Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on March 10 2022

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    Zoning board of adjustment meeting will 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 or the municipal building notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the Curry news and the star ledger will the clerk please call the roll.  
Speaker 1     00:00:18    Mr. Weissman. Mr. Tillery, Mr. Patel, Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Hay DACA. Mr. Mitterando. Dear Mr. Ali and Chairman Chaill.  
Speaker 0     00:00:38    Yeah. Will everyone please stand for a salute to the flag? I pledge allegiance, indivisible Kinneally. Are there any changes to tonight's agenda? Not aware of any  
Speaker 2     00:01:02    Changes to the  
Speaker 0     00:01:03    Agenda. Let's proceed to item number 5 22 dash zero dash 0 6 3. Kendra Bryant Moro.  
Speaker 2     00:01:17    Oh man. I need to swear you in. If you raise your right hand, you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth.  
Speaker 3     00:01:26    Thank  
Speaker 2     00:01:26    You. Your name and address please.  
Speaker 3     00:01:30    I'm sorry. Kendra Bryan Morrow. 1, 2, 3. Now the wood avenue, Piscataway 0 8 8 5 4. Thank  
Speaker 2     00:01:40    You. Could you explain to the board what you're looking to do here?  
Speaker 3     00:01:43    I'm looking to turn my garage into living space and install a shed in my backyard.  
Speaker 2     00:02:00    Mr. Chairman, you may want to talk to me.  
Speaker 0     00:02:03    Yeah, send me, I was wondering if you had any comments about this application  
Speaker 1     00:02:09    You're muted.  
Speaker 0     00:02:15    There we go.  
Speaker 4     00:02:19    Yeah. I mean, the issue, the issue with this application, according to the officer's report is that the existing homes are already in a coverage variance. So the proposed conversion, although doesn't necessarily add any more coverage, the proposal of the shed increases the coverage by an additional, I believe almost a 1.6%. So again, the problem here is that the coverage on the property that exists already is quite a bit over what's allowed. And then when you add the shed, you're even going substantially over the existing amount. So my concern is that with the shed, we're going to be, you know, over 25%, which again, from past experiences, this board bring rarely likes to go even into the 23% range on coverage. In this particular case, the existing homes are already at a 23.4%. So, I mean, is there any way you could live without the shed?  
Speaker 4     00:03:38    I mean, the shed really the issue. It's not the fact that you want to, or that I see the fact that you're trying to convert the space in the garage, but then you're eliminating all that storage space and trying to put in the structure there lies the problem. So, you know, if there's a way you could perhaps look at an alternative, perhaps keeping the garage for storage, perhaps you put a second story, a addition over the garage or over a different portion of the home, or only convert a portion of the garage so that you have, you maintain some storage area in the existing footprint of the house without having the need for additional structures on the property. That's the issue, which is just really it's, it's the coverage issue. That's the biggest concern that you're going to be going well over 25% of your property in coverage, according to the zoning officer, then the only other item on here is the fact that you put up a fence in the counter right of way, there's a need for a variance for any solid fence that goes within the front yard setback.  
Speaker 4     00:04:52    And because you have a corner property, you have two front yard setbacks. So that fence was put up without a permit. If you would have applied for a permit, you would have been told that you can't put the fence in that location. So I don't see an issue due to the nature of the property location, the fence being, you know, up to the right of way line, but we can't allow a fence to be in the township right of way. So that would have to get relocated outside the right of way. And then we could give a variance for that location, considering that district really only services you and your neighbor. So that fence issue, I would imagine that you you're, you know, you could, you could live with, but again, the bigger problem is the, the coverage variance that you have on the property.  
Speaker 3     00:05:46    We need the garage to be converted to living space. So would, So are you saying we not get the extra 1.4%? It's a, it's a rear yard. It's not inconveniencing anyone. We back to commercial property.  
Speaker 4     00:06:14    The problem is, is that the, the ordinance allows for 20%. And again, I mean the, the towns given variances in the past that, you know, more reasonable and then the township size, you know, that usually is around that 23% threshold that they'll sometimes let it go over. I mean, it depends on the size of the lot. This is a standard conforming lot. So again, 23%, pretty fair. That's an additional 300 square feet. Your home's already 23.4. So to allow it to go, even beyond that, like I said, it gets it up to over 20, it gets right at 25%, which the town in my experience in the past the board has granted. And I don't think I've ever made a recommendation for coverage variants that, that quite that high, but ultimately it's up to the board and, and, and their feeling on that. You know, but as, as far as I think the townships suggestion would be, or my suggestion would be, is, you know, to try to come up with an alternative, or like I said, whether the addition B second story addition, he could keep the garage. Whether, you know, maybe you put an addition on the second story for storage. Maybe you don't convert the entire garage. I mean, that's really for you to decide. I just don't think, or, you know, maybe come up with a much more, a reasonable size shed, you know, something that's, you know, eight by eight. I think something like that might be something the board might be able to consider.  
Speaker 3     00:08:08    So the shed is the issue, the size of the shed.  
Speaker 4     00:08:15    Yes. Because that's any additional structure you've put on that property is bringing your coverage up over the existing amount, which is already in a varying situation. So that's the biggest, the biggest concern.  
Speaker 3     00:08:31    So they existed the existing home is, was built with the variants.  
Speaker 4     00:08:36    Correct? I assumed it was, yeah, I assume it was, I assumed it was built with a, with the variance because it doesn't comply with the ordinance now.  
Speaker 3     00:08:51    Okay. Well, we are not able to afford to put a second on our home. I'm sure you can understand that. And we did need the storage and you're saying the 1.6% or 2% is not acceptable or has not been acceptable in the past,  
Speaker 4     00:09:16    Correct. I mean, you may want to hear from some of the board members on what their feeling is, but my recommendation is typically to keep the coverage variances closer to the, or below 23% gain you're already, before we even start. And you're at 23.4. So any, any shed type structure that you put on the property here, you keep creeping up. So, you know, perhaps it's, like I said, you could come up with a smaller shed and, you know, or limit the size of the conversion. So you, maybe you could have some storage inside that area and the smaller shed or something, you know, to that nature. I can't tell you exactly what to do, though. It's up to you to sort of maybe brainstorm or go back and take a look at it. Or if you could do it on the fly that's up to you. Nobody's  
Speaker 3     00:10:13    Well, I know that the conversion of the garage into living spaces is a necessity for my family. So that would not be something I would like to change. I cannot afford to put it second story on my home for additional storage. My, so what I'm understanding is the house that I live in, I can never put any other additional, anything on the property. I CA I can just put on eight by 10 or whatever. What have you shed?  
Speaker 4     00:10:53    Yeah, I think, you know, I think even that's pushing it a little bit, but, you know, I think it be a much better solution than the, you know, 20 by eight or 20 by 10 chat or 20 by HR and that's proposed. So again, I mean, just kind of look at the numbers and the fact that they don't like going over 23 at 23.4. So whatever you could do to stay as close as possible to your existing condition, I think is what's going to be looked upon favorably. So, no, I think the board is going to, you know, have some, you know, some sympathy for your situation that you can't go with any other kind of, you know, a conversion, but you know, they also have to abide by the ordinance as well. So you have to decide what's more important if it's conversion conversion of the garage versus the storage, you may not be able to both, or you're going to have to pair it back. I think, to a acceptable now, after maybe hearing from the board  
Speaker 0     00:12:01    Ms. Mara, hi, how are you? Okay. We adjust, just let me put it in layman's terms. The code calls for 20% coverage, you're at 23.4, according to Henry, which is extreme. We rarely ever accept that. Except in, like I said, we're rare circumstances. We're not prepared to go any higher than that footprint right now, what I would suggest is a good compromise. And that is the eight by 10. You already said that you have to have that living space. There has to be converted. I'm assuming it's a family member  
Speaker 3     00:12:34    Or a mother. We need her with  
Speaker 0     00:12:36    Us that that's fully acceptable. My heart goes out to you and God bless you for taking care of family. I think a good compromise on your behalf and on the boards would be for you to put a smaller shed out there, put the necessities that are in the garage, put that there, if there's anything that can stand the weather, leave that outside covered with a tarp or something else. But the priority is obviously to get your mom into that new living quarters. Whatever's in the garage out into a smaller ship. We, we wouldn't approve an eight by 20 structure of that size for the most part, even on a lot. So I, I don't speak for the whole board. I, I will ask others' opinions, but I think that that is a real good compromise. And I, I hope that that's something that we can both come to terms with.  
Speaker 3     00:13:27    We would have to get a smaller shed. If you tell us the dimensions, then that's what we have to do. But the priority is to move forward with the garage conversion. Because like I said, this has been awhile  
Speaker 0     00:13:43    Understood Henry. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but eight by 10 would be something that we could live with.  
Speaker 4     00:13:52    I think under the circumstances, I think eight by 10 is half of what the original proposal was. So I think it's a compromise, you know, it might would be better, but I think, you know, you know, another additional 0.2% at this point would be okay, so during this situation, so I think 10 by eight is, okay. My suggestion would be though, is it really has to be three feet from the property line, which is the ordinance as far as the rear property line. And it has to be what's on that concrete pad. Okay. If the front of the shed can at least match the front of the garage, and since this is a smaller shed, now I'm hoping that you could fit the 10 foot by eight foot shed, three feet from the rear property line and, and keep it even with the garage structure so that it's not further out into the road into BD, even though that's not the biggest.  
Speaker 4     00:14:51    Because again, again, it is sort of a dead end street there that doesn't impact a lot, but just do your best to keep it as close as possible to, to match that garage a facade. So it's straight across and they might only have any, I would imagine that you could have the ability to park two cars on the driveway. Okay. So then that'd be meet the requirement for the, the parking requirement for a residential home of this size. And, and then the other condition would be that the fence has to be relocated outside the right of way. So Marion's for the six foot solid fence to be up to the right of way line. Jim just can not be in the right of way in that area. Won't be the street to the nurse, will the granted,  
Speaker 2     00:15:42    And if they go with an eight by 10 shed, do we have a number for,  
Speaker 4     00:15:46    Yes, the number would be 24.2.  
Speaker 0     00:15:52    Can we give Ms. Morrow a timeframe as to the relocation of the fence? So not to put so much stress on her between renovating the garage and moving the fence.  
Speaker 4     00:16:04    The problem is the fence is illegal shorts. That's a little bit of a problem. Really violations need to get corrected before permits are typically issued. That that's the only that's problem. I mean, really, there's no leeway on that. It's not like we're requesting, you know, paved driveway here or something of that nature, the sidewalks, you know, in a sort of in a violation state right now. So that could get corrected, unfortunately.  
Speaker 0     00:16:40    Okay. I tried miss Mara. I apologize.  
Speaker 2     00:16:44    W what he's saying is that defense would have to be relocated before you could get your building permits, convert the garage to living space.  
Speaker 3     00:16:51    Okay. So we need to move the fence back three feet, two feet,  
Speaker 4     00:16:57    10 feet, 10 feet from the face of the Fest has to be 10 feet from the face that occurred. That's the right of way. So your property line starts 10 feet. And from the face of the curve,  
Speaker 0     00:17:09    You can always check with our, you can check with our office.  
Speaker 3     00:17:15    Okay. So we need to bring the, I understand what you're saying. We need to bring the fence into three to  
Speaker 4     00:17:22    10 feet.  
Speaker 0     00:17:27    Okay. Okay. Does any other members of the board have any questions for this app applicant hearing none. I'm going to open it to the public. Anyone in the public portion of any questions for this per application or applicant or comments or comments? There's Buckley. Someone's not muted. That's all I know. I have no idea anyone with their hand up.  
Speaker 1     00:17:56    Oh, okay. Yeah. He's, he's yelling from my bottom corner. He didn't raise his hands. Okay. Go ahead.  
Speaker 5     00:18:05    Mark. Sanford to Owen Leatherwood.  
Speaker 2     00:18:07    Could you spell your  
Speaker 5     00:18:09    C a N F R O N E.  
Speaker 2     00:18:15    Thank you. Could you raise your right hand? Swear the testimony you're about to give should be true.  
Speaker 5     00:18:23    Yes. Thank  
Speaker 2     00:18:24    You. Go ahead with your question about  
Speaker 5     00:18:28    My, my comment is I'm I'm Ms. Morrows direct our, our front doors. Basically they see each other and I mean, Kendra wonderful neighbors. And, and I can't say that any of this is going to cause I'm going to be the one that's going to be looking at the shed and absolutely no problem with this. They keep very good shape of their property. They're excellent neighbors. So if it helps at all, you know, whatever we can approve them for. Absolutely go right ahead and do so. At least that's my, my recommendation on it. I have a lot more issues with what's in our houses that Kendra and I have shared along with other neighbors that are, that we face our Centennial avenue neighbors that are far bigger issues in nightmares than this small shed that they're requesting. So by all means I would two thumbs up to whatever the request in.  
Speaker 0     00:19:30    Understood. Thank you so much for taking the time out to come in and share that with us, Ms. Buckley, anyone else seeing none let's close the public portion. I'm going to make a motion to approve this application with the limitations that Henry and Jim are gonna tell us about besides the, the size of the shed and moving up the fence. And I got a second  
Speaker 1     00:20:00    With Kalpesh Mr. Weissman.  
Speaker 0     00:20:06    He's recused himself. Oh,  
Speaker 1     00:20:10    No.  
Speaker 0     00:20:11    Sorry.  
Speaker 1     00:20:12    Sorry. That's okay. Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio Mr. Hay. DACA. Yes. Mr. Mitterando fill you're muted, Mr. Mitterando. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Ali and Chairman Cahill.  
Speaker 0     00:20:41    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:20:42    You've been granted an approval amended, a little different than what you asked for. We will memorialize this in a written document at our next meeting. You don't need to be present for that. We'll mail that document to you, and we'll need that to get your permits.  
Speaker 3     00:20:56    Okay. In the meantime, how do I find out exactly where the fence needs to go? Do I call the office or the someone come out because I want to do this? Like, you know, you understand the gravity do  
Speaker 4     00:21:14    Absolutely. You can stop. You can stop in the office or actually call us during the day. And either myself or the zoning officer can help you with that. Just like  
Speaker 3     00:21:25    Henry. She is going to need  
Speaker 2     00:21:26    A permit  
Speaker 3     00:21:29    To survey  
Speaker 4     00:21:31    The survey, to just show where the fence is going to be relocated to. Like I said, it's the property line. So that's the line that's on your survey along BD streets. So right now it's really, I think a foot or two behind the curb. So again, typically the property line is 10 feet from the face of the curb. So which coincides with the property line. So, but you could contact us stern during the day and we'll help you with that.  
Speaker 3     00:21:56    Okay. Thank you, Ms. Murrell. Thank you very much. Take  
Speaker 2     00:22:01    Care. Let's move on to item number 6 21  
Speaker 4     00:22:04    Days. GB there's ATV  
Speaker 2     00:22:06    Alka. Is the applicant present?  
Speaker 6     00:22:16    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:22:16    Yes. Are you both going to be testifying tonight? Yes. Okay. I need to swear both of you in, could you each raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth one at a time, please give us your name and address.  
Speaker 6     00:22:32    Do you have seen five Marissa court, Piscataway, New Jersey, New Jersey.  
Speaker 2     00:22:41    Thank you. Could one of you explain to the board what we'd like to do here?  
Speaker 6     00:22:45    We are removing an existing deck and replacing it with a deck, which is like 1525 by 16, by 25 feet. Actually I have a replacing existing deck with the size.  
Speaker 2     00:23:05    And are you also proposing a roof over approximately half of the new deck?  
Speaker 6     00:23:10    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:23:11    Okay. And I see some correspondence in which you indicate that you will not be in closing the roofed area of the deck.  
Speaker 6     00:23:20    Yes. Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:23:24    Chairman, you may want to talk to Mr. Hinterstein about this Henry avenue  
Speaker 4     00:23:28    Comments about this. Yes. Again, I don't know if everyone recalls, but this is the second time this applicants before they came before previously, I believe it was last month. The problem is the 50 yard setback requirement for the house is right where the house is. So anything that they do beyond the rear portion of the house is a, requires a battery. It's they've come back to the board. One other time, they received a sunroom of bearings and put a decent sized sunroom across the back of the house. And then now they're asking for a deck that was, you know, quite substantial. The last time they were here, we are, I tried to convey to them that, you know, the covered deck and walk with the sunroom and everything was just too much structure within that area. I think the suggestion, there was some suggestions that were given to them that the, the, the covered deck B I think reduced in size considering again, all the sun room and what the requirement is of having a 30 foot rear yard setback. So, I mean, that's where we are. It doesn't sound like the proposal's been amended at all. So doesn't sound like anything was, was changed unless I'm mistaken, has anything from the previous application when you were here the last time, have you modified it at all  
Speaker 6     00:25:09    The size, the techno, we have not modified that. So w we played with the various things that we wanted to place in that area, and we have prepared a small, like a picture or a schematic of that. May I share it  
Speaker 4     00:25:24    Again? But what you're not understanding is there's an ordinance that requires 30 foot setback. You already have a sunroom that is approximately I think 16.9 or 17.9. I don't know if that was accurate or not. I know the first time that plan was submitted, it was wasn't maybe this was, it looks like it was revised. So again, I mean, you have to show us a hardship. The hardship is not that you bought stuff and now you need a place to put it. That's not a hardship, you know, hardship would be, you know, you live on a corner property, or you got, you know, a tremendous sized lot here with ample room on the sides of your property, both sides of the property. And you're trying to just put, I understand everything because that's what you want in the back, but it just doesn't work. I think with the, with the setback, we've given the, the sunroom again.  
Speaker 4     00:26:23    And my opinion is that the deck should be either paired back to match the size of the, you know, setback of the sunroom, the, the, the roof over the deck, I don't think is necessarily needed when you have the sunroom or, or converted to a, there's no ordinance that says that you can't have a patio on the ground, or, you know, 18 inches off the ground, the same, this size. And then that doesn't require any, any variance, because it's a patio versus a deck. So you haven't come back with any options or, or, you know, choices here that I think would lend the board to make a different, a different opinion from the previous form. But I'll leave that up to the board.  
Speaker 2     00:27:13    Yeah. Now let me just jump in here. When you were here last month, the board obviously was not in a position to accept your application and recommended changes. We adjourned the matter to allow you to make changes. And you have now returned to the board with the same application. If you would like the board to vote on this application, as it stands, we will do so.  
Speaker 6     00:27:39    So we wanted to show the location of our property and in the sense like where we are sitting and how does it fit in into the big picture of our community. And,  
Speaker 7     00:27:49    And also we already have a backyard and we are not able to use it. And that's the reason why, and also we provided explanation for right. It cannot go on the side. So those are the things that we addressed in the, the questions that were raised at the meeting is what we have addressed in the documentation that was submitted as follow on material.  
Speaker 2     00:28:16    Laura, was that a documentation submitted to the board members, Lori you're muted.  
Speaker 7     00:28:27    Yes. It was emailed to everyone. Not only have one cop,  
Speaker 2     00:28:31    The board members have all of the documentation that you submitted, If you would like to explain some of it, feel free to do so.  
Speaker 6     00:28:42    Let me, let me share my screen. So, so yeah, we already know that we are changing from a backup eight by 10 to 16 by 25. And So,  
Speaker 6     00:29:34    So this is, this is the location of our property. So are right here. And this is, this is the backyard and it's all wooded area. And the only thing that we have is a railway track, which is about 400 feet from our house. And there is, there's quite a bit of space between the houses. So, so the structure that we are trying to build is somewhere here, and this is a schematic of, this is the existing sunroom, and this is 17.9 feet from the border of our property. And this is the new structure that we are trying to build.  
Speaker 6     00:30:16    This will be 14 feet from the edge of the property, from the boundary line. Initially, we thought that we could given that our property has a space on the sides. We could not build something on the side because this displaces our, like, we already have a room here, and this is sunroom. And this part of the sunroom debate is built. We talk to the person who built this deck. They said that they cannot replace this thing and create a door here because was a prefabricated structure. And if we want to build on the other side, on the garage side, that will be too far from our house.  
Speaker 7     00:31:00    Right,  
Speaker 6     00:31:01    Right. So it will be back to you in that car. And so this is the structure we attracted, but basically we're trying to fit like about a little bit of furniture sitting space to accommodate 15 to 16 people and leave enough, moving it like a area to move around. So this is the stairs that goes down. And this is like, just gives a basic idea of what we're trying to lay here. We covered,  
Speaker 7     00:31:35    We have provided the dimensions of everything. And based on the previous feedback, we tried to go back and look at the, how we plan to use it and how the diff a smaller size would work and things were not fitting in. And that's the explanation we have provided. And  
Speaker 6     00:31:55    So, yeah, so we have, this is an existing patio that we have. And the issue is that our parents, like if we are having like some get together here, like people have to go up and down. That is why we considered making a deck in the Syria.  
Speaker 7     00:32:13    And when our parents come, you know, and like, my mom is also here right now, like going up and down the stairs is difficult, you know, because of knee problems. And, and the other thing is, you know, because we learned like a closer access to kitchen, it's easier to have at the same level, as opposed to going up and down. And like, we have not been able to use the patio effectively. And as we said, a previous last time also, like we had thought about this for one year almost. And last time also, based on the feedback, we went back and evaluated everything that was suggested,  
Speaker 0     00:32:56    It looks like you evaluated, but you didn't change anything. That's the only problem. I mean, as a homeowner, I want what I want to, but there are certain guidelines and rules that we have to live by. And we just can't arbitrarily rubber stamp. When someone just wants to improve their home, there's there is guidelines and codes and whatnot that we need to follow. So, Jim, can we give him one more chance to try and come up with something else or, or do we have,  
Speaker 2     00:33:23    If the board would like to continue the matter to allow them to amend their application, you can certainly do that. And if the applicants want to vote on this current proposal of, we can certainly do that too, but I think the applicants would not be happy with  
Speaker 0     00:33:39    The outcome. I agree. I agree. If, if the board votes tonight, you will not get the outcome that you would like to have. We're willing at this point to work with you and give you another opportunity to go back and compromise with the numbers that Henry can offer you or, or that you feel are comfortable. But I don't think if we vote on this thing tonight, it'll be favorable to you. So we're willing to give you an opportunity to go back again, bite the bullet, you know, make some real changes and not just an explanation of what you would like and why you would like it. And I realize it's tough, but we just can't arbitrarily approve people, you know, trying to improve their homes when they're in violation of code. So given, given the location of the property and nobody in the, in the back of our property and the neighbor who owns the property in the back, I'm just saying the board doesn't want to set a precedent. Okay.  
Speaker 2     00:34:48    And let me, let me jump in Mr. Chairman. There, there are certain legal proofs that are required to grant a variance. You have not provided any of those proofs to support the granting of a variance. Your testimony has been that you want this because it fits your family's needs. Those are not proofs that are acceptable to the board.  
Speaker 0     00:35:15    If you want us to vote on it tonight, we'll vote. If otherwise, I would suggest strongly that you regroup, go back and, and, you know, cut the fat a little bit. And we can revisit this, you know, in a month or so hopefully with some real changes.  
Speaker 7     00:35:36    And we have like our neighbors, like who are there to support us today. So like, just to see that they are okay with what we are proposing and the supporter. So what their testimony be.  
Speaker 0     00:35:51    Yeah. It wouldn't, it would fall on deaf ears, to be honest with ya. Good neighbors are great to have, and I'm glad you have them, but it, the good neighbors saying they're okay with it doesn't mean that the township is okay with it. So given special, I guess, circumstances that we have in the back that has no bearing on the, the approval process.  
Speaker 2     00:36:14    I can't give you legal advice. I recommend that you talk to a lawyer and find out what legal proofs are necessary so that you could provide those legal proofs you have not done. So  
Speaker 0     00:36:28    You want us to postpone? Yes, please. Okay. Thank you. April 14th. Okay. Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:36:41    Okay. So this matter is going to be carried to April 14th with no further notice by the applicant. The only notice you receiving is my announcement here tonight. Okay.  
Speaker 0     00:36:50    Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Let's move on to item number 7 22 days, ZB dash zero two V. Mario and Viviana Aviva.  
Speaker 9     00:37:03    Yes. Thank you. Members of the board and township professionals. My name is Tim arch. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey, and I'm here representing the O'Hara family. This is 1 47 Montgomery street block one, not 1 9 1 0 lot two, 3.01. In the, our 7.5 zone. Couple housekeeping matters. I would ask the board attorney if a notice was properly provided. And if we are properly, have proper jurisdiction before the board  
Speaker 2     00:37:39    Notice was proper and the board has jurisdiction to proceed.  
Speaker 9     00:37:42    Thank you. I will also note that I am in receipt of three reports, Ms. Corcoran's zoning report indicating the variances required. I have a February 14th, 2022 DPW report, and I have a memorandum from Mr. Hinterstein dated March 8th, 2022. I believe those are the only reports. And I would just ask to confirm that those are the only reports I see Laura shaking her head.  
Speaker 9     00:38:15    I'll put that as a yes. Thank you. I want to give you a brief introduction. I'm here representing the O'Hara family. The O Haidas are here with us today. They are, they are on the zoom. If they can just wave real quick so everybody can see them, you know, Hey does our lovely family. It's Mario and his wife have Viviana. They have two, a children. Their son goes to Rutgers university. When I asked them essentially, what we're talking about tonight is we're talking about building their dream home here in Piscataway. And when I asked them why Piscataway the answer that Mr O'Hara gave to me is that he's driven through here multiple times over for years. And every time he sees Piscataway, he sees it as a, a beautiful, safe, wonderful community. And they've been thinking for a very long time about moving here and being part of that wonderful community.  
Speaker 9     00:39:08    So, so that's what we're talking about tonight is building their house. Now I have one witness tonight and that's Mr. Anthony Garrett. He is our architect and our planner, we are asking for, we have two existing non-conforming needs on the lot. And we're asking for two variances. In addition to that, you will see in Mr. Garrett's testimony, it's a very unique, shaped lot. It's a two frontage lot. It's essentially L-shaped. And so it fronts on both Montgomery and on Evans. And so I'm assuming at some point in the past, it was, it was either two or three, very small lots that had been consolidated into this, into this unique shaped lot. So that, that explains the two nonconformities. And those would be that we have a 30.6, six foot lot with, and a 30.6, six foot lot frontage. And that's a long evidence. The two variances that we're requesting tonight, one is for maximum building coverage, where obviously you 20% is the, is the magic number for the town we are proposing and requesting 21.9% building coverage, which I'll note on the outset is certainly below 23%.  
Speaker 9     00:40:27    The other that we are asking for is a rear yard setback where 25 is, is allowed. And we are asking for an eight foot rear yard setback. And I know that immediately, you're going to hear that, that disparity in numbers. And you're going to say that seems like a really big ask, but when you see the, how the house is oriented on the lot, and because of the double frontage is what is technically considered a rear yard is really more, is really essentially the side yard of the home. And so it's really, it's really more related to a side yard setback than it is a rear yard setback. So just so that you're not completely shocked by those numbers, but again, when you see the, the shape of the, of the parcel, I think you'll understand what we're talking about. So with, without any more to do, I will ask that Mr. Garrett be called up and, and sworn in to give testimony.  
Speaker 2     00:41:29    Derek, can you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the  
Speaker 10    00:41:34    Truth? Yes, I do your name and address please. Anthony Garrett, G a R R E G T business addresses below Garrett group 1 61 main street, Richfield park, New Jersey, 0 7 6 6 0. Thank you,  
Speaker 9     00:41:52    Mr. Garrett, you've never testified in front of a Piscataway is as owning four. Is that  
Speaker 10    00:41:57    Correct? That is correct.  
Speaker 9     00:41:59    Okay. Can you give us some of the, can you give us the benefit of your credentials that  
Speaker 10    00:42:04    Sure. I was originally licensed as an architect in 1991 in New York state, subsequently licensed as an architect in New Jersey in 1996. And I obtained my planner's license because I will be testifying as both an architect and a planner in 1999 by exam. I graduated Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1984, and I have testified as, and been accepted as an architect before planning and zoning boards across the state from as far south as egg Harbor to as far north, as by road broccoli. I'm satisfied with this credential.  
Speaker 9     00:42:47    Thank you. Thank you so much. So Mr. Garrett, you have had an opportunity to examine the site. You've prepared the, the submissions that we submitted to the board for this application, and you are familiar with the, with the site plan and the design. Is that correct? That is correct. If you can then please, if you can just take us through the, take us through your personal opinion, you're processing your professional opinion.  
Speaker 10    00:43:19    Okay. Do I have the ability to share the screen?  
Speaker 9     00:43:24    I believe so. Yes.  
Speaker 10    00:43:25    Okay, great. And we will start, can everyone see a site plan or a sheet with a site plan that's been rendered in green? Great. Yes, we're off to a good start. And I'm going to zoom in a little bit,  
Speaker 9     00:43:45    Mr. Garrett, if I could just stop you right here. Is this a, is this something that was previously provided as part of our application submissions?  
Speaker 10    00:43:51    This has been in, this is not, we enhanced this by adding color to the site plan to show the green space versus the house versus the driveway and patio.  
Speaker 2     00:44:03    And I need to mark this as  with today's date and asked Mr. Garrett to provide a paper copy to the board for his file.  
Speaker 10    00:44:12    Will do. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so let's just start, I guess, with some general description of the, of the, of the project, the subject site is located in an, our 7.5 residential zone. The, the neighborhood is essentially single family residences with the exception of the one property to the north of ours, which has a group care home on it. But other than that, it's mostly mostly or almost entirely single family residences. Our minimum lot size is a 7,500 square feet are the subject parcel, which is this L-shape or, you know, it's not a flag lot, but it looks like a flag. It's a double fronted lot that there's a total of 8,063 square feet. The allow the minimum requirement is 7,500 square feet in this zone. It has frontage on Montgomery street and it has frontage on Evans avenue of the frontage on Evans avenue.  
Speaker 10    00:45:18    We were advised by the professionals that that would be considered the front yard, and that is 30 feet in width. Although it's, I think important to note that the Montgomery street frontage is actually 50 feet. And in a strange way, if you added the two together, it's a actually over 75 feet, which is the required lot frontage in the, in the neighborhood. Nonetheless, we have noticed for these existing nonconformities as barren sea variances, these parcels have existed this way since 1926, we went back in the records and found that since that date that's what has been shown on a tax map. So it's an interesting shape property. And quite frankly, the 30 foot with along Evans avenue avenue was very difficult to design as the front of the dwelling. And the address is known as 1 47 Montgomery street. So we've treated a Montgomery street as the front of the dwelling.  
Speaker 10    00:46:23    We have a juror driveway coming in off of Montgomery street, a 20 foot wide driveway, which access as a garage. The building setback along Montgomery street is 25 feet. That is what's required for front yard. And it's well in excess of what's required for the side yards. And we're proposing a dwelling that is oriented really in that, that portion of the property, that 50 foot by 150 foot area that is, has most of its frontage along Montgomery street, we're proposing a two and a half story colonial style welling, and we will get into the architectural issue descriptions momentarily. I would mention that we surveyed as part of our process. We visited the neighborhood. We walked around, looked at the environs and came up with this design. We didn't do it in the, in, in the remote though. We've had numerous meetings with the AU Haidas, they've been very involved in this as Mr.  
Speaker 10    00:47:35    Arch stated, this is their dream house. They really, really kind of move to Piscataway and stay here for a very long time. This is not a developer trying to max out a property so we can sell it for profit. You'll see, when we get to the architectural design that the, the built the house has been designed so that they can age in place and within this dwelling, hence there are, when we get to it, you'll see that there are five bedrooms for both in this house because they don't want to move again. As the old Haidas get older, Mario and Viviana most likely will end up moving down to the ground floor into what's currently proposed as a guest suite, but I will get to that when I get to the architecture, the old Haidas came to us, met with us. We visited the site before we were retained, just to make sure that we were comfortable without what we were presenting before the board was appropriate for this, for this area.  
Speaker 10    00:48:37    They had done a lot of research on their own found numerous sample floor plans of house designs that they liked presented them to us. I would say in almost all cases, they were larger than what we're proposing here, because we looked at what they had presented to us. Although they were very beautiful designs. We felt that they were just a little too large to be accommodated on this site. So we working in conjunction with the AU Haidas of, I guess, taking a scalpel out to their, to the design and cut and tweaked it that we think we, we get a house that although maybe slightly over in coverage on the site fits in well with the neighborhood we do meet, we do meet the front yard and side yard setbacks. And quite frankly, if Montgomery street were considered the front yard and S as opposed to Evans, the eight foot rear yard setback that I'm in circling with my mouse located the north side of the property would comply as a side yard as would the front yard of 25 feet also facing Montgomery street.  
Speaker 10    00:49:53    And lastly, I would add that the, what is being considered a side yard under our application to the east side of this site would be well in excess of the, the building envelope for a, for a rear yard setback where, you know, again, I think it's required to be sure I don't speak. So I have to pull out my cheat sheet and the, the rear yard setback being required of 25 feet. And we're north we're greater than 40 feet in that area over there. So I think that gives you a pretty good sense of the overall development of this site. There are site improvements, which I will circle back to, but I'd really like to get into the architecture if the board is okay with that, just to show you how we came up with this building footprint by,  
Speaker 2     00:50:43    Yeah. You can certainly go into the architecture, but we don't want to spend a lot of time on it.  
Speaker 10    00:50:47    Oh, okay. Very good. I will be very brief on that. Thank you. So, so we have two floor plans. This was part of your package. This is the ground floor plan. It's got a garage living room, a dining room, a kitchen, and the guest suite as an ancillary spaces over here, the ground floor area, total, or the building footprint area, a total 1768.9 square feet of which approximately 480 square feet is the Raj and an open porch over here. There's a patio in the back. And again, these rooms are in the living room is 14 by 19. There is no second family room on this level. So we try to really tighten up some of those designs that they presented to make this, in our opinion, reasonable application. There's. As I mentioned, a small guest suite with a toilet private toilet wall for the guest suite on the second floor, there were four bedrooms, which kind of surround an open stairway, an open stairwell, and a whole way.  
Speaker 10    00:51:59    Again, these bedrooms that would the first one would be the master suite, which is now 15 by 19 with its own bathroom. And then three bedrooms that are 10 by 14 feet, all with their own closets, again, not ostentatious, but appropriately sized. So we can get a bedroom and a dresser and a couple of nightstands in there. So we, we were really tried to be diligent and not designed a McMansion cause that's not the intent of what the old Haidas came to us for quickly on the elevations. This would be the elevation facing Montgomery street. You can see the two garage doors, the materials are the, the height of the proposed dwelling would be 29.1 feet. That's to the original line. We have a hip roof designed over the dwelling. I would point out that the allowable building height in the zone is 35 feet.  
Speaker 10    00:52:53    We're six feet under what the allowable building might is. We created what we believe is a very nice articulated elevation with a change of materials. We have cast stone surrounds around the garage and porch area. We have a Hardy plank siding, and then we have some accent elements of stucco. This would be a dwelling that would be designed to meet current building codes. It would a very tight thermal envelope and would be a very efficient house from an energy standpoint. It would be appliances would all be highly efficient appliances, and we would have adequate insulation so that this would be, you know, we would be a very environmentally sensitive dwelling, the side elevation, which is, this is the south elevation facing the neighbor to the south, which is the most proximate welling. Again, I think the flat elevation, I need to explain a little bit what I'm in circling here is the area that would be proximate to the dwelling to the, to the south.  
Speaker 10    00:54:10    The left third of this elevation is set back 13 feet from this space here. So that garage element of, as you can see in plan, and I'm going to toggle back and forth, if you don't mind on the site plan of what I just described was this additional setback of the dwelling, which pulls it farther off that south property line. Even though we are compliant with the side yard at eight feet, we wanted to minimize that. And quite frankly, part of the hardship on this that we were presented with this site is that it is, you know, fairly narrow. So we ended up with a very linear layout to the house, which presented some challenges and kind of contributed from an architectural standpoint to the footprint that we came up with.  
Speaker 9     00:55:02    Mr. Garrett, if I can just, if I could just jump in and interrupt one moment. I know that some of the, the comments that we had from Mr Hinterstein report are directly related to, I think the, the look or the design of the building. I know that comment. Number two on Mr. Hinterstein, his report indicates that adjacent homes in the area are predominantly modest ranches in consideration of this. The fact that a lot is a deficient in lot with the board should consider lowering the roof line as much as possible to bring the scale, the dwelling down. I know that you had done some, I guess, sort of reconnaissance as to the neighborhood. I was wondering if we could touch upon that in terms of what other homes are and whether this would be a consistent design.  
Speaker 10    00:55:51    Okay. I was going to deal with that under planning testimony, but I'll be glad to do it now. So this is an exhibit that is part of the presentation tonight. It was not part of the, the application. So I guess we would mark this as eight to today's date. Okay, great. So we did survey the area. This is an aerial photograph that we superimposed tax lot numbers onto. And I would point out that there are a number of, there are actually nine dwellings in this, in this area that are over two or two and a half stories are very similar to what, what we're proposing they would be. And I want to get them properly noted here.  
Speaker 10    00:56:42    The dwelling here, which is a 1 64 Hamilton Boulevard is a two and a half story dwelling. I have photographic representation of that when I get the, my photo, right? There's this property here along Hamilton avenue is a two and a half story dwelling. They'll not that I apologize. That is not a two-minute story dwelling. Now there isn't an empty lot. Actually there's a house set back there. Well, we can say it on the picture. Yup. The other dwellings in the area here would be, this would be 1 52 Evans avenue. This is the subject parcel here. 1 52 Evans avenue. I will get to the photograph. In fact, like the toggle over right now, this would be our photo array coming up. Let me take a moment to load because it's a fairly large file. Oh, that wasn't too long at all. Okay.  
Speaker 9     00:57:41    Well, just to, just to, for clarity, we'll, we'll mark this as eight three, and we'll provide the date as well.  
Speaker 10    00:57:47    Thank you. And I took these photographs myself and they accurately depict the, the existing conditions of the neighborhood. So for whatever reason, it's not giving me the opportunity to zoom in. So I'm going to try something else. So here, this, this is a 1 52 Evans avenue, and you can say it's a fairly substantial two and a half story dwelling with a roof line. And again, a fairly nice sod there's articulation or Gables led in, et cetera. And then in addition to that along Evans avenue, a little west of our site, there's a two and a half story dwelling gear. And then there is also at 1 55 Evans. There's a two-and-a-half story dwelling that 1 55 Evans would be bear with me a moment. But you would say the majority of the structures in that area or ranch, I would say in this immediate area, out of the properties we surveyed, I would say three quarters of them are ranch style and one quarter or two-story colonials, rays ranches, that type of design.  
Speaker 9     00:59:05    Mr. Garrett, if you could, if you could opine at both the one-story ranch houses, would it be safe to say that those are some of the older or houses, whereas some of the other ones are possibly some of the, of the newer, more modern homes?  
Speaker 10    00:59:20    Yes. I think the, the, the dwelling at 1 57 Evans is a relatively new dwelling. I would say that the one story ranches in my opinion are circa 1950s, 1960s, when that was, you know, very popular size to go up. And, but now, you know, we're seeing typically, and it's permitted in the zone, you know, for hot for two and a half stories. And up to 35 feet, I would like to just shift back to the elevations for a moment, because I think it's important to note that let's see what we get over here a little bit. If you look here, we are proposing a nine foot floor to floor at the ground floor that really will provide for an eight foot ceiling on the ground floor. And similarly on the second floor, we're proposing for an eight foot ceiling. We give a top of plate elevation over here.  
Speaker 10    01:00:19    So it's not like we're trying to have 10 foot ceilings or anything like that. We gate we were, we tried to be sensitive in our design to, you know, to control the height of the structure. I know the suggestion was made that perhaps we could, you know, look at changing those, the roof lines and maybe perhaps changing the slopes of the roof. In my opinion, both as an architect. Well, mainly as an architect, I don't think we can really lower the roof lines, any, we are at the minimum, you know, standard height for living space of eight feet, ceiling Heights. And furthermore, we think that the, the slopes that we're proposing, which are in the seven in 12 range, seven units vertically for every 12 units, horizontally is not unreasonable and creates a, a much more desirable visual environment on this dwelling. Again, I don't, I'm kind of crossing the line.  
Speaker 10    01:01:23    I'm sorry. That is a goal. And objective of the municipal land use law is to create a, you know, the, the desirable visual environment. I think it's goal. I, and we're, we're trying to do that with the design that we're proposing that is inclusive of all the articulation and the change in materials that we're proposing on the welling. We think that this would be, we think that in conjunction with the old Haidas, we've created an ELO and elevation of both on the, on all sides, but specifically the south side facing the neighbor and the north side facing Montgomery street, which are going to be the most divisible facades that we have something that is appropriate and not incongruent with the neighborhood. I'd also point out, I think it's interesting. And we can, I'm going to go back to exhibit eight to you. Don't mind of the dwelling here on the corner of Evans and, and the Montgomery street here. The overall length of that ranch zoom in a little bit more is approximately 55 feet an hour. The, the residents that we're proposing in that east west direction is also 55 feet. Although, as I mentioned, we, we took a big chunk out of it or approximately a third of that width out of it at the Western end of that. So again, it would be very, I, again, I think the architecture does work very well with the, with the neighborhood and what the property that's most affected by this application.  
Speaker 10    01:03:12    I just, if you don't mind would like to, I, the board, I will ask your indulgence to go back to the site plan. I would like to point out that we are proposing storm water management. There's a set of calculations here. We have seepage pits in the rear yard here and the yard over here, as well as we're proposing to do the driveway and the patio out of pervious pavers, pervious pavers are I'm really encouraged by a state of New Jersey under the storm water regulations, as a way of infiltrating water back into the ground. It's a best management practice, and we are controlling all the storm water that would be generated on our site and not allowing it to flow off the site. So there should be no concerns that there'll be any kind of additional storm water during a rainfall that would infringe on any of these adjoining sites. So again, I think that's, we do have to do that, but we're doing it in a manner that is very green in terms of infrastructure and encouraged by the state, the, these infiltration beds under these patios. I've used them several times. They work. The OAA does understand that there's a little more cost for these because it really gets into the bedding underneath the pavers, as well as making sure you know, that you properly maintain the pavement of what as with everything, everything needs to be maintained.  
Speaker 2     01:04:52    Okay. And then Kenny, can I just jump in for a minute? You addressed paragraph two of Mr. Hinterstein report, maybe it's time to address the rest of his report.  
Speaker 9     01:05:05    Ms. Mr. Garrett, if I can just, just cause some of these are some of these, I think I can go through pretty quickly. Number one, I think we've touched upon, which is the testimony is to be as to how we came about with the design of the home and why it is that we're asking for this slight increase in the coverage. Number two, I think that we have covered number three, the pervious paver detail should be shown. We will certainly, we can certainly update our plans and we can certainly show that. So we agree to that as to, for the curbing and sidewalk. I did speak to the, the Haidas. We are in agreement that we are going to provide the, the curving and sidewalk along the frontage is as well as that the two and a half caliber street trees. So we can certainly address and meet all those, those comments and conditions. And in addition, on the DPW report, we can certainly show where the location of the utilities and the laterals will be prior to any construction.  
Speaker 4     01:06:08    Mr. I apologize, Mr. Hinterstein did you have any, yeah, I mean, again, I really don't have any issues with this, this proposal. I think they've addressed everything. The only problem is again, is the, is the height of the, of the structure. You know, I'm not really in agreement with Mr. Gary, as far as that, that that structure cannot be a roof. Height cannot be lower. Again, the home in front of the ranch, there's predominantly ranches, you know, immediately surrounding this home. But the problem is this is not a conforming lot. If this was a conforming lot, I would be like, this is great. This is a way under, what's allowed, not an issue. The problem is is you don't have 75 feet. You only have 50 feet. So that's the issue. We've had several bones developed on 50 foot lots. And, and one of the, one of the items that the township of legal council and, you know, administration has always come back to us to say is if the lots under size, we try to maintain a lower roof line due to the fact that the lock does not comply with, you know, the lot with, and so sort of following sort of the guides of what we've done in the past on predominantly 50 foot locks.  
Speaker 4     01:07:30    And again, there's many cases where we've required. Again, that's also where we have areas of deficiencies. We've required homes to be a one story home due to the fact that it's under size. And I think, I think the ask here is, you know, I understand maybe visually it would be, you know, a little bit nicer to have that 7, 12, 7 and a half 12 Ruth Page. But I usually think that, you know, the roof pitch here, it could be six 12, it can be brought down slightly. The hip could be changed. I'm not telling you, you have to take this roof down to match the other roof wine, perhaps somewhere in between just to show some compromise and bring it down. So that it's just that a little bit lesser scale. And that's it. We agree to that. I think I don't see any other, other issues with the staff.  
Speaker 10    01:08:20    I think we can certainly reduce the roof slope down to six and 12. I don't think that would have a material effect on the overall design. I would point out however, and we're, we're willing to do that, but I would point out that the area of the roof line that is closest to Montgomery street, which is really the one that you're going to read immediately is the garage area. That's the one that's 25 feet off. And that is a one-story structure. We see this elevation really tells the story. The second floor is brought back from that area. And even the second floor in this area, you can see the roof peak here is much lower than the high roof peak, which is well set back from, from Montgomery street and Evans avenue. For that matter, nonetheless, we would stipulate or agree to that condition, to the change, the roof slope down to six and 12,  
Speaker 0     01:09:12    You missed the arch. If you're a willing to compromise like that, I think we can proceed  
Speaker 9     01:09:18    If I can. Just, just out of an abundance of caution, if I can ask my, my clients Theo, Haidas absolutely. The only issue that I have is in is, and again, I'm not an architect, so I'm not, I don't want to, I don't know if, if specifying that amount before seeing what that would look like is, is something that's normally done. So my only ask would be if we could, if we could agree that we can modify the roofline to the, to work with the township and modify it to a satisfactory pitch. I don't know if, if on the cuff setting a specific pitch amount is, is necessarily in everyone's best interest, but again, I'm not an architect. I'm just trying to be overly cautious  
Speaker 0     01:10:05    As an attorney. Henry, are you okay with that proposal?  
Speaker 4     01:10:08    Yeah. I don't have an issue with that. It's not a married situation. It's more of a recommendation. Do the other size nature. I think that's an acceptable condition that they just work it out.  
Speaker 0     01:10:18    That's the language we'll use that. Okay. Mr. Arch,  
Speaker 10    01:10:24    Everyone I can drone on and on and on if you like, but I know that you want to be here.  
Speaker 0     01:10:29    We all have  
Speaker 10    01:10:29    Lives to live. Okay. While I was a disc jockey people like my boys. Okay.  
Speaker 0     01:10:35    I don't have to work in 12 hours. I'm ready for a I'm ready for the evening to start. So Ms. Dodge, quite honestly, I think I can recommend, I can speak for the board when we are willing to proceed with this.  
Speaker 9     01:10:49    Excellent. We have no other testimony. I would just ask Mr. Garrett, if you can stop sharing his screen and then we will, I'll leave it to you, Mr. Chair, to, if there's any question for the open,  
Speaker 10    01:11:00    I'm sorry, Mr. Arch. I just do need to get one thing on the record. I'm sorry to, I'm not droning on. I believe the board can grant these variances without causing substantial detriment of the public health safety and  
Speaker 0     01:11:13    Nor do I think they will was any substantial impairment of the zone plan. I had to get that on the record. Okay. Thank you, sir. Excellent. Any other questions for anyone on the board for this application and or this witness hearing none. I'm going to open it to the public. Anyone in the public portion of any comments or questions for this application is Buckley.  
Speaker 1     01:11:38    No, one's raising their hand Chairman.  
Speaker 0     01:11:39    Okay. Close the public portion. I'd make a motion to approve this application with the stipulations that our attorney will be happy to right here on both is going to work with the township with regard to the roofing. Perfect. And Steve was a techie. Can you re  
Speaker 1     01:12:03    You already got somebody  
Speaker 0     01:12:04    Here? Kalpesh  
Speaker 1     01:12:07    Steve. Mr. Boisman. Yes. Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio. Yes, it's there. Hey DACA. Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. And Chairman Katie. Oh yes.  
Speaker 0     01:12:29    I realize this at our next meeting. Thank you so much. Have a wonderful evening everybody and been doing some great new neighbors. Awesome.  
Speaker 0     01:12:44    1121 dash DB. They're 76 vape moon builders, LLC. Mr. Schwartz, are you there?  
Speaker 11    01:12:53    I am. My name is Bryan Schwartz. I'm an attorney I'm representing wound builders, LLC. Mr. Tom Chung, who just came on is going to be, he's a principal of moon builders. He's going to be testifying first. This is your classic isolated lot where you're probably all even more familiar with it than I am. It's a small lot. It's kind of a leftover lot right behind. It is another identical lot owned by the township, which apparently is there's no plans on developing it. Tom and I have tried to find the history of this lot, how it ended up being worth and like this. I haven't had any luck, Mr. Charles, talk a little bit about what he knows about the history and they can, we can explain it. We've contacted the neighbors. They're not interested in either buying or selling. And Mr. Chum has been working with your planning department regarding the size, the mass, the height, the setbacks of the proposed dwelling.  
Speaker 11    01:13:52    And hopefully he has arrived at a, a dwelling that, that you will like, and that you'll re recognize is, can be accommodated on his property as well as you're going to accommodate a building. We'll also have Mr. Lee Titus testify. I see Lee coming on and he will. I never liked to insult the board by not going over to statutory criteria. So he'll talk about the engineering detail and then quickly go over the statutory criteria for the barons. So unless there's any questions we'll proceed, please, please proceed. Mr. Charles, can you be swore please? Mr. Trunk, and you raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth.  
Speaker 12    01:14:32    I do your name and address please. Thomas Joan 16, 16 Plainfield, south Plainfield, New Jersey. 0 7 0.  
Speaker 11    01:14:42    Okay. Mr. Chung, you one of the principles of moon builders, is that correct? Yes. And that's a family owned business? Yes. And do you have experience in construction of single family dwellings? The fact that you bought, have you been involved in constructing houses in Piscataway before this application? Yes, I have. Approximately how many times?  
Speaker 12    01:15:05    Approximately four or five times. Good.  
Speaker 11    01:15:08    All right. Tell us what you intend to do on this slide at 30 standard  
Speaker 12    01:15:13    Where you're intending on building a single family home. And basically we're looking at making it 24 feet wide. And the height of the structure is that 25 6, which before it was a little bit taller because the roof line was a little bit more at six 12. So we reduced the roof line to match the rest of the neighborhood at five 12 to bring it down. It was also asked to reduce the size of the deck or just remove the whole deck by itself in the back. So we removed it and we just have a little landing out for the back so they can walk out in the backyard.  
Speaker 11    01:16:02    All right. Well, you get to start there. I think you've given enough detail for right now. Can I share my screen, share screen? Does the board see a picture of a property? You see my grandchildren always see you let's do the worst of both worlds. How about now? Okay. Something is happening on screen. Okay. We see a picture of a lot and it says 30 Stanton avenue top. Excellent. And I've actually figured out how to put a one on it with tonight's date. Unfortunately haven't figured out how to save that. So I'm going to have to do it manually to give them as badly in any event Mr. Child, does this show the, the lot?  
Speaker 12    01:16:57    Yes. It's a corner lot. And  
Speaker 11    01:16:59    This is facing from Stanton avenue, correct? Correct. And to the left, we have Richmond street, correct? Yes. Which way is your house going to be oriented? It's going to be facing Stan and Stan. Okay. So this will be the front yard. Of course we have to deal with two front yards because the corner lot, correct? Correct now to the right of this property. There's a single family neighborhood, correct? Correct. Right. And what kind of houses are they in general? There are other two-story homes and are most of the lots. Well, we'll get into this sizable that lives near you in the, behind your lot. Is there another lot as well? Yes. The town owns a lot. And that's identical, correct? Correct. And then to the left, across Richmond street, there's a baseball field baseball fields and a public park. All right.  
Speaker 11    01:18:00    Next time showing, you know, going to my fish. I marked today three yesterday, two, sorry, a two. Did you put this together? Yes. Is this basically from the tax map? Yes. Okay. But it doesn't show the, the other lights around you. Well, the lot 3.01 is our lot. And then the one that was to the right of is a lot 9.01 and there, most of them are, are, are conforming, but, but to the minimum of conforming, correct, correct. A hundred by a hundred. And then across the street, you have some that are kind of irregular because of the, that correct? Correct. And then on the other side of the street, again, you have the park as you should. Right. Did you or Mr. Weight-loss make an effort to find out if either of your adjacent property owners were interested in either buying this lot or selling any, any portion of their property to you to make your, a lot of for conforming? Yes. We sent out notices to around and we haven't received anything back. Okay. I'm going to show first. This is a letter from Mr. Whitelaw.  
Speaker 11    01:19:27    Okay. So this is the letter to Mr. Fitzpatrick who lives at 28 Stan, which is right next to yours, correct? Correct. And then Mr. Bylaw also wrote to the township, right? And this is the letter again, date December 1st, Mr. Weight-loss sent to the township. Yes. Which will be a four. And in fact, he did get a call a, a letter back from, from the township Landis attorney. Correct. He got a letter back from Mr. Clark. It saying that they weren't interested in either buying a shell and correct. Correct. But they never, they never heard back from the perimeter pitch factory. Did you know? We haven't. All right. So it's not possible at this time to either buy some additional property to make yours conforming or to sell some of your property, correct? Correct. And in fact, when we look back at a two, we see that if you took any property from LA 9.01, you'd make them non-conforming correct? Correct. And Mr. Schwartz, if I could jump in, I believe you have demonstrated that there is a hardship with regard to the applicant slot because there's no adjoining area available. Great. All right, we'll go to the next thing. Now, Mr. Mr. Chung, you want to talk about what the house is going to look like? So I'm showing you what appeared to be elevations. Can you identify what this is? Oh, this is  
Speaker 12    01:21:07    The elevations for like, it says the front, the back, the right side, the left side and the rear.  
Speaker 11    01:21:15    Okay. So again, if I'm looking at the top left front elevation, that's going to be facial Stan, correct. And the right side  
Speaker 12    01:21:25     and then the right side elevations facing towards the other house,  
Speaker 11    01:21:30    The house next door, next door. Correct. Okay. Now one of the comments we got, they caused us to decide not to come to the board in February was that the mass of the building might be a little bit much. And so the town planner was suggesting that you reduce the roofline. Did you do so?  
Speaker 12    01:21:48    Yes, we did it with the new set of plans that we have. So it's reduced to five 12 for the roof line, instead of it's I know it says six, 12 on a screen, but it was the five 12.  
Speaker 11    01:22:01    Okay. And, well, all right. And I don't think in the, in the most recent planner's report, I didn't see anything about the roof line. So I assume that that's now acceptable to them. I also see in this, in the elevations, in the bottom left, it says optional deck. You've eliminated the deck, haven't you? Yes, we have. All right. And you might have a small patio.  
Speaker 12    01:22:23    There's going to be like a walkout landing for the back of the stairs, the back of the sliding door.  
Speaker 11    01:22:29    Okay. But not a deck anymore.  
Speaker 12    01:22:31    It's not a decorative here now.  
Speaker 11    01:22:32    Okay. Next one. I'm going to show that looks like a floorplan, correct? Correct. Just take me briefly 25 words or less. Take me through the four plan  
Speaker 12    01:22:46    Or five when you walk in it's the living room and then the stairs to go upstairs and down, and then behind that to dining room and then to the right of that's the kitchen. And then in the front is also a one car garage. And when you walk into a laundry room to go into the kitchen and then next to the laundry room, there was a powder room.  
Speaker 11    01:23:04    Alright. There were two other things that were of concern to the townships professionals. One was the setback and I believe you've done something about that.  
Speaker 12    01:23:17    Well, the setback was from off of Richmond. They were asking for 16 feet. So we're going to reduce it down to instead of a house being at 26 feet wide, we're going to reduce it down to two.  
Speaker 11    01:23:30    So Stan, essentially the left side of the house, correct? Correct. And that has the effect of narrowing the house, is that correct? That's correct. Do you feel that you can build a livable, usable house that's any more narrow than that? In other words, if you went to make that setback even more than 16 feet, would you still have a livable house  
Speaker 12    01:23:53    Then it's going to get a little tighter. I feel like if we go a little more than 16 feet,  
Speaker 11    01:23:58    You feel 16 is really a reasonable compromise of what you think you can deal with. I still have a house that can be used by a family. Correct. Right. And so we talked about the roof, we talked about the doing away with the deck. Are there any other changes you've made from the plans from when you originally submitted them?  
Speaker 12    01:24:21    Not only other thing that we did change was the garage.  
Speaker 11    01:24:27    Thank you. The garage, the requirement is that hat needs to be 12 by 20. Apparently that's still showing up the professionals reports. I think you thought that you made as a compliant.  
Speaker 12    01:24:40    Yes. Which we will resubmit the plans will have a compliant with the 12 by 20.  
Speaker 11    01:24:47    Okay. You can do that. That's  
Speaker 12    01:24:49    Not,  
Speaker 11    01:24:55    I have no other questions. Thank you.  
Speaker 0     01:24:57    And then what else on the board have any questions or comments for this witness? Okay. Every known anyone in the public portion of any questions that I believe they might have another app, but you all are going to go with the planner afterwards, right?  
Speaker 11    01:25:15    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:25:16    Okay. Yeah. So I'll leave the comments for after that then please. What'd you plan on,  
Speaker 11    01:25:24    Okay, Mr. Titus, you're there.  
Speaker 0     01:25:27    Could you raise your right hand testimony? Yes, it is. Thank you. Your name and address please. Don't be a Leland Titus six 18 Somerset street in north Plainfield.  
Speaker 11    01:25:46    Mr. Thomas. You're a principal in the firm of, of tire surveying and engineering. And is it accurate to say to you're both a professional engineer and a professional planner? That's correct. Do you hold licenses in each discipline in the state of New Jersey or do, and they're both just jump in here,  
Speaker 2     01:26:04    Mr. Thomas, I believe you have appeared as an expert before the Piscataway prior occasions, is that  
Speaker 13    01:26:09    Correct? That is correct.  
Speaker 11    01:26:12    Your  
Speaker 2     01:26:13    Licenses are in still in good condition then I think we're going to accept you as a engineer to plan.  
Speaker 13    01:26:19    I just renewed it recently. So we're in good shape.  
Speaker 11    01:26:22    And did you check clear, did you check clear?  
Speaker 13    01:26:25    I used a credit card  
Speaker 11    01:26:29    Lee. I put up in front of the board. What looks to me like to be engineering plans that say Titus surveying and engineering. And can you identify with this is  
Speaker 13    01:26:40    It is several, several different views of the property on the left is the existing conditions as the property is now with no house in the middle is the proposed conditions, which show where the house would be located and where the driveway would be located to the right of that is an area map that you looked at kind of over that. And then there's a key map and several tables with the zoning requirement.  
Speaker 11    01:27:11    Okay. I've already described, I think most of the variances I haven't mentioned, of course, there's a lot area of barons and there's there's with a lot with variants as well. Is that correct?  
Speaker 13    01:27:25    There's a variance for lot, with the lot with is required to be a hundred feet. And this is a 50 foot lot with and 10,000 square feet and areas required. And this lot would be 5,000 square feet.  
Speaker 11    01:27:38    All right. First of all, since you're an engineer, tell me about basically about this property from an engineering standpoint, whether there's anything, any engineering controls that are necessary or any engineering characteristics.  
Speaker 13    01:27:51    The property has fronts on two streets, Stanton avenue and Richmond avenue. And there is a drainage system in Stanton avenue. It slopes basically towards Stanton avenue, but there is a little part of the property that slopes towards Richmond avenue. And that condition would be maintained when the proposed house is constructed. The only difference is the roof leaders from the proposed house would tie into the existing drainage system in Stanton avenue.  
Speaker 11    01:28:26    Okay. Are there any other engineering controls that you see are necessary? There's where's water going to drain from the house and from the roof  
Speaker 13    01:28:35    Water from the roof will go through downspouts and into piping and be conducted into the stormwater system in Stanton avenue.  
Speaker 11    01:28:45    Anything else you need to say about the property from an engineering standpoint?  
Speaker 13    01:28:49    No, it's pretty, it's pretty basic.  
Speaker 11    01:28:53    Okay. And let's talk about your, your planning testimony. You've already heard that there was no, no ability to either sell some of the property or buy more property and you already listed the variances other than there's also a variance for a slight variance for maximum of building coverage. Is that accurate? It's 20.3 as opposed to 20?  
Speaker 13    01:29:17    Well, that will go away when we reduced the size of the house,  
Speaker 2     01:29:20    That was going to be one of my questions. So that will no longer be a variance if you maintain the setback at 16 feet by  
Speaker 13    01:29:27    Narrowing the house. That's correct. Thank you.  
Speaker 11    01:29:30    All right. And you also heard that Mr. Jones says that if he's not, if the garage not compliant, now he will make it compliant.  
Speaker 13    01:29:38    I heard that. Yes. All  
Speaker 11    01:29:39    Right. So the variances we're dealing with are lot area, a lot with front yard setback and a lot frontage, correct? That's correct. All right. And, and obviously we know this is a nice laid lot and it's a small lot. Are you familiar with the statutory criteria for granting she or bulk variances such as this?  
Speaker 13    01:30:03    Yes, I  
Speaker 11    01:30:04    Am. Do you have an opinion as to whether the proposed size of the dwelling and the, the dimensional characteristics of it are appropriate for this lot?  
Speaker 13    01:30:16    They are appropriate. Now you  
Speaker 11    01:30:18    Familiar with the other houses in the neighborhood,  
Speaker 13    01:30:21    So I'm, what  
Speaker 11    01:30:23    Is this, how it's going to be compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood  
Speaker 13    01:30:27    Generally speaking that's correct.  
Speaker 11    01:30:28    Do you agree with Mr. Chung that it would not really be feasible from a standpoint of, of livability to make the house any smaller, to try to maximize any further the setbacks  
Speaker 13    01:30:41    That would be getting somewhat narrow? And it would also start to look odd from the streets being very narrow  
Speaker 11    01:30:47    And would it, would it make any difference from a planning standpoint to further reduce the size or the dimensions of the, of the proposed house?  
Speaker 13    01:30:56    I don't see any reason for that.  
Speaker 11    01:30:58    Do you have an opinion as to whether the variances that are remaining can be granted by reason of narrowness, gentleness, or shape of the property or exceptional physical features were extraordinary exceptional situation affecting a piece of property? Do you have an opinion about that?  
Speaker 13    01:31:16    I believe these variances could be granted.  
Speaker 11    01:31:18    Okay. The other kind of various that we talk about is a C2 or flexible C there's, my friend Dan Burstein used to call it. And it talks about the benefits outweighing the detriments. Do you have an opinion about that?  
Speaker 13    01:31:36    Well, it encourages an appropriate use of the property to promote the general welfare, and it provides adequate light air and open space that promotes the establishment of appropriate population density that will contribute to the wellbeing of the neighborhood. And it promotes a desirable visual environment.  
Speaker 11    01:31:56    You S you mentioned light air and open space. I think that one of the comments from the planning department in the, in the township, so you do believe that if it satisfies that requirement,  
Speaker 13    01:32:08    Well, as far as, as far as I'm looking at it from, from the property on the right, which is the property on the north side yard is, is as required by the zoning ordinance. And as far as the property in the rear, it's close to the zoning ordinance. And then on either on the other two sides or both are both writeaways,  
Speaker 11    01:32:30    You've kind of gone into the negative criteria, which I was going to ask you next week, next about whether the Americans is going to be granted without substantial detriment to the public. Good. Went out and substantially impairing the intent purpose of the zone plan zoning ordinance. Do you have an opinion as to whether this application with the Veritas satisfies the negative criteria?  
Speaker 13    01:32:50    Yes, I do. And it satisfies the negative criteria  
Speaker 11    01:32:53    Consistently with the zone plan. It's not going to attract from the neighborhood.  
Speaker 13    01:32:57    That's correct.  
Speaker 11    01:33:09    I have no other questions thinking.  
Speaker 0     01:33:12    Any other members of the board have any questions or comments for this witness hearing none. I'm going to open it up to the public for any comments and questions. Sparkling  
Speaker 1     01:33:27    Mr. Smith, can you share your screen, please? Thank you. Yes, we have a Mr. Fitzpatrick,  
Speaker 0     01:33:33    Mr. Fitzpatrick,  
Speaker 2     01:33:35    Mr. Fitzpatrick, could you unmute yourself and raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth?  
Speaker 15    01:33:43    Yes, I do your name and address please. Chris Fitzpatrick, 28 Staunton avenue, Piscataway New Jersey. Thank  
Speaker 2     01:33:50    You. Go ahead with your question or  
Speaker 15    01:33:53    Comments. I mean, this is a lot 50 by 50 and 80 by a hundred. Oh, sorry. 50, by a hundred. You had the house. Okay. The 50 foot side, you've got to meet a 35 foot setback from Richmond street. And then if you go to the other side of the house, you'd need 10 foot. So add them up 35 and 10 is 45, which means if you were to build a house in accordance with the zoning ordinance, you really would not be able to build a house on that lot. Now that's a corner lot, and you need a setback at 35 feet on two streets. You know, you need Richmond and you need stun. And the thing about this lot is it's a lot at a park setting here where you've got children. Now, the reason for the 35 feet is that if I'm driving down the street, coming up to the intersection, I can see traffic on the other street. That's basically why I need that 35 feet setback. So here we have a park setting with a kids playing ball. When you go by there on the weekend, you can't get a parking spot.  
Speaker 15    01:35:12    Cars are parked on all around the ballpark and on the side streets, and you've got mothers and kids loading, unloading, and stuff. See that, you know what you've done, what you've done here is kind of introduce a safety hazard because as the lady or housewife pulls up to the intersection, she's distracted by the other stuff. And I don't have the 35 feet. I'm looking at 14 to 16 feet. So I've really cut down on the view that I can have on that other street when I pull up to the intersection. So really I kind of see it as a safety hazard. And if you build that house on that lot, then you really have caused a safety hazard that you can't mitigate. In other words, later on, if you want to do something about it, you really can't. And that's, that's one of the comments I have.  
Speaker 15    01:36:09    The other one is, you know, it's a 50 foot lot, and you're putting a small house on this 50 foot lot. And the visual impact is not good. And it does affect the character of the neighborhood and not in a good way, the houses all around that area. And including that block are all a hundred by a hundred lots. And the houses that are on that particular block, I think were built by moon builders, but they're spaced out properly. They all meet the requirements and putting a house on this lot is squeezing it in to a small area. And I don't think it has a good, I don't think it will be a good lot of good luck for the, for, for, for the area. I got other issues with that too. In drainage, you don't, when they build the house, they come in, they dig out the basement, they build a house. Then they backfill. Now I live next door and the water from my house drains onto that property. And usually what happens in the end, they just backfill and bring up the level. So they don't have to haul away the dirt and stuff. So that was another issue I had and building how so, so close to me, it's like you're taking the sun away from my backyard, so I'm pretty much there. All my comments.  
Speaker 0     01:37:45    Thank you for your  
Speaker 15    01:37:45    Testimony tonight, sir. Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:37:49    Miss Berkeley, any other hands raised Chairman hearing. Hello? Hello. Sorry.  
Speaker 16    01:38:00    I'm sorry. I probably didn't do it right, but my name is Richard David and I live on Susan court across the street  
Speaker 2     01:38:10    And Mr. David and Mr. David, hold on. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Yes. Okay. We got your name. I need your, your, your address,  
Speaker 16    01:38:24    Susan court.  
Speaker 2     01:38:25    Thank you. Please proceed with your comment or question.  
Speaker 16    01:38:29    My only comments are from an aesthetic point of view. I live at one Susan court. I've been in that house for 47 years. Every other house in that neighborhood is on a 100 by 100 lot. And I just think that putting a house on that half size lot is going through aesthetically degrade the neighborhood. I'm not an engineer. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an architect, like all these other people. And I heard some of them comment that it's not going to aesthetically harm the neighborhood. And I strongly disagree as somebody who's been there for 47 years, every other house on that street. And that neighborhood meets the lot size requirement. And I just think it's wrong to put a house there.  
Speaker 0     01:39:13    Thank you, Mr. David, Ms. Buckley, anyone else? Okay. Public portions closed being on the zoning board for 17 years. Now. You, you, anytime new properties being built, you always have neighbors coming out concerned about what it's gonna look like and the detriment to the neighborhood. And I can tell you out of a hundred instances, 99 of them go on to be, you know, happy ever after type situations. So I could appreciate the neighbors coming out and being concerned, but there are other issues that are factoring into this and I would offer to approve the application. And I'm looking for a second. Thank you. Kalpesh Ms. Barkley call the role Mr. Weissman.  
Speaker 1     01:40:10    Mr. Taylor.  
Speaker 0     01:40:13    Yes.  
Speaker 1     01:40:15    Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Hay DACA. Mr. . Yes. Chairman  
Speaker 0     01:40:24    Chaill. Yes.  
Speaker 2     01:40:26    Mr. Schwartz use your, your application satisfied the legal requirements for an approval, and we will memorialize it in the document at our next meeting and send it to you.  
Speaker 0     01:40:35    Thank you very much. And thank you for your cooperation and courtesies. Have a good evening.  
Speaker 2     01:40:41    Have a good night.  
Speaker 0     01:40:42    All right. We're at item number six.  there's two number sixes.  
Speaker 2     01:40:59    Yeah,  
Speaker 0     01:40:59    It is Romania. It should be 12, right? Yeah. Sorry. I'm reading it off the email.  
Speaker 2     01:41:08    Laura, what does that? 21 days  
Speaker 0     01:41:09    GB dash 43, 8 Haven court. That's it is Bala submarine in here.  
Speaker 17    01:41:19    Yes.  
Speaker 2     01:41:22    It's a Subramanian. 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, sir. Your name and address please.  
Speaker 17    01:41:33    Well, our Subramanian 14 while Haven court, this Calvin users.  
Speaker 2     01:41:38    Okay. The last time you were here, we asked you to file an amended application. You have not done. So is that correct?  
Speaker 17    01:41:47    Yes.  
Speaker 2     01:41:49    Okay. Why did you not file an amended application?  
Speaker 17    01:41:53    I talked to Nora and asked her that if he, for the design, if the bias, not the accident is structured, it's not used for anything special. Just use the normal top 10. Do I need, still need a file? And she said, no. Then I said, okay, in that case, we just to use it as such. That's why I didn't find.  
Speaker 2     01:42:14    Okay. Based upon information that you have told to some of your neighbors, you may have a use variance issue, but the board can't deal with that because you haven't filed that, that application and you have not paid the fees necessary for that. That said you have an application before the board with regard to certain variances, not use variances with regard to accessory structures on your property. Please provide the board with the proofs, for the variances that you're seeking.  
Speaker 17    01:42:56    It's a bulk variance that I applied for and that applications are ready. I find it a township that's already there. It should be there in fines.  
Speaker 2     01:43:09    Yeah. So please, please give the board the reasons what you're seeking here.  
Speaker 17    01:43:16    So you can two things. One is this property. I submitted all the proper deeds, the legal deeds that through which this transfer is done. And so I'm seeking it that I just want to rebuild and repair the structure and I want it to be grandfathered.  
Speaker 2     01:43:35    Okay. You have not filed an application for a non-conforming use. So you can't ask the board to grandfather, these structures, you have filed a variance application,  
Speaker 17    01:43:53    Right? I'm not using a training. Non-conforming use, I'm just going to use it for stories,  
Speaker 2     01:43:58    Sir. I, I, it, a non-conforming use means a building that was there before the township zoning code was adopted. That's not the application that you have filed.  
Speaker 17    01:44:13    Okay. I didn't understand that. So let me go back and find that application that's whatsoever.  
Speaker 0     01:44:21    Can we postpone? This is that we do a journey.  
Speaker 2     01:44:24    The applicant is asking to file an amended application, which is what we asked him to do last month. It is up to the board, whether or not you would like to grant that the chairman.  
Speaker 0     01:44:37    Is that what you're asking Mr. Submarine?  
Speaker 17    01:44:40    Yes, sir.  
Speaker 0     01:44:41    Okay. Laura would, this'll be the last time, right? You'll have all your thoughts.  
Speaker 1     01:44:52    I mean, I don't know if you want to open it to the public because there are people that email me on a regular basis about this. I don't know if you want to do that or you want  
Speaker 0     01:44:59    There's no, there's no testimony that was proffered. I would've asked in the interest of both the applicant and this board, that those individuals come back when the applicant comes before us with legitimate testimony and they can make their comments and, and statements about it at that time.  
Speaker 1     01:45:22    And Mr. a subterranean. You will need an extension of time. And so I will send you an email. You need an extension of time. You're out of time again for $25. I'll email you to do that in the morning.  
Speaker 17    01:45:36    Okay.  
Speaker 2     01:45:38    So I, I suggest maybe the second meeting in April,  
Speaker 1     01:45:45    April 28th,  
Speaker 2     01:45:48    Romanian is April 28th acceptable.  
Speaker 17    01:45:52    Yes, sir.  
Speaker 2     01:45:54    Okay. Now you are going to have to send out new notices because you are amending your application to propose something that you did not propose originally. So you will have to re notice.  
Speaker 17    01:46:06    Okay.  
Speaker 0     01:46:08    And I would ask those individuals that are neighbors that wanted to make comments tonight. Please come back on April 28th, when you can comment and make statements about actual testimony that has been proffered by the applicant. And thank you for staying this long to, to try and make some issue with it tonight. Thank you. Let's move on to item number. Oh, I'm afraid. Now at this point, is this Resolutions From the regular meeting of February 24th  
Speaker 2     01:46:45    And the resolution of JSA Mets and Teo LLC.  
Speaker 0     01:46:49    There's an application for interpretation, which you approved. I can't hear. I'm sorry, Mr. Weissman. Yes. Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. . Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. Mr. Ali. Yes. Mr. K Jeremy came home. Yes. That's the only resolution for this evening. Okay. I remember 14 at the option of minutes and the regular meeting of February 24th. All in favor, say aye. Okay. Motion to adjourn. All in favor. Say hi, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for calling. I was always appreciate your sacrifice. Have a great night.