr. Gibbons was absent >> and uh, Mr. Cray, you were here. You were here on the 20th. You actually, you were running the meeting. >> Oh, did we lose him? >> We lost Mr. Cray. >> The mayor was there. >> The mayor was there. But
>> here comes Mike. >> Maybe not for the Okay, so we have a motion for the 723 minutes from Mr. Kenigo and then we're just looking for a second. >> I'll second.
>> All right. Thank you. Second on the mayor. Thank you. >> Welcome. So >> I'll take the vote. Uh Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. Mr. Craig. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Kenigo. >> Yes. >> Okay. The motion passes.
>> Okay. Thank you everyone. We're going to move along in our agenda under completeness review this evening. Applicant is Ernesto Martinez. The property is 885 Park Avenue block 208 lot 12. Uh this is
an application seeking variances in connection with a uh home renovation. the stylings. >> Yes. Prior to the meeting, I reviewed the proofs submitted by the applicant and found them to be sufficient for the
board to hear the application tonight. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Mr. Depp, you're on mute. >> I'm sorry. No, no issues. >> Okay, Mr. Craig, you should probably use your
Yeah, you should probably drop off at this point. We'll let the record reflect that Mr. Cray is is um recusing himself as because of his conflict being within the 200 ft uh of the subject property. Mr. Cray. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir.
>> Uh Mr. Flores, sorry. >> Good evening everybody. Um so our office reviewed the architectural plans uh for the additional alteration to the Martinez and S Sanchez residence um consisting of three sheets prepared by Mr. Joseph Bruno uh with the latest uh
revised date of July 7 2025 uh a boundary and survey uh signal boundary survey by Mr. John Butler from uh Butler survey mapping our letter of non-compliance from our uh signing officer uh Mr.
and the uh you know the the sun the sunboard application and we find all the information to be uh acceptable and sufficient for uh the application to be heard tonight. >> Okay. Thank you sir. Uh questions from the board on completeness of the
application. >> Okay. There being none, I'll look for a motion uh on completeness, please. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Mr. Given. Is there a second? >> Back to Thank you, Miss Kigo. >> All right. Uh, Mr. Mayor,
>> yes. >> Mr. Kaslin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gibbons. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Kigo. >> Mr. Keniggo. >> Yes. >> Okay. The motion passes.
>> Okay. We're going to then move on under new business on our agenda. Applicant is Ernesto Martinez. Property is 885 Park Avenue, block 208, block 12. Applications seeking variances in connection with a home renovation. And I
believe the applicant is here this evening along with the applicant's architect, Mr. Bruno. Good evening, folks. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Good to be here again. >> Nice to see you again. >> Mr. Martinez would like to just start with an introduction, then I will go into the uh description of the project.
>> Okay. Well, before we get started, let's we just got to do some formalities. Miss Miss Styley. >> So, whoever is going to be providing testimony, if you please raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do.
>> I do. >> All right. And Mr. Martinez, if you could please state your name and address for the record. My name is Ernesto Martinez. I live at 885 Park Avenue, Riveranch, New Jersey 07664. >> All right. And Mr. Bruno,
>> Joseph J. Bruno, 29 Pascat Road, Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656. And I am the project architect. >> And your license is still current and in good standing. >> Yes, it is. And I just paid the um the
renewal fee. So >> great. And the check cleared. >> Perfect. >> And you've testified before the board many times. >> Yes, I have. >> As well as throughout the state of New New Jersey. >> Any questions from the board as to Mr.
Bruno's qualifications? Assuming none, Mr. Bruno, the floor is yours. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I'd like to um just share see you. Don't want to share that. Okay, I want to share the photos that I submitted with the uh the application.
I'm just scrolling up to the top. Um, can everybody see the photos? >> Did they come up on the screen? >> Yep. >> Okay. Photograph number one >> thank you >> is the east or front elevation view of the subject great residence. The
proposed addition is to the right um or to the north of the existing uh north northerly wall of the of of the structure. Photograph number two and I'll scroll slowly so I don't get everybody dizzy. Photograph number two is the south
elevation view of the subject residence. And that is I believe uh Spring Valley Avenue. Uh photograph number three is the north elevation view of the subject residence and that's where all
of the proposed work is to take place. Photograph number four is of you looking southward along the rear yard of the subject very Rick residence. As you can see, we have a
very shallow um rear yard uh at 9.2 ft, which is a um which is an existing pre-existing nonconformity according to the survey. And photograph number five is a view of the residents across Park Avenue looking
eastward from the front stair of the subject brick residence. I took these these photographs myself on July 7th. Okay. So, let's see. Go down to the
And these were previously submitted with the application so we don't have to mark them. >> Yes, they were. Yes, they were. Now, I have the schematic site plan up. Can everybody see that on the screen? >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. So where this where this hatching
is these diagonal lines, this is the the proposed twostory addition, we are proposing to remove the existing garage structure and then to rebuild it in this in this configuration. I will go
through the um the the variances now before I go too far a field. Um the the minimum required lot area in the R1 residential district is 7,500 square ft.
The um the site at present and in the future we'll have 5,12 square ft. So we are deficient about 2,500 square ft a little little less. Lot width we're required to be 75 ft. We're at 100.25 25
ft which we have an overage which is good there. But the lot depth we're required to be 100 ft and the lot depth is 50.12 ft. So we are approximately half of um of what the uh zone
requirement is. Front yard setback along uh Park Avenue the requirement is 30 ft. We are at 17.67 67 ft existing which is existing non-conforming. We are
proposing uh 17.67 ft to align with the with the existing front wall of the house. Front yard setback along Spring Valley um 30 ft is required. We're at 29.6. We are going to remain at 29.6. No
additional work in to the house structure itself is proposed there with the exception of the new enclosure for the fireplace which is in this area which is slightly west of where the
existing fireplace is sideyard setback. Um to the north we are required to be 7.5 ft. We are at present 36.3 feet and we are proposing 26.67 feet. So
we are in full conformance there and then some. Um combined sideyard setback is not applicable since we are on a corner lot and we have uh two front yards, one rear yard and one side and one sideyard.
Uh rear yard setback is required to be 25 ft. We are at 9.2 2 ft which is what we are proposing to um to uh build with this with this addition. Building height number of stories we are
uh permitted to be 30 ft we are at 28 feet and we are proposing 29.5 ft. Now, there was a um in the the letter that I received when I returned from vacation yesterday was um the um on
um I guess it's page three of the Costa report on the general comments um comment number one, it says the architectural plan shall be revised to include building height calculations in accordance with the definition of building height uh from 416-4.
So um in doing that um I came up with um about 27 27 feet 6 as the as the um the average taken in accordance with the ordinance and we're um we are um
um permitted to be 30 feet. So we are we are under the um the permitted ma maximum. Now, there's one item on the Oh, and then um building coverage, we're
permitted to be 25%, we're existing at 17.59%. This um the the proposal is the the proposed addition is at 19.43%. So we are we are um substantially less
than that which is permitted um in terms of building coverage lot coverage which is the building plus um plus um the um the pavements we're permitted to be 30% we are existing at 23
48% and we are um proposed at 27.47%. So we comply there but lot coverage including yard amenities 35% is permitted. We are at 31.16%
and we are proposing um 37.75%. To put that in in perspective um the permitted um the allotted square footage for the lot coverage including auto amenities is 1,754
and we are proposing 1,892. So that's the um that's the overage there on the um the review letter that Costa um engineering prepared. It talked about a um a setback from the single
family dwelling of an accessory building requiring a a variance. But we have no we have no um accessory building um proposed within um within a foot of
the um of the uh the structure. So I'm a little confused as to as to what that is. I was hoping to get a get clarification at the meeting this evening by the engineer. We are removing the existing shed
which is in this area here that I'm circling with my cursor. And this rectangle, this 14 by7 ft rectangle is the proposed stone patio. Okay, then we have a so to um the general comments
general comment number two uh the architectural plan shall be revised to include the lot coverage which I have on there. Um, as far as the um there was a comment about color renderings, the uh the intention at least at this point would
be um white siding with say a dark gray roof, but that that may be subject to change, but um I'll defer to the board on that. Um the item number five about the survey. I took a look at things in
there and everything seems to be in everything that's existing on site seems to be in accordance with with that which was shown on on the survey. Um item number six if uh um we would be disturbing far less than 5,000 square
feet of land. So, the Bergen County Soil um district regulations I believe would not um would not apply. Um patio is permitted. Um item number seven u and there was item number eight,
the architectural plan shall be revised to include a construction detail for the proposed masonry wall. If the um if the project were to be approved by the zoning board and construction documents would go forth, then that detail would would be provided and a site plan uh
prepared by a New Jersey licensed um civil engineer would need to be uh submitted to the uh building department as well as the uh municipal engineer for for review, comment and approval. Um
item number nine discusses the proposed fencing which complies with the ordinance. Um item 10, the roof covering over the porch is not clearly shown and appears from coach fantic 17.67 ft. The 17.67 ft is to the
building wall, but the existing canopy for that existing porch would be at 11 ft, which is the the set back from the the edge of the porch to the property line. As stated before, we are we are quite um we are closer to the front lot line than we're permitted to be or
required to be by by ordinance. Um let's see. Uh the proposed portico roof on the um on the um the north side of the um the the project would um would be well
within the well within the setback, but I believe it it um it uh would would inc would be approximately 3 ft off the building wall, but that's that's in total compliance with the setback. As far as um storm water met management,
again, if the project were to um to move forward, the um the homeowner would would engage a New Jersey licensed civil engineer to handle uh the site planning, meaning um
topography, drainage, um etc. As far as proposed lighting um on the e exterior of the building at doorways, we would have the um you know standard residential type um co coach lights. Nothing um nothing that would be
directed um you know flood flood lighting toward towards the neighbors. Uh we have the um the arborites plant planted um along the um along the northerly edge of the driveway as long
as and as well as the easterly lot line and um they would be uh at the time of planting six to seven feet tall and they would be green giant arborite as of this time but things are subject to change.
they are presently resistant to uh to deer but again that that is subject to change. Um and what I will do now is I will go to the
floor plans. Can everybody see the floor plan sheet? No, you still have the you still have the cover page up. >> Oh, I still have the cover page. Okay. Can you see it now? >> There we go. >> There we go. Okay. So, first floor plan.
And I'm sorry if I'm being overly ver verbose, but I want to make sure I get all all of this. the the diagonal hatching indicates the proposed footprint expansion. So the first floor we have the family room to the left, the
closet in the foyer, lavatory, and then kitchen and dining situated to the right here. The second floor plan above this, above the kitchen and dining, we would have master bedroom, walk-in closet, and
the master bath. The existing bedrooms would be re reconfigured to create a bit of a home office because mi Mr. Mark Martinez works from home occasionally. So, um he he needs a space to be rather than at the dining room table. The
basement floor plan would be situated with the garage to the right or to the north, a utility room, mud room and laundry, bath, storage, and a family room in the basement. And that will be for the the kids to entertain their
friends and they're they're quite young at the moment. So um so that will will service them into the teenage years and beyond then
see going to the next one. See elevations. There we go. Okay. Can everyone see the elevation sheet? >> We can now. >> Okay. So, we've got the east or front elevation. The existing portico roof
would remain. Um, windows situated as they are now. This addition to the right would be situated with a box bay window at the first floor dining room level. These are the windows in the master bedroom. And this is the overhead door
for the garage access. The north elevation. This is that proposed portico roof. As I mentioned before, these are the doors leading from the dining area and the kitchen area to the to the patio, the rear or west elevation. You'll see
here we've got um you know the windows at the sink of the kitchen, the family room, etc. Um and then the south elevation um you'll see this is the the uh the building itself has not changed other
than window placement and this structure here is the little bump out to enclose the gas fireplace. So the um the materials would be asphalt shingle roofing, vinyl shake style siding at the top here, vinyl copper
style siding here and um everything would be of a traditional style. Nothing nothing outlandish or or or garish is um is proposed. And at this point and I um
I appreciate your patience. I will entertain uh questions and comments from the board. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bruno. Why don't we start with our professionals, Mr. Deppkin? >> Yes. Thank you. Um on your site plan, uh
the proposed patio, are you proposing permeable pavers uh for that patio to reduce uh you get a deduction on that for lot coverage? At at at this point I'm showing a um a
stone patio and and um the the permeable pavers being um being a a um I didn't calculate it that that way but as a condition of approval we would be happy to to do that to reduce the um uh the
impervious and we probably by doing that we'd be in um reducing the impervious into compliance. is >> okay. It's your application. That's whatever you're proposing. >> Yeah, we could certainly do that. Now, um offh hand, do you know what the um
what the um um >> it depends upon the the uh product and the borrow engineer would review it also determine the percentage. >> Right. Okay. Yeah. Because we're we're slightly over. Let's see what that what
that actual number is. 379 square ft 7.6%. We're we're we're 138 square feet over because we're permitted to be 1,754 and we're at 1,892.
So, um we could certainly look at that and and and and work with the engineer. >> Okay. >> To get that down. >> Um and uh one question on the interior. What is the reason for the shower in the basement?
>> That would be just to have um an additional bathroom in the um in the house. You have two two kids. >> Two kids. >> Yeah. Yeah. The um the uh the applicant has two two kids and they're um they're
active in athletics. So, uh think harmony would be would be a good idea. >> So, you're not proposing to have a bedroom or a separate at all. Okay. >> Okay. Chairman, that's all I have. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Deepkin. Mr.
Flores. >> Thank you. Uh, thank you, Mr. Bruno, for going over the review letter. That was very helpful. He kind of shortened the questions that I have. Um, let me >> trouble to do it. I may as well address it, right?
>> You're absolutely right on that. Um I just want to I want to clarify something um which is it might be on your favor actually. Um so you're planning to remove the pavers that is on the side of the well technically the rear of the house right uh correct to
the to the west of the house you all the pa area is coming out so you're going to restore that with grass correct >> that is that is correct yes >> can you can you can you point it out your calculation where you have that number because to be honest I think kind of you shortened yourself out on that because I didn't see that number there I
I have a roughly >> yeah when I do when I did the do final proposed imper um um final proposed improve lot coverage. I did not include that that um that existing
the the the existing um patio to to be be removed. I only included the proposed new >> Oh, I see. No, I'm just talking about the existing imper uh lot coverage that you have because it might that's that's a lot higher. Um I'm just just pointing
that out. Maybe when you've some if is the application move forward when you revise the plan maybe you include that calculation to show that you have more lat coverage than what you're showing right now for the existing conditions. >> Oh for the existing conditions. >> Yeah for the existing conditions which
is I think it's a a lot higher what you have out there currently. >> Oh I I see what you mean. Yeah I think I may have not not included I think you're saying I did not include that in the >> Yes. You did not include that on your on your calculation. So that might be something to point that out there because it's going to be a lot higher.
>> Okay. Sure. >> Um that's one thing just wanted to clarify. Um uh the second thing is regarding the uh the pavers again just to address that if you if your clients or you know is your application you
decide to do environmental pavers which you get I think a 15% credit on that uh you know uh and you have an area roughly of 240 square ft. So that's going to count for half of it. You can address the storm water management there as well because you're not going to have a a a a
thickness of a stone which is going to count for what you might be adding and you know you might be break even. So you might not even need to install a sepage. It's just an idea for you. Just an idea, >> right? Okay. We we can take take a look at that. um the um the the seage paper, storm water chamber, however you want to
want to um to term it is um uh >> you know in my my view I I I recommend them even though they may not be be technically required by by whatever the local code says. Um because it's just a
it it's just good to be able to um to control the storm water, especially since we're on a bit of a a hill here. >> Yes. So, uh, but getting back to the pavement for the the the purpose of the the zoning so that we don't we we don't get into the weeds with with with
numbers. I think if if we go with the numbers that we have now, um, so we make sure we don't come up with on the fly come up with erroneous numbers. If we proceed with the application with the numbers I show agreeing to make them better, I I you know I would
respectfully ask that the board consider that if um you know when we get to that point um because I think that uh you you're right. I didn't in in my initial calculation I don't believe I had the the existing um the existing patio
that's that's going away. But at the end of the day the only thing that that really counts is what we're proposing. right? >> In my mind at least. So, um but um we do plan on um capturing the um uh the
rainwater from all the new roof areas. And in in this case, since part of part uh we're we're we're building a new here, but we're actually taking a part out when when that's being when the storm water chamber or seage pit,
however you want to term it, is designed. I will make sure the engineer counts the entire rectangle here. Not discounting for that other the uh we won't be doing it for the net. We'll be doing it for the actual >> um I know you had a question regarding
the accessory building and structure regarding the small uh you know uh comment regarding the setback from the single family dwelling. >> Yeah. That 6 ft. >> Yeah. So those those are referring to the AC unit because you show the AC unit which is roughly in a scale of 3x3 for
them uh concrete patch. So the ordinance clear the ordinance said which is the ordinance say that no unit no um no accessory structure has to be closer than 5t to the you know to to the dwelling. So that's why >> I've never
never had an instance where where condenser units are considered an accessory structure >> and re they are I know Mr. Lepkins there right Mr. uh Mr. Dep can you confirm that or AC unit?
>> I I I would not count it as an accessory structure. >> You would not count. Okay. So then >> I thought I thought we did make that change in one of the more recent updates, but we can we can leave that variance
request in just um to cover the HVAC units um just just in case it's needed. Yeah, I I would I would agree with that. I I could because I think the um having the um the units um that far away from
building would be more impactful on on on the sideyard on the setback to the property line. But more moreover and more importantly would uh would would would subject the um the uh refrigerant piping and the wiring to um the
possibility of increased chance of damage >> because they lying along the ground and and um I could very easily see somebody, you know, a landscaper coming across those things with a lawn mower.
>> I couldn't agree more. I just I just pointed out what is there but you know uh I was just pointing out >> okay um the the other thing I want to just point it out really quick is that you know since you're rebuilding the wall there please make sure that it is
over 4 feet it's going to need uh design calculations uh you know it's going to need a certification and you know for that >> uh and the last you know not the last question I have uh the other thing is I I will like I mean that's that's up to the board of for but my recommendation
will be that regarding the build high calculation to be shown on the revised plans to be shown on how you arrive with the calculation so we can keep that on track and when you have you submit the ass uh uh to try to get the co we can compare that you know that didn't exceed
that you know the the >> right yeah and I and I'll show that on the um the inbound plans to the building department so that if there's any there were any any questions we take care of it then rather than after it's built Thank you. >> But but I know that the that is taken
from each building corner. So what I did was I took you know the we'll call it the southeast corner, the southwest corner, the northwest corner and then at the northeast corner I took it I I took two
because the um at the corner we have a higher elevation and a lower elevation. So by doing that we get to about 28 1/2 ft. Even if it's at 29, we're we're we're still less than the um than the um
um then than than the 30 ft that is permitted. >> Okay. And and then the last thing is uh as part of the um uh so I mean you uh you know you're going to need to to submit a soil movement permit uh a soil movement uh application
with a building per with the building department. as part of the as part part of as part of that you need to address the storm water management. So either way you decide to to address the storm water management uh via CPH via implementing the vermental paper please just keep that in mind that needs to be
you know uh addressed prior to I guess the building per in this case. >> Oh of course and that that will all be part of the um the site plan drawing prepared by the civil engineer that the owner will will engage. >> Okay. Um, uh, thank you. I don't have
any other questions. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Flores. Let me turn now to the board. Mr. Mayor, >> thank you. Um, I do have a couple of concerns that, uh, I would like for us to just deal with. So first uh if I
understand it uh that um the um the item under accessory building structures uh is I'm not clear is the um required variance no longer required under setback from single family
dwelling. I believe that it is the variance is required, but I'm not I can't remember off the top of my head if the most recent change to the zoning ordinance um adjusted that. But
either way, they're they're requesting that variance for the 6 um setback for the unit. Could you um could you opine a little bit more on that because I'm still conf confused about that unclear. So, so as part of
the accessory structure, AC units were considered, but we recently did a revisions to the ordinance and I don't have a copy of the of of of the latest uh you know uh revision of the ordinance with me, but I'm pretty sure that was
now that now that I don't remember, I think that AC unit was removed out of that. So AC unit have not considered an accessory instruction anymore under the code. Um, it's not upload it's not uploaded online yet. U I'm I'm not sure if anybody have a copy of that. Uh,
>> and and I I'm trying to pull it up now, but either way, the application was submitted prior to the zoning ordinance change. So, whatever was previously in place would be controlling. >> So, that so that mean the require so the
variance is going to stay there. So, >> okay. Um, and is I'd like to speak to the uh architect now. Is there any other place this um unit could go so that this uh this setback would no longer be required?
>> Well, the only um the only other place Well, we could put it on the south side, but it would be in the front yard. So, um, and moving it, I think that it's problematic to have it 5t away from the building for the reasons I previously
stated because you've got the you've got the refrigerant lines which tend to be tend to be very tender and you've also got the wiring which you know the last thing you know even if you install it in conduit with landscapers you know lawn maintenance equipment and so on it puts
the puts not only the equipment and the and utility serving it at risk, but also the people that are working around it. If you're say a landscaper pushing a lawn mower and you you cut through the wiring, um that could be uh that could be a pretty dangerous situation.
>> Um >> I I've never seen um you know, condenser units that far away from a building. >> So I'm confused. You're saying it's currently in what we would generally describe as the backyard because it's
opposite the front door and you now say that if we moved it, we'd have to move it to the front yard which is uh along park. Why can't it be moved to over Spring Valley Road? Why can't it be moved to that part of the lot? >> Well, because that would be a front
yard. If the board has no objection to putting it in in that front yard, then then we would have no objection doing it. We just have to um um you know do the planting in such a way that nobody is moving mechanical equipment around the wiring and the um and and the
piping. >> Okay. Uh, >> I I think all things considered, uh, with all due respect, I think the um I think the condenser units where we show it, even though they're by I guess your ordinance, they're too close to that the
house or in the best spot because much better uh that they be there um than than um you know in the front yard on on on Spring Valley. Um >> Well, I certainly uh Oh, on Spring Valley. What you would call the front yard. Yes. Yeah.
Technically, it is the front yard, but there is um the resident the resident to the um I guess that would be to the west. It's kind of close to their home and therefore kind of noisy, whereas if you put it to Spring Valley, it would be a little bit farther home. >> Well, if the board would have no
objection to that, then we would certainly not have any objection to that. >> I personally would not have an objection to that, but uh the rest of the board can speak to themselves. um it wouldn't necessarily be a no for me, but it is a major concern for me.
Can we now um I'd like to uh move it move to another question I have. >> Sure. >> Uh I'm looking at um both the elevation view and the um blueprints of the new house and I see that there are two front
doors essentially. And I'm wondering why there is a need for two front doors. One next to the garage and one being the um >> Oh. Oh, I I Okay. Yeah. Let me just um let me just um address that. It's not a
front door. Um you're talking about this here. No, that um I I should have explained it. That is that is more of a that is a decorative panel because due to the the layout down below this door the overhead door is not um is not
centered underneath this box bay window. So I added this this decorative panel to essentially make the door look like it's wider than it really is >> just so that it would be symmetrical about the windows above. because I have
a concern um as mayor uh from time to time things come to my attentions and one of them are illegal verbos and um other type of short-term rentals which are not permitted by not permitted by
zoning and it seems like the basement has been designed as a quick turnaround apartment even if the current owners don't do that it would um especially if there was a door there Now there if if you look at the basement floor plan,
there is clearly not a door that where where that where that panel is that I mentioned is where the utility room is. There is no door shown there. There's just an overhead door here. So the only door to the exterior at the basement level is the overhead door.
Another reason that this became a question for me is uh the the the placing a a shower in the basement s kind of feels like that's being um set up as as a as an apartment but you're >> that is absolutely not with all due
respect Mr. Mayor is absolutely not the reason. >> Okay. >> Um they question to ask because they are having >> No, no, no. I I I understand that but um but you know to have three three bathrooms in a house is not unusual these days. >> Uh can I make can I make a comment
please? >> Sure. >> Yeah please. >> When I do the plan review u and I see a situation like this I asked for a notorized letter from the property owner uh that it won't be a separate apartment
um or in this case a bedroom or sleeping area also. >> Okay. But Mr. Demkin that only applies to the current owner. The future owner will not to provide it. >> And then when I do a resale inspection, >> okay, >> I ask the same request from you
>> from the buyer. Well, then that reassures me and I am I'm good with everything except I think um I don't know how the rest of the board feels, but uh I think the condenser being um on the Spring Valley side would be much
better for the neighbor than in on the um adjacent property side. But that's just me. I don't know if anyone else feels that way. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh Mr. Given. Oh, sorry. M Stein, you had you had something.
>> I'm sorry. I just wanted to clarify before I moved on the two questions from the mayor. The the um new ordinance changed the language so that air conditioning units are considered um
accessory structures for the purpose of setbacks but not for the purpose of coverage calculation. So then people could get uh they wouldn't be penalized for having an air conditioner um for their lot coverage, but they still
needed to comply with the setbacks. >> So variance or not is not required. >> The variance is required for the setback for the HVAC unit. >> Yeah. I just >> and yeah, >> I'm just concerned about the neighbor and um and I I think even though we we
by law call uh two front yards, it's for all intents and purposes a side yard and it would be further away from the residence. But go ahead, Miss Dinley. >> So that was the first point. And then with regard to the basement apartment,
Mr. Bruno, would you um be willing to put a plan note saying that the basement wouldn't be converted to living space and if so, additional approvals would have to be sought from the burrow. >> Absolutely. Without question.
>> Well, that satisfies me then. Um and I appreciate your testimony, Mr. Bruno. >> Thank you. >> Can I Oh, I'm sorry, >> Mr. Flores. Yeah. >> Yes. Can I just ask quick question? Where is the existing AC unit now? >> It's on Spring Valley. It is It's facing
Spring Valley. >> It's on the corner. We can't speak. >> That's where That's where the mayor is recommending it. Okay. I just wanted to I just wanted to put that on directly. So, >> yeah, it's between the fire. It's between the um it's between the existing
fireplace and the big window. the the big window that's there. >> So, Mr. Bruno, in essence, it would be staying where it currently is. >> If that's what the board desires, then we shall do that. >> Well, I hope the board might agree with me on that, but it's, you know, we'll
see. Thank you, Mr. Bruno. >> My pleasure. >> Can I make another comment again? I'm sorry. >> Sure. Um, are you proposing to have those air conditioning units if they're in the front yard to be screened from view?
>> Oh, they'd have to be with landscaping. Sure. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, they'd be screened with with with Evergreen uh landscaping. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Gibbons. >> Now it's my turn. Um, so not real
questions. Um, just to I guess give my opinion on the air conditioning units. Um, you know, I suppose if they are there now, then it kind of makes sense to leave them there. Um, I think maybe Mr. Martinez, you can answer this. The
the house that is uphill from you on Spring Valley, is that their garage that faces your property >> adjacent to me? Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Because I'm looking at Google Earth here and it looks like it's their garage. So, >> yes. Yeah. You'll see that in photograph number two. Yes.
>> Yeah. So the way I'm looking at I mean if you if it is close to their property, it is close to their garage. It's not necessarily their kitchen. So I don't necessarily have a strong feeling about it, but if it is already on Spring Valley, I guess it can make sense just
to leave it there. Um so just my two cents on that. Um to go back to the patio, um I know that puts you over by having the regular pavers. Um, you know, I think we're at 2.75%
over if all these numbers are correct. You know, personally on a small lot being a little bit over and not forcing you to have pavers that you might necessarily not want. I don't have an issue with you being 2.75 over. Um, you
know, the the pvious pavers are nice, but you know, we have a small lot here. I think you've been pretty reasonable with what you're asking for. Um, so I don't personally have an issue if you stick with what you are asking for two 2.75 over. Um, and just one other thing
to confirm. So the the front yard setback um that's not it's going to basically stay of just the stairs, right? Of just the entryway. The house itself isn't extending along that line or is it?
>> The house is exhending along the existing line. It's not come. There's nothing that's coming forward except this box bay window unit which is um it's just a um and I believe that's a
permitted encroachment. Um it's it's a it's a window seat. It doesn't even go down to the floor. >> Yeah. No, I'm not I'm not worried about the window. Uh but the so the front of the house will basically take the line of where that bumpout is now. Right.
Correct. Yeah. The the the existing uh front wall of the house at both the first floor and the second floor will will continue as they are now. >> Okay. All right. Uh I that's all I have. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Given. Mr. Kenigo, >> uh thank you. So, I'm a little confused about uh the lot coverage because uh Ryan just said 2.7% over 2.7% over what? That That's where I'm I'm
>> Well, we're permitted 35% and we're at 37.75. >> All right. So, I I read a letter that said that you're at 42.6%. And so, that's maybe I think uh Stephen, you you sent that letter. Um,
>> yeah, that was my that was my letter. Um, but it it was revised uh with the removal of the coverages and so forth. So, I didn't get to do a um a second revision uh on the >> So, what what would your second revision
have been? >> I would I would go with the burrow engineer. >> Just give me give me the percentages. That's what I'm asking. >> 37. >> Ask the burrow engineer. 37 37.75% Mr. Chiego.
Um, as far as the air conditioners uh go, I I think uh I'm I'm with the mayor, especially uh if they currently are in Spring Valley. Based on the presentation, I thought they were currently uh between in that area
between the two uh houses or between the garage and the house, but if they're currently on Spring Valley, I think you keep them there. I think that's that's the way to go. >> Thank you. >> Are they are they adding a unit? >> Yes, there's one now. There'll be two.
There'll be one zone for the um uh first floor and basement, a second zone for the second floor. Are they bigger units? >> Well, actually, they'll probably be smaller because the um uh the newer the newer units are more rectalinear. So,
they're um they're they're about the same width. They're a little shallower front to back and then they're and then they've got some height to them. >> Yeah, I think look, the only concern I have is for the neighborhood and for noise pollution uh when it comes to
that, but uh I would imagine it'll be about the same. So, Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kiggo. Um, my concerns pretty much have been echoed by Mr. Gibbons in terms of the uh uh the
patio and the AC unit location. So, um, no need to dwell on that any further. Um, at this time, uh, we'll look, Miss Nley, do we have anybody in the public? >> Um, no, it's just Mr. floor is his other
computer. >> Okay. All right. So, do we uh can we wave opening to the public since no one's here? >> Yep. So, there being no members of the public, we can move on. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Uh
all right. Any further questions, comments from either the board or our professionals on the application? Uh the only the only comment that I would have is to maybe revise the code again in regards to the air conditioners
uh and the setbacks. It uh I've never seen them so far away from a structure. Uh I think it would cause a uh a hazard if uh if that's the case and they continue to be out that far. uh as speaking for the council, I'm sure they would be open to that if this body
would recommend it, but uh that would probably be something we talk about under new business, not during this um current review. >> Duly noted, Mr. Debkin, let's hold that for uh future consideration.
>> I I did have one question um from in Mr. Costa's um review letter under general comment number 10. It was page three. Um which roof covering
is that the front porch or is that the on the side that >> No, that's the front porch facing >> front porch. >> Yeah. Front porch facing the um facing uh park >> park. So the roof overhang,
how far does that ex is that extend within what is permitted by the code? >> Are you talking are you referring to the uh proposed new one at the north side? >> No, on the east elevation. >> East elevation that is east elevation
that is pre-existing um which is not being touched. So, it does it does it does encroach, but it's um um it's already there. We're not proposing anything any changes to it. >> But that's further into the front yard
setback. >> Yes, that's further into the setback. That's probably about 11 ft or so. >> Okay. So, just update that on the plans, too. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And you have everything else in Mr. Costa's letter. you're okay with
complying with? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Most of that was um I mo most of that was uh would would be under the purview of a civil engineer who who will
be engaged to design the site plan. >> Those are my only other questions. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Styl. There being nothing further, I'll look for a motion on the application, please. >> Uh, I can make the motion um for block
208, lock 12, uh, 885 Park Avenue. Uh, I'd make a motion to approve front yard setback of, uh, 17.67 ft, the rear yard setback of 9.2 2 feet
improved lot coverage of 37.75. Uh, and there was another um another variance for the rear yard or actually no, I guess we're not doing that, right? Are we moving it to the other side?
>> So, the there'll need to be a variance for the Hback unit in the front yard on Spring Valley. >> Spring Valley. Okay. So to allow a variance, allow a front a front yard setback uh for the HVAC units. Um and
then to comply with all um requests from our board engineers letter. And what did I miss? >> And the the other conditions agreed to this evening testimony with the applicant as architect.
>> Okay. As amended. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> All right, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kaslin, >> yes. >> Mr. Given,
>> yes. >> And Mr. Kigo? >> Yes. >> Okay, the motion passes. >> And thank you very much. >> Congratulations. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> Mr. Bruno, if I could ask you just to stop sharing your screen.
>> I just Yep. >> Perfect. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you folks. Have a great evening. >> Okay. Thank you. Have a good evening. Byebye. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. >> At at this point, we have nothing further on our agenda. So, unless the
board has anything further, I look for a motion to close the meeting. >> Mr. Castle, do you want to put on the next agenda under new business, Mr. Dempkin's recommendation so this body can recommend to the council? >> Yeah, it would be the next meeting.
Yeah, Mr. Alter, if you could take that into account in preparing the next agenda. >> Sure. Uh, can you prepare a letter just stating exactly what it is you want to discuss? >> Sure. >> You for me or from Mr. Deppkin as well?
probably >> no that would be Mr. can >> I I can do it. I can do it. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. So, we'll we'll take that. Anything further? >> No, just to let you know, our next meeting is
um >> do we have any >> 27th of August and one application? >> One application. Okay. >> Is there anybody in this esteemed body right now who's not around on the 27th? Just for quum purposes,
>> I should be here. >> Okay. All right. Great. Appreciate it. Okay. All right. With that, I'll look for a motion to close. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Mr. Gibbons. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. KGO. All in favor? >> I
>> I oppose any abstain. There being none, we are closed at 8:33 p.m. Folks, thanks for hopping on. Enjoy the rest of the night. We'll see you in a couple weeks. Good night everybody. >> Bye-bye.