Good evening everyone. This is the meeting of the municipal land use board for the burough river bridge. Today's Wednesday, April 8th, 2026. >> Yes, >> that's right. >> This meeting of the municipalities board of the Burough River Edge is being held
both in person and remotely via Zoom in compliance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act and associated regulations. Notice of this hybrid meeting was published in the Bergen record, posted at Buffalo Hall, and posted on the burrow's website. The notice included the dial in 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 bureau's website near the posting of the meeting notice and included the dial in and login information. Kindly silence all cell phones at this time. During the public comment period of this meeting,
if you would like to make a public comment, you may step up to the microphone and wait to be recognized. You can press the raise hand button on Zoom or dial star9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand. You may mute and unmute yourself by pressing the microphone icon on Zoom or dialing star
six on your telephone keypad. You must state your name and address clearly prior to making a public comment. That I will ask call. >> All right. Mr. Mayor >> here. >> Mr. Kaslin >> here. >> Mr. Craig is excused. Miss Boland
>> here. >> Mr. Mr. Gibbons is excused and Mr. Kenigo is also excused tonight. Uh, Mr. Salva >> here, >> Mr. Goier >> here. >> Councilman Glass >> here. >> Miss Levy >> here.
>> Also present via Zoom. Our burough zoning officer, Mr. Dupkin. In person, uh, our B board engineer, Mr. Costa, and our recording secretary is on Zoom, Lisa. At this time, can I ask more President Chambers, please stand and
salute the flag. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.
At this time we have one item on of housekeeping I would ask Miss Steinley to address. Yes. One of the matters listed um application for Pacific Outdoor Advert Advertising LLC 14 Route 4 West block 1402 lot 4 for preliminary
and final minor site plan approval with use height and bulk variance relief to install and operate a two-sided static billboard will be carried to the May 13th meeting of the land use board without further notice. >> Okay. Thank you. And I'm sorry, Miss
Brown. >> Yes. All right. At this time, we'll move on our agenda. Under approval of minutes, we have a draft set of minutes from our February 11, 2026 meeting. A set of minutes was circulated to the board for review prior to this evening's meeting. I open it to the board for comments or
questions on draft minutes as provided. There being none, I will look for a motion to approve the minutes as presented. I did just have a couple um edits, just some typos and um just a
revision to state that notice uh that there was actual notice that the IAAT service application was carried on the record. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. So, with that that revision and revisions for typos, I'll look for a
motion to approve. Move. >> Thank you, Mr. Scott. Is there a second? >> Second. Thank you, Mr. >> Mr. Stala was um absent, I believe, at that meeting. >> Okay. >> Which meeting? >> The 11th.
>> At least that's what was indicated on the minutes. >> The one that just passed. >> No. >> Oh, on February 11th. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. >> Okay. Go was here. Um, it could be Mr. Mayor. >> Anyone else is eligible?
>> Uh, yeah. >> Yeah. >> Am I eligible? >> Yes, >> you are. >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> And then we can do voice vote. The only one that's not eligible is Mr. Sala. >> Okay. Um, so with the exclusion of Mr. Sal, all in favor? >> I.
>> I. Any opposed? Okay. Minutes are approved. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is for minutes for our February 25th, 2026 meeting. Draft set of the minutes was circulated for the board's review prior to this evening. I open it to the board
for comments or questions on the minutes as drafted. >> This one I also had just a few um typos, some spelling, nothing substantive. >> Okay. I had some as well. So I think we can we can give Lisa those.
All right. with the exception of some minor typo typographical revisions for a motion to approve the minutes. Anything on this one? >> Everyone is eligible. >> Everyone is eligible. >> Okay. They have Miss Bolan on first and
go on a second. Okay. >> All right. And we can do a voice vote. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. Any oppose? They abain. >> All right. >> Much next. Uh we do not have minutes available from our March 11th meeting. So, we'll continue on our agenda. Uh, we
also do not have a memorialization for IAT Services LLC. So, we'll continue on to completeness review. The applicant is Mr. and Mrs. P. Property is 283 Woodland Avenue, block
115, lot 10. Application for uh the installation of a new deck. So, uh, Mr. Deepkin. >> Yes, sir. Hello everyone. Um, yes, I I feel this is deemed uh to be complete uh and to be heard tonight.
>> Okay. Thank you, Miss Brown. >> Yes, I reviewed the proof submitted by the applicant uh prior to the meeting and found them to be sufficient for the board to have jurisdiction over the application tonight. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Costa. >> You can certainly go ahead, Mr.
Chairman. >> Okay. Questions from the board, comments from the board as to completeness. There being none, I will look for a motion to deem the application complete. >> So move. >> Thank you, M. Bolan. There second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Modia.
>> All right, Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kaslin. >> Yes. >> Miss Boland. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sava? Yes. >> Mr. Goautier. >> Yes. >> Councilman Glass. >> Yes. >> And Miss Libby. >> Yes. >> And um our alternate is eligible to vote
on the application tonight. >> Okay. >> So, the motion passes. >> Okay. Thank you. And we're going to move right into new business, which is the P application. Properties 283 Woodland Avenue, block 115 Lock 10. Application seeking variance approval for the
installation of a new deck. Uh, I believe we have the applicant this evening and their architect, Mr. Bruno. Good evening, Mr. Bruno. Welcome back. Um, take care of some formalities before you get started. >> I I do see that our image is frozen on
the Zoom. Okay, there we go. >> Now, we got it. >> Can you hear us, Lisa, still and Steve? Okay. Okay. All right. >> All right. So we can get I whoever's going to provide testimony, I'll swear you in. So if you please raise your
right hand. Do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Okay. And if you could turn the just press that button so that Yep. And then state your names, spell your last name, and provide your address for the record.
>> My name's Mary Powers. Um B O W E RF. And my address is 283 Woodland River. >> Thank you. >> And Mr. Bruno, and if you could use the handheld mic. I don't know if that's on,
but you'll have to press the button at the bottom. Or I mean, not at the bottom, on the side until it lights up green. There's a little >> Oh, it's I think it's on. There we go. >> Okay. Else J. Bruno. Um, Bru N 29 Pasc
Road, Park Ridge, New Jersey. >> And could you just provide the board with a brief background on your experience and lenture and if your license is current and in good standing? >> Yes, of course. I uh earned my Bachelor of Architecture degree from the School of Architecture at New Jersey Institute
of Technology in 1983. Boy, that was a long time ago. I was licensed in 1988 in New Jersey. My license is current. I U I've testified extensively as an expert witness in architecture throughout the state of New Jersey and
in in Riveridge on several occasions. >> Thank you. >> Any questions from the board as to those qualifications? >> Okay. What I'd like to do before I start, I just like to pass out a photograph of the um the rear of the home to give the
board a sense of the the context of the proposed deck. Yeah. >> Was this exhibit previously provided? in February 199. >> Do Do you have an electronic copy that
you could email >> to me? Could you do that? >> I could do that. >> Okay. Or in the morning or could you do it now so then we could >> No, not now. I don't >> have >> Okay. um >> just send it to Jessica in the morning. >> Yes. First thing. Uh so we're here this
evening. I'll just give you um the photograph I just um handed out to the board members is basically the uh the photograph I was standing in about the middle of the backyard looking back at the house and the um the area that's in
question is where that you see that double sliding door and the double window to the left of the sliding door um would be where the where the deck is. There were two uh two variances that were >> Sorry, I'm just going to mark this exhibit as A1. And it was it's two
sheets, one photo and a cover sheet um prepared by Mr. Bruno. And >> the date of the photo is that April 8th or >> I took it maybe um a little while before that, but the date of the uh preparation
of the um the exhibit is the 8th. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. the um so there there were two variances identified uh one is for uh building coverage at 30.58 we are existing at 25.03
um but um the on the application for improved lot coverage we were at 40.43 43. When I took the area of the deck, I did not take into account that the deck has got open joints and um pvious surface below. So, so I was able to
round I I was able to reduce the amount of imperous coverage um because your ordinance states that if there's open joints and the we have pvious um um ground surface below, we can only count
we only need count 25%. So that would that would reduce the um the imperous coverage to 36.28% where where 35% is permitted. The um the deck as we show is is 20 ft
wide 16 ft off the house with two staircases. As you can see in the photo, the um the the uh the deck is uh approximately 3 ft uh above the the the
adjacent ground. Um the Mr. and Mrs. powers as they get as as as they envision them envision themselves um staying in the home and growing old especially to um as the years go by and also they have older relatives now um to
converse the stairs to the yard would be of um of a of of you know a hindrance as they get older hence the the um the uh the elevated deck. I'd like to point out that if the if we did not do a deck and
we did the we did a um a uh a patio on grade the building coverage number would would be reduced but the impervious coverage would um the the impervious coverage would increase. And in this
case, what we're proposing is um is really the best of of of both worlds where where it's better from a drainage standpoint because the deck has got open joints with pvious surface below. And it also allows for for for safer and more
convenient usage of of outside recreation area or dining space and sitting, what have you, as the the homeowner ages. And with that, I would entertain I would love to answer any questions the board members may have.
>> Let me start with our start with our professionals. Mr. Deppkin, can I start with you, please? >> Uh, yes. Good. Uh, again, uh, good evening. Um, in my zoning letter of of denial. Um I listed um you know some of
the uh violations or uh things that didn't uh you know apply or weren't uh or over the maximum. Um but the fact that uh this house was built I think believe prior to the code changes um I
still put them into what the codes are asking for um you know at this at this moment. Um, but I would kind of eliminate the lot coverages uh for the amenities and so forth because of the reasons I stated. Uh, so it would
just be the building coverage. Um, the lot is uh narrow. Um, so I think that would be a hardship and the fact that uh, you know, the deck as the um, Mr. Bruno said uh is um more impervious more
pvious than say a patio. So, it would certainly help uh storm water management um to have the deck than than the patio. And just as an aside, just to uh to further my my testimony in in this in
the R1 zone, the required lot size is 7,500 square ft. We're at 6,000 square feet. So, it's really one of the one of the classic hardships. We have an undersized lot here. So, uh we we are already we're already a bit over on on
uh building coverage and just under um the the um the maximum permitted on impervious coverage. So, so I think we've we we've struck a a reasonably good balance um with the with the
proposal meaning the the deck with the open joints and the pvious surface below. >> Okay. Anything further, Mr. Jupkin? Uh, that's that's all I have. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Costa. >> Um, really no questions. Basically, you
take the uh the 75. >> Could you turn on your microphone? Sorry. >> Sorry. >> So, really what they're asking for and then just verify is 80 roughly 84 square feet if you take the reduction. >> Yes. >> B increase in right. >> Correct. And in the ordinance when we
changed the ordinance, the building coverage didn't coincide with the lot coverage. So you don't get a reduction for the building coverage. >> Correct. >> Only for the lot coverage. >> That's all. >> Okay.
>> Um >> could you just repeat what the new lot coverage percentage will be? Um, now that you've deducted the >> that would be 36.28. Let's round to 36.3
cuz it's 0.02 difference. So >> 36.3%. >> The lot coverage including the amenities. And then did you do a C? We have a separate calculation for lot coverage without the yard amenities. Is that still >> that? I think we could find in Mr.
Deppkin's letter here. Um >> see yard amenities >> be 33.47 as what is existing >> right 3.4% for the amenities >> okay yes so 3 point oh
>> oh no I'm sorry lot coverage is um is well 33.4 for with the um without the amenities. >> Okay. So that's not unchanged. >> We're reducing it because the the total is being reduced to 36.3.
>> Okay. Just just to clarify. So very simple existing lot coverage with the amenities. >> No Rob >> sorry is 2000 293.
So if you take the percentage deduction you got to add 84 square feet to that I believe or 88 square feet. Correct Joe? Is that the arithmetic you're doing? >> Yeah 84 square feet we add. And I think that's what Marina is asking for,
>> right? We're adding because right now the um we've got 1502 which is the um which which is the building um which is the building coverage and then we would take 84 for the the deck because we get the 75% reduction
because the area the area of the deck and stair is 333 ft. Okay. Further, Mr. Costa, >> I'm just doing the arithmetic just to make absolutely sure. Goodness. I don't Maybe I'm doing something wrong,
>> but I think it only comes up to 34. >> Yeah. What's the lot? >> 89 6,000 6,000 ft. >> Okay. So, 36.2. So the existing lot coverage with the yard amenities is 293. Add if you add the 84 it comes to a
total of 2,177. >> 2,177 divided by 6,000 I came up with 36.2. So 36.3 >> and then >> the checks. >> We also would you would just want to continue the lot coverage excluding yard
amenities of 33.47%. 47%. That's going to remain unchanged. >> That will remain unchanged. Yes. >> So that'll just be a continu continued, >> right? So we um we essentially by um you know I just redid the calculation for
the the the improved lot coverage because we get the 75% um benefit on the um with the the deck with the open joints and the pvious sectors below. Okay. >> And the building coverage request is
30.58%. >> I had that 30 point. Yes. 30.58. >> Okay. All right. Perfect. I think I have all those. >> Okay. Scott, anything further? I'm just for some reason either my calculator is not
working or maybe I'm doing something incorrect. The current is 34.88, right? >> The current um improved lot coverage. Yeah. Total is 34.88, >> right? So you're adding 84 divided by
6,000. 01 >> because I have 591 for the uh >> I get 30 3489. So, you wouldn't require a variance >> for the improved lot coverage.
>> Correct. But I thought you said you needed a variance for 36%. >> Yeah, because I have the I have the um the the 1502 for the building. We got 1,353 for the the um footprint of the of the house. We have 85 square feet for
the footprint of the shed. We have 64 square feet for the existing front stair and platform. And then and then when we do the improved lot coverage calculation, we have 591 for the driveway. So if I take the 1502 plus the 84, which
is 25% of the deck and add the 591 for the the driveway, that's where I come up with 2,177 divided by 6,000. Mathematically, it comes up to 36.28. I just rounded to 36.3.
In any event, I think that comes up to um a a higher number than you're coming up with and for the purpose of the proceedings tonight, I think it's safer to go with the >> All right. 36 You're I apologize. 30 your numbers now that you're
>> 36.3. Yes. >> Okay. Sorry. >> No, that's okay. And I think even if we still disagreed with your number being lower, it's safer to go with the higher number for the purposes of the board. >> Question.
>> Okay, let me uh go around here if I Mr. Salva. >> I have no questions. >> Thank you, sir. >> No questions. >> Mr. Ma'am, >> uh given the um the pre the lot size uh being smaller than normal, given the uh
minimalistic changes to uh the approved uh to over the approved lot coverage. Um I have no concerns. >> Councilman, >> two questions. Are there any if ever any flooding
issues in and around this property in the backyard? >> Well, the owner would be able to answer that. I couldn't So, we been there for three years. >> Sorry. I'm sorry, Mr. P. You'd have to come up to the microphone. Yeah.
Um, no, we haven't had we're at the like the corner of Woodland and uh Fifth Avenue, which is higher than the rest of it. But also, we have had um we built the house a few years ago, so we got those um tanks in the backyard. So, all of our water from the house runoff all
goes into the tanks in the backyard. But no, we have not had any. >> Right. And second and last question, where are there some people call them leaders, some people call them downspouts. Are there any in the back of
the house that are going to be impacted by the deck location? No, because in the um >> was the water from the back of the lake >> the uh well the left hand on the left hand side of the photograph you're going
to see the in the lower left hand near the lower leftand corner you'll see the kick out for that and then then from the other then the photograph just is cut off to the right. So there's so so none of the uh rainwater downstairs will be >> um impacted by the location of the deck
and even even if they were the they would just be be brought through through the deck to terminate where they do now >> but we don't need to worry about that because they're not being impacted by the deck. >> Terrific. Thank you, >> Miss Bowen. >> Nope. I agree with the mayor's comments. >> Okay, Miss Lavine.
>> No questions. >> Okay. I just have a couple questions. Um, can you just repeat? I think you mentioned in your testimony. What's the height of the the deck? >> It's less than, let's see, u I'll just count one, two, it's about 40 inches
above the grade. Each each one of these risers, we we we've got five risers. Each riser is 8 in maximum. >> Okay. And the it's a wood deck, I think, was in your application. >> It's a wood frame deck, and we'll have some sort of a a synthetic um deck
surface with open joints between. Okay. >> And the underneath the deck is is going to remain open. You just got footings that are supporting the >> footings. And then we we we would normally do a um do a um a a a gravel
ground cover over um a filter fabric which will prevent weeds from growing up through but allows water to um to drain through it. So we're not creating a an impervious surface. >> Okay. And is the shed staying going? Is
it? >> Um I believe the shed is staying. Yeah. >> Okay. Because >> and that's included in all the populations. >> Okay. It's just not shown on the >> It's just not shown. >> Yeah. Okay. I just want to make that make that clear. Um and in the rear of the yard, is there a fence? >> Yeah.
>> Roughly heightwise. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We did apply for it through the town. So it was approved. I want to say >> I want to say it might be six, but we just got it put in a few years ago. >> Okay. Okay. Very good. That's all the questions I have. Um,
at this point, I'll look for a motion to open to the public. We have anybody? >> Let's see. >> There are some attendees. So, if you >> Oh, yeah. Okay. This point motion open to the public. >> So moved.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, council. All in favor? I >> I opposed. Same stand. At this time, we're open for comment only on the application for 283 Woodland Avenue. If you are in attendance, we have no one
here live, but if on Zoom, if you wish to be heard on this application and this application alone, kindly raise your hand on Zoom. >> Okay. doesn't look like. >> We'll we'll take that as a as a no. All right. At this time, I'll look for a motion to close to the public.
>> So move. So move. >> I have Mr. Mayor and a first. Mr. Gary, a second. All in favor? >> I post name. >> We're now closed to the public for comment. At this time, I'll look for any final comments, questions from either the board or our professionals.
The only comment or question I had was that you would just confirm with the burough engineer that whatever is below the the deck surface is acceptable permeable material. >> Absolutely. >> I think that was the only
comment I had. >> Okay. Anything further from the board? >> Okay. This time I'll look for a motion on the application, please. >> So moved. Well, move to approve. >> All right. Move to approve.
>> Move to approve the application. Okay. That council be a second. >> M Brown, you're ready. >> All right. Mr. Mayor, >> yes. >> Mr. Kaslin, >> yes. >> Miss Boland, >> yes. >> Uh, Mr. Sa, >> yes. >> Mr. Goier, >> yes. >> Councilman Glass,
>> yes. >> Miss Leavine, >> yes. >> All right, the motion passes. >> Congratulations. >> Congratulations. >> All right. Thanks for doing the right thing and bringing us stuff. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Best of luck for you. Leave deck. At
this point on our agenda, we have nothing further. Um unless anybody on the board specialists have anything. At this time, I'll look for a motion to address. >> So move. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Thank Councilman. All in favor? >> Any oppos? Any abstain? Saras >> it was for the central