Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on February 25 2021
Note: Transcripts are generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Please listen to the recording (below) if you feel any text is inaccurate.
Speaker 0 00:00:16 Ready? Oh, Speaker 1 00:00:18 Wait, let me hit record. Speaker 0 00:00:24 Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Zoning board of adjustment meeting, but please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the courier news notice posted on the bulletin board in the, in the municipal building notice was made available to the task sheet clerk notice sent to the Curry Nunes and the Star-Ledger will the clerk please call the roll Speaker 1 00:00:45 Mr. Zimmerman. Oh, I muted your warrants. Sorry, Mr. Tillery. Mr. Reggio, Mr. Blount, Mr. Patel, Mr. Mirando here and chairman hill here, Speaker 0 00:01:10 Everyone. Please stand for the total flag. One nationMinutes for Piscataway Zoning meeting on February 25 2021Mr. Conneely. Are there any changes to the agenda? Yes, there are. Speaker 2 00:01:35 Uh, M and M partners at Piscataway has requested to be carried to March 25th. That will be carried with no further notice by the applicant. The application of Harris Realty, a 31 Lakeview avenue has been adjourned until March 25th, 2021. The applicant must be notice. I understand the Gaia tried power war is going to ask to be rescheduled, but I have not discussed that with the applicant. If a representative of the applicant is present, perhaps we can hear from them. Speaker 3 00:02:07 Mr. Chameleon, Mr. Chairman, uh, good evening. Arvind I tall, I am a representative of the applicant and, uh, based on a conversation that I had with my client earlier today, and also with the staff, uh, we are requesting this matter. Be carried to the next meeting. I understand your March meeting date is full. We've asked that you put us on just in case. Uh, I understand that we may not make that March date, um, because of the schedule, but if we can stay on that schedule, that would be appreciated. Speaker 2 00:02:35 And you did notice for this evening, is that correct? We Speaker 3 00:02:37 Did. Uh, we provided the proof of notice and we'd ask that we not be required to re notice. Speaker 2 00:02:42 Okay. So the, the application of guided tried power war Northeast America will be carried to March 25th with no further notice by the applicant, but also the applicant must understand that they may not be reached that day. Speaker 3 00:02:54 Thank you. Speaker 2 00:02:56 Those are all the changes I have. Mr. Chairman. Speaker 0 00:02:59 Thank you, Mr. at this time, we'd like to go to, um, item number 6 21 days, ZB dash zero one V T-Mobile Northeast. Speaker 4 00:03:10 Uh, yes. Mr. Chairman members of the board condemning. This is Frank Ferraro from a, our you're on behalf of the applicant T-Mobile Northeast LLC. Uh, Mr. Chairman though, this application before the board tonight is for an interpretation. Uh, T-Mobile currently has an FCC license, uh, telecommunication facility on the rooftop of the building at 2 42 old, uh, new Brunswick road. Um, currently they have nine antennas attached to sled mounts on the roof, three antennas per sector. Um, and they also have, uh, equipment cabinets to existing equipment cabinets on a, uh, a steel platform. Uh, we filed the interpretation, um, under a 47, USC 1455 and FCC, uh, the company in FCC orders, uh, requesting a determination that the proposed upgrade would be exempt from, uh, locals land use, uh, jurisdiction. Um, the nature of the upgrade is that T-Mobile will be swapping. Now three of them nine and 10 is in place with three new antennas. Speaker 4 00:04:20 Um, one per sector, the new antennas are considerably shorter than the existing antennas. New ones are about 33 inches tall. They are a little wider, there are two existing cabinets, which will be replaced, um, at the site on the dunnage. So essentially, you know, it's more of a maintenance thing. Um, they're swapping out some of the older antennas for a new 5g, um, uh, capable antennas in order to improve the service in this area. Um, there's no way there's gonna be no increase in the number of antennas as a result of the upgrade. And there's going to be no increase in the number, uh, cabinets at the site as a result of the upgrade. Um, so it's, it's fair. It's fairly diminimous, Speaker 2 00:05:07 But Mr. Flora was fair to say that there are no new variances created by this Speaker 4 00:05:13 And that's crack house Speaker 2 00:05:16 And you're not in, you're not making it any higher or any larger, Speaker 4 00:05:21 Uh, no, the, um, the antennas will be attached to the existing Postmates on bolting three antennas from the post in three new ones onto that post, no higher. Speaker 2 00:05:35 And I know that earlier today, uh, a resolution or part of a resolution was forwarded to you with regard to this property from 2011. Speaker 4 00:05:44 Correct. Um, I did, uh, take a look at that. Um, it appears there was a requirement of a solar facility that additional right away, uh, be provided to the township in the form of it. He used Smith, um, you know, this application for the board. I know in the past that sometimes when there, I don't know much about it, to be honest, but they didn't handle the application, but I'm assuming that perhaps that wasn't done by the applicant or they don't want her at that time, if it was 2011, um, I don't have any independent knowledge of that, but, but since it's being brought up, I assume it was not done. Um, normally this was the site plan application. Then perhaps that condition would also could also impact this particular application. I would just respectfully submit to the board. And since this is an interpretation on our very specific, um, FCC order and legislation that applies only to this type of telecommunication, uh, use, um, the failure of a prior applicant on a, on a different type of matter, um, to, uh, to fulfill the condition I should not attach or any way condition board from finding that this, uh, facility upgrade can move forward. Speaker 4 00:07:01 Um, like I offered to Laura, I would be more than happy to try to facilitate with the property owner, uh, curing that defect. Um, but we would just respectfully ask the board that it not be included in our, and the decision affecting this matter. Um, I got a chance to look at the prior resolutions. This was not a condition of T-Mobile core sprints prior resolutions. This is something that was more recent and in 2011, Speaker 5 00:07:34 Yeah. I mean, he's accurate this, this was definitely a condition that was, um, part of the application that came for the board in 2011 for believe it, it was a solar panel array, uh, over the parking lot, um, as one of those conditions, uh, that, that, that was being spoken of is the, uh, permanent right of way, easement additional 10 feet of permanent, right of way easement along the front of w brother grower. Uh, we're going to be improving that roadway in the near future. And, uh, again, as a condition of that previous approval, uh, that easement was agreed to, uh, during that application. Um, that being said, uh, we, we, you know, th there may have been also another temporary easement, but the, whatever the item that resolution is is what, you know, we have a concern with, since we're going to be doing the, uh, road construction there in the near future. Speaker 5 00:08:31 So we would like that condition to be made, uh, you know, to follow through on that condition of that approval. Um, I understand Mr. Ferrara was, um, you know, concern and point regarding that. It wasn't part of his specific application. That being said, though, I think if they came in for a permit, um, we would look at the property in any outstanding resolutions and possibly hold up that, um, that zoning permit for that reason. Uh, again, I'm not sure Jim, on the one may say that they're exempt from site plan approval, but it may not, um, state that they are exempt from any other outstanding conditions when they come in for a building permit, um, for those modifications. Speaker 2 00:09:21 Well, Mr. Chairman has been the practice of this board for many years, uh, when an applicant comes in, uh, when there's been a prior application and there are prior conditions of approval, uh, that you make a condition of this approval, uh, that all of those former conditions remain in full force in effect. Um, that is what I would recommend here. Uh, I agree, Mr. Ferraro is attempting to distinguish, uh, his application. He may or may not be correct, but I believe, uh, to protect the township of Piscataway, we should probably, uh, if the board sees fit and grant an exemption from site plan on the condition that all prior conditions of approval will be met. Speaker 4 00:10:03 If I may, Mr. Chairman, I just have to object only because I'm not, I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult. Um, having been before this board over the number of years, I remember the boy taking that position as a, as counselor has indicated. Uh, I just had to say for the record that conditioning, this, this is an interpretation. Um, so we're asking the board to find that when you meet the criteria under the, um, under the spectrum act so that we are exempt from local zoning regulation, um, so conditioning, the approval conditioning, the interpretation is, is basically a kin to deny it. Um, the FCC says that they give a specific criteria, which I included in the package that I submitted to the board, that conditions that they say, this is, these are the questions to be answered is the, is the facility existing? Speaker 4 00:11:06 Which means it's an eligible facility, is the upgrade, uh, to an extent that it constitutes a substantial change to that facility. We submitted in the package that, um, I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't violate any of those conditions. So that is the extent of the analysis to determine whether or not it's exempt, we're going above and beyond. Now. Um, there was actually a recent, uh, recent FCC ruling and last year of June of last year. So that was FCC ordered 20 to 75 positive 42, where the sec specifically went further to explain this because Harry's, we're running into problems with prior conditions that didn't have to do with the substantial change criteria is outside the guidelines provided by the FCC and really, you know, outside the jurisdiction at that point, since the FCC has kind of taken, uh, almost exclusive jurisdiction over these upgrades now. Speaker 4 00:12:07 So if there is a condition established in the prior resolution for T-Mobile or sprint that has not been complied with then that could be considered a substantial change by the FCC, but it has to be expressly stated in the resolution for the approval of that facility. I went through or sprint spectrum and for T-Mobile at this site, and nowhere was the condition of the easement, uh, noted in either of those resolutions. So this would be a new condition being put on, um, you know, a new condition put on an interpretation application that is really outside the parameters of what the STC allow. It's also a condition that we can't the sec says you have 60 days to determine, to make determinations on, on an eligible eligible facility request. And Piscataway has been very good about doing that through their, through their board and their board process. Speaker 4 00:13:09 That's a condition that there's really no way for us to resolve within, within the 60 day period. So it's going to be something that's almost akin to, to a denial under the, uh, under the FCC orders. So my point is not to say that what disagree with what, um, counsel has said and the procedures and the historical procedures of the board. I know the board likes to take conditions and make sure that obviously they're complied with, but there is a specific set of rules here in legislation that that is different when you're dealing with FCC license, provider stuff, communication facilities. So, I mean, that's the legal argument I hit. The practical aspect of this is, you know, this is not a situation where a T-Mobile, I'm willing to try to work this out with the landlord, um, and bring it to their attention and know that this is a problem. Speaker 4 00:14:06 And it has to be taken care of conditioning, our ability to provide better service to the public upon something that is out of our control like that I think is not gonna really benefit, certainly not gonna benefit my client, but certainly having the benefit anyone has to service in this area. And this is not a situation where we're proposing a new site. This is not a situation where we're, we're grabbing more rooftop space and, you know, the landlord is going to get more money out of us. This is basically a maintenance issue, right? There was in that facility up there is, is not up to, you know, the state of the art standards that it could be. So if the owner decides not to do anything about it, we can upgrade the site. We can provide the better service. And, you know, I, I'm not sure where we know what benefit that is not the legal argument of sign that I think it would run a foul and FCC regulations. Speaker 4 00:15:07 Um, if there was going to be some kind of, and I think I even provided to the board a copy of the, uh, the lease notice to the landlord indicating that this is, uh, this is maintenance. There's no, there's no additional payments being made, whether this is approved or not. So I'm just worried. I don't, we don't have a lot of, from a practical standpoint to make somebody do something about this. Um, so I guess that's both sides of the coin. Um, one is the legal argument. I really do feel that it would run a foul of the FCC regulations and that they provide a very, very distinct and very, uh, specific guidelines for what we're supposed to look at when determining whether it's going to be exempt or not. And I think on data lead, this would, this would go beyond that. So I know it's the boys' policy, but I would ask in this particular situation not to, because I really do believe that there is legislation, which indicates that you should not do that. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0 00:16:13 Um, it has been our practice in the past to do exactly what you don't want us to do. So unfortunately, um, I'm going to recommend to the board that we only consider approving this with the condition stated by the township attorney, Speaker 2 00:16:33 Mr. Chairman, if there's no further testimony, you may want to go out to the public. Speaker 0 00:16:36 We'll do, does anybody on the board here have any questions for this applicant, Speaker 4 00:16:43 Mr. Mr. Fanelli? Yes, I may. Before, um, I just have to ask, uh, by an engineer is on the pole. Oh, Anthony, uh, I've kinda made an Oracle law oral argument on this. Um, if the board I might get a sense of the board is going in a certain direction, I might want to call my engineer just to put some testimony, quick testimony on the record. Speaker 2 00:17:07 Did you ascertain that he is on Speaker 4 00:17:09 The call? Yes. He just popped up. I see Anthony, Speaker 2 00:17:12 What is his name please? Speaker 6 00:17:15 Anthony Christiana with a friendship associates. Speaker 2 00:17:18 Mr. Christiana. I need to swear you in, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give you the truth so help you God. Thank you. Speaker 4 00:17:29 Uh, Mr. Christiana, could you please go over your background qualifications for the board in public? Speaker 6 00:17:36 Yeah. So, um, I've been a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey since last March. Um, I've been working with French with Prolo for about 10 years all within the telecommunications Speaker 4 00:17:50 Department. Okay. And have you testified before boys in the state of New Jersey before? I have not. This is your first time. So, um, approximately how many wireless tell him if he tell him condition facility sites? Uh, would you say you've worked on in your career? Speaker 6 00:18:09 Um, hundreds over 500 within the state of New Jersey and New York Speaker 4 00:18:14 And, uh, for multiple barriers or just T-Mobile Speaker 6 00:18:18 Multiple carriers sprint T-Mobile Verizon. Speaker 4 00:18:22 Okay. I'm satisfied with his credentials. Speaker 7 00:18:28 Can I interrupt one second? Is he an RF engineer or is he a civil engineer, Speaker 4 00:18:33 Civil engineer. Speaker 7 00:18:36 It isn't the discussion revolve around whether it is a need for the facility and replacement, as opposed to a engineering description of what's been described as we're replacing two cabinets and three a dental. Speaker 4 00:18:55 Uh, no, th there is no RF need component to this house, to this application. Speaker 7 00:19:01 You're basing your upgrade on some kind of need it's real competition, Speaker 4 00:19:07 But not, and that's really, Speaker 7 00:19:11 I just don't see where the testimony is going to add anything. Speaker 4 00:19:15 Well, the, the testimony is just going to be very brief and to the point, but I need to have my engineer to go through the criteria to give his professional opinion as to whether or not this is an L this is eligible facility and whether or not will cause a substantial change. So it's basically gonna take, it's gonna take probably three minutes. Um, but I think I need a professionals, uh, testimony on those matters. Thank you, John, please. The sheet. Okay. So Mr. Christiana, the plans that you submitted to the board, uh, uh, where they either prepared by you on your supervision? Speaker 6 00:19:53 Yes. Okay. Speaker 4 00:19:57 T-Mobile has an existing telecommunication facility at this particular property, is that correct? Correct. And are they seeking to operate that facility in this application? Speaker 6 00:20:09 They are, Speaker 4 00:20:11 Um, with respect to the, uh, antennas, there are currently nine antennas on the rooftop, is that correct? Speaker 6 00:20:18 Correct to, Speaker 4 00:20:21 And, uh, there are three, uh, equipment cabinets. Is that right? Whereas In this upgrade, uh, T-Mobile is proposing to replace three of the existing tenants. Is that right? Speaker 6 00:20:37 That's Speaker 4 00:20:37 Correct. And will they replace them on existing mounts on the building rooftop? Speaker 6 00:20:44 Yeah, there's existing balance trains on the top of the roof were proponent to replace three antennas on existing pipe mess. Speaker 4 00:20:50 Okay. And, uh, will the antennas or the equipment increase the height of the facility? Speaker 6 00:20:57 No changes to the height. Speaker 4 00:20:59 Okay. Will the equipment or antennas changed the width of the facility in any way? Speaker 6 00:21:06 No change. Speaker 4 00:21:08 Um, after the upgrade bullet facility exceed, uh, for equipment cabinets or we'll be under that threshold? Speaker 6 00:21:16 No, it'll be on their forecasts. Uh, three cabinets is what we're proposing at vinyl. Speaker 4 00:21:22 Um, is there any excavation or deployment outside the current, uh, side of the rooftop facility? Either the Speaker 6 00:21:30 Full modifications proposed, Speaker 4 00:21:34 Um, in your opinion, would anyone, anything defeat these, any existing concealment elements at that site? Are there any concealment elements? I don't think there's any, Speaker 6 00:21:43 No, there's no concealment elements for the intenders or equipment. Speaker 4 00:21:47 Okay. So the antennas, will they be installed in the same fashion as the existing antennas? Speaker 6 00:21:52 Correct. Speaker 4 00:21:54 Okay. All right. Thank you. That, that's it. That's the extent of the question, Speaker 2 00:22:01 Mr. Chairman, if there are no questions from the board, then it would be appropriate to go out to the public, Speaker 0 00:22:07 Open the public portion right now, anyone in the public want to have any questions about this application, please? Step forward, Brian, that has raised his hand Speaker 2 00:22:15 And this would be time for questions and comments. Sure. Speaker 8 00:22:18 Hi, can you hear me? Speaker 2 00:22:22 Uh, Brian, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, so help you God. Yes, I have your name and address please. Speaker 8 00:22:30 Right? 1247 Brookside Speaker 2 00:22:32 Road. Can you spell your last name, please? Thank you. Speaker 8 00:22:37 Uh, I'd just like to encourage the board to accept this application. It seems pretty silly to me to say that you can't replace the antennas on the roof without complying with other requirements here. I mean, there would be no problem if they just continue business as usual. So I think it's a little crazy to say you have to do various other things. And I think as a resident that lives nearby, like T-Mobile not upgrading is going to hurt my enjoyment of things. That was it. Thanks. Thank you. Speaker 0 00:23:08 Thank you, Brian misspoke. Like anyone else? No chairman. Okay. Hearing nothing. The public portion is now closed. Um, Mr. Ferrara at this point would shoot. Would you reconsider your current position? Speaker 4 00:23:28 Um, Speaker 0 00:23:29 The previous Speaker 4 00:23:32 Mr. Chair, I'm asking the boy not to include that as a condition of approval. I'm more than willing to work to try to help get that. Um, I want to be part of the solution, not the problem on it. The problem I have, the problem I have is I have a legal requirement in Europe. In front of me. I had the FCC regulations in front of me. The sec regulations are saying that you can condition an eligible facility, which doesn't create a substantial change on things that are out that are outside of the criteria. And I just want to read one sentence from paragraph 42. And this is FCC order 2075. This was adopted just last year because just for this specific reason, because this boy is not unique in carrying forward conditions on properties. A lot of boys do that. Um, but then this particular context, the FCC actually had to provide some guidance just to reiterate that it's not to be that practice is not to be done in the context of wireless communications upgrades. Speaker 4 00:24:36 You know, the FCC indicated, however, localities can not merely assert that a detail or feature that facility was a condition of the citing approval. There must be express evidence express them. And this has been interpreted as, as being an actual condition in the original resolution for that facility. So it must be expressed evidence that at the time of the approval, the locality required the feature and condition approval upon its continuing existence. In order for noncompliance with the condition to disqualify a modification from being an eligible facility request. So it says insistent with commonplace, statutory construction, that the specific comments, the general, we clarify that where there is a conflict between the localities general ability to impose conditions under section five and modifications specifically deemed non substantial under sections one through four, the conditions under section five should be enforced only to the extent they do not prevent the modification that would otherwise be approved. Speaker 4 00:25:44 So in this particular situation, and then it goes on, obviously it provides the statutory time, reasonable time period of the FCC puts that 60 days for, uh, for processing one of these, one of these upgrades. So I just wanted to read that to the board because I, that was in paragraph 42 of the 20, 75 and the FCC thought it was important and not to, to provide that in a recent guidance so that these type of facilities aren't for lack of a better word than not, they're not held up for reasons unrelated to them, because whether what, how would we feel about wireless telecommunications? Whether we think it's a good thing or a bad thing, you know, the FCC has made it clear that they want the carriers to, to upgrade and provide the best service to the public. And that's understood. Yeah, it's understood. Um, Speaker 0 00:26:43 And obviously we're out for the best interest of the public as well, but we have a policy where all conditions need to be satisfied, whether a prior or current, um, Mr. Kennedy, like, what if we want to grant this with the condition that all prior conditions still applied, Speaker 2 00:27:00 That is the typical policy of the sport. Speaker 4 00:27:04 Okay. Speaker 2 00:27:07 And Mr. Ferrara, that would also give you a greater momentum to facilitate this happening with the landlord, with Speaker 0 00:27:16 The landlord. Yeah, Speaker 4 00:27:17 But what, in what way? I'm sorry, if it was included. Speaker 2 00:27:21 Yes, because you could take the position with the landlord that maybe you're going to stop paying the landlord because he hasn't allowed you to go forward Speaker 4 00:27:33 At the end of the day, the site, the site does not pick it up for you. So the people being heard here is I understand it's the policy of the board, that this is a very unique service. It's, it's pretty much it's today's modern day utility service, right? So it's, as one of the members of the public indicated, the only people who are being heard are the people in Koscot away were next to the site. And I would just reiterate once again, I am no way trying to say that the board's policies are wrong or, you know, or, or being disrespectful of, you know, the boards, the way the board includes these conditions. I'm just trying to make the port aware that there was a specific carve out for this type of FCC license facility. So I think the board could still be consistent and requiring the conditions to appear in, in subsequent resolutions, but for all matters, other than FCC license, wireless targeting options, where there was clear legislation, which says you cannot do that because this approval, whether it be akin to a denial with that condition in it, that's how the FCC looks at it because you're approving it for your conditioning on something that is not permissible under the regulations. Speaker 4 00:28:58 So what's an akin, it's akin to it. It denial Speaker 2 00:29:02 It's from our point of view, it's been a valid condition for 10 years now. Speaker 4 00:29:08 Oh, I, I understand that. But all I'm saying respectfully is that this legislation came about originally four years ago. So, and now you have guidance as of last June, which is directly on point as to conditions. So the board is going to make its own decisions. I just, I'm just trying to provide the information, you know, obviously, um, I'm making the face for my client, but I do think it's, it's, it's based upon recent federal legislation. And I would just, I would just ask the board to acknowledge that in this case, allow the applicant to be, to work with the landlord in order to get this fixed, because it's obviously been outstanding for what a decade now. So something that's happened a decade ago is it's going to hold people up from getting better service in 2021. I just don't think it's the best result. I just don't think it's allowable under the regulations for this use only if this was a new rooftop facility, this would be a totally different ballgame, but with respect to upgrades, um, you know, these are the regulations that are on the books. Thank you, Mr. . Thank you. Thank you for letting me go off there. Speaker 2 00:30:34 I think that's where we differ and the board will make its decision. Speaker 0 00:30:41 So the, uh, granting with the condition is not something Mr. Ferraro you're interested in, correct. Speaker 2 00:30:46 The board can do that on its own. Speaker 4 00:30:48 Yeah, I can. I don't know if I can. I mean, I object to the condition, but you know, it's up to the board, whether, Speaker 0 00:30:55 Okay, well, I'm going to, I'm going to make the motion. I'm going to make a motion that we grant this application with the condition prior, uh, conditions still apply. Speaker 1 00:31:05 Second that Speaker 0 00:31:10 Thank you. One Mr. Speaker 1 00:31:16 Zimmerman. Yes. Mr. Taylor. Yes. Mr. Reggio. Yes. Mr. Blanton show up Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. Mirando. Yes. And chairman Cahill. Speaker 0 00:31:33 Yes. Speaker 2 00:31:35 Mr. Ferrara. We'll uh, have a resolution at our next meeting and send it to you. Speaker 4 00:31:39 Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. . Speaker 0 00:31:46 Let's move ahead to item number 9 21 dash ZB zero Q V. Paul we're Bain For bone. I bought you them. So sorry. Speaker 3 00:31:59 Okay. Arvin. I tell how are you Mr. Chairman members of the board? I'm an attorney at law licensed to practice in state of New Jersey. And I represent the applicant before the board this evening. I have one witness that I'd like to present, and this is for a temporary use permit to permit outdoor storage. Uh, the site is a commercial slash light industrial type site located at 1 45. I'm sorry, a 1 45 11th street. So it's bounded by 11th street on the south 10th street on the north and Adrian avenue to the west. Uh, the building is approximately 7,200 square feet that exists there. And as I said earlier, it's on a one acre site plus or minus. Uh, the applicant is seeking this, uh, temporary use permit to permit outdoor storage for a known tenant that is actually currently occupying a building, just a few doors down at 1 78 10th street, uh, and the company extreme supplies east coast. Speaker 3 00:33:01 Now, um, I have the owner of the property, Mr. Rabone. Who's going to provide testimony. I want to provide just a little bit of background on this, um, uh, proposed tenant. That's going to be moving in the, the tenant has three employees, um, no changes in operations from the 1 78 10th street location, which is where they're currently located is anticipated. This is essentially in the words of, uh, the, the tenant, the perfect site for them. Perfect. In terms of size inside and outside. Um, what they do is they store and warehouse, uh, um, disaster rental equipment, dry goods, PPE gear, disinfects, and that sort of thing for disaster relief, such as floods, fires, mold, hurricanes, and now COVID, uh, so these, uh, products that come in, the equipment that come in are essentially coming in and then going out fairly, fairly quickly when there is an emergency, they immediately locate the equipment and the products to the emergency site. Um, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to call Mr. Rebel. Who's going to give us a little bit more background. Um, I think this is the perfect opportunity for the, uh, for the township to have a current, um, business stay in the township of Piscataway. Uh, and, and they've been serving on an emergency basis, uh, not only the township of Piscataway, but numerous townships and municipalities throughout the country. Um, Mr. Ribbon, if you can turn on your mic and Mr. Chairman, if I can have him sworn in, Speaker 2 00:34:40 Please proceed. Mr. Ribbon, could you raise your right hand, please? Speaker 3 00:34:45 You'll have to turn on your microphone. Speaker 2 00:34:50 Yeah, there we go. Mr. Ribbon, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth? I do your name and address please. Speaker 9 00:34:59 Bob we're Bowen eight 20 gates avenue, Skylar. Speaker 2 00:35:03 Thank you. Speaker 3 00:35:05 And Mr. Chairman. Yes. Mr. Bone. Um, you're familiar with the site because it's actually your family site, is that correct? Yes. And this is a family, uh, investment that you've owned for a number of years, correct? Speaker 9 00:35:19 Yeah, my fault, my father's store there in the fifties. And has been there ever since Speaker 3 00:35:23 It's a vacant site currently, Speaker 9 00:35:26 There's building on, on the site now, um, that 7,000 square feet. Do you talk about the that's been there? Speaker 3 00:35:34 No. I mean, there's no one occupying the building currently. Correct. So it's vacant and you'd like to have a, a good tenant occupied this building, right? Correct. Okay. Now you heard me earlier talking about extreme supplies east coast, and they're located at one 70 10th street, which isn't far from where you are currently. Is that correct? That's right now, is there anything that I said that was incorrect or is there anything that you want to add about their operations and I'm going to, it's a two-part question. The second part of that question is have you been by their location at 1 78 10th street? Speaker 9 00:36:08 Did they have grew 1 78, 10th street? They have some of their equipment that they don't have a room for in the building. They are stored out very little on the road. We're giving them the opportunity to move into a building that's bigger, that can house a lot more of their equipment and that we have a fenced in yard. Now, the equipment that they store out along 10th street is now will be well off strip 10th street behind the face of buildings and in a fenced in protected area where it's a chore for them. And it's also secure from any of the kids in the neighborhood or anything like that. Speaker 3 00:36:43 Now the current location that they have though, they have not received any complaints from neighbors and so forth about noise and, uh, anything of the sort that you're aware of have they, Speaker 9 00:36:52 Oh, no, they've been, they they've been a great neighbor, um, you know, to the residential community and also the industrial area now. Speaker 3 00:37:01 And as a property owner, I know that you want to have someone that's actually paying rent and occupying it. But, uh, I would imagine that you're, you're going to be somewhat picky. If it's a bad neighbor, that's down the street. You're not going to allow them to come in and, and Sully, your reputation are you? Speaker 9 00:37:16 No. And my father has prided himself on, on that day. He's always been concerned about the neighbors and wants to do right by the neighbors when he does own a building that needs to have a tendon in it. Um, so you know what? The neighbors have always been a priority to him. Speaker 3 00:37:30 Okay. Now, when the things that I've indicated in there, and the opening statements that I made was the we're looking for a temporary use permit, which means that we can ask for up to six months conditioned upon us coming back to the board with a full site plan to let them know how this operation is going to work. Uh, you're aware of that, is that correct? Yeah. Speaker 9 00:37:50 The fact that just like plan is probably 99% completed. Now I have copies of it already. Um, I'm dealing with Menlo engineering and they drawn it, drawn up a set of plans that I'm handing into my attorney's office. Speaker 3 00:38:04 Okay. Now, uh, there are a number of, of staff reports and memos that the professional staff came up with and there's nothing that we can't comply with. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Um, and you understand that, uh, the site has to be maintained nor literally orderly manner at all times, but certainly until we come in for, uh, our full site plan, you're going to make sure that the tenant continues to maintain the site. Are you not? Speaker 9 00:38:32 And we've always prided ourselves on keeping a nice, neat, clean neighborhood for, for the neighbors that live behind y'all on 10th street. Speaker 3 00:38:40 Mr. Chairman. Um, I don't have any other questions for Mr. Ribbon. I think that if the board members have any specific questions regarding to the operation, but essentially, um, we're looking for is a temporary use permit so that we can move this tenant and permit them to start to occupy the facility. And as they're moving over, uh, we would certainly file the application we're asking for six months. Speaker 0 00:39:03 Okay. Thank you. Does anyone on the board have any questions for this application when he comments? I just have a quick I'm hearing non-returnable I'm sorry, Henry, please. Yeah. Are there any hazardous chemicals of use at this facility, or I should say with this business, Speaker 9 00:39:20 Um, no hazardous materials, everything that they handle has been EPA approved and they have all the licenses to handle everything. Speaker 0 00:39:29 Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else with any questions? Speaker 7 00:39:33 Just one quick one, Mr. John, uh, I've seen where they currently, uh, located and there is a lot of small types of equipment all over the place. This variance plan shows several locations for outside of the trailer storage. And Aryn said that he would comply with all the reports.