Call the meeting to order. Good evening everyone. Time now is 7:33 p.m. This is the meeting of the municipal land use board of the Burough River Edge for Wednesday, March 11th. Um I realized I don't have the you have the open public.
>> Yes. This meeting of the municipal land use 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 on at burough hall and posted on the burough's website. The
notice included the 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 burough's website near the posting of the meeting notice and included the dial and login information. Please si silence all cell phones during the public
comment period of this meeting. If you'd like to make a public comment, you may step up to the microphone and wait to be recognized by the chair. 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 prior to making a public comment. Okay, >> thank you very much. With that, I ask everyone to please stand. Mr. Sal, would you lead us, please?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to ask that we call the role, please. >> Uh, yes. Thank you. Mr. Mayor >> here. >> Mr. Kaslin >> here. >> Mr. Craig >> here. >> Miss Boland is absent at the moment. Mr.
Gibbons >> here. >> Mr. Kenigo >> here. >> Mr. Salva >> here. >> Mr. Goier >> here. >> Uh, Councilman Glass is excused. >> And Miss Lavine >> here. >> Also present. Um, we have our via Zoom
our zoning officer, Mr. Dupkin, our in person, our board planner, Mr. Barren, our board engineer, Mr. Costa, and our conflict council, Miss Federico. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Our first agenda item this evening is under
approval of minutes. We have a set of minutes from our meeting of January 28th, 2026. Draft set was circulated to the board for review prior to this evening and open it to the board for comments or questions on the draft minutes as presented.
Oh, I did I had um made some edits that I will share with Lisa. Um just that the noting down who made the motions for the approval of the minutes um or the January 14th minutes um and then
the memorializations that occurred at the January 28th meeting, but and then just a few little typos, but everything else was um the same. >> Okay. With those changes, look for a motion to approve the minutes.
>> So moved. Thanks. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Gibbons. >> And everyone is eligible except for Mr. Mayor and Mr. Castlin. So, we can do a voice vote. >> Okay, those abstensions noted. All in favor?
>> Any opposed? >> Thank you very much. Uh we do not have minutes at this time for February 11 or February 25. So we will continue on our agenda under discussion items. We have our master plan consistency
review of a proposed uh amendment to the zoning ord >> I think you have to press and hold the there's a button on the top of the microphone just till it turns green. I didn't check that one. >> Yeah, it's illuminated. Can you hear me
now? >> Okay. All right. Uh, good evening. Um, do I need to be sworn? >> No, it's not public here. No. >> Good evening. >> Well, you've been previously sworn and you're still under oath.
I'm last name EPs plan merch associates we've assisted the bureau addressing his fourth term program obligation part of that process the state has required that municipalities not all
implementing ordinances no later than the 15th of this year so we are on track to comply with that requirement so the council uh previously introduced several uhh ordinances that are uh mentioned in town burrows
housing on the fair share plan. Uh one has to do with amending several of the burrow's existing affordable housing sites as well as the creation of two new affordable housing overlay zones. I suppose I should start with that ordinance first. Uh so again, this ordinance amends the burrow's um
existing zoning ordinance. Um, one, it amends the burrow's existing new bridge landing train station redevelopment area by simply increasing the maximum permitted density there in accordance with the burrow's mediation agreement
with the fair share housing center. The second has to do with increasing the density at what what's referred to as the affordable housing one overlay zone which encompasses the site uh which includes the existing DP gas station the
uh existing golf simulator facility as well as the plant retail store on Newbridge Road. Um that existing ordinance will remain intact. Again the only change there is an increase in density. Um the third change to an existing zone has to do with these are
multif family and senior conditional use districts which is on the east side of Kendrick Road between Holland Avenue and Reservoir Avenue. There is no change to the actual zoning. There's just a change to the minimum required affordable housing set aside. um where with our own
like most other municipalities in the forground have required the um all rental projects that they uh the affordable set aside has been increased from 15% 20%. And again that's an increase that we've seen sort of
uniformly applied municipal across the state and then finally there are two new um affordable housing all the way zones that are being created. One is at the north end of town which is being referred to I believe as the affordable housing three overlay zone. And just to
be clear, what an overlay zone means is that the underlying commercial zone will remain in place, but that the overlay zone creates a new um optional zoning framework because the borrow is responsible for creating the opportunity not not to make the development happen or select the developer but create the
opportunity through zoning and that site essentially encompasses the existing Riverdale station and adjacent Verizon property. uh it creates the condition where the site can be developed with either multif family or mixed use framework of 15 units per acre contain
the height that's already prescribed the underlying commercial zone and again that's a new zone as part of the settlement fair housing center and then finally the new zone that's being created at the south end of town uh essentially exists on the south side of
four with frontage on Johnson That site would allow for a multif family development that four stories for you in recognition that that site presents a new development office that was
identified through the state process with fair. So that's a summary of the ordinance changes with respect to sight specific affordable housing sites. Um, I'll note that all of them are specifically
identified in the amended housing out fair share plan that this board adopted at its last meeting and by virtue of being included in that plan, I would uh offer that that ordinance is specifically or substantially consistent with the burrow's concept plan and also
the burrow's goals of uh including sites that are in need of redevelopment as well as providing first housing. So the task for the board should you want to break it down ordinance by ordinance or Yeah. So pausing on that ordinance. The task of the master plan consistency review for the board is one to identify
any provisions of an ordinance that are deemed to be inconsistent with the master plan in any way and also you can offer any recommendations from the mayor council. So subsequent to this master plan consistency at the council meeting tomorrow night presumably these
ordinances will be adopted as well. Okay. And >> and I think it's just one consolidated ordinance even though it's but it's doing all of those things that Tom described >> the development ordinance. There is one or two other there's the general affordable housing ordinance as well as the development.
>> But the only one that we're reviewing for consistency is this one. But yes, but there are other related ordinances that the bureau is going to. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. questions from the board comments.
>> So, we would just need a motion um that the ordinance is not inconsistent >> with the master plan. >> Okay. I just have a couple of small edits from what we've seen before we take a motion. The there's reference in
uh third and fourth recital to the River Edge Planning Board. I think just a technical change. it does refer to us as the land use board later on. So, we just need to change in those those couple places any place else that happens to appear. So, with those minor edits, um I
will look for a motion to deem the ordinance not inconsistent with our master plan. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Modia. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Kigo. >> All right, Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kassel? >> Yes. >> Mr. Cray?
>> Yes. Mr. Gibbons, >> yes. >> Mr. Kenigo, >> yes. >> Mr. Salva, >> yes. >> Mr. Gotier, >> yes. >> And Miss Levine, >> yes. >> Okay, the motion passes. >> Okay, thank you very much. >> Uh, at this we have no uh nothing under
memorialization this evening. So, at this time, I'm going to ask for a uh brief recess to allow uh the mayor to uh depart and just to organize ourselves for the rest of the agenda. So can I have a motion to we'll it's 7:45 uh take
a five minute recess. Have a motion please. >> Thank you Mr. Craig. Second. >> Second. >> All in favor. Any oppose? Any abstain? >> Thank you all. See, I don't I try to be the first thing in the morning because I really I just I
can't do it at night. >> It just doesn't work. >> Me, too. >> I got to be there. >> Or I'll go right after work. >> You know what I mean? Right. >> Yeah. If I wait until >> we go I was in the city.
So >> small not as many let's get started. I'm gonna call the meeting. >> Reconvening the meeting. It's now 7:48 p.m. Good evening. Um, just call the
roll quickly. >> Um, Chair Cass, >> yes, here. >> Michael Cray >> here. >> Uh, Ryan Dolan, >> absolutely. Brian Gibbons >> here. >> Dario >> here.
>> George. >> George. Salvia. >> Mr. Salvia. >> Salva. Mr. Salva >> here. >> Joseph Gudia >> here. >> Tracy Lane >> here. >> Okay. And for the record, we have our
planner, Mr. Barren, our engineer, Mr. Costa, and uh on Zoom is Mr. Depth in the zoning officer. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. All right. At this time on our agenda, we're going to move into the completeness review section.
The for application the applicant is Pacific Outdoor Advertising LLC. Property is 14 Route 4 West. This is block 1402 block 4. Applications seeking preliminary and final minor site plan approval with use
height and bulk variance relief to install and operate a two-sided static billboard. We'll turn to our council. And >> so we did re We did review the notice that was um published and mailed and it was
sufficient so the board has jurisdiction to hear this matter. >> Thank you very much Mr. Barren. >> Good evening. I if you want to sit down I'm going to just go through a couple notes and then we can talk about it. I think that's probably >> we'll come back. We we'll do completeness first and we'll come back to you. >> So we're just merely reviewing
completeness and um as far as I understand the application is for the installation of a billboard and no other um site improvements. So my my review will be based on recognition of that that fact. Um so I'm just going to identify what I believe are technical waiverss that the applicant should
probably request and and the board can consider again in in light of the nature of the application. Um it which included in the submitt of the application forms, supplemental information as well as a revised site plan and property survey I
believe. Um, and so as far as completeness items, just identifying rather questioning some of the checklist items that I'm not sure um whether or not a they're applicable or if they've been provided. I'll I'll list them and then give the applicant an opportunity
to respond if that works. Okay. So, the first being just a uh an accurate description of existing and proposed uses. That'd be one. Um the second pertaining to and this is just literal technical compliance from the checklist.
Um pertaining to the size, location, parking bays and aisle dimensions. So I while I recognize this is for a billboard, I believe the site has some existing non-conforming conditions um which may pertain to the parking area. Um,
second is the location and direction of all illumination and time of proposed outdoor lighting including all standards and utility poles. Um, so recognizing that they did submit a light study, but I don't believe that light study has
property lines. So whether at some at some point I think it'd be expected that they provide that level of analysis. So, uh, we can ascertain whether or not the foot candles at the property line have been, uh, are are conforming. Um,
bear with me while I I go down my list here. Uh, we we address the use thing. This is similar to parking. This is just reference to the number of parking spaces for the uses. Again, it fully recognized the billboard does not generate parking. It looks like part of the base might or might not impact the
existing parking area. Uh the applicant identified that Bergen County site plan is not approval. Uh approval is not required. I don't know the answer to that. So that's just a question for the applicant. Um again, number of parking spaces required and provided. Uh one
technical compliance matter has to do with uh the depiction of topography within 30 ft. I'll note that a no landscaping is proposed where landscaping plan is uh technically required. Fully appreciating
that it is a billboard application. Um uh no plans for the existing building which is not proposed to be uh improved at all. Uh and that's it.
>> So what is that? So, those are the items that I believe um either either may not be applicable or have not been submitted. And I think the applicant technically has to request a waiver and the board would then it it's the board's discretion whether or not to grant the waiver to determine the application
complete. >> Okay. Mr. Costa, >> again, I don't know if you want to go one by one what Tom just said, but that's probably the best other board. >> We could do that, too. I was going to get on the table at that. That's preferable. Okay. Mr. Go around the uh
Mr. Salva, we start with you. >> Uh no comments. >> Okay. Modier. >> No comments. Mr. >> Gibbons, >> no comments. Good. >> Mr. Diggo, >> no comment. >> Okay. >> That's I mean that's how I would I would
go for. So basically what my recommendation need >> not used to coming to the big table. the um what I would do, Mr. Chairman, other boards that I represent, if you want to talk about completeness, you go through the checklist, which
if we weighed this, it would be a couple of pounds. Uh there's X's and there's check marks. And I think what Tom just brought up is the stuff that they requested, not applicable. So, you can go through it one by one. You can certainly do that. My recommendation say and then the board could say, "We want
that information. You're incomplete." or you can provide it at a at a future point and we can go forward. But again, it's up to the discretion of the board and it's up to the applicant to request it and let him put his arguments on the on the record.
>> Would you can I guys speak on the issue? >> You can speak on it. >> Yes. Thank you. We as far as some of these items will certainly be addressed during testimony. We do, you know, I believe we we will request a waiver at this stage, but we do believe we'll be able to answer most of those questions through the testimony of the experts
here tonight. And uh I know some of the issues I think there is just maybe a misunderstanding about the current uses of the property. I believe we did disclose to office buildings being utilized there and the parking and issues can we, you know, we have a plan. I don't believe that parking may be
striped, but we'll have testimony from the engineer as to that. >> Okay. Well, what is what's what is there if to the chair? >> From my understanding, it's an architect. >> An architect and uh is it like a
>> Yeah, astrology. I don't really >> The reason the the question was raised and and I did raise it as a uh an item to be confirmed and whether or not the is because um one of the forms in the application packet had a signature of a name that resides at the property. He he
yeah he is the owner and his office is there. So >> So nobody lives there. >> He doesn't live there. >> And I I would just casual observation that there are at least two vehicles that tend to be there at all hours of the day almost every day. And that's just a casual observation. So I I mean it's your put it on the
record because it's not permitted that there's no residential use there. >> Do you have that information available? I believe the engineer can testify to it too, but I I the owner is not here and I don't believe I mean I would I'm under the impression it's his architectural office is located on site.
>> I I don't my client is here who may have a better understanding of what it is, but I don't believe anybody lives there. I I mean the reason we're here for a use fair application obviously, right? So >> whether or not there are other existing non-conforming uses is relevant. >> It is relevant. Yeah, I agree.
Tom, >> I think from your notes it there had been a change to make it non-residential some time ago. You originally had residential. >> So the history of the site, as far as I'm aware, there's a structure that looks like at one point in time had been a house and within the last two decades,
I believe it was reszoned into the C1 zone >> for uh commercial off professional office use, I guess. And at that point, my understanding is that residential use of the property had been abandoned and it was used as such and therefore to re to use it again for residential purposes
would require use fairings. >> We Joe Donado is the architect and we're told that's his office operating there, not his he doesn't live there. >> And what about the other office again through the chair? >> That is the astrology and I don't believe they live there. I have no
reason to believe they do. Well, it's it's either a yes or I mean it's a simple thing. >> I don't personally know the answer to that. >> So then who knows the answer then? Sir, >> well if I may. >> Can you come forward? Come forward.
>> I'll get a little more interest. >> And I'm going to just swear you in. If you could raise your hand. >> Do you swear affirm that any testimony you're about to give is the truth. The whole truth nothing the truth. What's that? I do. >> And if you could state your name and spell your last name for the record. Joseph Jacobs, JAC OBS.
>> And just your address, please. >> 23 Wendy Drive, Lynwood, New Jersey. >> Okay. >> I can state that no one lives at the property. It's used as an office. You have an architect and you have an astrology astrologologist and but no one
lives there at all. It's not used as a residential home at all. It's used solely for an office >> for so you have an architect in in part of the building and you have an astrologologist astrologer in the other part. Okay.
>> And do what are their hours of operation? Generally >> normal business hours. >> Okay. And you guys you have any questions for the questions for the >> No, the only question I have but >> you're the owner of the property or the applicant? >> I'm an applicant. >> Oh,
>> okay. So, how do you have knowledge of of what >> I've been inside the building and and I've spoken to the owner many many years ago. It may have been a residential property. The property has since been zoned uh commercial. No one lives in the
property at all. >> Okay, I paused. I thought you were the owner. My my >> Have you been in both offices? >> Excuse me. >> Have you been in both offices? >> I have not been in the astrologous office. I've been in the architect's
office, but I've been throughout the building. Uh, and clearly no one lives there. >> The only thing I'd like to offer to the board is what they're proposing tonight is for the billboard. And while the uses that may be going on there, they're
stipulating that it's it's there's no one living there. Then as Mr. Deppkins on like that becomes an enforcement issue. You're not by doing any taking any action on this application. If there is some use there that's not legal, you're not approving
that tonight. So there is a stipulation on the record that there's no residential use happening here. Mr. Deepkin certainly can enforce that and any approval or action tonight would not approve any illegal use there. So just
so you have some comfort. >> I I would just offer again that I I appreciate that's what they put on the record. So it's on the record. Um but again there there's a use variance being requested. So that that is the the genesis of the question. >> How is it binding if it's on the record
but he's not the owner? >> Um well it's it's the applicant >> well I don't know if it's binding but the resolution would be binding. But does the does the use variance that they're seeking apply to the use of the of the structure?
>> We will stipulate that absolutely we are not seeking any use variance for the structure for the existing structure. >> Is that that's your concern? Is that something? >> Well, just to consider the totality of everything because it relates to the parking and you know just to know what
not to make a mountain out of a a molehill but just to know what's there and what's proposed. That's it. I mean, we have the zoning officer. I don't know if there's ever been any complaints about or I about this property. >> We'll get to Mr. Dean in a second. Let me just make sure Mr. Baron's concerns.
>> I again, I I want the point, but that that was the the nature of the question. >> Can't the owner testify? I mean, is >> the owner's not here. >> I understand he's not here, but I mean, >> we could ask for confirmation, I suppose, at some point. >> We can Well, yeah, I think we can address that probably through testimony.
Once you get to that point soon, we deem the application complete at this point. So, um, so we have to take action on the other way at this time. >> Yeah, I would address waiverss. >> So, you've Mr. Barren is has articulated the waivers. Um, and I assume those are
items that you would be seeking waiver from. >> Yeah, we would if there are requirements, we certainly are seeking the waiverss from the board. >> Okay. So is board clear exactly on what what is is the discussion at hand that there are certain things within the checklist that the applicant is not
satisfied that may or may not be applicable to these applications and the request is being made that we wave those requirements um to the extent that they do apply. Let I off I'll give my two I know I've been talking a lot so far. Um but I I
think at some point whether the application proceeds or not again that that question of illumination is going to have to be confirmed given the adjacent uses again the location and direction of illumination because the burrow has standards about illumination of property lines. So that has to be
confirmed. Um, and then finally, while billboards don't generate parking, I think having an understanding of the characteristics of the site as well as any existing non-conforming conditions is is relevant to the application because I assume your planner is going
to go into site suitability and that whether or not there's a relationship. >> I just want to be clear, we we certainly want to provide testimony to all these items and we're not asking for, >> you know, them to be. So instead of asking them for them to be waved, I think what you're saying is you'd like
to be able to provide them >> to be deemed complete provided not, you know, not to wave them for the uh application. >> So can we conditionally deem them complete with those uh with those outstanding? >> There's no
>> There you go. >> That's green. You're good. >> You're good. >> So there's no obligation to just grant all the waiverss. And if you grant some of the waiverss and want to proceed, you're not you can condition it on them providing other items to your
satisfaction. So if they don't if they don't address all the items you want in testimony, you can certainly have them come back and provide whatever additional items you want. >> Okay. I mean certainly the items from my perspective and I'll I welcome the board's input on. I mean the items that
Mr. Baron has articulated some of them. I would think I in my mind what I heard are are substantive in nature. So um I would be comfortable conditionally approve you know um assuming we hear the rest from from the rest of our professionals. But on this particular
point um you know an obligation to to supplement the application with the missing materials um I would think would be acceptable but I open it to the board for discussion. Why >> why wasn't this provided in the first place? There's a there was a some of them we
don't believe are applicable to this application and that was our position. But if the board wants them, we certainly and they were brought up in the review correspondence. We provide testimony as to whether they apply or do not apply in this case and how you know we will try to address all the comments. >> Right? Let's let's come so let's come
back to this. Why don't we go one more thing because >> the survey confidence >> I'm sorry >> I didn't see the green light you asked for also you're saying none or
not applicable that's on page 18 of the uh checklist >> yes >> for specifically to what the whether we provided a >> well reference to any existing covenant deed restrictions, easements, exemptions that are in effect or intended to cover
all or any of the site, copy of the deeds, copy of the covenants, easements, exceptions, so on and so forth. >> I believe we didn't identify any covenants effect. >> Here's the issue. >> Mhm. >> Um
survey from if you read the notes Yeah. You go to number five if you want to start at the bottom and work your way up. Survey performed without the benefit of a complete title search and subject to municipal restrictions, easements of record and other facts that a title
search may disclose. So basically your surveyor is saying I don't know because I don't have the information. You put none or not applicable. I do believe I mean I do a lot of survey and real estate transactional work that is
pretty much standard on all the surveys unless rarely are they provided with a full >> Do you have title? >> I believe our client did and I believe there are no easements. We we you know >> it's it's simple. You need the schedule B, right? You've done title. >> Do you have the schedule B?
>> I I don't have it on me. No. >> Does your client have the schedule B? I don't I don't think he does, >> but I do believe we have looked at it and didn't identify any easements of record. >> But was the title report run the title search?
>> I I I don't know. But I don't it it would you know they go back for however long. I don't know. I I don't have any reason to believe there's any recent easements or restrictions placed in >> as a owner of billboards, developer of
billboards, and a lawyer representing billboard companies. I've been involved in probably a few hundred billboard applications in New Jersey around the country. I've never once had a title search. The landlord in our lease has
indicated that there are no easements or restrictions or anything of the life that would interfere with a billboard use of this property. So, I'm proceeding at my own risk. The only time that I've ever had an issue, quite frankly, is with the state of New Jersey, which had
a restriction, and they subsequently gave me the approval. That's the only time ever in over a 100 applications that I've been involved in. So, the owner has indicated that there's nothing that prohibits this use by way of an easement or restrictive covenant or
anything of the like. It's me proceeding at my own risk because if that were the case, then I would be I would be harmed. >> If it's all well and good, if I may, >> but it's a requirement again. That's a requirement under the checklist
>> and we we I if they don't exist I don't know how we could submit them. >> Well, you could provide that schedule. >> You can provide the schedule from a title which would show any of the easements. Your surveyor is saying he doesn't have it. I I and I think one of the uh not a regular one of the unique
aspects of the property is its current shape which resulted from a not a not a taking but a uh part of the roadway being absorbed by the New Jersey Transit. So that there is a history there >> right that it's not an an existing lot of record without
>> uh prior impact but we I mean we've heard the testimony. I guess the request is for the schedule B right to confirm that. >> Yeah. And that that could be there's no issue. We can make a condition of approval. We'll provide. >> Well, it's not up to it's up to this provider before they take action. >> Right. >> Okay.
>> So, a condition of them deeming you complete. That's one of the items that they're especially flagging in addition to the items that have been raised that they want additional testimony on like the lady for instance that they may ask for additional documentation. But definitely the schedule fee would be one
item that um I I think I can confidently say that's an item they'd want to have before they take action so you could bring it for the next meeting. >> Good. Mr. Cost, anything further up from your >> No, I think that's it. Thank you.
>> Okay, Mr. Debkin. >> Yes. Good evening. Thank you, Chairman. Um I agree with um Mr. Barren's. Uh I think the fact that this property is adjacent to uh residential zone uh requires uh some more information. Um
and on the u item of um you know occupancy uh I can set up an inspection um with my office to uh uh go and take a look at the property. >> Okay. At this time, are you aware of any
other uses aside from the uses that you're in terms of the what's been presented to us tonight by way of testimony, the astrologer and the architect? >> I don't recall receiving any information on this property. I think the only thing that we had was was it in the C1 zone? I
I guess we don't have an updated map and we went through that and uh it turned out that it wasn't a C1 zone but no no positive or negative comments for that property uh have been u sent to my
office. Okay. All right. Turn to the board. Comments, questions? do our prof I mean it's it seems like these are things that can be provided so we don't necessarily need to continue to
have >> um sorry I'll start over it does it doesn't seem like these are things that necessarily need to be had right this second I know we've had lots of other delays with other applications do we feel that these are things that we can
at least move on and get later or do we really think that these are things that we absolutely have to have to start this entire application. >> Worst case scenario where they're proposing the billboard that has some sort of a restriction, you can't put it
there. They proceed and next week or next month or the month after they find out there's an easement, there's a pipe, there's something. Basically, it's a waste of your time as volunteers. It's a waste of their money because they haven't done the diligence
to figure that out. They're saying they have and they have it, but in essence, they don't. Now, you would think they would do their diligence. Their engineer would have done his diligence to make sure there's nothing there that would impact it, but they haven't provided the information.
And from what I'm getting on the record, I know you did a 100 billboards according to your testimony, but do we care about 100 billboards or do we care about the one billboard that's confirmed the board this evening? That's the reality. I've seen a lot of things in my career.
Where it is, who I don't know. I know DOT has been working underneath that bridge right next to them >> for months upon months upon months. What's there, what utilities are there, I don't know. >> Okay. Mr. Barren, from their perspective.
Well, certainly we don't have enough information that for the board to make a conclusive decision if the application were to proceed. I I I mean I we identified a couple pieces of critical information. Um and I I mean the applicant, but I I
don't know. I feel the onus I think is on the How are you going to address these outstanding items and and in the course of your presentation? >> We could test them. We will if we were allowed to proceed tonight. We you know the board does not have to vote. we could come back and provide you with the information that was requested, but I do
believe some of the stuff will certainly be addressed or testimony of the engineer. >> I'm just looking at it that we're all here if it's not terrible that we proceed tonight and not go home and start over in two weeks. If they have to
come back in two weeks and say they weren't able to comply with what we need, then we don't come back in two weeks. Just generally how I'm looking at it. if it's something that's not that we can at least wait for answers for. It's just so we
don't go home to do this all over again. >> And and that's I would just request any information is provided with ample time for >> for the board and professionals to review and make an informed uh opinion on. >> Yeah. I I from my perspect I'm inclined to if we can get them complete
conditioned upon supplementing with the missing information between now and the next meeting for us to to begin to look at this you know >> yeah I mean I do know the easement stuff will be easy you know that will be quick it's there either are an easement if there are then we could call back and
show where they are and describe what what and give testimony that such but we don't believe there are any >> I think given the time constraints like the sooner you get any information provided to board and they could start reviewing that. >> It's great. >> Yeah. I don't want to make this
simple if it's not, but unless I'm utterly mistaken. Completeness review is for us to have all the information we need to be able to make a decision. That doesn't exist. So, how do we sit here and say your
application is complete when in fact it's not? I mean, it's that's pretty simple. U if it's not, tell me what I'm missing. I'll go a step further and say that this is not the first applicant. It's not
your fault, but it's not the first applicant that comes before this board with incomplete paperwork. And then we're left to say we're going to wave it and uh we'll come back and we'll get it later. But, you know, two weeks or a month or two months later, you start forgetting this stuff. It's better. Like, I take time to review all this
stuff beforehand so that I'm prepared and I can ask questions and I can listen to everything that's going on and be able to make a a decision. To say to me, you're going to get part of it now and part of it later and we'll try to find it and then maybe we'll change things around if if uh it turns out that it's
different than what we thought. Just seems like a waste of our time. But I'll do whatever wants. I'm here. >> I have a question. So, everything you say article five right so the the items the checklist items when you say none are NA right so to the
extent that uh you know you're you're the applicant feels that it's not applicable wouldn't they have the burden to establish the reason why it's not applicable right so so it's not just because we
don't want to assume that you're just going to fill in the blanks right if if they're these are not going to be applicable though. We're going to need >> a thorough enough uh explanation, right, as to why they're not applicable. >> Maybe it would be helpful to go one by one. >> Yeah. >> If you want to address each one and
provide the testimony and if they don't feel it's sufficient, >> it's not sufficient. But that might be helpful. >> At least we can figure out what we >> which ones they want. >> Yeah. And um they're they're not numbered. Um, and the the identification uh didn't have to do with whether or not
they were identified as yes or no, just simply whether or not they were actually prepared or not. Um, and so beginning on page 13 of your application, and I'll wait till you get there. It's uh top says River Edge Land Board checklist, site plan. It's
>> I think page 14 of your application packet. >> 14. Okay. >> Um, says 13 on the bottom, though. >> I'm just I'm looking at a PDF. Oh, okay. Yeah. >> 14 to 43. >> Let me know when you're you're good. >> I'm I'm here. >> All right. I'm just going to skip around
the best I can because again, these are not numbered. First issue identified had to do with use. And I will get to it's not on that first page. I believe it's on the second page. Bear with me while I
zone boundaries. number and type of proposed uses to occupy the building. I think that could be translated to mean site. Um that's in the middle of pa what's page 14 of the the checklist. That's where the use one
of the use questions come from. Um there is then ah bear with me. Uh it has to do with the parking was the second one identified. Oh. Uh, I'll go them in the order that I come upon. >> Which page you on? Just so
>> page 14. In the middle of page 14 of there's a there's it's numbered 14 at the bottom. >> In the middle, it says number and type of proposed uses to occupy the building. Granted, this is a billboard, but I
think that means sight and in the context >> that that would be pro we in our mind it was the billboard is the building. >> I get it. We could provide testim. We believe we could address that through the test. >> I'm just this is just super technical. What's been provided? What hasn't been
provided? I'm not taking a position one way or the other. >> Um I'm moving to the next page now. Um, location. We have the location toward the bottom of what's labeled as page 15. Location
and direction of all illumination and time of proposed outdoor lighting, including all standards and utility poles on abuing streets. So, I think the the location direction of all illumination is a critical component of the again potential spillage to residential properties. That's and I you
know again recognizing that a lighting professional had done a study but it's kind of in a vacuum because there are no property lines. So we have an ordinance that requires a maximum uh lighting threshold at the property lines. I think it's I don't know if it's one foot candle or 0.1 foot candle but that could
be a compliance uh question. Moving along I am now on page 16. I'm just cruising through to see uh where we are here. Um I I did note locate transformer. I don't know if that's applicable. Do you guys need a
transformer at the base of the billboard? >> No. >> Okay, moving on. I'm on page 17 now. I'm skipping to page 18. Uh 18, item F, description of the current uses of the property. Okay. So,
not building but the property. Uh, item G, complete and full details of the uses of the site. Um, >> I'm sorry, you said FNG. >> FNG on page 18 of the application. We also then have item J on page 18, which
is that reference to existing covenants, deed restrictions, easements, etc. We addressed that. You indicated that as not applicable. Um, We have I'm sorry this is so painful. I I did not intend this. Uh we have item S on
page 19 which is reference to the number of parking spaces required for the proposed uses by ordinance and the number of parking spaces proposed as part of the site plan. Uh again I understand billboards don't require parking. There's a question of whether or not it actually impedes into the
parking area. Uh, and again just an understanding of existing non-conforming conditions to the extent that there are any. Um, I had the question about Bergen County. I'm on the next page now. Sorry. Uh, page 20, item U, Bergen County site
plan approval. I just don't know the answer to that question if county site plan approval is is required. Um, I'm moving on now to page 21. Nothing that I see relevant. So, I'm
going to move on to page 22. Um, in the middle item number 12 on page 22 is number of parking spaces required by ordinance. number of parking spaces provided on subject property. Uh moving on to page 23
and item number three pertains to easements. Uh item number four pertains to underground utilities. Item number two on page 23 talks about uh existing and proposed contours for a
distance of 30 feet around the perimeter of the property. Um so page 24 is just some engineering um drainage runoff calculations that may not be relevant. >> I'm on page now 25. um simply landscape
requirements and obviously there's no landscape plan. You're not proposing any, but it's it's a technical requirement and you wrote yes uh down the down the box there. Um it granted you did show what's existing as far as trees on the site,
but just the mere fact that there's nothing proposed, you're entitled to request a waiver. Uh a okay I'm on page now 26H a compre uh lighting a comprehensive and accurate
lighting plans including the proposed location direction of illumination power and times the proposed outdoor lighting etc. Uh, well, I'm on page 27 now. That's I believe that's the extent of
what I have. That's it. >> Mr. Carson, did you have anything to add to the list? >> No, I think that's it. We talked about basically parking, used
easements and lighting. Okay. Uh Mr. Foster, how are we you like to proceed? Do you want to try to address these items one by one? I don't know at this point we think we can given the technical nature of these things but um
at least give you a shot to do so um before the board >> certainly however whatever is the easiest to understand maybe it is better to go item by item. Well, I think in fairness, we'll give you a shot to try to address these things, but
you know, there there's a fairly substantial list here of items and in fairness to you, in fairness to the board needs to review these items. You know, we'll give you the chance to try to address them. But, um, like I said before the board uh makes a determination on completeness.
We we do believe that the use has been ironed out that there's two commercial uses at the property and that we would you know we certainly we don't have the owner here to give you the exact testimony and we could bring them back at another date to confirm that but it's
our understanding that that is the use and it's been represented as that and we're not changing in any way changing that use and I understand the board wants to be clear on that and we can give testimony from our planner and engineer who've been to the site and would be able to know that the use and there's no uh reason to believe that
it's not the parking. We were going to show you know we have our engineer here who could testify as to the the parking is the conditions whether the billboard would affect the parking and that was going to be done tonight with through his testimony.
>> Uh now the survey we represented that there's no easements of record and I can't provide to you schedule B tonight. I I we certainly could come back with that and go over it, you know, at at the next meeting, but we think we could proceed on it. And in the event there
was something restricting it, it's the applicant's own risk and we wouldn't proceed with the application and the site the county site plan approval. I believe our engineer could testify to that. But the uh
>> the other big ticket item was lighting. >> Lighting which our engineer was going to testify to. I believe the lighting we did provide it. Now whether I understand you don't believe that it's sufficient but to be clear we did provide a lighting study. There might not be property lines as but that when we got
to there we could you know give testimony as to that. Okay. All right. Based on the information we've just heard, um questions from the boardwise, um I will ask for a motion. Um
>> I have mamier. So as I see it um I mean the major issue here is the lighting study may be incomplete. um as I see the whole process of a
completeness review uh you know why even do it if we're not going to adhere to it right so I would ask our professionals do you feel that this application is complete >> well it's not it's it's not complete and
that's why they either need a waiver or they need the board to say thank you very much provide the information can come back and we'll deem it complete. It's up to you guys. It's not up to us. There's one little caveat that I might have slipped out of. As far as the parking, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board, a portion of the pavement that's used for parking isn't on their property. I don't know if you know that or not. >> We do. >> Yes. >> But there's no proposal to remove that and what that causes. Correct.
>> This board can't approve a plan for parking that's not on your property. >> We're not proposing parking on that. We're not proposing parking. >> Well, it exists. There's an encroachment on the plan. I don't know if like I said, I don't know if you knew that or not. >> We did.
>> So, they're using it though, right? The tenencies are used. Somebody's using it. You want me to go a step further? if you're using it. Somebody asked me this question in Saddlebrook many years ago when they put
bricks underneath Route 80 and somebody called and said, "Where do we do the 200 foot list?" I said, "It's Route 80. It starts in New Jersey and it ends in California." I said, "I would start there." My question is, >> is there a jurisdictional problem? speak
to that as far as if there is an easement and you're using that and it it um should include that property then you would go from that that portion if it's like an access drive or like parking. So, um, it's
>> not just for clarity, it's the right of way >> that would like agree >> was likely taken at some point. >> Well, we're right. I'm just clarifying. It doesn't seem to be an easement. It's actually physically a lot that's part of the rightway owned by NJTO. I think that's that triangular thing we're
talking about. >> Well, their parking lot sits on it. >> Well, right. Right. >> She mentioned So, you're saying if it's a lot that is being >> No, no, again. >> So, it's a separate lot that you're talking about. >> I'm not on that side of the deis. on this side. >> No, I have it. >> It's it the it's like a slice out of the
if you look at the survey, it's a corner that was likely at some point uh the state probably highway authority took it to for the right. >> You're asking about whether that entity would have had a consent to the application >> possibly >> and then >> and jurisdiction and well, it's not
dependent on our we're not proposing anything in that area. No, it exists. You're using it. you're using it. >> The the owner may be using it, but it has nothing. It's not used. >> You're asking for a use variance
application. How do we consider this as a board in isolation of the totality of the existing site conditions that you're asking us to forget everything else. Look at the billboard and just look at >> Yeah, it doesn't work. >> Well, no, but we're not depicting we're not utilizing that for parking on the site. You have if this however it gets
approved whether it gets approved here or somewhere else you have then three uses on this particular piece of property from what you said earlier. You have the architect's office, you have the astrology office and you have the billboard and we've gone over it in another
application. Someone has to show up. It's a static billboard. Someone at some point in time has to show up and and change the signs, do some maintenance. So, you need some sort of parking for that individual. Not saying they're coming there every single day.
>> The entire parking lot is not in that area. >> No, it it it's not, but a good portion of it is. >> Yeah. We were going to provide testimony as to the parking, >> but there's no The board can't the board can't approve a plan that shows parking on someone else's
property. >> I We're not utilizing that. I guess we'll >> maybe maybe you don't understand where it is. You are utilizing it. >> You are. >> Or can I just speak on behalf of the application? >> If I could just swear you in.
>> Sure. >> If you can raise your right hand, >> you swear affirm that any testimony you're about to give is the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And if you can >> Yeah, just you have to turn that one on. >> If you can just state your name, spell your last name, and give your business.
>> Sure. Good evening. Uh William R. Vote Jr. last names V is in Victor, O G like girl, T like Tom. Uh I am a licensed civil engineer who created the site plans uh for the application. Um I'm one of the principles and owners of L2A Land
Design LLC and we're located at 66 Grand Avenue in Anglewood, New Jersey. Uh I've appeared before this board on multiple occasions on multiple applications. What are those qualifications? >> Yeah. Can you give the board your
qualifications, please? >> Uh, sure. I have a bachelor's in science and civil engineering from Sunni Buffalo and I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of uh New Jersey as well as New York and my license is in good standing. >> Okay. Have you appeared before this board before? >> I have.
>> Okay. Any questions from the board as to qualifications? >> Okay. >> Uh, sure. Um, yes, we are aware of there is a triangular uh piece of property. I believe it's designated as lot 5.01
that is part of the DOT rightway. It was part of their taking when they improved that intersection. Um, we are not proposing any um work on that portion. I do understand that they are utilizing it
as parking. Um, I did try to go back through some historic photographs. Um, it looks like parking has been in that area at least back until 1985. Um, there there it it was striped uh at
one point. Um what I could tell there was roughly seven or eight parking spaces shown on that um rear portion of the property or to the west. Um I I don't have any
evidence that there's any easements uh granted to the uh owner of the property to utilize that portion of the property. We can certainly I can certainly have my uh surveyor do a uh review title and see
if any easements exist in that portion. Uh but for the remainder of the uh site, we're unaware of any easements or restrictions or um DOT um restrictions on the property.
Okay, >> that does cause me some concern just if that property is being is part of this application if there should have been some sort of consent or so that that's from my
perspective is the only thing that kind of is a concern to me um because I don't want to get down the road and then not to have jurisdiction. So that's the that's your main >> issue. I know you're not utilizing it. You don't need the parking, but if it is part of the application, that's the only
thing, you know, for your attorney that I'm raising as a concern. >> I mean, it it's not actually part of our application, >> but it's used on the site for the other uses in the parking, >> right? No, I I understand if it if it if it needs if it if they're using it um
and they're not allowed to use it, then yes. Yeah. Then we would have to remove it. I I I would agree. There's there's uh >> No, I think maybe I think you're missing the uh Okay, let's start over. >> Your mic's off.
>> You have an existing >> Your mic's off. >> We got to put the green on the bottom. >> We have an existing teny, correct? two tenants that you they don't they don't fly there and get dropped off and and helicopter in. Correct. They they drive
there, right? We we heard earlier. We're not sure how many. >> Two. >> Two tenencies. We don't know how many employees because the information wasn't provided. Okay. We know that, right? Unless you know it. >> It's either a yes or a no.
>> I I know that there's there are two uh there are two tenants there. One is uh Joe Donado who is who's the owner of the property and that is his sole uh business as an architect. He is the only employee uh that utilizes his office and
there is an astrologer that runs that. >> So let's say three cars, right? It would be three cars. >> That would be two. There's two people. >> Well, if somebody goes to the to either one of the offices, >> maybe not at the same time. Let's say a minimum of three three cars. I would
think three or four. If a portion of the property isn't on your property for the parking, how do you use the parking on someone else's property if you don't have easements or covenants or license agreements?
I I understand that. Um, but what I'm representing, if they're not allowed to use that portion of the property through any easements, then we would need to restripe the parking compliant on what is left.
>> All right, let's start again. >> You either remove the encroachment and you have all of the pavement on the property. >> I I I simple, you own it. >> That's what you could utilize. and you would have a parking plan because you're going to have three possibly three
different uses right on the property. You can't use the parking that is on someone else's property unless unless you have an easement to do so >> or a license agreement. But again, that
creates other issues because that might not be in perpetuity and that could mean where this board would have to say, "Okay, but if that gets taken away, it affects the overall use of the property and then you need to either come back here or lose the use."
So, it's important. >> Understood. >> If they're stipulating that they're going to remove that pavement and not use it whatsoever and restripe, then that would get rid of my >> You have a problem. Right. So from my perspective, maybe not your concern. >> That's the avenue I was looking at it as
if they cannot use that portion, we would have them remove it and then restripe the parking lot to be compliant. >> But if but if you're not the owner, then you can't say that. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. I'm just being logical as the applicants professional.
>> If they if they're not allowed to use it, then I got to fix it for them. >> And that is the base of our application saying it's not, you know, part of it. But we understand that the concerns and if if the parking was not allowed, yes, it would have to be moved on to the site, but we're not proposing our
application doesn't it for strictly, you know, strictly for, you know, deemed incomplete, but you know, that that's our position. But if you don't remove it, you don't have possibly the board doesn't have jurisdiction. You didn't notice correctly and you don't have the consent of an owner to file an you can't file an application on somebody else's
property without their consent. councelor >> I mean we're not we are not utili I don't believe our notice would be defective we would have noticed everyone >> the board can't approve a plan showing parking on someone else's property if it doesn't if it's not legally existing
>> yeah are we showing parking >> you are you're showing the pavement >> there's curb stops there's curb stops >> on NJ dot property >> there there's there's clearly asphalt um beyond the property limits as shown on the survey >> that currently exists >> that currently exists
for and if you go back through historic photographs at least to 1985 is the farthest I could go back and I saw the same parking configuration on the property. So it's it's been there for decades. Um whether whether or not
during that taking of the DOT rightway, they didn't enforce them to remove the uh parking that was in that portion of lot 5.01 01 or it just no one never got around to it or I I I don't know the history of it.
>> All right. >> And my concern is not that it's a pre-existing condition. So if there's any sort of um if it encroach you if it encroaches on the setbacks I don't care about that portion. I care if you're if it is being
used and it should have been kind of part of this application even if you don't need it for parking. If it's being used for parking, then I think it it raises a whether it should have been within the 200 foot um encompass and that I don't want to get down a rabbit
hole. >> Well, definitely it's right. I mean, it's right there. >> All right. So, at this point, we're hearing a lot of we think maybe this is what we we not sure. We know, maybe this applies, maybe it does apply. There sounds like there's a little bit more
homework that has to be done here on your part. And you know I'll turn I'll defer to the board for um you know determine completeness but at this point from from my perspective what our profession let's go back in time >> somebody got up and said there's no
easements there's no covenants >> now we have an encroachment on a on somebody else's property. So if we go back to that point in time >> that then it's not lawful. >> Well that goes into there's there's some homework that has to be done here. Okay. Clearly. So, uh, at this point, what I
would like to do is I'd like to take a vote on completeness. I think unless you guys have anything further to provide, but I think we >> I mean, we just want to put on the record that the CASA engineering report does deem us complete and we respectfully believe that was correct and accurate on page six.
>> Okay. Well, we have other professionals too got >> Yeah. >> other issues. So, um, >> it would be a recommendation maybe. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. because we don't have the authority to deem complete. >> I that's just just putting on the record. >> Mr. Deepkin, anything from your perspective?
>> No, chairman. >> Okay. All right. So, at this time, I think what I'd like to do is I'd like to have a motion uh to determine completeness of the application. >> Do we have to say that we're deeming it complete or can we say we're deeming it incomplete?
>> Yeah, it's a motion for either. >> Motion for either. So I would make a motion to deem that as incomplete. >> All right. So Gibbons has a motion to deem the application incomplete. >> Second. >> All right. I think I Mr. Salva on a second. >> Okay. Chair Case.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Cray. >> Yes. >> Um Miss Bolan's absent. >> Um Mr. Mr. Giddens. >> Yes. >> Um, Mr. Chin Chininga.
>> Yes. >> Um, Mr. Sala. >> Yes. >> Uh, Mr. Gudy Gurier. >> Yes. >> Um, Miss Leavine. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Motion passes.
My recommendation is I think there's some more homework that has to be done. I certainly would encourage you to reach out to our professionals and compare notes with them. >> We just would like I mean we thought because of the recommendations that you know there were an outstanding issue and we could have been in a better position to address them tonight that you know
>> well I think I think there's a combination of things. There's a combination of things that I think you can address through testimony but clearly there are other things that the documentation has to also present for us to hear. >> No, fair enough. I just saw the you know we were provided you know it said we recommend deemed complete and then we got here tonight. We we will we want to
address the issues. So it's not we're not not being confrontational. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't think these were going to be issues otherwise we would have you know been in a better position to address >> no point. Okay. >> Um next
>> what is your best guess for addressing these items? Should be pretty quick >> timewise. >> Yeah. When when can we get on the next hearing? >> Well, when is the next available hearing?
>> And when would you need documents before uh that meeting? I mean, I'm going to recommend at least a week in advance. >> 10 days. >> 10 days. >> Next is the 25th. >> Next meeting is the 25th. We have one application on that. >> Yeah. I mean you you're required to obviously any new information is
required 10 days prior to the public to look at it. >> Do we just be put on that? And in the event >> and then if you want to adjourn you have do we have on the 25th >> property? Do we have do we have space agenda on the 25th?
>> So you would sorry you would need documents um submitted on the 13th or the 16th. I just want to clarify the date. >> Yeah. >> Well, 10 days. Does that include weekends? It's just 10 physical days. Correct. That's why I'm asking the
question because it's not not an easy >> Well, it's it's either three days or five days. Whatever. Whatever. I >> say the 16th. >> Yeah. Monday. >> You mean by Monday? >> Yep. >> I mean, it's possible. It's not possible.
>> I mean, put let's let's look we'll put you on the agenda for the 25th. If you make the 16th, right? If you don't, then >> there anything else on the train? >> No. >> If not, I we'll let you know well in advance that you know to to request to carry it.
>> The only thing if if they don't have anything on the agenda, >> we don't have anything on the agenda for the >> and they cancel and you'll have to re have we do have an agenda. We do have an agenda on the coming 8th of April. So just >> see the 325.
>> Let's just do the ETH if that's what we don't want just so because this is really tight deadline that we just want >> we've got we've got an agenda another agenda item on the ETH. So um >> well maybe we submit it and >> if you want to submit it you know we'll see if we can catch you on
>> Yeah. Maybe you know we could be deemed complete at that hearing and if we understand you have something else at least >> I think that that look that makes sense. Okay. >> With that I'd like to announce for anyone in the public that this matter is being carried to the April 8th 2026
meeting with no further notice being published or mailed. >> All right. Thank you gentlemen. >> Thank you. All right. At this time u we have nothing further on the agenda. Uh questions or comments from the board
professionals that being said I'll look for a motion to German. >> So move given second to have Mr. Go has a second. All in favor I abstain. >> We are 8:40 again.
What do you think?