Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on September 8 2022

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

Download transcript Download audio
Sep 8 2022 · Zoning
0:00
–:––

Meeting Sections
  • 00:00:01 — Meeting Opening and Roll Call
  • 00:01:24 — Agenda Adjustments and Postponements
  • 00:02:00 — 22-ZB-56: Jim Moser - Shed Variance 22-ZB-56
  • 00:04:00 — 21-ZB-81V: Aithal Perza - Applicant Absent 21-ZB-81V
  • 00:04:31 — 22-ZB-51V: Mina Las - Fence, Gazebo, and Deck Variance 22-ZB-51V
  • 00:07:31 — 22-ZB-59V: John Fritz - Shed Variance (Amended) 22-ZB-59V
  • 00:19:10 — 22-CB-55: Ram - Fence Variance 22-CB-55
  • 00:21:45 — 22-CB-57: Viron Patel - Fence Variance 22-CB-57
  • 00:24:11 — 22-ZB-67V: Richard Jones and Cynthia Mango Jones - Shed Variance 22-ZB-67V
  • 00:26:23 — 22-ZB-14V: Meek and Mandy Veja - Porch Addition and Shed Variance 22-ZB-14V
  • 00:33:04 — 21-ZB-81V: Aithal Perza - Rescheduled 21-ZB-81V
  • 00:33:47 — Adoption of Resolutions from August 11, 2022 Meeting
  • 00:36:25 — Adoption of Minutes from August 11, 2022 Meeting
  • 00:36:35 — Adjournment
Meeting Opening and Roll Call AI  00:00:01 – 00:01:24
Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting called to order. Adequate notice of the meeting was provided through publication in newspapers, posting on municipal building bulletin board, and notice to town clerk and media. Roll call completed with board members present. Pledge of Allegiance conducted. Chairman noted that flags would be provided for future meetings.
Speaker 0Okay. Chairman seven 30,
Speaker 2The 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 of the municipal building notice made available to the town Township clerk notice sent to the courier news and the star ledger will the clerk. Please call the role
Speaker 0Mr. Weisman
Speaker 2Here.
Speaker 0Mr. Tillery here, Mr. Patel here, Mr. Reggio is coming on you as having issues. Mr. Dacey. Mr. Hay DACA
Speaker 2Here.
Speaker 0Mr. Mitterando here. Mr. Ali, sick. You will not be joining us and Chairman Cahill
Speaker 2Here, will everyone please stand in a symbolic Salude to the flag
Speaker 3Allegiance to Liberty.
Speaker 2I will say that this time by the next meeting we have, we will have a, I salute my flag out on the front lawn here. I know most of you don't have a flag in your, in your presence, so we'll be providing a flag for you to salute moving forward. Mr. Kinneally any changes to the agenda?
Agenda Adjustments and Postponements AI  00:01:24 – 00:02:00
Township attorney reported two applications adjourned to September 22, 2022 due to improper notice to adjoining property owners. Michael Coel and Anton and Naisha LER applications require newspaper publication notice before they can be heard. No other agenda changes.
Speaker 4Yes. There are a couple of changes. The application of Michael Coel six court is adjourned until September 22nd, 2022. Laura. It's correct that there's no further notice of the joint property owners, but they're gonna have to publish.
Speaker 0Yes, the courier news. Didn't get back to them.
Speaker 4Okay. So that, that will be off until September 22nd. The application of Anton and Naisha LER is also adjourn until September 22nd. And that's the same issue I believe
Speaker 0Correct? Yes. They actually put wrong
Speaker 4Notice to the adjoining property owners. They just have to publish in the paper.
Speaker 2Got it. Correct.
Speaker 4Those total changes that I have.
22-ZB-56: Jim Moser - Shed Variance 22-ZB-56 AI  00:02:00 – 00:04:00
Applicant seeks variance to retain existing shed. Required front setback for accessory structure is 75 feet; applicant has 59 feet. Township official noted significant setback on corner property with two front yards, shed positioned well back and in line with existing house. No public comments. Approved unanimously.
Speaker 2Thank you, sir. Let's move forward to item number 5 22 dash ZB 56. Jim Moser
Speaker 4Is Mr. Moser present? Yes. Mr. Moer, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth.
Speaker 5I do.
Speaker 4Thank you. Could you explain to the board you're here?
Speaker 5I'm asking for variances to retain the exist existing shed on my property.
Speaker 4Okay, Mr. Chairman, if you notice it's a 75 foot front setback for an accessory structure and he's got 59 feet. So he's got a significant setback already. And I believe Mr. Hinterstein has no issues with this.
Speaker 2Is Henry available? Is he a
Speaker 0He's here?
Speaker 2Oh, no comment, Henry.
Speaker 0Just
Speaker 2For the record.
Speaker 6No, no comments it state in the report. Although it's a front yard setback variance. It's a corner property with two front yards and setback, quite a substantial amount. I think it's almost even with the existing house and much further back than the adjacent properties. The other side of the pipeline.
Speaker 2All right, Henry. Thank you. Any other members of the board have any questions about this application? Hearing none. I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application?
Speaker 0No one Chairman.
Speaker 2Okay. Hearing none. I'm gonna close it to the public portion and I'm gonna make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? Thank you. Hey.
Speaker 0Oh, thank you, Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Patel?
Speaker 2Yes
Speaker 0MRIO.
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 0Thank you, Mr. Haka.
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Mitterando.
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 0And Chairman Cahill.
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 4Mr. Moer, your application's 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 send that document to you.
21-ZB-81V: Aithal Perza - Applicant Absent 21-ZB-81V AI  00:04:00 – 00:04:31
Applicant summoned but not present. Staff reported six months of effort to schedule applicant. Case skipped to proceed with other applications; board planned to return to this case later.
Speaker 2Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Have a good evening. You too. Let's go to item number 6 21, ZB 81 V aithal Perza
Speaker 4Is Mr. Perza present. Do you see Mr. Perza?
Speaker 0Oh, I hope he's here. I've been dealing with him for six months trying to get him on. I do not see him. Maybe we should go to the next application.
Speaker 2Let's skip this and double back.
Speaker 4We'll come back.
22-ZB-51V: Mina Las - Fence, Gazebo, and Deck Variance 22-ZB-51V AI  00:04:31 – 00:07:31
Applicant purchased house in January 2022 and seeks variance to retain existing fence (15+ years old), gazebo, and deck. Property located across from industrial warehouse with heavy truck traffic and noise. Township official found no issues with retention given unique circumstances (industrial adjacent use) and noted structures appropriately located. Approved unanimously.
Speaker 2Let's go to item number 7 22 dash ZB dash 51 V Mina, Las
Speaker 4Amina. Las present.
Speaker 7Yes, I am. Good evening.
Speaker 2Good evening.
Speaker 4I you in, could you raise your right? The testimony you're about to give should be the truth.
Speaker 7Yes.
Speaker 4Okay. Your name and address please.
Speaker 7Meaner 200 Oak place. Piscataway New Jersey.
Speaker 4Thank you. Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?
Speaker 7I, I file for a variance to keep my existing fence gazebo and deck. I bought the house back in January. The fence has been there for over 15 years. We live right across from an industrial warehouse where there are really large trucks that park alongside the street on second. And there's a lot of traffic in and out and a lot of noise. So I would like to keep my fence deck in gazebo existing.
Speaker 2Mr. Hinterstein you had some comments on this.
Speaker 6Yeah. This case, like most of the cases where we have that are close to the right of way, line corner properties is a unique situation. Since as stated across the street, there's a large industrial complex that does generate a lot of noise and truck traffic. So, which I know it's not the norm, but in this particular case, I don't see any, any really harm keeping the fence in its current location. That's been there over 15 years, especially under the circumstances. And as far as the gazebo and the decks in line with the existing house. So I don't have any issues with the, with the setback variance on the guide yard for those items.
Speaker 2Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Any other members of the board have any questions for this applicant or this application hearing none. I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application? Buckley
Speaker 4You're muted.
Speaker 0No one Chairman. Yeah. I was trying to my mouth.
Speaker 2Sorry. That's okay. Don't worry. That being said, I'm gonna close the public portion and at this point I'll make a motion to approve this application. Thank you so much. Please call roll.
Speaker 0Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. MRIO. Yes. Mr. Hidaka. Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. And Chairman Cahill.
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 4Ms. Las, your application has been approved. We will prepare a written document to memorialize this and we'll adopt that at the next meeting. You don't need to be present for that, but we'll mail that document to you.
Speaker 7Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you also miss Buckley. I
Speaker 0Appreciate your note. You're very welcome. Have a good night,
Speaker 2Have a great night. Ma'am
Speaker 0You as well. Thank
22-ZB-59V: John Fritz - Shed Variance (Amended) 22-ZB-59V AI  00:07:31 – 00:19:10
Applicants seek variance for new 12x20-foot (240 sq ft) shed built without permits. Initial proposal aligned new shed with existing shed; township official objected, noting required 8-foot setback, only ~2 feet proposed. Official stated shed could be relocated elsewhere on large property. After extended negotiation, applicants accepted 5-foot setback compromise (vs. full 8-foot requirement). Approved as amended with 5-foot setback condition.
Speaker 2You. Let's move along to item number 8 22 dash ZB dash 59 V. John Fritz
Speaker 4Is John Fritz present.
Speaker 2I think you're muted. Mr. Fritz. There you go. Yeah.
Speaker 8Yeah. We're here.
Speaker 4Are you both gonna be testifying?
Speaker 8Yes.
Speaker 4I need to swear both of you in, could you each raise your right hand? Swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth.
Speaker 8Yes. Yep.
Speaker 4Put your hands down and one at a time. Give your name and address please.
Speaker 8I'm Fritz 1 0 4 Curtis avenue in Piscataway and John Fritz. 1 0 4 Curtis avenue in Piscataway.
Speaker 4Thank you. Cause one of you explained to the board what you'd like to do here.
Speaker 8Well, we had an existing shed on the property already, but we got married last year. And when I moved in the house was a little bit small for four people. So I went and started building another shed. We found out that we needed to get a permit for it. We failed the permit. So I'm filing for variance to keep the, the shed that I already started building the new shed in the existing, in the existing spot. Any existing shed in the spots that they are in currently. So we're filing
Speaker 4For Mr. Chairman. You may wanna check
Speaker 2With Henderson. Yeah, Henry, I, I saw a couple of comments on this. I was wondering if you could please address this.
Speaker 6Yeah, obviously the required a variance were an existing, smaller shed. It was only slightly deviating from the setback back requirement. And I don't really have a problem with the small shed. It's about a foot, less than what it's supposed to be to the side yard, but there is a solid fence and it's provided screen. But the problem is, is the 12 by 20 structured out was started without permits with this aframe roof. I mean, it's, it's, it's really, really close to the, I don't know what the actual variance was, but it's required to be eight feet and this is not a hundred foot Chadwick. This is a 240 square foot accessory structure. It's rather large. And even though I'm empathetic to the fact that he had started this project, perhaps he didn't know he needed a permit, regardless, the requirement is eight feet. So I, I look at the property.
Speaker 6I don't see any reason why that Chadwick cannot be located in a conforming location as big backyard, as many areas where that Chadwick could have been put in, in a location that would conform with the ordinance, the, or ordinances are there to protect the neighbors. And in this particular case, I just don't see really a hardship allowing that shed to remain. I, I believe it's less than a, less than two feet from the property line, the aframe roof across the water, right on the property line. And again, the ordinances such that, you know, it's supposed to be eight feet from that side property line. You know, there could be perhaps a little bit of, you know, negotiation there as far as a compromise, but really, I, I can't see that larger of an structure being, you know, closer to property line that maybe really,
Speaker 9So I'm sorry, Mr. Hinterstein,
Speaker 6You're cutting in and out. Any reason why it couldn't have Cahn and if they wouldn't Henry, your Internet's going and out be my connection
Speaker 2Henry. You, yeah, you're locked in and out for a second. If you could just repeat that last 30 seconds worth of com.
Speaker 6Yeah. I mean basically, I mean, if the permit would've been secured, then they would've known that the, the check was posted being location other than where they put it,
Speaker 2What would be a compromise in terms of how far from where is
Speaker 6Now? He said I'm to that fact, but I can't. Yeah, I can't envision it being closer than five feet to the neighboring property line that
Speaker 9Well, to address your question is why the shed was put there. The shed was put there to be exactly in line with the depth, with the existing shed. And although the property size wise, we could pull the shed in it honestly would really look stupid coming in, in front of the other shed. The other shed is tucked into the corner and this shed was built to align exactly it's the exact same depth of the other shed. So that it's one smooth look to, to the sheds. And it is, I, we do understand that we did need to get the, the permit. We just tried to build it exactly the same as the other shed, using the same materials, the same structure. We did read your notes. And we understand that drainage is an issue that you were concerned about the rain runoff. And we thought that perhaps by adding gutters on that far side, that's close to the shed and pulling the rain runoff to the front where it wouldn't impact our neighbors. We did understand that we were building this shed right next to, we have talked to all our neighbors prior to building, and everybody was very happy to see us be able to build it. So we're not really sure if you could take into consideration the aesthetic of it without pulling that shed in and the option for gutters to deal with the rain runoff.
Speaker 6The answer to that is lining it up with the other shed that was probably put in illegally again, wasn't, you know, justify where you located it. Doesn't justify not pulling a permit for this shed, but
Speaker 9Not by us. We didn't, we fully,
Speaker 6I understand. I understand. But again, if you pull the permit, you would've been told your other shed doesn't comply. You would've been told this shed has to be in a certain location and you wouldn't be in the situation that you're in. Now, the ordinance are established again for a reason. And although your neighbor right now may not have a problem with that shed being foot and a half off property line, next owner of that property may have issue with, again, your answers are there for reason. Unfortunately, what you may think looks stupid. That's not, you know, attending justification or looks silly. I forget the word that was used, but you know, other doesn't look right. You know, planning, justification to, you know, put it closer than what the ordinance requires. Yes. You could press a gutter on the fact that you have 240 square foot accessory structure, property line, where eight feets required.
Speaker 6Again, you have a large property. I'm not saying that it had to be in that particular spot, but it should have been in a conforming location, whether it be in the other corner of the property, flip flop with the other shed. Again, I, I can't tell you where to put it now. You know, I can only tell you what's conforming. I'm not there to design it for you. And you know, maybe you need to screen it, put it in a location that, or maybe move the other shed. So they look again that they're in a similar location, the way they are now in a conforming location. And like I said, I'm empathetic that the fact that you're gonna have to, you know, pay the cost of moving this shed or to structure. But again, I don't think that the cost is a, again, another reason to justify the vari it's when the permit wasn't secured in the first place, I'll let you can elaborate perhaps more on, on that.
Speaker 4So what Henry is saying is your idea to put the shed along the same line as the other shed may have seemed, seemed attractive to you. But the size of the new shed requires an even greater setback. It can't be two feet. The small shed should not be two feet, but we're willing to overlook that since it's only a foot or so over, this is six feet over. So I think you're gonna have to think about relocating that shed farther off the property line. And if you don't want to go eight feet, if you wanna offer some kind of a compromise, the board is certainly willing to discuss that.
Speaker 9I feel like you said five feet would be acceptable. Is that what you're saying from the property line?
Speaker 6I think that's a reasonable compromise.
Speaker 9OK.
Speaker 2Is that something you guys would be interested in based on what I think it's a good compromise, to be honest with you situation
Speaker 9There's, you're not really giving us an option. So it's, it's what is what its,
Speaker 2We could deny the application in general.
Speaker 9We understand that, but like that it's that or so yes it's,
Speaker 6Kinneally
Speaker 8It's two feet. So
Speaker 6Gotta understand is you have a large property and there has to be a hardship of why it can't be put in a conforming location. I just don't see that hardship. I believe the five feet is I think more than reasonable, far as to the location. Not so that it doesn't impact the neighboring
Speaker 2Henry Henry. Do any other member of the board of any questions or comments. Okay. Anyone in the public portion have any questions or comments about this? Suffocation? Buckley?
Speaker 0No Chairman
Speaker 2None. Okay. Close the public portion instance. I'm gonna say that. I think the five foot compromise is something that the Township is willing to, to extend, you know, based on the options that we're offered as a government and based on what you have already structured. So if you're willing to do that, I'm willing to put forth a approval of this application. Okay. Thank you. I'm not gonna do without your approval. Okay. We'll go. We'll go with that. My feed. Okay, good. At this point I'd like to offer a, an applica, if this application be approved. Can I get a second? Second?
Speaker 0Thank you. Call
Speaker 2The role please.
Speaker 0Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Tillery.
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. Rio. Yes. Mr. Dacey has joined us. Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Hey DACA.
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 0And Chairman Cahill.
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 4Your application as amended has been approved for a five foot setback. We will memorialize this in our next meeting. You don't need to be here. We'll mail that document to you, but you'll need that to get your permits.
Speaker 0Okay.
Speaker 10Thank
22-CB-55: Ram - Fence Variance 22-CB-55 AI  00:19:10 – 00:21:45
Applicants seek fence on one side of property located partially within township easement. Motivated by recent neighborhood theft (20-foot ladder stolen). Applicants acknowledge responsibility for removal and replacement at own expense if township needs easement access. Approved unanimously.
Speaker 2You guys. Thank you. Let's move along to item number 9 22. CB Ram
Speaker 4Is Ram present.
Speaker 10Yes we
Speaker 4Testifying tonight
Speaker 10Wife. Yes. My husband
Speaker 4Swear testimony. You're about give, should be the truth.
Speaker 10Yes. Nothing but the truth. Yes.
Speaker 11Put
Speaker 4Your hands down one at a time. Give us your names please.
Speaker 10Okay. My name is Sanita live at 1422 Greenwood drive Piscataway.
Speaker 11My name is not Ramish because I already request you see I'm in the application.
Speaker 4Okay. And could one of you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?
Speaker 10We would like to put a fence on one side, we did notify the Township. There was a theft in our neighborhood. One of the guy came and stole the ladder and we were able to give that footage to the Piscataway police department. They came and it happened two o'clock in the morning. A young guy came on the bike, stole the stole the, I think how big, the big ladder 20 feet ladder. And after that we were quite scared and we wanted to put the fence to secure our property.
Speaker 4Okay. And, and you understand that this fence is gonna be located partially within an easement,
Speaker 10Correct? Yes.
Speaker 4And if the Township ever needs access to that easement, you would be responsible for removing the fence and replacing it at your own cost, correct?
Speaker 10Yes.
Speaker 4Thank you. That's all I have Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 2Yes. I don't feel any need to go to Mr. Hinterstein at this point, based on the information you just provided to our Township attorney, any other questions from any other members of the board for this applicant hearing none. I'm gonna ask that the public portion be open anybody at the public portion. Have any questions for this applicant?
Speaker 0No Chairman.
Speaker 2Okay. Close the public portion. I'll make a motion to approve this application. Gotta get a second. I'll say a second. Thank you. Please call the roll.
Speaker 0Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. Raio. Yes. Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 12Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Haka. Yes. And Chairman Cahill. Yes.
Speaker 2Your
Speaker 4Application who's been approved. 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 cuz you'll need that to get your permits.
Speaker 10Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Rest of the team and also miss Laura as well. Thank
Speaker 0You. Thank
Speaker 2You. Have a great evening. Now you
Speaker 12Too. Thank you.
22-CB-57: Viron Patel - Fence Variance 22-CB-57 AI  00:21:45 – 00:24:11
Applicant seeks fence variance after permit denial for one side of property. Application motivated by security concerns with elderly parents and young child, and recent neighborhood theft. Fence partially within township easement; applicant acknowledges responsibility for removal and replacement if needed. Approved unanimously.
Speaker 2Okay, we're gonna move along to item number 10 22 dash CB dash 57. Date Patel
Speaker 4Is viron Patel present.
Speaker 12Yes.
Speaker 4I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? You swear that testimony you're about to give should be the truth.
Speaker 12Yes. Yes.
Speaker 4Your name and address please.
Speaker 12Yeah. My name is Patel.
Speaker 0Mr. Patel, you have two things on in the house
Speaker 2Getting
Speaker 0Feedback, feedback, Patel that echoing one of the volume has to get shut off. I don't know if you're on your phone end, a computer or two computers. One has to get shut off or lowered.
Speaker 12No, I, I just,
Speaker 4Okay. Mr. Patel, could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?
Speaker 12So recently I, I apply for, for fans and the permit got denied for one of the side and they suggest me to go with the waiver variance. I want to secure my property as I have a older parents and a young child, and recently our theft with my neighbor. So just want to secure my property.
Speaker 4And, and you understand that the fence is located partially within an easement?
Speaker 12Yes, I do understand.
Speaker 4And if the Township ever needs access to that easement, you would be responsible for removing that fence and replacing it at your own cost.
Speaker 12Yes, that's right.
Speaker 4Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further comments.
Speaker 2Understood. And, and like the, the previous application, I feel no need to get Mr. Interesting involved, because it is cut and dry. Any other members of the board of any questions Mr. Patel, this application hearing none. I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public portion have any questions or comments about this application?
Speaker 0No one Chairman.
Speaker 2Okay. Ms. Buckley. I'm gonna close the public portion and I'm gonna make a motion to approve this application for Mr. Patel. Can I get a second? I second. Thank you so much, Ms. Buckley called the roles
Speaker 0Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. MRIO. Yes. Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Haka. Yes. And Chairman Cahill. Yes.
Speaker 4Mr. Patel, your application 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 a document to you and you'll need that to get your permits.
22-ZB-67V: Richard Jones and Cynthia Mango Jones - Shed Variance 22-ZB-67V AI  00:24:11 – 00:26:23
Applicants seek variance for shed located partially within township easement. Applicants understand responsibility for removal and replacement at own expense if township needs easement access. Straightforward application with no issues raised. Approved unanimously.
Speaker 2Thank you so much, huh? Good luck a great night now. Thank you. Thanks. Let's move along to item number 1322 dash ZB dash 67 V. Richard Jones and Cynthia mango Jones.
Speaker 4Are the Jones present?
Speaker 13Yes.
Speaker 4Are you tonight, Mr.
Speaker 2Will you testifying? Yes.
Speaker 4To swear both of you in, could you each, you T should be the testimony you're about to give, should be the truth. One at a time address please.
Speaker 13Richard Jones, 180 6 brew.
Speaker 0Cynthia Magno Jones, 180 6 Brewster
Speaker 13Avenue.
Speaker 4Thank
Speaker 13You're seeking to and shed on the property
Speaker 4Over, over at easement.
Speaker 13Yes.
Speaker 4And if the Township ever needs access to that easement, you understand that it's your responsibility to remove and replace that fence of your own expense.
Speaker 13Yes.
Speaker 4Thank you. That's all I have. Mr. Chairman
Speaker 2Understood Mr. Cahn. Thank you. And again, as to the prior to applications, I'm not gonna get Mr. Hinterstein involved because this is pretty much cut and dry. Any other members of the board have any questions for Mr and Mr. Jones or about this application hearing none. I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application?
Speaker 0No one Chairman.
Speaker 2Okay. Close the public portion and I'd make a motion to approve this application. I'd like a second. Okay. All the world please. I'll second it, thank you,
Speaker 0Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 13Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio?
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Haka? Yes. And Chairman Cahill. Yes.
Speaker 4Your application has been approved. 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, but you'll need that for your permit.
Speaker 13Thank you very much. Thank you everyone.
Speaker 4Thank you. Have a good
Speaker 2Night. Have a good night guys. You
22-ZB-14V: Meek and Mandy Veja - Porch Addition and Shed Variance 22-ZB-14V AI  00:26:23 – 00:33:04
Applicants seek variances for first floor addition, second floor addition, porch extension, and existing shed approval. Applicant's architect testified porch extension would be slab-only with no structure above ground. Township official initially concerned about railing or cover exceeding setback requirements. After negotiation, applicants agreed to landscape screening as privacy alternative. Approved as amended with conditions: porch slab may have no railing or cover, and landscape screening required for privacy.
Speaker 13Too.
Speaker 2Okay. Let's move along to item number 1422 ZB 14 V. And I am about to murder this name, MEK and many Veja. Sancar how do I do?
Speaker 0Very good.
Speaker 2Good. I'm glad.
Speaker 4Are you gonna be testifying tonight? Yes. Okay. I need to swear also my take your testimony. First. Could you raise your, the testimony, be the truth? I your and address please? Yeah. 19 Saratoga, New Jersey. Thank you. And could you explain, you'd like to, yeah. It's first floor edition for a sun, a second floor edition and extension of the port. Okay. Mr. Chairman, you may wanna discuss this with Mr. Hinterstein with regard to his comment about relocating the shed. Yes, I do. Mr. Hinterstein please address your site impact you muted Henry
Speaker 6The 19 Saratoga court, correct?
Speaker 4That's correct. We're we're talking about the shed location.
Speaker 6Yeah, the, that location actually wasn't accurately dependent on the survey and I believe that Mr. Waqar drew it on his plan, but the looking at the, the aerial, unless it's been relocated, the shed itself is actually skewed. So although the one corner of the shed is relatively close to the property line, the way it's situated and skewed as the, as you go away from that corner, it starts to veer away from the property line. I, I spoke with Mr. Clark in about that earlier today, really? In cases like that, where just a corner touching it. I, I, the fact that there's an existing, again, this is similar. The other case in the sense that it's, it's only a regular size shed and there is a six foot solid fence that's buffering and screening the shed. So I don't have any issue with the shed. Really.
Speaker 6The only issue with this application, I believe was the, the new porch variance. All of the other variances are preexisting. There really isn't any impact on those preexisting variances. They've been there a while and the often reasonable, most of them were result of the development of the development as a, probably a cluster development at the time. It's really just a porch. There was talk about increasing the slab part of the porch and an optional railing. In my opinion, as long as there is no railing, then there's no issue with this application. Although the porch deviates from the front yard, step back, quite distance. If it's just the slab and there's no railing or anything above roof wise, there's really no impact and bare amenable to having no railing and cover over it. Then I really don't see any impact from the variance. And I think we can look upon it favorably.
Speaker 2Okay.
Speaker 4Mr. Chairman, you may want, we may want hear from his architect to address that
Speaker 2Issue. Jay, Mr. Waqar please.
Speaker 4Mr. Waqar are you present?
Speaker 14I
Speaker 4Good evening. I need to swear you in. You swear the testimony you're to give should be the truth
Speaker 14I do.
Speaker 4And please,
Speaker 14Gregory J Waqar a G a 2 1 0 9 St. George avenue. Rothway New Jersey. Oh 7 0 65.
Speaker 4And Mr. Waqar has been accepted by this board as an expert architect in prior cases.
Speaker 14Thank you, counsel. Yes,
Speaker 2Sir. Please proceed.
Speaker 14Yes. So, so basically that's what we're doing that we, we came in here with, for preexisting nonconforming situations as was alluded to earlier. And the extension of the front porch in essence is just the, the, the pad portion. We're not adding to the structure at all. And the railing was going to be placed there just as a, a barrier between a street. Again, our clients do have want the capability of a little bit of privacy, but I think we can probably converse with them and come up with an, a landscape alternative, as long as that's acceptable to Mr. Hinterstein, as opposed to offense, offense per se, or a railing is not required as we're not exceeding any building code Heights, which would require a fence or guardrail after four risers, we are virtually a slab on great entry and, and don't require it. It was more or less just a screen between between that particular seated portion, which is what lo can achieve. And the street we are on a cul-de-sac as you're well aware. And, and it was just for some privacy, but I think my clients will be more amenable towards a landscape barrier as opposed to a, a rail.
Speaker 2Is that okay with you Henry?
Speaker 6I think that's a great idea.
Speaker 2Awesome. Okay. Any other members of the board have any questions for this applicant hearing? None. I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application?
Speaker 0No one Chairman.
Speaker 2Okay. Close the public portion and I'd make a motion to approve this application with Henry's restrictions about no railing,
Speaker 4Make a motion.
Speaker 2I made a motion.
Speaker 4Hi, aithal second.
Speaker 2I great.
Speaker 0You already.
Speaker 2Thanks Raj. Goomer Mr. Buckley, Mr.
Speaker 0Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Brown.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Hey DACA.
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 0And Chairman Cahill.
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 4Mr. Sankar, your application has been approved as amended. Meaning there will be a condition that says that the slab can have no railing or cover. We will memorialize this at our next meeting in a written document and send a copy to you. You'll need that document to get your permits. Okay. Thanks.
21-ZB-81V: Aithal Perza - Rescheduled 21-ZB-81V AI  00:33:04 – 00:33:47
Case carried from earlier in meeting when applicant was absent. Board formally scheduled case to be heard at October 13, 2022 meeting with no further notice required from applicant.
Speaker 2Have a great night, gentlemen. Thanks everyone counselor say hello, Laura. Who did we back over? Za. Was it?
Speaker 0Yeah. Orlando. Perza
Speaker 2ISO Perza here.
Speaker 0He never showed up. I emailed him. He never showed. And you wanna put 'em on for, I I'll put 'em on the October meeting. I'm
Speaker 2Not doing put 'em on the October meeting. I don't want to pull the guy's legs out from under.
Speaker 4Okay. So anybody here on the aithal Perza application gonna be carried to what is the date of the October meeting?
Speaker 0October 13th,
Speaker 4October 13th with no further notice by the app.
Adoption of Resolutions from August 11, 2022 Meeting AI  00:33:47 – 00:36:25
Board adopted written resolutions memorializing approval and denial decisions from regular meeting of August 11, 2022. Nine applications approved through roll-call votes: Olay of Tsunami, Jolyn (partial approval), Brandy Patterson, Craig Murk, Francis, Jocelyn Galez, Alexander, Just Wireless (exemption from site plan), and Osborn Construction (conditional). All votes unanimous.
Speaker 2That being said, let's move on to item number 15. The adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting of August 11th, 2022.
Speaker 4First resolution is Olay of tsunami, which you voted to improve Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4Mr. O'Reggio. Yes. Mr. Blount.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4Mr. Haka. Yes. Mr. Mitterando.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4Second application was Jolyn which you voted partially to approve and partially to deny Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Tillary.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4O'Reggio. Yes. Mr. Blount?
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4AKA. Yes. Mr. Mitterando.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4Third application Brandy Patterson. This was an approval, Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4MRIO yes. Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4Yes. Mr. Mitterando.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4Next application Craig Murk. This application was approved as amended. Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Blount.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4Yes. Mr. Dacey Francis, which was approved. Mr. Wason. Yes. Mr. Tillery.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4MRIO yes. Mr. Blount.
Speaker 15Yes. Mr.
Speaker 4Dacey. Yes. Mr. Mitterando.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4Next is Jocelyn Galez. This application was approved. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4MRIO yes. Blount.
Speaker 15Yes. Hey,
Speaker 4Doing good. Yes.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4Alexander, this application was approved. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillary. Yes. MRIO. Yes. Mr. Blount. Yes. Yes. Mr. Dacey. Yes. Next, just wireless. This was an application to grant and exemption from site plan requirements. Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Tillery. Yes. MRIO yes. Mr. Blount. Yes. Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. The last application for resolution is Osborn construction application was approved with conditions. Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Tillery. Yes. MRIO yes. Blount. Yes. Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Dacey. Yes. Those are all the resolutions I have this evening. Mr. Tim.
Adoption of Minutes from August 11, 2022 Meeting AI  00:36:25 – 00:36:35
Board unanimously adopted minutes from regular meeting of August 11, 2022 (all in favor).
Speaker 2Thank you, Mr. Kaeley. Let's move on to item number 16, adoption of the minutes from the regular meeting of August 11th, 2022. All in favor, say, aye. Let's move on to item number 17. Adur I make a motion to adjourn all in favor, say aye. Okay. By the looks of the resolutions, you guys approved tonight, you were really busy back when I was on vacation. Thank you, Mr. Weisman for you're welcome. Taking my, taking up the, the mantle. And I'd like to always thank you for coming out and spending your time. That's your time representing the Township and I wish you all a great night and let's go Rutgers.
Adjournment AI  00:36:35 – 00:37:06
Chairman made motion to adjourn. All board members voted in favor. Chairman thanked members for their service and time on the board, noted vacation period during which applications were heard, and concluded with well-wishes for attendees.
Speaker 4Goodnight, everyone.