Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on May 27 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 00:00:00 All right, you are ready to go. Speaker 1 00:00:02 Okay. Let's get started. Zoning board of adjustment meeting will please come to order adequate notices. This meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the courier news notice posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the courier news and to the star ledger. Will the clerk please call the role Speaker 0 00:00:23 Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Weissman. Oh, he's not here today. Apologize Mr. Ratio here, Mr. Patel, Mr. Mirando here, Mr. Ali and chairman Cahill. Speaker 1 00:00:40 Well, I want to please stand for a salute to the flag and to the Republic for which it wasn'tMinutes for Piscataway Zoning meeting on May 27 2021before we start the meeting, I'd like everyone to, uh, take some somber moments this weekend to remember those that passed, um, in the armed services this Memorial day. Thank you. Um, Mr. , are there any changes to the agenda? I'm not aware Speaker 2 00:01:17 Of any changes to the tonight's agenda? Speaker 0 00:01:20 Mr. Conneely both sides emailed you both solids have. Speaker 2 00:01:26 Oh, I was not aware of that. I must've left the office to come home and get ready for my, Speaker 0 00:01:30 I apologize, Ms. Canberra is here on behalf of solids. Speaker 3 00:01:34 Good evening. Thank you. Um, as Laura said, I'm here on behalf of self since he can burn for Bach Eichler. Um, we got the reports today and, um, want to be able to, um, meet with your, um, landscape architect and make sure we can address all the points that were raised in the letters best. We have a new date of June 24th, which we understand we do not have to notice as we're putting it on the record right now. Speaker 0 00:02:00 Correct. Speaker 2 00:02:02 So when are you going to hear on the two solids applications? 3 77 and 3 71 hoes lane. They will be adjourned to June 24th with no further notice by the applicant. Speaker 1 00:02:13 Thank you. Thank you, man. Thank you, Mr. Kenney, let's move on to item number 5 21 dash DB dash 12 V. Your vendor Patel. Speaker 4 00:02:24 Hello? Um, hi, my name is Neil. I'll be translating from my father to Andrew Patel. He's here. You want to say hi, Speaker 1 00:02:31 So hi, Speaker 2 00:02:34 Uh, it is Neil Patel. Yes. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth? Yes. Okay. Are you authorized by your father to proceed here? Yes, Speaker 4 00:02:49 I, if you want, I can have him speak as well. He speaks English, but I can just translate Speaker 2 00:02:53 Not yet. You know what, rather than do that, uh, perhaps you can act as his agent and explain the board what, uh, your parents would like to do here. Speaker 4 00:03:02 Perfect. Um, so, um, we have a sewer easement on our property. Um, we'd like to build a fence in our backyard. Um, so we'd like a variance to be able to build the fence, um, uh, over the easement. Speaker 2 00:03:17 Uh, did you see Mr. report in this matter? Speaker 4 00:03:20 Um, yes, they said, I think that's the report where I have to move to, um, uh, fence 20 feet from the curb. Speaker 2 00:03:25 That's correct. And are you agreeable to do that? Yes, Speaker 4 00:03:28 Sir. Speaker 1 00:03:30 Any other comments, Henry? Speaker 5 00:03:32 Just that, uh, the applicant should be aware that if for some reason the township, uh, needs to gain access to that sewer easement, uh, any costs associated with the removal and, uh, or replacement of that fence will be the applicant's responsibility. Speaker 1 00:03:50 Are you okay with that, Mr. Patel? Yep. I agree. Okay. Fine. Anyone else on the board have any questions for this application or comments hearing none. I'm going to put it into the public portion. Any one of the public portion of any questions or comments about this application? Just buckling? Speaker 0 00:04:10 No, I do not see anyone Speaker 1 00:04:12 Close the public portion. Then I'd make a motion to approve this application Speaker 2 00:04:18 As Speaker 1 00:04:18 Amended as amended. Yes. I apologize to Speaker 0 00:04:24 Wait. Who's second. I'm sorry, everybody. Kalpa. Shh. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. Mr. Reggio? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Mirando? Yes. Mr. Ali. Yes. And chairman Cahill. Speaker 1 00:04:42 Yes. Speaker 2 00:04:43 Mr. Patel, you've been granted an, a, an approval as amended. We will memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting. You do not need to be present for that. We will mail a copy of that to you. You'll need that for your permit Speaker 4 00:04:54 Process. And thank you so much. Speaker 1 00:04:57 Thank you. Okay, let's move on to item number 6 21 days. CB dash 13 V mega Patel Speaker 2 00:05:06 Is Megha Patel present. Speaker 0 00:05:11 It's like somebody who's raising their hand. I go ahead, Mr. Patel? Yes. Hi. Hi. Speaker 2 00:05:20 Okay. Or how many people were present? Speaker 0 00:05:23 Uh, it's myself and my husband. Speaker 2 00:05:26 Are you both going to testify tonight? Yes. Yes. Okay. Could you each raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth. Yes. One at a time. Could I have your name and address please? Speaker 0 00:05:39 14 Linden street discard. Speaker 2 00:05:45 Mr. Patel, Speaker 1 00:05:51 You lose that lore. Speaker 0 00:05:56 Can I just, Speaker 2 00:05:58 Here we go, Speaker 6 00:06:00 Then 14 Linden. Speaker 2 00:06:03 Thank you. Could one of you explain to the board what you'd like to do here? Speaker 6 00:06:06 Um, sure. So we are looking to build a fence around our property line. Uh, we are looking to get variants on the Richmond side, uh, Richmond street side at, uh, 10 feet, uh, the party line. Speaker 2 00:06:23 And did you see Mr. report in this matter? Yes. And he's asking you to move the fence back. Are you a willing to do that? Speaker 6 00:06:32 Actually, I'd like to, you know, have the fence at 10 feet. Um, the way I see the property is that at the 10 feet, I don't think it will obstruct much traffic, as you can see, the street goes on further. The back of my property line also has the township trees. And after that is a parking lot, extended carb. So anyone taking a turn in is already blocked by like that. So us putting us at a 10 feet or back into 20 feet, I don't think will make a difference. So I'd like to ask the board to see if we can do 10 feet of the curb line. Speaker 2 00:07:14 Mr. Henderson, perhaps you can give us your opinion. Speaker 5 00:07:17 Yeah, well, my opinion is that the ordinance requires the fence to be 35 feet back in this location, which is even with the house. So that being said, I think he a reasonable, um, compromise here would be to move the fence back 10 feet off of the property line or 20 feet off of the curb, somewhat similar to the last application so that the fence isn't right up against the sidewalk. And again, pinching on that site corridor on Richmond street as mentioned, there is a parking lot behind her, uh, and the temperature park, which is another reason why cars come around out of that parking lot onto Richmond street. And, uh, that corner of that fence there that additional 10 feet will help with the, a little bit more of the visibility, but it's also a psych order issue. So again, the ordinance requires 35 feet on a, in a front yard for solid fences. Um, I think 10 feet is more than a reasonable compromise of what we're asking for and still maintains a rather usable space in the applicant's property Speaker 2 00:08:22 As Patel. Do you understand the, uh, testimony given by Mr. ? Speaker 6 00:08:27 We understand, but again, I just want to, again, reiterate that we understand the traffic coming in, but the point we want to make is that, that, that parking lot that is there is a parked cars first and there is an extended cart, right? And they're already up until the property line on the Richmond street, our township trees that sometimes grow and, you know, they also block block the view anyways. So us putting a fence back 10 feet, I think that's, it doesn't make sense, right? I mean, to us and plus the property, just know that the properties are surrounded at a surrounded by the park, uh, township park. So we really want to maximize over space on that side. Cause you know, we want to build specifically for privacy purposes and to avoid all the new sense and obviously the baseball ball's coming into over backyard. Um, yeah, we do have two little kids, so I definitely want you to maximize our space in the backyard. Um, if he can work out maybe little bit less than 20 feet would also be helpful. Speaker 2 00:09:40 Uh, Mr. Bell, I believe Mr. Henderson has already offered a compromise, which is far less than the ordinance requires. Speaker 7 00:09:48 Yeah. So we would explain to the applicant that she's going to demonstrate some reasons other than she wants it. Speaker 2 00:09:58 Yes. Ms. Patel, in order to March, you have to provide legal reasons, uh, that serve as the basis for your variants. Um, just saying that you would like a larger backyard, fenced in is not a legal reason to grant you relief in this matter. So if you were asked, if you were to ask the board to vote on your application, as it stands, I would have to advise the board that there are no legal reasons on the record to do so. Um, announcer professional has offered a compromise, which is far less than the Oregon's requires Speaker 1 00:10:36 Ms. Patel. Hi, um, we require, we rely on, um, our township engineers and their expertise to go through, um, the specific, uh, rules that are on the township in terms of ordinances and whatnot. Uh, I will tell you that 99.9% of the time, the board will vote on the direction given to us by, uh, Henry interesting as our engineer. So, um, I think he's offered you a compromise at this point. It could have been 35 if we wanted to do the letter of the law. Um, I think it's a good compromise and I would suggest you take it because, uh, I think we wouldn't vote in favor of this if you held out and want it to just go with the temp. Speaker 6 00:11:21 Okay. Thank you. So just show, just, you know, yeah. It wasn't required the side of the proper lens already 35. If I do 35, I'll be building a fence right next to my wall of the house. So, um, yeah. And as you know, it, it borders the park, so we definitely need a privacy fence. There there's lot of nuisance parked cars in the backyard that the garbage comes into, you know, over backyard. So, um, I mean, is that, can we do, is it possible for us to request 15 feet off the property line? Speaker 5 00:11:58 Well, what I'm suggesting is 10 feet from the property line, your Speaker 6 00:12:02 Proposal. I'm so sorry. Speaker 5 00:12:06 I think, I think 20 feet from the curb line is the minimum that it has to be. We could talk about, you know, maybe greater, um, meaning in the middle, because to be honest with you again, the ordinance is 35 feet. Um, I understand you have a small yard in the back and I'm trying to work with you here, but, um, again, if you heard this similar application right before yours, um, it was a very similar corner application and, um, we made the same request of that applicant. Um, Speaker 6 00:12:40 Yeah. I mean the only case I can make here is that alongside the same property line, where you asking me to put the fence back in there are, if you go further on that street, there are township trees are right at the curb. Right. So that makes me believe that, you know, even though my fence can border those teas as well, which is 10 feet off the property curb line. Yeah. Speaker 2 00:13:11 Um, there is a requirement for a fence setback. There is not a requirement for a tree setback, so you can't go to a tree. Speaker 6 00:13:18 Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. Speaker 1 00:13:21 Ms. Patel, if you were okay with, if they hit the stick and suggestions, I think we can proceed with this. Speaker 6 00:13:26 Um, just one clarification, Mr. Henderson, Dylan mentioned if you want a meeting. So was that an offer for us to go, um, little bit less than 20 feet off the card line or, no? Sorry. I didn't understand that piece. Speaker 5 00:13:39 No. 20 feet off the curb line. 10 feet off the property Speaker 6 00:13:41 Line. Thank you, sir. Okay. Speaker 1 00:13:44 Okay. Does anyone else on the board have any questions for this application hearing none. I'm going to open it to the public portion. Anyone in the public portion have any questions or comments for this application? No chairman, nothing close the public portion. I'd make a motion to approve this application with the, uh, amendments that, uh, Henry suggesting it out a second. Please call the Speaker 0 00:14:10 Zimmerman. Yes. Mr. Reggio. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. Mirando. Yes. Mr. Ali and chairman Speaker 1 00:14:21 Cahill. Speaker 2 00:14:22 Your application has been approved as amended. Uh, we will memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting. You do not need to be present for that. We will mail a copy of that document to you. You'll need a copy of that to get your building permits. Speaker 6 00:14:35 All right. Thank you very much. Speaker 1 00:14:36 Thank you, Mrs. Danielle, have a great night. You and your husband. Thank you. Okay, let's move on to item number eight. Michael Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Arvin. I told attorney and law for the, Speaker 8 00:14:51 Before this evening, a couple of housekeeping matters first to complaint. Uh, the Montreal Canadians are playing the, uh, Toronto maple Leafs this evening. I don't want to sell out the person. Who's a screened. I often seen a reflection playing. I can't watch hockey tonight and I can see that. He's definitely just an Islanders fan, whoever this individual is, that being said, Mr. Chairman, if I may just confirm with your board attorney, whether the notices are proper and the board has jurisdiction over this application and see the notices are proper and the board has jurisdiction to proceed. Thank you Mr. Chairman, one other housekeeping matter. And that is I have four reports that, uh, Ms. Buckley was able to share with us. Thank you, Laura. Uh, if I could just confirm that those are the reports that we'll be providing our testimony upon. Uh, we have a November 13, 20, 20, no comment memorandum from Mr. Disparate DPW. We have an October 16th, 2020, uh, report zoning report for Ms. Corcoran. It was revised as of April the 12th, 2021. I have an April 13th memorandum from Mr. Chadwick. And finally I have Mr. Henry Christine's April 21st, 2021 memorandum as well. Speaker 8 00:16:07 If those are the four that we're working off of and I'm not missing any we're ready to proceed. We good Lord. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. As a board members are aware, this is a property that's located in the zone. Uh, and the lot itself is an oversized lot. It's approximately three times more than three times the size of what the residential lots have to be in that area. Uh, it's across the street right now from a junkyard Middlesex borough, uh, that junkyard is going to be developed into a warehouse facility and also a BW facility for the borough. Middlesex is proposed immediately there as well. So what we're proposing in addition to that is the board members may be aware of they've driven down William street immediately surrounding this property on the Piscataway side of Williams street or a number of multifamily residential homes. Speaker 8 00:17:00 So it, uh, our argument is our planner who will be putting on later would be that this is probably the best planning, alternative to develop the property. Uh, we did, uh, submit an application last year. Uh, your board was very wise and kind and told us that, uh, we should probably rethink the 24 units that we had originally filed, uh, to build on that lot. And we have come back with a 12 unit, uh, development that we're proposing. I think that that's more in character with the immediate surrounding areas or planner will testify. I think it's also the best planning alternative there. This is a bifurcated application we're seeking just to use variance this evening. There are also, uh, there are two D variances and there's one bolt variance. We have a use variance for, uh, constructing the three story, 12 residential structure. Um, and we also have a defined variants that we're seeking for maximum permitted density. And we also have a bulk variance finally for maximum permitted building coverage with your permission, Mr. Chairman, if I can call our first witness will be wearing two hats tonight. Mr. Lanza pharma is lands of pharma. I'm sorry. Uh, will be both our engineer and our planner. Speaker 2 00:18:12 Please proceed Mr. Speaker 8 00:18:14 family, if you can just unmute yourself and go on camera. Speaker 10 00:18:27 I am. Could you raise your right hand? I have Speaker 2 00:18:31 You swear the testimony about the issue Speaker 10 00:18:32 Of the truth? I do. My name is Michael . That's L a N Z a F a M a. I'm a licensed professional engineer land, surveyor and planner licensed in the state of New Jersey. I hold a bachelor's Stein's degree in civil and environmental engineering from New Jersey Institute of technology. I've been licensed as a professional land, surveyor and engineer since 1984. And as the professional planner, since 1985, I've testified on numerous boards throughout the state, uh, including, uh, Piscataway as planning board as well as some time ago, your this board. So it's been a long time Speaker 2 00:19:14 And I believe he gave me sites all. I think, I think his credentials are impeccable, so let's proceed. Speaker 8 00:19:21 Mr. Lonza pharma. Uh, if you can, you've heard my opening remarks. Did I say anything incorrect? Speaker 10 00:19:26 No, you did not. You're spot on there. Okay, Speaker 8 00:19:29 Great. So, um, give the board the benefit of an overview from the plan, from the perspective as an engineer, you're the silver this project, and finally give us the planning justifications for the three variances that we're seeking this evening. Speaker 10 00:19:43 Uh, the first thing I'd like to do is, uh, I'd like to share my screen so that I can share with the board members, um, information with regard to the surrounding area. Uh, as the attorney pointed out, the property in question is a lot 26.02 block 31 0 1. It is a 0.77 acre parcel of land 33,616 square feet located on the southerly side of Williams street. Uh, the, the area map that you see before you, the property is outlined in green with William street located, uh, just to the north, uh, north is putting down on this exhibit. Uh, do we need to mark this as a one? This was not in the set of plans that were submitted. Speaker 2 00:20:35 You do need to mark this as a one with today's date. And, uh, Mr. Ipol, I would ask that you provide a hard copy of this to the zoning board. Speaker 10 00:20:44 We won't, we will be happy to. Um, as I stated, the property in question is located on the solely side of William street, uh, approximately 475 feet west of mountain avenue. Um, the property is located in the residential district. Um, in addition to the fact that the Northern boundary is Williams street, the, uh, surrounding, uh, east west and Southern sides are surrounded by a multi-family condominium development known as maple Grove that was constructed some, some time ago. You could see Lakeland avenue intersecting, the site, uh, chariot court, and a little further, uh, to the east is a, um, uh, commercial, uh, property with a quick check located in it immediately across William street in Middlesex. Barrow is the I N D zone, which is the industrial zone. Um, and this area is my understand has been earmarked for a warehouse development, as well as the Middlesex Barrows, um, uh, DPW yard. Speaker 10 00:21:56 So, uh, providing, uh, uh, considering, uh, the uses in the area, single family, residential, uh, at this particular location. And my mind is not, uh, the highest and best use, uh, for this property. Um, the project proposal, um, is to develop the property with, um, this is a colorized version of the site plan that you have in your set. Uh, we can mark this as a two, it's a colorized version of the site plan for six 16 Williams street, uh, prepared by my office and what this represents is how the development is going to proceed. Uh, as you can see, we're proposing to a three story townhouse buildings. Uh, each building would have six units in it. Uh, each unit would be a two bedroom unit with a one-car garage with the ability to park a car in front of your own garage. Uh, entrances to the building are provided, uh, directly off of the driveway entrances. Speaker 10 00:23:10 Um, there'll be patios provided, uh, for recreational space, as well as some open amenities space, uh, to the rear of each of the units, um, entrance to the facility would be via a two-way driveway off of William street. Uh, this will provide for a common drive to service each of the units. This would be 24 feet wide. Um, it would also provide for, um, six, uh, visitor parking spaces along the roadway, in addition to, uh, providing adequate parking under, um, under the residential site improvement standards, like to point out that each have a two bedroom town attached townhouse requires 2.3 vehicles per unit. So that's a total of 28 parking spaces would be required with the 12 garages, 12 driveways and six parallel spaces. We have 30 states. So we meet the standard with regard to providing adequate parking for the project. Uh, as you can see from the pivot, there's an extensive amount of landscaping proposed, um, onsite, uh, that will beautify the streetscape along Williams street. Speaker 10 00:24:33 Uh, pedestrian sidewalks would be provided, uh, flowering trees as well as shade trees proposed, uh, along the streetscape and along the front facades of the building. Uh, and in addition, an extensive amount of evergreen screening would be provided along the perimeter, uh, of, of the project. In addition, you could see there's existing evergreen screening that exists as part of the maple Grove development. So between the two, you have, uh, adequate separation, uh, to be able to develop this project, um, the applicant will need to extend a water main, approximately two to 300 feet up William street to provide for adequate water service and fire protection. In addition, William street will be widened to a point approximately three quarters of the way, uh, along the property frontage again, uh, to provide for adequate roadway with, for emergency vehicles to come to and from the site, uh, an existing sanitary sewer easement exists, and which allows the connection of this property into, uh, the maple Grove sanitary sewer system. Speaker 10 00:25:49 Uh, this was established many years ago and is available for this project and will provide adequate sewer service, uh, to the facility. So you can see that, um, the project like this, you need to make sure that you have adequate utilities available to you. All of that will be available. Um, all of the utilities would be underground so that, uh, the property and the, each of the units would be properly serve, um, as part of the development, um, the private proposed is, um, we haven't detailed it out, but when we get to the site plan stage, uh, we propose a number of measures, uh, referred to, uh, under the new regulations as green infrastructure techniques to help reduce runoff rates from the site. Um, in addition to, um, creating a bio swale along the streetscape, we're proposing to utilize porous pavement, uh, on the, on the patio areas and perhaps some of the walkways and perhaps even the parking areas. Speaker 10 00:26:58 Uh, in addition, we're proposing a subsurface detention system that would allow for additional groundwater recharge as well as mitigation to the increase in impervious coverage. Uh, that would be part of the application. Um, as far as setbacks go, the buildings would be compliant with regard to the side and rear yard and front yard setback. Um, one of the, uh, the one and only bulk variance that we are seeking is building coverage. Uh, we're proposing 20.6%, whereas 20% is re is permitted for single family, residential development. I'd like to move for a minute. Could you repeat that, uh, coverage number if I miss that? Certainly what we're proposing is 28.6%. Uh, what is permitted for single family residential and the zone is 20%. What, uh, so you're look, we're looking at a variance of 8.6%, uh, and coverage. However, I'd like to point out that, um, residential planned residential developments, which are permitted in the zone, do allow for, uh, building coverages as high as 30%, and like to point out that the total lot coverage, uh, is consistent with the ordinance. Speaker 10 00:28:29 Um, in addition to the, uh, the C variants that we're requesting for billing coverage, uh, we're requesting two D variances, uh, D one use variance to develop the property for townhomes and the zone on property that is less than 30 acres. That would be the, the standard. Um, if I were in the, if I had 30 acres, I could develop this property as townhomes, however, uh, because we don't have those that 30 acres, uh, we have to compare it to, uh, the single family dwellings that are permitted on 10,000 square foot, lots in the zone. The second, uh, variance is a density variance, uh, deep five density variance, we're proposing 15.6 dwelling units per acre, where based upon our lot size and 10,000 square foot, uh, lots permit for single family would calculate out to 3.36, uh, dwelling units. Um, the fact that this property, uh, is located, um, and I'll just refer back to a one again. Speaker 10 00:29:42 Um, and you look at its location within the community, uh, understanding that this is, this is the remanent parcel. This is a leftover, um, from the, uh, original overall , uh, as a matter of fact, um, this property, according to your master plan falls into planning area a and when you look at planning area a, um, and you look at it on the map, the entire area is shaped at the same color, including this property. So, so as I said, this is a remnant parcel that was kind of left over. And, and this is the type of infill development that, um, this type of project, the townhouse project at the density we're proposing is appropriate for this area. Um, this site in my mind is particularly suited for these shoes because of the surrounding uses that exist because of the potential development across, uh, William street to the north and Middlesex Barrow. Speaker 10 00:30:47 Um, I think the townhouses are, uh, particularly suited, uh, for this use and this property. Um, in my mind, when you look at the positive criteria for the , um, I think, uh, obviously we go to the purposes of the municipal land use act, and we look at 40 colon, 55 D two in my mind, uh, purpose a would be advanced, uh, by allowing this to move forward. Uh, and that basically states to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate user development of lands in a manner that will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare by advancing the goals of this state's master plan to redevelop in areas within the cities where infrastructure already exists in my mind is, uh, an advancement to the general welfare. I also see E purpose E as being a, a positive, uh, element to site, uh, to promote the establishment of appropriate population, densities and concentrations that will contribute to the wellbeing of persons, neighborhoods, communities, and regions, and preservation of the environment. Speaker 10 00:32:04 In my mind, this, the townhouse use is much more appropriate than the single family residential, the single family, residential in this particular location. It would be it be out of sorts. It would be an, the odd man out in my mind. Um, also I believe, uh, item G element G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of residential uses. And finally, uh, the beautification of the site through landscaping and the, and, uh, really the, the beautified, uh, architecture that will be presented by our architect, uh, I to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangements. Now, in addition to the positive criteria, the, the case law under muddied, she also requires that we show that the site is particularly suited for the proposal and that it would promote the general welfare. Um, the Dem demonstrating that the site is particularly suitable for use does not require the proof that there's no other potential location for this use. Speaker 10 00:33:20 As you can see, there's other multifamily developments in the immediate area, nor does it demand evidence that a conforming use must be situated here, uh, in, in this particular case, zoom, excuse me, go ahead. I'm sorry. Rather than, um, uh, in this particular case, um, I think the property is particularly suited, uh, because of the fact of its, uh, the remanent nature of the lot. Um, the location surrounded by multifamily uses the housing types and uses already existing in the immediate area. So in my mind, I believe we, we pass that test. Um, in addition, um, the negative criteria, there's no substantial detriment to the public good, and there's no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the master plan. And the zoning ordinance, the site will be redeveloped in a manner that's consistent with neighborhood character surrounding uses are all multifamily, adequate parking will be provided subsurface detention basin and, and other storm water management measures would mitigate increased coverage. Speaker 10 00:34:42 The use of garage parking spaces to further reduce coverage and improve water quality, I think are a benefit. The existing streets scape would be enhanced with the new plantings approved as aesthetics through site rehabilitation. Uh, the art 10 a as I mentioned earlier, does permit building coverage up to 30% when developments are a planned residential type, as far as no impairment to the master plan. Um, I believe that certain elements of the, of the, uh, the master plans land use element, um, certain goals, excuse me, in purposes of the land use element are being advanced. One is to ensure that harmonious interrelationship of various land use activities through the entire township and with neighboring municipalities, I believe that this type of use in this location, um, considering where it is, uh, it meets that goal of the land. You sell them it to encourage high quality design and residential development. Speaker 10 00:35:47 You'll see from our architect that we have, uh, created a building that will have, uh, some interesting treatments and articulation in the facade, and finally to preserve the character and quality of existing residential neighborhoods while providing the opportunity for redevelopment where desirable and possible. We certainly think that this is an opportunity for infill development. Um, it provides, uh, for an improvement to the site, it creates a rate-able for the community. Um, there will be of the 12 units, two of the units will be affordable units. So that is definitely a positive to site. Now as to the D five density variance. Um, the test is, is not quite the same as the D one because the they use in essence is considered, uh, permissible. Um, what we have to demonstrate is that this property can support the density that we're proposing. And I think we've demonstrated that through the fact that we meet the step-back requirements, providing adequate light air and open space, we meet the height requirement, we're limiting ourselves, uh, to the maximum permissible height for the zone. Speaker 10 00:37:08 There's no height, variance being requested. Granted the building coverage is in excess of what is permitted, but it's not an excess of what would normally be permitted for planned residential development. So in my mind, I believe that the board could grant this variance, the, both the D one and D five variance, as well as the C2 variance for, uh, building coverage, uh, without substantial detriment to the public. Good, or the intent and purpose of your zone plan. Um, I believe that this will certainly be, uh, an enhancement to the area, um, the location, uh, along Williams street, uh, the intersection with mountain avenue, um, allows for easy access to it from the site. Um, you're not talking about a significant amount of traffic being generated by a 12 unit townhouse development, and I'd be happy to entertain any questions that the board members might have. Speaker 8 00:38:15 Sure. Just a couple of follow-up questions. You've had an opportunity to review Mr. Chadwick's report of April the 13th and three, with regards to the conceptual stormwater management plan. We're going to defer that to the time of the site plan, correct? Speaker 10 00:38:30 That's correct. Speaker 8 00:38:31 Okay. And, uh, with the exception of, uh, uh, comments three or paragraph three and four, Mr. letter, uh, uh, and I'll address comments six, uh, but, uh, we can comply with all of the comments there, correct? Yes. And three and four we'll have our architect provide testimony on 2.6, and this would be, uh, a Middlesex county letter. Uh, we would that filing a site plan application. So we would ask that that be deferred until the time of site plan, as well as it might be a little premature to get a county letter saying that we, we wouldn't have an application to submit. It would only consider the site plan out. They use variance application. So we'd ask for relief from that condition until the time of site plan, Mr. Chairman of the board members have any questions of the witness. Sure. Speaker 11 00:39:23 Anyone on the board have any questions of this witness? Speaker 7 00:39:27 Mr. Chairman? It's not a question. It's a vacation. The township adopted a new net nap plan in December of 2020. Some farmers statement that is shown within the multifamily district is which is a significant consideration where demonstration that you are not in conflict with the master plan promoted. Speaker 11 00:40:03 Thank you, Mr. Chadwick, anyone else have any questions? Speaker 8 00:40:10 I agree to proceed, please. Thank you. If I may, at this time, call our architect, uh, to testify this evening. Mr. Brian Taylor, Speaker 11 00:40:18 Mr. Keller, are you present? Yes, I am. Did you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth? Yes, I do. Uh, your name and address please? Taylor. I Speaker 8 00:40:37 Think I just changed him to panelists so we could see them Speaker 11 00:40:40 And I think it automatically to people. Okay. Mr. Taylor, can you unmute and give us your name and address please? Yes. Okay. Sorry. I'm back. Uh, my name is Brian Taylor. Uh, last name T a Y L O R. The office address is 95 Watchung avenue, north Plainfield, New Jersey. Speaker 8 00:40:59 Mr. Taylor, if I may, Mr. Chairman, please. Uh, have you appeared before this board is an architect and been accepted by the sport as an architect in the past? Speaker 11 00:41:09 I believe I have not been before this board before Speaker 8 00:41:13 She gave us a brief overview of your education and credentials as a licensed architect in New Jersey. Speaker 11 00:41:18 Sure. I graduated from the New Jersey, uh, Institute of technology, school of architecture. Um, I've had my own office and my own practice in north Plainfield since the year 2000 and I've, I I've appeared before many, a planning boards and zoning boards throughout the state of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Taylor, your credentials are Flint. Thank you. Speaker 8 00:41:40 Thank you, Mr. Taylor, I'd like you to, uh, if you would, uh, specifically addressing Mr. comments three and four with regards to square footage of the units and also the appearance of the units. Can you give us, uh, your, uh, review as an architect, a licensed professional architect in state of New Jersey, but what we're proposing on constructing at the site, what little look like and, uh, outside and inside. Speaker 11 00:42:06 Okay. If I could, uh, share my screen, I'll bring up the plans. We can briefly go over, um, the floor plans. Can everyone see my screen? Yes. Okay, great. So Mr. Taylor, this was, yes. Thank you. Okay. So, uh, as it was stated by, uh, Mr. Lonza Fama, this is, uh, a series of two buildings. Each building will contain six townhomes. Um, each townhome is three levels, uh, with regard to the area, the footprint of each unit. And I'll kind of zoom in here on one unit is 800 square feet. So the total unit, uh, square footage on all three floors would be a 2,400 square feet. Um, if we could, sorry, just go back to the first floor. So starting on the first floor, um, you would enter from the front in a, uh, uh, covered entry. Uh, there would be a, a closet stair hall and a corridor going back to a recreation area with a powder room. Speaker 11 00:43:12 Additionally, on the first floor would be the, uh, garage that would be accessed from the front of the building. Um, moving up to the second floor would be really the main floor of the build, the building, which would contain the kitchen toward the rear, a powder room, a dining area, and then a living area toward the front of the building. And then proceeding up to the third floor. We would have the bedroom area, which would consist of two bedrooms. There'll be a master bedroom up toward the front of the building. There would be a bathroom and laundry closet in the center of the building common bathroom. And then toward the rear, we would have a common bedroom and then a, a common living area, which could be, uh, it could be an exercise area. It could be a place for the kids to study or just, uh, a place, an additional, a common area for the family to hang out. Um, so that's essentially the, the layout of each unit. And if we go to the, um, to the rendering of the building, which hopefully will come up, yes. So this is a rendering of the front of the building. Um, Speaker 8 00:44:24 Can we stop it for just a second? This was also provided with the application, correct? Speaker 11 00:44:28 Yes, I believe so. Speaker 8 00:44:31 Thank Speaker 11 00:44:31 You. So, uh, the, the building, um, we'll have, as I mentioned, some covered entries over, over each of the entrances to the townhomes, there will be masonry masonry base. We have some articulation with the masonry, um, in the, in the front elevation. The other, um, aspect of about the building is it does set back. So in the middle middle two units are setback, uh, from the outer two units. And then that also is reflected on the rear elevation. And I know there was a comment about the rear elevation, and I think the elevate, the, the, the architectural elevations don't really, um, reflect that if we look at the back of the building, you could see that there is a bump in the back of the building. And so when you look at the rear elevation, the elevation doesn't express that, and, and what we can do is when it comes time for the site plan application, uh, we can certainly show more renderings of the building. Speaker 11 00:45:31 Um, additionally, I just also wanted to point out that this was really a concept for this bifurcated application. Um, so when we come back to the board, um, we will address any other comments that we have tonight with regard to the architectural, uh, aspect of the building. Um, we can certainly enhance the building by, you know, adding different materiality. We can enhance the building by articulating the roof line, both in the front and the back, uh, to create something that has a little bit more appeal. Um, but this was just a concept to express the type of, of use and the type of structure that we would like to see in this application. I, I don't know if he's talking or not. I can't hear him the caveat on mute. I was Speaker 8 00:46:28 I'm sorry. I was just, I was asking if Mr. had any, uh, uh, additional concerns with regards to comments three and four that were not otherwise addressed. Speaker 5 00:46:40 I do not argue, I think a York detective stated, I think we're going to have another bite of this asphalt or when it comes in to the site plan portion of the application. So again, I don't think the, the visual or the, you know, my concerns about some of the, you know, the articulations or some of the characteristics of the, of the building really have an impact on the, on the use aspect of the project, which is what we're here for now. But, uh, you know, again, I, you know, I appreciate some of the articulations that are, that are shown. I just think we are maybe a need and I, and I can work that out with the applicant or applicant's architect down the line, uh, perhaps providing a little bit more variation in, or a little additional stonework or half, perhaps it's a little bit more articulation on the unit itself, perhaps splitting it with an articulation, or you felt like that back elevation. Speaker 5 00:47:41 It's very, although there's some recess of the units, the full three stories is completely flat. Uh, and it just has a sort of a, I think, a weird appearance to it with no, you know, overhang or, or soffit perhaps on one of the levels. Um, but again, that may even be able to increase some of the space if it's done minimally, um, where it doesn't impact the setback, but it may actually be able to increase some the square footage of the, of units. But again, those are all things I think we can, we can work with them on. Speaker 1 00:48:19 Thank you, Henry, Mr. Chairman, uh, I don't have any other witnesses or testimony if the board members have any questions for Mr. Taylor or does anyone on the board have any questions for the architect or any comments about this application hearing? Now I'm going to open it to the public, anyone in the public portion of any questions for this application or comments, Bobby, I'm looking, it's hard as screens off. Sorry about that. So can we please, uh, yes, we have a mark Can not hear you at all. Mr. Ryman, we can not hear your audio. Speaker 12 00:49:16 Can you hear me now? Speaker 1 00:49:17 Yes, please proceed. Okay. I need to swear you in, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth? Yes. Your name and address please. Speaker 12 00:49:28 Um, mark reman, 1 23 chariot court Piscataway. Speaker 1 00:49:33 Thank you Speaker 12 00:49:36 Please. So, um, I was appointed by the board of the maple woods community, which is the community that surrounds this. Um, it's not the maple Grove community, it's the Naval woods community. Um, and so we are the buildings that surround that, um, uh, location. We are asking that there be a fence that goes around the property, um, to stop, uh, residents from either community going back and forth specifically because of, uh, garbage. Um, we have a neighboring community, the maple Grove, which is on the other side of us. Um, and we constantly have, uh, problems with our garbage, um, where people are just dumping things by the, uh, dumpsters, which then cause us to have increased, uh, fees, uh, because we have to have bulk pickup and such. We have no problem providing a fence, Speaker 10 00:50:27 Uh, enclosure along the back and the sides of our property. Um, our, our trash would be kept in the garages and put out for collection, uh, by a, uh, according from, Speaker 1 00:50:44 Did you hear that Mr. Rodman? Yes, it is. Awesome. Okay. Any other questions? No, that was it. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Sparkly, Speaker 7 00:50:55 Jeremy and I have one comment to the board. The architectural plan is they went through them readily, see that potential additional bedrooms could arise. I think if you grant a Brule to the issue, you want to be specific to bed down houses because you also asked the parking is just at the minimum. I think we can address that at the time of cycling and that concern will obviously be something that the board is aware of and we'll, uh, we'll bring up if we don't satisfy them at that time. Do you have any, would you have an issue in stipulating that these are two bedroom town homes is part of the grant of views? Ferrets is really my comment. No, these are two bedroom town homes. Okay. Speaker 1 00:51:55 Thank you, John. Speaker 2 00:51:57 Um, Mr. Chairman, I think you need to just check with Speaker 1 00:51:59 As Buckley to see if there are any of the public. Yeah, I was about to anyone else. I, a Henry Speaker 0 00:52:03 Said, Speaker 1 00:52:05 Okay, close the puppet portion. Anyone on the board have any questions or comments about this application? None. Okay. I'm going to make a motion to approve this application and this use variance. Speaker 7 00:52:22 Second Speaker 1 00:52:24 Respect. We call the roll. Speaker 0 00:52:26 Mr. Zimmerman, Warren you're muted. Just raise your hand. Who said we found Warren Mr. Ratio? Yes. Yes. Mr. Mirando? Yes. Mr. Ali. Yes. And chairman Kao. Yes. Speaker 7 00:52:58 Have a good evening. Speaker 1 00:52:59 Thank you very much. Thank you. Good. I understand though, let's move on to item number 11, which is the adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting May 13th, 2021 Speaker 2 00:53:13 First resolution while Hammad. Uh, this was an application for pillars that you approved on a modified requirement that they removed some of them. Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. Mr. Reggio Patel. Yes. The middle Rhonda Jeremy K. Hill. Yes. Next is Alexi Braginsky. This application was approved. Mr. Zimmerman? Yes. Mr. Reggio? Yes. Mr. Patel, Mr. Mirando? Yes. Mr. K hill? Yes. Finally Raymond and Lucille Hart car. Uh, this was an application to keep an existing accessory structure. Uh, Mr. Zimmerman? Yes. With the Reggio Tel. Yes. The Mirando Jeremy K ho. Yes. Those are all the resolutions that I have. Speaker 1 00:54:05 And number 12 is adoption of the minutes from the regular meeting of May 30th, 2021, all in favor, say aye. All opposed. Number 13. Can I get a motion for a German? I will make the motion for a German. Everybody all in favor, say aye. All opposed. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming out and volunteering for the township have safe Memorial day, please. Everyone. Hi guys. See you tomorrow, tomorrow. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Good night.