Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on March 9 2022
Note: Transcripts are generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Please listen to the recording (below) if you feel any text is inaccurate.
Speaker 1 00:00:07 Okay. Madam chair at seven 30. Speaker 0 00:00:10 Okay. The Piscataway Township planning board 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 township clerk notice sent to the courier news and the star ledger. Can I have the open public meeting notice please? Mr. Barela at the unmute myself and keeping with the department of community affairs guidelines. This meeting is being held by way of a virtual zoom platform. I believe that the Piscataway has complied with those requirements. Any notices have included the zoom link and it's appropriate to go ahead in this forum. Madam chair, can you please call the RO Speaker 1 00:01:03 Mayor? Wahler Councilwoman Cahill here. Ms. Corcoran here. Ms. Saunders here, Reverend Kenny. I know Reverend you're muted. I muted you by accident. Hit star six. Thank you, Mr. Espinosa, Mr. Foster. He just called he's getting on now and Madam chair. Speaker 0 00:01:41 Yeah. Well now when everyone now recite the pledge of allegiance, I pledge Speaker 2 00:01:54 Of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God. Indivisible, Speaker 0 00:02:15 Do we have professionals to be sworn in the same day, Mr. Reiner? Distant? Speaker 3 00:02:23 I believe so. Yes. Mr. Reinertsen, can you please raise your right hand whether the testimony about to give to them nothing but the truth? Speaker 1 00:02:30 Yes, I do. Speaker 3 00:02:32 Thank you. Speaker 0 00:02:33 You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. Barlow, would you please note the changes, any changes that have been made to the agenda? I don't care with regards to number 10 on tonight's agenda 21, Phoebe 24 maple woods condominium association. That's been postponed until April 13th, 2022. They still have to notice for that. In addition, he number 13, 21 34 slash 35 V one 40 circle drive north has been postponed. And so the April 13th meeting, I believe the applicant has already noticed for that. So there'll be no further notice if anyone is on the meeting for that matter, it will be heard at the April 30th community. Thank you. Item number seven, adoption of resolution to memorialize action taken on February 9th, 2022 Speaker 3 00:03:30 Chairman. I liked the more alive application, 21 PV 40 slash 41 V for revolutionary housing group, LLC, for minor subdivision in Bulgarian. Speaker 0 00:03:43 We'll have a second roll call please. Speaker 1 00:03:49 Mayor Wahler. Yes. Ms. Corcoran. Yes. Ms. Sanders. Yes. Reverend Kenney. Mr. Espinosa. Yes. Madam chair. Yes. Speaker 3 00:04:02 Madam chairman. I'd like to memorialize application 21, PB 46 47 B act my LLC preliminary and final site plan with bulk variances. Speaker 1 00:04:21 Yes. Yes. The cylinders. Yes. Reverend Kenney. Mr. Espinosa and Madam chair. Yes. Speaker 3 00:04:34 Madam chair elected more realize that the claisens anyone PV 44 slash 45 B for QTS investment properties, Piscataway, LLC for preliminary and final site plan with both variants Speaker 1 00:04:54 Mayor Wahler yes. Yes. The cylinders. Yes. Reverend Kenney. Mr. Espinosa And Madam chair. Speaker 0 00:05:10 Yes, I did. Number eight adoption of the minutes from the regular meeting of February 9th, 2022. Speaker 3 00:05:18 Madam chair. I would like to adopt the minutes from the regular meeting from February 9th, 2020. Speaker 0 00:05:25 We'll have a second as the second, Mr. Kenny, right? Yeah. I mean Speaker 1 00:05:39 Mayor Wahler yes. Yes. Reverend Kenny, Mr. Espinosa. Yes. Madam chair. Yes. Speaker 0 00:05:55 Do I have motion? Pay the bills Speaker 3 00:05:59 Impair. This is Carol Saunders. I make a motion that we pay Speaker 0 00:06:02 The bill. Speaker 1 00:06:05 Dawn Corcoran. Speaker 0 00:06:06 Thank you. Speaker 1 00:06:11 Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. That's Corcoran. Yes. Yes. Reverend Kenney. Mr. Espinosa. Yes. Madam chair. Speaker 0 00:06:24 Yes. Item 10 has been adjourned on to item 11, which is 21 TB 32 slash 33 V as in Victor, Shan, Shan, Tila Patel and duke Sabin Patel. Hello, minor subdivision and bulk bearings requests. Speaker 5 00:06:44 Hello, a steam members of the board and a township professionals. Everybody can hear me correct. Fine. I'm Tim arch. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey and I am representing the applicants tonight. Shantel, all Patel and Dax have been Patel. This is a, an application for a minor subdivision of eight brotherhood street, which is block 8 6 0 1 lot 25.03 in the 10 zone. Some housekeeping matters. I would ask Mr. Barlow, if he's had an opportunity to review the provided notice, and if we are properly, have proper jurisdiction before this board. Speaker 0 00:07:25 Yes we are. Speaker 5 00:07:26 Mr.. Thank you. We have two staff reports that I was provided. One is Mr. Hinterstein report, which was dated 10 27 21 and revised on 3 7 22. And I also have a CME report that's dated 10 26 21. I would just ask for confirmation that those are the two reports that were generated. Speaker 0 00:07:50 Yes. And I assume you also have Ms. Corcoran's October 12th, 2021. Just indicating the necessarily bearings. Speaker 5 00:07:58 Yes, yes. Correct. I do have that as well. My apologies for overlooking that all good. That's in my view, that's usually the most important one. Speaker 6 00:08:08 Mr. Barlow. I, I sent a revision. It was a minor revision for our planning report, but basically 99% for Mr. Archer. I mean, it's fine. There's just one item that we can discuss later on, but it is diminimous. Okay. Excellent. I just want to let you know that is correct. It stated March 8th, I sent it out yesterday who is basically confirming we'll discuss it later, but basically was a diminimous item that I noted. Speaker 5 00:08:39 Okay. I'm assuming that items came off the list, so that's always a good thing. So I think we'll be able to deal with that pretty well Speaker 0 00:08:46 Corrected some typos Speaker 6 00:08:48 Things of that nature, correct? Yeah. Speaker 5 00:08:50 Okay. So just a brief introduction. We're looking to this, this parcel currently the, the lot as it is, it's an undeveloped parcel. It has about three times the required frontage as it is right now. It's well over twice, the depth, even after subdividing, what we're proposing each proposed lot is going to be more than twice the required lot area. One of the comments that we did receive in our report that I just want to touch on quickly is that we didn't provide any architectural plans for this. The reason being is that we don't have plans currently, or designs currently solidified for the two houses. The purpose of this subdivision is to ultimately build two conforming single family homes. One of which, Mr. Shantel, awe Patel and Patel will be living in and on the other lot, their son Shiraga Patel will be living in that as well. We don't currently have the designs of those homes finalized or Speaker 5 00:10:12 Thank you. So we don't have those finalized yet. Obviously when those architecturals are done before applying for any, or while applying for any construction permits or building permits, the town will have to review those. If they are not conforming to the, to the township code, obviously we would have to come back before a board in order to, to get relief on that. So that's the reason that architecturals were not provided currently. We did provide a photograph of the general style or type of home that we believe will be ultimately built there. But again, that's just a, a sort of a visual reference. And on our plans, we do have a conceptual footprint of a home just to show that a conforming single family home could be located on either of the lots quite neatly. So with that sort of background in mind, I do want to indicate that we have Ms. Speaker 5 00:11:13 Reena Patel and Chirag Patel who are here in case the board has any specific questions as to, as to the owners or representatives of the owner. And we do have one witness tonight, which would be Mr. Paul Fletcher, who's here as our engineer and our planner. One other thing I wanted to mention is that we do have a pending Middlesex county application. That was something that was requested as well, but briefly going through the reports, we don't see anything in those reports that we cannot or will not comply with in terms of any revisions that may need to be done to any of the plans. We would certainly agree with those. And there was, I believe a request for a, a dedicate a right of way, dedication in order to bring brotherhood road to its 25 foot a half with, we would certainly comply with that. And we would agree with that. So since I've said enough at this point, I will turn it over. If I can ask Mr. Fletcher to be sworn in at this time, Speaker 3 00:12:24 Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? Speaker 8 00:12:33 Yes, I do. Speaker 3 00:12:34 Can you please state and spell your name for the record? Speaker 8 00:12:48 It's Paul J C H E R. Speaker 3 00:12:53 Thank you. I think it had pause. Thank you. Speaker 5 00:12:58 Yeah, I think there was a stutter, but I think, I think we're, I think we're good with that. Correct. We know how we know his address. The court reporter is nodding her head affirmatively. Okay, good. So Mr. Fletcher, you've testified in front of this board in the past, have you not? Yes I have. Speaker 8 00:13:18 And Speaker 5 00:13:18 Your credentials, other than the paper they're written on, have not deteriorated since the last time that you've been in front of this board, is that correct? Speaker 8 00:13:25 No, they are still Speaker 5 00:13:27 Okay. I would ask that he be accepted as a professional in both engineering and in planning, unless you want me to go through his credentials any further Speaker 8 00:13:39 As Mr. Fletcher has testified before as many times as he's accepted. Thank you. Speaker 5 00:13:44 Thank you, Mr. Mr. Fletcher, you've had an opportunity to work on the, the submissions that we put in front of the board on this application, as well as you're familiar with the site. Is that correct? That is correct. And if you could please give us the benefit of your opinion as a professional engineer and a planner as to the feasibility of, of Speaker 8 00:14:08 Yes. I, I believe that the, the board has the authority to grant the variances under a flexible C2 criteria. I believe that the benefits substantially substantially outweigh any detriment. I think several of the municipal land use law goals are promoted specifically the general welfare efficient use and development of land and providing adequate light air and open space. I don't see any negative to the neighborhood zone plan or the master plan, the subject property block, 86 0 1 lot 25.03. As you had mentioned, Mr. George is more than four times the size of the required 110,000 square feet. The two new proposed lots are 20 3020 5,500 respectively. That's a lots 25.0, so you want in 25.03, two respectively. The only variance that's required is a lot widths where a hundred feet is required. And 82.3, two feet is proposed. That's the only variance all other bulk requirements are satisfied and will be, was comment regarding the road dedication. I'm not sure it may be. It may or may not be necessary. I believe right now that our right away line is 25 feet to the center line, but I'll verify that. And certainly if it's necessary, we'll provide that dedication. Speaker 0 00:16:03 Mr. Fletcher, just to clarify one thing, isn't there a variance also required for when it's French, excuse me. Speaker 5 00:16:17 It would be with an frontage, which in this case are, are essentially the same. Speaker 8 00:16:25 That is correct. Speaker 0 00:16:26 Okay. Speaker 5 00:16:31 I would, I'm going to throw Mr. Fletcher, the wolves. Now, if anybody has any questions on the board for Speaker 8 00:16:37 Mr. Fletcher. Speaker 0 00:16:38 Okay. Does the board have any questions Mr. Fletcher at this time hearing no response. Is there any way, just a quick question. I think Mr. Robinson, do you want to address the, Speaker 6 00:16:54 Yeah, just a minor item, Mr. Fletcher, the a total lot area, and then when you subdivided, they don't match. They're all felt like a foot. So I caught it actually, because there was a slight discrepancy between one of the lots and then I just looked at it and I was like off by a foot. So all I'm going to say is just, yeah, that, that, that's a pretty simple thing as math was just make everything match. You got it. Okay. And just my observation, the only change in your plans had to do with curbs and, and driveway details, correct? Speaker 8 00:17:33 Yes, actually sidewalk. Speaker 6 00:17:38 And with that, I defer to the engineer on that. So thank you. Speaker 8 00:17:42 And we do understand that the roadway is under a moratorium until 2029. Speaker 5 00:17:49 Yes, we are aware of that. Speaker 0 00:17:54 Okay. Thank you. Madam chair. Now, Ms. Buckley, can you up see if there's any questions from the public? Speaker 2 00:18:06 I don't see anyone mad at you. Speaker 0 00:18:08 Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fletcher. I mean, Mr. Arch, do you have any other witnesses or are you, Speaker 5 00:18:14 That would be our only witness I would just like to close by saying, I think it's a fairly straightforward subdivision. I think it could be as Mr. Fletcher said granted without any real detriments. And with that, I will, I will put it in your hands. Speaker 0 00:18:32 Okay. Thank you. Now, before I ask for emotion, does that word have any other questions of anyone or Mr. Archer or Mr. Fletcher, if not, do I hear a motion Speaker 2 00:18:42 Madam chair? This is Councilwoman Cahill. If I, if I may, Mr. Arch, when the plans for the home to come in and you said, if there are variances, will we'll see those plans. Of course, if there's a variance required, but just if you might for the board and maybe for the public, when we were looking at the example of the home, right? The picture of the home, you know, what, what roughly would the square footage of that home bay? And I'm imagining you may have it somewhere here in the detail, but I don't see it Speaker 5 00:19:19 To be honest with you. That is just a picture of the representative style more so just the aesthetic style of the home. That is not an example of the, of the design or the specific home. So I don't believe we actually know what the overall square footage of that home is. It was just, we were, we were asked as a, we were asked by your professionals to provide just a sort of general, a stylistic of view of what type of a home it's going to be, I guess, as opposed to a ranch style home, a tutor home. So in terms of the overall square footage of that home, obviously we are going to be bound by what the, what the ordinance allows in that area. Speaker 2 00:20:07 Oh, well, right. Because if you're granted the variance for the lot size, that just means that the house square footage itself now is going to be bound by, you know, the, the ordinances for let's say this was, you know, and granted the square footage here or the lot within the frontage and the, a lot with it's, it's not that much a difference in, in terms of, you know, the feet from the, you know, for the total footage. But then that just puts an extra stretcher on the size and the square footage of the house. And I would hope that, you know, the, your client would be aware of that. Speaker 5 00:20:56 We absolutely are. And I can certainly say that if, and again, this is a complete hypothetical, but if we did come in with a home that had where we had to request now side setbacks, front setbacks, and the, like, I would imagine that your professionals would look at us and say, you created this subdivision, you created a hardship. And I, I don't see a, a real answer that I could provide for that. Speaker 2 00:21:25 Okay. And that's really just, it, is it again? Diminimous I do agree with the statement, but it does. And will potentially, depending upon what the client's looking to build their, you know, create, they will have created that hardship for themselves on the plans. And all I would ask is that they be made quite aware of that, you know, as they go to submit their plans. Speaker 5 00:21:47 Correct. Absolutely. I, they are aware of that. Okay. Speaker 2 00:21:50 Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0 00:21:54 All right, board. I do. I hear a motion. Speaker 9 00:21:57 Madam chair. It's Dawn Corcoran. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the application subject to the CME report and the staff report, and also in the event that should we need a roadway, dedication that also be a condition of this approval. Speaker 0 00:22:13 Thank you. We're here a second Roll call, please. Speaker 1 00:22:21 Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. This Corcoran. Yes. Ms. Saunders. Yes. Reverend Kenney, Mr. Espinosa and Madam chair Speaker 0 00:22:40 Item number. And you're welcome. Thank you so much. Thank you. Item number 1220 PBS zero six, Nathan. minor subdivision. Speaker 2 00:22:59 Madam chair. This is Councilwoman Cahill. I am going to need to recuse myself at this time for this application Speaker 0 00:23:06 May be excused. Speaker 2 00:23:08 Thank you very much, Speaker 0 00:23:10 Mr. Zillow, are you here? You're ready. Mr. Zulu is here. Your Madam chair, just by way of, I guess, recollection this matter. We've heard at the last hearing and Mr. Yates, I'm sorry. Mr. Zulu had put on the proofs. And then there was an issue that came up with regards to some Middlesex planning board documents that the board was not in possession of the record should reflect that Mr. Zulu has provided that to myself. Okay. Okay. I hope the record is clear. Yep. That we have received them. And with that, Mr. Zula, I don't. Do you have any additional witnesses you planned on calling this evening? You just got to unmute yourself. Mr. Xu, Speaker 1 00:24:17 Mr. Zulo, please unmute yourself. Speaker 0 00:24:25 You're still on mute, sir. Got tap the screen, Mr. Missoula. Yes. There's nothing. We can do some, somebody called them. Speaker 1 00:24:50 He could call it in. Speaker 10 00:24:53 Hi, this is Nathan Yates. I just sent a quick message to Bob. Speaker 0 00:24:58 Thank you, sir. You're welcome. Looking at it now. Yeah, Speaker 1 00:25:26 It might be too close with speaker. Can you hear us, Mr. Zulo, Speaker 10 00:25:31 But Speaker 1 00:25:33 You have to shut your speaker off on your computer. You're getting feedback. Cause they're too close to each other. Speaker 10 00:25:38 It's reverberating Speaker 1 00:25:42 The volume off on your computer. Speaker 10 00:26:04 Bob, would it be calling on the phone video? Speaker 1 00:26:11 He's on the phone now he could drop the video because that's where he's getting the feedback. He's on both Speaker 0 00:26:20 Speak again. Yeah. Speaker 1 00:26:39 And just stay on the phone. Speaker 0 00:26:52 Perfect. Much better. So I don't know if you heard what I had said or should I repeat it or Speaker 12 00:27:01 Would you repeat it please? Because what I heard voices, but they run intelligible because it was like I was in a Cape. Speaker 0 00:27:09 Understood. What I had just said by way of recollection is that the, this matter had previously been heard by the board, you had put on your proofs and there was an issue with regards to some Middlesex planning board documentation that myself and the board and the board's professionals had not received since that time we have received the documents that you forwarded in the record should reflect that. I asked you if you had any additional witnesses you were planning on calling this evening. Speaker 12 00:27:52 No, we don't. I, I had intended just to recapitulate what we addressed as Mr. Yates to address the, the planner's letter. But as we have discussed, perhaps as far as we can discuss them, the issues in the case are 270 feet of a sidewalk. And what amounts to a 21 foot easement onto a Mr. Gates property. The, the revised sketch plat reflects a, you know, a torn a 66 foot a right of way for river road. And as you probably know, your planners letter refers to a 60 foot right away, which exists. In fact, it's 66 feet. So I guess the bottom line is that Mr. Mr. Yates is, is not going to dedicate an easement to provide for a 120 foot for 110 foot right away as is suggested in Mr. Hinterstein memo of May 24th, 2021. And as far as the sidewalks are concerned, I really don't understand how he could proceed to install those on, on county property anyway. But even if he were to where Piscataway, where to facilitate that, the, the 21 foot easement approximately is, is, is off the table. Speaker 0 00:30:04 Okay. If I can just address that, maybe take one step forward and take two steps back, just to be clear, the, the split rail fence your client had agreed to remove or move as part of the hearing, and also to remove all the accessory structures that were noted, that if they remain, they would give rise to variances. I mean, my thought Mr. Zulo is that the township ordinance 25 0 7 doesn't limit the reach to just municipal roadways. It reaches the municipality. So there's no exception in the ordinance for roadways under the jurisdiction of the county. And, and I think Piscataway has to enforce their ordinances until the court rules. Otherwise I, the CME plan, and just to be clear, it's the CME plan for the county while calling for somewhere between, I think a 33 to 35, what a half with those plans are preliminary. My understanding is they haven't gone out to bid. Speaker 0 00:31:21 So the township doesn't want to be in a position where the final plan adopted by the county would, would require acquiring additional right away in the future. The township could probably do with something like a 40 foot right away, which would limit the, the dedication as long as we have a 10 foot temporary construction easement. And as to the sidewalks, that's also in the ordinance. So I think the sidewalks have to be constructed at, at the proposed elevation that the county is saying and hold off on curves until such time as, as the road's being put in, or at least bond for it until such time as the county decides what they want to do. And, and just, you know, I'm not telling you something, you don't know Mr. Zulo, but, you know, just for the board's edification, you know, board has the three ways they can proceed. Speaker 0 00:32:28 They can deny an application, they can grant an application or they can grant an application with conditions. If the applicant doesn't either, doesn't like the denial, they have the right to appeal. If they are granted and approval with conditions. And don't like the conditions, they have the right to appeal that also. So there's really three ways the board can go in most situations, the applicants agree to the conditions from the boards professionals. You've made your position very clear, but I think there, you know, there's a good faith basis based on the township ordinance as to the half with which we could make an accommodation for and the sidewalks and the curbs. And I think anything beyond that, you and I would probably be, you know, going over ground that we've, we've covered it, not only this meeting, but the prior meetings. Speaker 12 00:33:32 Yeah, I have, I have that feeling, but I'm, I want to be sure that I understand what your, but you're indicating might be, you know, a possible resolution right now, Mr. Hinterstein, his memo says an easement recorded with the deed, providing a a half with 55 feet. And right now what exists is a 33. So that's 22, that's 22 feet. That's worth twenty-five thousand dollars based on the townships assessment of Mr. Yates, his property. And that's the only if you know, the, you treat all square footage equally. So what, what exactly are you saying? As far as the, the modification of the proposed easement? Speaker 0 00:34:42 I was suggesting a dedication to a 40 foot half with, as opposed to a 55 half with as long as there was a 10 foot temporary construction easement. Whenever, whenever that need arises, that the applicant would be willing to do that. Speaker 12 00:35:00 Well, wouldn't that be the wouldn't that be the county performing that work? I'm not, I'm not clear on how, how the township of Piscataway can authorize Mr. Yates to get a building permit, to start constructing sidewalk on county property, Speaker 0 00:35:21 The properties in Piscataway. So he asked to deal with Piscataway in the county. Speaker 12 00:35:30 Yeah. The applicant already has an approval from the county. So you're, you're saying, or I guess it's a, a legal, illegal, illegal contention is that the, the township has some sort of jurisdiction over this property to require Mr. to do a sidewalk and convey an easement. If he wants to subdivide his is his property. Speaker 0 00:36:04 I'll answer that. But I thought I cut someone off, Speaker 9 00:36:07 Tom. It was D it was just one cork. And I was just going to reiterate that we do have an ordinance in place, as you indicated, 25 0 7. I requires the sidewalk. And that's all I was going to say. So Not just the sidewalk. Well, let me, it requires the curb, the sidewalk and the dedication, but Speaker 12 00:36:27 Correct. I I've read that. I haven't run it in the last month, but I believe that it's, it's, it's a township ordinance and, and it begs the question. Does the township have the authority to enact an ordinance that affects, you know, county property? We, we have, we have a, an approval from the county to proceed. There. There was no mention of sidewalk. There's no mention of a dedication. They asked for the sketch plat to be revised, to show the specifically asked to be revised, to show the, the half width and the width of a river road at that juncture. And then they issued their letter of December 8th. So I'm, you know, I'm not trying, I'm not trying to, I mean, I understand that there's a, there's a gray area here as to jurisdiction in your view, Speaker 0 00:37:45 Mr. Zula, the only thing I would say is in smack dab in the middle of that letter of December 8th, 2021, it says the above approval, meaning from the Middlesex county planning board does not in any way relieve the applicant from constructing all improvements in accordance with all federal state and local government regulations and design specifications. And my position is until a court tells me otherwise that that means you need sidewalks, curbs, and a dedication. And I think that the municipality, as a, as a way of, of trying to work with the applicant could, could live with a 40 foot half with an a 10 foot temporary construction easement loan with the items in terms of curbs and sidewalks that can be worked out, you know, at the appropriate time. But that's a legal position. And we both know legal positions. You know, I've given the board, my advice, you, you differ with that. That's fine. You know, I'll compliment this both great legal minds can disagree Speaker 12 00:38:59 From a practical point of view, but is Speaker 0 00:39:01 There any, let me just finish, just finish, finish. If one of us wants to, we appeal it, we file an action for rogat of Ritz and judge McCloskey, or whoever sitting at the time is going to tell us who was, who was the better legal mind and thought it out better. So, you know, I think our positions are, are pretty clear and practically speaking, you know, you know, the board, the board has three choices, deny, approve, or approve with conditions. And I don't have a vote in that. And I don't have a say in it. So I'm just giving the board, my 2 cents, you've made your 2 cents very clear. So whatever you want to say now, I had my, Speaker 12 00:39:58 Is there a specific plan that exists at this time to widen river road in this area? I can't conceive that the county would have, would have issued this approval or contingent approval if they, if they intended to widen river road to hundred and 20, 110 feet, Speaker 13 00:40:26 Madam chair, if I may, this is Mayor Wahler. Can, can we somebody just call for a vote? I think both sides have proved their point. I think it's time for the board to vote. Speaker 0 00:40:39 Mr. Zola, that's a county. I'm not going to tell the county what they're thinking or the county planning board. I can only deal with the Piscataway planning board. So you don't have any further evidence or testimony you wish to present. Speaker 12 00:40:55 The only additional testimony would pertain to the applicant's willing to comply with the other provisions of the plan. His letter of May 19th. Speaker 0 00:41:14 And I believe he had previously testified. Speaker 12 00:41:16 I think he has. Speaker 0 00:41:24 Okay. If there's no withdrawal of the application, then I guess the board would have someone would have to make a motion as to whether to accept this, this application, not Speaker 9 00:41:34 Madam chair. This is Dawn Corcoran based on the fact that there's a Torah township ordinance in place again, 25 0 7, that requires sidewalks curving and right away dedication. In addition to the fact that the county also indicated in their December 8th, 2021 letter, as indicated by Mr. Barlow, that the applicant is not in any way relieved from construction and all improvements in accordance with federal state, local government regs, et cetera. I'd like to make a motion that we approve this application, subject to the CME report and subject to the staff report with the revision that the dedication be made to create a 40 foot half with opposed to the 55 foot half with, in addition to the 10 foot temporary construction easement, the applicant would also be required to construct the sidewalk and the curbs. Speaker 12 00:42:39 At what point would the applicant be required to construct sidewalk and curb? Speaker 9 00:42:45 Well, Mr. Mr. Zulo, in order to affect the sun division, all of the conditions of the board approval would have to be met. However, your app, the applicant could post the bond for those improvements. And then the bond is in place. So obviously Mr. Yates, the bond wouldn't re be returned to Mr. Hayes until those improvements are in place. Speaker 12 00:43:08 I'm just trying to understand the logic here. Let's assume that Mr. Yates were prepared to go ahead and install sidewalk. Then the county and the town decide that they're going to widen river road and you care that out and install a sidewalk and purr and gutter all over again. Speaker 9 00:43:30 The town was, the town was willing to work with Mr. to take that 40 foot halfway, and then the 10 foot temporary construction easement. That being said, I don't foresee there being a need for any additional roadway. Dedication. Once that, that has been me Speaker 0 00:43:53 At this point. There's, there's a motion. If there's a second, do we have a second? Speaker 12 00:44:04 If I may, I have a practical question. Speaker 0 00:44:06 This is Nathan Lane. We have to, we have to get a second and either vote positively or negatively. And then we can clarify the question since we have a second, do we have a second Speaker 4 00:44:25 I'm Terry Bradford county. I'll second that motion pending that 40 foot width and just says it was so stated. No motion. Speaker 0 00:44:41 Mr. Kenney has seconded the motion as it was stated by Ms. Cochran To Ms. Buckley, do you have Speaker 1 00:44:52 Mayor? Wahler I heard him. He was muted. Ms. Corporate. Yes. Ms. Sanders, Reverend Kenney. Mr. Espinosa, Mr. Foster unmute. Mr. Foster. Madam chair. Yes. Speaker 0 00:45:23 What was Mayor? Wahler his vote? Ms. . Speaker 1 00:45:27 It was affirmative. Speaker 0 00:45:31 Thank you, sir. So 77, what was your question? Mystery. Eights. Speaker 10 00:45:40 Yeah. Hi. I was trying to get an explanation for what the construction 10 foot easement is. I don't know what that terminology refers to. Speaker 12 00:45:52 It refers to during a, if there is construction during construction, they have the right to use an additional 10 foot of width to do work, use vehicles, store, machine machines, and, and materials and things like that until the road work is done Speaker 0 00:46:14 And then restore it back to you. Speaker 10 00:46:16 And since there's hemlock trees running the entire distance, probably 50 of them that are 30, 40 feet tall. How would that be impacted? Speaker 12 00:46:27 Well, there's an obligation to restore theoretically what existed before. Speaker 10 00:46:35 Okay. I, I guess by theoretically, I don't see them installing 30, 40 foot trees that would live, but okay. It doesn't sound very practical. Speaker 12 00:46:47 Well, just to clarify a point of law of Mr. Barlow, you, you indicated that the courts are open to modify an application that's conditionally approved. Speaker 0 00:47:03 No, no, it's not conditionally approved. It's been approved with conditions. Speaker 12 00:47:10 That's what I mean, Speaker 0 00:47:13 As with any other land use matter, an action in lieu of prerogative, rich could be filed and follow the normal course as with any land use application, you have to get the transcript file your file, your asked for your relief. And the matter will proceed. Speaker 12 00:47:33 I've only done it once as many years ago, but I, I know about the prerogative re route. Have you I'll talk, we'll talk about it later. Thank you very much, Mr. Barlow and members of the board Speaker 0 00:47:50 Have a good evening. Leave. This completes our agenda for tonight with that, I'll take a motion to adjourn Second. All in favor. Thank you. Speaker 1 00:48:15 Good evening, folks, everyone. Thanks for sure. Thank you, Lord. Thanks Mike. I'm glad you got on. I guess I was muted that's okay. But you were watching your Alyssa have a great night. Thanks, bye.