i'm all set okay very good let's call the meeting to order good evening everyone it is now 7:31 p.m wednesday April 9th 2025 this is the regularly scheduled meeting of the municipal land use board of the Burough River Edge this meeting of the Municipal Lions 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 the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act and associated regulations notice of this remote meeting was published in the Bergen record posted on the front doors of Burough Hall and posted on the
Burough's website the notice included the dial in and login information necessary for public participation and access to this meeting remotely a copy of the agenda for this meeting was made available on the Burough's website near the posting of the meeting notice and included the dialin 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 it over to Miss Styley to call the role please yes thank you mr mayor here uh Mr
kasslin here miss Boland here mr cray here mr gibbons here mr feffer is excused tonight uh Mr kenigo is absent at the moment
councilman Glass is excused tonight uh Mr goautier here and Mr salva here thank you and just for the record uh Mr salva will be seated to vote tonight um
also present are the board planner Mr barren and the board engineer Mr costa okay thank you very much our first item on the agenda for the evening is under approval of minutes uh we have a draft set of minutes from our March 26 2025
meeting uh which was circulated prior to this evening's meeting for the board's review open it to the board for questions or comments uh I'm going to r just make one note i think Mr godier was present for the meeting last on the 26th but his
name does not appear on the roll call yes he was present okay so we just need to add him there and then I think um we're just missing a caption for the discussion regarding the ordinance revisions on the swimming pools on page
three there's a blank line at the top of the page there okay uh where so it'll say discussion you mean okay i got I'll fix both of them okay other comments questions from the board on the minutes okay there being
none I'll look for a motion to approve please so moved thank you Mr g is there a second second thank you Mr gibbons and for this I'll just do roll call because there were some absences okay um
Mr coslin yes mr gibbons yes mr goodier yes and Mr salva yes okay the motion passes okay thank you uh
we're going to move now into discussion and I we're going to u we'll continue our continuation of the state plan review process will hold for uh a future meeting um and you know what I am going to ask for the board's indulgence that
we hold the discussion on the uh changes on the swimming pool and building coverage regulations as well as the location and placement of signs on the buildings to uh the end of the meeting i'd like to move forward now into
memorializations uh draft of the we have a resolution for approval this evening for the applicants Alejandro and Kristen Gomez property is 847 Bogurt Road block 114
lot 12 a draft of the resolution was circulated prior to this evening's meeting for the board's review and open it to the board for comments or questions on that draft there being none I will look for a motion on the resolution please so moved
thank you Miss God is there a second second mr given on a second all right Mr mayor yes Mr kaslin yes Miss Bolan i think I need to abstain oh
this one yep you were on okay uh Mr craig this was from 3:26 or this was from 312 312 oh 312 okay yes go all right uh yes mr given yes
uh Mr goautier yes and Mr sava yes okay the motion passes okay thank you folks then we're going to continue on our agenda this evening under completeness review uh the applicant is uh D just
property is 8 83 Wayne Avenue block 103 lot 2 uh application seeking uh three variances in connection with a alteration to a single family home uh Miss Stinley start with you please
yes prior to the meeting I reviewed the proofs submitted by the applicant and found them to be sufficient for the board to hear the application tonight thank you very much uh Mr marren good evening from a completeness perspective the applicant submitted an accurate uh
property survey plans for the proposed additions and site improvements as well as uh existing photos of the existing conditions um I believe the applicants provided enough for the board to uh review the application and deem it complete okay thank you Mr costa i
concur we submit enough so I would say Mr chairman it's time for you and the board to go to work appreciate thank you Mr costa comments from the board questions on as to completeness of this application there being none I will look for a
motion to deem the application approve so moved thank you Mr gibbons is there a second second thanks oh actually please all right mr mayor yes mr kaslin yes
miss Boland yes um Mr craig yes mr gibbons yes um Mr godier yes mr saba yes okay the motion passes okay thank
you all we're going to continue on down the line here under new business applicant is D just suk property is 83 Wayne Avenue block 103 lot 2 application seeking variance relief for building coverage lot coverage and uh rear yard
setback and I believe we've got the applicant and the applicant's architect in attendance this evening good evening gentlemen good evening good evening good to be here again mr jook will be um testifying first and I will follow up
sorry okay hold on i think our council just froze we can swear you both in oh you just froze for a second please raise your right hand thank you sorry do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes it is all right and then the applicant if you could please state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the record sure uh my name is Dan Jasuk my last name is J E S O K i reside at 83
Wayne Avenue in River Edge thank you and Mr bruno Joseph J bruno uh B R U N O 29 Pasc Road Park Ridge New Jersey thank you and Mr bruno could you just
provide the board with some background on your qualifications and lensure sure be happy to i um earned my Bachelor of Architecture degree from the School of Architecture at New Jersey Institute of Technology in 1983 and I was licensed in New Jersey um
in 1988 the license is in good standing um I've testified extensively throughout uh throughout the state of New Jersey as well as in New York where I'm also licensed and my license is in good standing and I've and and I've testified a number
of times before the this board as well okay any questions from the board as to Mr bruno's qualifications okay there being none uh Mr bruno Mr dick I'll turn the virtual floor over to you sure uh so I moved to River Ridge
back in 2010 and I used to live at 170 Oxford Terrace in apartments out there and then I moved to 83 Wayne Avenue in 2016 um and then I build residing there since I also work club not too far away
in Montreal and my kids go to school as well in in River Edge um so yeah I I plan to you know improve on the house i want to make it a little bigger and a little more uh you know livable in the kitchens one my main concern being a
little too small and also you know do a lot of home improvements uh to look at a lot more better yeah that's my intention that I plan to stay here for long grant and I I work like I said I work in Montville in KPMG been there for 10
years probably going to be there for the next long term as well uh yeah I plan to invest um in the home okay thank you um Mr bruno if you can walk us through your application yes I
would like to start with the photo exhibit that I submitted um I will go through photograph by photograph let me just scroll up to the top can everybody see you see the the photographs on the screen yes
oh good that's always that's always I'm a little ner nervous about that because I'm technologically challenged in that way okay let me just get to the top here and and I'm going to mark this as just
exhibit A1 it was provided um to the board previously and posted online but I I don't think it was within I think it was within 10 days so I'll just mark this right okay and I believe I added a photograph since I I I emailed it to me
to Mr alter but I'll go through through that in a moment oh okay okay but but this is the one th this is the one that I have up on the um that is the current one so photograph number one is the um
north or front elevation view of the subject residence uh the um addition is planned the the seconds story edition is planned to be um over the existing footprint of the home photograph number two is the uh south or rear elevation
view of the the subject residence and the uh proposed first floor expansion is in this area where the patio and the table are so it's in it's in this general the general v vicinity uh photograph number three is the east
elevation view of the subject residence so uh the driveway would be to the right of the photograph photograph number four is a view looking north from the front yard of the subject lot photograph number
five is a view um of the residence to the east of the subject residence i was standing in the middle of Wayne Avenue when I took the photograph oh coincidentally I took the photographs over this past week weekend photograph number six is a view
of the residence to the west of the subject residence again taken from the middle of Wayne Avenue and I'm grateful that the traffic on Wayne Avenue is very very slight um now photograph number seven is the most telling for the purpose of our
discussion this evening um where this little red mark is that's the subject lot the subject house um the addition is the first floor edition is proposed in this area where the um where the um the
patio is and as you can see directly behind there you see the residence on Lafayette Avenue which is to the rear of the subject lot so um the um I would I'll I'll go through the uh the vital
statistics of the variances in a moment but you'll see that the that the addition backs up against an open area and not directly adjacent or in line with the with the um um the residence on
to the rear on Lafayette Avenue and likewise uh McCreer Avenue I think it's pronounced um is um there there's an out building here in the which would be the southeast corner of the subject lot off
of the southeast corner of the subject lot so I'll go back to I'll share my screen for the drawings can everybody see this drawing yes okay so I will like to go over the
variances required first and then I'll walk the board through the um the drawings so um Mr mr bern sorry to interrupt you could you just make that a little bit larger of course yes there you go so the um uh rear yard
setback we're required to be 25 ft uh we have an existing nonconformity of 22.8 ft and I will just go toggle over to the site plan here um and we're proposing um a rear yard setback of 20.4t which can
be seen here this shaded area is the area of the onetory um addition with the terrace above uh the second variance that we're requesting is building coverage variance 25% is permitted in the is permitted in the zone at present
we are at 24.95% and we are proposing 27.5% um the uh then we have two lot coverage variances one excluding yard amenities and one including yard amenities which I believe is a fairly um
fairly new um ordinance requirement um we're permitted 30% on the lot coverage excluding yard amenities we're at 32.58 which is an existing nonconformity and we are proposing 35.4 uh lot coverage including yard
amenities is permitted is 35% we're at 39.98% at present we are at 42.13% as proposed uh it's important to note here that we have an undersized lot where um the lot requirement uh or the
zoning requirement for the lot area is 7,500 square feet we are at 6,000 square ft i would point out to the board that if the um if we had a conforming lot uh the um we would comply with all of the
um with the with the coverage requirements at least but uh we would still be required uh to apply for the variance for the rear yard setback um I will um go to the um the first floor
plan and I'll I will uh enlarge it so the front entrance is in this area where I'm tracing with the with the cursor got the garage here existing living room existing dining room existing master bedroom bath and
then we have a small kitchen here and an existing sun room in this area the area delineate delineated excuse me by the the the hatching or the diagonal lines is the area of the proposed first floor addition and we're proposing to come
come off the the the rear wall of the main rear wall of the house 11 feet 6 in with a width of 13t 6 in um for the um the the addition at the second floor over the main the the main box of
the living space we are proposing two bedrooms a home office and a den with a with an unroofed terrace which is situated directly over the um the proposed expansion for the um for the um
uh the kitchen and these closets that you see in red here are stacked directly above the the closets that are in the first floor big bedroom
area from an architectural standpoint we are proposing a um you know a modestly styled you know colonial style addition with um clapper siding asphalt shingle roofing the existing stone veneer at the
first first floor level of the front of the house is proposed to remain we will need to extend the chimney up of course for the um for for the fireplace um there are a few items on the Costa
letter that I would like to address um on page number three um general comment number six uh it talks about the existing vinyl fence that is um encroaching into the adjacent southern
properties as part I I've spoken to Mr jug and as part of the the application the fence will be re relocated to his property so that there will the the encroachment will be will be um um
eliminated then there was also a note regarding I think I had a a um I think I had a typo um yeah about an the existing concrete walkway to remain along the easterly lot
line that is um that was a um a typo we would be replacing removing that and replacing it with uh with blue stone slab walkway you know stepping stones with grass between so it's a much softer
type of of um of treatment for the pathway so the so I just wanted to clear that up because the the letter on item eight wanted um had requested that to be cleaned up um storm water management um if the project is approved the um the
owner will engage a uh New Jersey licensed engineer to um to um uh design uh the rainwater collection system um from all new roof areas and I believe in I believe the standard in River Edge is
3 in per hour rainfall duration so that will that will um be in effect as well um item number one on lighting and landscaping on page four uh as far as lighting is
concerned there would just be the the typical type of of residential uh style wall sconces um that will um that will um flank the um the patio door and
perhaps a um a a motion sensor flood flood light which is which is pretty standard and the flood light will not be shining into the neighbor's yards be be you know generally speaking they're they're they're pointed down at about a
45 degree angle to um to to prevent light spill over the neighbors lots um I would um just like to go back to the photograph um the photographs of the
um the environs and let's see you had it up here a moment ago oh yeah this is what I want um again the uh this is the fence that will be re re organized to be completely
on the JUK's lot and I just want to point out to the board that the where I'm tracing the the cursor is where the proposed addition would be that requires a rear yard setback variance and as you can see there is a lot of open space um
to the neighbor behind so with that I would be happy to answer all of your questions excuse me thank you why don't we start with our professionals mr barren can I start with you sure good evening uh
hello Mr bruno thank you for the uh thorough overview of the project i guess I just uh want to clarify a few items um not too many questions per se so is it accurate that the building coverage var uh variance is really a function of the
the first floor kitchen edition would you say yes that is the uh that that's that's the main impetus i mean we're we're um we're um compliant at present but the kitchen addition is causing the
is causing the variance and I would respectfully suggest to the board that that the um the um uh the excess is is dimminimous giving the given the um the overall condition and configuration of the site all right and and just to
specify the excess you're over by 2.5% which I believe equals uh 150 square feet is that accurate i believe so yes which is probably close to the exact uh kitchen edition dimensions I would imagine yes and u if we had a conforming
lot um the coverage would be 22% so and and I think if we um I'll just if you don't mind I'll just toggle back to the photographs a moment um the uh the scale of the home is not
um out of place with the um with with the homes in the surrounding area okay um and and just again to define lock coverage so you're at 40% now uh proposed increases to
42.13% and I believe that represents an overage of about 428 square feet but um as compared to the existing condition is an additional 120 square ft i think that's accurate right so really an
increase of 2.13% or again about 120 square ft just for the board's information um do you have a sense of how large the proposed patio is from a square footage perspective square footage yeah I I can
give that to you right this very moment i'll just Okay 75 square feet and it's a it it would be on it's um it's directly on it's a stone patio directly on grade so it has a a far less
um um far less visual impact than say an elevated deck would have okay thank um are you aware as part of the new ordinance that we do allow um we'll call it a discount for imperous pavers is that something the applicant's aware of
or has considered um I you know I um looked through the audience I may have missed that but um but pavers would definitely be um be something to to consider because if we get what is it a 25% discount i think it's actually 50%
so I think you have two options actually so uh well actually you have one option without increasing the building coverage so I think it's a 50% discount without reviewing the ordinance so you know let me just do a quick calculation on that that uh let's
see and the same would apply to any other you know paved areas that you might be revising so the uh final proposed improved lot coverage would be um 40.6% okay that that's all in you know
including yard amenities and and just to be clear the um in that case the product would have to be reviewed by the building department and engineer just to make sure that the specifications actually allow for permeability of course yes in any I just want to offer that um I I have no further questions Mr
chairman thank you Mr thank you Mr barren Mr costa very quick obviously you you've uh testified that you're going to handle if it's approved storm water um which is fine with me if it's okay with the board one quick question the um the roof
overhangs and I believe that's still in the ordinance right Tom and I think it's it's still in the ordinance that we're that we're going to talk about tonight yeah I think that that is still in the ordinance the overhang counts towards
the coverage yes and I I've um I've um allotted for that in the calculations okay but that comes All right so that's 124 square ft correct um which probably almost negates what you're asking for
that that would be my only question can you make it smaller is it uh we can impact certainly make it smaller sure i could we we could do a 6 inch um a 6 inch overhang because I believe the gutters do not count is that correct
i better throw that to Tom technical answer is I I think from the ground to the sky practical answer is that the gutters aren't usually shown on the plans and I they're probably more often than not not factored in but again there's the technical answer and there's a practical answer yeah
and then I guess technically speaking the answer is no detective answer yes right all right and then I guess the only other question is um why wouldn't you line it up with the existing uh sun room you projected a little bit further with the addition just out of curiosity
yeah that was just to uh just to get the requisite space within the um within the addition yeah that would be it that's uh that would be it chairman okay thank you Mr costa uh let's go to the board um Mr gibbons can
I start with you sure um so just to confirm we you're not really doing anything to the first floor except making the kitchen bigger so the the current layout of the master the living room that's all staying the same yeah there is a there there there are
two bedrooms in in on on this side of the house and we're just removing the wall between to create the master so currently there's two bedrooms on the first floor and you're making right one is a master and then the other is an off is used as a as a home home office a spare bedroom so we're going to take the
the existing master and just um enlarge it into the in into the adjacent room okay and then upstairs um I I know you're calling it two bedrooms and a den or an office but you really have three bedrooms upstairs
well there's uh Yeah yeah there's three because the home office does have a closet so it would be it would be uh considered a um it would be considered as as a bedroom the the intent is for I believe Mrs jup works from home and um
she was she presently uses that that um space in the rear of the home that is being combined with the existing master to create a larger uh a larger bedroom area so she her her office will be upstairs and um and then um the um could
also be used as as a guest room when um when you know relatives come from overseas right so okay so you're shifting a bedroom from downstairs to upstairs um so I I have a similar question that Mr costa you know why didn't it it just the we'll go back
downstairs to the kitchen sure um you know I could see you going a little more to the side and you know not asking for a variance here um you know you went a little bit over I guess into like behind
the bathroom on the left of the screen i I you could certainly I would I would think you could have made the the room more go that direction or or something to not protrude further into the backyard i know it's not a lot of square footage going into the backyard but um
just wondering if it could be squared off and keep the square footage but just make it not go further into the backyard okay may I uh mute uh my microphone i can speak with Mr jook about that sure yep okay i'll be back in a second
sure okay yes you can't mute the the cursor okay we're back can you hear me yes sir okay yeah one of the one of the reasons I drove the design of course was to was to um preserve you know the bathroom w
here because we've got we've got a shower here and and and so on so um but um Mr just hook is amendable to um to making the rear wall of the of the uh the kitchen flush with the rear wall of
the sun room and then we would just extend it extend to the left okay because that that could just get rid of one of the variances that you're asking for uh and I don't know how everyone else on the board feels but just throwing it out there um and just
to I don't know whether it would um eliminate the variance or just make it uh less let me just see what that is just so just so the record is clear um yeah the rear set the rear yard setback
is what I was alluding to doesn't fix yeah yeah we would we would still need a variance but it would be it would be less um but it wouldn't be it wouldn't be intruding more into the backyard really from where from what it is now it would match the existing it would match
the existing which is 22.8 okay so it would be 22.8 instead of um be 22.8 instead of 20.40 okay and then if you were to do the
impervious pavers what would our um what would our coverage be you were at you were projecting 42 would it be bringing it closer to 40 at that point or Yeah let me just go back to my numbers because I want to make sure I'm giving it to you accurately i appreciate that
because 42 is I don't want to speak for anyone else but you know 42 tends to be a pretty high number um so if it was closer to 40 I'd be personally I'd be happier um if we went to the impervious
the previous papers sorry about that we'd be at 40.68% okay instead of 42.13 okay i think those were the questions that I had thank you okay thank you thank you M given uh Miss Bolan
uh yes so um my question is whether how important is the side walkway because that would save a lot um if you really didn't need a walkway to the rear yard how important is that we could have just grass right
yeah we we could eliminate that yeah that would be that would be substantial I would think i like the question yeah so um we we'd be at that's another 110 square feet
so so 110 87US 28 / 6,000 would be 38.85% so 38.9 where we would be under the we'd
be under the um uh the 40% that's all I have okay thank you Mr poland uh Mr godier uh no questions at this time thank you
okay thank you sir uh Mr mayor yes um so I just uh I I think I'm satisfied with uh the two concessions i just wanted to ask specifically are those concessions um something you're willing to do which
would be uh is is this something that we can put into the um uh motion that you that we will that you're reducing um the walls the rear the rear setback so it matches the current rear setback which makes it um u grandfathered and
that you're removing the side walk and you're going to be using impervious coverage So just wanted to ask if if that's something firm because in previous um sometimes in previous it was not necessarily agreed to but it was
spoken of so is this agreed to yes excellent then I'm good yeah uh Mr mayor I have a question though for you why do they make you sit out in the front lawn of of B Hall for this meeting
well I I could also be in uh in Memorial Park but I've chose this background today you know in the beginning of COVID when when we first started to do these uh there was as as you can imagine a learning curve for a lot of people and I
won't name the town it wasn't River Edge though and one of the board members um his his naked wife happened to walk past walk behind him on camera wow yeah
yeah that was uh that was interesting happened at my house to get back to your question yes we um uh we we we would definitely uh um consider those those uh Well that's the language that that that I that I'm
checking on uh consider is different from agree to are you agreeing to the uh the changes that have been suggested we are okay great and I'm good thank you okay thank you Mr mayor uh Mr salvo
yes I have no questions thank you okay thank you sir uh Mr craig well I'm good at this time thank you okay and I have no questions uh from my perspective so with that I
will uh look for a motion to open uh to the public for public comment on the application so moved thank you Miss Bowen is there a second second thank you Mr craig all in favor i any oppose any
abstain okay at this time we are now open to the public for comments on this application only miss Steiny do we have anyone there is one person in the public so if you are interested in asking
questions or making a comment about this application please press the raise hand button on Zoom now i think they just joined so um all right so this is the application for 83 Wayne Avenue if you're interested
in making a public comment please press the raise hand button on Zoom nope i don't see anything okay we'll we'll take that as as no one interested in commenting with the public with that I will look for a motion to close to the public please so moved thank you Small
is there a second second thank you Mier all in favor i I the opposing abstain okay at this time we're closed to the public for comment on this application uh final questions or comments from our professionals or members of the board
i just wanted to go through some of the conditions that were agreed to um on the record that the applicant will relocate the fence on the property to eliminate the encroachment yes that's correct that the applicant will engage a New Jersey
license engineer to design the storm water collection system in coordination with the burrow engineer correct um that any lighting will be shielded and angled away from neighboring
properties to avoid spillage correct the applicant will utilize um permeable pavers and work with the burrow and or permeable um paving and work with the burrow to confirm permeability um to get
the reduction in the lot coverage correct and the rear first floor rear edition will be uh made flush with the existing sun room for a setback of 22.8 ft rear yard
setback and then the lot coverage with the permeable pa reduction um all-in will not exceed 38.9% was that correct we can just just
call it 39 just so it's 39 yeah if that's if that's acceptable to the board yeah I think um and the walkway would be well whatever um whatever pay is going to be eliminated to just keep it at that
number right the um the stepping stone walkway between on the along the easterly lot line um well on the easterly side of the or garage side of the the building will will be eliminated eliminated okay
all right that was everything that I had okay thank you Mr stinley um there are no further comments or questions from the board or professionals i'll look for a motion on the application please well
um matter of variance for 83 Wayne Avenue lot 103 lot two i move that we accept the variance submitted uh with the conditions that were just listed by Miss
Stein okay thank you Mr cray is there a second second thank you Mr selma all right Mr mayor yes mr kaslin yes miss Boland yes
mr craig yes mr given yes uh Mr goautier yes mr salva yes the motion passes okay congratulations thank you thank you best of luck with
your project thank you thank you for your time this evening i know it's uh it's it's it's a big commitment thank you and good luck appreciate it have a good night everyone you too
okay uh we are now going to circle back on our agenda to a couple of earlier items uh under discussion uh the first being the continuation of our previous discussion on changes to the um burough's ordinance concerning
regulations for swimming pool and building coverage uh we had a revised uh draft of the ordinance change that was circulated and Miss Style if I could ask maybe just a brief summary of what's been updated
yes so as we discussed at the last meeting there was the revision to include swimming pools and hot tubs as excluded from building coverage calculations um and then the other main
change was the um addition of the um diagram for the roof height and right now I set I put the language as 6 over
12 because that's um like the standard language that's used even though it is 1/2 but usually it's that's the way it's um written out in reality and then um the roof height the diagram shows all
different types of roofs that could be possible and if it's a the language right now is if it's a if it was it's if it's a detached garage it could be up to 15 ft um as
long as the pitch is six not does not is not less than 6 over 12 and then um if it's another type of structure it has to be 12 ft i believe that was the language i don't actually forgot to print it out but if that was my memory
from what the most recent changes were yeah is it go ahead no no i was just going to read read for off the copy here just so it just reads except as provided in section 416-32 no such accessory building or structure shall exceed 12 ft in height
except for garages having a roof pitch not less than 6 over 12 see the diagram below and flag poles which shall not exceed 15 ft in height i I just wanted to add um just to make it clear and not be overly prescriptive that the the sloping roof pertains to
more of a gable style than than a shed roof let's say which could just be a long slant unless the board doesn't care i I thought the point was to have sort of a peaked roof that slopes down to either side if if it's just again being overly prescriptive feel free to ignore
that if if it was a shed style roof it would still have to comply with the 6 over 12 um slant like angle which might take care of itself over that span anyway because then it would be I think in the
diagram it shows just a half of how and then that would be like if it was a slant roof then it would only it wouldn't be it would just be half the peak and the pe the peak of it would still have to be 15 ft max
true okay i don't know what type of garage that would be but but a little it's it may through the chair it's gonna it's going to be a little bit different because the shed is going to be 15 feet the full width it's only for garages not for sheds no
but I'm saying if it's a gable it's only a portion of it because you got the triangle right up to the pier again you're going to have the whole thing is is 15 feet one side of the higher port of the ship and I think that's where We only have the lang I thought the
language was just garages and flagps could be 15 feet not sheds i meant I meant a garage but a shed roof okay oh shed roof oh yeah yeah so what I'm saying is basically the shed the
whole front of the shed will be 15 ft where if it's a gable it's only a portion of it to the peak so you're losing that but again that's that's the only thing if you want to make it more descriptive as far as what type of roof and I think
that's what you're saying right Tom it was just a thought and I was thinking more along the lines of the garage you know when you have a larger garage if I don't know people are creative and increasingly so so you know maybe it's it could be a non-issue again we don't see too many new garages really just
replacement of old ones in certain areas of the town you know around the summit area um just a thought anyone on the board ever feeling strongly one way or another take that silence as as a no and
my only comment is I don't think you could be too desri desript descriptive uh as you said people get creative so uh if Tom thinks more you know needs a little bit more description I would say that'd be good
i I guess the thought is just again pertaining to garages specifically with the 15 foot height allowance that it's you know measured to the peak maybe we call call it a gable style roof i I don't know how else you know we could come up with something but yeah the point would be to prohibit a flat
roof that's 15 ft for the whole uh area of the building and a shed roof would let's say you have a garage that's 20 ft deep would be 15 ft at a slope of 612 whatever that gets you i'm not going to do the math but um and to Mr mr g's point when you have
the shed roof the whole face would be 15 feet not just the point in that case just thought do we have a separate provision regarding sheds or is that just included within the confines of accessory structure it would be included
um there is a separate um I think aerial limitation but uh it would just be 12 feet you could have any style roof okay this is just for the exception for garages yeah and and beyond this one other issue that came up tonight which I think may be
worth discussing is is that the definition of building area does include roof eaves and so obviously that impacted the application tonight some towns include it some don't again some regulate from the ground to the sky some give an exemption for the roof eaves which are typically I don't you know
anywhere from 6 in to 2 feet that project from the building wall yeah that's the roof overhang right and so uh I think I I did a quick calculation if you add up you know the typical perimeter of a house in River Edge it probably amounts to about an extra maybe
about 2% of building coverage on any any particular project so it's a question of does does it count or not i I think if we do keep it we have to be cognizant that build the building coverage calculation does include it and just you know review things consistently or again allow for
an exception it's uh there's no right or wrong it's just different towns do it differently wait is it so it's calculated for building and not not lot [Music] it could go either way frankly I'm trying to look at the one example that I
have okay so you know from a building coverage perspective you're concerned about the bulk of the building right so the building walls at at that point you really you know you kind of have slivers of roof that extend on the one hand they do stop rainfall from falling straight down on the other hand the ground
underneath is exposed and can accept or absorb water um I I I would have to I would I would think that it's not impeding water getting into the ground so why would we hurt someone if it's if it's aesthetically pleasing on the
home then it's not it's not making it harder for the water to get into the ground i don't I don't personally see why we would count that on building or coverage because it's not it's it's not impeding anything you know it's it might be moving it 5T that
way but it's still sending it to the ground right and you talk about gutters in all in most instances on the edge of a roof so I think to your point if that allows people to have different things on their
property I mean I don't I don't know what the unintended consequences are but I don't think about it i don't I don't see that being an issue you know with any water problems from a practicality standpoint how often is it shown on the drawings
that we'll receive it's a good question probably uh probably not often if I'm I'm guessing so you know we then have a logistics problem because we're going to be sending people back to find out what the E dimension is
and to to Ryan's point is it having a negative impact um I have um I I feel both ways on this issue uh one I agree with Mr gibbons in that if it
We're concerned about impermeable coverage so you know if the eve sticks out when the water falls or gets to the ground it still has the you know still has the ability to soak into the ground so I agree with that 100% and my initial
reaction is to say you know let's not count the overhang but builders being builders if we say that uh we're not doing that will they then not have will
they build flat walls that are more commercial looking with no eaves so that they can maximize the amount of space that um that they're building on i'm not sure if that I mean I I leave to our
experts to say whether that could be a loophole that we might be creating if it's not then I agree that we should only be counting the footprint and not the overhang or you if I can through the chair maybe
you put a minimum or a maximum that you can't exceed two feet or a foot and a half some limitation right so nobody goes hog wild and Hackinack yeah basically Hackinack I think on setbacks I think you can project two
feet if I'm not mistaken they have that in their ordinance that makes sense to me so we have we have an allowance for as far as it being measured from the setback perspective so a roof eve can project up to 2 and 1/2 ft into a
required yard um I think to the mayor's point if you start regulating eaves as being included I think builders will say "Well I'll just lop off the eaves." Lop off the eaves and now now you're going to have now maybe it's not going to look eaves tend to be more traditional
looking and attract you know it's subjective but I think they are part of the more traditional uh right development style in this area um but again to to a point ees create curb appeal and curb appeal creates higher
property values and people are investing sometimes this is their biggest investment in their lives their homes so um that's my concern i want to make sure that the eaves stay the overhang stays so I I think if you want to encourage
them you would exempt them from to up to a point you know not to exceed like 18 inches or 2 feet would be probably a typical dimension um and and again I think the the downside is probably limited from a functional standpoint because you still have the undeveloped
ground underneath which can absorb rain water um and from a a bulk standpoint again if it's limited to 18 inches or or two feet you know the impact to neighbors is probably going to be minimal but you do get I think the attractive the aesthetic
enhancement um and and I think ees there's also a functional aspect where they protect the house frankly you know from you know rain hitting the the sides directly or uh I don't know you know infiltrating the the wall the envelope it's It's for air circulation too into
your attic obviously you're vented good good point yeah I think I think it makes sense having a limit you know like you said 18 18 inches two feet um but I don't as of right now I don't see a downside to it
you know not counting them certainly could result in what the mayor was suggesting and having ugly houses and more coverage so I would I'd certainly be in favor of having that with with a limit all right and again there are this isn't
you know there are towns that do this so there are models out there um I'm looking at one in Summit for it's just an ordinance I'm familiar with definition of building areas as follows just for example the horizontal plan projection of all covered or roofed areas on a lot whether permanent or
temporary including decks canal levered areas bay or bow windows and similar projections but excluding roof eaves roof overhangs projections above entranceways and garage doors and chimneys projecting a maximum distance of 24 in from the structure so that's a
word salad but I think we can maybe look at that for you know as a reference if that's the direction you want to head or similar i'm comfortable with that i don't know about the rest of the board
yeah I would say that may would make sense i think we come up with some with a model based using that as a starting point yeah as long as it doesn't open up an opportunity to create more coverage than I sound Yeah the word salad sounded
good use that but I I think you guys have worked I think we've honed in on a a definition that works for the burrow so just adding that provision of the exemption would be the only thought and if you guys are okay with that I think we understand the intent work with
Marina and you know Rob and the building department to tighten that up so it's clear and I I think at that point we'll be in good shape to uh cover most of the major outstanding ordinance issues yeah okay i think that makes sense is any
disagreement from the board okay okay um so we'll put this back again as another um agenda item on a future meeting when you have the that language worked up and
we hope for that provision um I know I guess the burrow you know wants to get these does the board want to see it again the one provision or do you think we should pass it along at this juncture the board will have to review
the ordinance change again anyways once the council introduces it um true but if if we're o if the board's okay with the way it's written now plus these two changes the change regarding
the roof height and then the change regarding the roof overhangs then I I can work with Tom and Rob and uh Steve and we could finalize it and then send it over to the council for their introduction
i have to say that makes sense because the next introduction would be um uh April 24th and then we'd have to come back to you guys and then it have to come back to the council so and there's no harm in it it can
council can make changes and send it to you and you can send it back with changes suggested to the council so I think it'd be a more efficient use of time if we moved forward but that's just my opinion as one member of the board that I mean that that's fine from from
my perspective for logistical purposes unless anyone anyone else on the board has a a strong feeling or objections i'm fine with that same here okay all right so that All right so I will work
on that and on that note the board's April 23rd meeting is going to be cancelled so we wouldn't have a meeting before the next council meeting um true so true all right so let's let's let's proceed then on that basis then that's a that's a fair point i actually have that
here on my list of things to finish up with so So we're cancelled on the 23rd we are cancelled on the 23rd due to a lack of agenda so um with that I will circulate the draft state plan um response and I'll just ask board
members to email me feedback if there is any there is a a May 5th deadline but but again I think we could that that system probably works yeah that's f I think just given the fact that you know where we stand today and with that deadline that makes let's let's go on
that basis all right um last item on our agenda then for the evening uh comes under guess come under correspondence but um the mayor received uh a letter I guess an email correspondence from one
of the business owners in town um concerning our signage regulations and um had asked us to uh look into uh some issues that have been raised by some of the businesses in town concerning
um what they feel are somewhat um uh difficult um restrictions in which to operate their businesses and they're looking for uh us to evaluate whether um some relief
on the existing signage regulations can be um considered so um Mr chairman may I place this in context yeah I was just about to turn to you and ask you to if you had any any more details outside of what's in the emails um yeah please go
ahead so um this actually has a multi-layered effect uh or concern uh one of the things that I've consistently heard from the residents for the last 14 years that I've been doing public service is the appearance of Kindamak
Road and Main Street but mostly Kindak Road now Kinder Road is a county road we don't control it uh we have the county owns from curb to curb but really any major changes to Kinderac Road requires
county approval um over the 14 years we thought about setting up a redevelopment zone uh but the businesses and the property owners did not want that uh a business uh redevelopment zone would have a dedicated tax and that dedicated
tax would go solely to improvements such as streetscape and stuff like that we've done some street scrape actually we did it before I came on the council so we haven't did any major streetscape for the last 14 years other than uh where uh
properties were improved so um the uh apartments on Kinder Kamak Road as streetscape okay so um so residents have been you know desirous that we improve the look
of Kinder Kamak Road second um recently one of our property owners I'm not going to say who because I I don't think this uh that's necessary uh had a inflated man or totem I I guess you call it a
totem totem man that was floating around and um so um so then that came to my attention from a resident and um I asked M uh I asked our code enforcer no reason to
give names to you know take a look at the way we're enforcing our signage page now by the way I just put it in the uh chat so if you look at the chat you'll see I put um 416-47D and that's our ordinance so uh
our code enforcer went to all the properties because we certainly want to be consistent and fair and equal so if there is one that we're enforcing it to one of our businesses or commercial properties we want to enforce it on all of our commercial properties
and what I didn't realize is that we have not been enforcing our ordinance which right now says no sign logs pictures temporary or otherwise on or inside a window shall be greater than 2 feet in height or cover
more than 20% of the uh square footage area of the window signs on the inside of the window shall be considered part of the main sign for the purpose of calculating minimum allowed signage any area within 48 inches of the sign is considered window area for signage
purposes now third the third level I want us to cons to understand is that we have held our commercial properties to uh our sidence ordinances we have consistently when a commercial property came before us especially if they were
simply asking for a food handlers license looked at the sign they were going to put up and talked to them about you know and we we have a very strong expectation from the land use board that uh that they do not exceed a certain
look so to wrap it all up what we have is we have a an ordinance enforcement issue we have a signage issue we have a consistency issue based on those
commercial properties have come before us recently versus those commercial properties haven't been before us in a long time and we also have a town appearance issue and that town a town appearance issue goes to
property values and goes to curb appeal so this is not in my opinion a small matter um but a big matter now uh there are and I've noticed this you know over the years that there are there are
windows that are very commercial looking um and by commercial looking I mean like New York City 42nd Street you know where you know it's these these um and I
again I want to pick out one business but you know 20% off here 40% off here and stuff like that and I think that we have an obligation to the town to the residents that um our commercial property area looks as appropriate and
as inviting as possible so that the overall appearance of the town is positive but I think we also have an obligation to our commercial businesses that they do need to advertise now let me just say that I think if your
business is dependent upon window signs in my opinion again my father uh not again but my father had a small trucking company his whole life he was a small businessman he had a Dunkin Donuts he had a sub shop um so he had several
different businesses um if your business is dependent upon a sign to stay open then your business is probably not going to stay open having said that we do you know signs can generate foot traffic from time to time and that foot traffic
can be very important to the bottom line of a commercial business and I want to be understanding of that i think our current ordinance of no more than 2 feet or uh or cover more than 20% of the square
footage seems a little minimalistic but I think the request for 75 to 80% is a far reach so um it is the proper I
want us to enforce our laws i don't want us to have laws that are unfair or ownorous um uh for anyone for a resident or for a commercial and I have had a a position
as mayor that we can fix anything that is inappropriate within a month or two because we can bring these ordinances to the town and update them and I think we should um and we have certainly done this with uh with um impervious coverage
and we've done it with other things with the land use board and I'd like us to continue to update our ordinances given the current u world we live in so a long way of saying um I think our current ordinance
41647D and signage in general which we have talked about looking at needs a little more fairness but I don't think that going all the way up to 75 80% is appropriate i also am concerned not just
about the amount of uh square footage or or feet and height length and width and height or percentage but also the the type of sign that could go up because I want our ordinances to be enforced
equally and fairly um so um so that's why when this came up I had many different businesses reach out to me i said "Listen I I hear what you're saying let me bring this to uh the land use board and the council maybe we can give
you some relief but we can't have I don't think we we should continue to allow first our ordinances not being in enforced and second the some of the signage that I'm currently seeing." And I don't know how you guys feel about
that but so I return it I return the meeting to the chairman thank you Mr gastlin okay comments from the board so what what were we seeing in terms of So obviously this wasn't getting enforced and people were going over the
20% do we have any idea of what where they were were they 50% 80% in general of of a handful of businesses mr chair may I answer that yeah so there is a business at the north
end of town that has completely covered their windows in a sign um there are businesses that are running 75 80% um in the north part of town there are businesses
uh in the middle part of town so if you think of the northern part of interconnect the middle part of interconnect and the southern part who have all sorts of stuff in their windows which is a form of advertisement so things that they sell are now in the windows um these are I'm just giving you
the highlights there's there's there's all through there are and it it's restaurants it's um manufactured goods that are for sale retail and if you go to the south part of town not so much uh but there are
still you know exceeding the 20% or 2x two signs um so for instance a uh 10 foot by 10t window um I think we would be talking
about a 2x two sign i think that might be a little bit too small if you're you're looking to advertise a sale or some spring sale or something like that um and I also think that perpetual signs perpetual posters are also a problem
it's not in the ordinance i think we need to there is in the ordinance um by the way uh for for your benefit if you uh if you want uh there is a thing called uh let me bring it up it's called
uh ecode360.com and Mr chairman can I share my window for a second sure all right okay so this is um right there you can see right there ecode360.com and uh this is
41647 and it talks about each sign should be no higher than this is talking more of the I believe please correct me if I'm wrong more of the signs that sit above the the business that you know we normally see or the monument signs that
we sometimes allow then it says no height shall exceed more than 8 in the face of the building so these are the major signs that we talk about that indicate a business and D deals with uh the temporary signs uh but then it talks
about each commercial business should be sure to have a banner for no more than 28 days so we do already have limitations on banners but I don't know if the signs inside the window would be considered banners because I'm not an expert on this and then from time to
time governing body may uh designate by so I think we really need to look at this entire ordinance um and as a whole and as I said it's you you can easily do this you you um when I originally put this into uh the search
engine let me just show you what I did so that you can do the same all I did was ecode 360 river edge nj416 and um and I and immediately it comes up and I could even do
416-47 and uh and it should uh it should go to well actually we go to 46 and then and you just when you get to this here you scroll down until you get to 47 you click on it
and here we are and this is the ordinance that I think we need to look at i think we should give some relief to our businesses uh but I'm I'm not in support of the relief the relief they asked i think if I was a business person I'd ask for the most relief assuming I
wouldn't get it so I don't think that they would have a huge problem with that but um you know and it's this one that we're talking about right now but I don't think we should stop here i think we should all maybe share some thoughts and then go back and read this and at
our next meeting maybe come with some specific ideas certainly about the 20% square foot area and certainly about the two feet in height um and do we want to change that do we want the council to change that
essentially what do we want to recommend to the council because I'm sure the council will want to weigh in what they think um but I think this is a good time for us to look at that and think about you know how it affects our commercial businesses and how it affects the overlook all look of the town and therefore the rights of the residents in
regards to property so Mr mayor the feedback you're getting mostly from businesses has to do with more permanent signing as opposed to the temporary signing since we already have there's a mechanism for that in the code here is what I'm hearing is that is that
accurate i don't know if that's accurate for all the businesses but yeah I think for the most part okay are we talking illuminated not illuminated is that the Well I think that's one of the things I
mean we with uh I remember over the six years I'm now on the um we've talked about that we we do have issues with that there is a business on the south side south end of town for instance we don't allow neon signs but now with LED
signs and the amount of uh illumination you can jump this thing up there was a sign in the south part of town that at night was glaringly bright and it moved and we don't we have an ordinance says they can't move so the so the code
enforcer said to me "Well the owner is saying he's going to turn off the the movement and does that satisfy?" And I said "Well what does our ordinance say?" And he says "Well yeah." I said "And the illumination's kind of high why don't you ask them to bring it down but we don't have any enforcement of how much
lumens we allow in our signs?" And that's becoming a bigger issue we had a we had an issue three years ago i believe it was uh during COVID or just postcoid on Route 17 Premise allowed a
illuminated LED sign to go up on Route 4 that was Pramis property and it was so bright that at night during the wintertime it was glaring into the homes at the south part of town uh but we
didn't have a leg to stand on with that one we did push and pramis said they would speak to the signage and the guy did reduce the amount of illumination but I think that's also something we need to talk about and so I would think
I would hope Mr costa Mr burns um Mr dempkin um could and and maybe Mr alter could look at what other towns are doing in regard to signage and we could recommend to the council a holistic
improvement on um on 416 and maybe not limited to 47 but there are other areas that we might want to look into but I think the first thing we need to do tonight is does this body think that this is something we should consider
increasing the amount of signage that's permitted or should we simply tell our code enforcer to enforce the rules as they are and if so uh if we are going to consider something uh some sort of relief for commercial businesses maybe
then this body should um ask our professionals to look at what other towns are doing and send that information to us so that at our next meeting we can have a conversation about it and then we can make a recommendation to the council
but I I think unless and until we we do end up with a change in the ordinance I think the code enforcer needs to enforce what we have on the books i that that's probably an easy one but um you know so I look to members of the board you know
I personally agree with that the laws have to be enforced if it's a law it should be enforced and what do you think Mr about contemplating a review of changes to the ordinance um signage
um I may be willing to look at that but in the meantime I definitely feel that you know the current laws need to be enforced like you said i agree just a question about the request from the business owners i'm looking at
the the whatever your own code document is that they provided um and it really specifically is talking about coverage of the rules it's not really they're not referencing the building signage
um height width you know square footage or anything they're basically just saying they want to do 75% to 100% of the interior windows to be used for signage and promotional disposal that's correct okay i'm just simply
saying as mayor if we're going to touch one part of the ordinance why don't we look at the others too we may wish to expedite that one part if if this body wishes to recommend to the council in revision of that
41647D then this body can just do that and say "We'll look at the rest at a later date." Or this body could say "Well let's let's look at all of 47 ABCDE E." And I think there might be an F and so you know I'm I'm wondering what
appetite this body has for um looking at it if any miss Bowen I um I've always been concerned with signage so I I would be more conservative they already are allowed to have their own sign above
their uh place of business i think 20% would be is is plenty for a window sign because that's in addition to what they already have so I would not I would try to uh keep it closer to the 20% than
then increase it mr sal yeah no I just like to add um certainly like like all ordinances and laws right let's say you make it 30% right well you're always going to have commercial owners that then push it then they go to 40% right so it's sort of
like you know you try to solve one pro you know you make a concession and then there's always going to be like a little bit of a I don't want to say free rider but you know you'll you'll you'll have folks that are just going to push it to 35 to 40 so that's something that has to be considered right as they say give
them an inch they take a mile so that's something to be you know so I say for the time being enforce what's on the books and then um certainly we can have the experts think about you know if it could be increased to 25 but certainly um certainly that should be taken in
mind that once you increase it it it's not a guarantee that folks won't take further advantage of that it's a good point Miss Jim so in in reading what was sent to us two of the things that they were talking about was one saving energy and
kind of blocking out the sun i I you know first question is you know couldn't they just have some sort of film on their window to lower their costs is that I assume that's not against any of our ordinances to have
some darker windows you know to to prevent the light from coming in and and decreasing their cool their heating and cooling costs and any damage it might do to anything inside so I don't think that's a justification for doing this
um and if it's for promotional items so if it's to decrease their cost and then it's to have promotional items then it shouldn't need to be up there all of the time so if a restaurant has a special buy one get one or you know 20% off or
whatever it is then that could be up there for a short period of time which I think is allowed in the banner section you know and maybe maybe some sort of consideration could be had for you know a period of time they could have a larger display so if they really want to
have a promotion which is great and get more people in the door then they could do that for a period of time you know and they can have that bigger sign up for 50% or something like that for 3 months you know or something along those lines to allow obviously we want our businesses to do well but you know to go
back to you know what Mr mayor was saying I hear it too a lot of the people have an issue with the way Kinder Connect Road looks you know and I do you know you drive through there and a lot of it is dilapidated a lot of the buildings don't look good and it it it
doesn't help us it doesn't help us as a town our property values or anything so you know I even I would hope that even you know the redevelopment I don't know anything about that kind of thing and how it can be enforced but I'd love to see something you know being done even
along those lines to to improve our you know our downtown area you know the Kinderac area because it would make a huge difference for our town and our values and the overall attractiveness of our town if we can make all of that look better um but to circle back you know I
I think if we we can't allow them to go crazy we want them to do well we want the businesses to succeed um you know I think I would be more of a proponent of temporary signs not necessarily a permit or something like that but you know allowable for a certain period of time
you know to have a larger sign of some sort you know but for a promotion and then take it down so that's my two cents i I think also too if we were to look at any sort of increase in size and
location of signage and in windows like that we probably need to get I would suggest we get the police department's input from a public safety perspective as well because I I think would make their their job potentially more challenging so that's something we may want to keep in mind if we were to go
down this route um I mean I know in the past that you know we we've we've talked about looking at the sign ordinance and given the changes I think Mr you touched on with technology and and signage and you know the creativity of of you know signs
these days um you know I I would I don't know necessarily we have to change it but perhaps it's it's it would be a worthwhile um to have the professionals take a look at at the sign ordinance and see if there's anything
worth modernizing I guess for from lack of a better term just you know and provide some um information to the board for the board to consider you know is it is there a next step from what their findings I I just wanted to offer I think as
everyone goes out and you know starts to pay attention to these things not that you haven't already just some things to think about one is that once you allow the signs whatever size they are you can't regulate content right so what what's allowed for the pizzeria is allowed for the 7-Eleven is allowed for the florest etc i would also note that
the frontages of the different business establishments range in size as far as width so you have again the pizzeria that might be 15 ft wide you have the 7-Eleven that's I don't know 30 50 ft wide and so when you talk about percentages you might end up inviting
lots of signage you know from a percentage standpoint so whether it's 20% 50% 80% the more window you have the more signage you might have and and I think you know from an enforcement standpoint you you want something that's readily observable so maybe a standard let's say let's for promotional signs
you know if it's a 24 by 36 or whatever the dimensions are that make sense i think you can look at it and tell sort of right away if it if it's allowed or not without having to bring out a tape measure or you know get too complicated to try to figure it out certainly whether or not a a sign's illuminated is
one thing so and maybe again trying to figure out what the intent of all this if if if the real issue is that businesses want to have a way to um again advertise for promotions that that's one thing on a temporary basis versus permanent signage which you know just adds to visual clutter over time right you had you have the menu sign you
have the promotional sign and never gets taken down just gets added to um the the trick with the the temporary stuff is you know was it there for 30 days has it been there for 32 days so it's again I think you want to come up with a standard ized way that allows them to promote what they need to but that can
also be controlled and is and is reasonable from the public perspective and doesn't become cluttered so those are my two cents mr mr chairman can I recommend to uh you as the chairman that you direct
um uh Lisa and Ed uh to send a copy of this part of our um discussion uh to the business administrator and to Steve Dempkin who's not here tonight because he he couldn't be here and make sure that our code
enforcer and our building inspector uh coordinate with each other with the BA uh because it sounds like what I'm hearing this body say is that um um we're we're not going to consider a
larger sort of um uh signage and that we want the sign the code to be enforced as is right now right now Mr uh Mr d rosa has issued a warning to everyone uh which is standard procedure because um
we like to give our businesses a chance they have come back and asked for accommodation i think this body is saying it's not interested in any major accommodation i think this body is saying that it expects um to move forward with summons if the uh signage
is not corrected am I correct on that i think that's the consensus I'm seeing right now yes well then um I know my role as mayor is in this particular meeting right now is
as a member and you're the chair so I would ask that you direct the um um our secretary and our um uh land use board clerk to uh share that information with the BA and the BA
share it with uh the um code enforcer and the building inspector and that that that's what this body is interested in doing at this time or or recommending at this time okay comments from the board i think it makes sense objections
okay with that um Mr halter and Mr chela would you kindly make those communications to the to Mr devkin and to the billing department as well and to the code
enforcement office okay okay yeah i will send them a copy of this meeting uh the audio so they'll be able to see what was said um keep in mind one one point that I I hear we only have one code
enforcement agent in town and there's a lot of violations going on and in my guess it would be almost impossible to enforce this across the whole town for every business so there's going to have to be some flexibility somewhere uh to
make people uh adhere to our code that's it okay well Mr alter um yes we have only one court code enforcer and he he is not full-time and uh I I don't think there's flexibility in enforcement i
think there is flexibility of enforcement over time uh it will you know he will have to move to the most egregious to the least egregious uh given his um part-time status um and that I think
the I I I think that's just a slight difference and if you could make sure that when you send to our code enforceer Mr rosa and Steve Dempkin as well as the business administrator who is you know responsible for all the employees under in the burrow if you um and and also the
police department which would be good so that they can chime in uh would you please edit it down so that they don't have to sit through the whole meeting if you can or tell them the timestamp for which they should start listening and just so they have more more efficient
use of their time yes I will do that and uh Mr castlin uh is do you believe it's the will of this body that we are asking our professionals to review um to look at other ordinances at other towns and come back to us i I think that's
what you said i'd like to I think it makes sense because I know in the past we we've had um some discussion on this on this point that you know there maybe there were some things in in the sign ordinance that um should be looked at or
considered um for some sort of updating but um I know it's not really I think we had gotten focused on other other more critical issues not that this isn't critical but I think there were other things that took uh took priority over that so um I think it would probably
make sense just you know given that you know it's within our purview that you know we take a look and see if there is anything based on you know where you know the world is today i think as somebody said earlier um if there's anything in that ordinance that bears
uh consideration for some type of amendment or modification unless and I can just add um I don't have a problem working with Tom and Rob and the other board professionals try and come up with a
draft and I just want to note that in that specific section of the burough code 416-47D um EC code 360 said that it hasn't been updated since 1998 so there's a lot of changes in the
burrow and signage that um could definitely be updated since 1998 so I'm sure there's room for improvement nothing nothing wrong with looking at what you've been doing to see if there's room for improvement and in light of what Marina just said in terms of the
last time this was looked at um it probably bears us um as a body having a a wholesale look at at the ordinance to see if it's uh there are things there that are still um meaningful to be kept in place or if there there is room for
improvement mr chairman being a school teacher I always feel like setting deadlines is a good idea you want a project uh our next meeting is I believe uh the 14th of May so uh would it be would would you find
it acceptable that some sort of memo or report or information be sent to this body somewhere uh around the 7th of May i know students never like homework Mr mayor um so before agreeing to to that
um last the uh last Tom and Marina before I commit you to to something what what is a reasonable turn around it's about a month um I don't know if we'll have a full-blown ordinance but I think we could start talking about issues and coming up with a list of things to focus on maybe
highlight some language that's problematic i think that's a good place to start i think we we start with an issues list and we go we go from there because maybe there are things with that you'll come up with that the board will come back and say no that's okay we'll leave it as is rather than trying to have you craft a whole whole new
ordinance until we figure out what the issues are right and we can take a look at other ordinances too just to say you know this is what ORD is doing less what you know okay give some examples that work for all sounds good even the kids who got to do
the homework Okay yep that's fine all right with that anything else uh we've hit the end of the agenda for the evening anything else from the board before we call it a night up Miss D i did have one other comment that the um financial disclosure statements are due
by the end of the month so um you should be able to fill them out on the portal two things uh Mr chairman I forgot to mention one um we're we're trying really hard to get back into the burrow hall um
since we're not having the meeting meeting on the 23rd I think there's a high probability we will be back at Burough Hall on May 7th and I think people should plan accordingly um our burough attorney has uh given us a memo on this and uh uh because we are boards
and commissions must be in person so we don't really have a choice about this uh hopefully rural hall will have some uh multimedia ability to it so that um you know we have to be there but maybe some of the experts might come in through um
through electronics second goodness did I just run out of my head um hold on a second um oh we have an alternate alternate two
that's not been filled um and Mr alter wanted me to bring this to your attention um we we we don't want to send out a general would you like to join the land use board because this is a very very important board and we also
don't want to have to say to people thanks for saying you want to be on it but no we're not going to accept you so if you know of someone who you think would be a good fit responsible can show up twice a month except for vacations or or major business issues um who can make
that commitment and who you think will put you know the concerns of the town and also understand that we're looking at positive negative criteria for granting um a variance so if you if you know someone like that a level-headed person like that please would you send
uh would you call me you all have my cell phone number right um so call me or send an email to me but it'd be good to have a conversation even if you send an email to me I'm going to call you back and say "Hey let's think about this person." Because we it it'd be really good for us
if we could have that um uh that would be very very important um okay and and that was the two things okay anything else so give that one some thought and I am I am sorry there's just
so many things on my plate right now it's not that I'm complaining about it this is I love doing what I do um we need someone for historic commission who has um and let me use the
verbiage correctly uh here we go so we currently lost um class A historic commission and the definition for a class A member is a person who is knowledgeable in building
design and construction or architectural history and may reside outside the municipality um if an engineer is knowledgeable and experienced in construction he or she would qualify so if you know of someone who would like to be a part of the historic commission
they don't meet nearly as much as we do um used to be uh Beth Kenigo because she took architecture classes when she was in college and therefore qualified but if you know somebody who would like to be on the historic commission and um you
know has that minimum experience or ability so I think it could even be a contractor based on the way I read it but I don't I'm not a a legal person please again send that name to me too or call me and tell me and so that we can
um appoint that person to the historic commission mr mayor I don't necessarily have anyone off the top of my head but is there some place where there is a description of what that person would need to be maybe could be sent to us or
um so I received this from uh the chair of the historic commission and this is the definition that she said uh was on um on the um on the website i'm I don't know that
for certain but I just put it into the chat okay so you can see it now a person who is knowledgeable in building design and construction or architectural history and may reside so they don't have I prefer them to be a Riveridge resident
but u you know if they don't mind volunteering on a historic commission that's fine um just so we can fill those positions if possible and that that definition is in the burough code at section 240-4
oh even better okay okay thank you for your indulgence Mr chairman okay mr mayor any anything further Mr mr alter yeah just a note that the April 23rd meeting is cancelled i know
it was already been said and the next meeting will be May 14th which we already have two applications for okay so we know we're we're definitely on for the 14th okay anything
further i'll look for a motion to close the meeting then so moved thank you Modia is there a second second thank you M poland all in favor i I stay all right we stand adjourned it's 9:15 p.m thank
you everyone thank you good night everyone see you