Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on January 26 2023

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

Download transcript Download audio
Jan 26 2023 · Zoning
0:00
–:––

Meeting Sections
  • 00:00:01 — Meeting Opening and Roll Call
  • 00:01:12 — Agenda Adjustments and Postponements
  • 00:01:29 — 22-CB-4V: HBR properties (Brookside/Palisade Avenue) 22-CB-4V
  • 00:07:14 — 22-ZB-5V: HBR R Properties LLC (79 Coventry Circle) 22-ZB-5V
  • 00:50:05 — 22-ZB-21V: Calvin Summer (1807 West Fifth Street) – Initial Hearing 22-ZB-21V
  • 00:52:15 — 22-ZB-75V: Patricia and David Cape (447 Valier Avenue) 22-ZB-75V
  • 00:55:55 — 22-ZB-99V: Keisha Horton (1697 West Fourth Street) 22-ZB-99V
  • 00:59:54 — 22-ZB-106V: Daniel Duran (300 Highland Avenue) 22-ZB-106V
  • 01:05:31 — 22-ZB-21V: Calvin Summer (1807 West Fifth Street) – Continued Hearing 22-ZB-21V
  • 01:09:09 — 22-ZB-10K: Aithal family (512 Plainfield Avenue, Eastway) 22-ZB-10K
  • 01:10:54 — Adoption of Prior Meeting Resolutions (January 12, 2023) Dish WirelessVerizonJonathan StoolFrank BarberKenneth MegosJames MurrayThomas VarasKalpeshGary SchumerSammi Abdo RamDiego Renzo
  • 01:14:33 — Adoption of Minutes from Prior Meeting (January 12, 2023)
  • 01:14:45 — Meeting Adjournment
Meeting Opening and Roll Call AI  00:00:01 – 00:01:12
Chairman calls the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting to order. Notice of meeting is confirmed having been provided through multiple channels. Clerk conducts roll call of all board members. Pledge of Allegiance is recited.
Speaker 0Okay, Chairman, we're ready to go.
Speaker 1Okay. Excuse me. Zoning Board of adjustment meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published on the Courier News notice posted on the Bolton Board of the Municipal Building Notice made available to the Township clerk notice sent to the Curry News and the star ledger. Will the clerk please call a roll?
Speaker 0Mr. Weisman?
Speaker 1Here.
Speaker 0Mr. Tillery? Here. Mr. Patel? Here. Mr. Reggio, I see you Roy. Mr. O'Reggio maybe can hear me. Mr. Blan?
Speaker 2Dear
Speaker 0Mr. Mitterando
Speaker 2Here,
Speaker 0Mr. El here and Chairman Cahill
Speaker 1Here, you please stand for salute to the
Speaker 3Pledge Allegiance pledge of Under God Invisible Liberty, Liberty, Mr.,
Agenda Adjustments and Postponements AI  00:01:12 – 00:01:29
Two applications are removed from the agenda: Lakeview Drive case postponed to February 23rd with no further notice required, and Eva Properties (513 South Washington Avenue) postponed to February 9th with notice required.
Speaker 1Dacey, are there any changes to tonight's agenda?
Speaker 3Yes, there are two changes to tonight's agenda. Lakeview Drive is off until February 23rd with no further notice and Eva properties five 13 South Washington Avenue is off until February 9th and they must notice.
22-CB-4V: HBR properties (Brookside/Palisade Avenue) 22-CB-4V AI  00:01:29 – 00:07:01
Application to construct single-family residential dwelling at intersection of Brookside Road and Palisade Avenue. Two variances sought: AC condenser pads 6.7 feet from property line (require 10 feet), and 6-foot PVC privacy fence. Applicant Peter Lanford presents with staff report. No public comment. Vote: APPROVED unanimously.
Speaker 1Okay. Thank you Mr. Kinneally. Let's turn our interest over to item number 5 22 dash CB dash four V HBR properties.
Speaker 3Mr. Land present
Speaker 2Mr. Chairman Peter Lanford appearing on behalf of the applicant. If I may, with respect to this application, there are two variances that we are seeking from the board this evening for Hear me?
Speaker 0Can you hear me
Speaker 1Where that
Speaker 0Is? Please stay muted.
Speaker 2I'm not hearing a thing.
Speaker 0We hear you Roy. It's your volume.
Speaker 2Did everybody
Speaker 0Lanford continue?
Speaker 2Everybody did hear me?
Speaker 3Yes. Mr., Dacey,
Speaker 0We can you? Yes. Mr.. Dacey. You're good
Speaker 1Mr. Lanford, proceed.
Speaker 2Okay. This, this is a property at the intersection of Brookside Road and Palisade Avenue. It's corner lot. Can you hear? Oh, sorry. Can I continue?
Speaker 1Yes, please do.
Speaker 2All right. Which has upon it a new single family residential dwelling, which was just recently completed. The applicant is, was attempting to get a final certificate when it was discovered that there are two pads for air conditioning condensers on the right side of the property that are 6.7 feet from the property line, and a recently enacted ordinance requires them to be 10 feet from the property line. The pads are in place and dusty, applicant is seeking to obtain a variance to keep those pads there. The Mr. Cahill,
Speaker 1Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Roy.
Speaker 2I'm not hearing anything.
Speaker 1Try your volume on your laptop now you're muted. I'm so sorry Mr. Lanford, please proceed.
Speaker 2That's okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. The, the second part of this application is to construct a fence around the side of the property to the rear of the property for privacy. That fence will require variance. The fence that we are proposing is a six foot high P V C fence, which violates your ordinance for, for a couple reasons. One is that a solid fence is not permitted in the front yard, that the fence is six feet high, and the justification for it is that this property is a corner property. The property is the house fronts on Brookside. Where we are proposing to construct the fence would be from the on along Palisade Avenue about halfway down the lot, across the across palisade, across the back of the property, and that back along the property line to provide to the property owner privacy and security, especially if there are young children on the, on the property. It, it is important that that be provided and ironically, one of the other benefits of the fence is with respect to the pads that I just talked about for the air conditioning units. They would be screened by the fence that we are proposing. I have received a report from Mr. Chadwick dated January 24th, 2023. Mr. Chadwick's report supports the two variances and I would rely on that report and support for my request for those variances.
Speaker 1Thank you, sir. Any members of the board of any questions for this application or this applicant rather? Hearing none? I am going to, is that all the testimony you plan on giving tonight Mr. Langford on this particular application?
Speaker 2I believe that's all that's necessary. Mr.
Speaker 1That's fine. I just wanted to cover my, my bases. I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application?
Speaker 0Hold on one second. I have a Jerry Wilson raising his hand, but I think that was from earlier.
Speaker 1Okay. Is he still there or does he wanna talk about this happen? Okay, let Mr. Wilson, you have to unmute yourself, sir.
Speaker 3Mr. Wilson, can you hear us?
Speaker 5Yes. Sorry, this is on the next, next one I raise my hand to.
Speaker 1Sure. Okay. Okay. No, no problem at all. Are there any other members of the public that have their hands up? Laura?
Speaker 0No, sir.
Speaker 1Okay. Gonna close the public portion. I'm gonna make a motion to approve this application. I'll second it. Steve Weiser, please call the roll.
Speaker 0Mr. Weisman?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 0Yeah. He hears this now. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Chairman Cahill?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 3We'll memorialize this.
Speaker 1Okay. We'll see you in about 30 seconds, Mr. Lare.
Speaker 2No problem.
22-ZB-5V: HBR R Properties LLC (79 Coventry Circle) 22-ZB-5V AI  00:07:14 – 00:49:51
Application to construct single-family dwelling on 79 Coventry Circle seeking three variances: minimum lot area (8,000 vs. 10,000 sq ft), lot width (80 vs. 100 feet), and building coverage (22.9% vs. 20%). Expert Paul Fletcher supports variances. Extensive public opposition from multiple neighbors citing property value and aesthetic concerns. Vote: APPROVED lot area and width variances; DENIED building coverage variance (must comply with 20% maximum).
Speaker 1Let's move along to item number 6 22 dash ZB dash five V HBR R properties L L c Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 2Thank you Mr. Chairman. That is my application also. This is an application to construct a single family residential dwelling in the R 10 zone. We are seeking this evening three variances. The first variance is a variance for minimum lot area. The lot in question is 8,000 square feet. The zone requirement is 10,000 square feet. The next variance is lot width. The required is a hundred. We have 80. Both of those variances are existing conditions and are not exacerbated or caused by this application. In conjunction with those variances, we sent letters to the adjoining property owners to see if they were interested in acquiring the subject property. Both adjoining property owners do not have any available land to sell to us, but by law we are required to send letters to the adjoining property owners to see if they would wanna purchase the properties. We did that. I filed those letters with the board secretary and they should be on file with the Township, but I have as of this morning, received no response to those letters. The third variance that we are seeking is building coverage. Your ordinance requires 20%. We are proposing 22.9% in support of that variance. I will call as my witness, Mr. Fletcher?
Speaker 3Mr. Fletcher, are you present?
Speaker 6I am.
Speaker 3Swear testimony?
Speaker 6Yes, I do. Do
Speaker 3Your name and address please?
Speaker 6Yes, it's Paul J. Fletcher, f l e t c h e r 54 West Pond Road, Poland, New Jersey.
Speaker 3Thank you.
Speaker 2Mr. Fletcher, what is your occupation?
Speaker 6I'm a licensed professional, professional engineer and professional planner. I'm the principal of Fletcher Engineering and have been so for 31 years.
Speaker 2And Mr. Fletcher, have you appeared before this board in Piscataway on previous occasions?
Speaker 6I think so. I would,
Speaker 2Let's go back. Can you very briefly tell the board, Ben, your educational and professional background so I can get you qualified?
Speaker 6Sure. I have a Bachelor of Applied Science from the Uni University of Toronto. I'm a licensed professional engineer and professional planner. I've been the principal of Fletcher Engineering. As I said, for 31 years. I've been accepted as an expert in
Speaker 3His credentials are, are more than acceptable.
Speaker 2Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 6Thank
Speaker 2Mr. Fletcher. Can you describe the subject property and describe the nature of the application and the variances that we are seeking?
Speaker 6Certainly the subject property common as 79 Coventry Circle, it's lot 43 and block 82 0 3. Currently a vacant lot was created, I believe in 1971. The following of a map, major subdivision, the applicant proposes to construct a single family house. There are three variances associated, as you mentioned, a lot widths. A hundred feet is required in the arch end zone. 80 feet is existing a lot area 10,000 square feet is required. 8,000 square feet is existing and there is no land available on either side to purchase without making those lots on nonconforming. The other variance is for lot coverage by building 20% is allowed in the zone. Would this lot be conforming a lot of 10,000? We would be able to construct a house with a footprint of 2000 square feet. We're proposing 1,832 square feet, which gives us a percentage of 22.9. This this lot is slightly unusual in that the right of way does not curve When the road curves, if it was a normal situation where it was a 50 foot right of way, there would be an extra 585 square feet of land associated with a lot, and if that were the case, the requested variance would only be 21.3 versus the 20.
Speaker 6Regardless, we don't own that land right now, so our variance request is for 22.9, which I personally believe if is a, a demus request on, on the applicant's part would not be outta character with other large two-story homes in the area. With regards to the lot width and lot area, I think the board has the authority under a C1 hardship criteria grant. The variances, as I said there, it's an existing condition with no land available. The lodge coverage is de in nature. I see no adverse effect to his own plan to master plan or the neighborhood by the granting of these variances.
Speaker 2Thank you. Mr. Fletcher, as you indicated, the house that we are proposing is consistent and compatible with houses in that neighborhood?
Speaker 6Yes.
Speaker 2Okay. And in conjunction with this application, a report was issued by Mr. Chadwick dated January 24th, 2023. You've had an opportunity to review that report?
Speaker 6Yes.
Speaker 2Okay. And Mr. Chadwick in his report indicates that the deviation seems to be acceptable in keeping in character with the neighborhood. Is that correct?
Speaker 6Yes. That's your opinion? Yes.
Speaker 2Okay. I have no further questions, Mr. Fletcher. Okay. Anyone on
Speaker 1The board have any questions for Mr. Fletcher? Any comments about this application? Right now?
Speaker 3I just have a couple of questions for Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Chairman? Sure. Please. Mr. Fletcher, the applicant could build a conforming house with the conforms with the lot coverage requirements, is that correct?
Speaker 6That is correct.
Speaker 3It would just have to be slightly smaller than proposed now.
Speaker 6That is correct.
Speaker 3Is there any benefit to the Township in allowing a lot coverage variance versus what a conforming lot coverage would be?
Speaker 6I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.
Speaker 3I'm sorry. Is there any benefit to the Township of granting this variance when a conforming house could be built?
Speaker 6I don't believe there's a benefit, but I don't see any detriment either.
Speaker 3Thank you. That's all I have.
Speaker 1Okay. Any other members of the board questions? Hearing now, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone on the public portion have any questions or comments about this application? Please raise your hand. Ms. Buckley, you muted?
Speaker 0People popping up. You gotta gimme a second. Okay, man. Jerry Wilson.
Speaker 3Mr. Wilson? Mr. Wilson, are you present?
Speaker 5Hi, Mr. Chairman and board. My name is Jerry Wilson. I am the son of Carrie and Jerry Wilson, who are the adjacent property to 79 Coventry Circle.
Speaker 3Mr. Wilson, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand?
Speaker 5Sure. Yes.
Speaker 3Do do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 5Yes.
Speaker 3Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 5Just wanted to start off with a brief statement that my parents have lived in Piscataway over 50 years, have been at the property for over almost 45 years. The current homeowners at Kinneally Circle overwhelmingly oppose granting a requested bulk variance.
Speaker 2I'm, I'm going to object to what homeowners in the area feel they have to be to testify. If Mr. Wilson wants to give his opinion, he's more than free to do that
Speaker 3And he's giving his opinion. So go ahead, Mr. Wilson.
Speaker 5Yes. Additionally, we have a petition from more than 50% of the residential Judge
Speaker 3Chaill. Mr. Mr. Lanford, you, you can stop there. Mr. Wilson, we cannot accept a petition. You can certainly give your testimony if the people that signed the petition want to testify during the hearing, they're certainly able to do so. But the law in New Jersey says that we cannot accept a petition.
Speaker 5Okay, no problem. Please continue to, the reason cited for opposing the bulk variance one is infringement on adjacent properties resulting in conflict with both adjacent neighbors. Two, compromise of aesthetic spacing between the properties resulting in potential lower market values. Number three, resulting com crowded appearance in relationship to adjacent properties, again, resulting in loss of market value. Fourth, a disharmony of symmetric appearances from property to property. And then lastly, asymmetric construction relative to current landscape aesthetics of the entire Coventry Circle. Okay. I also, if, if I may have a number of questions for the zoning board as well.
Speaker 1By all means.
Speaker 5First is what, what was the reason for having a minimum requirement for a residential lot in Coventry Circle? Gramercy Park or Piscataway Township?
Speaker 3Well, the, the Township, the Mayor Council set standards for neighborhoods and those standards vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, and that is the lot coverage limit that the Marion Council found to be appropriate for that area.
Speaker 5And is the minimum lot size requirement the same for all current homes in Coventry Circle?
Speaker 3I don't have that answer off the top of my head.
Speaker 5Okay. Do you know how many homes have been built on Coventry Circle or in Gramercy Park through a use of variance since enactment of the minimum lot requirements?
Speaker 3The zoning board does not have that information.
Speaker 5Okay. And it was stated previously that there are no benefits for this variance as articulated by Mr. Fletcher? I believe he
Speaker 3Said there was also no detriment as well.
Speaker 5Okay.
Speaker 3In his opinion.
Speaker 5In his opinion. Okay. What are the benefits of these minimal requirements for the Township of Piscataway?
Speaker 3Mayor Council who passed the zoning ordinances found those that lot coverage limit to be appropriate for that neighborhood and that zone.
Speaker 5Okay. Next question. Are any of the members of H B R L L C related to the zoning board?
Speaker 3Mr. Landrey?
Speaker 2Yes. I, I don't know what related to the zoning board means. If he can clarify
Speaker 5That owner affiliated
Speaker 2The, there is no
Speaker 5Shareholder,
Speaker 2There is no member of H B R C who is a member of the zoning board,
Speaker 5A member of the zoning office employed by the Township
Speaker 2One. There are two principals in H B R C. One of them is a Township employee.
Speaker 5Okay. Any
Speaker 3Other questions? Mr. Wilson?
Speaker 5Would that be perceived as a potential conflict of interest?
Speaker 3E even if the employee of Piscataway was the applicant himself and not part of an LLC and wanted to develop this property, that employee would still have to come before the Township as would any other elected member, the Mayor, Councilman, et cetera. They're not exempted from the zoning board.
Speaker 5Okay. So that's it. That's yes.
Speaker 3It's not a conflict. No.
Speaker 5So it's not a conflict. Okay. No, sir. Okay. Those are my set of questions. Thank you.
Speaker 3Thank you Mr. Wilson. Thank you Mr. Wilson.
Speaker 1Ms. Buckley, do you have anyone else?
Speaker 0Thank Yes, we have Jay Marshall.
Speaker 3Is Jay Marshall present?
Speaker 1Mr. Marshall, you're muted. Thank you.
Speaker 3Mr. Marshall, can you hear me?
Speaker 0He's not muted.
Speaker 1No, I see that his hands raised.
Speaker 3Mr. Marshall, I need to swear you in. If you can hear us, please raise your right hand.
Speaker 7Yes, I am.
Speaker 1Oh, sorry about that. Can
Speaker 7You hear me Now? We can can hear
Speaker 3In, could you raise your right hand?
Speaker 7I am doing that testimony
Speaker 3To,
Speaker 7Yes.
Speaker 3Thank you. Could we have your full name and address please?
Speaker 7Judas Marshall, 64 Coventry Circle.
Speaker 3Thank you.
Speaker 7And thank you.
Speaker 1Judith, please tell us what's on your mind.
Speaker 7Okay. Yes. Well, I obviously live on the street and I just learned today about the situation and I heard the statement that Mr. Wilson couldn't speak for the neighborhood, so I just wanted to be sure that at least that I could register that, that concern. And I, and I know that, you know, most of the neighbors though, those who know about the situation would like an opportunity. Apparently they aren't, they aren't on call right now. Will there be an opportunity later after this meeting for the,
Speaker 3If the applicant completes the application tonight, it may be voted on.
Speaker 7Oh, okay. What does it, what does he have to do to complete the application tonight?
Speaker 3Finish his testimony.
Speaker 7Oh, I see.
Speaker 3And everyone received notices that was required to receive notices under the law. So if they wanted to attend this meeting, they could,
Speaker 7When you say everyone received a notice, e everyone on the block should have received a notice. Is that
Speaker 3What you mean? Everyone within 200 feet of the edge of the applicant's property was required to receive a certified mailing.
Speaker 7I see, I see. Okay. Alright. So those who weren't aware really don't have an opportunity to speak when we're concerned about our property values and the, and the, the, you know, the effect that having a, a pro a home that doesn't match the current homes and property size, which of course will affect our property values, we don't have an opportunity then to know about this in advance so that we can bring in enough people to express concern. That's what I'm concerned about.
Speaker 3The law in the state of New Jersey requires the applicant to notify everyone within 200 feet of the edge of the property and to publish notice in the newspaper this applicant did that and therefore they noticed the people that needed to be noticed.
Speaker 7Yes. I see. All right. So as, as a citizen, a property owner and taxpayer for many, many years, then we have no other opportunity. That's that I, I do hear what you're saying about the state law, but alright.
Speaker 3Yeah. The opportunities this evening.
Speaker 7I see. Okay. Now, is there a certain number of property owners that you would need to respond
Speaker 3To? Any, any property owner that wants to appear tonight and testify can do so.
Speaker 7I see. Okay. What helps, how many people would be needed to, to respond this evening?
Speaker 3The, the board would listen to anyone who wants to testify from the public justice. I listen to the applicant.
Speaker 7I see. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3Thank you Judith. We appreciate you Ms. Buckley.
Speaker 0Jocelyn can
Speaker 8Yes. Is Joycelyn Cahn over?
Speaker 3Hi Joycelyn, how are you?
Speaker 8Good, how are you?
Speaker 3I'm great. Good. I need to swear you in. You could you, your right hand the testimony you're about to give truth
Speaker 8Yes.
Speaker 3Address please.
Speaker 8Joyce Land Conover 11 Coventry Circle.
Speaker 3Thank you.
Speaker 8So my question is just how much would the, if the variance were to be approved would encourage on the neighbor's property, on the adjacent properties, how much would the building come over to their side of the properties?
Speaker 3Well, there, there are certain setback requirements in Piscataway in that zone. The applicant is proposing to comply with the setback requirements. So the structure will not be any closer to the property line than is permissible under that zone. However, the structure, if the variance was granted, would be larger than permitted in that zone.
Speaker 8Okay. And how I, I guess my question is how much larger, because all of our houses are similar inside, so I just, I'm looking at it from a perspective of will this house stand out on our street now that it's much larger than what is allotted or, you know, how would that affect the neighbor, the neighborhood in general?
Speaker 3We, we can't give you the, an exact answer to that as a, a subject to be considered by the board when deciding whether or not to grant this variance.
Speaker 8Okay. Well, if I could give my personal opinion, I would hope that they would at least consider the, the neighbors that are adjacent to them. And if the house could be built within the 20% varis, that, that would, that should be what they follow because you do have to still keep in mind the, the neighbors on both sides of the property and in that then it's very close. So that's just my opinion. Thank you.
Speaker 1Thank you, Mr. Thank you
Speaker 3Ms. Buckley.
Speaker 0It's a telephone number. Nine four nine two four three two four three. Yeah, whoever that is. Can you please unmute
Speaker 1Your hands? Raised area code 9 49 your hands now
Speaker 7This is Lorre West.
Speaker 0Name and address, please.
Speaker 720 Coventry Circle. Again, the name is Lorre West.
Speaker 1Hi Lorraine. How are you tonight?
Speaker 7I'm great, thank you. Okay,
Speaker 3Ms. West, I need to swear in your right hand. Yes. The testimony you're to give the truth.
Speaker 7Yes.
Speaker 3Thank you. Please give us your thoughts on this application.
Speaker 7Okay. Are you ready for me?
Speaker 3Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 7Mr. Wilson asked several questions of the board and several of them, the board was not able to answer tonight maybe because you didn't have the documentation or the facts in front of you. And I would like to have those questions answered that Mr. Wilson asked before we vote on this, before you guys vote on it. Is that a possibility?
Speaker 3The zoning board, the zoning board considers
Speaker 7Application. We, we don't have all the facts.
Speaker 3Okay. Ms. West, the zoning board considers the facts that are presented to the zoning board. The zoning board does not go out and research things. So if Mr.
Speaker 7Wilson asked these questions of the zoning board, what
Speaker 1The zoning question,
Speaker 7You didn't have the answers to them, ma'am. He did not have it in front of you.
Speaker 1Be specific. What particular questions did
Speaker 7I would have to go back to Mr. Wilson if Mr. Wilson could come back on and give you the questions that he asked. We're just simply asking for answers to these questions. We're voting. You guys will end up voting on something where you don't have all the documentation or the facts.
Speaker 1Well, I appreciate your concern. I yes, we're we're not gonna, we're not gonna delay the proceedings tonight. Okay.
Speaker 7So regardless, so you're telling me regardless of the answers, regardless of whether they're right or wrong, you're going to vote tonight on this proposal? That's correct. That's what you're telling
Speaker 1Me? That's correct. We're gonna, we're gonna take the, the testimony that was provided to us tonight, and we're gonna make the best decision in the,
Speaker 7So you never, you just go with what you get right then regardless. So why do you come on, have the, the public come on and propose questions, give you questions if you don't care whether you answer 'em or not? Well,
Speaker 3It's, the zoning board does not answer questions and does not do research on its own. We consider the evidence
Speaker 7Zoning to
Speaker 3Us by the applicant and by
Speaker 7The public. He asked you, they were zoning board questions that he asked you and you Mr. Kimley said you did not have that information in front
Speaker 3Of you. We do not. And we never do want any application
Speaker 7On any application or on any question. Which one is it? Which one
Speaker 3Is we did not have that information before us on any application that comes before
Speaker 7The So then you come to the zoning board unprepared?
Speaker 3No, ma'am. You
Speaker 7That what you're saying is that you're telling
Speaker 3Me Ma'am,
Speaker 1Ma'am, you're saying ma'am,
Speaker 7Sorry, two of you. Me, you're
Speaker 3Incorrect.
Speaker 7Incorrect. I'm incorrect.
Speaker 3Yes.
Speaker 7Okay. So when Mr. Wilson, if he could come back and ask you these questions and you tell us again that you don't have the answers to them, then it's okay. You'll go on and vote anyway. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 3Ma'am? The zoning board does not research each application.
Speaker 7I'm not asking to
Speaker 3Ma'am, I didn't interrupt you. Please don't interrupt me.
Speaker 7Okay. You,
Speaker 3The board considers the evidence that's presented to it by the applicant and by the public, and that is how we make a decision.
Speaker 7And Mr. Wilson falls into the public category, am I right? Yes.
Speaker 3And if he wants to present that information to the zoning board, we will consider it.
Speaker 7Okay. So can he come back on tonight and, and present the questions again that he asked earlier this evening?
Speaker 3Ma'am? If he has the answers, he can present those.
Speaker 7If he has the answers, he wouldn't ask the question
Speaker 1And we've already answered his questions.
Speaker 7No, you have not.
Speaker 1We answered it. We absolutely did. We told him we didn't have
Speaker 7You answered them to the best of your ability and I appreciate
Speaker 1That and it's correct,
Speaker 7But there were some that were outside of your capability at this time this evening. Okay.
Speaker 1All right, ma'am. Thank you Ms. Buckley. Any other president?
Speaker 0Let's see you on already. Mortel Mortel grant.
Speaker 3Is Martel Grant present?
Speaker 11Yes. I
Speaker 3I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? The testimony you're about to give should be the truth.
Speaker 11Yes.
Speaker 3Thank you. Can we have your address please?
Speaker 11I'm sorry, can you say that again and hear you?
Speaker 3Yeah, could we have your address please?
Speaker 11It's 91 Coventry Circle.
Speaker 3Thank you.
Speaker 1Please proceed ma'am,
Speaker 11Excuse me,
Speaker 1Your
Speaker 3Comments?
Speaker 11Oh. Oh, okay. Yes. I'm just concerned about the overall aesthetics of the property they're proposing to build in that particular area. It does not look like any of the properties that are in the neighborhood. I know things changed since 1970, but I think that would be, it would stand out and not kind of blend in what the neighborhood looks like. I concern about overall property value and then I just, and because it's so much large, I just really oppose to the proposal that was given tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 3Thank you.
Speaker 1Buckley
Speaker 0Otis Richards.
Speaker 1Mr. Richards.
Speaker 3Mr. Richards, can you hear me?
Speaker 10Yes. Can you hear me?
Speaker 1Mr. Can
Speaker 10Yes.
Speaker 3You swear the testimony you're about to give be the truth?
Speaker 10Yes, I do.
Speaker 3Your name and address please.
Speaker 10My name is Otis Richardson. My address is 32 Coventry Circle.
Speaker 3Thank you. Go ahead with your comments.
Speaker 10Comments I would like to make are are going to be to the point I support Mr. Wilson's testimony. Totally. I support the testimony of Ms. West and in fact, I support the testimony of everyone that has responded so far. Earlier, I believe it was Mr. Lanford who made testimony that suggested that the property proposed was symmetric, so to speak, with the current housing in this Coventry Circle area. That is not the case. And as I'm sure you, you just heard testimony from one of the residents to that effect. So the list of questions that Mr. Wilson posed, I myself had the very same concerns about. So at this point in listening to the last testimony, my question is what options do we have? Because it seems like that nobody's listening to what we have to say as the proximate own home homeowners, as the homeowners around the circle, et cetera. So our next step should be what?
Speaker 3First of all, Mr. Richardson, the, the zoning board listens to all of the testimony before it, both from the applicant and from members of the public. That is what they're going to base their decision on.
Speaker 10I understand that. So the boarding zoning board makes a decision and we need to do what next as property owners on Coventry Circle,
Speaker 3Any interested party who is dissatisfied with the decision of the zoning board can appeal that decision to superior court in New Brunswick.
Speaker 10Okay. And my suggestion to the other property owners is going to be that we do just that
Speaker 1You're doing, you're making that assumption before we vote.
Speaker 10Well, no, I'm just stating a position because from what I'm hearing is that, you know, this is Aithal <unk>
Speaker 1No, I apologize. If that's the way it's coming across, it's
Speaker 10Absolutely, well I'm sure that's, that's, well I can't say I'm sure because then I would be speaking for the other residents because that's, but that's the residents I get and so I would be suggesting to other residents who are on this meeting is that we decide that we will pro probably have to take further steps and do just what you suggested.
Speaker 1Understood. Mr. Richardson. Understood. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 10Thank you for giving me some time.
Speaker 1You're welcome. Ms. Buckley. Anyone else?
Speaker 12Tiffany Munez. Tiffany, can you hear me?
Speaker 1Yes ma'am.
Speaker 12I would like to know this.
Speaker 3Hold on. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Swear the testimony, you're truth.
Speaker 12Yes.
Speaker 3Okay. Now could I have your name and address please?
Speaker 12Tiffany Crookshank, 75 Coventry Circle. Thank
Speaker 3You.
Speaker 12I'm the PLA adjacent to 79. Now I have a question. This lot was empty since 1971, so why all of a sudden it has enough space to build something now after so many years, after 51 years,
Speaker 3The applicant has brought an application to develop the property. The zoning review identified several variances and that's why the is here for a hearing.
Speaker 12Well, the previous owner tried and it was knocked down. So while all of a sudden it's apri it, it was passed. Now
Speaker 3Nothing has been passed. Every application has to be reviewed on its own merits.
Speaker 12Was there a meeting prior to this meeting that happen?
Speaker 3That was the first meeting. This is the first meeting on this application.
Speaker 12Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3Thank you ma'am. Thank you. Ms.
Speaker 0Buckley, we have a Kyle Wilson.
Speaker 3Is Kyle Wilson present?
Speaker 13How are you doing?
Speaker 3Good. I need to swear you in. Could you, your right hand Sure. Testimony you're about to give should the truth?
Speaker 13Definitely.
Speaker 3Your name and address please.
Speaker 13Hi, Wilson. 83 Coventry Circle.
Speaker 3Thank you. Go ahead with your comment.
Speaker 13How accurate are your lot plans? Because it seems like you're trying to get variances and take property from my parents who live at 83 Coventry Circle and you're okay with it. This is property that they bought long time ago, which are different from your current plans, which you guys have seen to plan and make plans for already. And I'm just trying to figure out what's going on.
Speaker 2I, I, if, if I may respond to that, our property was surveyed. The plan that is before the board shows the development on property that is owned by an applicant not on anybody else's property. If anything, over the years there probably has been the use of this property by adjoining property owners without the consent of the prior owner. But the plan that is before the board involves the property that is owned by the applicant, which consists of 8,000 square feet and that's what we're to develop.
Speaker 3And Mr. Wilson, if you believe that there is a dispute with regard to the location of property lines or the ownership of property, the zoning board would encourage you to retain your own surveyor. Okay? The Township does not get involved in property boundary disputes between neighbors. That's up to the neighbors to work out and go to court if necessary.
Speaker 13Okay. So we can just get, so we can get a professional to survey and then stake out our land back. We can
Speaker 3Do that, yes, absolutely.
Speaker 13Sure. Okay. We'll do that. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2Thank you Mr. Wilson.
Speaker 0Mr. Cane, we have two people that already spoke that are raising their hands again.
Speaker 3Okay? I Is there no one new that has not spoken yet?
Speaker 0No, the two of
Speaker 3Mr. Chairman, you wanna allow round two for public comment but has to be brief. We have a long docket tonight. Yeah. Okay. Briefly.
Speaker 0All right, Mr. Richardson.
Speaker 3Mr.
Speaker 1Richardson, you remain sworn in to tell the truth. Oh,
Speaker 10I'm sorry. I'll lower my hand. I've stated my case and Oh, okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1Thank you sir. Have a good evening. Judith Marshall. Judith Marshall, you remain sworn in to tell the truth. Judith, you muted. There you go.
Speaker 7I, yes, yes. Alright. I ha I have two questions. You, one of you, based upon the merits of the case, and so I guess merits have to do both with the pros and the cons, right? So there as, as, as the property owners and many of, and many of the owners are people who have bought in very recent years, so they really have substantial investment in their property. I'm just saying there's more of, we've been here for many, many, many, many years, you know, so, so i, I think that should be one of the merits of the case, hopefully. Now the other thing is that, that that lot seems to be kind of a trapezoid shape with the narrowest edge of the trapezoid being on the street and right in that area. It's on the curve on the, of the street and it's actually a rather precarious, you know, precarious drive, you know, it's a sharp curve around the street. Homeowners sometimes have their cars parked out there or if they're having a company, whatever. So that, that will definitely be a, a problem, a negative problem there. So that, that's, that's an issue. Now I heard the architects say that you're 500 feet short of access or egress to the property. I, I forgot what he said, but is that because of, of that, of what I just described, the short edge of the trapezoid on the curve of the road I was speaking to Mr. Fletcher, the architect? Yes. Mr. Dacey, well I don't know
Speaker 1Testimony. I believe he mentioned the front of the property because of the way the curb line went that that was property that they didn't have access to that would've been over 500 square feet. But they don't have access to it. And that's exactly what you said about the, the weird curvature of the weird curvature of the, of the loop at that corner there. So that, that was his testimony,
Speaker 7But he didn't really finish the thought in terms of what that lack of 500 feet means.
Speaker 1Well that's, that's why they're asking for the extra, that's why, that's why they're actually for the 2 22 0.9 as opposed to the 20% they wouldn't have needed the 22.9 had that property be been zoned for that, that particular lot block. So that's why, that's why
Speaker 7Cause
Speaker 1Yeah, I'm sorry,
Speaker 7I, I took, I took that as two different things. The 22.9 has to do with the square footage. I thought of that. That is,
Speaker 1That
Speaker 7Is correct. But when he mentioned, okay, but when he mentioned the, the lack of the 500, when he mentioned the 500 feet, the lack of that, did that have something to do with entry and
Speaker 1No, had, had
Speaker 1The homeowner had, had the homeowner had access to the front of the property that, that curved there that he mentioned that would've provided the homeowner with an additional 500 square feet. But, but since it's not zoned for that particular block, that's why they're coming for us for the overall coverage. So a again, we are to all the property owners on that, on that street, there's gonna be a house put on that property. That's why the ho that's why the, the applicant bought the property and they wanna put up a home. It's up to us to determine whether it's gonna be a big home out of character with the rest of the homes in the area or not. And that's, you know, there's, there's gonna be a house developed on this property. It's just a matter for us to make sure it's the right home for that neighborhood.
Speaker 7Oh, that's interesting. I I thought that, that if the zone zoning doesn't allow it, a house can't be built. Right. I I thought that's what you're determining tonight is whether or not the zoning Yeah,
Speaker 1The zoning board is going to determine whether or not they deserve an exception from the zoning requirements.
Speaker 7Okay. And if they don't get the exception, that means they can't build a house. Is that what that means?
Speaker 1Correct.
Speaker 7Okay, so I thank you. Alright, so I just hope that in considering merits that the board realizes that it's a very narrow area on a curve of the road, which is already, you know, it's already crowded over there and, and that's something to be considered, please. Thank you.
Speaker 1Got it. Thank, thank you. Okay. Hearing no other with the raise hands, I wanna close the public portion. Anybody on the board have any questions or comments before? I'm sorry. Yes, Steve, go ahead.
Speaker 14I did not hear a sufficient answer to Mr. Canal's question about why we should go over the 2.9, 2.9 over the 20% coverage. There's no advantage to the Township. We're
Speaker 3A, as the BO'S lawyer, I wanna advise you that there are three variances here. The first two, the lot area and the lot width. The applicant has provided proofs that justify a hardship and when you justify a hardship, you are entitled to relief from those two. The third variance on the lot coverage, there is no hardship. So you have to decide whether or not the planning testimony that was provided by Mr. Fletcher is sufficient enough for you to grant a variance or lot coverage. If you find that it was, then you vote in the affirmative. If you find that it was not, then you would vote to deny that variance.
Speaker 14Okay, I don't have problem with the other two variants, I fully understand that it was last one. Okay,
Speaker 1Thank you Mr. Weisman. Any other members of the board of any questions? Okay, I'm gonna make a motion. I'm gonna find in favor The who Minimum lot area. I couldn't
Speaker 0Hear,
Speaker 1I'm sorry. I'm gonna a motion to approve the minimum lock area and the lot with and deny the lock coverage, which was the 22.9. It has to go at 20. Can I get a
Speaker 14Yes, I will second that.
Speaker 1Thank you. Please call the roll.
Speaker 0Mr. Weisman?
Speaker 14Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Reggio? Yes. Mr., Dacey
Speaker 1Abstain.
Speaker 0Mr. Mitterando
Speaker 2Abstain.
Speaker 0Mr. Ali?
Speaker 3Yes.
Speaker 0And Chairman Cahill?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 3Thank you. Mr.. Dacey, your application's been denied. Will memorialize it, it in the written document in our next meeting. And when I say denied, partially granted, partially denied.
Speaker 2Thank you Mr. Kinneally. I, I also thank the board for their time and consideration.
Speaker 1Thank you sir. Have a good evening.
Speaker 2You too.
Speaker 1Okay, let's move on to item number 7 22 dash ZB dash 21 v Calvin Summer
22-ZB-21V: Calvin Summer (1807 West Fifth Street) – Initial Hearing 22-ZB-21V AI  00:50:05 – 00:51:57
Application for residential addition with lot coverage variance. Applicant indicates revised plan submitted. Board pauses hearing pending staff expert input.
Speaker 3Mr. Dacey, are you present? Yes sir. Mr. Summer, have you revised your plan?
Speaker 15Yes, I revised the plan. Make it smaller. I spoke to the board already, what's his for his name and everything was, it was good to come back here.
Speaker 3Do you know what lock coverage you're pro proposing now?
Speaker 1520, I think it was 24.1.
Speaker 0What's your address again? I apologize.
Speaker 15It's 1807 West fifth Street pi.
Speaker 0I only had it right in front of me. Revised staff report. Mr. Kinneally? I believe it's 24 point 35.
Speaker 3Has Mr. Hinterstein joined the board?
Speaker 0No, I don't see him on yet. The last memorandum was from December 5th, I believe. 2022 or do we have one after that?
Speaker 3I, I'm not certain. I didn't see one, but I know that Mr. Henderson was working with the applicant. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Henderson is gonna join us shortly. Why
Speaker 1Don't we move on to item number eight and I'll tell Mr. Sam up to this, going to bullpen for a little bit.
Speaker 3That's what I was gonna suggest.
Speaker 1Perfect. Great minds think alike there Mr. Kinneally, is that okay with you Calvin?
Speaker 15Yes. I'll just try to leave work because I'm at work right now so I'll try, if
Speaker 1You could just be patient for a few minutes, I'm sure Mr. Dacey will join us and then we'll come back and we'll circle around.
Speaker 15Definitely I'll be here.
Speaker 1Okay, let's move on to item number 8 22 dash ZB dash 75 v. Patricia and David Cape.
22-ZB-75V: Patricia and David Cape (447 Valier Avenue) 22-ZB-75V AI  00:52:15 – 00:55:35
Application to add two-bedroom, one-bathroom addition and sitting area. Board identifies excessive lot coverage. Applicants directed to work with staff expert to reduce coverage variance. Application CARRIED to February 9, 2023 with no further notice.
Speaker 3Are Patricia and David Cape present?
Speaker 16Yes.
Speaker 17Yes, we're here.
Speaker 3Okay. I need to swear both of you in. Could you rephrase your right hand?
Speaker 16Okay.
Speaker 3Swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth.
Speaker 16Yes. Yes.
Speaker 3One at a time. Could I have your name and address please?
Speaker 16Patricia Cape 4 47 Valier Avenue, Piscataway, New Jersey oh 8 8 54.
Speaker 17Dave Cape 44 7 Val Avenue. Piscataway,
Speaker 3Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?
Speaker 16Yes, we're looking to add an addition to go up on our house to add two bedrooms, a bathroom in the sitting area.
Speaker 3Have you seen Mr. Henderson's January 23rd, 23 report?
Speaker 16I'm sorry, we
Speaker 0Can't hear you Mr. Kinneally,
Speaker 3Have you seen Mr. He's January 23rd report,
Speaker 0The staff memorandum that I emailed to you?
Speaker 16Oh yes.
Speaker 3Could you address the items contained therein?
Speaker 16Okay, so you mean talking about the bulk variance
Speaker 3Specifically The lot coverage. Mr, maybe I should take Mr. Chadwick's approach. This is way over on lot coverage. It, it's probably the recommendation of the board and of the board's professionals that you should go back and revisit this application and try and bring down your lot coverage.
Speaker 16Oh, it's lot coverage. Oh, okay.
Speaker 1It's in your best interest because it wouldn't, we would look favorable about it tonight based on the, the information you're giving us. So you guys tweak it a little bit.
Speaker 16Oh, okay. I never did anything like this before, so, okay,
Speaker 1No problem. We'll walk you through
Speaker 3And then, and we, we can carry it to a new date. You don't need to notice everybody again.
Speaker 16Okay? Okay, that's fine.
Speaker 3Okay, so what I would recommend you do is contact Mr. Hinterstein and discuss this with him and see if you can come up with an alternative plan.
Speaker 16Okay?
Speaker 1Alright,
Speaker 16That's fine.
Speaker 1Laura, what date do we have?
Speaker 3Is February 9th the next?
Speaker 0Yes, Mr.
Speaker 3Kinneally. Okay, so why don't we carry this to February 9th with no further notice by the applicant,
Speaker 16Okay?
Speaker 1Okay Ms. Cape. So get in touch with Henry Hinterstein at the Township and work with him in getting the numbers reduced a little bit so you'll have a positive outcome on the 9th of February.
Speaker 16Okay? Great. Thank you so much. I really appreciate
Speaker 3This application being carried to February 9th with no further notice by the applicant.
Speaker 1Got it.
Speaker 16All right, have a good night.
Speaker 1Thank you. You take care ma'am. Thank
Speaker 16You. Thank you.
Speaker 1Still don't see Mr. Hinterstein so I'm gonna move on.
Speaker 0I'm give him a call
Speaker 1Real quick please. Should I move on? Nine Jim item remember 9 22 dash EB 99 v Keisha Horton. Is Keisha here?
22-ZB-99V: Keisha Horton (1697 West Fourth Street) 22-ZB-99V AI  00:55:55 – 00:59:34
Application to add gazebo structure to backyard for family entertainment. Staff expert recommends specific setbacks: 8 feet from side, 60 feet from front, 10 feet from rear. Applicant confirms compliance. No public opposition. Vote: APPROVED unanimously.
Speaker 3Is Ms. Horton present?
Speaker 18Yes I am. Good evening, everybody
Speaker 3Swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Yes. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth?
Speaker 18Yes.
Speaker 3Your name and address please?
Speaker 18Keisha Horton. 1697 West fourth Street, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Speaker 3Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?
Speaker 18I wanted to just add a gazebo to the backyard. I recently just had the backyard, just landscape planted flowers just to make the backyard look more presentable as far as my home is concerned. So I just wanted to add a gazebo to the backyard, enhance the backyard for family, basically family and friend entertainment. I'm a director of preschool so I never get to have these privileges so I just wanted to add an addition to my home. As far as the back is concerned,
Speaker 3Have you seen Mr. Stein's January 12th, 2023 report?
Speaker 18I believe so. In reference to the lot, the coverage of the lot area?
Speaker 3No, he was asking about the location of the gazebo pavilion.
Speaker 18Oh, okay Then I'm sorry, I probably don't have have that paper, but I believe I did. I don't think I have it present with me, but as far as the gazebo was concerned, it's like 10 feet away from the actual side of the other person's, I guess from the fence to the middle of like my, this is my first time doing this so I
Speaker 3Gotta That's okay, lemme tell you. Lemme tell you what he recommends. Okay. He recommends that the zibo be located eight feet from the side property line as you show it. Okay. At least 60 feet from the front property line, which is 10 feet from the bump out to the rear of the house.
Speaker 18And that's exactly, exactly because I had a concrete slab put there. The concrete slab is actually 10 feet away from the area that you are actually talking about. I had a landscaping actually, I'm sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 3So you can comply with Mr. Henderson's recommendation?
Speaker 18Yes.
Speaker 3Okay. I
Speaker 18Actually talked to my husband about that part too because we were trying to figure out exactly where it was at from the location when I did get that letter because I remember getting a, that letter and bringing it to Ms. Buckley to try to figure out the procedures I needed to follow.
Speaker 3Okay. Mr. Chairman, those are all the concerns raised in Mr. Hinterstein report and most of the other variances are existing variants.
Speaker 1Okay, great. Any, anyone on the board have any questions about this application or comments? Hearing none, I'm gonna go to the public. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions about this application?
Speaker 0No. One Chairman.
Speaker 1Okay. Close the public portion. I'll make a motion to approve this application for Ms. Horton.
Speaker 0Second.
Speaker 18Thank you.
Speaker 1Okay, call roll.
Speaker 0Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blo? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Chairman
Speaker 1Cahill? Yes.
Speaker 3Ms. Horton, your application's been approved. We will memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting. You don't need to be there for that. We'll mail that document to you. Okay.
Speaker 18Thank you so much guys. I so appreciate your time.
Speaker 1You have a great night, ma'am. Thank you. You too.
Speaker 18Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye Ms. Buckley. Bye-bye. Thank you everyone. Bye.
Speaker 1Where's Waldo? Is he here?
Speaker 19Waldo is having
Speaker 1Issues. Okay, let's move on to item number 12 then. Oh, he's 22 dash ZB 1 0 6 v Duran. Did I butcher that? Ma'am,
22-ZB-106V: Daniel Duran (300 Highland Avenue) 22-ZB-106V AI  00:59:54 – 01:05:00
Application to construct 324-square-foot addition for master closet and bathroom to accommodate applicant's mother-in-law. Staff expert recommends side yard setback compromise: 8.5 feet instead of requested 6.5 feet. Applicant accepts compromise. Vote: APPROVED unanimously.
Speaker 19It's Sarah. Thank you. I'm sorry. No worries. You're forgiven.
Speaker 1Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3Ms. Duran, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? We have Henry, do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 19Yes sir.
Speaker 3Your name and address please?
Speaker 19Daniel Duran. 300 Highland Avenue, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Speaker 3Thank you. Could you explain your board what you'd like to do here?
Speaker 19Sure, sir. We are looking to build a approximately 324 square foot addition to house a master closet and main bathroom. Currently because a of medical issues, my mother-in-law will be moving in with us and the small spare bedroom that we do have, we are planning to give to her. It is my current closet because we just don't have sufficient space in the main home. And so this addition will help with an additional bathroom and a main closet to hold our clothing.
Speaker 3You may wanna check with Mr. Chadwick or with Mr. Henderson to see if they have any comments.
Speaker 20How you doing John?
Speaker 1Pretty good.
Speaker 20Just bear with me for one second. I'm just trying to square away. We're on which application
Speaker 1Number?
Speaker 312 two ZB 1 0 6 V den Duran 300 Highland Avenue.
Speaker 1Page five, number 12.
Speaker 20Yeah,
Speaker 1I'm really a little bit
Speaker 20The, the, the only issue I had with this application was that the side yard setback was a little bit severe at six and a half. If they could massage that back to eight and a half feet rather than the proposed six and a half feet, which is rather intense. It, it appears that it is just for the closet and for the master bath. I think they could work that in just reducing that the two feet. I don't see really any other issues other than that. So at six and a half feet it's a little bit tight to that side yard setback. They're willing to meet us, you know, sort of in the middle at that eight and a half I think. Then there's no other issues with this application.
Speaker 1Is that okay? Deni
Speaker 19Chairman, with your permission, if I may just share with the board one picture just to show aesthetically how the six and a half would be more conducive to the look of the home.
Speaker 20Mr.
Speaker 1Rand?
Speaker 20Yeah. You mean I I'm not, I'm sure the bigger home would look nice, but the problem is you have a neighbor and there's, there's, there's residence on each side. So I think the, again, the side yard setback of, of 10 feet, which, which is what the requirement is. You know, you're asking for almost, you know, half of that or you know, it's quite substantial when you're only looking at 10 feet. If you looked at the percentage, it would be like a 35% deviation from the what the, what the ordinance is. So that's why I'm saying I think the eight and a half is a good compromise. I'm not disputing the fact that I'm sure it looks good, but now you're putting this mass, which is the house closer to the property line than what's allowed. So you have to think of the neighbors, you have to think of future neighbors and you have to just think of the open air, you know, of the, of the, you know, developing of the houses. You're outside of the, the requirement. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to go a little bit outside that requirement, but I think that median is that eight and a half foot number. That, that's my opinion. Again, I'm not disputing your, your house would look pretty six and a half. That's, that's not really the issue though.
Speaker 19Understood. Mr. Hinterstein, I will accept the compromise.
Speaker 1Thank you den I think we can move forward on this with that compromise. Any other members of the board have any questions about this application or for this applicant? Hearing none, I'm gonna turn it over to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments for Denny in our application? Buckley?
Speaker 0Nope. No one Chairman
Speaker 1All close the public portion and I'll make a motion to approve this application for Mr. Uhrin.
Speaker 0I
Speaker 1Second. A second. Thank you. Can I get a roll
Speaker 0Call? Mr. Whitman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Bla? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Yes.
Speaker 3Mr.. Dacey. Your application has amended. Has been approved. We'll memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting and send a copy of that document to you.
Speaker 19Thank you Chairman, Cahill and board, have a wonderful
Speaker 1Evening. You have a great night. Thank you. Thank you. We're gonna, let's backtrack to item number 7 22 dash CB 21 v Henry. That's on page two and it's Calvin Summer. Calvin, you still at work? You're muted bro. I'm, yeah. Okay. We have our, our expert here to help you out with ironing out this application. So Henry, do you have any comments about this?
22-ZB-21V: Calvin Summer (1807 West Fifth Street) – Continued Hearing 22-ZB-21V AI  01:05:31 – 01:08:38
Board reconvenes case 22-ZB-21V. Staff expert reports applicant revised plan reducing lot coverage variance from 28% to 24.17%. Expert confirms revised design acceptable with conditions: fence relocated, shed ≤100 sq ft, addition as revised. Vote: APPROVED unanimously.
Speaker 20You know, Mr. Summer's been pretty, pretty Kyle's father, Mr Kind and, and and, and, you know, taking the time to, to discuss with me the application and revising it a few times. I actually think he even went a little bit beyond what I had asked. You know, I I thought he was gonna perhaps eliminate the gazebo in the back, which I thought, you know, wouldn't be as important. It has his addition, but as it turned out, Mr. Samara actually reduced the size of the addition even more and that really substantially reduced the, his original coverage variance. So I think a much more reasonable and acceptable amount in my opinion. So I, I think the revised plan as, as proposed now, I believe the coverage variance is 24.17 currently versus what the original amount was. I believe it was in the 20 eights as a matter of,
Speaker 20He, he's really paired that back and tried to work with the, with the Township and so as, as revised, I don't, I don't see any issues. I think he said he's willing to, to relocate that one section of fence further back so that it's not in the front yard setback to the extent that it is now. And I, I think we're good. I think, I think it could be, it could be approved, you know, based on the conditions of, of the fence from that staff report, the shed being simply a a hundred square feet or less and the, and the addition has revised and I think we're all good to go.
Speaker 1Okay, great. Mr. Hinterstein, any other variances changed? Because he's reduced a lot coverage.
Speaker 20The only thing that's changed is the lot coverage variance, which is I believe going down to 24.17% and the gazebo will stay and the shed will be a hundred square feet or less.
Speaker 1Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the board of any questions about this application? Hearing none, I'm gonna close that portion and open it up to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application for Mr. Summer?
Speaker 0No. One chair,
Speaker 1Mr. Chair? No. Close the public portion and I'll make a motion to approve Mr. Summer's application. Can I get a second? Second. Thank you. Get a roll.
Speaker 0Mr. Weisman?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blan?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Chairman Kajo?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 3Mr.. Dacey. Your application as menu has been approved, memorialize this in a written document in our next meeting and send a copy to, you'll leave that to your
Speaker 15Thank you very much. I appreciate
Speaker 1It. Thank you Mr. So for working and with us on this application, good luck.
Speaker 15Thank you. You guys have a great night and a great weekend. Okay?
Speaker 0Sure. Thank Kelvin.
Speaker 1Thank you. Let's go on. Item 1322. ZB 10k. Aithal
Speaker 3Is Mr. Dacey present. Swear in you. Your right hand swear testimony. You're the truth.
Speaker 21Yes.
Speaker 3Your name, address please.
Speaker 21Five 12 Plainfield Avenue, Eastway, New Jersey.
Speaker 3Thank you. Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?
22-ZB-10K: Aithal family (512 Plainfield Avenue, Eastway) 22-ZB-10K AI  01:09:09 – 01:10:52
Application to retain existing deck over rear yard setback. Deck was present when applicant purchased property; no neighbor complaints. Staff expert confirms deviation is de minimis given vegetation screening. Vote: APPROVED unanimously.
Speaker 21I, when I bought this house, the deck was there already, but three feet, little bit bigger from the backyard, the back property. But I, I bought the house because I, I like the, the size of the deck and looks like this deck very old, long time ago. And no issues with the neighbors. Right now. Anyone? When I bought the house last year, nobody company to me when all the neighbors are nice, nobody complain about that. So I I I I like to keep it as it is.
Speaker 3Mr. Chairman, you may wanna check with Mr. Henderson.
Speaker 1Yeah. Henry, can you go over with your site impact?
Speaker 20Yeah. There really isn't much of a site impact. I think this application, the deviation is somewhat tremendous. The, the existing decks seems to have been there for a long time. It's slightly over the rear yard setback. There's decent amount of vegetation on the property line, so I don't see any issues with this application. I think the deviation is de mini in nature and can be granted as such.
Speaker 1Thank you, Henry. You appreciate it. Any other members of the board of any questions about this application? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application? Ms.
Speaker 0Buckley? No. One chair
Speaker 1Oppos the public portion and I'll make a motion to approve this application for the Sony family.
Speaker 21Second. Thank you. Thank you much.
Speaker 1Let's take a vote.
Speaker 0Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Reggio? Yes. Mr.. Dacey? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Chairman?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 3Your application has been approved. We'll memorialize it in a document at our next meeting and send that document to you.
Speaker 21Alright, thank you. Thank
Speaker 1Take care guys. Good luck. Have
Adoption of Prior Meeting Resolutions (January 12, 2023) Dish WirelessVerizonJonathan StoolFrank BarberKenneth MegosJames MurrayThomas VarasKalpeshGary SchumerSammi Abdo RamDiego Renzo AI  01:10:54 – 01:14:33
Board formally adopts 11 resolutions from January 12, 2023 meeting: Dish Wireless, Verizon, Jonathan Stool, Frank Barber, Kenneth Megos, James Murray, Thomas Varas, Kalpesh, Gary Schumer, Sammi Abdo Ram, and Diego Renzo. Each resolution voted individually; all approved unanimously.
Speaker 0A good night. Thank
Speaker 1You. All right, let's move on to item number 14. The adoption of the resolutions from the regular meeting of January 12th, 2023.
Speaker 3The first resolution is Dish Wireless exemption from site plan. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Yes.
Speaker 0We.
Speaker 3Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Dacey. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Dacey? Yes. Chairman Cahill? Yes. The Verizon application. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Hillary?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Patel?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. What?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr.. Dacey? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Mr. Chairman. Cahill. Yes. Next, Jonathan Stool, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Hillary?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Patel?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cahill? Yes. Next, Frank Barber, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Patel?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Dacey? Yes. Chairman Cahill? Yes. Kenneth Megos, which you voted to approve. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Hillary?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Patel?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cahill? Yes. James Murray, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Patel?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman Cahill? Yes. Thomas Varas, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Patel?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman Cahill? Yes. Kalpesh, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Hillary?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Patel?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr.. Dacey?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Yes. Chairman? Yes. Gary Schumer, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Patel?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr.. Dacey?
Speaker 22Yes. Mr.
Speaker 3Durando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cahill? Yes. Next is Sammi Abdo Ram, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Hillary?
Speaker 22Yes. Mr.
Speaker 3Patel?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cahill? Yes. Do you go to Renzo, which you voted to approve? Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cahill? Yes. Those are all the resolutions we have this evening.
Adoption of Minutes from Prior Meeting (January 12, 2023) AI  01:14:33 – 01:14:45
Board adopts minutes from January 12, 2023 regular meeting by voice vote.
Speaker 1Item number 15, which is the adoption of minutes from the regular meeting of January 12th, 2023. All in favor? Say hi. Item number 16. Make a motion to adjourn. We made it. Thank God everyone, have a great night. Thanks again for your volunteerism.
Meeting Adjournment AI  01:14:45 – 01:14:48
Chairman makes motion to adjourn. Motion passes. Board members thanked for volunteerism.
Speaker 3Thank you. Thank everyone. Good weekend.