all right let's call the meeting to order good evening everyone it's now 7:31 PM it is Wednesday March 26 2025 this is the regular scheduled meeting of the municipal lus Board of the burough River Edge this meeting of the municipal LS Board of the burough River Edge is being held remotely and recorded via
Zoom due to burough council chambers unavailability and is in compliance with 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 door of the bur Hall and posted on the B's website a notice included the dial in and login
information necessary for public participation and access to this meeting remotely the copy of the agenda for this meeting was made available on the buroughs website near the posting of the meeting notice and included the dial in and 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 clearly prior to making a public comment with that I'll turn over to miss steinley and ask her to call the role please thank you uh the mayor is absent excuse
tonight Mr caslin here Mr cray Oh I thought I saw him all no don't see him yet I guess he's absent at the moment um Miss Boland is also excused tonight Mr gibons here Mr feffer
here um Mr Keno here councilman glass here Mr gotier here Mr Sala here thank you also present uh the
zoning our zoning officer Mr dubkin our board planner Mr Barons and our board engineer Mr Costa okay great uh first off just appreciate everybody hopping on tonight I know we've got a very light agenda but um helpful just to kind of keep things clear and efficient and
moving along as we get a little bit later into the year I know things are going to potentially get a little busier so try to keep the docket as clear as we can uh with that the first item for this evening is the approval of minutes from our March 12th 2025 meeting set of the minutes was circulated for review prior
to this evening's meeting and I open it to the board for comment or questions I have one minor comment um which is under the old business section on page seven just the first line um my relationship causing my recusal was
actually Prof a professional relationship with a board member not personal okay I could fix that I'll fix that make that one change um and if there are no other comments or questions I will look for a motion to approve the minutes with that one
change I moved thank you Mr Gibbons there a second second thank you Mr coder and everyone is eligible to vote okay I'm gonna abstain just because of my failure to make time to carefully
review the minutes apologies okay so we'll just do a Voice vote noting the uh exstension of councilman glass all in favor I I I any opposed okay minutes are
approved thank you we're going to move now into our discussion s session section of the agenda uh this evening we have on for discussion the preliminary State development and Redevelopment plan as our first item and I will turn the floor
over to to uh Mr barens Sure good evening uh board members chairman um so since our last meeting I had sent a link uh I believe to the group uh with the states what they're calling the preliminary uh draft State development and Redevelopment plan and if you recall
the last time the state adopted uh its plan was in 2001 and again they were supposed to do it every three years or so there had been prior iterations but were never adopted and you know so obviously the world has changed New Jersey's changed quite a bit since 2001 um but I I believe the primar
the primary uh reason they're trying to get it done now is as it relates to affordable housing they figured sort of after the fact that in order to pursue the legislation and and have towns adopt new fourth round housing plans that they should update the state plan because there's a relationship with the different planning areas as far as
allocating uh affordable housing Al obligations to municipalities so I think in some respects the exercise um that we're embarking on it is a bit of a formality but we should do it nevertheless and the way it works is that municipalities are supposed to work with their assigned negotiating entity
so in this case it would normally be Bergen County but they've outsourced this task to a private uh planning firm H and GRL I for I think they're based in Red Bank but um in any event there's a questionnaire that's 11 or so questions which I I'll share my screen um just so
the board's familiar with what what's entailed in all this um and so it's you know the Burrow's responsibility basically to submit this to hire and GRL in a timely manner they didn't give us a deadline except I
believe they uh set a public meeting or a a meeting with municipalities sometime early April and ultimately they have to give their feedback to the state by May 30th so there's not a ton of time to do this but if you can see um this form a lot of the questions are administrative
in nature so a question of you know what plans have you adopted and when okay you know that's something we could do um review the 10 goals of the state plan and indicate the degree to which the municipal and County Plans Incorporated key Concepts and objectives so you know
a couple sentences on that and and the feedback has been from the State Office of planning advocacy that these these are not meant to be lengthy uh responses they're meant to be very general in nature and again I I suspect that they're going to review these say thank you very much and and adopt their state
plan in December that there may be some opportunities to change some of the language or specific policies slightly but you know a lot of it I think is the agenda of the current Administration hence the reason to get it adopted in December um and the other opportunity
for influence would be to change the state mapping so I'll I'll I'll show you the state map in a minute once I run through these so again just to Breeze through these um I think really the only question where we might ask the board's input on it pertains to what are the
towns um so number eight please indicate your community's three most important local and Regional land use planning goals and priorities so I mean that's something I could take a stab at but I I think that's where the board could chime in and you know collectively indicate what
the Burrows top priorities are so this information once assembled you know in a response template format will get sent to H and grul they'll collect that and they'll send one package you know countywide response template to the state um you know to to review agreements and
disagreements so to the extent that there are any disagreements they'll try to work those out you know again in terms of any phrasing or policies that people don't agree with generally the state will take those that into consideration there'll be subsequent public meetings from the state um in
September they're going to release what's called their infrastructure assessment so that'll be available to review by the public uh there'll be subsequent public sessions over the fall and then eventually there'll be a final draft for everyone to review opine on and I believe they're going to adopt it
uh in December no matter what so uh chairman I I guess if you want to spend a few minutes we could uh talk about planning priorities or or or put that in the board's mind so we could come regroup and talk about it at a future board meeting yeah I think given that
we've got sort of a a small uh group this evening let's I think that was a helpful we'll table that summary time of what we're looking to do here so let's table for now and we can come back we've got um a larger audience and membership
of the board attend okay if anyone's interested question on that is is this what Ryan and I volunteered to do uh as part of whatever we volunteered a few weeks ago for if it pertains to the state plan then I would I would assume so unless
that was that affordable housing or the state affordable housing was affordable housing yeah this is this something this is different this is different okay uh you know I would invite any of you to you know send feedback to me directly don't copy everybody if if you want to
take a stab at reviewing this um all the documents are in the the various links that I sent including the draft plan which is the PDF's 168 pages but the meat of it somewhat less than that um basically there's 10 10 or so policy
goals uh they call them the 2050 Statewide planning goals strategy strategies and priorities pertaining to Economic Development housing infrastructure Etc I'd say it leans pretty heavily toward housing um Equity underserved communities and and similar themes but again there's more
generic planning uh themes like Economic Development climate change uh environmental resource conservation Etc so it's um you know some of the some of the goals are so General that they're hard to argue with I would say but but again for anyone
that wants to read them you know one thing they've touched done in certain parts of it sort of pushing for adus or accessory dwelling units as they've called them so they're not making them mandatory but suggesting that they're a good thing and there's different feelings about that you know in throughout the state and the country um
as far as implementation so um that's really the Crux of it I I don't think it we need to make too much of it but we we should get it done um and chairman you could either uh direct us or or somebody from the burrow or some planning board member to fill this thing out and send
it in however you want to do it is fine okay Tom just before you I know a couple people with some questions here could you just briefly touch on what an Adu is just for benefit of so an Adu is an acronym for accessory dwelling unit um and there's been draft bills that have
been floated around in New Jersey for the last couple years now um that would basically allow these things in a variety of manners and the bills have sort of evolved but what an accessory dwelling unit is basically take a sing family house you'd be able to carve out an area of that house or a detached
garage and create a separate living unit meaning the self-sufficient uh unit that would have a full bathroom kitchen and sleeping quarters essentially so again it could be the conversion of a garage detached or attached it could be part of a basement it could be part of a house um
and it and it depends on you know how that gets regulated if it gets regulated um the first few bills sort of read as as a blanket statement and I think a few states have enacted this we basically do away with single family zoning throughout the state just as a blanket thing and you can allow up to
let's say four units or or have accessory dwelling units and you know to do that as a blanket proposition I think has its has its own issues any anywhere from parking to you know sewer and water and school kids and all that you know serious implications in my opinion so
not to say that it's not appropriate some locations so there are some towns in New Jersey that have already implemented that voluntarily there's some Shore towns that have it you know where you can convert your garage or what I know Princeton Monclair I think allow them among you know maybe five or
10 that that allow them out right so it's you know in a way I think this plan sort of sets the stage for a forthcoming bill but um again none of the bills that have uh been kicked around so far have had any traction at this point but it's it's it's an idea that's out there and
uh several other states have already done it so I I don't know where New Jersey sits and certainly if there's a change in the Administration or politically come um you know next year that might change things too so uh but just something to be aware okay thanks
for that Tom councilman you have a question yeah thanks um just a suggestion um for Tom I if possible and if others agree um you know there's a lot of people on the
board um and I think open discussion on how to answer these questions might not be the most efficient way for us to get it done yeah okay so I think Tom if you could float draft
responses that'll help us I think be a lot more focused and get through this a lot more quickly and efficiently that's just my suggestion I think that would be very helpful to the board though personally okay that makes sense as I said most of the questions are administrative in nature you know what
plans did you adopt in one kind of type type of question so um I the one that you mentioned though where there might be you know the need for some input if you could like float up a draft Yeah I think that would be helpful I think that's a good idea thank you all right
thanks okay uh Mr G more hands yeah just on similar note you know if there was some things that were that we have implemented that um or things that have been floated around that could go into that answer certainly would help be helpful um just a general question I mean how much say do we really have in
this is this is this really just a formality and they're going to just do whatever they want you know that's that's my that's my honest sense again having talked to the sort of the head honcho of the state who's coordinating this whole thing back in 2001 it was a very thorough more in-depth process not
that I was involved directly but um you know where they actually solicited input and it and the process took maybe a year and a half and and it really did guide the implementation of the plan this is hey we forgot to do this we should have done it before the housing stuff but yeah the it just seems like we're going
to you're going to do the formality fill this stuff out and 70 of these are going to get bundled together and then however many in the state I I you know I guess we have to do it but I'm not sure how much time and energy should be spent on it if it's just a formality I I wouldn't
lose sleep over it but yeah do get it done and say thank you very much and send it off and that sounds better use of time thanks y Mr feffer yeah thanks um just two quick things um you know I do I do have I do
feel that it is important that we you know maybe not lose sleep over it but that we do record our sentiments um for whatever it's worth I mean it may be a total waste of time but on the other hand you know we are on the board we represent the community and um we we
should submit you know some wellth thought out points and suggestions um so I'm I'm sort of in between like not wanting to totally waste our time but at the same time put in some effort into it um to
you know to to do our our jobs basically um to uh speak for the community on these issues and having said that one suggestion that I have um is Tom you mentioned that that there's uh with
respect to question number eight um which you you mentioned is sort of asking for our top priorities um that there are some standard categories um that exist and I'm just
wondering if we have the capacity uh technologically to send around a survey to the board members you know using something like Survey Monkey or one of those apps where we can just list those priorities that are already listed as
standard um areas of priority or areas of concern and have the members you know vote on which three or five are their top choices and you know that the app totals it up so it's not a matter of going through it and calculating or
counting the votes the app does that and then we can maybe get a sense of what collectively our top five priorities are that might make it faster and even people who are not here tonight can vote on that and participate that
way I think that's a great idea to streamline the conversation yeah and like you said the the the goal is already written it's just a matter of picking in ranking so I think that's an efficient way of doing it I don't know who will do that but I could I could throw that together I've
done it for other causes great and I'll just note that any of the public can also go on the State website and provide comments directly to the state there's Al there's a channel to do that so any any board member as a you
know a member of the public anybody in the community can again chime in uh and provide their feedback okay anything further on this topic no just what I'll do uh as suggested we'll we'll prepare draft responses uh and a survey ahead of the
board's next meeting okay that sounds like a plan what do we have a April 9th looks like yes I believe that's the next meeting April 9th yep Ed's shaking his head so that is the date okay great so we'll move on now under
discussion to our draft ordinance updating uh swimming pool regulations uh we have a draft ordinance that was circulated prior to this evening's meeting for review and Miss steinley if you have a statement to make
on the yes so I can just go through some of the are the changes that are included in this proposed revision um which were brought about um based on a discovery that the language that we had changed in the ordinance last year wasn't really
reflective of what the board's intent was um so the first thing we're doing is updating the definition of building area and building coverage so under building area um we're included
decks and porches and getting rid of patios because um the thought is that things that are actually physically connected to the principal dwelling um should be included in the building
coverage um or should be included in the understanding of what the building area is then when we go to the building coverage definition we're explicitly saying swimming pools are not going to be included in the definition or
calculation of building coverage and there's a reference to um the actual section of the zoning code that talks about accessory buildings and structures those definitions are changed
in both the site plan um chapter of the burrow code and the zoning chapter of the burrow code then if we go down to the changes to the accessory buildings and structures um section of the code we're
putting back in swimming pools as being excluded from building coverage so as to not penalize people for having a pool um it's still
calculated it's still included as part of the uh the lot coverage or imp pervious coverage I believe is that right Tom right once it moves to 27A I believe it's then captured in the definition of
um block coverage block coverage check so then and then another change that we added um to things that are not considered build part of building coverage are unroofed
patios um since it's with the exception of patios that are more than a foot above grade so if it's just a flat patio next to your dwelling um that's not going to be considered building coverage but it's going to be
considered just part of the regular lot coverage if you have a deck um or a porch that's attached to the attached or not to the structure of your or on the property then that's
going to count towards building coverage so that was the change in section B um and that is similar to what we've been doing in the past is calculating decks and and porches as building
coverage um but we want to make sure that the language is actually in the code then there's a clarification that air conditioning units HVAC equipment those type of electrical boxes are
considered accessory building or structure for the purposes of setbacks but not for the purposes of calculating building coverage so then we can get give people the so then people are not penalized for having the the
HVAC and Mr did you have a question uh no I had a comment uh you're talking about patios um I would suggest that uh you put in uh for building coverage raised patios would be included as building
coverage okay reason reason being is because it's would be part of uh or against the structure um and these setbacks would need to be uh maintained you couldn't put that uh up against the property
line okay uh so where it says where the Leng so under 27 B1 where we're adding roofed or unroofed porches I'll also include raised patios
greater than one foot above average grade um because in some instances like patios can there can be a slight grade change in someone's backyard so one side of the patio might be a little bit raised up
compared to the rest but if it's a significant raised patio then that's G that should count is that is that acceptable Steve um I I I would say yes in most circum circumstances but I'm sure
something's going to come up where you know maybe maybe you know two sides are you know on a slope or raised quite a bit and others are at grade so um I think uh you know in start of getting into a detailed uh definition it would
just be my interpretation U that it counts as building coverage if it's raised Steve you're saying if it's raised I guess the question is just having a threshold you know what I'm saying like at what point does it go from being at grade to raised or is it
just you know a foot above grade um yeah I I wouldn't put uh anything if it's at grade it's a patio it's only counted in lock coverage if if it's raised in any manner um then I would suggest that it would be counted as building
coverage well the problem is with the with the slopes it could be partially raised and partially AG grade what about a percentage to address that question if it's over 50% raised or if it's over 70% raised then it's a raised
or you know the other way around you look at a percentage of the space that the patio is raised to determine that I mean you know River EDG is all like this so every backyard has slopes yeah um uh you know then then you're getting into uh minute details
with percentages um and that usually throws a lot of of AR Architects off uh it you know a lot of U you know describing and you know trying to explain the codes to them
um as I as I said if it's um if it's at if it's at grade level um you know that's fine if it's uh if it's above you know it's something that would need to be possibly come to the board and uh you know determine but to start putting you
know details of percent ages and you know that that might be a little bit complicated to the you know to the residents Steve just one question about the setbacks and it was always unclear to me in the ordinance on the one hand
the ordinance says when you have something that's attached like a deck or a patio it's supposed to comply with the principal building setbacks but there's another section that says patios shall have a setback of 5T from the side and rear law line and it was my understanding that applied to decks too
because decks were silent in the ordinance I just wonder how you've been treating them and how decks and Patio should be specified as setbacks if they're attached if if they're attached if and if they're raised then would be uh you know they meet the setbacks of uh the
building as far as the as far as at grade um you know we try to keep it at the that five five foot um and same if a deck is at grade level also you know you could uh you know take it as you know
five foot setback okay all right thanks all right Marina where were you all right so I guess the question is whether the board wants to recommend that unroofed patios not more than one foot above
grade um or well I guess I'll say whether raised patios at grade should just be considered part of building coverage or if we want to say raised patio is greater than one foot above average
grade should be considered part of building coverage well if it's raised it's not at grade so could you say that again raised patio greater than one foot above average
grade or if you just or we could just say just any raised patio that that should be considered building coverage I would think raised covers a foot six inches 10 feet whatever okay right I mean raise would
imply it's above because you get to you get to the one foot question you trying to where are we measuring from you know you measuring different places so think it even though it's an average grade
but okay so we'll say unroofed patios um at grade do not count but if you're um a raised patio then you are counting counted as building coverage okay
then just two seconds I think you got a Define grade you got a Define raised grade existing grade proposed grade because you can play a lot of games with the with that a lot of ordinance
yeah I agree Rob I was gonna say or you have to Define raised okay and the only reason I said that many years ago Tom wasn't even born yet Palisade Park the game was let's build six foot walls eight foot walls and
that's how you measure height um so it really has to be defined do you pick a point Rob somewhere on the property and make that determination or is it measured at different points to come up with there's a lot I mean a lot of different ordinances they go at average grade go
off the building go six feet off the building go perpendicular to the building as a matter of fact Steve dekin orell New Jersey that is some ordinance right there um as far as measuring Heights and grades that wasn't that
wasn't me the key is just how much can you U I think idell is what one foot I think you can there's different things it's residential commercial but it's a certain amount you can raise it before it it doesn't count so you know exactly
where you're at and I think Orel is pretty good from my recollection well you could you could uh put down natural grade so you're not adding uh to build up a grade just say natural grade okay the good news is Steve is the
zoning official so he's the guy that gets the class A appeal if it's right or wrong yeah and then and then the board determines from there but you want to make it easy then one other thing yeah one other thing I saw it's in ground pools and then it has
a separate uh hot tubs isn't included but what if Rob Costa wants to build an in inground hot tub so that counts or the pool has my inter my interpretation would be no it didn't it wouldn't count okay but that's kind of
exempt that's the way I read it before well you can swim in a hot tub yeah I would think I would think an inground hot tub would be treated just like a swimming pool yeah because if the water not it's a small pool well I'm saying it doesn't say it so then again
it's it leaves some interpretation as not so swimming pool so change it so that it says Swimming Pools and Hot Tubs are not included in building coverage oh sorry it would be in ground right that's
if you build above ground then it's not exact that's the so that was my one of the questions that I had are we o so we're only cutting people a break on building coverage if they build an inground
pool but not if they build an above ground pool um when it essentially is doing the same thing it's collecting water and it's taking up space well the you're you're defining it
under building coverage um not lot coverage and I would I would interpret the above ground pool as an accessory structure which would be included in building coverage and could be included in the
amenities but why why would we I I don't want to say punished but why why would it count for an above ground pool and and not like is said it's it's doing the same thing it's keeping the water from going into the ground anyway I would think well the the we're talking about building coverage
and the structure building coverage is 25% so if you have something in the ground I mean it's you're looking at the size of the uh building uh garages uh you know decks things like that whereas the pool is you know in ground you don't
see it you don't see the structure um it would be included in lot coverage I I I mean I thought when we went through the process of having the the credit it would apply to an above ground pool because we you know a lot of people
want these in the backyard so I I I personally would rather see they get the credit for it and you know not push people to have above ground pools but but allow it and give them that credit it would be included in lck coverage in the amenities for lot coverage but it
would be uh calculated as uh you know build building coverage that's that's that's the problem with the building and lock coverage you you're gonna have two calculations P personally I'd rather see
an above ground and inground pool treated the same personally because it's you know they're they're both yes you can see one you can't see the other um as far as far as building coverage as for for lot coverage I mean
we're giving whatever percentage you know whatever percentage we gave I mean is it 75% I don't know what number we gave for pools 75 I believe and yeah I would agree with you you know I would think if you know if someone's you know going to
put up an Intex pool for you know a couple years or they're going to spend 100 Grand and put in a pool on the ground um I think they're essentially doing the same things personally and I thought that was what we did before if I'm wrong then I I I
agree with that in with lot coverage [Music] yeah I don't know if that was the original tent of the ordinance if that's something that can be changed with something like this but that was my impression well just to give Marina
guidance to wrap this up so is it is it building coverage my thought was that they'd be treated the same honestly in in ground and above ground but um I think Marina just needs to know for the purposes of the ordinance if it would if above ground would be counted toward building coverage um it's not
something I've seen but you know I get the distinction one is above ground one's in the ground um but I think I do think the the impact would be that would be somewhat punitive in that on the one hand they're getting flexibility on the lock coverage but 25% for the building
coverage doesn't leave a lot left for a pool that's taking up some amount of per you you likely end up with variances for above ground pools would be mine yeah I I personally I'd rather see it as cover as above ground or in ground as lot coverage not building coverage I
agree yeah I think it makes sense treat the consistency I think is important that they be treated the same because they I agree with Ryan I think they're basically doing the same the impact is the same okay so will it seems like there's a consensus
that to exclude swimming pools regardless of above or INR they're going to be excluded from building coverage but they're still included in lock coverage and now I guess if you're adding anything with hot tubs I guess it
would be the same there as well yeah Swimming Pools and Hot Tub yeah okay okay so then all right we've sorted that out unroofed patios at natural grade are not considered building coverage but raised patio
or patios above natural grade or something like that um will be counted toward building coverage um then as I was saying before HVAC units air
conditioning units are only considered building are only considered accessory structures for the purposes of setbacks but not for they're not going to be included in calculation of building coverage similar reasoning
um to the the pool situation um then one of the other changes was to the height of the accessory buildings um I
spoke with Tom about this and um rate now we have it as um gr uh accessory buildings can't exceed 15t in height um but there was no
clarification as to the roof roof pitch of garages so technically you could have a garage that's has a flat roof that's 15 feet tall and that would be like a giant rectangular box um that's 15 feet
high so we recommended that we include garages having roof pitch of not less than 6 over 12 and we might need some feedback on that recommendation but then that that limit that brings down the height a
little bit of the garages well and just to clarify the original height requirement was 12 feet and I think the board came across an application where the board thought it made sense to encourage pitch roofs and therefore increase the height but if you increase the height to 15 ft technically you
could have a flat roof two-car garage that's a big bulky thing I don't think that was the intent so not trying to be overly prescriptive or you know regulate everything but I I think the risk is you get some creative person who who builds
a big rectangular box and I don't think that was the intent if it's too much we could take it out but again I think the intent was to encourage a higher pitch roof for a two-car garage versus I think the board's issue at the time was a shed roof was proposed where you know sort of
just pitched one way and was deemed to be a long flattish thing that was not maybe the most aesthetically pleasing so is it subjective I you know to some degree um so if the board if you don't have an
issue with the c the existing language we leave it if you think it's better to make it clear that it's for a pitch Roof then that would be the alternative I I assume better I'm sorry I if I assume in there that this
can't be turned into a second Story I mean you know 15 feet you could have a seven s foot ceiling on the bottom an 8 foot ceiling on the top like it can't be turned into an Adu at this point is that is that already in our code to cover us someone turning that
into living space up there right now there's only a height limitation so I mean we don't allow adus at the moment so I would just say that's you know as a zoning matter not not a permit use um would it prevent somebody from
installing let's say a loft space it's not not clear on that I think as long as you meet the coverage requirements and the height requirements what you do in the garage um you know you you can except
for you know limit you can't have living with a full bath there there is a so section five or subsection five of that of 27 C5 it's not shown in this draft ordinance because that there's no change
proposed but okay um it just States no portion of an accessory building or structure shall be used for living quarters or additional dwelling units temporary or permanent so perfect conc yeah that someone took the extra height and turned into something it's in there perfect thanks the way
this is written right now though with the pitch not less than six on 12 I don't know why we don't just say one on two but anyway um that does not prevent a lean to type roof the way it's written right now I see that's like the just a
one-sided I get what you're saying um well how how does the board feel it let's let's take a do you want to have a a pitch requirement or no pitch requir are you satisfied with just a 15 foot so I think there's a way to probably come up with better wording to the councilman's suggestion
about uh rectifying that I think if you do the one on two over a long enough span it makes it a little challenging but um it could say something like gable roof or I don't know could do um if I can through the chair you could do diagrams some ordinances have diagrams
attached to it all that probably makes a lot of sense for this I definitely think we should have a uh the pitch roof as you suggest I think it's a good idea yeah I agree I I don't have my there's a a whole book of proposed development um
definitions and ordinance suggestions so and I know there's diagrams in that so I'll I can take a look at that and with and work with Tom and and Steve and Rob about picking one that makes sense we're talking about accessory
structures yes what what about a shed well it reads no such accessory building or structure shall exceed 12 feet in height except for garages so the parentheses pertain to having a roof pitch no less than six on 12 so if if
you're qu so right the pitch provision as written doesn't pertain to sheds um it could right now sheds could just could be maximum 12 feet in height regardless of the roof okay that's
fine all right so we'll we'll work on revising that section um going down below there was also a change to um the provision 20 7
C3 where right now it says that accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 30% of the area of the side of rear yard where it's located um or 150 square feet
whatever is less and so that's pretty restrictive um we want to keep the 30% limitation but we want to set the recommendation is that um no roofed accessory building shall
exceed 150 square fet so that prevents really large sheds garages things like that and just to be clear what it what it read previously was that you know the aggregate so all you know decks sheds
pools everything combined can't add up to more than 30% of the yard or 150 sare feet whatever was less that's how it read previously so um you know OB there are decks and patios and things like that that are a lot bigger than 150 square ft so I think the 30% limitation
still makes sense meaning you can't develop your whole backyard you know you've got to leave some undeveloped area that makes sense but now it says that you're not limiting the size of the deck per se to 150 square feet um it would just be something like a shed or detached garage that has that limitation
if that makes sense because we've all been on patios and decks and pool that are bigger than 100 that's 10 by 15 right and and certainly the aggregate when you add up a deck and a shed and a pool and this and that exceeds 150 square feet so just to draw that that was the thought anyway that was my you
know again not trying to complicate things but that seemed that was something that came up with I don't know the last application where this provision came up with the pool the one we did last month came up no I think that makes
sense and right nowo uh can you not hear me no I can hear sorry he's freezing he's Frozen he keeps going out and coming back too I think he ises he's getting
he's got some technical problems all right we'll come we'll come back oh there we go sorry my Wii is far no I was just going to mention in where the um that markup is related to the 150 square feet
there's just a closed parentheses missing for the deletion okay I will check on that yeah um in u the ordell code for accessory structures a garage is Def you know
is taken as 600 square feet maximum and any other accessory structure um would be 125 square feet so in um they permit they permit a three car
garage right in what's not in 3A we allow 250 so it's one um 300 yeah that would be a three-car garage now I would say it 600 feet basically 20
some OD feet wide by 25 ft deep that's a two-car garage so 600 is two a two-car garage yeah but I would say the majority of the size of the Lots in town you're not getting three car garages it would be
very limited on on what properties could do that yeah I agree with that okay yeah yeah this has 250 the current ordinance has 250 for one car garage 450 for two car garage oh I'm
sorry I was mistaken but cars are getting larger yeah so I'm sorry what was the is the recommendation to increase that for increase the single car the one car
garage and twocc car garage were we were we looking to change the space in the garage I don't know I I think I missed some of the that conversation okay I think we'll just leave it
yeah okay all right and then the next change proposed was down in section 27d um I think we're resending this because of my misinterpretation so I
think Steve said you know if a decks attached to the principal building it it shall comply with the the setbacks and that's the way the ordinance is read there seem to be conflicting things but I so this new language could probably be taken out and just stick with the um is that
right Steve just to keep it the way it is yes if it's attached you follow the the building envelope correct all right even if it's an unroofed deck yes okay all
right so we'll just get rid of that recommendation okay and then the last change was to there's a section 28 that specifically talks about swimming pools
hot tubs and other water bodies and um it's just a clarification in 28b that swimming pools shall not be included in building coverage calculations so then it it ties back into what we changed in
27 so if people are only reading that section they'll know I think for good measure add the hot tub phrase and hot tub yeah yeah Rob's hot tub that was
nice all right so I will make those revisions um and then recirculate for the next meeting okay great anything further from the board on the uh
ordinance okay let's move on in our agenda then to memorializations and the first item under memorialization is uh Nick Valente uh this is Metropolitan wholesale 5 Newbridge road block 1303
lot 3 resolution granting uh variance relief draft of the resolution was to the board prior to this evening's meeting for review and open it to the board for comment or questions on the draft there being none I'll look for a
motion to approve the resolution move thank you Mr kigo is there a second second thank you Mr cier all right and I will only call those eligible um Mr casin
yes Mr Gibbons yes Mr feffer yes Mr Keno yes councilman glass yes Mr gotier yes and Mr Sala
yes okay the motion passes okay thank you uh the Gomez memorialization was not available for this evening's meeting so we will have that um at a meeting the next resolution is for the Rosen bam
yiva of North Jersey this is 666 kmck road block 616 l 9 a draft of the resolution was circulated prior to this evening's meeting for review open it to the board for comments or questions on the resolution I do have a couple comments
there were some revisions that I circulated today um that and there were a few that came recently um on page seven paragraph 40 there was a typo that referenced a sign
so I got rid of that um on page eight the condition the list of conditions under paragraph nine um it's nine sub paragraph B we're going to in I'm going
to make a revision to just say that applicant shall install a six foot high black aluminum fence which is what was testified to and um was on the record so just to make that in our resolution clear and then the one other change was
to 9 c um to include Street trees in the Landscaping um so it'll say the applicant shall install additional Landscaping parentheses Street trees evergreen or other similar all season
and plantings or trees um and Street trees were specifically mentioned in the motion um it didn't in the motion it wasn't uh wasn't specified exactly where those Street trees are going to be
planted but um because there had been discussion at the meeting about some at the North some at the South but that wasn't explicitly agreed to so we'll just keep it at Street trees and work with the board plan and burough professionals on where to plant those
I didn't we say there were going to be plantings though every other post yeah that's still in there so okay Landscaping no less than every other line post all right thank you and it should say along the kinderg
frontage Mar I also think you have to change the reference to shade tree committee I think yeah all right Marina one one other condition I just thought of I think they agreed to having no signage on the fence too and I
know that might be Overkill but just to sometimes what's that we discussed it did we I don't remember that but if they they would have to come back before the board if they they would have to submit a signage application anyways sometimes
there's banners and but oh that's true just let it go I think normally they have to submit a temporary sign permit with they're supposed to yeah yeah um okay so those were the the
changes okay with those revisions I'll look for a uh motion on the resolution please so moved Mr gibons thank you there a second second thank you Mr feffer M steinley okay and I'll again I'll only call those
eligible um Mi okay Miss band is abent uh Mr Gibbons yes Mr feffer yes councilman glass yes Mr
gotier yes and Mr Salva yes okay the motion passed good thank you very much that reaches the end of our agenda for the evening anything further from the board or our
professionals nope thank you okay with that I'll look for a motion to adjourn don't move thank you Mr feffer is there a second second thank you Mr cier all in favor I I any oppose Nam stay will we stay adjourned at 8:28 PM thanks
everyone appreciate the time night everyone night everyone take care