Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on December 9 2021
Note: Transcripts are generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Please listen to the recording (below) if you feel any text is inaccurate.
Speaker 1 00:00:14 Well, you Chairman Speaker 2 00:00:18 Anything, everyone zoning board of adjustment meeting, please come to the water. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice publishing the courier news notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building. Notice me and available to the township clerk notice sent to the courier news and the ledger will the clerk please call the roll. Speaker 1 00:00:39 Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Weissman, he was coming. Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Brown, Mr. Patel, Mr. Mitterando, Mr. Ellie and Chairman Cahill. Speaker 2 00:01:05 Well, everyone, please stand for the SLO to the flag, Speaker 3 00:01:12 To the flag and to the Republic Speaker 2 00:01:28 Tonight's agenda. Speaker 3 00:01:31 I am number seven. Balance of Romanian will be postponed until February 10th, 2022 with no further notice by the applicants item number eight construction. That will be until January 13th, 2022 with no further notice by the authorities. Those are all the changes on the hero. Speaker 2 00:01:51 Mr. Kinneally Let's proceed to item number 5 21 dash 70. That's a Verizon wireless. Speaker 1 00:02:09 I know. Check your phone mine. Yeah, you're echoing really, really bad. I don't know if you have the computer on and the phone, but you're echoing really bad. All right. Sorry. That's okay. Speaker 4 00:02:23 Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is . I'm an attorney at representing and NSA limited partnership. Also known as Verizon wireless, a rising tide rising posing to Colgate. Co-located certain wireless antennas on 140 foot existing tower located at 180 12th street. That's blocked 13, lots of 16.0. One of the township tax map. This property is located in the L I and you know, based on that, and what we're going to discuss tonight is the fact that the, the, the proposed changes that Verizon has opposed co-location their Moodle of serve facilities is what would be pursuant to the federal law in the 2012 middle-class tax relief act, or section 64 0 9, a a what's being proposed is not a substantial change. It must be approved by the township and also under the New Jersey co-location law, which we'll get into the approval. This, this set of application cannot be subject to site plan approval because it's essentially a very minor change. Speaker 4 00:03:40 Having said that on September 10th, 2021, Verizon did receive a zoning permit, denial from the township zoning officer and referred this matter for an interpretation to the zoning board of adjustment. This appeal and interpretation followed, and essentially Verizon now makes the same arguments that are made to the zoning officer, according to his own and officer, this is now the correct venue to make those arguments that, that what's being proposed by Verizon. As I mentioned, it's not a substantial change under federal law and under federal law must be approved. And because the fact that it's not as the change will change also under New Jersey law, it cannot be subject to a site plan approval. So we're going to be just presenting some facts to the board tonight to demonstrate that with act the board, asked the board to approve this application on that basis and reverse zoning for the zoning officer's decision and direct the zoning officer to issue permits. Speaker 3 00:04:35 Mr. Purcell, the board has heard a number of these applications in the past two years and ordinarily the board does not even need to hear witness testimony. Can you represent to the board that there are no variances necessary or created by the new equipment? Speaker 4 00:04:56 I can, you know, the under federal law. I mean, obviously this application is in, is in the L one L one zone, but on an under federal law that, you know, it's not being any, not any wider, any taller, and it must be approved. Speaker 3 00:05:15 So there are no new variants as being correct. Right. And you're not extending the height of the tower over the existing 140 feet. Correct. And you're not expanding the construction or the equipment cabinet on the bed, on the floor. Speaker 4 00:05:31 Correct. And that's representing the plans have been Speaker 3 00:05:33 Submitted. And I understand that the board has those plans, unless you wish to call witnesses, that's ordinarily enough for the board to decide this matter, or the board has before them tonight at your request, a and a resolution exempting you from site plan approval, unless you wish to count. No, Speaker 4 00:05:58 No, no, no. I'm happy to. I think, I think we've been, I think we've submitted all the necessary. Speaker 1 00:06:03 I need your help with our lawyer, Speaker 3 00:06:07 Mr. Chadwick, or Hinterstein. Do you have any comments on this? Speaker 5 00:06:11 I do. I can confirm me the statements you made earlier in terms of ground coverage. I would recommend that the board's resolution include a reference to conditions in the prior approvals. I think just language, Speaker 3 00:06:32 Mr. Speaker 4 00:06:39 That the Verizon has to comply with all, all the conditions and prior approvals. Is that what you're is that the question Is that, is that, is that, is that the requested provision that we, that we agree with all communication prior approval, we can agree to that. Correct. We can agree to that. Speaker 3 00:07:04 And Mr. Purcell, although the board has a resolution before them, tonight that they can adopt and proceed on, I can correct that because it does not contain that provision. Speaker 4 00:07:20 You can, you can add that provision. I mean, that's a provision that exists under federal law. That again, isn't a factual matter set forth in the correspondence that we've had with the board, with the township. And that exists that the, this, this, this proposed co-location would not violate any existing condition of approval with respect to the site. And therefore, again, it's not a substantial change under federal law and must be approved on board. Speaker 3 00:07:45 Mr. Chairman, I don't have any more comments on, Speaker 2 00:07:48 Okay. Anyone else on the board have any questions or comments about this application? Hearing none. I'm going to open it to the public. Anyone in the public portion of any comments or questions about this application? Speaker 1 00:08:04 Okay, here we Speaker 2 00:08:05 Go. I'm going to close the public portion. I'm going to make an motion to approve the appeal of the zoning officer's decision. I'll second it. Speaker 1 00:08:16 Okay. Who's second, Mr. Blount. That's your line. That's given all that feedback. So if you can lower your speaker down a little bit, Speaker 2 00:08:35 Please call roll. Speaker 1 00:08:36 Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. Mr. Weissman show up. There you are. Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Bloom, Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes, then chairman Cahill. Yes. Speaker 3 00:09:00 Mr. Purcell, your application has been approved for an exemption and we will amend the resolution tomorrow. Speaker 2 00:09:08 Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, let's move down to item number 6 21 days. ZB dash 71 V. Daniel Musco. That's correct. Are we doing tonight? Good. How are you? I'm good. Speaker 3 00:09:26 Mr. Muse. Cisco, I need to swear you in. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 2 00:09:34 I do. Speaker 3 00:09:36 Okay. I have your name and address please. Speaker 6 00:09:38 Daniel muse. Cisco 1 64 button would drive Piscataway. Speaker 3 00:09:43 Thank you. Could you explain to the board what we'd like to do here? Speaker 6 00:09:46 I would like to replace an existing shed on my property with a new shed. That's a larger in size. Speaker 3 00:10:01 If the board notes, Mr. is here because he's on an underside slot. And most of the variants, if not, all of the variances are due to the underside of the need for a lot and sell is informing with regard to its setbacks. Is that correct? Mr. Hinterstein Speaker 2 00:10:20 Correct. Same on the board. Have any questions for this application? Hearing none. Open it to the public. Anyone on the public portion of any questions? Speaker 1 00:10:43 No one raised their hand. Speaker 2 00:10:43 Chairman close the public portion based on the existing lot size and property that we have here in the conditions. I would make a motion to approve Mr. Lou Cisco's application out a second clerk, please call roll. Speaker 1 00:11:05 Mr. Zimmerman. Mr. Weissman, Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Blount, Mr. Patel, Mr. Mitterando and Chairman Kao. Speaker 3 00:11:19 Yes. Mr. Muse, Cisco, your application has been approved, memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting. You do not need to be present for that. We'll mail that to you, but you'll need that to get your building permits. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 2 00:11:31 Sure. Good luck, sir. Thank you. Have a good day. All right, let's move on to item number 9 21 dash ZB dash 16 V it's 28 Howard street, LLC. Thank you. Speaker 8 00:11:47 The chairman, Jason Hawrylak from Olender Feldman on behalf of the applicant 28 Howard street holdings. I'll say Speaker 3 00:11:56 The applicant is here because they previously received a temporary use permit. They've sent some correspondence to the board. They're running at a time when their temporary use permit, and they're still preparing their site plan application, in fact filed as I understand it, but they're not quite ready for a public hearing yet. So they're here seeking another extension of time, temporary use to proceed. And D did I characterize that correctly? Speaker 8 00:12:25 You did. You did. Yes. There was a temporary use a permit for four of our tenants that was approved by a May 13th, 2021 resolution. Two of those times have since left the site. There's only two that still remain and we will. We're looking for an extension for those two permits. For those two tenants current, we submitted a site plan, application and variance application to the board for review back in August, there was a letter of incompleteness setback to us. There's some revisions. We've been working with township officials to try to finalize everything. We're hoping to have a new site plan and variance application finalized in the next couple of weeks, month or so. Speaker 2 00:13:12 Thank you. Any members of the board have any questions for the applicant or the application? Here we go than anyone in the public portion. Have any questions or comments about this Chairman? Okay. Here we know from the public close, the public portion, I'd make a motion to approve the 28 LLC, a request for a six month extension. Steve placement. I second it clerk. Please call the role Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. Mr. Weissman. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Blount. Yes. Mr. Patel, Mr. Mitterando. Yes. Chairman. Yes. Yes. Speaker 3 00:14:04 Your application has been approved. We'll memorialize it at our next meeting and send you a copy of the resolution. Speaker 8 00:14:09 Perfect. Thank you all. Thank you. Speaker 2 00:14:13 Let's move on to item number 10 21 dash Leonardo and margarita for the poly. Speaker 9 00:14:23 What do you mean? Can you hear me? Richard Kaplan, firmer Ruben capital associates. We represent Leonardo and margarita fit appallingly. This is an application for a use variance and both variances. It's an existing four family house. We are seeking approval from the board to convert the four family to a three family, which we believe is the best and appropriate use. I have two witnesses. One is Mr. Leo. Fittipaldi he's the property owner. Mr. Fittipaldi. Are you there Mr. Fader? okay. I may have to call him on the cell phone. I know he's there because he was here earlier Speaker 10 00:15:20 Was on several times. Yes. Okay. Speaker 9 00:15:23 All right. I may have to call him. And then I have Mr. James Clark. And who's the planner, Mr. Clarkin? Yep. I'm here. Okay. So if you, Mr. Fittipaldi is that you can, you, can you say something, Mr. Fittipaldi are you there? Hello? I see he's there, but he can't seem to hear him. Can anyone else get him Mr. Phillips. Okay, Mr. Fittipaldi are you there? Okay. Can you, can you just say something so we know you're off on, on recording, Speaker 3 00:16:19 Mr. Fittipaldi. Cause I have your name and address, please. Speaker 9 00:16:34 I can call him on his cell phone. Speaker 10 00:16:42 I'm going to meet, I'm going to meet them again. Mr. Kaplan. Speaker 9 00:16:48 Oh, there he is. Okay, Mr. . Hi. Oh, good. Okay. You're there. Correct? Speaker 10 00:16:56 I don't know why they images not coming up. Speaker 9 00:16:59 Well, it will that be sufficient for the board. If we've got him, oral testimony is fine. Okay. And Mr. Clark, can you there too? I'm here. Okay. Good. All right. I have my witnesses, Mr. Mr.. Mr. Fittipaldi is the property owner, Mr. Clark and his professional planner. I would like to start with Mr. Fittipaldi to give some testimony. Would you like to swear him in, Speaker 3 00:17:32 Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth? You got to give an address, please, and address your name? Speaker 10 00:17:42 Oh, 2 5 5 west high street bond Brook, New Jersey. Thank you, Speaker 9 00:17:51 Mr. . Can you please describe your connection to this property? Speaker 10 00:17:58 I'm the owner of the property in 2000, it is a four family, and now we got the issue that will the Shawnee. Speaker 9 00:18:11 Did you, and when you purchased the property, was it being used as a, for formally? Speaker 10 00:18:16 It was used as for family was sold this a four family. Speaker 9 00:18:20 And have you ever made any, you know, additions, conversions or anything like that that would have turned it into a for, for Speaker 10 00:18:30 Family? You Speaker 9 00:18:33 Know, when the property do you know when the property was built, approximately Speaker 10 00:18:38 The records that we got a show us all the way to 1957, but I think that the property, the property is older than that. Speaker 9 00:18:48 And I mean, I know you won't Yes. I know you only purchased it in 2000 to the best of your knowledge. Has it always been for family as far as you know? Yes. And when you purchased it, it was represented to you that it was a Ford family, Speaker 10 00:19:04 Correct? Yes. Yes. Speaker 9 00:19:06 Okay. And you have since learned that, in fact it was never gone through zoning and it's not listed as a four family and zoning records. Speaker 10 00:19:17 Yes. Speaker 9 00:19:27 There were a set of drawings that were submitted with the application. I believe there I'm speaking to the board. I believe they're part of the application, if that's okay. I'm going to have Mr. Fittipaldi generally describe that and explain how he's converting from the four family to the three family. Certainly. I don't think he can easily put that up on the screen, but the board members should have a copy in their application package. Speaker 10 00:20:02 Laura, do the board members have copies of the drawings? Yes. There was like a floor plan. Speaker 9 00:20:13 Yes. There's multi sheet, Speaker 10 00:20:15 Like two or three sheets with very thin half by 11. So they should be incorporated with the documents that were sent with the application and everything. Speaker 9 00:20:27 Can I have Mr. Fittipaldi testified to those as part of the application? Yes, please. Mr. , are you familiar with the drawings that were submitted with the application on your behalf? And can you describe as best you can on the zoom? And I know you're, we can't your face on, can you describe as best you can, the manner in which you're going to convert this four family into a three family? If you can give some details, that would be helpful, even though it may be somewhat different. Speaker 10 00:21:05 I'll go on to convert a farming tree and apartment four only in one apartment, apartment, each apartment, one bedroom. Now combining the two apartments will have a two bedroom apartment and the apartment for, I want to eliminate the kitchen and converted like into a mud room and the apartment will have two bathrooms. I will keep the two bathrooms. And between, between the dining room or the apartment three and in, in a living room, the apartment four, that's where they are opening will be like this. You can go from one apartment to the other, and then the apartment will be complete with one kitchen, two bathrooms, a dining room living room in two bedrooms. Speaker 9 00:21:59 So you're basically converting two apartments into one, correct? Yeah. Are there any other changes that you're going to make to the building exterior interior besides this conversion? Okay. No. Can you describe the onsite parking, how many spaces where they are? Right. Speaker 10 00:22:23 And now right now there are two parkings for each apartment is, will be the R a a P a parkings. And if a will be converted to a three family, they will have more parking space. Speaker 9 00:22:40 And where are those parking spaces located Speaker 10 00:22:44 In the driveway? It's like, you know, it's on this side of the driveway. Speaker 9 00:22:51 Okay. And are the parking spaces striped? Speaker 10 00:22:55 Yes, Speaker 9 00:22:56 They are striked. Okay. Is that existing Stripe and have there been any issues with the parking, excessive parking? Anything that you're aware of? Speaker 10 00:23:08 None of my knowledge. Speaker 9 00:23:10 And is the, the, the egress and ingress in and out sufficient for the onsite parking? Yes. Speaker 10 00:23:18 Yes. Speaker 9 00:23:19 Okay. There are some fences on site. And can you describe what those fences are and what they're used for? And most importantly, who's fences. They are Speaker 10 00:23:36 The fence. The vinyl fence does my neighbor is not mine. And they would face the, goes to, along to the property all the way, all the way to Willie and a street that belongs to the townhouses they build over there. It's not mine. I don't put no fences at all. Speaker 5 00:24:01 Mr. Kaplan, can I just jump in for a second? Yeah. I just wanted to bring, since they're talking about the fence, there was a variance requested for the fence because a donut had pointed it out in the zoning report. When I was doing my review of the project, though, I did notice that the defense in question that was in the front yard is actually the it's. I wouldn't say it's the town. It's, that's the development of the yearlings, the old gear links development that, that went up next door. It's their fence. It was approved as part of their application. So when it's not on this, the subject property that we're speaking of now, so that variance could be eliminated that's for the six foot stockade fence located in the front yard setback line. So that one will be eliminated. So we don't need that variance. I agree that that fence is the adjacent properties, property owners. Thank you. Yeah. Mr. Kaplan, you muted Mr. you're muted. Speaker 9 00:25:17 Yeah, I lost the signal for a while. Came back and I guess it muted. Sorry, Mr. Pitter, Aldi. There's one other fence on site, correct? Speaker 10 00:25:27 No, it's no more. It's just the vinyl fence. And that one that we treat we're talking about, Speaker 5 00:25:36 I believe the other fence conforms with the ordinance or it's ammunition. There might be a partition fence separating the front yard with the backyard. Speaker 10 00:25:44 Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. That fence. Yes, yes, yes. They are one of my tenants put up the partition that fence, Speaker 5 00:25:58 But that, that fence complies. So there's no issue with that. Speaker 9 00:26:02 We'll we'll, we'll proceed past the fences. Mr. Fittipaldi can you describe utilities for the property? Speaker 10 00:26:13 The utilities, every apartment, even if they got separ, electrical meters and separate gas meters, and also there's one extra meter in gas and electric for the owner will be me and the guests. The mean the water, the water is only one meter and, and then the divide into the each apartment. Speaker 9 00:26:45 Okay. Thank you. There is an existing fence on the property. Have you moved that FA sorry. Is there an existing shell on the property? Have you moved that to, Speaker 10 00:26:56 Yes. They shared the knowledge three feet from each side of the fence or the other property unlimited pro. Speaker 9 00:27:04 So therefore you've moved this fence. So it's now conforming to the zoning request. Speaker 10 00:27:08 Yes, it has to be located three feet from the property line out the fence from the property line yet. That's the shirt. I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. They did a fee for each site from the corner. Speaker 9 00:27:34 I believe that's the extent of Mr. testimony, subject. Any questions from the board? Speaker 2 00:27:41 Does anyone on the board have any questions for Mr. ? Speaker 5 00:27:47 I do cook. Mr. Phillip palsy. Are you registered with DCA? Speaker 10 00:27:55 Was it the state? Yes. Yes. Every five years we got an inspection. Okay. Speaker 5 00:28:03 And the assessment on his property is what not the value are they assessing you for four units Speaker 10 00:28:12 Now? Speaker 5 00:28:16 Just feel. Speaker 2 00:28:18 Thank you. Thank you, John. Anyone else have questions? Okay. Mr. Cat. And you can present your next witness. Speaker 9 00:28:29 Okay. Thank you. My next witness is Mr. James Clarkin. He will be testifying as an expert, as a professional planner. Mr. Clarkin, are you there? Yes, I'm here. Would you like Mr. Clark? And to qualify as an expert? Let me swear him in. Speaker 3 00:28:49 Okay, go ahead, Mr. Clark, and can you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth. Yes, I do. I believe Mr. Clark and has been accepted by this board is a professional planner in the past. Yes, I have Mr. Chairman. That may be enough to qualify him for that. Speaker 2 00:29:06 Yeah, it is, is enough to be as well. Please proceed. Ms. Kaplan. Speaker 9 00:29:09 Thank you, Mr. Clark. And have you review the application in this case? Yes, Speaker 3 00:29:19 I have. Speaker 9 00:29:21 And have you reviewed the board reports also with their comments on the application? I have. And you're prepared to give testimony to support the application at this time? Speaker 3 00:29:36 Yes, I am. Speaker 9 00:29:37 Okay. Can you describe the subject? Speaker 8 00:29:42 Sure. So psych consists of one lot, 19,514 square feet in size, as noted as a four family detached, two story frame, residential home on it. We talked about the shed and the fence. So I think the fourth where, where those are, the paved driveway has access to Wagner avenue and consists of eight parking spaces. Remainder of the property is grass for the yard. And then you also have a sidewalk going from the front door of the home, connecting all the way to the William street, right of way. Speaker 9 00:30:15 Can you describe the, the area surrounding the property? Speaker 8 00:30:19 Sure. So Middlesex borough is across William street, but focusing on Piscataway around our property is almost exclusively, exclusively single family homes. There are some commercial light industrial to the north on Wagner, as well as a church nearby. Speaker 9 00:30:38 You listened to Mr. testimony that he's proposing to convert the four family to a three family. Would you like to comment on that? Speaker 8 00:30:48 Yeah, that's definitely what we're proposing. And just in connection with that three family residential use is not permitted in your, our 20 residential zone. So therefore we still need to use variance. But other than that, as Mr Fittipaldi testified, no other changes to the law or the home. Speaker 9 00:31:05 And can you describe the other, both baronesses that are necessary for the applicant? Speaker 8 00:31:12 Sure. So several bulk variances, most of which are existing conditions. So we have minimum lot area, 20,000 square feet. We're just shy at 19,500, a minimum lot with as well as frontage on Wagner. The requirement is a hundred feet and we only have 39.6, three feet, but we do conform on Williams street for frontage. We discussed the soccer offense. Mr. Hinterstein said, it's not an issue since it's not on our property and Mr. Fittipaldi is going to move the shed so that to remove the need for that variance as well. Speaker 9 00:31:47 Okay. Thank you. Okay. So can you provide testimony relating to the use variance and your opinion as to whether or not the proposed three family use is suitable for the property and for the surrounding neighborhood? Speaker 8 00:32:13 Yes. So the site is particularly suitable to the proposed use as a three family home, because as three unique features in my estimation, the first is the combined effect of the size layout and unique shape of the property. The lot almost acts as a corner lot because as the two front ditches on William and Wagner creating an L shape, although we are technically under size by about a diminimous 3% in area, we still have almost an acre of land giving plenty of space for any tenants to enjoy open space. And the outdoors, this unique feature of the large lot size allows for plenty of parking for the three family, and also the L-shape giving the two front inches to make sure that no vehicles are causing traffic issues on Williams street. So they can easily turn onto Wagner and then easily go into the driveway off. Speaker 8 00:33:05 I'm sorry, turn off William onto Wagner easily get into the driveway, reducing traffic issues and any conflicts. The second feature is its location. It's located on Williams street for easy access William street. It's not really a major thoroughfare, but it is a collector of sorts in that it provides direct access west to east, between mountain avenue to connect it to mill sky Middlesex to the market area. Part of Piscataway. Finally, the third factor is the structure itself. It is already set up as a multi-family use. If a we're going to reduce the units from four to three, no interior renovations would be needed. Speaker 8 00:33:49 And then with respect to the negative criteria, the sites particular suitability, excuse me, suitability to a three family service, the general welfare by providing multi-family residential opportunity at a much less intense level than you typically find for newer multi-family uses a renter occupied housing is in demand and on the rise in the township. So this provides a low-intensity multifamily use, or none really exists in this section of the township. Also there's a nearby township park and some small retail and food services that the residents can walk to the quick check pizza and pasta and other services. And that's shopping mall that can reduce traffic trips. It also serves the general welfare due to the ability for residents to park on site. And as I said, not back onto William street, reducing heavy or any potential traffic conflicts. So this promotes safety for the public and general welfare. There has been no desperate to adjacent and nearby properties to the applicant's knowledge. The site easily handles the for family residential. So there's no reason why it can't easily handle three family, your municipal zoning plan and master plan. Won't be substantially impaired as we're reducing the intensity from four to three. And the four family did not have any domino effects on the neighborhood in the area. There have been no other multifamily uses that have arisen because of this one. So, and also this furthers, the township schools. Speaker 9 00:35:28 Okay. Thank you. And can you please give your opinion on whether the goals and objectives of the municipal use law would be further, would be promoted by the granting of this use barriers? Speaker 8 00:35:44 Yeah, so I believe purposes C and G can be further purpose C is about adequate light air and open space because it's a multi-family use within a detached two story home provides plenty of light and space for its residents, lots of outdoor space, particularly compared to more dense and typical multifamily uses all the billing setbacks and building height conform. So as I said, plenty of space and then finally purpose. She is about providing sufficient space and appropriate locations for all sorts of uses, including multifamily. So I believe this goal is furthered and that we're providing the residential use. The three family use a sufficient place for residents and particularly providing enough parking in a much less intense level than other means multi-family uses. Speaker 9 00:36:40 Thank you. And can you describe how the approval of this variance would further the goals and objectives of the township masterpiece? Speaker 8 00:36:51 So I have identified two first goal of your master plan is to ensure the harmonious interrelationships of the various land use activities throughout the town. As we're changing from four to three and has existed in this residential district for many years, I contend that the two uses that being the three family or rather the four family and the nearby single family, residential have coexisted harmoniously, even though there are different densities. And I believe that this situation will continue. The second is the preservation of the character and quality of existing residential neighborhoods while providing the opportunity for redevelopment. Once again, this use has existed for some time as part of the character and reducing the intensity will be in line with are more in line with the existing character of the neighborhood while also preserving the older home itself. Speaker 9 00:37:45 And can you also speak to the enhanced standard of proof that's necessary to prove the use Barrett's? Speaker 8 00:37:58 Yeah, so we have to comply with that and we reconcile this by noting your townships land use element. It states the municipal population will continue to increase rapidly until the available developable land supplies diminished. The NDC case specifically recognize diseases that have gained popularity, popularity as a method to reconcile. And as I mentioned, renter occupied housing is on the rise and becoming more popular, not only in the Tasha, but in the region in general. So our three family residential use allows you to satisfy that popularity of use while also being respectful to the character of the neighborhood and not Overdale developing the property such that the entire developable area is diminished, but also serves a growing minuscule population. And then lastly, we're S as I mentioned again, we're reducing the intensity of the existing use today to be more in character. Speaker 9 00:38:53 Okay. Can you speak to the, of the bulk variances and the requirements for the about variances? Speaker 8 00:39:01 Right. So I already stated which ones and we dropped two. So really the minimum lot area, minimum a lot with our existing conditions and they haven't caused issues for the site is large enough to accommodate the use in the frontage of Wagner is not a detriment at all. We don't need the fence variants, we're going to move the shed. So those are drops, but I would contend that the existing consistent conditions will also further the same municipal land use goals and master plan goals that I've already outlined. And these conditions haven't caused any problems in the neighborhood or with the neighbors. Speaker 9 00:39:38 And can you speak to the negative criteria for these variants? Speaker 8 00:39:42 Sure. So the LASA has just under their requirements, so it's really diminimous, but it's still large enough to accommodate the parking and the use itself lot with in frontage variances are only for Wagner. The zone requirements were probably not written to account for two frontages. So our unique L-shape was in probably thought of when they were writing the zoning ordinance, but in my analysis, there'll be no detriment to the public. Good. And the benefits to the township under the C2 analysis will substantially outweigh any detriment. So in conclusion, this use variance meets the three-pronged analysis, meets the goals of the municipal land, use law goals in the townships master plan. And there's no negative or the negative criteria satisfied in that. There's no substantial detriment by granting this application. And also it can be granted without substantial detriment to the zoning ordinance and zoning plan. Speaker 9 00:40:41 Thank you. That is that extent of your testimony. Speaker 8 00:40:46 I was going to touch on Mr. Hinterstein report, if that's all right. Speaker 9 00:40:49 Yes. There's one from Mr. Chadwick. One from Mr. Interesting. I believe we've already given testimony on all the, of Mr. Chadwick's questions, but yes, there are, there's at least one item in Mr. Hinton Hinterstein report item, number one that has not been addressed as of now. Speaker 8 00:41:16 Okay. So I will discuss that. So his question is about asking why can't we reduce this to a single family or two family to remove these variants altogether. And I would say that this isn't practical based on the testimony you just gave your renter occupied housing is on the rise and becoming more popular. And this area that Tasha doesn't really have that type of use. So I think keeping it is beneficial and at a much less intense level than normally would be for other multi-family uses. And then finally, just to add onto that, I think it would be an owner's expense to the applicants to renovate to a single or two family. Probably we would acquire a significant getting of the house, maybe even down to the studs to completely start over almost making a total rebuilds. And then I think we comply with the rest of his report, but we are compliant with RSIs parking standards. I believe two bedrooms are two spaces, so that would be six. And we have eight. Speaker 9 00:42:18 Thank you. I might Mr. Pitta probably. Are you there? Yes. Could you also touch on this question of w w the feasibility of converting the home back to a single family or a two family? Speaker 10 00:42:40 You know, it's a major, major innovation. If you are to do that, plus the house is set up for a multi-family. Right. Speaker 9 00:42:50 And it's your testimony that, to your knowledge, it has always been a multifamily and it is set up for that purpose. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. Okay, Mr. Clarkton, is that the, is that the extent of your testimony? It is. Speaker 8 00:43:09 I believe we've discussed everything. All the proofs are in, so, Speaker 9 00:43:14 Yep. Subject to questions from the board or the professionals, I believe that's our testimony. Speaker 2 00:43:20 Okay. Thank you. Anyone on the board have any questions or comments about the testimony that was just given? Speaker 5 00:43:29 Okay. Hell I would just offer that if the board votes in favor of this application, that any, any approval be conditioned upon the applicant, obtaining the appropriate zoning and building permits for the shed and any of the conversion work that's necessary for the upstairs apartment units, as well as, as CCO inspection and build any building permits that may be required for the existing ground floor apartments, since it appears that there's no zoning approval, I'm not necessarily sure if there was ever any building permits, taking out, taken out for the apartment construction. That being said any approvals should be conditioned upon the appropriate zoning in pulling, permits, being secured for this, with the site. Speaker 2 00:44:27 Thank you, Henry. Is that okay with you, Mr. Kaplan? Yes. Speaker 5 00:44:31 Just wouldn't farm an empty. When you say local officials, are we including the fire Marshall? I would call out I picky. I think anything that would be typical of a multifamily home, including, you know, the only, the only thing tactical Jim is the building permit. We'll just avid inspections within that area of renovation. Diversion. My recommendation, the board is that the fire Marshall, we view the entire building, Speaker 1 00:45:10 Excuse me, Mr. Chadwick. We have code enforcement. They do MCC now with the fire together. So they have to go out to, he has to register as a landlord. If it's approved, they have to go out. They have to use to register. They inspect, they have to do an MCCO. So Speaker 5 00:45:25 No, but I want to make sure the old building is covered, not just Speaker 2 00:45:30 The new apartment, the renovations. I agree. Speaker 1 00:45:33 They inspect each department as they go in. Speaker 2 00:45:36 We can include that as a condition. And again, I'm just a captain. That's yes, that's fine. Thank you. No, no. Anyone else in the pub? Anyone else? I'm sorry, on the board, have any questions for this application or comments? I'm going to open it to the public. Anyone in the public portion have any comments about this application questions? It's about the, Speaker 1 00:46:06 Do not see anyone raising their hand Chairman Speaker 2 00:46:09 Close the public portion. I think based on the testimony of the planner and Mr. Fittipaldi, this has clearly been used as a, for family residence for several years. And the fact that they're willing to reduce it down to an a, a three family home bodes well, for a little compromise between both the applicate and the township. So I would make a motion to approve this application with the language that Henry and John mentioned at the very end there with in regards to inspections Speaker 5 00:46:46 Or second Speaker 1 00:46:52 Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Weissman. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Blount. Yes. Mr. Patel, Mr. Mitterando and Chairman Cahill. Speaker 2 00:47:07 Yes. Mr. Kaplan, the application has been approved the board approval, but it's next meeting greatly. Appreciate it. Thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you. Let's move on to item number 1121 dash ZB dash 50 slash 51 V 2 25 old new Brunswick road, LLC. Speaker 11 00:47:33 Good evening, Mr. Chairman members of the board, Peter Lanford appearing on behalf of the applicant. This matter was heard by this board in September of this year. At that time, we made an application to convert part of the existing building on the property for self storage to construct two new self storage buildings while retaining the data center, which was on the first floor of the existing building. At that time, we presented testimony describing the condition of the property, which is less than desirable. My client has recently purchased a property. We are going to be rehabilitating the property. In addition to doing the new construction, the board approved the matter at the September hearing a resolution was adopted in October and as part of the discussion at the previous hearing, there was some concern by the board that some of the spaces could be used as flex space and not true self storage. Speaker 11 00:48:42 Mr. Chadwick raised the issue of maybe too many bathrooms within the two new buildings and the board directed us to meet with Mr. Hinterstein and Mr. Chadwick to review that and to see if we can resolve that issue. What we did instead was basically looked at it ourselves. We concurred with the concerns that the board had and then Mr. Chadwick, and then Mr. Hinterstein had, and amended the plan or revise the plan for the two new buildings to show them as being truly all flex space with the only office, being the office for the manager of the self storage facility. What I want to do this evening to try to make this as a move as quickly as possible. Since we have the same site engineer, we have the same architect. We have the same traffic consultant. The only difference is that we originally had planning testimony from Mr. O'Brien and Mr. O'Brien had some recent surgery. So Mr. Clark, and who testified in the previous application will present some brief planning testimony and in presenting it, what I think is the easiest way to do this, to show the board and review what was approved two months ago, and then compare it to what we're proposing tonight. Having said that I would like to call Mr. Stiers as my first witness. Speaker 3 00:50:06 Mr. , could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 2 00:50:12 Yes, I do Speaker 3 00:50:14 Your name and address please. Speaker 2 00:50:16 Craig Stiers S T I R E S. Address 43 west high street in Somerville. Speaker 3 00:50:23 Mr. Stires was accepted as an expert on the prior application and on Speaker 11 00:50:27 Other applications before the court, Mr. Jim is proceeding Ken MREs stars being provided the screen so he can show his exhibits and show the old plan and the new plan and review with the board. What we're proposing tonight, as opposed to what was previously approved. Speaker 2 00:50:48 Can you say that? Yes. Yes. Good. What you see is an Ariel photograph of the site. The site is bounded in red, around the outside. You have Springfield avenue along the bottom or the Southwest side, older Brunswick road on the left or the Northwest and new England avenue to the Southeast or the right by zoom in a little bit. Okay. You can see the existing, a three story building in this location here. As Peter said on the first floor, there's a data center. The second two floors are vacant office space. This area here is a fenced in yard with all the generators for the data center location here used to be the location of a satellite large satellite dishes that have since been removed and the rest of the site, as you can see a parking circulation for the site that does have a driveway off in new England avenue, and also off of Springfield avenue, you can see on the perimeter that the site is fairly well landscaped and buffered with obviously with the exception of the driveways, even in the area here. Speaker 2 00:52:17 And then internally, there are some trees on the, on the islands moving to the next photograph or next exhibit. This is the previous approved plan between this app. Oh, I might as well switch between the two of them. So this is the previously approved plan. This is what we have proposed before you, I mean, it kind of flipped back and forth so they can, so I can point out the changes in the original plan. Again, I'll zoom in a little bit, essentially with that flex space that Peter mentioned, we had doorways in front of each of the units, as well as a small island. They kind of provide that at the time, what would have been flex space. So to would have been the garage slash office space and get a little bit of a presentation in front of each of those units. And you can see it on the backside as well. And the other change is this grass area right here on the other building. Now, if you switched to the current proposal, Mr. Speaker 3 00:53:24 Spires, can we, you for a minute, were these submitted with your application? Speaker 2 00:53:28 The, this was submitted in the original application. Speaker 3 00:53:34 We're here tonight. Let's take care of every of the exhibits tonight. So the Ariel was submitted with your, your amended application. Speaker 2 00:53:42 I don't believe it has been so, okay. So let's mark Speaker 3 00:53:45 That as a one with today's date, please. Speaker 2 00:53:47 You got it. And the, the date on that is bear with me a second. It was prepared on September 9th, 2021, and it's a rendering, an aerial view of the site. Speaker 3 00:54:09 Thank you. Now let's move to the next, which was the previously approved plan. Speaker 2 00:54:14 Yeah. That is a rendering, same prepared September 9th, entitled grading and soil erosion control plan. So it's a colored version of the original grading and solar erosion control plan Speaker 3 00:54:30 Will be to correct. Speaker 11 00:54:33 And then eight, the next document, which is the current plan that was part of our plan set. And it's just been colored. Is that correct? Speaker 2 00:54:41 That is correct. So it's basically an updated rendering of what the original plan was and that date is, I believe that's today's date. Yes. Today's date 12 nine, 2021. Speaker 11 00:55:00 So that we can mark that a three, Mr. Kinneally. Yes. Thank you. All right, Mr stars, please continue to indicate to the board what the changes are as comparing the last approval and a new approval. You dealt with the building that runs parallel to the data center. And going back to the area around the data center does not change, is that correct? Speaker 2 00:55:23 No, no. The, the curb line and the data center itself X on the exterior does not change. So what would happen? The interior of the existing building? The second and third floor would become a storage space, the same as it was in the original application. Okay. Speaker 11 00:55:43 Now talk about the changes in the rectangular building from the previous application to the current. Speaker 2 00:55:49 So you have this, this is a two, which is the original colored version of the original application. And then if I switched to a three, you can see that the difference really is just this addition of this paid space, because there are garage doors. Along this side, there was some modifications on w where I'm showing on the right and left. So we added some green space on either side, whereas before it was all pavement and then the original had a grass area. So essentially engineering wise and site layout. Those are the only changes and lightings proposed lighting. The same Henry did mention about a dumpster. The dumpster has proposed in this location right here, which was what was approved on the original plans. The proposed drainage is the same as what it was on the original plans. And one of the things I probably should have updated on it, but it is on the site plan that was submitted the soar line, the sort of line going to the longer building has been removed since there are no bathrooms and in the new building. So there are bathrooms in the, in the square building in this location here. So we have sewer coming to this building, the rest of the utilities, less sewer to the northwesterly building. Other than that, everything's the same. Speaker 11 00:57:22 Now with respect to the reports that were generated in conjunction with this application, you reviewed Mr. Hinterstein report dated December 8th, 2021, correct? Yes. And a lot of the comments that are contained there in our carry overs from the previous application, correct? Yes. And in the previous application, we agreed to comply with all the comments contained there were into a actually improve the site as requested and recommended by Mr. Hinterstein. We will again, agree to address all of the comments contained in that report. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And then the Mr. Chadwick's report really deals mostly with architectural issues. Mr. Chadwick indicated that there were minimal plantings. Is there any opportunity to provide any additional plannings anywhere on the site, in your opinion, Speaker 2 00:58:20 As Henry said, it's kind of one-to-one replacement. It's what we're removing is just the landscape plantings that are in the islands. So if we were to be required to replace those, obviously they would go most likely on, on a distributed around the perimeter of the site and integrated in the existing landscaping along the perimeter. Speaker 11 00:58:42 So to the extent that we can, we will provide additional landscaping around the perimeter of the property, correct? Yes. Thank you. No further questions of this witness, Speaker 2 00:58:55 Anyone on the board have any questions, Mr. Styles, any comments John, who's going to address the charging station is Speaker 11 00:59:10 We, I'm sorry. We will provide charging stations as required by the statute. I think we indicated that, that at the last hearing, but we will provide that so that there will not be a various necessary. Speaker 2 00:59:23 And the site right now with 141 spaces would require four spaces for charging spaces. Yes. Got it. Speaker 5 00:59:31 It was active or are they just available? Is that going to have all the stations there that you just wire? Speaker 2 00:59:39 I think my understanding is that you, they have to be wired and that the, well, I think one has to be put in right away. And then it's like every three years you have to implement. And then the next one Speaker 5 00:59:53 Is that your intent? Speaker 2 00:59:55 I think we don't have a choice of that Speaker 5 00:59:58 If you put them all in. Speaker 2 01:00:00 No. Yeah, I would. I would say I, I can't answer that. I'd probably leave it up to the applicants to Speaker 5 01:00:06 Comply with the Speaker 11 01:00:11 Well John, we will comply with the statute and make sure the charging stations are in. They may be in sooner than the statute requires, but they definitely will be in pursuant to the statute. Speaker 5 01:00:23 And the only other comment is the landscaping replacement. I leave that up to him. Speaker 2 01:00:29 Okay. Any other comments to me, anyone on the board hearing none. Speaker 11 01:00:35 The next witness, please. I will call our architect. Ms. Dalum, who also testified at the last hearing. So we can have her sworn in and ask her if she still a license is still an architect. Speaker 3 01:00:47 Can you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony. You're about to give us your name and address, please. Speaker 12 01:00:56 Amicar Slugger. Download them for 9 1 5. Louis Barry road, Dover, PA 1 7 3 1 5. Speaker 3 01:01:05 Since you last appeared before the board, has your license been revoked? No, I believe this witness qualifies as an expert Speaker 2 01:01:12 Architect. Mr. Chairman, miss Mr. Lanford, Speaker 11 01:01:14 Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Danica, with respect to the amended plan. First of all, the main building, the existing building, there has been no proposed changes to the layout of the interior of the existing building that remains the same as what was approved by the board two months ago, correct? That is correct. Okay. Can you take the board briefly through the changes that we are proposing to the two new buildings and if you need to put exhibits up, go for it. Speaker 12 01:02:00 These are the drawings. Let me see if I can minimize those a little bit so you can see them better. This is the existing building. These were the drawings that we shared previously. Speaker 11 01:02:17 Thank you, Mr. Kinneally. Speaker 12 01:02:18 This is, we were looking at larger storage slash black spaces for these two particular buildings. And then you can see these were the elevations that were shared at that time. This is the drawings that were shared as part of the submittal package. We did receive comments back from Mr. Chadwick, since this was submitted and we have revised them. So I will quickly go through these and then I will show you the most recent drawings that we submitted to Mr. Chadwick actually today and receive feedback from him today Speaker 3 01:03:03 For a moment. So the, the picture that we're seeing, or the part of the submission package with the application, Speaker 12 01:03:10 That is correct. Speaker 3 01:03:11 So that does not need to be separately marked if you go to your next picture, we'll mark that. Speaker 12 01:03:18 So these are the new floor plans. So we revised, Speaker 3 01:03:24 That's going to have to be a five. Now that's part of our original submission or part of our submission to write down. Speaker 12 01:03:31 Yes, this whole entire packet is okay. Speaker 12 01:03:35 This is showing the revised floor plan for the two buildings. We kept the footprints to be the same. What we have created is a management retail office. In this corner, it would have public restrooms break room for the staff, and it's immediately adjacent to an elevator and a stair tower. We have units that can be directly accessed from the exterior around the perimeter. And then we have multiple exterior access points to access these interior units in the interior of the first floor and then the upper levels as well. I'll move to that plan in just a minute. As you can see the background, the civil plan was not caught up for this submission. And so our backgrounds do not have the correct civil layout, but the next plans, I show you the revised we'll have that updated this building, same footprint. Again, this does not have any restroom facilities in it. Speaker 12 01:04:47 It does have direct access units around the perimeter on both these sides here and here. And then it does have interior corridors here and here that accesses on elevator. And then we have stair towers at both ends of this building as well. When we moved to the upper levels of both of these, it is self storage around the perimeter with adjacent corridors. We have a stair tower in this upper corner, and again, stair tower down here with the elevator shaft. And similarly, the second floor of the other building stair towers on both ends at a centrally located elevator was self storage around the perimeter and then more interior units. Speaker 12 01:05:40 Yes it is. And then this is the third floor, which is very similar again to the second floor, as you can see, whereas as you go up to the other levers levels, the individual units, they get smaller just because it's easier to transport smaller items, a longer distance than it is for, for larger items. And then these were the elevations that were proposed. This is the building that does not have the office in it. We were looking at a series of metal panels and some masonry around the perimeters. We have a Mason rebase that kind of gives it a foundation and then insulated metal panels and an ethos system. These are the elevations for the building, with the office. So the corner where the offices were showing glazing on that full corner, you can see how it reps that corner. We have glass all the way around there, and again, a mixture of masonry EFS material and metal panels. And this was part of our submission. We received comments back from Mr. Chadwick. He, he thought the walls had too much blank area and he asked us to kind of address that and dress them up a little bit because it is a business park, but it does not look quite as industrial. So it has a little bit more of a business center kind of look to it. Now this would be a new exhibit. Speaker 3 01:07:29 Yeah, I think it's a, Speaker 12 01:07:37 I'm sorry with muted are these are the updated drawings that we received positive feedback from Mr. Chadwick on the softer noon. Speaker 3 01:07:49 Can you give me the date of these new drawings that are more, Speaker 12 01:07:54 They were revised today? December the ninth, you can see the revision stamp up here and the title of the file. Speaker 12 01:08:04 These are the three dimensional views you can see. We did not alter the floor plans at all. The layouts are the same, but we did put the updated civil backgrounds. I don't know if we have all the correct layers turned on or off. We would have to coordinate that better with Craig, but the floor plans on the layouts within each of these buildings remains the same that we focused on what the exterior of the buildings look like. So for the building that does not have the office, you can see, we added more decorative cornices, some more detailing within the EFS areas. We added, it just looks like stripes right now, but we're just trying to delineate, like, maybe there's a differentiation in color because we don't know how these will be branded. Exactly. So we're trying to keep it more neutral at this point, but we're still still showing again, it's a mixture of with a masonry base on the first floor and then incorporating some metal panels so that we were kind of highlighting the various levels of the building. And then this is the back of the building facing on the outside of the site. And then this is the building that has the office in it. Again, we still have the glazed corner. We have not changed that at all. We still have the big glass corner. That's highly visible from the road and same kind of features that we have on the other building. We have some more decorative cornices and then breaking up the larger wall areas with different patterns and different materials. Speaker 11 01:10:01 And can you indicate to the board what the height of these buildings are? Speaker 12 01:10:07 It's approximately 35 feet. I do have that on this elevation, Speaker 11 01:10:16 But they are, they are lower in height than the existing building. Speaker 12 01:10:21 Yeah, they're, they're very similar. The beauty of self storage is you do not need a high floor to floor dimension. It's only, it's typically like 10 foot eight from finished floor to finished floor because you don't have a large plenum above the ceiling, like you might have in an office building. Speaker 11 01:10:40 Okay. Now I just want them to put the size of these buildings in context to the existing buildings. So the existing building appearance-wise will be the dominant building. These are the, the height, and these will be smaller buildings to the side of the existing building. Correct? Speaker 12 01:10:55 Yeah, though, there'll be very similar in height at the parapets. I think it'll be very close. Speaker 11 01:11:02 Okay. Thank you. I have no further, oh, just one last question while there was some concern by Mr. Hinterstein and Mr. Chadwick at the last hearing that some of the spaces could be used for activity other than storage, based on your layout and based on your experience. And I know you testified at the last hearing that you do an extensive amount of self storage work. These units are all strictly 100% storage units and really cannot be used for anything other than storage. Speaker 12 01:11:33 That is correct. They all have just overhead doors. There are automatic light fixtures in the larger units. Smaller units only get ambient light from the corridors, but there are no swing doors. There are no toilet facilities or anything like that. There's no power provided in any of these units. Speaker 11 01:11:55 Thank you very much. No further questions. Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? Speaker 5 01:12:06 Oh, well it's briefly the, yes, please. Me. I think the revise elevations are pretty, pretty good. And I think, like you said, you've worked that out with John. Molly can turn a little bit as they, the multiple stripes on the building that could be a, you know, a product of a, you know, a black and white, gray tone type drawing, perhaps in color, depending on the neutral tones. But I like the fact that the, the areas with the corners is perhaps be one color, perhaps in some of the other areas being maybe the other uniform color, you have the base, perhaps being a separate color. So maybe it's just a little too busy for my liking. I don't know about a John's, but I'll be more than happy to work with you on those pine or elements as you get closer to construction. But I think the horizontal band at the top of the building is, is helpful in sort of bringing the scale of the building down as well and not making it so, so massive and appearance, Speaker 11 01:13:14 Henry w we'd be happy to stand and talk to you and John, again, like I said, we reacted to John's report. We came up with this and we'd be happy to tweak this again, if it becomes necessary. So we'll talk to you after the, hopefully after the approval to come up with something that'll make hopefully you and John, both happy. Sounds Speaker 5 01:13:35 Good. Are there, I think Henry is the ways presented here. You have a stark difference. I don't think that was the intent at all. I just thought it was just show different. Speaker 12 01:13:48 Yeah. We saw it more as a neutral tone on tone. Not such a high contrast. Speaker 5 01:13:55 The court, the corners idea, I think gives the building a presence that did it. Didn't have it all before. So that's and that's what I said to you and Henry we'll figure that one out. Speaker 11 01:14:11 Yeah. It's like I said, it's, it's, it's really just a matter of colors. I think that's about it. Speaker 2 01:14:19 Okay. I think I've asked my board if anyone had any other questions and John and Henry the only two. So put on your next witness. Speaker 11 01:14:30 Mr. Troutman. Speaker 13 01:14:32 Good evening. Speaker 3 01:14:35 Could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the Speaker 13 01:14:39 Truth. Yes, I do Speaker 11 01:14:41 Your name and address please. Speaker 13 01:14:43 Jay Troutman, T R O U T M a N, McDonough and REA associates, 1 0 5 Elm street, Westfield New Jersey. Speaker 3 01:14:53 Mr. Travelin was accepted as an expert on the last application and other applications before this. Speaker 11 01:14:58 That is correct. Mr. Kinneally. Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Troutman, you testified at the previous application, you've reviewed the plans that were submitted in conjunction with this application. You've also received a report from the office of Dolan and Dean, which was prepared on behalf of the municipality. Have you reviewed that report? Yes. Okay. And can you, obviously, in both applications, there is a parking deficiency. Can you indicate to the board your opinion with respect to the parking deficiency, given the uses that are being proposed on this site indicate also to the board, what the, what the requirements are and what the number of parking spaces that we are proposing? Speaker 13 01:15:51 Yes, but both the existing data center use and the proposed self storage use are extremely low parking generators on the continuum of potential parking generators that are out there. That's supported by data published by the Institute of transportation engineers. You're the township traffic consultant actually provided those calculations for the board in her report, which shows that the average parking demand for these two uses combined would be 24. If you wanted to raise that up to an 85th percentile parking demand, that would be 60. So that's kind of on the high end. I probably wouldn't expect ever to see that, but there are cases where I guess it could be the parking supply on the site proposed is 141. So it's more than double what we expect the 85th percentile demand to be. And the, the requirement is three 90, which is way out of scale for the uses that are proposed tonight. The, the township consultant supports the parking variance. And obviously for the stated, we would ask that that be granted. Speaker 11 01:17:13 Okay. And then I think there was one other comment in one of the other reports about delineating some of the parking spaces to be specifically allocated to the data center. We have no problem doing that. Speaker 13 01:17:25 Yeah. And I actually, don't closer. I looked at that that was from the traffic and salt as well. They, they just didn't want self storage vehicles parking, I guess, on that side where the data center is and where their made doors are. And we actually don't have any parking there, there might be vehicles, you know, parallel along the building when somebody is using a unit there, but that will not have any impact on the, the marked parking spaces for the data center. Speaker 11 01:18:00 Okay. Thank you. So, in your opinion, the, the parking that we are proposing for both the continued use of the data center and the revised plans for the self storage facility, or more than adequate for both of those uses. Yes. Okay. And obviously you indicated that both users are low traffic generators, and I think you testified at the last hearing that, that the impact of the self storage on the neighboring streets would be minimal. Is that correct? That's correct. And that opinion hasn't changed with the revised plan? No, thank you. No further questions. Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness Speaker 8 01:18:51 Hearing? Speaker 11 01:18:53 Do you have any other witnesses? I, I think I do need to present some brief planning testimony to justify the change, even though the size of the building did not change. So I will call Mr. Clark and you raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the Speaker 8 01:19:10 Truth? I do Speaker 11 01:19:12 Credentials been revoked since the last time you testified about 20 minutes ago, Speaker 8 01:19:17 They have not. Let me check my email real fast. No. Speaker 11 01:19:21 Ms. Mr. Clark, and you, you did not testify at the previous applica cation, correct? I did not. Okay. But you had an opportunity to review the previous plans, the previous resolution of approval minutes and, and review the testimony of Mr. O'Brien. I did. All right. Can you indicate to the board why we are here tonight? Very briefly. Speaker 8 01:19:42 Sure. So we're seeking a D one use variance to permit the self storage facility. We're gonna, you know, renovate the existing three story office building to construct two additional and then construct two additional three story buildings, several bulk variances, most of which are existing. Nonconformities you have the lot with on new England avenue is 242 half feet where 300 is parking should be 25 feet from the lot line. But we are under that for the existing parking lots. A traffic engineer just mentioned that we are required to have 327 park is very says where we have 1 41. And then the max height of the existing building is 51 feet where 50 exists today. So that's diminimous and the electric chargers were already handled. We're removing that variance. Speaker 11 01:20:35 Okay, thank you. You've heard the testimony, what we are proposing, which are the two new buildings. You've also indicated that Mr. O'Brien testified at the previous hearing that the self storage facilities wasn't appropriate use on this site. Can you just, so it's on the record for this application briefly review the previous testimony and affirm it this evening for the board. Speaker 8 01:21:07 Sure. No problem. So in Mr. O'Brien's testimony, he touched on the main unique aspect is that both of the existing office buildings, floors dedicated to office space. So for us two and three are entirely vacant and we, there shouldn't be much of a shock to the board as we're living in the midst of the pandemic. He noted that the office vacancy rate in New Jersey was at 19% as of the summer, this past summer in July, 2021. So that combines with uncertainty regarding, you know, current and future office space demand has led to arise and adaptive reuses of existing office buildings. This existing office building and site is particularly suited for self storage space, given its location and an existing layout of the property. Furthermore, in tandem with large office vacancies, Mr. O'Brien pointed out the increase in rent or occupied housing today in Piscataway. So today it stands at 32 and a half percent of all households in towns, which is about 5,250 households where many of them will need self storage. So this application really fills a unique sense of set of circumstances that being of, you know, handling the increase office vacancies, but also handling demand for more rentals that leads to demand for more self storage township doesn't allow self stores as a permitted use, but there are several in town. He noted two on something road, one on Centennial and another on south Washington avenue for a total of four. Speaker 11 01:22:38 Okay. And can you again, address the issue of the master plan as it applies to this application? Speaker 8 01:22:46 Sure. So Piscataway is re-examined 2005 and 2020 state two goals ensure the harmonious interrelationship of the various land use activities throughout the whole town and preserve the character and quality of existing residential neighborhoods while providing the opportunity for redevelopment where desirable and possible. So to preserve the character and quality, oh, sorry, sorry. The debtor we're used to this office building and to self storage meets these goals and the master plan pres while preserving the character of the neighborhood and providing a redevelopment opportunity via adaptive reuse. Speaker 11 01:23:22 And can you briefly address the municipal land use law and how it would be furthered by the grant of this use variance? Speaker 8 01:23:29 Sure. So we're noting purposes, a G and I purpose A's met and that the project promotes the general welfare by providing a needed self storage facility. She has met as this proposal provides commercial and industrial space and a place that is particularly suited for it. And purpose eyes met as the existing building will remain along with new well-designed buildings to compliment the site. So application is consistent with the above goals of the municipal land use law. Speaker 11 01:23:57 And in your opinion, will there be any negative impacts as a result of the grant of the variants? Speaker 8 01:24:04 I can identify any negative impacts. Application will be a positive for the area by adaptively reusing a near vacant commercial building in a commercial light industrial neighborhood. So maintaining the character of the area and existing development pattern, no nearby residential uses that would be impacted in any way by this. Speaker 11 01:24:24 Okay. And very briefly, can you touch on the bulk variances that are being sought as a result of this application? Speaker 8 01:24:31 Yep. So as I previously mentioned, most of them are nonconformities. We eliminated the variance for electric vehicles. So this really just leaves the parking variance as the traffic engineer already testified. I really concur with his findings that this is an extremely low traffic generator and therefore it does not require a substantial amount of parking. Also find that the goals of the municipal land use law and your master plan are also furthered for the positive criteria regarding the parking variance. And I don't see any negative impacts to the site by granting the parking variance and no substantial detriment to on top of that. Speaker 11 01:25:11 Thank you. I have no further questions. Speaker 2 01:25:14 Okay. And very briefly, would anybody on the board have any questions for that last witness and free government? My joke is okay. Hearing none. I'm going to open it to the public. Anyone in the public portion of any questions or comments about this application? Luckily I'm looking your way. You're muted. Who I am. I was like, okay. There is no one Chairman. There is no one. Okay. In that case, the public portion is closed and I'd make a motion to approve this application. Speaker 3 01:26:03 Please hold the roll. Mr. Zimmerman here. Mr. Weissman. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. Chairman Chaill. Yes. Thank you very much. And Laura enjoy the rest of the year off. Thank you, Peter. Take care. Have a happy holiday. All of you. Thank you. Speaker 2 01:26:36 Okay. That's where stumbling to the finish line item. Number 12. Adoption of resolutions from the word regular meeting of November 4th, 2021 Speaker 3 01:26:45 First resolution. oh, this was an application that you voted to approve Mr. Zimmerman. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Mr. we can't hear you. You're breaking up. Karen. We can't hear you. Sorry about that, Mr. Ali. Yes. No, this was an application Zimmerman. Yes. Mr. Weissman. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio. Yes. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. Mr. Ali. Yes. Yes. Those are all the resolutions I have for you. We already did the NYS MSA. Good. Speaker 2 01:27:52 I have number 13 talks you the minutes from the regular meeting of November 4th, 2021. All in favor. Before I make a motion before I make a motion for a German, our next meeting is January 13th, and we will be getting together for a reorg at seven 15, not seven 30. So please log on and log in a little bit earlier. Michael note. I hope everyone. Thank you. I hope everyone has a safe, happy holiday and a happy new year. I'd make a motion for a German. Speaker 2 01:28:37 Thank you for your volunteerism. If that's a word. Speaker 3 01:28:43 Thank you, man. I be safe.