Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on June 8 2022

Note: Transcripts are generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Please listen to the recording (below) if you feel any text is inaccurate.

Speaker 0     00:00:12    Tom, I think your new member's on.  
Speaker 1     00:00:15    Okay.  
Speaker 2     00:00:20    How you good?  
Speaker 1     00:00:24    How are you  
Speaker 2     00:00:24    Want I'm Thomas Barlow. I'm the board attorney. I can swear you in really quick before the meeting starts and I, I already got your, your signed oath. Okay? Sure. You wanna raise your right hand? Look, I state your name. I Alex Atkins do solemnly swear, do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States, that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of New Jersey and the constitution of the state of New Jersey. That I will bear true faith and allegiance that I will bear true faith and Mayor,  
Speaker 3     00:01:02    Mayor, Mayor, Wahler joined the  
Speaker 2     00:01:04    Meeting to the same, to the same and to the governments established in the United States and to the governments established in the United States and in this state and in this state, under the authority of the people under the authority of the people and that I will faithfully and I will faithfully, impartially, impartially, and justly perform and justly perform all of the duties. All of the duties of the office, of the planning board of the office, of the planning board for a term ending December 31st, 2023 for a term ending December 31st 31, 20 23, 20 23. According to the best of my ability, according to the best of my abilities. So help me God. So help me. God. Congratulations, Mr.  
Speaker 1     00:01:53    Congratulations. Welcome. Welcome  
Speaker 2     00:01:57    You.  
Speaker 3     00:01:59    Congratulations, Mr. Atkins. So happy to have you on the board. I missed the  
Speaker 2     00:02:04    Whole, thank you. I'm looking forward to  
Speaker 1     00:02:06    Thank you,  
Speaker 4     00:02:07    Reverend. Kinneally  
Speaker 3     00:02:09    Join the meeting  
Speaker 1     00:02:09    You Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 3     00:02:11    All right.  
Speaker 1     00:02:12    Okay. I'm ready.  
Speaker 3     00:02:14    One minute to go, everyone.  
Speaker 1     00:02:16    All right.  
Speaker 2     00:02:17    Miss Buckley. What is Mr. Atkins class for the planning board?  
Speaker 3     00:02:24    I have to ask Dana. I don't know.  
Speaker 2     00:02:27    Okay.  
Speaker 3     00:02:27    He just sent me the oath. I know nothing. I know. He's the first alternate.  
Speaker 2     00:02:31    Okay.  
Speaker 3     00:02:32    I don't know anything besides that, but I'll find out from Dana tomorrow.  
Speaker 2     00:02:34    Gotcha.  
Speaker 5     00:02:37    Laura, this is George in the control room.  
Speaker 3     00:02:40    Yep. I just got your text. I was doing something George I'm coming  
Speaker 5     00:02:43    That's okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 3     00:02:45    You can now record.  
Speaker 4     00:02:48    Good evening. Madam chair, Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 1     00:02:50    Good evening, Reverend  
Speaker 3     00:02:51    Kinneally progress. Good to hear  
Speaker 1     00:02:53    Your voice  
Speaker 3     00:02:53    Recording stopped. Thank  
Speaker 4     00:02:55    You.  
Speaker 3     00:02:56    Recording in progress. You're ready to go. Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:03:00    All righty. The Piscataway planning board will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published, published in the career 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 will the clerk please. Ms. Buckley, will you please call the Rome  
Speaker 3     00:03:26    Mayor? Wahler present Councilwoman Cahill here. Ms. Corcoran here. Ms. Saunders  
Speaker 6     00:03:33    Here,  
Speaker 3     00:03:34    Reverend Kinneally here. Mr. Atkins. We know he is here. Okay. And Madam Madam chair here. Yeah, we're fast. Madam  
Speaker 1     00:03:49    Chair out here, here, Mr. Tom, would you please read the open meeting notice please?  
Speaker 2     00:03:59    Yes. Madam chair in keeping with the DCA guidelines governing meetings in light of the COVID pandemic, this meeting is being held by way of the zoom virtual platform. All of the appropriate notices have included the link for any interest parties to be able to join the zoom call. And I believe we are in compliance with the DCA guidelines and the meeting can proceed in this setting. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:04:27    Thank you. Everyone can see the flag over my right shoulder. So can we please cross our hearts and recite the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance allegiance to, to the flag  
Speaker 3     00:04:39    Of  
Speaker 1     00:04:39    The United of the United States of America and to the Republic and to the Republic for which it stands  
Speaker 3     00:04:47    Nation Liberty. And  
Speaker 1     00:04:53    For all, thank you. Can we have the swearing in of the professionals for tonight's meeting?  
Speaker 6     00:05:02    Can you please raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give you the truth and nothing but the truth.  
Speaker 3     00:05:09    Do  
Speaker 6     00:05:10    Thank you.  
Speaker 3     00:05:12    You're  
Speaker 1     00:05:15    Can I have a motion to pay the bills?  
Speaker 7     00:05:19    Oh, Mayor. Mayor of Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 1     00:05:22    Okay. Do I have a second,  
Speaker 6     00:05:24    Second Carol Saunders  
Speaker 1     00:05:28    Roll call please.  
Speaker 3     00:05:29    Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran. Yes. Ms. Saunders. Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 7     00:05:39    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:05:39    Mr. Espinosa. Yes. And Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:05:42    Yes. I believe there are some changes to the agenda tonight. Mr. Barlow, would you please let the yes. Madam chair?  
Speaker 2     00:05:51    Yes. Madam chair, we have two changes. 21 PV 34 slash 35 V, which is one 40 circle. Drive. North is postponed until the July 13th, 2022 meeting. There will be no further notices if anyone is here for the matter involving one 40 circle drive north that matter will be heard on the July 13th, 2022. And you won't get a new notice in the mail. Also number 1321 PD 42 slash 43 V Raven Heights, LLC. And Kari is postponed until the August 10th, 2022 meeting. They had an issue with their engineer and also their notice was improper. So they will re-notice. So if anyone is here for the Raven Heights matter at 1720 and 21 school street, that will be August 10th, 2022, and you will be getting a new notice in the mail. And those are the only changes to the agenda. Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:06:57    All right. An item eight adoption of resolution to the memorialized action taken on May 11th.  
Speaker 6     00:07:06    Madam Chairman, Carol Saunders. I like to moralize the resolution for the meeting of May 11th, 2022 application 22 PB one slash LCZ New Jersey Realty, LLC. Preliminary and final site plan with  
Speaker 7     00:07:30    Reverend Kinneally  
Speaker 1     00:07:32    Call please.  
Speaker 3     00:07:33    Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran. Yes. Ms. Saunders.  
Speaker 6     00:07:45    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:07:45    Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 7     00:07:47    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:07:48    Mr. Espinosa. Yes. And Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:07:51    Yes. Chair item number nine. Adoption of the minutes from the regular meeting of May 11th.  
Speaker 6     00:07:57    Madam Chairman. I like to the minutes from the regular meeting of May 11th, 2022  
Speaker 1     00:08:04    Second. Do I have a second?  
Speaker 7     00:08:07    Madam chair? Kinneally  
Speaker 1     00:08:10    You  
Speaker 3     00:08:12    Mayor Wahler yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran. Yes. Ms. Saunders. Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 7     00:08:23    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:08:23    Mr. Espinosa. Yes. Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:08:29    Yes. Item number 10 22 P B zero three. General plumbing supply incorporated. Would the party step is Mr. Arch here?  
Speaker 8     00:08:39    Yes. I'm here. Madam chair. Can everybody see and hear me?  
Speaker 1     00:08:43    Yes. You may proceed.  
Speaker 8     00:08:45    Good evening. Madam chair and members of the board. My name is Tim arch. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey and I'm here representing general plumbing supply. This is for a property it's formally known as the Transwestern property at three 30 south Randolphville road. This was a previously approved warehouse site in a redevelopment zone. And we're coming in for an amended, preliminary and final site plan approval because we have the, the tenant at the property, which is general plumbing supply. And there's some minor site adjustments that are being made to accommodate the, the tenant. Some minor housekeeping. Before we begin, I am in receipt of a CME report that is dated May 23rd, 2022. I am also in receipt of my computer will cooperate a May 25th, 2022 report from Mr. Hinterstein. And I also have a D P w report that indicates there's no comments. I believe those are all the reports that are pertinent to the site. I would just ask if that is correct.  
Speaker 2     00:10:01    That is correct manager. We just note for the record. There's also a report from the fire marshal dated February 15th, 2022, where he approved of the plan.  
Speaker 8     00:10:12    Thank you, Mr. Barlow. You're welcome. I will state right off the bat. In, in regard to those reports, there was a, a comment I believe in the CME report, that is a sort of a carryover from an earlier zoning report that indicated we were seeking a design waiver for four loading stalls or loading areas that are on the property. We are actually gonna RET strike them so that they are conforming. So this is a completely conforming application. We are not asking for any deviations or any variances or any design waivers. We do have two witnesses tonight for everybody. Our first is Mr. Matt Friedman, who is a representative of GPS. And then we also have Mr. Doug Hanley, who is going to, who was our engineer, who is going to testify since I know you love hearing me talk for a long time, I'm gonna deprive you of that tonight. And we can go right into Mr. Friedman's testimony if I can have him called up and sworn in, please.  
Speaker 6     00:11:20    Yes, Mr. Friedman, can you please raise your right hand the Friedman? Oh, okay. Did you swear that the testimony about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 9     00:11:39    I swear.  
Speaker 6     00:11:40    Thank you. Can you please state and spell your name for the record?  
Speaker 9     00:11:43    Sure. It's Matthew Friedman, F R E E D M a N.  
Speaker 6     00:11:49    Thank you.  
Speaker 2     00:11:51    Okay. You may proceed.  
Speaker 8     00:11:53    Thank you, Mr. Friedman, can you tell us what is your position at general plumbing supply?  
Speaker 9     00:11:59    I am our director of finance.  
Speaker 8     00:12:01    Okay. And you're familiar with the site. Can you tell us a little bit briefly about what GPS is?  
Speaker 9     00:12:10    Sure. Yes. I'm, I'm very familiar with the site. General plumbing supply is a hundred plus year family owned plumbing, distributor of plumbing and heating supplies. We have 20 locations across New Jersey and New York.  
Speaker 8     00:12:26    Okay. And this is this Piscataway location. This is gonna be your new home for your, for your distribution center. Is that correct?  
Speaker 9     00:12:33    Correct.  
Speaker 8     00:12:35    Formally, I think you're currently, you were located in, in Edison, but you now want Piscataway to be your, your home base, is that correct?  
Speaker 9     00:12:42    Yes, that's correct.  
Speaker 8     00:12:43    Okay. So let's talk about actually the operation. That's gonna be there. Can you tell us how many employees in total there are gonna be with your operation and then tell us about how you're gonna accommodate those, those employees in terms of the, the parking that you have on site?  
Speaker 9     00:13:01    Yeah. So there, there's gonna be a total of 154 employees based out of this site. The maximum number of employees at any given time will only be 143 employees. So it will be sufficient parking to meet our needs.  
Speaker 8     00:13:19    And that 143 employees that's if every, basically if all the, if there was a shift change that occurred all at one time and everybody was there, but  
Speaker 9     00:13:29    Correct. And, and assuming no one's on vacation or sick or out.  
Speaker 8     00:13:34    And, and I believe we are providing 169 parking spaces. Is that correct? Mr. Friedman?  
Speaker 9     00:13:40    That's correct.  
Speaker 8     00:13:41    Okay. And as part of your operation, you're, we're using it as warehousing, but we're also proposing to construct a mezzanine internally in one of the buildings, which will house a, a showroom and sort of a retail area for mostly professionals. Is that correct?  
Speaker 9     00:14:00    That's correct.  
Speaker 8     00:14:01    Okay. And at any given time, how many contractors or professionals do you anticipate being on the site in addition to your employees?  
Speaker 9     00:14:11    Roughly around 10? I would say that's probably on the higher end.  
Speaker 8     00:14:15    Okay. Would you say that it's fair to say that maybe two or three at any given time, maybe 10 over the course of the day?  
Speaker 9     00:14:22    Correct.  
Speaker 8     00:14:23    Okay. And so based on your knowledge of the operation, your knowledge of the site, would you, you would say that there's more than adequate parking to accommodate the, the functions that would be going on there?  
Speaker 9     00:14:34    That's right.  
Speaker 8     00:14:35    Okay. Now what kind of products are you storing there at general plumbing, supply,  
Speaker 9     00:14:43    Air conditioning units, boilers, PVC pipe, decorative showroom material.  
Speaker 8     00:14:52    Okay. So basically typical plumbing, fixtures and supplies. It, it, is it fair to say that there's not gonna be, you're not gonna be storing any hazardous or dangerous materials on site?  
Speaker 9     00:15:03    Correct.  
Speaker 8     00:15:04    Okay. Let's talk about your, I guess your distribution operation in terms of trucks coming in and trucks coming out. Can you estimate about approximately how many trucks you'd be coming, coming in on the site at any given time?  
Speaker 9     00:15:23    Sure. Roughly over the course of the day, we'd have 20 incoming vehicles delivering to us. We do require our vendors to book appointments in advance using open doc.com, which is an online doc scheduling software. So it allows us to manage the flow of deliveries throughout the day.  
Speaker 8     00:15:44    Okay. So you can actually you're, you can, preschedule all of your incoming deliveries to make sure that there's not gonna be any overflow or backup on the site or anything along those lines, is that correct?  
Speaker 9     00:15:55    Correct. We, we manage it closely.  
Speaker 8     00:15:57    Okay. And in terms of your outbound deliveries, I'm, I'm assuming your, your sending supply to those 20 locations that are throughout the, throughout the New Jersey. When is it that those outbound trucks generally will go out? And how do you manage that?  
Speaker 9     00:16:15    Yeah, our outbound vehicles, they leave our facility between six 30 and 8:00 AM and they, they go on regionalized routes throughout New Jersey and New York.  
Speaker 8     00:16:25    Okay. And so those are also scheduled and controlled internally by you is correct. Or by your, your system?  
Speaker 9     00:16:32    Correct.  
Speaker 8     00:16:33    Okay. And those trucks that we're talking about, the vast majority are those, what size of a truck would those be?  
Speaker 9     00:16:40    The majority of those are 26 straight trucks.  
Speaker 8     00:16:43    Okay. So you've had an opportunity to review the staff reports that we talked about, correct? The CME reported Mr. Stein's report?  
Speaker 9     00:16:54    Correct.  
Speaker 8     00:16:54    Okay. And are you willing to, to tell the board tonight that you're gonna comply with all the conditions of both the CME report and Mr. Hinterstein report?  
Speaker 9     00:17:06    That's right.  
Speaker 8     00:17:07    Okay. And that includes providing electric vehicle charging stations, which is the, which is provi required under state statute.  
Speaker 9     00:17:15    Yes, we will comply.  
Speaker 8     00:17:17    Okay. And in addition to that, you'll agree to provide adequate landscaping and work with Mr. Hinterstein to provide appropriate landscaping around the property.  
Speaker 9     00:17:29    We will.  
Speaker 8     00:17:30    Okay. I have no more direct questions for Mr. Friedman. I would. I don't know if you, well, I guess I will ask if the board wants to ask any questions.  
Speaker 1     00:17:42    Well, does the board have members have any question of Mr. Friedman,  
Speaker 10    00:17:47    Madam chair? This  
Speaker 11    00:17:48    Is Dawn.  
Speaker 1     00:17:49    I just  
Speaker 11    00:17:49    Have two very quick questions, Mr. Freeman, can you confirm what the height of that outdoor storage area will be?  
Speaker 9     00:18:00    I defer to Mr. Hanley, who can go next, but no problem. I don't wanna give an incorrect height.  
Speaker 11    00:18:07    No problem. Second question. What, what again are you storing in that outdoor storage area?  
Speaker 9     00:18:13    It will only be rooftop H V a C units and PVC pipe.  
Speaker 11    00:18:19    Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 9     00:18:21    Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:18:22    Any other questions from the board? Okay, Ms. Buckley, would you see if there's any questions from the public?  
Speaker 11    00:18:35    No, one's raising their hand. Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:18:37    Thank you. Close to the public. Okay. You may call your next witness. Mr. Arch.  
Speaker 8     00:18:43    Thank you. Our next witness is Mr. Doug Hanley.  
Speaker 6     00:18:49    Mr. Henley, can you please raise your right hand? You swear that the T you about to give will be the truth and, but the truth  
Speaker 12    00:18:56    I do,  
Speaker 6     00:18:57    Please state and spell your name for the record.  
Speaker 12    00:18:59    Sure. My name is Douglas Hanley, H a N L E Y.  
Speaker 6     00:19:03    Thank you,  
Speaker 8     00:19:06    Mr. Hanley, you are a licensed professional engineer licensed in the state of New Jersey. Is that correct?  
Speaker 12    00:19:12    Yes, that's correct. And I have a bachelor's of science and civil engineering from the New Jersey Institute of technology. I'm a project manager at dynamic engineering and I've testified before various land use board in the state of New Jersey. This is my first opportunity in Piscataway.  
Speaker 8     00:19:32    Oh, I was gonna ask his chair. I don't know if you, if you go into his credentials anymore or if that's acceptable.  
Speaker 1     00:19:38    No, I think Mr. Henley is acceptable to the board as next burden in this case. Okay.  
Speaker 12    00:19:43    Thank you very much.  
Speaker 8     00:19:44    So, Mr. Hanley, you are familiar with the, the site and the history of the site, is that correct?  
Speaker 12    00:19:50    Yes, I am.  
Speaker 8     00:19:51    And you're also familiar with the, the two staff reports that were provided?  
Speaker 12    00:19:55    Yep. I, I personally reviewed them.  
Speaker 8     00:19:57    Okay. So I'm gonna give the floor to you, Mr. Hanley, if you can please give us the benefit of your, your review of this, this project.  
Speaker 12    00:20:08    First, I'd like to just introduce a few exhibits that I'll refer to during my testimony, if, if that works for you. So let me,  
Speaker 2     00:20:23    That's fine, Ms. We'll just mark any exhibits, a one and, and go a two, a three, however many you have.  
Speaker 12    00:20:31    Okay, perfect. Can everybody see my screen?  
Speaker 2     00:20:37    Yes, sir.  
Speaker 12    00:20:39    Is it the aerial map exhibit?  
Speaker 1     00:20:42    Yes. Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:20:43    So we'll mark that as a  
Speaker 12    00:20:44    One. Yes. So we'll mark this as a one it's aerial map, exhibit prepared by dynamic engineering dated tonight, which is June 8th, 2022. I understand this aerial is a little bit dated as the site's under construction, but I, I think what it does, a good job of explaining is the subject property we're here to discuss, which is block 47 0 1 lot 5.05, which is 330 south Randolph road. The property in question is approximately 16.1 acres, and it is located in a redevelopment area and it's surrounded by the L I five zoning district. The next one I would like to introduce is our, the site plan rendering of the current design that's being proposed this evening. So this we can mark as a two, and this is a site plan rendering prepared by dynamic engineering dated 6, 8 20 22 as well. And what this is, is essentially a colorized version of the site plan that was submitted as part of our submission package with some colors turned on to show the, the various buildings pavement and the proposed and existing landscaping as well.  
Speaker 12    00:22:15    And the third exhibit, which I'll introduce right now and, and just let me know if I'm going too fast and we can take it a little slower. The third exhibit, I think this will be useful to run through the history of the project. This is the site plan rendering prepared by dynamic engineering dated February 26th, 2020. And it's this rendering is important because this was the rendering that was used during the 2019 application for the subject property. So that leads me nicely into my next point, which is there is some history on this project and I'm sure many of the board members are familiar, but just to refresh your memories, as well as maybe introduce some of the newer board members to the history. So the, the property in question had a redevelopment plan adopted in November of 2019 prior to the, the site plan that is on the screen. Now being prepared, trans Western development was approved for the site plan. That's shown on my screen now under application 19 PB dash 43. And it included the construction of the, the Western building, which was the proposed building, which is 151,000 square feet. And it also proposed to raise the roof of the existing building on the Eastern side of the site to 36 feet.  
Speaker 12    00:24:03    So I, I bring this up because you'll see, when I flip to the site plan, that's proposed this evening, there are very few differences as Mr. Arch and Friedman had had mentioned earlier. So that was the previously approved site plan. And now we're gonna flip back to the currently propo proposed site plan and I'll zoom in a little so everybody can see,  
Speaker 12    00:24:31    But in between the two applications, the redevelopment plan was amended to address certain concerns and needs of the tenant here this evening. It's important. It's very important to note that the overall building footprints did not change from the previous previously approved site plan to the site plan that is being presented tonight. I will just quickly run through the changes and then if the board or the professionals have any questions, we can handle those at the end. So as mentioned, the, the applicant is proposing a three-sided outdoor storage area. It is on the northerly side of building a so for the purposes of this exhibit, we'll consider north straight to the top of the page. So the outdoor storage area is where I'm circling with my cursor, which is the northerly side of building a, which is the existing building with the lighter shade. It's important to note that this area was previously proposed for trailer storage and the purpose of the storage being enclosed through the, the process of going through the TRC meetings with the board professionals. It was agreed that in closing this outdoor storage is a, a better option than just say having it on a, a concrete pad that screens with vegetation. So I, I know there was a question about the proposed height of this structure. So it is proposed to be 22 feet, eight inches tall. And I, I don't know if I mentioned the, the square footage, but it's 11,461 square feet. And it's a masonry enclosure, which will be compliant with the, the height and setbacks of the redevelopment plan,  
Speaker 12    00:26:40    Moving onto some of the other changes for the, the proposed application. I mentioned earlier that building a was proposed, the roof was proposed to be raised to 36 feet. The roof for building a is now proposed to be 40 feet. And as mentioned that there will be a mezzanine constructed within building a, the other change is we are proposing 79 additional parking spaces on this application compared to the 2019 application. And you'll notice that on the previous application all the way at the Northern edge of the site, there used to be a cul-de-sac to, to handle larger vehicles, to, to circulate throughout the site. We worked with Mr. Freeman and the applicant and determined that the proposed use does not need the circulation for the larger site. So we're able to fit additional parking in this area. And then the trailer storage and loading spaces on the Eastern side of building B have adequate circulation and their acquired back end space.  
Speaker 12    00:27:58    So they're able to turn around and, and those were shown on vehicle circulation plans that were included within our site plan. So we added parking spaces in that area. We also added parking spaces along the west side of building a and I'll, I'll zoom in a couple times here. So it's a little bit easier. This was previously, this area was previously proposed for additional loading and trailer storage. The applicant does not have use for that, that much loading and trailer storage. So we're proposing parking on the Western side. And then similarly on the Eastern side, we're adding parking spaces within existing grass areas within the existing parking lot on this Eastern side. And then while I'm zoomed in, I think now is a good point. As Mr. Arch had mentioned, there are a few loading spaces that were striped at 12.8 feet width. However, we will increase that width to 13 feet to be compliant with the redevelopment plan. With that being said, as mentioned, we are, we are comfortable with the comments that were provided in the, the planning and landscape architectural review letters. And we will comply with the recommendations within the letters. And it's my opinion that this application is completely compliant with the redevelopment plan.  
Speaker 8     00:29:37    Thank you, Mr. Hanley. I have no further questions of Mr. Hanley if the board has any questions.  
Speaker 1     00:29:43    Okay. Board members, you've heard the testimony of Mr. Hanley. Does anyone have any questions at this time of the witness?  
Speaker 2     00:29:51    I had one question. Madam chair, just for Mr. Arch. Was there going be a fourth exhibit? No, we had discussed that.  
Speaker 8     00:29:58    Oh, I will apologize for that. Mr. Hanley, do you have a, I think you have an additional rendering.  
Speaker 12    00:30:04    Yes, absolutely. I just mark that. Thank you for bringing that up. And I know there was question from the board professionals regarding, let me get back to my screen screen one share. So there was questions to the, the look in architectural feel of the outdoor storage area or enclosure, if you will. So this is a rendering prepared by Arco design build. They are the contractor for the, the development and they, so they put this rendering together. You can see this is building a, all the way on the right side and you can the masonry and are to match the proposed improvements on building a and B  
Speaker 2     00:30:56    Can mark that as a four then Mr. Hanley.  
Speaker 12    00:30:59    Perfect. Thank you, Mr.  
Speaker 8     00:31:00    Ley.  
Speaker 2     00:31:02    Sorry. That was the only question.  
Speaker 13    00:31:04    Okay. Can I, can I, can I ask a couple  
Speaker 1     00:31:07    Questions? Certainly Mr.  
Speaker 13    00:31:09    Reson reson call me Ron. Okay. Mr. Hanley, just to confirm that that three sided, the reason I said it in, in my review letter is just to confirm that the open side is not to any public view. It's, it's internal, right? It's it's facing it's facing inward.  
Speaker 12    00:31:30    Yes. Let me, I think, and  
Speaker 13    00:31:31    That's the purpose of the plan? I just, you know, I just wanted you to put on the record. That's  
Speaker 12    00:31:35    All. Yes, definitely understand. And yes, the opening will be on the Western face of the outdoor storage area. If you will, in the, the loading court of the development.  
Speaker 13    00:31:49    Now, the, the, the question about the electric vehicle parking. Now, the state requires, I mean, I, I said we can't wave out of it, so you have to provide seven. We strongly encourage, are you still going to commit to providing three live electrical parking spaces?  
Speaker 8     00:32:14    We will.  
Speaker 13    00:32:15    Okay. That's great. And, and, and, and just one thing, and I just came up date in another municipality I had, I would always suggest is I said, in my letter, there's those, the locations aren't shown, I would probably defer to discussing with a board Township professionals, especially the fire department, because an issue was raised about fire risk. So I don't wanna hold them to like, oh, you have to put it in this spot. As long as they're giving the numbers, I'm fine with it. So, so we got the three live and the four make ready. Does that sound about right?  
Speaker 9     00:32:54    Correct.  
Speaker 8     00:32:55    Yes, absolutely agree to that. And we will work with the Township on, on positioning,  
Speaker 13    00:33:00    Ms. Arch, just what, what, when rec housekeeping item, I had noted that you had had your correspondence with the town planner that you were gonna res strip. So all I, all I called out is I said that was a general comment. And I think I just said that these make readys, that you don't meet the requirements, what you are gonna meet. 'em, you know, you just confirmed and that's really all I was asking for confirmation with testimonies. Thank you very much.  
Speaker 1     00:33:29    Thank you. Any other questions from the board?  
Speaker 7     00:33:33    Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:33:34    Yes. Go ahead. Kinneally  
Speaker 7     00:33:38    Yes. I don't know who this is for. Maybe it's for Mr. Freeman in regards to your trucks, whether they're diesel or gas, do you have a re refueling on site or fuel tank where you, or you buy outside of your facility by fuel diesel or gas?  
Speaker 9     00:34:00    Most of the vehicles are refilled with a fuel service that comes, you know, in the late afternoon refills are vehicles.  
Speaker 7     00:34:11    Oh, you do have, you do have storage tanks on your property?  
Speaker 9     00:34:16    No, no, we do not. We use a, we use Duffy fuel.  
Speaker 7     00:34:20    Oh, an outside vendor. Oh,  
Speaker 9     00:34:21    I see. Correct. Correct.  
Speaker 7     00:34:23    Okay. That's my question. Thank you.  
Speaker 9     00:34:26    Of course.  
Speaker 1     00:34:27    Thank you. Any other questions before I open it to the public? Okay. Could we open that to the public,  
Speaker 2     00:34:35    Mr. Hanley, please unshare your screen.  
Speaker 13    00:34:38    Oh, absolutely.  
Speaker 2     00:34:40    Thank you,  
Speaker 1     00:34:43    Ms. Buckley, would you open, would you see if anyone has responded from the public? No. One Madam chair. Thank you. Hearing no questions from the public's closed to the public. Are there any other witnesses Mr. Arch?  
Speaker 8     00:34:58    No, that would, again, this is a, this is a conforming site. It's a conforming redevelopment plan to this use. And I know that Mr. Friedman is happy to make, hopefully Piscataway his base of operation for the next a hundred years of, of GPS's history. So thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:35:24    All right. Thank you. You've heard the testimony on this application board members. Would anyone like to make a motion either for or against this application? Madam  
Speaker 11    00:35:37    Chair, Dawn Corcoran. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the application subject to the staff report and subject to the CME report. Also with the requirement that the applicant provide the EV charging stations and make ready stations as discussed this evening, and also the re of the loaded spaces to meet the requirements of the redevelopment plan.  
Speaker 1     00:36:04    All right. Do I have a second?  
Speaker 3     00:36:05    Madam chair, Councilwoman Cahill. I will second that motion.  
Speaker 1     00:36:09    Thank you. Can we have a roll Paul  
Speaker 3     00:36:13    Mayor? Wahler yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran.  
Speaker 11    00:36:19    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:36:19    Ms. Saunders.  
Speaker 6     00:36:21    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:36:22    Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Espinosa.  
Speaker 1     00:36:25    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:36:26    And Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:36:28    Yes. Thank you, gentlemen, for the application.  
Speaker 2     00:36:31    Madam chair. Yes. If I may just briefly, before you move on to the next matter, because of the nature of this application, being a completely conforming site plan application, it was a proposed resolution was drafted in anticipation of potentially tonight's proceedings that out of an abundance of caution, I included everything that the board just moved for, including the electric  
Speaker 1     00:37:00    Vehicles. So it is inclusive. All  
Speaker 2     00:37:02    Right. So if the board so chooses, cuz I know the applicant has, would like to get moving on this redevelopment site. I believe Ms. Saunders has a resolution. If the board would like to vote on it at, at this juncture. Is that okay with you, Mr. Arch? Absolutely. Mr Barlow.  
Speaker 1     00:37:20    Thank you, Ms. Saunders, you have a resolution  
Speaker 6     00:37:23    For you. One second. I'm trying to find the documents that were sent to me.  
Speaker 3     00:37:28    I re emailed it to you again about 15 minutes ago.  
Speaker 6     00:37:31    Oh, okay. All let's  
Speaker 1     00:37:38    Wonders of technology.  
Speaker 3     00:37:40    Isn't it wonderful.  
Speaker 2     00:37:42    What did we do beforehand Ms.  
Speaker 1     00:37:44    Smith? I, I can't even imagine  
Speaker 3     00:37:47    Her hands. Madam  
Speaker 6     00:37:49    Madam Chairman. I like to memorialize application 22, PB zero three for general plumbing by Inc for preliminary and final site plan approval.  
Speaker 1     00:38:04    Do I have a, a believe I heard a second from Ms. Cochran. Yes. PROCO  
Speaker 3     00:38:15    Mayor Wahler yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran. Yes. Ms. Wonders.  
Speaker 6     00:38:23    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:38:23    Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Espinosa. Yes. And Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:38:29    Yes. Well, Mr. Arch, that must tie, tie this application up for you. Good luck.  
Speaker 8     00:38:35    Thank you so much. But you're stuck with me for a little bit longer.  
Speaker 1     00:38:39    Okay. Have another application I guess. Okay. Yes. Well then that must be the next one, which is 11 item number 1122 P 0 4 0 5. Victory V as in Victor, Ben, HP, LLC, minor subdivision and both variants.  
Speaker 8     00:38:57    That is correct. Good  
Speaker 1     00:38:57    Evening. That is you. Okay. There we go.  
Speaker 8     00:39:00    Good evening. Madam  
Speaker 8     00:39:01    Members of the board. I am still Tim arch, still licensed attorney of New Jersey. And I am here representing better HP LLC. And this is for four 16 Victoria avenue. This is, you might know it as the, as the, I think it's the circle Playhouse is what it's known as site at four 16, Victoria, we are proposing to subdivide that property into two lots, two conforming lots and are proposing two single family, residential homes on those lots, which is quite frankly what the zoning demands or what it anticipated in that area. As part of housekeeping, we do have two staff reports. I have one, I apologize. I think my one staff report is not dated as to when it was granted, but it was or when it was sent, but it's Mr. Stein's report consisting of 13 comments. And I also have a CME report dated May 20th, 20, 22 as well. And I would just ask if there are any additional reports that I am missing,  
Speaker 2     00:40:20    Mr. Arch it's Mr. Henderson's report dated May 24th, 2022. And the only other report is Mr. Gaspari. The director of public works upon his review of the application, indicated that he had no comments with regards to Saint.  
Speaker 8     00:40:37    Thank you, Mr. Barlow. So I do have two or I'm sorry, I have one witness tonight. And that is Mr. Sharif Ali, who is our engineer. Also present is Mr. Ayad ADI, who is a representative of the company. So if there's anything that needs to be specifically directed towards him, or if he needs to answer anything he is available tonight in looking at the reports, we do have, we can comply with the vast majority of comments on the reports. There are a couple that we do want to, to discuss and maybe can come to some, to some fair compromise on, but we can maybe perhaps do that at the end of the presentation. So at this time I would ask Mr. Sharifa Lee to be sworn in so that he can his, his presentation.  
Speaker 1     00:41:35    All right, Mr. Ali, Ms. Saunders, would you swear Mr. Ali in?  
Speaker 6     00:41:38    Yes. Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony about the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 14    00:41:45    I do.  
Speaker 6     00:41:46    Can you please state and spell your name for the record?  
Speaker 14    00:41:49    Uhif L a L Y.  
Speaker 6     00:41:52    Thank you,  
Speaker 8     00:41:55    Mr. Ali, you are a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey, is that correct?  
Speaker 14    00:42:00    That is correct.  
Speaker 8     00:42:02    And you're familiar with the site and the staff reports and you've testified in front of this board in the past. Is that correct?  
Speaker 14    00:42:08    Numerous times. Yes.  
Speaker 8     00:42:10    Madam chair. I would ask that he'd be accepted tonight as an expert in the film.  
Speaker 1     00:42:13    Mr. Ali is accepted.  
Speaker 14    00:42:15    Thank you,  
Speaker 8     00:42:17    Mr. Ali, if you can please just take us through orient us to the site and please give your presentation as to the proposed project.  
Speaker 14    00:42:25    Sure. So I will take over this screen if you don't mind.  
Speaker 1     00:42:29    Sure.  
Speaker 14    00:42:36    Should be in now. All right. So you guys, my screen site, the site is on Victoria Victoria avenue. Veil is to the south that's the intersection and Grove is to the north. That's another intersection. So Wheelock mid block, north arrow just for reference is pointing to Grove in Washington, which is like the next street running peril to Grove the site on a tax map. The official tax map is known as block 9 0 6 lot 17.02 and is about 17,400 plus square feet. The, the site right now as exists contain. And if you don't mind, I'll show you, here you go. So the site right now contain an existing building much better. Now, as Tim says that the was known as circle Playhouse is four 16 and the building has been recently renovated to five bedrooms house. So the, the rest of the law, as you see in gray or the majority of the lot, as you see in gray used to be a parking lot, everything in gray parking lot, and you have the steps leading to the Porsche it's in close Porsche.  
Speaker 14    00:44:44    And then the house, some of the steps we are talking about a house probably built back in the 19 50, 19 40, and part of the steps within the right of way. So that solid line with the two dash is the right of way. And this is the curb line. And by the way, Victoria is about 50 foot right away. The whole, the majority of the neighborhood is all residential and happen to be residential or 7.5, which is basically our 7.5. It says is 7,500 square feet, 75 lot weight on a hundred lot depth. That's a typical of or 7.5. So that is the existing condition out there. And obviously the house has a gas has water and also a sewer connection that is not shown on the map, but there is a sewer connection. So the, just for information now, we, because we're so concerned about the storm water management, that whole entire area that is paved onsite, as well as the building is about 12,000 a square feet. Our proposal is to  
Speaker 2     00:46:12    Mr. Ali, before you move on to the third, just for sake of completeness for the record, the first diagram you showed the board, which was the minor subdivision plan, we'll call that a one, a two is the existing conditions diagram. And then I think you were moving on to a three, which is going to be, I presume the proposed.  
Speaker 14    00:46:36    Yeah, that is correct.  
Speaker 2     00:46:38    Okay. So we'll mark that the Le this one is, so we have a one, a two and a three. I just wanna keep the record complete. Thank you. Right?  
Speaker 14    00:46:46    I agree. So our, our proposal as Tim says, is that to subdivide the law into two lots to future law will be known as loss 17.03 will contain 9,400 square feet with a lot width of 94. So that's exceeding all the bulk requirement. In addition to that, we will keep the pavement, which is a driveway. We're gonna call future driveway on the left side of the law and will be removing all the unnecessary existing pavement like in this area here, as well as the whole entire area here, all this will be all removed and keeping just a little bit of access area to, to the steps to the back door. So basically everything here will be turned into green, where it used to be paved the steps. We will remove the steps within a right of way as recommended by your step. And along with that, we will be providing a side walk as request as usually requested as well as we will be adding to trees in the front as recommended by theta the second lot, which is future 17 loss, 17.04 will contain about 8,000 plus square feet. Again, exceeding the area requirement within a zone, which is the 7,500 lot worth is 80 plus is almost 81. And the depth is still the same, a hundred, so that the width is also exceeding. So we all fully confirmed with the bulk requirement on this lot.  
Speaker 14    00:49:07    That's a six bedrooms house, one car garage, two cars paved driveway that makes total three meeting the residential site improvements, which require three spaces. And by the way, the existing home, as I mentioned, five bedrooms will contain four paved driveway. So four carpet driveway. So again, exceeding the residential site improvement standards of three. So that's pretty much what we have. There's two nonconforming, two existing nonconforming variances in the bulk bulk variances. One is that after Remo the steps, basically two and a half feet from the right of way, meaning that it's totally in the front yard as well as portion of the house, the front yard is 25 feet, and that is the house here and the steps. So the it's two and half feet.  
Speaker 14    00:50:26    The second bulk is again existing, whether we subdivide a lot or not, it's existing, it's out there 18 and a half feet where the rear of the property is 25 feet. And we are encroaching within a real by seven or six and a half feet. So that's an existing nonconforming that this is an existing by removing the steps from the right of way is improving the situation here, but that is the main entrance to the house. So we start with that. So that's, as far as the two bulk, there is another variance on loss, 17.03, all the variances or the three variances on loss, 17.03 is that as you see, there is no garage there. So, so I believe that will be considered as a variance. And Mr. Arch will elaborate more on that. So with this proposed condition, we are down from 12,000 square feet in previous coverage to 8,800, a square feet.  
Speaker 14    00:51:48    That's a reduction of 30%, meaning that with the storm water regulations and all the revisions that is going through, if we are matching in previous coverage on a particular site, we are home free. As long as that, we have less than an equal of lot disturbance, and we do have less than an acre, and we have less of in previous coverage, we're not adding to in previous coverage. And the ad is quarter of an acre. Now we are reducing the reason I mention that because in the staff report is recommending the new home to have a dry, well, I understand that it's the common practice in, in the town in Piscataway, which is it's usually goes along with vacant lots that totally wooded or grass just vacant law or farmland. So I understand the requirement, but here we are reducing by 30%, meaning that we're reducing runoff.  
Speaker 14    00:52:56    Once this is developed, it will be a reducing runoff by 30%. So we weigh, we, we have a lot of credits here, so there is no need to have a dry well, and we are asking the board member to, with that requirement. I don't believe it's a variance. I don't believe it's a design exception. It's just a requirement of the engineering department, which is, you know, it's a good requirement. I, I will ask for the same thing, but if I have a total vacant lot not reduce in the I previous five 30%, the lot 17.4 17.04 will have obviously solar water, you know, driveway from driveway. This guy here, the existing one will have Anon driveway. So that will be all improved. And all of within a right of way will be removed. Curb cut will be redefined, remove all the curb, cuts that out there and necessary like this one here and everything will be defined, which will look pretty much the same as any existing residents out there. Oh, by the way, this is the existing home out there, as you see is a beautiful existing home. There, it's not a home. It used to be like the circle house. So that's being renovated now. And there is a CEO's being given and from the, from the construction department. So that's totally being renovated. It's not, you're not gonna see that out there anymore. And I believe I covered pretty much everything.  
Speaker 8     00:54:47    Mr. Just, just for the record, that last picture that you showed, if we can just mark that as a four and that's, we'll call that the prior condition of, of circle Playhouse of the site.  
Speaker 14    00:55:00    Correct. Okay. So, so with that said, I did talk about the she trees. I talked about the curb cuts. I talked about removing all the steps within the right of way the sidewalk. I talked about the huge credit that we are getting, you know, within the neighborhood, as far as reduction of runoff by 30%. And I did talk about the two existing or the three existing variances, the front yard, the backyard, and no garage. And that's pretty much it. And we are asking for the dry well to be, not to be installed and given the fact that we have a huge credit here and improving the situation out there by one 30. So that's my testimony.  
Speaker 8     00:55:57    So Mr. Ali, so just to, to sort of synthesize some of your testimony, would it be fair to say that in your opinion, because of the significant reduction in impervious coverage, a amongst the two sites, you don't believe that a dry well would be necessary on the, on the new lot 17.02?  
Speaker 2     00:56:22    Absolutely.  
Speaker 8     00:56:23    Okay. Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:56:26    Do you mean 17? Oh four,  
Speaker 8     00:56:28    Sorry. 1704.  
Speaker 2     00:56:30    Yes. Okay.  
Speaker 8     00:56:37    I have no further questions of Mr. Ali at this time.  
Speaker 2     00:56:40    Mr. Arch, can I just ask a couple of questions cuz I just want to just hammer down to what we actually, what you're actually seeking in terms of variance relief. Certainly you have a proposed front yard setback, variants that you need because while you've removed the steps out of the right of way, there are only 2.5 feet setback and you need a 25 foot setback, correct?  
Speaker 8     00:57:09    Correct. With the existing construction of the building. And I do want to, I, I will, after if there's any other, if there's any questions to Mr. Ali, I do want to go through the staff report and I will address specifically the, the conditions that, that we are requesting relief on. And I do have a, I do have a, a further exhibit that shows what the, the property looks like at this moment, which might also help in terms of, in terms of visualizing what it is that the, the Township professionals are asking and what it is that we are, are hoping to come to a compromise on.  
Speaker 2     00:57:46    Okay, that's fine. Then I'll let you go. And, and I'll, I'll say my questions for the end. I'm sorry.  
Speaker 8     00:57:51    That's okay. Mr. Barlow. Thank you.  
Speaker 11    00:57:54    I'm sorry, Tim. This is Dawn. Just, I do wanna just have one thing clarified with regard to the variances. In my report, I noted that a variance was required for the size of the garage. It doesn't quite meet the, you need 12 feet in width by 20 feet and length. Will you be revising the architecturals so that it complies in eliminating the need for that variance?  
Speaker 8     00:58:21    I believe if I'm, if I'm incorrect, but I believe that we did submit updated or revised architecturals shortly after that report came out, we absolutely are. The, the new home is gonna be perfectly conforming. We are making that garage depth conforming and I, I do believe there were updated architecturals if they're not I'll we'll certainly get that to you as a part of  
Speaker 13    00:58:44    Mr. Archon, Ron reson, I can confirm that you did submit the, the revise. That's why I didn't note it. I did. That's why one of my comments is that the, the architectural plan should just show a revision date because we got a new revision while we are working on this to address that specific item.  
Speaker 8     00:59:01    Apologies. But just for clarifications, yes, we are. The, the garage for the new residential home will be conforming.  
Speaker 11    00:59:09    Thank you, Tim.  
Speaker 2     00:59:10    So lot 17.04 doesn't require any variances. It is seeking a waiver from the drywell is essentially all we're doing with all you're requesting for the new lot, correct?  
Speaker 8     00:59:22    Correct. For the purpose, yes. For the new lot, correct.  
Speaker 2     00:59:25    In 1703, you have a front yard setback and a rear yard setback that are existing  
Speaker 8     00:59:33    As well. Correct. As well as a interpreted requirement that we need a detached garage on that property as well.  
Speaker 2     00:59:43    Okay. And you're gonna address that  
Speaker 8     00:59:45    Portion. We're gonna address, I will address that as well. We're be asking for relief from that too. The board would allow  
Speaker 13    00:59:50    And Mr. Barlow, I think, I mean, just, I confirm Mr. Arch, the encroachment within the municipal open space is, is being taken care of, right? So that one's being  
Speaker 8     01:00:01    Eliminated. Yes. As just as part of providing the, the sidewalks and the curbs. Obviously those sidewalks and curbs have to be uninhibited and have to meet ADA standards. And so anything that is encroaching on that will have to be removed,  
Speaker 13    01:00:15    Just making my punch list here. Thank  
Speaker 8     01:00:17    You. I appreciate it. Thank you.  
Speaker 11    01:00:19    And Tim Dawn Corcoran. I have another one for you with regard to that drywall. I have to be honest. I'm not really comfortable. I don't even think I'm in a position to say that that is something that can be waived at this time. It is a requirement, as you said of the engineering department. And I think it's something that, you know, in the event, this application was approved. It's something that your engineer would certainly have to work out with the Township engineer. I just wanna make that, you know, noted again, it's just not something that I'm comfortable waving simply just cannot. So  
Speaker 8     01:00:53    I think we would be certainly comfortable with obviously Mr. Ali, working with the Township to determine if that is necessary to, to, to address storm water. And, and ultimately we defer to the township's determination.  
Speaker 11    01:01:13    Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 2     01:01:14    Yeah. If, if Ms. Corcoran was amenable to that, I think at, at best it could be as a condition that the applicant will work with the Township engineering staff on the issue of the drywell. And if they feel it's necessary after Mr. Ali, you know, explains why he doesn't, that'll be put in, and if the engineering department signs off on it, they sign off on it.  
Speaker 8     01:01:40    I think that's perfectly reasonable and fair. Are there any other, I guess I would ask, so  
Speaker 1     01:01:50    Now we'll proceed with questions for the board. Any other questions of this witness  
Speaker 15    01:01:55    From the board? Madam chair, Madam chairs, Councilwoman. So Mr. Arch, you did say that you were gonna go through the list. It feels like we went through most of it, but if you could just explain, because I heard one point about the garage and then another, just explain to me what the, what the agreeing to with the, with the garage on lot 17.03, if you might,  
Speaker 8     01:02:24    Correct? Yes. And, and perhaps it's easier if I just go into, into the explanations for the requests and then we can just universally, if there's any questions we can, we can ask of it. So as, as per CME letter, and as Mr Hinterstein letter, there is a requirement that newly constructed residential homes after, let me just get to the part exactly in that sites, it, after July 27th, 1978 are required to provide an enclosed garage. And it it's specifically for residential construction dates that fall after that date, the interpretation by the board professionals, which I disagree with, I think is, is a, I think it, you can interpret it that way, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to indicate that the circle Playhouse is constructed after 1978. It obviously predates that the interpretation is that now that it is being used or proposed to be used as a residential structure, which is what the zone wants and which is what the zone is zoned for, that, that now triggers that it is to be treated as if it is brand new construction.  
Speaker 8     01:03:46    And I, I think that with all due respect to the Township professionals, I think that it is, it is a bit of a stretch of that interpretation to believe that the, that the circle Playhouse, which is that structure, which predates 1978 significantly is now interpreted as being a brand new construction. The municipal land use law is very clear that existing structures can be rebuilt in its in their same square footage can be fixed up, can be remodeled as long as you're staying within that, within that existing footprint of the, of the structure. So the requirement to add a, a detached garage, we are respectfully asking that you, that you provide, or that you wave that requirement. Quite frankly, if a family purchases the, this lot and wishes to put a garage in at some time in the, in the future, they certainly can. But as Mr Ali testified to, there is more than adequate parking on that, on that site currently, quite frankly, if we kept more of the, the asphalt, you could probably get 20 cars. It used to be a parking lot. So it's not a question of, of, is there adequate parking on site? There's obviously adequate parking and I, I just think that that interpretation is maybe a bit too far with all due respect. So that's the, that's the clarification that I wanted to make on the requirement to the requirement to treat this as a new residential construction, when it's an existing structure that's been there well before 1978.  
Speaker 2     01:05:31    Okay. Mr. Arch is, we're gonna talk about what the statute I guess means or says, can we all agree that prior to Jan, I'm sorry, July 27th, 1978, the circle Playhouse was not used in a residential manner was not a residential structure, correct.  
Speaker 8     01:05:49    It was not used, it was not used as a residential use, correct.  
Speaker 2     01:05:54    The first time it's being used as a residential structure is basically 20, 22 when it's being converted. Right.  
Speaker 8     01:06:02    I agree with that. Okay. And, and if the, and, and with all due respect, if it's said use, as opposed to construction, I would absolutely 100% agree with that interpretation, but the ordinance does not state residential use after a certain time. It says new construction after 1978. So that again, that's just my, my pitch to the board. And again, I, I completely respect the interpretation of the, of the professionals, but I think it equally valid, if not certainly one to take into consideration interpretation is that this, this structure, this construction was built well prior to 1978.  
Speaker 2     01:06:45    Okay. You let me finish. So now I'm gonna keep going.  
Speaker 8     01:06:50    You interrupt me all the time, Tom, I can interrupt you occasion. That's  
Speaker 2     01:06:53    Right. Still in our thunder over here, it's, we'll call it a push, but, but the description of residential is a, is a description of use right  
Speaker 8     01:07:04    In the municipal and use law. Residential, yes. Is a use is a, is a zoning use.  
Speaker 2     01:07:08    And I assume there is from the look of that picture in a, in a four converting that structure into a, a home that people are gonna reside in. I assume there is a lot of construction that's going on inside of that to convert it. I've never been inside it, but it looked like it probably needed a lot of work.  
Speaker 8     01:07:33    A very loose definition. Yes. There was construction. Absolutely. But again, the municipal land use law classifies that not as new construction, but classifies that as, as a, as an  
Speaker 2     01:07:47    Existing structure,  
Speaker 8     01:07:49    As yes. Correct.  
Speaker 2     01:07:50    Which is undergoing a new use, a new permitted use.  
Speaker 8     01:07:54    Correct. And it coming into more conformity to the, to the zone that it's actually in, it's actually, it's doing what the municipal land use law is intended to do, which is bring things into conformity, which is precisely what we're doing to a great degree. I think on both of these lots, I mean, to a, to a massive degree.  
Speaker 2     01:08:15    Okay. I, I think the board is probably aware of the arguments on both sides of it based on our discussion and Mr. Rein's report. So we'll leave it at that,  
Speaker 15    01:08:28    Matt. So Madam chair, if I may, this is Councilman kale, because I, I do wanna get in the meat of this and, and try to understand what the pushback is. Well, well first let me back up is that I think we might all agree with what the spirit of, of that ordinance is. I mean, it's the spirit of the ordinance, right? If, if we're gonna get into the weeds of, of, of specific word use and I, and I get, you know, how, why we do that, and as an attorney, you would do it. But the spirit of that ordinance is not into play. If we grant that variance, right? This is now going to be a residential use, even folks in our town who have homes built prior to 1976, whose garages were converted into bedrooms are being, you know, required to convert that into a garage based upon the ordinance. So to come into conformity. So I, I look if sorry about that. I, I look at this lot.  
Speaker 2     01:10:00    Think we had on the  
Speaker 15    01:10:01    Mute. No, no. I'm looking at this lot. And I'm looking at the fact that, that this is obviously somebody who's investing in the town, bringing the, the, the homes, bringing the land into conformity, which we do appreciate. And, and, and, you know, are, are certainly, you know, happy to see this, but I'm also seeing here something that just from the layman, somebody who has the, where, you know, they have the wherewithal to convert that property, to subdivide, build another property, sell, make their money. What is the pushback on the garage?  
Speaker 11    01:10:48    And if I may, this is Dawn and I have to, I'm in complete agree. I completely agree with Ms. Kale. I mean, you have a lot here that you can build the detached garage. You can easily meet all of the setback requirements. You can bring the property. I mean, you're already bringing it into conformance by creating the single family, providing the garage would again, meet the ordinance requirement. I agree. I don't really see what the hardship is here. I don't really see why it can't be constructed  
Speaker 8     01:11:22    If it, if it, I don't wanna belabor the point. If it, if the board decides that they believe a garage is required, then we will, then we will comply with that. It is, again, my point is, is I'm an attorney. I'm, it's my job to sort of dig into this a little bit. And, and I, I didn't think that the interpretation was one that, that fit, but ultimately if the board thinks that that, that the interpretation fits and that, and that they would prefer to see a garage there, we will comply with that. So I don't, I don't think we have to belabor it too much. I'm just because there's one other thing that I wanna talk about in, in terms of one last staff report comment. So I think we can, I, I, I think we've probably discussed enough about the garage and I'll just leave it to the board to, to vote. What they feel is, is appropriate on that. If they were to approve it, if that were to be a condition.  
Speaker 13    01:12:23    Yeah. And, and just one thing, and I'm not gonna belabor it. I wasn't around the 1978 witness. This vesting language was written, but I can look where it's buried. It's discussing one in two family homes. And you say what the purpose of that vesting language was to me, it's clear. It was to protect the existing homeowners at the time for not building garages. We have acknowledged the circle Playhouse was not a home at that time, which was pretty much the basis of where I was coming from. What was the spirit of why that language was put in the ordinance back in 1978? And again, I don't have the legislative intent. I'm making an interpretation and Ms. And that's why I put it there. This was my interpretation needed to be vetted.  
Speaker 11    01:13:10    The staff agrees with you, Ron.  
Speaker 8     01:13:14    Yeah, it's in both. It's very, you definitely agree  
Speaker 13    01:13:17    With you and now I feel good.  
Speaker 11    01:13:19    Tim. One question for you does this structure, does this have a basement  
Speaker 8     01:13:25    I will have to defer to, to Mr. Ali or to Mr. ADI, if it's a, if it has a basement, I don't know that off the top of my head,  
Speaker 14    01:13:36    Not to the best of my knowledge. There is no basement there.  
Speaker 11    01:13:41    Okay. I was just curious.  
Speaker 13    01:13:45    I have a totally separate question from Ms. Do is a discrepancy. You say six bedrooms on this plan and the architectural plans has five. What is it? I just wanna clarify that  
Speaker 14    01:13:55    Five  
Speaker 13    01:13:56    It's five. Yes. Okay. So we'll correct this plan and won't say six anymore. It'll be five.  
Speaker 8     01:14:01    Well, no, this, so which, which home are we talking about? Just to be,  
Speaker 13    01:14:05    We're talking about 1704 on the architectural plants. It says it it's a five bedroom and, and, and, and these, and this subdivision plan says six.  
Speaker 14    01:14:15    That is correct. Six bedrooms.  
Speaker 13    01:14:17    Okay. So then it doesn't match your architectural plans.  
Speaker 14    01:14:22    I think the architectural plan is calling for six bedrooms is just a type of, as far as the numbers.  
Speaker 13    01:14:30    Okay. I mean, I counted five, but again, it doesn't affect R SSIS, but I would just have to acknowledge, also understand because it's, you know, it's three and a half and R SSIS rounds down. There's also no parking allowed on the north, on the west side of Victoria. So it's kind of important to understand and how that, that, how that six bedroom's gonna work.  
Speaker 8     01:14:54    So we can certainly make a we'll certainly clarify that  
Speaker 13    01:14:57    Obviously. Yeah. I just want it reconciled because I, I was reading, I was looking at architectural plans. It was five bedrooms,  
Speaker 8     01:15:02    So right. And, and by the way, one of the, one of the staff comments was this is a single family home. We absolutely, this is intended to be a single family home. And, and we will, we agree to that. Absolutely.  
Speaker 13    01:15:15    Okay. Yeah, just it's a reconciliation between what I mean to me, the subdivision plat is the Bible. Maybe the architectural plans are off, but I mean, they really, you know, you're presenting two different proposals on that.  
Speaker 15    01:15:30    And, and Mr. Arch, if I may, you, you're talking about the one as the single family, but, but in fact, both our single family, correct?  
Speaker 8     01:15:38    Both, both, these are only zoned as single family. We would have to Cahn if we, if, if they, if they were ever to be converted into anything other than a single family, they would have to be in front of the board. We are agreeing that these are single family homes that will be sold as such. And we read any to restrictions to that effect.  
Speaker 11    01:15:58    Mr. Arch Dawn is it's intent to make facade improvements to the converted dwelling.  
Speaker 8     01:16:11    I have a picture of what it looks like now, and, and I wanted to use that to address the, the, the final comment that I have. So if, if you wish I could, I could share my screen now and we can see what the, what the existing structure looks like. Now, if that would be your preferences, Mr. Ali, can you stop your screen sharing so I can share, so can everybody see my screen?  
Speaker 11    01:16:50    Yes.  
Speaker 8     01:16:51    Okay. So this is a picture we'll mark this as a five. This was a picture that was taken earlier today of what is existing on the site now, which as you can see is a significant, I think, improvement in change as to the building that was there. The reason that I to bring this up is to address the, the final one comment in Mr. Stein's report is the, is his remarks to eliminate. And if you can see where my cursor is, this front portion of the building, this, this bumped out front portion of this building to eliminate that these renovations were done legally with permits from the town, the, the building permits were, were granted by the town for the work that was done there, which included the front area here. This bumped out area here, and the existing steps. I believe that, and that was all, all this construction was done while the, the application I think was pending.  
Speaker 8     01:17:56    What, what I believe the staff report is indicating is this, which was just recently in the last couple months, approved, permitted and built, would now be removed and destroyed and pushed back to the existing portion to this wall here, what we are asking for and what we've already agreed to is these, these steps here in the, that are currently in the right of way to be removed so that the curbing and the sidewalk can be put in and can be compliant to ADA standards. But we're asking to keep what has already been renovated, permitted and renovated so that we don't have to destroy what we just built and what town told us we could build, cuz that is a, that that is a, a cost that we don't want have to, to incur to build something to this. Then take it down month later.  
Speaker 11    01:19:02    Tim, can I just can, I'm sorry. I don't mean to, to interrupt, but you you're saying bill. I know when this permit came in, it was for interior re re excuse me, interior renovations. However, when I look, when you look at the elevations in our packet, and when you pulled up a four, that portion of this dwelling was always there. Obviously they, they repainted or maybe put stuck on. I can't really tell, but it, it, it was there, correct? It's not that this is something that was newly constructed.  
Speaker 8     01:19:37    No, in fact it specifically was not newly constructed if we wanna get back to that, but which I'm sure we don't, no, it was an existing area in the structure, but you can see that work has been put into it to rehabilitate it, to put new facade, to, I mean, significant amount of work that was done to it, to then be asked to take all that out, remove all that, all that work that was done to it. So, no, it was not built from scratch, nothing on this, on this building was built from scratch. But again, it, what we're asking is, is for a, a compromise, since we are, and we're willing to readjust the, the steps in order to get them out of the right of way in order to, you know, account for curb and sidewalk, which the property, you know, has never had and, and allow those to be in there, we're asking that we can allow the existing structure. That's, that's been there to stay in the orientation it's at, especially since we've we've, you know, the client has put work has put money and put effort into rehabilitating this to tear that down, I think is a, I mean, I think that's a big ask respectfully.  
Speaker 8     01:21:02    So those are, those are the comments that, that we would ask that the board reconsider would be the, the detached garage on the existing site, the removal of the front section of the, of the home and to consider. And again, I think this has already been, this has already been addressed, but the dry, well, we will address that with engineering. So really it's just those two that we would ask the board to please reconsider based on, based on everything that we've shown. And I will stop sharing my screen at this point.  
Speaker 2     01:21:42    So, so Tim, just to then circle back, we have two bulk variances for the existing 2.5 foot for the front yard. You have the 18.5 foot rear yard setback. So those are the two bulk variances, right? And then you're, you're seeking essentially to, to not build the garage, but if the board finds that you need to build the garage, based on the interpretation of statute, you could either do a conforming detached garage, or I guess you could probably do a conforming attached garage, you know, as long as you didn't need variances from either one. I, I don't think it's the garage. That's the important part, the dry, well, I think we've agreed would be left to engineering. Correct. And then essentially relief from number one of Mr. Stein's report, but complying with the rest of the reports.  
Speaker 8     01:22:42    Correct.  
Speaker 2     01:22:44    I just wanted to kind of boil it down to what  
Speaker 8     01:22:50    I appreciate that, cuz that, that really is the, I think that is a concise summation. Thank you. And just, just to, I don't think we opened anything up to the public yet, so I, I just wanna also be clear that, that we still have to go about that or we'll still take more questions obviously.  
Speaker 1     01:23:15    Well, are there any more board questions, I guess that's where we go from here. If the board is finished its discussion, I think it's now time for us to open it up to the Ms. Buckley,  
Speaker 3     01:23:29    Anyone from the public have any comments or questions there's the constant reasons  
Speaker 2     01:23:35    Are hand raising her hand.  
Speaker 3     01:23:37    I dunno whether she went, you have to unmute there. You,  
Speaker 16    01:23:41    My question is, is this also about the actual subdivision itself or just the various  
Speaker 2     01:23:48    For, can I just stop you for one second? Ma'am can, can you just state your name, spell your last name and give us your address please.  
Speaker 16    01:23:58    My name is Tara Thompson, last name Thompson, T H O M P S O N. And I live at 4 0 7 Victoria avenue almost directly across the street from this site.  
Speaker 2     01:24:10    Okay. And since you're gonna be talking before the board, can I just swear you in real quick?  
Speaker 16    01:24:17    Absolutely.  
Speaker 2     01:24:18    Ms. Thompson, you swear the testimony you give before the board will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing the truth. Okay. What's your question.  
Speaker 16    01:24:26    Ma'am my question is, is this, does this meeting also include the actual request for a subdivision or is this just for the, the variances themselves?  
Speaker 2     01:24:37    No, it includes the request. If I can answer that, it includes the request for the subdivision, which is conforming. Both lots will be big enough that they meet the requirements in that zone, man.  
Speaker 16    01:24:51    Okay. Cuz we were just concerned about the impact it would have on our, the, the neighbors at four 10 and of course traffic and other things. That's our concern, especially with such large capacity homes as we're seeing, what impact is that gonna have on our neighborhood and our neighbors?  
Speaker 2     01:25:21    Certainly a fair question, Ms. Thompson, but because what they're proposing is a permitted use things like traffic don't come into play because it's presumed that the use is not going to impact that to a, to a degree that, that, that would be a basis to not grant the subdivision. That's just a, that's kind of a legal minutia that, you know, understand what you're, why you're thinking that way, but is a permitted use. If we were in front of the zoning board, then traffic would come into play and Mr. Archer, Mr. Archer would probably have a traffic expert and things that, but it is a permitted use.  
Speaker 15    01:26:06    Miss Ms. Thompson, if I could, Mr. Barlow, just while they're still on the line, this is Councilwoman Cahill. It kinda looked to me on the, the proposed new home that six bedrooms. I don't know if we could go back to the plans, the, the driveway itself looked like it would only be a two car. I mean, yeah. The driveway would only be a two car driveway would only fit two. Is, did I see that somewhere on the plans?  
Speaker 2     01:26:37    That that's correct. And that was the testimony. I believe both Mr. Ali and the board's planner indicated that the residential site improvement standards call for that pro that house to have provide three parking spaces, which it does.  
Speaker 15    01:26:56    Okay. So that's right. That's for the new home. I guess the, the existing building because of the size of the paved area would probably potentially fit more. But the new home, albeit six bedrooms still really would only fit three cars. One in the garage, two in the driveway. Is that correct?  
Speaker 8     01:27:23    That is accurate. Yes.  
Speaker 15    01:27:25    And, and, and to, to our board, to Mr. Arch, there's no permitted parking on that street, correct?  
Speaker 8     01:27:35    That's correct. So anybody that was in that, that lived in that home would not be able to have overflow parking into the street that they'd have to limit themselves to those three spaces.  
Speaker 15    01:27:45    Right. Right. So albeit you know, it, I, I do believe the neighbor here has a valid point. You know, this now at least the existing structure, again, albeit that it would probably fit more than the three cars at one point, obviously had many more cars coming and going from it. So having this area rezoned to be residential should be not a difficult stretch with, even with two new dwellings coming there. I'm not, I mean, I don't live there. I don't know. I live on a very busy street myself in Piscataway, but just to give our resident a little more comfort, at least with this also this second home with six bedrooms that they really should only be able to have three cars, which is about average now I think, well, it's probably even more than that for some homes. I don't know if that helps you to feel any better about that, but it would make me feel better if I knew they could only three cars.  
Speaker 16    01:28:56    Well, when it was just the Playhouse once, maybe twice a year, they have plays. So the rest of the rest of the year, there was nobody there. That's, that's why that's, that's why I'm concerned because it's, it's been very quiet. You know, there was one, maybe two plays a year and it was over maybe just a couple of weeks and then you would rarely ever see anybody there.  
Speaker 15    01:29:29    Yeah. I certain, I certainly understand that, but this is now all residential. So, you know,  
Speaker 16    01:29:35    That's,  
Speaker 15    01:29:37    It seems like to me, like the applicant, you know, I'm not a, a professional I'm, I'm just here on the planning board and you know, but I look at it from almost the same lens as you're looking at it, right. I'm not a planner, I'm not an attorney. I live here in town and, and I serve the town. So I just look at it and I think it probably looks a little bit more glaring than what it may end up being. It may end up being looking nice for you to actually look at across the street. You know, we could only, we could only hope.  
Speaker 16    01:30:18    Okay. Thank you very much.  
Speaker 1     01:30:21    Are there any other members of the public who have questions and can you  
Speaker 8     01:30:26    Unshare your screen, Tim? Oh yes. Oh, I actually that's Mr. Ali. Oh, I'm sorry.  
Speaker 1     01:30:34    Are there any other members of the public who have questions?  
Speaker 15    01:30:38    I don't see anyone. Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     01:30:41    All right. I guess we can close the public portion of the, of the meeting. We've had a lot of discussions. Where does the board wish to go at this point?  
Speaker 15    01:30:52    Madam chair, if I may, this is Councilwoman kale. I mean, from my perspective, I, I, I could not in good conscience and especially knowing what other residents have had to go through in order to be conforming with the garage. My vote would be that the application be approved though, based upon that the resident would, or that the, the owner of this land in whose building, I would agree to build the detached garage on lot 1703. And, and I think Mr. Barlow has already covered the drywell dry well, and I don't really have an issue with, you know, them not taking away the bump out that had already been fixed. I'm not sure how others feel on the board, how the professionals feel, but I I'm just letting you know how my vote would go. I, I would not absolutely vote. Yes. If a variance for the garage was granted  
Speaker 16    01:31:57    And Matt and chair, Dawn Corcoran,  
Speaker 11    01:31:59    I concur with the comments of miss Cahill. I guess one additional comment I would make with regard to the detached garage that would just be like similar color and material of the renovated structure. And again, looking at the plan a little bit further, I, I don't think they have the ability to, you know, maybe turn the staircase or, you know, try to alleviate that, that, that setback without entirely ripping it down. I mean, they, they did do a very nice job of the facade improvement on the structure. So I agree that they should have to build the detached garage, but I would be okay with not requiring them to rip off that front entrance area.  
Speaker 1     01:32:53    So are you second seconding the motion or are you making an amendment?  
Speaker 11    01:33:01    I just had the additional comment. I'm sorry about the broad.  
Speaker 15    01:33:03    Right. And, and, and to be clear, Madam chair, I, I didn't make the motion just yet. I really, I wanna get a, a temperature check from, from the professionals on this, but I I'm, I'm willing to, but based upon the recommendation,  
Speaker 1     01:33:20    Was there any more commentary from any, any of the members of the board? I guess I, my comment would be consistent with Ms. Cochran's commentary. I had looked at the possibility of the, the bump out with reference to the front steps. Perhaps they could be made sideways, but maybe that's not such a big deal because the they're gonna take that, that platform look from in front, they're gonna remove that correct. And with that, which is in the white right of way, and the sidewalk is gonna be there. So that, that platform part is going to be removed.  
Speaker 8     01:34:05    Correct. That is correct. Anything that's in the right of way will be removed. And I believe that that was originally, that landing was in the right of way.  
Speaker 1     01:34:13    Okay. So I, I guess I agree, Mike, that's all my, that's the only comment that I have. I'm agree with the other, with the rest of the proposal. Any other comments, if not, we can, I'll take a motion.  
Speaker 15    01:34:32    Okay. Madam chair, I, I am willing to make the motion that the application be approved. First of all, there's, there's a couple of things that I didn't mention that I think Mr. Barlow, we wanna make sure it's the right language in terms of the plans, not quite matching what we were seeing on screen to be addressed, as well as the detached garage on 1703, the, you know, the, the cement steps, what landing, whatever you wanna call that be removed. That's in the right of way. If the engineer's on 1704 for the drywell Mr. Barlow and Ms. Corcoran, if you want to just jump in here with any other items, we need to add on there, into the language, in order for this applicant to receive their approval, please jump in now.  
Speaker 2     01:35:41    So council, just to reiterate what you just indicated. So your, your motion is to grant the minor subdivision with the two bulk variances for the rear and front yard set at back, requiring the applicant to do the detached garage, a conforming detached garage, and to remove what is currently in the right of way along with everything else that the applicant agreed to on the record with the caveat, that item number one of Mr. Stein's report, dealing with removing the front of the existing structure, be taken out in terms of compliance with the remainder of his report. Does that sound about right?  
Speaker 15    01:36:29    That sounds about right. Okay. And that, that, that all of the plans are matching, right? That  
Speaker 2     01:36:36    Absolutely. We agreed to submit the appropriate, any amendments to the plans to reflect what was agreed to on the record.  
Speaker 15    01:36:46    Right. And so, so, so with all of that, that is to say that I would offer a motion. I'm not sure if the rest of my board members would agree, but it is my feeling that we could grant that, that, that variance on that piece that's bulked out without it being, you know, a terrible thing to grant there since it was existing and they did the work.  
Speaker 2     01:37:12    So that's the motion that would be appropriate for a second at this juncture  
Speaker 3     01:37:20    One clerk. And I'll second that motion.  
Speaker 1     01:37:23    Thank you. Bo quo, please.  
Speaker 3     01:37:26    Mayor Wahler yes. Councilwoman Cahill.  
Speaker 15    01:37:30    Yes.  
Speaker 3     01:37:31    Mr. Dacey. Yes. Ms. Saunders. Yes. Reverend Kinneally yes. Mr. Espinosa.  
Speaker 1     01:37:43    Yes.  
Speaker 17    01:37:43    Excuse me. Yes.  
Speaker 3     01:37:45    Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     01:37:47    Yes. Well, thank you.  
Speaker 8     01:37:52    Thank you so much members of the board. Madam chairwoman. I know this was not as smooth as the last one, but thank you. Thank you so much  
Speaker 1     01:38:04    That reminder to the board that the site plan meeting will be on June 22nd. And our next planning board, regular meeting will be on July 13th. In the meantime, every Wednesday, stay safe, motion to adjourn. Great. 4th of July, have a great 4th of July. Stay safe.  
Speaker 0     01:38:34    Everyone be well, have a good evening. Goodnight, everyone night, all goodnight.