Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on August 11 2022

Transcript generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Use the audio player to verify any passage.

Download transcript Download audio

Aug 11 2022 · Zoning

Meeting Sections

00:01:19 — Meeting Opening and Roll Call
00:02:06 — Agenda Adjustments and Postponements Item 16
00:03:10 — Case Hearing: 22-ZB-19V - OMI Tsunami (Fence Variance) 22-ZB-19V
00:09:39 — Case Hearing: 22-ZB-48V - Jocelyn Kawano (Fence and Shed) 22-ZB-48V
00:20:21 — Case Hearing: 20-ZB-57V - Brandy Patterson (Fence Variance) 20-ZB-57V
00:26:41 — Case Hearing: 22-ZB-30 - Craig Mena (Home Addition) 22-ZB-30
00:30:04 — Case Hearing: 22-ZB-49V - Cheryl Leblanc (Addition and Shed Variance) 22-ZB-49V
00:35:32 — Case Hearing: 22-ZB-52V - Jocelyn Galez (Stair Landing) 22-ZB-52V
00:40:11 — Case Hearing: 25-ZB-? - Alexander Ross (Fence Variance) 25-ZB-?
00:42:30 — Case Hearing: 22-ZB-64V - Wax Studio by Anna LLC (Temporary Use Variance) 22-ZB-64V
00:47:09 — Case Hearing: 22-ZB-6V - Dish Wireless (Cell Tower Interpretation) 22-ZB-6V
00:50:14 — Case Hearing: 22-ZB-11/12V - DF OS1 Construction/Piscataway Town Center (EV Charging Stations) 22-ZB-11V22-ZB-12V
01:11:30 — Case Hearing: 22-ZB-3 - Lori Seve (Certificate of Nonconformity) 22-ZB-3
01:29:08 — Resolution Adoption from Prior Meeting
01:31:20 — Meeting Adjournment

Speaker 1One more minute Chairman.

Speaker 2Thank you,

Speaker 3Laura.

Speaker 1I'm not muted. Can you hear me?

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1All right. I was mumbling maybe.

Speaker 3Now I hear you.

Speaker 1I was speaking down. It's been a long week.

Speaker 4I just made it.

Speaker 1I just left you a voicemail bill.

Speaker 4Yeah. I just

Speaker 1Call you guys a 25 show up. I'm just giving you a little heads up.

Meeting Opening and Roll Call AI 00:01:19 – 00:02:06

Board of Adjustment meeting called to order with notice procedures confirmed. Roll call taken of all board members. Pledge of Allegiance recited.

Speaker 2Board of adjustment meeting will come to adequate. Notice of this meeting was provided in the following waves notice published in theier news. Notice published, posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the Township clerk notice sent Curry news and aithal ledger. Will the clerk please call the role

Speaker 1Mr. Tillery here. Mr. Regio. I you

Speaker 0Here.

Speaker 1Mr. Dacey

Speaker 2Here.

Speaker 1Mr. Hika

Speaker 0There.

Speaker 1Mr. Mitterando

Speaker 4Here

Speaker 1And vice Chairman. Mr. Weisman here,

Agenda Adjustments and Postponements Item 16 AI 00:02:06 – 00:03:10

One agenda change noted: Item 16 (Jr Ventures, 11th Street application) postponed until September 22 with no further notice.

Speaker 2Will everyone please stand for the SL to the flag. I pledge allegiance to Mr. Kinneally. Are there any changes to tonight's agenda?

Speaker 3There's only one change. I'm not aware of the application of ventures. 11th street has for an adjourn until September. There will be no further. The that's only change I'm aware of to tonight's

Speaker 2Agenda. Mr. Dacey. I'm sorry. You broke up. What was the item number?

Speaker 3The item number is the, the last one. Number 16.

Speaker 1It's Jr ventures. Mr.

Speaker 2Weisman,

Speaker 1Number 16.

Speaker 2Got it. Venture

Speaker 1September 22nd. No further,

Case Hearing: 22-ZB-19V - OMI Tsunami (Fence Variance) 22-ZB-19V AI 00:03:10 – 00:08:37

Applicant sought variance for fence erected on corner property without permit. Fence was on property line in violation of ordinance. Application approved with condition that fence be relocated to 8 feet from property line, allowing homeowner to avoid removal while achieving compliance.

Speaker 3Further.

Speaker 2Thank you. Okay. Item number 5, 2, 2, ZB one nine, a OMI

Speaker 3Tsunami. Are you present?

Speaker 6Yes, I'm here.

Speaker 3You need to, could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony. You're about give the truth.

Speaker 6Yes I do. Thank

Speaker 3You. Could you explain to the board what you would like to do here?

Speaker 6Yes. I'm trying to get a variance for a fence that was erected in my, in my yard variance.

Speaker 3Yes. You are seeking a variance.

Speaker 0Yes.

Speaker 3Mr. Chairman, you check with Mr. Dacey. Can you notice?

Speaker 2Yes. Mr. Hinterstein do you have any comments on

Speaker 7This? Really? Just one. The problem is here is that it's a corner, property and fence was put up right on the property line, which we don't allow. Again, the fence needs to be even with the front yard setback, the particular case, you know, that would be, I believe it's 25 feet. What we're asking is that the fence be relocated so that it, at least the minimum of eight feet back off the property line, which is, you know, pretty much the bare minimum that we ever allow people to install fence with the off of the property line. As you know, we very rarely ever let anybody install the solid that encroach into the front yard. That much quickly, we, we, you know, look to have those fences at least half, if not more than what the front yard step is, but because this is a property and it's compromise would be eight,

Speaker 2Eight SU you okay with that?

Speaker 6The problem that is the fence has been erected without, I didn't know I was supposed to be getting a permit. So it's been erected. So for me to do that, I will kill additional expense, which I really don't have.

Speaker 3Okay. The defense cannot stay where it is. The defense needs to be moved. If the board denies your application, you're gonna have to move it, remove the fence. And if you reinstall it, it's gotta be 25 feet off the property line. Mr. Hinterstein has offered a suggestion that he would be okay if you moved it to within eight feet of the property line, that way you could still have a fence, but it cannot stay where it is. It was erected without permits. You never would've gotten a permit to put it where it is.

Speaker 6Okay? If, so that means two feet further than where it is right now.

Speaker 7Eight feet, further eight feet,

Speaker 6The additional eight feet. Yes.

Speaker 7Eight feet from the property lines. So I'm not sure where you're where the fence exactly is. I'm assuming it was put right on the property line. We'll, we'll call it eight feet. You could have it, your property surveyed and make sure that it's eight feet from the property line. Typically the property line in this particular area would be 10 feet off of the curb if there's curb on the street. So I think if you went 18 from the face of the curb, you could be pretty confident. That

Speaker 3Is that acceptable? O

Speaker 6Yes.

Speaker 3Okay.

Speaker 2Thank

Speaker 3You, Mr. Chairman, you may wanna check and see if there are any questions from the board. If not, you can open it

Speaker 2To the public. Okay? Thank you. Are there any questions from the board at this time hearing none. I'd like to open this up to the public. Ms. B are any hands up?

Speaker 1No Chairman. No. One's raising their hands.

Speaker 2Thank you. I like to close the public part. Any other questions now from the board?

Speaker 3If not, you can entertain a motion

Speaker 2On this. Yep. Hearing no comments from the board. I'd like to make a motion that we approve this request with the eight foot stipulation that I'll

Speaker 3Second it

Speaker 2Thank you, Clark, please. Ma take the role

Speaker 1Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. Reggio. Yes. Mr. Dacey.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Mitterando.

Speaker 6Yes.

Speaker 1And vice Chairman Weisman.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 3Ms. OMI, your application as amended has been approved, we will memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting. You don't need to be present for that. We'll mail that document to you, but you'll need that to get your permits.

Speaker 6Okay. Thank you. You one question. Excuse me. Question.

Speaker 2Yes. Yes.

Speaker 8I think if it's not the solid fence, is that a moving and can we just make it not a solid fence and six feet?

Speaker 3No, it be four feet and 50% solid. If it's over four feet or more than 50% solid. It's not. It's in violation of the ordinances.

Speaker 8Okay. So four feet, 50% open. Yes.

Speaker 3Correct.

Speaker 8Okay. Clarify which I, my moving, no, we don't have to move it. If you did that.

Speaker 3If, if you have additional questions, please contact Mr. Stein's office and he he'd be happy to go over with you.

Speaker 8Okay.

Speaker 3Thank

Speaker 2You. Thank you. Have a good night. Next item number 6 22 dash ZB four eight V. Jocelyn Kawano

Case Hearing: 22-ZB-48V - Jocelyn Kawano (Fence and Shed) 22-ZB-48V AI 00:09:39 – 00:20:20

Applicant initially not present; hearing continued when she joined. Sought variance for fence on property line and non-conforming shed structure. Board discussed options; applicant elected to reduce fence to 4 feet (which requires no variance if under 50% solid) and remove shed entirely rather than pursue variance. Motion carried to deny variance and require shed removal with 60-90 day timeframe post-memoralization.

Speaker 3Is Ms. Kawano present. Ms. Kawano. Are you present Laura? Do you see her? Nope. All right. Perhaps we should skip that application and go to the next one and we'll come back to Kawano.

Speaker 2Okay. Number seven.

Speaker 9I'm here.

Speaker 2Oh,

Speaker 3Is that miss Kawano?

Speaker 9Yes, I was just, I was muted.

Speaker 3You shouldn't be muted when we call you miss Kawano. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give, be the truth.

Speaker 9Yes.

Speaker 3Your name and address please.

Speaker 9Jocelyn Cahn, 1741 street, the scattering New Jersey.

Speaker 3Thank you. Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?

Speaker 9A variance for fence and also a shed, which was on the property when I bought it.

Speaker 3Mr. Chairman, you may wanna check in with Mr. Hinterstein on

Speaker 2This. Yeah. Will do Henry. What are your comments on this one?

Speaker 7Similar to this last case that we just heard, this is a corner property, this particular case, again, the fence was put right on the property line. Mr. Cowan, it doesn't appear that their surveys accurate survey shows a shed in the back corner of the property. But what actually exists is a larger accessory structure that you have right behind the fence, closer to the, you know, middle of that side yard there, or that front yard on Harold place, which again would never have been allowed to have been placed there. It doesn't look like it's in great shape. And basically the, the comments are the same is that, you know, particular case that, you know, the fence needs to be relocated 10 feet off of the har place property line. And then that shed's gotta be, you know, it can't stay there. It has to be located into a conforming location, you know, in a, and it's not in a front yard. We don't allow sheds in front yards

Speaker 9Said relocated 10 feet. But the, but the property line there is like an embankment from the street to where the fence is. So that's about 10 feet away from the, from the, from the street

Speaker 7Where the fence is now is 10 feet off of the curb. That's the property line where it is now, right? The problem is, is that it needs to be 10 feet further back than that. You have, your house is 25 feet off the property line, 35 feet off the curb. And right currently the fence is right on the property line. So again, you know, typically we, we, we want these fences to be, you know, the minimum half of whatever the front yard setback is, again, in this particular case, I think 10 feet is quite a bit less than half, or it is less than half. And I think it's a reasonable compromise considering it was without a permit. As far as the shed goes again, this is, it's not even a shed. It's like an accessory structure, sort of. So makeshift accessory structure. Again, I couldn't really tell what kind of condition it's in, but it either, I'm not saying you have to move it.

Speaker 7You could get rid of it. You could move it. If you wanna move it into an area, that's the opposite side of the property that conforms with the, with the ordinance or, you know, or at a minimum, it should be, you know, behind the, the house, the end of that side of the house that it's not in the front yard. So, I mean, you have a lot of options with the shed, whether it's to completely remove it or demolish it and get rid of it. And this way you don't have to deal with it, or you could relocate it to somewhere on the property where it's in a conforming location. Again. I mean, I'm not sure what the size of that structure is. If it's larger than a hundred square feet, it has to meet accessory structure setbacks, which aren't eight feet from the rear and eight feet from the side property lines. And there has to be outside of the front yard setbacks.

Speaker 9I have one question. So you're talking about the shed and the, the same thing with the other. So if the, not the shed, the, the fence, the fence, so is only the part that facing har street. We talking about,

Speaker 7We're only talking about the fence along Harold street. I mean, a portion of it faces. If obviously if you move it 10 feet pack, there's a section of fence or 10 feet of fence that you have to move, move from the rear and front property lines as well that enclosed the yard. So nothing should be within that 10 feet of the property line.

Speaker 9So if, if it goes, if you cut, if it goes to four feet, is that allowable instead of moving the fence,

Speaker 7The, the fence is allowed to be four feet, high percent solid. You would not need a variance for that. Okay. You just have to get rid of the, the shed.

Speaker 9Okay. Just get rid of the shed. Okay.

Speaker 7That is an option. You could go with the four chain link fence, a four fence. Again, I not don't recall off the top of my head since there were so many applications, I believe this was a wood fence though. Correct?

Speaker 9Right. Right. So the wood fence could stay at four feet. Is that what

Speaker 7Talk to a contractor about doing that? It's, it's, it's possible that they could convert that into a 50% solid fence and, and trim it down so that it meets the height requirement of four feet. But again, that would not, it's up to you and

Speaker 9You're breaking up. I can

Speaker 7Today. We can't, we can't allow you to, you know, or I should say the board has to make a decision on whether or not issue the variance that you've requested. So we could give you the variance as you know, or my recommendation would be to give the variance amended to 10 feet off of the property line. If you're in agreement to that. And then you would have, once you get the approval, or if you get your approval, you could explore other options as well. But the wouldn't be, if you get the approval for the, you wouldn't be able to keep the fence in that location,

Speaker 9But I'm, I'm still just one. So it's just one option. Is it? The other option is for bringing down to full feet. That's what I want to know.

Speaker 3Yeah. The board has no jurisdiction over a four foot, less than 50% solid fence. That's permitted by the ordinance.

Speaker 9Okay.

Speaker 3All right. Under your application tonight, Mr. Hinterstein is recommending that if you move to 10 feet off Harold place, property line, if you elect to go in that route, you could still make the choice to reduce it to four feet and leave it where it is.

Speaker 9Okay. So I could still make it to four feet and leave it where it is

Speaker 3As long as it's less than 50%.

Speaker 9Okay. All right.

Speaker 3So would you like to agree to on your application tonight need to move it to 10 feet off hour place?

Speaker 9No. I would like to leave it at, bring it to full feet. Partial. Solid.

Speaker 2You don't have, you don't need our approval for that.

Speaker 9Okay. I don't need the approval,

Speaker 3But if we you're before the board and the shed still needs to be relocated to a Cahn,

Speaker 9I think at this point, the shed, I'll just it down

Speaker 2That if I understand this correctly, we just going do no on this request because the applicant is withdrawing her requirements.

Speaker 3Mr. Weinstein. You're you're correct. You should open it to the public. However,

Speaker 2Yeah. Ms. Co do any other question?

Speaker 9No, no. Sorry.

Speaker 2Anyone on the board have any questions at this point? Uhrin none. I'd like to open this up to the public. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions? Ms. Buckley? Do you see any hands?

Speaker 1No, I don't see any, but she is required to get a zoning permit once she changes the fence. Cuz she is in violation. She still needs to get a permit. Even if she get doesn't get the bearings

Speaker 2That's

Speaker 1So she'd have to call our office.

Speaker 2That'd be a permit for the four foot fence.

Speaker 1Still required to get the permit. Cuz it would never legal

Speaker 3That's way. It could be inspected to know that it conforms with

Speaker 9The order. Okay. So I have to call for the office for permit.

Speaker 2Okay. Yes. Hearing no questions from the public. Are there any questions at this point from the board hearing Lynn, I'd like to make a motion that we know on this request.

Speaker 3It's it's to deny the fence location and to require the removal of the shed

Speaker 2It's and removal of the shed. Thank you.

Speaker 9Do I, do I have a timeline to remove the

Speaker 2Shed? It's thank you.

Speaker 3Yeah. The board can set a reasonable timeframe to remove the shed perhaps 60 to 90 days after the memorialization of the resolution.

Speaker 2Okay. After Memorial day or after labor

Speaker 3Then after the memorialization of the resolution

Speaker 2Memorial day

Speaker 1Starting summer,

Speaker 3I wish

Speaker 9Do I have to for the rest of the meeting or can I leave?

Speaker 2No, you the, I like to have the clerk call the

Speaker 3Roll. Did we get a second on

Speaker 1That? No, we did not.

Speaker 3I'll

Speaker 2Second second. The

Speaker 1Clerk, Mr. Tillery.

Speaker 10I believe Mr. O'Reggio second it

Speaker 1Okay. Yeah. I'm doing roll Paul now. Mr. Tillery.

Speaker 10Yes.

Speaker 1MRIO

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Dacey.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1MRCA Mr. Mitterando.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1And vice Chairman Weisman. Yes.

Speaker 2Thank you.

Speaker 1Thank

Case Hearing: 20-ZB-57V - Brandy Patterson (Fence Variance) 20-ZB-57V AI 00:20:21 – 00:26:41

Applicant requested 6-foot solid fence 5 feet from property line for privacy (widow with three children). Board approved with amendment: 10-foot setback from property line with 5-foot fence height and 1-foot lattice top (50% solid upper portion). This provides substantial variance relief (10 feet instead of 40-foot requirement) while maintaining sight lines.

Speaker 2You. Moving on item number seven. It's 20 ZB dash 57. Brandy Patterson

Speaker 3Is Brandy Patterson present.

Speaker 1I'm here.

Speaker 3Ms. Patterson. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give should be the yes. Your name and address please.

Speaker 11Brandy Patterson. One lavender drive, Bestway, New Jersey 0 8, 8 54.

Speaker 3Thank you. Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?

Speaker 11Hi. I am requesting a six foot solid fence. I had put five feet from my property line, but after listening to everyone else, I don't know if it would have to be at a 10 foot setback from my property line.

Speaker 3Mr. Chairman, we should check with Mr. Hinterstein on it. Yep. Henry, what is your take on this? Please

Speaker 7Take on this one is we actually had an application here recently, not too long ago on the opposite side of your road. Believe it was the opposite side of Maplehurst. I'm not sure if it was lavender, but, and again, 10 feet was a recommendation in that case. 10 feet's my recommendation here that takes it 10 feet off. The property line actually takes you out of an easement that exists on your property. And the only other stipulation would be is that we required that fence to have a 50% solid upper on the fence. So that fence wasn't six feet of solid fence. I believe that fence is five feet with like a either lattice or picket top so that it's not so solid in nature. It has a little bit more openness to it. So that would be the same recommendation here so that it's consistent with the other fences in the area that we've approved bearings on.

Speaker 11Okay. Just a question cuz I don't wanna overstep my concern for the six foot was just that I have three small kids. I'm pretty sure a lot of people here have children. I'm a little nervous about people looking into the property as everybody walks up and down these streets every single day, I am a widower. I lost my husband in 2020 to COVID. He was a patrol Sergeant in Bedminster. I'm trying to do the best here that I could do to keep my children as safe as I can by doing it on my own. I'm fine with the 10 foot, but I just, I'm a little nervous the way everything is going on in the world and would really like to keep the privacy in my backyard without having that lattice. And I, I did see some fences around the area with lattice and without the lattice. So I don't know if it's just, you have to have that lattice at the top part or can it just be solid?

Speaker 7You're requesting a variance where the requirement is quite substantial to is here, here it's four feet, 50% open Henry. Yeah, no, I know that. I was just looking at the set front yard setback. I is pretty substantial in this neighborhood. I'm not sure if it's five see on your setback.

Speaker 11I think it's a 40 setback.

Speaker 7Yeah.

Speaker 1It's 40 feet.

Speaker 740. Yeah 40. So we're allowing you to do 10 instead of 40. So

Speaker 1110

Speaker 7That's a substantial deviation from the variant. So we're not, you know, the five feet of that fence is gonna be completely solid and it's not like, you know, the lattice is, you know, in completely invisible or a picket top. If you prefer top, is it a little bit more openness because you're so close to the property. Like now you want to say, you wanna move it 20 feedback. I'd be totally fine with you being a six foot solid fence back. And then you'd be offering, you know, half of the front yard setback. But because it's so close, you're, you're a quarter of what the requirement is. That was a fair compromise. And also what would Cahn, you know what the compromise was for the neighboring property across the street.

Speaker 11Okay. So 10, 10 foot. And the it's a five foot with just like an inch of the lattice,

Speaker 2Top a foot, a

Speaker 7Foot foot you a six fence. It's like a top or part of the fence. It's like the last one foot of the fence. Typically either a or lattice. I mean there's a couple different options that you can get from your more openness versus the song.

Speaker 11Okay. I have no problem with that. Thank you

Speaker 2Very, any questions from the board hearing? None let's openness to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions?

Speaker 1No Chairman

Speaker 3Or, or comments

Speaker 2Or comments or comments.

Speaker 1Nobody raised their hand either way.

Speaker 2I'd like to close this portion of the public portion. Any questions at this point from the board hearing no questions. I like to make a motion that we approve this request a 10 foot moving a 10 foot in how much I put solid and on top foot being lattice work. Will the clerk okay. Get a second.

Speaker 1I'll second.

Speaker 2Oh Roy

Speaker 1Mr. Dacey. He reads.

Speaker 2Okay. Will the clerk take the role

Speaker 1Mr. Tillery? Yes. MRIO yes. Mr. Dacey.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. DACA. Mr. Mitterando here.

Speaker 7Yeah. Yes by me.

Speaker 1Thank you. I got you. And Mr. Weisman.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 3Mr. Patterson, your application as amended has been approved, we will memorialize it at our next meeting. You don't need to be present for that. We'll mail a copy that document to you and you'll need that to get your permits.

Speaker 11Thank you.

Speaker 3Good

Speaker 2Luck

Speaker 11Tonight.

Case Hearing: 22-ZB-30 - Craig Mena (Home Addition) 22-ZB-30 AI 00:26:41 – 00:29:51

Second appearance by applicant for variance relief on home addition. Applicant had revised second-floor addition design per Mr. Hinterstein's July 12 recommendations. All conditions agreed to: back property not for business use, debris removed, second floor modified to step in from side, driveway paved and not used for business. Application approved unanimously.

Speaker 2Number 8 22, ZB 30 Craig MENA.

Speaker 3Mr. Ick, are you present?

Speaker 12I am Mr. Cahn.

Speaker 3Good evening.

Speaker 12Good evening. We are here our second time prepared to proceed consistent with the July 12th memorandum from Mr. Hinterstein as to the application.

Speaker 3Yes. And, and after we spoke earlier this evening, I spoke to Mr. Hinterstein. He, he confirmed what we discussed. So perhaps you can talk to the board about that.

Speaker 12Sure. So Mr. Dacey looking to put an addition on his home. He requests some variance relief due to existing, to the existing condition of the home. And Mr. Hinterstein has requested that, that the back of the property not be used for business purposes, that debris we removed and some other items of concern. Last time we were all here was the second floor addition being modified as to step in from the side of the existing home, which Mr. Dacey prepared. Mr. Hinterstein. I suggested a two Mr. Dacey agreeable

Speaker 3To Mr. Mr. He's report.

Speaker 12We are.

Speaker 3Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that takes care of all the outstanding issues on this. You may wanna check in with Mr. Hinterstein just to see if he agrees.

Speaker 2I'm sorry. You broke up at the very end. Mr. Dacey.

Speaker 3You may wanna check in with Mr. Hinterstein just to see if we've covered everything.

Speaker 2Thank you, Mr. Hinterstein.

Speaker 7Yeah. I believe that takes care of everything. I think we touched on everything and he agreed to all the conditions. I think the only other conditions where the existing driveway being paved again, the will be back along that side property line and he's not gonna be used for business. He understands that it's not a business zone, everything.

Speaker 2Terrific. Thank you. Any questions from the board hearing?

Speaker 12None

Speaker 2Hearing, not like to open this up to the public for any questions or concerns?

Speaker 1No one Chairman.

Speaker 2Thank you. Closing the public portion. I'd like to make a motion that we pass. We pass this request with all the recommendations that have been accepted by Mr. Hinterstein. Can I get a second?

Speaker 3I'll second.

Speaker 2Thank you. Will the clerk please take a, a role

Speaker 1Mr. Tillery?

Speaker 3Yes.

Speaker 1MRIO yes. Mr. Dacey.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Hidaka. Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. Vices Chairman

Speaker 2Weisman. Yes,

Speaker 3Rick. We will memorialize in our, at our next meeting and send a copy to you.

Speaker 2Thank you, sir.

Speaker 3Have a good night.

Speaker 2Thank, thank you everyone. Have a good night. Thank you. You too. Item item number 9, 2 2 dash ZB dash four nine V LAN and Francis Prestor

Case Hearing: 22-ZB-49V - Cheryl Leblanc (Addition and Shed Variance) 22-ZB-49V AI 00:30:04 – 00:35:21

Applicant sought bulk variances for home addition (enclosing carport, adding bedrooms) and new shed. Lot is undersized (less than 10,000 sq ft), requiring variance for shed placement. Survey confirmed driveway sufficient for four vehicles. Board approved with condition: applicant must grant temporary construction easement to Township for future road improvements on New Durham Road (5-8 feet, temporary in nature for sidewalk/curb work).

Speaker 13I'm here.

Speaker 3Ma'am could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that testimony you're give should be the

Speaker 13Yes, I do

Speaker 3Your name and address please.

Speaker 13Cheryl Leblanc, 5 0 3, new Durham roading New Jersey.

Speaker 3Thank thank you. Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?

Speaker 13I'm requesting bulk variances. I need to build an addition onto the home, which Enclos the carport and wraps also around the back encompassing two of the bedrooms, and I need to build a shed because currently in the back of the carport, there is a shed that is built onto the house it's it's on the foundation. It was built that way and that will be encompassed as part of the addition. So I need to build a new shed. I had previously requested a zoning permit, but that was denied because the property is less than 10,000 total square feet. So I need a variance for that too.

Speaker 3Yeah. I'd like to point out to the board that most of the variances here are existing due to the undersized nature of this lot. Mr. Chairman, you may want to check in with Mr. Hinterstein for his comments.

Speaker 2Thank you, Mr. Hinterstein.

Speaker 7Yes. See real, any issues with this application? There is just one item. The fact that, well there's really two items. One is I don't believe the survey was accurate. I, I believe your driveway is sufficient to hold two vehicles, correct?

Speaker 13Yes. The drive, since that the, the, the, the driveway was widened after the, after that survey was done. So the driveway's already been widened. Technically there will still be room for four cars.

Speaker 7OK. That's what I wanted to confirm. And because car ports being sort of removed and that's parking space, technically. So we're good on that. I wanted you to confirm that the other thing is, is that we have, I believe there's county plans to improve me a dorm road, and I believe the Township needs a temporary construction easement. And again, it's temporary in nature. It, the easement that if they Enro on the property, when they're redoing the sidewalk, curb, that they'll restore it, but they it's a possibility that they may encroach little bit into the property line. I don't know exactly. I believe it's a 640 square foot. So it's, it's not a tremendous, I think it comes out to about somewhere in the five to eight foot range. But again, it's temporary nature just during the construction of new dorm road, whenever that takes place. So I would be hopeful that you would agree to the great construction easement and that documentation would be prepared by the Township for you.

Speaker 13So the easement would be to do, to put the sidewalk in or

Speaker 7It's actually. Yeah. So when they do the road improvements on your dorm road, they may CRO onto the property. You know, they may step on the lawn or something of that wider than what the property line is. And so they get it temporary construction easement. So that if you do that, it's, it's basically in line with easement, then it's restored back to the, you know, existing condition. So it benefits you and the Township.

Speaker 13That's fine.

Speaker 2What about the shed?

Speaker 7The shed there's no issue with the shed is conforming actually. So part of the application, but there's no variances required

Speaker 13For, right? Well, yeah. I mean, I, they, I applied for the zoning permit and I made sure that I followed the code as far as right. You know, it's, it's how far it was from the property lines and everything. But they said my property was less than 10,000 square feet. So I needed a variance. So I was getting the variance for the, for the, for the construction. I, I added it to that.

Speaker 7Right, right. So it's part of the application, but we don't have any issue. It just because the lot's undersized, anything that she did out there figured the very pretty undersized lot.

Speaker 3So Mr. Chairman, it appears, we've addressed all the issues on this application.

Speaker 2Thank you. Any questions or comments from the board hearing? None. I would like to open this up to the public. Any questions or concerns from the public Ms. Buckley?

Speaker 1Oh, no one Chairman.

Speaker 2Thank you. I'd like to close the public session at this time. I'd like to make a motion to accept this request. May I get a second? Will the clerk please take the role

Speaker 1Mr. Tillery?

Speaker 3Yes.

Speaker 1MRIO. Yes. Mr. Blum.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Hey DACA.

Speaker 3Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Mitterando. Yes. Vice Chairman Weisman.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 3Ms. Lalo, your application's been approved with the condition that you grant the temporary construction easement. We will memorialize this in a written document at our next meeting. You don't need to be there, but we'll send that document to you and you'll need that to get your permits.

Speaker 13Okay. So I have to wait for that to apply for the permits.

Speaker 3Yes.

Speaker 1I'll send it to you.

Speaker 13Thank you very much.

Speaker 3Good luck.

Speaker 13Thank you. Have a

Speaker 2Good

Speaker 13You

Speaker 2Number 10, 2, 2 dash ZB five, two V. Jocelyn EZ.

Case Hearing: 22-ZB-52V - Jocelyn Galez (Stair Landing) 22-ZB-52V AI 00:35:32 – 00:40:11

Applicant sought variance for front yard setback to add landing to front stairs. Board approved with amendments: landing reduced from 4 feet to 3 feet to minimize front yard encroachment (front setback requirement substantial). Previously-removed shed no longer an issue. Condition: temporary construction easement for future street reconstruction on Murray or Adams Avenue.

Speaker 3Here is, are you present?

Speaker 1Yes,

Speaker 3Henry. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Yes. You swear that testimony. You're about to give you to the,

Speaker 14I do

Speaker 3Your name and address please.

Speaker 14Jocelyn Galez 1 61 Murray avenue, Piscataway New Jersey.

Speaker 3Thank you, Ms. Galez. Could you explain to the, what you'd like to do here?

Speaker 14I am trying to redo my stairs, so I wanna add a landing. So I need a bearing,

Speaker 3Mr. Chairman, you may wanna talk to Mr. Hinterstein about his concerns on this application.

Speaker 7Try that again. There's just a couple minor issues on this application. One again, it's a pretty severe front yard setback, Varis. I totally get the landing in front. I was hoping that you could reduce that to three feet, which is still a pretty comparable, a pretty, you know, adequate landing area where that you could stand on and, and open your door without, you know, having to stand on a step, provide it provides a little bit more stability, but it'll a little bit less encroached into that front yard setback. The other issue was the shed. I believe that shed was removed. That

Speaker 14Was, that was removed. Correct. I don't have a set. I removed it probably over a year ago.

Speaker 7All right. Perfect. So that eliminates that issue because it was over the property line. And like you said, the only other issue is just, if you would agree to the one foot reduction in that landing that would really help considering the, again, the front yard setback variant is, is

Speaker 14No, that's fine. I, I can agree with that.

Speaker 7And then the LA the last item would be, is similar to the last application. The plan is for, I believe Murray avenue to be reconstructed in the very near future. And I think the Township means the five easement temporary construction easement for the same reason, in case they install step on your lawn, have the ability to repair without any issues.

Speaker 14I'm sorry. I thought they already, we already got the sidewalk fit in.

Speaker 7It could be Adams. Now. It's possibility that are you on a corner?

Speaker 14Yes, I'm on a corner.

Speaker 7Okay. I was told the five easement. I'm not sure if it was for Adams or for Murray avenue. So again to that, I will, the Township will make sure whichever road it's for again, either way, it would be the same amount, five foot temporary construction easement. It only if for some reason they disturb your property. When they're doing the sidewalk or curb or road work, that they would repair it and restore it to the existing condition. And they would have the ability to do that.

Speaker 14Okay. That's fine.

Speaker 7There's no other issues, Mr. Chairman,

Speaker 2Thank you. Any questions from the board hearing? No questions like the public. Are there any questions or concerns from the public?

Speaker 1No. Chairman,

Speaker 2Thank you. I'd like to close the public section. I'd like to make a motion to accept this request. Can I get a second?

Speaker 3I'll second. It

Speaker 2Of the acceptances with the change to three feet instead of four.

Speaker 3Yeah. The changes would be the one change in the landing and the temporary construction.

Speaker 2Right? Thank you. The Clark. Please take the role

Speaker 1Mr. Tillery.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Blount.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Hey DACA.

Speaker 3Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Mitterando. Yes. And vice Chairman Weisman.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 3Ms. Galez your application has been approved with those two conditions. We just mentioned. We will memorialize it at our next meeting and send a copy of that document to you. You don't need to be present in the next meeting.

Speaker 14Okay. Thank you very much.

Speaker 3Good luck

Speaker 14Have good night

Case Hearing: 25-ZB-? - Alexander Ross (Fence Variance) 25-ZB-? AI 00:40:11 – 00:42:22

Applicant seeking fence variance on Crestwood Avenue. Proposed fence location 25 feet from property line deemed appropriate and consistent with neighboring properties. No objections from board or professional staff. Application approved unanimously with no conditions.

Speaker 2Item number 11, 2, 5, Alexander Ross.

Speaker 3Mr. Mr. Dacey, Mr. You, you in could raise you the testimony. You're be the truth.

Speaker 15Yes, I

Speaker 3Could you explain to the board what you'd to here?

Speaker 15I, to, from home over the

Speaker 3Mr. Chairman, we've heard a lot of fence applications signed. You might wanna go right to Mr. Hinterstein for his

Speaker 2Comments. Yes, Henry.

Speaker 7Yeah. This one, I believe this fence is proposed in an appropriate location. It's being proposed 25 feet back from the property line. Again, it requires, I believe a 40 or 50 foot front yard jet back, but it appears to be in appropriate location. Considering the neighbor's fence, the property behind is in a similar location and it provides substantial space in that Crestwood avenue corridor. So I do not have any other issues with this application. I believe it's it's appropriate as presented.

Speaker 2Terrific. Any questions from the board at this point, hearing none. I'd like to open this up to the public. Anyone from the public have any questions or concerns?

Speaker 1No. Chairman,

Speaker 2Thank you. I'd like to close the public section. I like to make a motion that we accept this request. Can I get a second? I'll the clerk please? That

Speaker 1Mr. Tillery. Yes. MRIO

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Dacey.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Dacey. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. And vice Chairman Weisman.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 3Mr. Roja, your application has approved will memorialize our next meeting in a written document. We'll mail add to you and you'll leave that to get your permits. Good luck.

Speaker 2Thank very much.

Speaker 1Thank you.

Speaker 2Thank you. Item number 12, 2 2, ZB six B

Case Hearing: 22-ZB-64V - Wax Studio by Anna LLC (Temporary Use Variance) 22-ZB-64V AI 00:42:30 – 00:47:09

Attorney Cynthia Smith representing applicant seeking temporary use variance for wax studio at 47 South Washington Avenue. Use is allowed in commercial zone; site plan required within 6 months. Applicant represented use will enhance area by occupying vacant space. Board approved 6-month temporary use permit (renewable if site plan not completed). No detrimental effects to community.

Speaker 3Actually Mr. Weisman, we have changed the agenda. The next application is 22 ZB 64 V the wax studio by Anna LLC. That that revised agenda came out late. This that's

Speaker 2That's what I said. I that the one I read.

Speaker 3Okay. I was just checking

Speaker 2We're the same page. Okay.

Speaker 1Making sure you're paying attention.

Speaker 2Thank you. This is for temporary temporary use variance for the wax studio. Correct?

Speaker 3Is Smith present?

Speaker 2Muted?

Speaker 16Sorry about that. That's okay. Forget the zoom every time. Yes. Good afternoon. I am Cynthia Smith, the attorney for the w studio by Anna LLC. And we're here for the 21 5 2 4 temporary youth permit. Ms. Smith intends to open up a wax studio at four seven south Washington avenue, Piscataway New Jersey. It's an old site. So at this time a site plan is not available, but will be available within six months. Her youth here will not be detrimental to the community as required under 21 5, 2 0.4. As matter of fact, I think it will enhance the, the area occupying space that has been empty, which I think will help a lot in that area. And it will fit right in, in the commercial zone that it is in as well.

Speaker 3And you understand that if the site plan application is not ready within six months, you, if this is granted, you are eligible to come back and ask that that be renewed for another six

Speaker 16Months. Yes. I understand that

Speaker 3Mr. Chairman from a, a legal point of view, I don't have any other issues on this.

Speaker 2Okay. Henry, any questions on this or

Speaker 7Really? This is just temporary use. It's really not a variances. What the use that's proposed is allowed in the zone, just that the site needs a little loving, tender care and needs a site plan because there hasn't been a, I think, any improvements done on the, a long time and parking that nature. So this is allowed, it's not an issue. Come back at some point. Hopefully

Speaker 2Uhrin. Are there any questions? The board hearing, I would like to open this to the public. Are there any questions or concerns for the public?

Speaker 1No Chairman,

Speaker 2Thank you'd like to close the public section.

Speaker 17Mr. Chairman. One question Henry. I looked at the property too. Is there any reason I can't start cleaning that place up between now and six months to

Speaker 7Show it's not necessarily that it's it's the shambles or anything of that. It's just that there's really, you know, the parking's notated very much. There's no, you know, there may be some issues with sidewalk, you know, could they, yeah. I guess technically they could make more sense though. I think Don, if they probably had a plan as to what they were gonna do first, you know, you put a pen to paper and maybe come up with a plan, but it's not that bad. The front of the property is, you know, just concrete and there's access.

Speaker 17It's no I've oh, by the way, being a little Jardy I technical difficulties.

Speaker 1Wasn't there.

Speaker 2Are there any other questions at this time hearing? None. I would like to make a motion that we granted temporary use variance for this. I get a second.

Speaker 17I'll

Speaker 1Like when you all speak up at one time,

Speaker 2Take the role

Speaker 1Mr. Tillery. Yes. So now you're gonna ignore me. MRIO

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Dacey. Yes MRCA yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. And vice Chairman Weisman. Yes.

Speaker 3Smith will prepare a resolution of temporary use approval and consider it at our next meeting. We'll a copy to you.

Speaker 1Thank you very much. Have a good evening. You too.

Case Hearing: 22-ZB-6V - Dish Wireless (Cell Tower Interpretation) 22-ZB-6V AI 00:47:09 – 00:50:13

Federal statute exemption application under Code Section 64.09 for wireless equipment interpretation. Applicant represented no new variances created, no height increase, and no equipment area expansion. Board determined application meets all exemption requirements and satisfies site plan waiver criteria. Application approved unanimously.

Speaker 2Moving on. Item number 13 22, 6 V. Wireless LLC is

Speaker 3Mr. Dacey present.

Speaker 2Yes, he is.

Speaker 3Good evening, Mr. Schick,

Speaker 2How are you, sir?

Speaker 3Good. Thank you.

Speaker 2I'm here tonight on behalf of dish

Speaker 18Wireless. This is one of the interpretations under the federal statute for the zoning exemption under 64 0 9. There are certain standards that we have to meet. I do have a witness here, but we do have Mr. Chadwick timely based on his based upon his site, reconnaissance, as he says, that also confirms. So Chairman, I'm happy to put the witness on or we're satisfied to rely on Mr. Chadwick letter as well.

Speaker 3The board has heard many of these applications and ordinarily based upon the representations of council and our witnesses, it appears that a witness is not necessary. It is your representation that no new variances are created. No height increase is involved. No increase in the area of the equipment area. Is that your representation?

Speaker 18Yes, it is, sir.

Speaker 3Okay. That,

Speaker 18That satisfied my question, Jim.

Speaker 3Okay. The board has heard many of these applications, a essentially they're here just to check off the boxes to make sure that they don't need any new variances, which would create a need for a public hearing on this. Since they have checked off those boxes, it appears that they have satisfied the requirements for an exemption from site plan application.

Speaker 2We need to vote on this now.

Speaker 3Yes. Okay. You should open it to the public

Speaker 2Will do. No. Just wanted to make sure the process. Okay. Anyone on the board have any questions hearing? None. I like to open this up to the public. Are there any questions or concerns from the public?

Speaker 1No one Chairman.

Speaker 2Thank you. I'd like to close the public session. I like to make a, like the proposal we grant this request. How to get a second.

Speaker 3I'll second.

Speaker 2Thank you. Please take the call. The role. Sorry,

Speaker 1Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. Blount. Yes. Hey DACA.

Speaker 3Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Mitterando. Yes. And vice Chairman Weisman.

Speaker 2Yes,

Speaker 18Chairman. Thank you. We appreciate your time. We appreciate Mr. Chadwick reconnaissance

Speaker 2As we all do.

Speaker 18I couldn't help myself. I couldn't help myself. I'm a, I'm a longtime friend of Mr. Chadwick and I, I couldn't help. I enjoyed the use of that word

Speaker 2All. Have a good night, have a

Speaker 3Good night. Mr. Dacey

Case Hearing: 22-ZB-11/12V - DF OS1 Construction/Piscataway Town Center (EV Charging Stations) 22-ZB-11V22-ZB-12V AI 00:50:14 – 01:11:19

Continued hearing (first hearing June 23) for electrical vehicle charging stations at Kimco-operated Piscataway Town Center. EV charging recognized as inherently beneficial and permitted accessory use. Kimco property manager reported ongoing negotiations with Township on two open issues: tree replacement (trees cut in past to be replanted by November 1, 2023) and sidewalk construction on Centennial Avenue (utility relocation complications). Board approved with conditions: property owner must enter developer's agreement with Township for sidewalk improvements and landscaping restoration; directional signage permitted per Township ordinance. All utilities and improvements remain property owner obligation, not applicant.

Speaker 2Item number 14, 2, 2 ZB 11 slash 12 V DF OS one. Construction

Speaker 3Is Mr. Bonner or any anyone from his office present

Speaker 19Right here.

Speaker 3Good evening.

Speaker 19Good evening, Mr. Kinneally. Members of the board. Thanks for your time tonight. As you all, hopefully remember we appeared on June 23rd when the board held its first hearing, the applicant presented its case for electrical vehicle charging stations at the Piscataway town center that use is recognized as an inherently beneficial use and a permitted accessory use in New Jersey. Excuse me, the actual project area occupies only a small percentage of the existing nine acre site clear and convincing testimony was given by the applicants professionals who were then questioned by the board and its professionals. And the comments of Township staff report were addressed at that time. The hearing was carried before it was opened to the public in order to give the property owner and operator of the shopping center. That's Kimco time to resolve open issues with the Township regarding construction of the sidewalk and restoration of some landscaping.

Speaker 19We're here tonight to continue with the application, the issues I would let the board know between in Township and the property owner have not been fully resolved. And the only new information we have tonight is from a representative of, of property owner who will update the board on the status of the discussions with Township regarding completion of the requested work. I also have representatives of all the professionals who provided testimony on behalf of the applicant in the event. There are any questions when this is open to the public. Before I introduce the representative, the property owner, I would like to provide some context. If this application is approved, applicant likely cannot proceed with the project. If the two open items are made conditions of approval and same would render the project economically unfeasible, I can go into a little more detail after introduce Mr. Levi Johnson, who is the regional vice president of property management for Kimco. And he will provide an update on Kim's discussions with the Township. I've seen Mr. Johnson. There he is. Mr. Cahn

Speaker 3Johnson just swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth.

Speaker 20Yes.

Speaker 3Your name and address please.

Speaker 20Levi Johnson, 10 Cedar street, Mees New York.

Speaker 3Thank you

Speaker 19Mr. Johnson. I, I'm not going to lead you through this with questions. Why don't you just fill me in on what you've been discussing with the Township and who you've been speaking with?

Speaker 20I've been speaking with the town attorney, Michael and I, I actually the two open items as I recall it. And what is being told to me are landscaping, which is trees that they believe have been cut down in the past and also adding a sidewalk down Centennial avenue. The landscaping issue is being resolved any and all trees that have been removed that have died or whatever reason why they're not there. We are replanting per the original plan for the site. Those trees will be replanted. Next fall. Fall is the best time to do it. We've put the funds together. We're sourcing trees and contractors. Now we don't believe we'll be able to get in before the first frost. Therefore we are agreeing to have those installed no later than November 1st, 2023,

Speaker 21Joined the meeting

Speaker 20As, as it relates to the sidewalk and Centennial a there's, there's a few things and I've been going back and forth with the attorney. When it first and foremost, we do not have an issue installing the sidewalk. Our questions are remains is that installing the sidewalk does require moving public utilities along with D O T boxes, which we believe should not be an expense that we would take on as those are not items that we maintain further the sidewalk. If we were to install it today, doesn't lead anywhere. We currently do have full path of travel from Washington Ave through our entire site that does leap through that lot. And we have ADA path of travel for that. But by installing this sidewalk today on Centennial app, it literally stops at that light and goes nowhere. We would be willing to install that sidewalk pending the rest of these sidewalks are being developed so that the sidewalk does create path of travel down Centennial. So that's what we are asking to do.

Speaker 19Thank you, Mr. Johnson, if there are any questions for Mr. Johnson feel free.

Speaker 3So Mr. Johnson are, are you amenable to doing the, installing the sidewalks at a future time pursuant to a developer's agreement that that may not be covered by this approval?

Speaker 20Absolutely. Yes.

Speaker 3And you would be willing to condition this approval on entering into a developer's agreement with the Township of Piscataway to install the, the sidewalks within a certain period of time.

Speaker 20What are you, are you indicating the condition of the approval for the charging station?

Speaker 3Yes.

Speaker 20Okay. Well, we do see them as separate items, but we are willing to answer into a developer's agreement again, pending we come to an agreement on what happens with the public utilities that are in the way of such sidewalk. There are items that will have to be relocated that are actually publicly owned

Speaker 3And, and that's, that's outside the purview of the zoning board, but based upon the, the zoning board's professionals, Mr. Hinterstein, I would recommend to the board that if you want to vote in the affirmative on this, you condition it on the applicant, entering into a developer's agreement to put in the sidewalks at a future time

Speaker 19That the applicant Mr. Cahn, the applicant would be entered into a developer's agreement, the property owner would

Speaker 3The property that the property owner. Yes I'm. I'm sorry, Mr. Boner. You're

Speaker 20Again, I do not, not have an issue entering into a development agreement, but in agreeing with this, we do not have terms of the developer's agreement. So I am, I would affirm to agree to one, but I would like to discuss the terms

Speaker 3And I would recommend, I, I spoke to Mr. Clarken today, who is one of the, the Township attorneys he has reached out to your organization. I don't know, to whom in particular, several days ago. And he's awaiting a return call. I know you talked to Michael, I assume you're talking to Mr. About Mr. Baker. Yes. Mr. Clarken has also been involved in this. You may want to reach out to Mr. Clarken because he, he actually reached out to your organization to discuss this issue several days ago and he's awaiting return call.

Speaker 20Okay. I'm unaware of that. And typically I get looped into any such calls. So I guess I can reach out to Mr. Clark and

Speaker 3Yes. And, and if, if you call the Township office, they can put you in touch with him.

Speaker 19Okay. Levi, anything further,

Speaker 20Nothing further.

Speaker 19Thank you. What, what I'd like to clarify what the applicant is requesting if this matter is that the sidewalk and the landscaping, not the conditions of approval imposed on the applicant and the board Cahn respectfully consider leaving them out. If they're unwilling to do that, at least have the resolution language recognize that they're the property owners' obligations and not the applicant's responsibilities as Mr. Cane just said. And what we would hope is that in the interim, while the property owner is working out the details of his arrangement with the Township that the applicant be permitted, obviously once the appeal period expires to pursue building permits and a certificate of occupancy, if that's necessary for opening his facility at this site.

Speaker 3Well, I think what I'm hearing, I would recommend to the board that if you wanted to act in the affirmative on this, you would condition the approval of the electric vehicle charging stations on the entrance, into a developer's agreement by the owner to install the sidewalks and other related improvements. And, and I understand this honor, you don't want the board to do that, but that is my recommendation.

Speaker 19I apologize, but I need for you to repeat that you were breaking up. We can't,

Speaker 3Oh, I'm sorry. I

Speaker 19Don't know if anybody else had that problem.

Speaker 3And, and no, we all have that remotely. My recommendation to the board is that if the board wants to act in the affirmative on this and vote in the affirmative for the electric vehicle charging stations, that you condition this on the owner entering into a developer's agreement for the installation of the improvements, including the S

Speaker 19And I guess I would just hope that some flexibility can be built into this. So the applicant can make a decision whether to proceed or not. You know, they've put in a lot of time and effort into this. You know, we took that almost a two month hiatus tempted to resolve this issue. And I think that shows a lot of good faith on the part of the applicant, as well as the property owner and that as I stated, and I would hope the board would take consideration of this, that they'd be allowed to once the appeal, you know, that the property owner works diligently to enter into a developer's agreement, whatever the outstanding issues are with the Township and that the applicant be permitted to apply for his building permits, do his construction work and, and get a co even if that co is temporary and, and also conditioned upon the developer's agreement. In other words, allow this to continue kind of on track with the property owner, working with the Township,

Speaker 3Ordinarily any conditions of an approval have to be satisfied before you can get your permit.

Speaker 19Understood. I'm asking for consideration that maybe the condition could read that the property owner continues to diligently pursue an agreement with the Township, because it sounds like there are, are potentially significant issues. We could be, you know, waiting a substantial period of time. Before I I've worked with utilities before, you know, we have a project in Fanwood where we've been waiting on Verizon for about a year and a half to make up their minds about what they're going to do with their underground cables. I would hope that wouldn't take as much time now, but I think that's a consideration that I hope the board takes into account. So this small project on this site can move forward. It's, it's a beneficial use. Everybody's trying to put these things in New Jersey and we're trying to do our part, our part.

Speaker 3Yeah. I, I, I just wanted say to the board that if you condition this on the owner, working diligently with the applicant, it doesn't necessarily guarantee that that condition will ever be solved. So it ordinarily, if you condition something, it has to be done before they can get their permit.

Speaker 19I, I appreciate Mr. Kennel's opinion. I think I've, I've said my piece. We don't need to reiterate. And I would just say that the applicant is doing their best to work with the Township and the property owner to come to a solution that makes everybody satisfied. Thank you.

Speaker 3Okay. Mr. Potter, do you have anything else?

Speaker 19We, we, you know, I just want to also say again that, you know, we have representatives of all the professionals here tonight. If there are any questions from the public, I know we went through board questioning and they went back and forth with your professionals, but they're here in the event. There are questions from the public.

Speaker 3Thank you, Mr. Chairman, if, if the board has any questions now, if the time, if the board doesn't not, we should open it to the public.

Speaker 2Okay.

Speaker 17I have one Chairman. There was a sign shown on the sheet. My notes from the last hearing does not indicate, are you gonna put a freestanding sign up for this facility?

Speaker 19No, I, I think what, what the testimony was last time is that that's an existing sign for the center and, and there are no new sign.

Speaker 17I, I did, I guess I didn't catch that. Sorry.

Speaker 19It's alright. Maybe you should do more reconnaissance.

Speaker 17So there's no new sign.

Speaker 2Thank you, Mr. Chadwick, are there Chadwick from the board? I had a question and the question was related to the, the charging units. Will it be any way to visually buffer the charging units from south Washington as people drive up and down and walk along south of Washington? Can we buffer that, that I don't, the conversation that you've had about,

Speaker 7I was, that was one of the, of the comments that I had made originally. And I think they have to work with me on providing adequate buffering of

Speaker 22Charging stations.

Speaker 19I think, I think, I think the wording used was very various plantings or very a variety of plants.

Speaker 2Oh, that's part of the

Speaker 19Conditional

Speaker 2Agreements.

Speaker 19We, we show landscaping around, around the units that are being constructed and think it was left, open to work with Mr. He's team to come up with something that everybody's happy with.

Speaker 2Yeah. I recall that the, the greenery around the major pieces, but I didn't remember anything about the standalone there questions, the hearing, none. I would like to this, to the public. Are there any questions or concerns from the public you muted, Laura, Laura, you muted.

Speaker 1I got it. Gimme a minute more. Brian rec, sorry.

Speaker 22Yep. Brian rec 1247 Brookside road.

Speaker 3Mr. Rec, could you raise your right hand? Yep. You swear the T you about to give the truth.

Speaker 22Yes.

Speaker 3Thank you.

Speaker 22I'd just ask, is there any way that a sign can be put on that corner near Applebee's just like a regular street sign pointing to the chargers that turn in that right turn in from south Washington can be a little tricky. And I'm just worried about people like turning in then immediately stopping because they don't know where the chargers are.

Speaker 19That was not part of the application. But if Mr. Kelli wants to add that to the resolution, the applicant would be willing to work with some directional signage on site that would violate the ordinance.

Speaker 22Okay. Yeah. I'm just, it's just that the turn is scary sometimes. That's all I had to say, but thank

Speaker 19You. Sounds are very finicky about signage, so

Speaker 22Sure. I understand.

Speaker 19We don't wanna create more variances. Thank

Speaker 1You.

Speaker 2Any other questions from the public

Speaker 3Work on,

Speaker 2On

Speaker 1No one else

Speaker 2Like to close the public section of this, of this variance. I prefer not to make the motion. I don't wanna paraphrase what Mr. Cornelia has said. Mr. Cahn, can you restate it?

Speaker 3Yeah. My, my recommendation to the board is based upon Mr. Stein's report and his testimony that if you vote in the affirmative on this, that you condition that on the owner of the property entering into a developer's agreement requiring the installation of sidewalks and the other improvements required by Mr. Hinterstein and that developer's agreement would set timeframes for that to be done.

Speaker 2Thank you. So I like to make a motion that we accept this with the conditional property owners development arrangements, as stated by Mr. Kime. Can I get a second,

Speaker 3Mr. Weisman? Could I, before you get a second, are you interested? I'll pursuing the directional signage as requested by Mr. Perhaps you should ask Mr. Hinterstein if he's in favor of that,

Speaker 2Mr. Hinterstein, do you see a problem with putting up the additional signage,

Speaker 1Directional

Speaker 7Signage, directing vehicles who, where these EV stations may be, could be done within the ordinance? I wouldn't. I think, you know, if you wanted to include that, that, you know, directional signage and conformance with the Township directional signage ordinance, and I believe that's, you know, it's a typical, you know, two square foot, you know, three square foot sign directing somebody on a, on a typical, you know, signage post that you would see for, let's say, handicap parking sign, or a speed limit sign one, one of those type posts with a small directional sign. I, I don't see any issues with that. And I think would Cahn comply with directional signage? It would just have to be pointed out and approved by the Township. I don't necessarily think it would cause any variances. You could strictly stipulate as condition that, you know, it directional signage would be worked out between the and the applicant.

Speaker 19I would, I would add Mr. Cahn, that it'd be subject to the property owner's approval as well, since it's it's their site.

Speaker 2Mr. Dacey. Is that okay?

Speaker 3Yeah. If that's the board's preference and if you want to add that to your motion, you can certainly do that.

Speaker 1Okay.

Speaker 2So I would like to add that to the motion that the property owner works with the Township to determine the appropriate signage indicating the power stations, the charging stations.

Speaker 3Okay. So that the, the application by Mr. Weisman has been amended. We need a second on that. A second.

Speaker 2Who? Second it

Speaker 1Arty.

Speaker 2Okay. Thank you. Will the clerk please take the role

Speaker 1Mr. Tillery?

Speaker 3Yes.

Speaker 1MRIO

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Dacey.

Speaker 3Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Hey DACA.

Speaker 3Yes.

Speaker 1Mr. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. Vice Chairman Weisman.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 3Mr. Bonner, we will prepare a motion consistent with the board's findings and send that to you after our next meeting.

Speaker 19Thank you.

Speaker 2Thank you. Have a good night.

Speaker 3You too. Thanks for your, for your time.

Speaker 2Item number 1522 dash ZB three certificate of nonconformity

Case Hearing: 22-ZB-3 - Lori Seve (Certificate of Nonconformity) 22-ZB-3 AI 01:11:30 – 01:28:56

Application for certificate of nonconformity for two-family dwelling at 1916 West 7th Street (R7.5 zone permits only single-family). Property built 1919 per municipal tax record, designated as multifamily; separate entrances and utilities confirmed. Board requested additional historical documentation (property record cards pre-dating 1953) to establish pre-zoning conformance. Case carried to October 27, 2022 meeting. Applicant authorized to seek further tax office records and census data.

Speaker 3Is Mr. Sullivan present?

Speaker 23Yes, I am.

Speaker 23Good evening. My name's John Sullivan. I'm an attorney with the offices of vest in Sullivan, and I represent the applicant, Lori Seve. She is the owner of this particular piece of property, which is located at 1916 west seventh street. The property is fully improved with a two-story two family dwelling, a shed, and some related site improvements such as a driveway, the properties located in the R 7.5 zoning district, which as you know, allows single family homes as a principal permitted use, but does not allow two family dwellings the application before you tonight is for the issuance of a certificate of nonconformity pursuant to NJS a 40 55 D dash 68, with regard to the use of the property as a two family dwelling in connection with our application, we had submitted the municipal tax records, the property deed site photographs, construction permit, a survey and floor plans we have with us tonight, Kevin Sevi, who is miss Seve's husband, also the, the property manager and has a background in construction. So if I could, I would begin with Mr. Sevi,

Speaker 3Mr. Sevi, are you present?

Speaker 23You're muted,

Speaker 3Mr. Sevi, are you present?

Speaker 23He is there. He, I can see him. He appears to be muted though.

Speaker 3Mr. Could you unmute?

Speaker 1No, he's driving.

Speaker 3Mr. Could you pull over and unmute?

Speaker 1We lost he's

Speaker 24Can hear me now.

Speaker 3Yes. Is that Mr?

Speaker 24Yes. Yeah. Can you hear me now?

Speaker 3We can. Could I have your name and address please?

Speaker 24You can hear me. I can't hear you. Hold on. I'm not driving.

Speaker 3Can I have your name and address please?

Speaker 24Oh, hold on. Try again.

Speaker 3Can I have your name and address please?

Speaker 24Kevin Sevi nine Willow woods trail, Warren, New Jersey. Oh 7 0 59.

Speaker 3Mr. Seve, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give, be the truth?

Speaker 24I do.

Speaker 3Thank you. Put your hand down.

Speaker 23Okay. Mr. Sempra, your wife is the owner of the property located at 1916 west seventh street.

Speaker 24That's correct.

Speaker 23And how long has she owned that property?

Speaker 24Approximately six or seven years.

Speaker 23And that property was purchased from a, a, a mortgage company or a bank after a foreclosure. Is that correct?

Speaker 24That is correct.

Speaker 23And prior to purchasing the property, did you have the opportunity to visit the site?

Speaker 24I did.

Speaker 23And was it set up as a two family dwelling at that time?

Speaker 24It was.

Speaker 23And were there any tenants or occupants at that time?

Speaker 24Not at that time.

Speaker 23And based on, on everything that you saw, did you believe that it was a two-family dwelling at the prior to the time of purchase?

Speaker 24Yes. Was inclined that it was a two-family.

Speaker 23Okay. Now, as part of the application, you submitted a survey dated August 11th, 2021. And that shows the, the house, the shed, as well as the driveway were all of those improvements there at the time you purchased the property?

Speaker 24Yes.

Speaker 23And they're all, they all still remain there.

Speaker 24That is correct.

Speaker 23And the, the survey does show parking capabilities. Could you explain to the board the number of cars that can, can be parked on the site?

Speaker 24It is a long driveway, approximately 80 to 90 feet long with parking to the right. Also it can accommodate six to eight cars.

Speaker 23And you also prepared a, a set of hand drawn floor plans, correct?

Speaker 24That's correct.

Speaker 23And that shows each of the two units?

Speaker 24It does.

Speaker 23And could you just walk the board through, through the layout of each of the, each of the units,

Speaker 24The, they both comprise of two bedrooms, front door opens up into family room, goes into the kitchen to the left is both bedrooms on the first floor on the second floor, goes up through the side door entrance up the stairs, goes into a living room, kitchen combo with two bedrooms and of course a bathroom. Okay.

Speaker 23And you also submitted a number of, of photographs, both of the exterior in interior. Were those photographs taken by you?

Speaker 24They were taken by one of my, my, my men that worked for me.

Speaker 23Okay. They and did depict the site as it existed, essentially at the time you bought the property as well as today.

Speaker 24Oh yes, they did.

Speaker 23And the purpose of those photographs, do those photographs show that each unit has its own separate entrance.

Speaker 24Each unit has its own separate entrance, has its separate utilities, including gas, electric panel, electric heaters, furnaces, water heaters, water meters. So essentially it is, has, and has been set up as a two family for a very long time.

Speaker 23And the, and some of the photographs you took, I think showed the, that there's two meters, I believe for gas electric. And is that correct?

Speaker 26I didn't hear the answer. Can you repeat that please? No, I did. I didn't hear you. You didn't either.

Speaker 24That's that is, that is correct.

Speaker 23And we also submitted municipal tax records and those tax records indicate that the, the home was built in 1918. Is that correct?

Speaker 24That is correct.

Speaker 23And it lists the, the type and use and the style as a multi-family two story. Is that correct?

Speaker 24That is correct.

Speaker 23Okay. And since you've owned the property or since your wife has owned the property, you've done some work to the property in connection with that you applied for a permit number 2, 1 9. Is that correct?

Speaker 24That is correct.

Speaker 23And that was to replace two water heaters and two air conditioning units.

Speaker 24Yes, sir.

Speaker 23And was that work performed?

Speaker 24That was that's completed.

Speaker 23Now you have a, you have experience in, in property ownership as well as a background in construction. Is that right?

Speaker 24That is correct.

Speaker 23And could you briefly describe to the board that, that background in construction,

Speaker 24What we have a construction company that performs everything from basic remodels to new home construction. We own over 40 properties comprised over of single family to 20 unit properties from Plainfield to Flemington the compromises over 110 doors or units. So I've been doing this for 25 years now, successfully flipped and built over 40 homes in the area and still to this day, do the same, do the same work.

Speaker 23Okay. And based on your experience, are you able to share an opinion with the board as to whether this property appears to have originally been built as a two family? Or was it converted at some point in time from a one family to a two family

Speaker 24Was my belief belief that it was a, that it was built as a two family, just from the configuration. The, we did not do any serious renovation in it just made majorly paint and whatnot, but anything under the sink, it has old piping. It has some older electrical that leads me to believe that the it's been existing for a very long time.

Speaker 23Okay. Thank you. That's all I have for Mr. Simp. Viv.

Speaker 3Let me ask one question, Mr. Sullivan, you referenced the document that indicated the building was built in 1918.

Speaker 23Yes.

Speaker 3And you indicated that document and, and I, and, and if I'm misstating this, please tell me stated that it was a multi-family two story.

Speaker 23That is correct. Yeah. That is the, the municipal property tax card that we obtained through an Oprah request. And I may have misspoke. It says year built 19, 19, not 1918.

Speaker 3Okay. 1919. And, and that property record card is part of the application package that you submitted.

Speaker 23Yes, it was.

Speaker 3And where does that indicate that it's multifamily

Speaker 23Under building information? It says type and use multifamily story height, two story style. Multi-family

Speaker 3Thank you. Those are all the questions I have. Mr. Chairman,

Speaker 2Are there any other witnesses you, that you have Mr. Sullivan?

Speaker 23No, that is all

Speaker 2I'd like to open this up to the board. Well, first let ask Henry.

Speaker 7My first question is, is you referenced that card. It talks about it being 1918 multifamily. Isn't that just a current card? What year was that record card

Speaker 23That I can't tell you? This is, this is what we obtained through our Oprah search. You know, looking at at that, it looks like the tax office in any event recognize it as a two family. And then the construction permit that was issued was for two separate water heaters in two separate air conditioning units. So it appears that the construction department recognized it as such as well,

Speaker 7Just to give the board a little background, the tax office goes out, they look at a property. If it's a two family, they assess it as a two family, no bearing, unless this goes back, unless there's a tax court, that's provided that takes it back to prior to zoning, that sort of provides evidence then that it was preexisting prior to the zoning taking place that made two family homes prohibited, but because there's a current tax card that may state that it's a two family home, which means that, you know, assessing has been going out, it's shown as a two family. Now, if you from be 19 50, 1 or 55 tax appraisal card, that said multifamily, then I could say, well, you know, that's probably been preexisting back to that, but just because a current tax card says, two family just means just go out tax office, isn't responsible for whether it's legal or, or not legal, or whether it was legally converted.

Speaker 7They just go out and tax what they say. And as far as the pulling department and permitting, I believe certain permits do not require zoning permits to be applied for. So replacement of issue, compressor or hot water here, I don't believe requires a zoning permit to be secured along with that permit. So there's a good chance. Again, the building department sees a replacement of a, of a apparatus of the home or mechanical unit. If it's something that doesn't typically require a zoning permit, frontier change, the zoning department wouldn't really make a comment on it. And I don't think the building department would as well, but I'll leave that for that one for another day. Is there anything that you have that shows that this property is continuously used or, you know, at least close to the time of 1953? Is it two family?

Speaker 3Yeah. There, there should be a series of property record cards that are available.

Speaker 23You know, I, I specifically, if memory recalls, I had specifically requested that and I don't think they were, the tax office was able to provide me with anything other than what they've, what they've provided. I would certainly be happy to go back to the tax office and make that inquiry again and see if there's anything further that they can provide. And we would be able to produce that at a subsequent hearing,

Speaker 3Mr. Chairman, I would have to recommend to the board that you asked Mr. Sullivan to do that. In other cases that we've had before the board, that the Township has provided property record cards, that show how the Township viewed this property. Over the years,

Speaker 17I have a suggestion I sent report out dated may 19 suggested you look the census, the census in the forties list, the people that lived in the apartments, a cases where they produced that type of information to verify search there.

Speaker 23Yeah, we did. We did run a title search and the there's nothing in the deeds or the chain of title that speaks to whether or not this is a one family or a two family. We did attempt an online census information. And again, there's nothing that came back specifically that led me to one way or the other, you know, be able to make that determination. Again, it's something we can look into further, but so far we have not been able to come up with anything definitive,

Speaker 2Mr. Sullivan, this is Steve Weisman. I, I would like to recommend that you go back and do the due diligence. You suggested to see if you can find the property record cards in question, because the board historically does not vote against our consultants, Henry and, and John, we table this at this point.

Speaker 23Yes. If we could, Mr. Chairman, and you know, perhaps we could carry this. I was gonna say September, but to be safe, maybe to the October meeting, allow me the, the time to see if I can come up with anything further.

Speaker 1That's October 27th and Mr. Sullivan, you will need an extension of time. So I will send that over to you. I will email.

Speaker 23Yes. And for the record, we'll obviously agree to an extension of time.

Speaker 3So anybody here on the application carried October 27th, 2022 with no further notice by the applicant. The only notice you're receiving is announcement here tonight.

Speaker 2Thank

Speaker 1Thank you.

Speaker 23Thank you.

Speaker 2Thank you.

Speaker 23Goodnight everybody.

Speaker 2Thank you. All

Speaker 17John

Speaker 23Goodnight

Speaker 2Item 17 adoption of resolution from the regular meeting. July 14th, 2022.

Resolution Adoption from Prior Meeting AI 01:29:08 – 01:31:17

Board adopted resolutions from July 14, 2022 regular meeting for five previous applications: Christine Spangler & Marcello, James Fuller, Stellar Lee, NY SMSA Verizon Wireless, and Kingsbridge 2005 LLC. Members voted on resolutions; absent members noted, some abstentions recorded.

Speaker 3Before I call the resolutions, I will say I do not have the, the representative of who was present at the last meeting. So I'm gonna call everyone who was here tonight. If you are not present at the last meeting, please vote absent or vote absent on, on the resolutions. The first resolution is Christine Spangler and Marcello. Mr. Tillery, absent. Mr. O'Reggio.

Speaker 1We can hear you, Jim.

Speaker 3Mr. O'Reggio

Speaker 2Abstained.

Speaker 3Mr. Blount,

Speaker 2Absent.

Speaker 3Mr. Dacey.

Speaker 1Mr. Dacey

Speaker 3Present. Mr. Mitterando this present Mr. Weisman?

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 3Okay. Next application, James Fuller, which you voted to approve. Mr. Dacey.

Speaker 1He can't hear you,

Speaker 3Mr. Haka.

Speaker 1We're doing resolutions already.

Speaker 3Mr. Haka on the fuller application. Yes. Present. And is that in favor of the resolution? Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. Mr. Weisman.

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 3Next is stellar Lee. This application was approved. Mr. Haka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. Mr. We,

Speaker 2Yes.

Speaker 3Next is N Y SMSA Verizon wireless. This was an application for interpretation, which you approved Mr. Haka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. Mr.

Speaker 2Weisman. Yes.

Speaker 3Last is Kings bridge, 2005, LLC, which voted to approve Mr. Dacey. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. Mr. Weisman.

Speaker 2Yes,

Speaker 3Those, those are all the resolutions have tonight.

Meeting Adjournment AI 01:31:20 – 01:31:45

Minutes from July 14, 2022 regular meeting approved. Motion to adjourn carried. Meeting concluded.

Speaker 2Number 18 on the agenda. Adoption of minutes from the regular meeting of July 14th, 2022. All those in favor. Get a motion for adjourn for adjourn. Everyone, everyone be well,

Speaker 1Everyone guys, ladies.