Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on December 7 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     00:00:10    Posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building available to the Township clerk notice sent to the Courier News and the starlet. We will now have the open public meeting noticed by Mr. By Tom.  
Speaker 1     00:00:28    Thank you Madam chair. This meeting's being held in conformance with the Department of Community Fair guidelines on virtual meetings. The appropriate notices have been issued and it's appropriate to go forward in a virtual setting. Madam chair.  
Speaker 0     00:00:43    Thank you. Roll call  
Speaker 2     00:00:47    Please. Mayor. Wahler Pres Present. Councilwoman Cahill. Here. Ms. Corcoran? Here. Reverend Kinneally. Is he on?  
Speaker 1     00:01:06    He's there. I see the top of his head. He's  
Speaker 2     00:01:08    Kinneally. Gotta take yourself off mute. Hi, Reverend Kinneally. He's here. Mr. Espinoza? Yes. Mr. Dacey. No, it's not at all. And chairperson Smith  
Speaker 0     00:01:23    Here.  
Speaker 2     00:01:24    I No, we can hear. I can hear you. Courtney. It's the computer volume now.  
Speaker 0     00:01:32    Pledge allegiance  
Speaker 2     00:01:36    To the flag. Flag.  
Speaker 4     00:01:38    The United States of America to the public for which it stands under God, indivisible, Liberty and justice.  
Speaker 0     00:01:48    Indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Do we have professors to be sworn in this evening?  
Speaker 1     00:02:00    We do. I believe Mr. Clarken. And Mr. Reiners then is Ms. Saunders?  
Speaker 2     00:02:07    No, she'll not be attending.  
Speaker 1     00:02:08    Oh, okay then I'll do it. Gentlemen, if you can raise your right hand if you swear the testimony you'll give before the will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth help you.  
Speaker 2     00:02:17    I do.  
Speaker 1     00:02:18    I like Your Honor.  
Speaker 3     00:02:19    Thank you. Festive.  
Speaker 2     00:02:30    Okay. Number seven.  
Speaker 0     00:02:35    Okay. Was that, was that completed?  
Speaker 1     00:02:40    Yes. Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:02:43    Yeah. There's something wrong with your iPad.  
Speaker 0     00:02:44    Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 2     00:02:47    Yeah, we're on number seven. Do what is it?  
Speaker 1     00:02:49    What about number six? Six. Six.  
Speaker 2     00:02:52    Oh, I skipped six somewhere.  
Speaker 0     00:02:55    Can we have him on  
Speaker 3     00:02:59    Madam chair? I'll make the motion.  
Speaker 2     00:03:02    Beckon. Councilwoman. Cahill.  
Speaker 0     00:03:06    Do I have a second?  
Speaker 2     00:03:09    Mayor Wahler.  
Speaker 5     00:03:12    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:03:13    Councilwoman. Cahill. Yes. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Espinosa? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. And chair person Smith?  
Speaker 0     00:03:27    Yes. Item seven. Are there any changes to the our Agenda? Agenda? Mr. Barlow?  
Speaker 1     00:03:38    Ma'am. Chair? To the best of my knowledge, there are no changes to the agenda.  
Speaker 0     00:03:45    Okay. Thank you. Item number eight, adoption of resolution to memorialize action taken on November the ninth, 2022. Do I have a motion?  
Speaker 6     00:03:58    Reverend Kinneally? I make a motion.  
Speaker 2     00:04:02    I'll second that. Councilwoman Cale.  
Speaker 0     00:04:05    Thank you Rose. Call  
Speaker 2     00:04:07    Please. And this will be for the resolution. 22 PB 1617 V Tanglewood Terrace. Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Espinosa?  
Speaker 3     00:04:21    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:04:22    Mr. Atkins? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 0     00:04:32    Yes. Item number nine, adoption of the minutes from the regular meeting of November the ninth, 2022. Do I have a  
Speaker 6     00:04:44    Motion? Reverend Kinneally, I make motion to adoption of amendments for November the ninth, 2022.  
Speaker 3     00:04:53    Alex Atkins. Second.  
Speaker 0     00:04:55    Thank you. Call please.  
Speaker 2     00:04:59    Mayor. Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman. Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Espinosa?  
Speaker 3     00:05:07    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:05:08    Mr. Atkins? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 0     00:05:15    Yes. Item 10. Discussion area in need of redevelop block 30 lot 1.02, also known as 37 on that way. Township map.  
Speaker 5     00:05:40    Right. Good evening. Members of the board. Can you hear me?  
Speaker 2     00:05:43    Yes. Mr. Clarken.  
Speaker 5     00:05:44    Great, thank you. It's good to see you. All right. Before the holidays as noted, I'll be presenting the area in need of redevelopment study for block 3 7 0 2 lot 1.02, better known as 10 Norman D Drive. So I'm gonna start off by showing you this aerial to kind of get your bearings where this site is. So this is a 35 acre single piece of property in like the northwestern corner of Piscataway Township. So we're near the borders of Bound Brook in Middlesex in this area. So just off the area, the map here to your west would be river road.  
Speaker 5     00:06:23    So you actually have two frontages on this property. So along the northern edge here, hopefully you can see my cursor would be Norman New Drive and then I'll call it the Eastern boundary runs along Hancock Road. So those are the main boundaries of the property, the 35 acres. So as you can tell, it is mostly vacant. You can see there's lots of trees, lots of grass, but there are some leftover improvements, all which are dilapidated. There is a former building over here, which I'll describe and show some photographs in a moment. But you can also see some of the older parking lots and there are some railroad tracks that still exist that kind of, you can almost see their right of way kind of loop around and go south onto this for the property. But yeah, so oh yeah, I did forget to mention that this site is in your light industrial zone l i five.  
Speaker 5     00:07:27    But this site definitely has a long history. So back in about 19 65, 19 67, union Carbide Corporation built a phenol plant here, which operated for about 20 so years till approximately 1987. Right around that time, maybe a little bit before ownership actually changed hands from Union Carbide to Georgia Pacific. And Georgia Pacific I believe is the current owner. It may have switched hands a couple times, but when it closed, it was owned by Georgia Pacific in 1987 and it was officially discontinued as a phenol plant. The use was discontinued in 1989 and then shortly thereafter became officially vacants. So this property has basically sat vacant, unused for about three decades and has slowly fallen into disrepair and dilapidation. But in addition to that, because of the phenol plant operations, there is a lot of contamination that occurred during those, you know, between 19 16 7 and 1987 when it operated. So over those past three decades, there has been a massive effort to clean up the site. The everything from soil contamination to groundwater contamination and actually removing residual waste has occurred. But remediation efforts have been successful from what I've been told. And are our nearing completion such that there may be a possibility to redevelop this site?  
Speaker 5     00:09:02    So I'm going to actually jump up a couple pages. Let me move this cuz I want to discuss the environmental analysis. As most of you know, I usually conduct an environmental analysis, the property to see what sort of concerns we might have to be looking at. So when I did that analysis, I found records of wetlands, a stream, and then as I mentioned, a numerous contamination going on over the past 30 years. So I did produce a map for you all. This would be on page six of my report. You can see there are two sections of wetlands. There's a northern section over here in this corner and then a southern section in the southern section. You can see a blue line that indicates a stream. So I think that's where a majority of those wetlands are coming from. But there's also the northern portion of the wetlands.  
Speaker 5     00:09:57    But I think the key takeaway here is that although the wetlands will limit development of the entire site, there's still significant amount of developable land that can respect those wetlands and give them sufficient buffer as well. But I do want to touch a little bit more on the contamination. There's lots of records on P A D P'S website and I don't want to go through all of them cuz we'll be here all night to be honest. But there were probably over 10 areas of concern that they've been remediating and cleaning up for those past 20 to 30 years. And I think the key takeaway is that efforts for soil and groundwater contamination are nearly complete and all those areas, Cahn concern I mentioned are either remediated, sorry, excuse me, are either fully remediated or in process of being completely remediated. So this allows for the site to be redeveloped.  
Speaker 5     00:10:58    Moving on surrounding land uses are commercial, industrial and residential. So as you can see from the aerial, there are residential homes to the east, to the west are industrial properties including some warehouses and some all, some other possibly construction related uses. So as we move on through my report, this is just going over the LA five zoning classification to record that. I did take a look at your master plan as always. And it, the redevelopment of this site would be consistent with your master plan. It's definitely an older site, it's been contaminated and it's really has great potential for redevelopment now that that remediation is almost complete. So now that we've covered those topics, I do want to move on to the actual photos that I took on my site visit back in July of this year. So I'll zoom in a little bit so we can get closer look.  
Speaker 5     00:12:00    But yeah, starting on page 10 of my report, you can start seeing these photos. So this building right here is the only building left on the site. It's called the former control building. So it probably controlled the operations of the phenol plant when it was in operation, but you can definitely see the dilapidation and you know the wear and tear that it's taken over the last 30 years. There's vegetation growing on the side. So that is the only building on site. So I got a little closer to show you the condition. So you can definitely see the wear and tear. It's got the old fire escape on it, it's about two levels. You can also see some of the graffiti.  
Speaker 5     00:12:42    And then I did take some pictures of it inside. So there's nothing really going on inside except more graffiti and just old building materials, you know, lights, things of that nature. But it's basically completely vacant. Moving on, I went to other areas of the site cuz it was quite a large site so that you can actually see the abandoned railroad checks here going south. So to your left of this photograph, if you were standing here, you would see Hancock Road and actually the next photo you can sort of make out some of the houses in the distance, but you can see that there is a lot of tree cover between this site and those nearby uses. But really these photographs really just show the vacant nature of the site and how it's become overgrown and really underutilized over those 30 years. So this is another photograph looking south, showing just vegetation and overgrowth. And this was a former parking lot for the site and you can see even more trees in the backgrounds. So that's kind of the story for this one. There's a lot of trees in one standalone building, but so I think you get the idea of the current conditions on the site. So now I'm gonna go into how those conditions relate to the criteria of being designated in or need to be designated in need of redevelopment.  
Speaker 5     00:14:13    So I'm gonna start with the A criteria as a refresher. It's outlined on page 17. So it's really talking about how whether buildings are substandard or not safe, obsolete, dilapidated, or just having conditions overall that are un wholesome for either living in or working in. So I think it's pretty clear, as you all can see from the photographs, that that control building is definitely unsafe. Dilapidated doesn't have any use and I would say wholly unusable, whether it be for living or working. And in addition to that, I did actually go through the police records for this property and I found a couple of reports of teenagers using the control building as a hangout in those police records. The officer, the responding officer, noted that there was some beer bottles and obviously the graffiti that you saw. And he actually noted another instance where he actually found some teenagers, some baiting on the roof, which I found interesting.  
Speaker 5     00:15:11    But either way, I think the takeaway here is that you know, locals or teenagers, whoever it is that's ACC access accessing this building is unsafe. It is an older building, there could be asbestos, but even worse, you know, no one's maintained it. Something could fall and someone could get injured. So I think it's definitely become a public safety issue and could be a hazard for anyone that enters it. So for those reasons altogether it's unsafe unconducive to wholesome working and living conditions. So the A criteria definitely applies here. Moving on to B criteria. So as a refresher, this is about whether the use has been discontinued or there's abandonment of buildings and both of those items are checked. In this instance, as I mentioned, this past use was ceased in 1989. So that's a good solid 30 years, right? 30? Yeah I think so since it's been last use. So that shows the discontinuance of the use and then also the control building is clearly abandoned and hasn't been used for a long time. So the B criteria also applies here.  
Speaker 5     00:16:23    Last two criteria. So the D criteria focuses really on whether the site as a whole is obsolete or falsely arranged or in a faulty arrangement such that it's detrimental to the public good. So as I mentioned before, the form of control building is definitely an obsolete out of date and it serves no useful purpose or function to anyone or in either in the Township or on the site. So the combination of that building being obsolete also with the vacant, unused, underutilized land all around, it can be definitely used for a better purpose so that it can actually be a benefit to the Township. So right now there's no economic productivity and there's current conditions that are of a public safety's concern. So I would say that the obsolescence of the site is detrimental to the public good as it stands today. So I believe the D criteria can be applied.  
Speaker 5     00:17:24    And then finally with the age criteria which US planners call the smart growth criteria, this definitely applies because you can utilize the surrounding infrastructure to redevelop the site. So sanitary sewer and water is nearby because of other uses on the site, but also there's River Road which has good access to 2 87 and then also this is what we call a brownfield, right? This has really great potential to take an older use that had contamination and no benefit to the community and turn it around into something that has benefit and yeah, overall benefit to the Township. So with that I'll conclude that I find in my report from the conditions on site and my personal analysis of police records and all the other records related to this property, that criteria A, B, D and H apply to block 3 7 0 2 lot 1.02. And that I recommend that it be designated as in need of redevelopment, non condemnation of course, such that a redevelopment plan could be put into place to turn around the detrimental conditions on the site. So with that I can take any questions or so any photos or yeah, any other questions you may have.  
Speaker 0     00:18:52    Okay. Does the, does the board have any questions from  
Speaker 4     00:18:55    This Madam? Yes. Madam chair. It's Councilwoman Cahill, Mr. Clark. And on page six, as you mentioned, the comments are about the wetlands, the extensive soil and groundwater contamination. I, I mean I could be missing it. The report itself doesn't say that it's close to being remediated, do we? Ha what? What indication do you have that that in fact is accurate And do you have an any indication as to when the remediation plan will be done and when D E P will do its studies to confirm that the contamination has been cleared?  
Speaker 5     00:19:42    Right. So I could definitely answer all those. So the facts that I relied on are both on the P A D E P website. You can pull records of the license site remediation professionals of where the remediation status is and you can find that some of them, a lot of them were closed out and complete. So that's how I know that I did not include a lot of details on it just to not overburden my reports. So for example, one of the reports I came across was 2000 pages long, no joke. So it was just very lengthy and I just tried to distill it into what is important for the board. So I think that you could definitely reach out to the owner to get that documentation or P A D E P. They'd sure they'd be happy to show it, but further they would have to to before they go for site plan or you know, before they even try and put a shovel on the ground. So from what I read, of  
Speaker 4     00:20:41    Course I'm just looking to get an estimate if you say they're close to what in that is your estimation  
Speaker 2     00:20:47    Mean?  
Speaker 5     00:20:49    You know, I'll have to get back to you on an actual date, but from what I read, I'm trying to recall most. So when they do remediation they focus on area of concern and a lot of those areas C concern were closed out but there were a few remaining. So I'm not positive but I, I would imagine that is close. So sometimes with groundwater they have to have wells that are there for a long period of time and that might be the last part is making sure those wells are recording what they need to and are checked periodically. So I'll have to get back to you with a firm date. Councilwoman.  
Speaker 2     00:21:32    Thank you  
Speaker 0     00:21:34    All there. Any other questions of this witness?  
Speaker 6     00:21:37    Mr. Clarken? It's Reverend Kinneally in regards to all that soil has all that soil around the building and and where that control building is. I know that area site Glen there I know quite well because we used to do work in and out effort. Yeah, I DuPont When that phenol plant had the leak of the pipe, has that all been cleared? All that soil has been cleared.  
Speaker 5     00:22:01    Yeah, from what I read all the, all the contaminated soil was removed from the areas of concern.  
Speaker 6     00:22:07    Okay, thank you. That answers my question. Well then one other question. When they take this building down, they would have to check the soil contamination under that building also. Cause that's the control building  
Speaker 5     00:22:20    I would imagine. So I, yeah, I don't wanna speak cuz I'm not an L S R P, but possibly no,  
Speaker 6     00:22:27    I I I understand.  
Speaker 5     00:22:29    I think we  
Speaker 6     00:22:29    Had to do that in with e i DuPont plan.  
Speaker 5     00:22:32    Okay,  
Speaker 6     00:22:33    Gotcha. Before the school was the, the college and the school was put up. Okay. Thank you that that answers my, pretty much answers my question.  
Speaker 5     00:22:40    Thank you.  
Speaker 0     00:22:42    Any other questions by any of the other members of the board?  
Speaker 5     00:22:46    Thought I saw another hand up but maybe not. That  
Speaker 7     00:22:50    Was me. Councilwoman K ho Ashley asked that question so  
Speaker 5     00:22:54    Thank you. Oh, okay. Gotcha.  
Speaker 0     00:22:56    Okay. If there are no other questions by the board, we can open it up to the public. Ms. Buckley,  
Speaker 2     00:23:02    Anyone in the public have any questions or comments? You have to raise your hand. No. One Madam chair.  
Speaker 0     00:23:11    Thank you. Okay. Are we ready to make a motion on this or do we have any other questions?  
Speaker 8     00:23:19    Madam chair and I'd like to make a motion that the property known as 10 Normandy Drive be designated as a non-con nation area leader redevelopment.  
Speaker 0     00:23:32    Do I have a second?  
Speaker 6     00:23:34    Reverend Kinneally? I'll second that. Motion. Madam chair.  
Speaker 0     00:23:37    Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 2     00:23:40    Mayor? Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Espinoza? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 0     00:23:53    Yes. Madam.  
Speaker 1     00:23:54    Thank you. Madam chair. Madam chair. Thank you very much. In anticipation of potential board action, I had prepared a resolution memorializing what motion that was just passed because it has to get back to the council expeditiously. So it would also be appropriate at this time if it's the board's pleasure for a motion to approve the resolution with regards to Same.  
Speaker 0     00:24:22    Do I have such a motion to approve resolution? Enter memorializing  
Speaker 6     00:24:29    Reverend Kinneally Madam chair to approve the resolution for memorializing so we can get refer back to the board.  
Speaker 0     00:24:37    Second. Do I have a second?  
Speaker 1     00:24:40    Alex? Second. Second.  
Speaker 0     00:24:41    Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 2     00:24:43    Mayor? Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Espinoza? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 0     00:24:56    Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Well we have another one. Discussion revised general ordinances of the Township of Piscataway supplementing Chapter 21, zoning to amend section 21, 11 0 2, general parking schedule and chapter 24. Site plan review to remove section 24 7 0 2 0.3. Other design criteria.  
Speaker 8     00:25:28    Madam chair if I may, this is Dawn Corcoran. All that's happening here is that the section that pertains to enclosed parking spaces is being taken out of the site plan ordinance and and being added to the zoning ordinance, which is really where it should be. That is the only change that is being made with this ordinance amendment  
Speaker 0     00:25:48    A added to the zoning ordinance?  
Speaker 8     00:25:50    Correct.  
Speaker 0     00:25:51    Okay. Is there any discussion by the board  
Speaker 4     00:25:58    Madam chair if it's all the same language Dawn? I don't particularly have any concern over that. It does kind of belong in the zoning, so.  
Speaker 0     00:26:09    Okay. We should open it to the public though. Ms. Buckley, would you see if there's anyone who wishes to ask any questions in the public?  
Speaker 2     00:26:18    Anyone in the public have any questions or comments at this time? Noah Madam chair.  
Speaker 0     00:26:25    Seeing no response from the public, is the board ready to, to make a motion to approve this request?  
Speaker 8     00:26:33    Madam chair. Dawn Corcoran I'd make, I'd like to make a recommendation for the adoption of the proposed supplement to 20 section 21 and 24.  
Speaker 2     00:26:43    The Township ordinance.  
Speaker 0     00:26:45    Okay. A motion to adopt. Okay, do I have a second? I'll second that. Councilwoman. Cahill. Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 2     00:26:56    Mayor? Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Espinoza? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 0     00:27:09    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:27:09    And again, Madam chair, there's a resolution to memorialize that action so it can be sent back over to the council for their action.  
Speaker 0     00:27:17    Can I may have a motion to approve the resolution.  
Speaker 6     00:27:22    Reverend Kinneally, I'll make motion to approve the resolution.  
Speaker 0     00:27:27    Second please.  
Speaker 1     00:27:29    Mr. Atkins. Second.  
Speaker 0     00:27:30    Thank you. Roll call please. Thank you.  
Speaker 2     00:27:33    Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman. Cahill? Yes. Mr. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Espinosa? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 0     00:27:46    Yes. Item number 12, splendor Homes New Jersey llc. Minor subdivision and vote variance. Mr. Morris?  
Speaker 9     00:28:02    Yes. Good evening. Madam Chairman. Members of the  
Speaker 0     00:28:05    Board  
Speaker 9     00:28:05    Kevin Morris on behalf of Splendor Homes New Jersey l L C. The subject property is block 2 0 3 lot 22 known as 7 62 South second Street and Lot 23 not as 1758 South Second Street and Piscataway. Both properties are located in the R 7.5 zone. Both properties are undersized lots and we are seeking liner subdivision approval to adjust the common lot line between the two lots to make them of identical size. The genesis of the application is this applicant initially slated as a contract purchaser to acquire Lot 22, which is a 40 foot lot with lot in reviewing surrounding area. In preparation for the application, we did find that the municipality Piscataway owned lot 23 adjacent to us also an undersized lot on the corner. And so after communicating with the municipality, applicant came up with this project which really is for the benefit of both of these lots for the construction in two new single family homes which we anticipate will be for sale. So before we proceed, I wanted to confirm that our affidavits of publication and mailing have been received. I previously submitted those that they're in order so that we have jurisdiction received this evening.  
Speaker 1     00:29:27    Yes, Mr. Morris, they've been received and they are appropriate and it's fine to go ahead this evening.  
Speaker 9     00:29:34    Thank you. So I have WI three witnesses available. I have Mr. Hussein Burhan Puala on behalf of the applicant. I don't intend on calling him unless necessary, but I wanted to identify that a representative, direct representative of the applicant is here to participate. I do have Craig Steyers, our professional en engineer and I have Angela Valdo, our professional planner. Angela Valla is actually sitting in my office next to me. So I would first fall to testify. Craig Tyers, if he could be sworn please.  
Speaker 1     00:30:05    Certainly. Mr. Steyers, if you could state your name, spell your last name and give us your professional address.  
Speaker 10    00:30:13    Craig Steyers, S t I R E s. President Tyers Associates address is 43 West High Street in Somerville.  
Speaker 1     00:30:25    Raise your right hand. Swear the testimony you'll give before this court will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth help you God.  
Speaker 10    00:30:31    Yes I do.  
Speaker 1     00:30:32    You're a witness Mr. Morris.  
Speaker 9     00:30:33    Right. Thank you. Now Mr. Sters, you are a licensed professional engineer of the state of New Jersey since what date?  
Speaker 10    00:30:42    1993.  
Speaker 9     00:30:43    Your license is in good standing presently?  
Speaker 10    00:30:46    Yes it is. Right.  
Speaker 9     00:30:48    Madam chairwoman, the engineer, Mr. Tyrus has testified before this board on prior occasions always been accepted as an expert in his field, professional engineering. And since he has been accepted in the past, I would ask that you accept him again this evening without having to go through his credentials.  
Speaker 0     00:31:07    Mr. Sts is accepted as a, an expert in this area  
Speaker 9     00:31:10    Before this board. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Mr. Sters, you prepared the plan, prepared the plans that are before the board this evening, is that correct?  
Speaker 10    00:31:18    Yes. Right.  
Speaker 9     00:31:19    I would ask you to describe the site as it presently exists and the proposed subdivision for the construction of the single family dwellings.  
Speaker 10    00:31:27    Sure. The existing conditions, the existing site is known as block 2 0 3 lots 22 and 23 or 6 17 62 and 1758 South Second Street properties are located on the southeast early corner of South Second Street and Hazelwood Place on in the northerly border of Piscataway Township lot 22 contains 5,000 square feet. And that, that's actually clarification. That's actually the corner lot and owned by the Township lot. 23 contains 4,000 square feet and that is the, the second lot in from the corner. Both lots are currently vacant, however Lot 23, the second lot in formally had a one and a half story house on there, probably demolished within the last three to four years. The properties are both in the R dash 7.5 zone, which is single family homes, which these single family homes are both permitted. Each lot is a hundred feet deep with lot 22 being 50 feet wide and lot 23, 3 being 40 feet wide.  
Speaker 10    00:32:41    Properties are surrounded by a church, small church to the south, another residential property to the northeast large warehouse building to the northwest across South second Street. And then another vacant lot on the opposite side of Hazelwood on the opposite corner. And what the applicant, as Kevin said is was originally under contract for lot 23 to construct a new dwelling and as part of the submission process, the applicant reached out to the Township as far as the purchase or sell and came to an agreement with the Township to purchase a lot and in now incorporated that lot into the application. Okay. Kevin also said in order to balance the lots, instead of 5,000 and 4,000 square feet respectively, we were shifting the lot line approximately five feet towards Hazelwood. So each lot would now be 45 feet wide and both lots would be 4,500 square feet. And  
Speaker 9     00:33:50    Now with regard to the bulk variance relief, I will leave that for Mr. Val Tuto to get into. But again, both of these proposed lots as you've identified as adjusted, will be identical in size and it's, they're proposed as depicted on the plans for the construction of two new single-family dwellings, correct?  
Speaker 10    00:34:12    Yes.  
Speaker 9     00:34:13    Right. From an engineering perspective, is there any detriment or negative impact on a, any of the adjacent or neighboring properties with regard to the post construction of these new, new single family dwellings?  
Speaker 10    00:34:27    No, they're consistent with the houses that are adjacent. As far as any runoff, it actually drains towards Hazelwood, but we are also installing dry wells in the rear of both properties to handle the roof runoff from each of the houses.  
Speaker 9     00:34:43    All right. So needless to say, there will be no negative impact or no negative drainage impact on any surrounding properties as a result of any proposed construction on these two lots?  
Speaker 10    00:34:52    Correct.  
Speaker 9     00:34:52    All right. Now we had the opportunity at the site plan workshop to review memos and then we actually, these are second generation plans that were updated based upon comments. So I'm going to identify a few documents. First we have a memorandum dated, revised November 21st, 2022 from the divisions of Engineering and Planning. You had the opportunity to review that with the applicant, correct?  
Speaker 10    00:35:18    Yes.  
Speaker 9     00:35:19    And the applicant has no objection, is prepared to comply with the contents of that memorandum, correct?  
Speaker 10    00:35:27    Correct.  
Speaker 9     00:35:27    And I understand we've already received confirmation from the Mulex County Planning Board that this is an exempt application, correct?  
Speaker 10    00:35:34    That is correct. Right  
Speaker 9     00:35:36    Next there is a memorandum generated by C M E Associates, the planning board planner. This is dated November 30th, 2022. This was after the revised plans. You've had the opportunity to go through that document as well with the applicant?  
Speaker 10    00:35:51    Yes.  
Speaker 9     00:35:51    Okay. And the applicant is prepared to comply with the, any recommendations of items we have not already attended to in that document as well? Is that correct? That  
Speaker 10    00:36:01    Is correct.  
Speaker 9     00:36:02    Okay. Next, it's actually on the agenda for this evening's calendar. Underneath our case item 12, there's an additional item or an entry that the applicant be required to install a or provide a five foot temporary easement along Hazelwood Place. I believe that's a temporary construction easement and also installed sidewalk and curb on Hazelwood per the Township plans as prepared by an Urian Associates. We've reviewed that with the applicant, correct?  
Speaker 10    00:36:35    Yes. Those, those are actually on the plans already and the ones that were submitted.  
Speaker 9     00:36:40    So the applicant can comply with that, is that right?  
Speaker 10    00:36:42    Yes.  
Speaker 9     00:36:43    All right. Then lastly, I did receive the communication today from Ms. Corcoran-Gardella. I think it was a clarification that the five foot easement was a temporary construction easement, is what you just said is that's no issue. But the second is something new I've not seen. It's for the installation of a blank conduit line underground for each dwelling. And I just need a clarification on that from the board professionals. It's my understanding, unless I'm wrong, that that proposed conduit would be to be installed between the sidewalk and the curbing along the frontage of both properties. I just wanna make sure that's accurate. I'm not sure what board professional would answer that.  
Speaker 11    00:37:29    If I may Madam president, I can answer it. It's gonna actually go counselor from the curbing actually up to where the house is. That's for future fi future broadband.  
Speaker 9     00:37:38    Okay. So you're  
Speaker 11    00:37:40    Gonna be requiring that at all houses being installed, that they have the underground blank conduits so when the broadband comes through that they can run it underground.  
Speaker 9     00:37:47    Okay. Yeah, I just, I'm not So is it running a across the frontage or is it running from the frontage onto the property? That's what I'm, we're not  
Speaker 11    00:37:54    Getting, it's running from the frontage at the curb line to basically the house. Okay. It's a blank blank PVC pipe as the engineers know that are gonna go a sleeve, that's gonna go right up to the house and when broadband comes in, they'll be able to run the fiber optic lines under underground instead of overhead.  
Speaker 9     00:38:13    Okay, I got it. I wasn't sure if this was for the utility company itself. It sounds like this is really a a, a pre-installed conduit for the benefit of the homeowner, correct?  
Speaker 11    00:38:22    That's correct. And that's, it's gonna be a requirement for all future applications moving forward.  
Speaker 9     00:38:28    Okay. We don't have an objection to that, but not seeing this before, we just wanted a clarification. So then I don't think that requires anything. Oh, you're counsel, you're a first for everything. Yeah, exactly. True. Truer words have not been spoken. So yes, that that is something these, this applicant will be prepared to comply with as well. And we appreciate your clarification Mayor. So that being said, from a technical standpoint, this is not a complicated application unless there are any questions of our professional engineer regarding the, the substance and technical aspects of the application. I would then proceed to have him stand down and call my professional planner. So are there questions from the board?  
Speaker 0     00:39:10    Well, you wanna hold him for questions that may come up later or you want this board to answer them now,  
Speaker 9     00:39:15    However you'd like to do it. Madam chairwoman. He'll be here for the entire hearing. Should the question come up at any time?  
Speaker 0     00:39:25    I you pick your preference.  
Speaker 9     00:39:27    Alright.  
Speaker 0     00:39:28    It's okay because I, I have to open it up to the public for each one, so, okay. I would like to, if the board wants to reserve his questions, let's open it up to the public anyway right now.  
Speaker 9     00:39:38    Very well,  
Speaker 0     00:39:43    Ms. Buckley, would you please see if anyone in the public has any questions of this particular witness at this time?  
Speaker 2     00:39:48    Anyone, any, any questions or comments for this witness? Please raise your hand. No one.  
Speaker 0     00:39:56    Okay, this witness stands by and ready to answer any questions you may call your next witness, Mr. Morris.  
Speaker 9     00:40:01    Alright, thank you. I would next call Mr. Angelo Valdo if he could be sworn please.  
Speaker 1     00:40:10    There he is. Standing over your shoulder sir, if you could,  
Speaker 9     00:40:14    That's a good thing. In many ways  
Speaker 1     00:40:15    You could state your name, spell your last name and give us your professional address.  
Speaker 12    00:40:19    Yes sir. Angelo j Valdo, V A L E T U T T O 4 24 Amboy Avenue in Woodbridge. And I'm a licensed professional engineer. I, well I am also, but for tonight a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey and a licensed in is in good standing.  
Speaker 9     00:40:42    All right. How long have you, your life? Well,  
Speaker 1     00:40:44    Let me just swear him in. Do you swear the testimony you give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth help you  
Speaker 12    00:40:49    God? Yes sir. I do.  
Speaker 9     00:40:50    Your witness, just now that we have you under oath, Mr. Valdo licensed professional engineer in New Jersey since when?  
Speaker 12    00:40:58    1978 and a planner since 1979.  
Speaker 9     00:41:00    All right. Mr. Valdo has testified before this board in both capacities as an expert, both professional engineering and planning, although I'll be calling out as a planner, I'd ask that accept him as an expert in both of those particular disciplines without going through his curriculum detail.  
Speaker 0     00:41:18    He has exceptional experience. I agree. I accept him as a planner in this particular case  
Speaker 9     00:41:23    And as an engineer as well. Just in case we have a question.  
Speaker 0     00:41:26    Okay, both.  
Speaker 9     00:41:27    Thank you. Thank you Madam chair. Now, Mr. Valdo, we've asked you to put on your planning hat for the moment and you have had the opportunity to analyze the application from a professional planning standpoint,  
Speaker 12    00:41:40    Correct? Yes sir. I have. As well as all the applications that were submitted to the municipality, all the plans prepared by Mr. Steyer's office and the architect and also on a visitation of the site.  
Speaker 9     00:41:54    Very, very well. Just I'd ask you to describe your analysis surrounding neighborhood and all that was done in in review,  
Speaker 12    00:42:04    Correct?  
Speaker 9     00:42:05    With the attach master plan and zoning ordinance. Right.  
Speaker 12    00:42:08    As as always when I work with you, I go through the standard analyzing the proposed application from a planning's perspective for this evening visited site as I indicated in the surrounding neighborhood. And also review the municipality, the Township zoning ordinance and master plan, the surrounding area. And if you look at block 2 0 3, it's completely residential single family at the only one that is not is the one lot 4.01 directly to the south of our property, which is the church as was described by Mr. Mr Steyers. They are houses that have been around for a long time and are on lot sizes that are similar or smaller than what we are proposing. And in my analysis I found that there are a total of 15 residential lots within the 200 foot radius and one lot that is just outside, but still within block 2 0 3 and the lot size is, there's one lot that's 30 by 104 lots, that 32 and a half by 103 lots that are 35 by 101 lot that's 40 by a hundred, all of which are smaller than what we're proposing now with the two lots at 45 by a hundred, the remaining lots, there's one lot at 60 by a hundred, two lots at 65 by a hundred, one lot at 70 by a hundred.  
Speaker 12    00:43:46    And then, and those are also undersized lots but slightly larger than what we're proposing. And then there are two lots that meet the zone requirement one at 75 by 101 at a hundred by a hundred. So that 13 of the 15 lots are undersized, which is about 86.67%. And approximately 13, or excuse me, nine of nine of 15 or approximately 60% are lots that are smaller than what we're proposing  
Speaker 9     00:44:22    Very well. So just detail the bulk variance relief that the applicant is requesting this evening.  
Speaker 12    00:44:27    Okay, I apologize, I was just taking a breath. Okay, there. There is also within, there is also within 200 feet directly across popular place houses that are contained within the lot sizes of 30 by 135 by a hundred that have two family houses on it. In fact, just walking along South second Street in a eastly direction, a majority of the lots between popular place and chestnut are all lot sizes that are smaller than ours and all appear to be two family houses. Now with regard to the bulk stand bulk variances with regard to what's existing lot 22 and we're calling a proposed lot 22, although we have accepted that if this application receives the benefit of the approval, we will not only be filing the subdivision by deed, but we'll also adhere to what the new lot area would be deemed by the tax assessor.  
Speaker 12    00:45:35    The requirement under section 21 dash 5 0 1 minimum lot area 7,500, the proposal for lot 22 is 4,500. The requirement for a lot width is 75 feet. We're at 45 foot width. With regard to a front yard setback, we are required by ordinance 25 feet and we are proposing 13 foot front setback and that's from the Hazelwood place, which lot 22 is the corner lot. And the next one is with regard to maximum building coverage, 20% to maximum. And the proposal is slightly over 21% at 21.4% and 21 section 21 now 6 1 3 with regard to frontage, 75 feet required and we're at 45 feet under section 24 dash 7.0, 2.3 little D With regard to enclosed parking space, the minimum is 12 feet by 20 feet. My review of the architectural plans came up with a lot width, or excuse me, I garage usable width is nine feet, three and three quarter inches and 19 feet, three and three eight inches.  
Speaker 12    00:47:01    With regard to proposed lot 23, again, pretty much a lot of the same items because as we've indicated, both lots are going to be proposed at 45 by a hundred. But just to read it into the record, section 21 dash 5 0 1 minimum lot area 7,500, the proposal is 4,500 square feet with regard to lot width, 75 foot is minimum. We're proposing it at 45 foot lot width. Maximum building coverage, 20% we're proposing the 21.4% similar to the addition, the the lot 22 and then under section 21,613 required 75 foot lot frontage. And the proposal is 45 foot lot frontage. And then again under 24 dash 7.0 2.3 D. The enclosed parking space must measure at least 12 by 20 foot with no obstructions. My review of the architectural plans, the usable garage width is proposed at nine feet, three and three quarter inches by 19 feet, three and three eight inches.  
Speaker 12    00:48:25    If I may proceed, you may thank you. In my opinion, we offer the testimony that the bulk variances requested by the applicant are cognizable under the municipal land use law, c2 or the flexible C analysis. As this application meets the criteria number one relates to a specific piece of property subject property comprises of two side-by-side pre-existing undersized lots that are however, basically consistent with lot sizes in the surrounding neighborhood of single family dwellings. And that the requested minor lot line adjustment between the two lots further enhances that by virtue of creating tool lots that are equal in size, both width and depth. Number two, that the purpose of the municipal annual law would be advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirement. And that is under section 40 55 D dash two. And in my opinion, I offer to the board that four, the following purposes would be advanced letter A to encourage a municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in this state in a manner that will promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare letter C to promote adequate light air and open space letter G to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial uses and open space both public and private according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens and letter M, which I rarely testify without using to encourage the coordination of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping land development with a view of lessening the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of land.  
Speaker 12    00:50:28    These purposes, in my opinion, are advanced because the proposed new dwellings will be on lots that, as I've testified to, are similar to and larger than many of the single family dwellings in the area and fits within the character of existing neighborhood. With the new style proposed dwelling similar in size and offering living space with modern layout and amenities. The application provides also new construction in an existing neighborhood, which generally has the effects of enhancing the value of all surrounding properties. In my opinion, the bulk variance relief requested is diminimus based upon the surrounding neighborhood properties. And that number three, that in my opinion, the veterans can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. And I see no detriment based on what we are presenting that was enhanced by virtue of Mr. Stiles, Steyers, excuse me, working with the board's professionals to make revisions to provide to the board a cleaner plan than what was originally proposed.  
Speaker 12    00:51:39    Number four, that the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriments. And again, I see no detriment only positive benefits and for the neighborhood and the municipality. And number five, that the variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Township zone plan and zoning ordinance. And in my opinion it does. It is a permitted use which is evident by us appearing before the planning board and all the information that we've testified to in terms of what we're proposing and how it relates to the existing neighborhood, both within and beyond 200 feet of the subject property.  
Speaker 9     00:52:19    All right, thank you Mr. Valla. Tudo, if there are any questions of the board at this time,  
Speaker 0     00:52:26    Members of the board, I think it's appropriate. Now, if you have any questions of this witness or the previous witness that you would come forth with him at this time,  
Speaker 4     00:52:37    Madam chair Councilwoman Kale. I just wanna confirm. So it's just hard for me to, to see the, the get the property view on the, on the lot there. So, and maybe Mr. Morris, you might be able to answer this, I'm not sure, but are there adjacent homes on either side of this law? And if so, you what the testimony is is that those lots for those homes, there are also 45 feet in width.  
Speaker 9     00:53:13    I'll let Mr to answer. Some are actually even smaller, even though it's an R 7.5 zone, it's a zone where predominantly the lots are much smaller.  
Speaker 12    00:53:22    Well, the subject property, Madame Councilwoman is a corner lot so that the only adjoining property we have that we would be able to acquire additional property is block 2 0 3 lot one, which has an existing house on it. And that property I believe is only 35 feet by a hundred. So it's substantially less than ours and there will be no manner that we can acquire any property,  
Speaker 9     00:53:53    Cannot take you out  
Speaker 12    00:53:54    Anyway. And then with regard to the south, as both Mr. Steyers and I indicated is the church property, which the lot width is similar to ours at about 50 feet.  
Speaker 4     00:54:11    Thank you for that clarification.  
Speaker 0     00:54:16    Any questions from the other members of the board? Hearing those responses? I'd like to open it up to the public please. Ms. Buckley,  
Speaker 2     00:54:27    Anyone in the public have any questions or comments on this application? No. Internal.  
Speaker 0     00:54:35    Okay. Thank you. So Mr. Morris, do you have any additional witnesses tonight?  
Speaker 9     00:54:40    I do not.  
Speaker 0     00:54:42    Okay. Would you like to give us a summary?  
Speaker 9     00:54:44    Your, I won't belabor the testimony. It ends up being really a very nice project. Initially, my client had found a lot that was undersized seeking to bill the house municipality happened to own another undersized lot next door, put 'em together to balance 'em with a lot line adjustment. Now instead of one, you have the ability to put two nice new single family dwellings in a neighborhood that, as you've heard of the testimony is an older neighborhood. And, and there there's a substantial always enhancement generally to property values when new, new construction, new housing stock is infused into a, an older neighborhood. So it's really a two for here and we appreciate the board's consideration and request to approve the application.  
Speaker 0     00:55:29    All right. Members of the board, you've heard this application, what is your pleasure? Do I have a motion?  
Speaker 4     00:55:38    Madam? Yeah. Madam chair Councilwoman kale. I'll make a motion that we accept the application and that we grant the variances for both applications. Oh, I wanna make sure I get them right here. Is it 24 7 0 2 0.3? Is that the right or is that, well, hang on, I'm sorry. 22 PB 20 and 21 V with the variances provided that the applicant who has agreed here through representation, Mr. Morris, to put in the conduit line for future broadband use.  
Speaker 9     00:56:20    Yes, that was an example.  
Speaker 4     00:56:21    And, and also granting these, the temporary easements that have been asked.  
Speaker 9     00:56:27    Yes. No objection.  
Speaker 4     00:56:29    So I'll make that offer.  
Speaker 0     00:56:31    Okay. May I have a second?  
Speaker 7     00:56:33    Second  
Speaker 0     00:56:34    Roll call please.  
Speaker 2     00:56:36    Mayor Wahler?  
Speaker 0     00:56:38    Yes.  
Speaker 11    00:56:38    Councilwoman  
Speaker 2     00:56:39    Cahill?  
Speaker 4     00:56:40    Yes. Ms.  
Speaker 2     00:56:41    Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 0     00:56:43    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:56:44    Mr. Espinosa?  
Speaker 0     00:56:45    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:56:46    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 0     00:56:47    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:56:48    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 0     00:56:49    Yes. Thank you. Have your backpack. Good luck to both of you,  
Speaker 9     00:56:54    Your time and happy holidays to  
Speaker 0     00:56:57    All. Thank you. Well, take  
Speaker 1     00:57:01    Care, Kevin. Thank  
Speaker 9     00:57:02    You very much Mr. Barlow. Good to see you.  
Speaker 0     00:57:05    A good holiday. Okay. Happy holidays everyone. Our next meeting is December the 24th, our site 21st, our site plan meeting and our next regular  
Speaker 11    00:57:15    Meeting chair, if I may.  
Speaker 0     00:57:16    Yes, you may matter.  
Speaker 11    00:57:18    Chair before we have a motion to adjourn. I I, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Mr. Espinosa. This will be his last meeting on the planning board after several years of serving our community on the planning board because he was recently elected to the Township Council and thereby under, as Mr. Barlow knows, under state law, you can't have two council members sitting on the planning board at once. So  
Speaker 0     00:57:44    Wait,  
Speaker 4     00:57:47    Once my,  
Speaker 0     00:57:48    You didn't get a vote  
Speaker 4     00:57:49    Mr. Mayor, I'm happy to have Mr. Espinosa take that spot.  
Speaker 1     00:57:54    It's always good to have multiple people who know what they're talking about.  
Speaker 11    00:57:58    Okay. But I went on behalf of the other colleagues on the board, I'm wanna congratulate Dennis and wish him best of luck going on at the council.  
Speaker 0     00:58:06    Thank you. I join you Mayor. Congratulations Dennis.  
Speaker 4     00:58:10    Congratulations Dennis.  
Speaker 0     00:58:12    Pleasure working with you.  
Speaker 7     00:58:14    Pleasure mine. Good luck. Thank you so much. Thank you for your support. Bless  
Speaker 0     00:58:18    You. Happy holidays everyone. Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Everyone have a happy holiday. We'll see you shortly before, but enjoy.  
Speaker 4     00:58:27    Matt, do we need a motion? Do we need a motion to close?  
Speaker 0     00:58:30    I'm gonna get it soon as I finish talking. Do I, so do I have a motion to adjourn?  
Speaker 7     00:58:34    Washington?  
Speaker 0     00:58:35    Move. Okay, bye. Happy holidays. Happy holiday everyone. Happy holiday. Safe ya. Bye. Okay, bye bye-Bye.