Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on March 23 2023
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 00:00:11 All right, Chairman, we're ready to go. Speaker 0 00:00:14 Okay. Zoning. Board of Adjustment meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News notice posted on the Bolton Board of the Municipal Building Notice made available to the Township clerk notice sent to the Curry News and Aithal Edge. Will the clerk please call the roll? Speaker 1 00:00:34 Mr. Weisman? Speaker 0 00:00:36 Here. Speaker 1 00:00:36 Mr. Tillery? Here. Mr. Patel. Mr. Reggio? Right here. Mr. Dacey. Mr. Haka? Here. Mr. Mitterando here. And Chairman Cahill. Speaker 0 00:01:00 Here. Will everyone please stand for salute to the flag? Speaker 2 00:01:04 Just join. Okay. Sorry. Speaker 1 00:01:07 Thank you. Speaker 3 00:01:21 Individual liberty. Speaker 0 00:01:27 Mr. Kinneally, any changes to tonight's agenda? Agenda? I, I'm not aware of any changes to the agenda. Okay. Thank you. Let's proceed. Let's move on to item number 5 22 ZB 1 0 8 slash 1 0 9 V St. Moses and Amber Abra Coptic Orthodox Church. Thank you Speaker 4 00:01:51 Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Kevin Morris. I'm Attorney Woodbridge, New Jersey, and I am appearing on behalf of the applicant. As a board is aware, this is an existing church property located at 40 Davidson Avenue East in Piscataway. The church has existed there for many, many years, 65 plus years. Members of the board may recall that this applicant was before you back in 2018 and received the benefit of an approval for an expansion to their parking area to accommodate its worshipers. Now, by way of housekeeping, I had previously submitted our affidavits of publication and mailing for the February 23rd meeting. I understand they were reviewed in an order the board took, took jurisdiction on the application. At that time, we needed an a last minute ad, German regrettably, due to a family emergency for one of our witnesses. But I understand that Mr. Kinneally, the board took jurisdiction, carried the application to this evening, announced it to the public so that we did not need to read notice. Speaker 0 00:02:58 You are correct, Mr. Morris, the ju the board is jurisdiction to proceed this evening. Speaker 4 00:03:02 All right, thank you. I have three witnesses available, although I o only intend on calling one. I've got Father Gregory Beckett from the church, Ralph Nashin, who's our project engineer, and I have Mr. Robert Walsh, who is our professional engineer and professional planner. I anticipate only Mr. Walsh will need to testify. I would, I would ask that he please be sworn. Speaker 0 00:03:24 Mr. Walsh, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 5 00:03:29 Yes, I do. Speaker 0 00:03:30 Your name and address, please? Speaker 5 00:03:33 Robert E. Walsh, w a l s h 7 0 1 New Brunswick Avenue, Phillipsburg, New Jersey. Speaker 0 00:03:42 Thank you. Speaker 4 00:03:45 Okay, thank you folks. Now, Mr. Walsh, I understand you're a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey since 1990 and a licensed professional planner and the state of New Jersey since 1991. Is that correct? That Speaker 5 00:03:58 Is correct. Speaker 4 00:03:59 Both of your licenses are presently in good standing, is that correct? Speaker 5 00:04:03 Yes, they Speaker 4 00:04:03 Are. Right. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh testified for this applicant on the 2018 application in both capacities, both as a professional engineer and a professional planner. His expertise were accepted at that time, and I would ask Mr. That you Speaker 0 00:04:18 Accepts are fine, Mr. Speaker 4 00:04:19 Morris and expert in both. Thank you. Let's, Speaker 0 00:04:22 Let's proceed. Speaker 4 00:04:23 All right. Now, Mr. Walsh, you prepared the plans that are before the board this evening, is that correct? Speaker 5 00:04:29 Yes, I did. Speaker 4 00:04:30 All right. Basically two aspects here. One is a vestibule and a d a ramp addition to the existing church building, correct? Speaker 5 00:04:38 Correct. Speaker 4 00:04:39 I understand the, the ADA ramp vestibule will provide much better ADA access to the site as presently exists. Is that correct? Speaker 5 00:04:50 Yes. Speaker 4 00:04:51 And also this new a d a ramp vestibule will additionally provide ADA access that is not currently available to the lower floor or the basement area room of the church, which is utilized for the worshipers purposes and church purposes and will correct that non-access problem. Is that correct? Speaker 5 00:05:12 That is correct. Speaker 4 00:05:13 And then the other part of this application is that there's an existing church spire with a cross on the top and it it has a pointed peak and it's the applicant's request to put a, basically put a, a dome over that the dome, the Coptic dome is consistent with their particular faith. Is that correct? Speaker 5 00:05:32 Yes. Speaker 4 00:05:33 All right. So can you please describe the proposed landscaping that we anticipate installing in connection with these proposed improvements? Speaker 5 00:05:46 Yes. Can I, I'm gonna try to share screen if it's okay, Speaker 0 00:05:50 Please. Speaker 5 00:05:52 Entire screen. Ugh, I'm, I have troubles with this in the past and let me try to, okay. Can you see that? Speaker 6 00:06:14 No. Speaker 4 00:06:14 Negative, Speaker 5 00:06:15 Not yet. Okay. Hang on a second. Okay. I'm trying to share screen and it's not letting me hit the share button. Is do you guys have to give me permission? Speaker 6 00:06:48 Oh, you're sharing now. Speaker 5 00:06:53 Okay, let me try this again. I'm gonna bring up the PDF of the site plan. Can you see that? Speaker 7 00:07:00 I think that's Ralph's, that's Ralph's screen there. Speaker 8 00:07:11 The only thing appearing on my screen is the word zoom. Speaker 5 00:07:14 Yeah, same here. Mine too. Speaker 6 00:07:16 Yep. Speaker 4 00:07:17 All right. Well, you know Mr. Walsh, as, as we're going Speaker 5 00:07:21 Plan, Speaker 4 00:07:22 Plan, Kevin? Yes. How's Speaker 5 00:07:24 That, Speaker 8 00:07:26 Kevin? Yes. The best way to deal with this on the landscaping is both myself and Henry have commented and Henry's quite specific. Is there any issue with abiding by the recommendations of Mr. Stein? Speaker 4 00:07:44 Well, you know what? I would, you're, we're a little bit ahead of it, but we'll, following your lead, we'll go to that right now. First, I, I've, we've taken a look at your memorandum, Mr. Chadwick dated February 14th, 2023. The first comment is a planning comment. You'll hear some testimony, but the remainder of your comments, items 2 34 and five are all items that we have reviewed and the applicant has prepared to comply with a caveat with or an answer on your item. Number two, there is no audio systems proposed, and we did have a room. Speaker 8 00:08:20 What, what I was hoping Kevin is to get by this landscaping where we couldn't get the screen. If you can bring with Mr. Dacey, Anthony Hinterstein comments, we can move on. Speaker 4 00:08:30 We reviewed the second memo dated February 23rd, 2023, site impact comments, which include all the landscaping grading and so forth. There are 12 items and we are prepared to comply with all of those items. Item 13 of that memo indicates we need to submit to the county planning board that's already been done. So basically we can comply with the terms, conditions, and recommendations of both professional memos. Speaker 0 00:08:55 Hi, that's, that's, Speaker 4 00:08:58 I was just hoping to move this along. Right. That's fine. So Speaker 0 00:09:01 I think we just did, Speaker 4 00:09:02 Yep. So other than that, it's a pretty, I'm happy to be before with a rather simple application and if there's no engineering questions, I would then ask just Mr. Walsh to give us some very brief planning testimony before the board deliberates. Speaker 0 00:09:19 Do any members of the board have any questions? Okay, hearing none, you can proceed Mr. Morris. Speaker 4 00:09:25 Alright. So now, Mr. Walsh, in addition to your engineering testimony and review, you've also analyzed the subject application from a professional planning standpoint, correct? Correct. All right. The, the use of self of the church is an inherently beneficial use to which we're providing this really vestibule and ADA edition. And again, the, that requires a use variance, correct? Technically we're heading onto it. And then the other aspect of the use variance is the existing steeple or spire with the cross on the top of it, the dome actually exceeds because we're technically in a residential zone, it's at 45 feet and we're supposed to be at 35 feet. So that invokes a, a use variance for height, correct? Correct. However, we are not increasing the height. The top of that cross will remain unchanged, correct? Speaker 5 00:10:15 Correct. Speaker 4 00:10:16 And basically the dome just comes up a little farther and what appears to be a little pointed spire to the cross now gets domed over with a Coptic dome, correct? Speaker 5 00:10:25 That is correct. Speaker 4 00:10:26 All right. Now, since we're in inherently beneficial use, we don't need to talk about special reasons because the use itself is considered one that sorts supports the general welfare. So basically it's the seek and balancing test we talk about is there any negativity, correct? Speaker 5 00:10:43 Correct. Speaker 4 00:10:44 Right. So you've had the opportunity to review and analyze the application in that regard, correct? Speaker 5 00:10:49 Yes. Speaker 4 00:10:50 And do you, are you able to identify, are there any negative impacts that will be caused by the continuing use of the property as the church with these proposed editions? Speaker 5 00:11:05 No, it's will remain the same. The height will remain the same and continue to be a place of worship, and with the same building high, with just an, the architectural motif will be essentially upgraded to match the ADA improvements that are being Speaker 4 00:11:29 Proposed. And these improvements are not done to increase the size of the Cahn congregation or use of the church, but it's really done simply to provide better access for the existing congregants and to add the, some of the architectural flair consistent with the Coptic church, their dome and the way that type of style of their faith. Is that correct? Speaker 5 00:11:53 That is correct. Speaker 4 00:11:54 All right. And again, will there be any negative impact on any adjacent or neighboring properties with regard to this proposed development of the property? Speaker 5 00:12:03 No, there will not. The, the character of the neighborhood will remain exactly the same. In fact, the architectural upgrades will just an increase benefit in terms of the visual environment in terms of matching the proposed ADA improvements, the motif that they're trying to construct along with the change to the tower to match those architectural improvements Speaker 4 00:12:33 And the, the improvements themselves, the color and style are going to match the color of the existing church right now, correct? That Speaker 5 00:12:42 Is Speaker 4 00:12:42 Correct. It's the intention to have it blend. So it almost looks like it's not really an addition, but really part of an original construction, is that right? Yes. Speaker 5 00:12:50 All Speaker 4 00:12:51 Right. And it would be your, can, the relief here that we're requesting, can it be granted without substantial detriment to the public's good and without substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of this Township zone plan and zoning ordinance? Speaker 5 00:13:04 Yes, that's Speaker 4 00:13:05 Correct. Okay. And that would be your planning opinion based upon all the testimony, correct? Speaker 5 00:13:11 Correct. Speaker 4 00:13:12 All right. So if there are any planning questions of Mr. Walsh at this time, we would invite them. Speaker 0 00:13:19 Does, does anyone on the board have any questions? Nope. Proceeding Mr. Moore? Maybe Speaker 8 00:13:25 We just wanna confirm there, there will not be any audio system in the dome. Speaker 4 00:13:31 That is correct. Speaker 5 00:13:32 There will not. Speaker 0 00:13:33 What Speaker 8 00:13:34 Color is the dome? Speaker 5 00:13:38 The renderings that I've seen is a light blue is, and I'd have to just verify with Ralph whether that's correct, that Speaker 8 00:13:45 Rendering. I, I did, I couldn't catch it, so that's why I asked. Speaker 5 00:13:52 Ralph, can you unmute yourself for a second Speaker 0 00:13:55 And we'll need to swear him in? Mr.. Dacey, could you unmute? Unmute yourself. Okay. Asked and answered. Speaker 5 00:14:13 Ralph, unmute yourself, Speaker 0 00:14:16 Ralph, you have to unmute yourself. Speaker 5 00:14:18 There you go. Okay, Speaker 0 00:14:20 Mr. Naed, could I, could you raise your right hand, sir? You're muted. Good job. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Yes. Your name and address, please? Speaker 9 00:14:30 Ralph Nash. One 12 Kensington Avenue in Jersey City, New Jersey. Speaker 4 00:14:36 All right, Mr. Nash, you're, you're the designer who designed these proposed editions, correct? Correct. Alright, question of the board planner. What color is the dome proposed to be? Speaker 9 00:14:48 The dome is going to be Speaker 0 00:14:50 Glass to provide light to the vest view, so it is a glass, glass door. Speaker 4 00:14:57 Okay. Speaker 0 00:14:58 Alright. Thank you, sir. Your Honor, Mr. Morris, is that it? That's Speaker 4 00:15:04 My, that's, that's our case, Mr. Chairman. Speaker 0 00:15:07 Okay. Any members of the board of any questions or comments about this? Hearing none. I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions about this application? Speaker 1 00:15:18 No one Chairman, Speaker 0 00:15:20 Ms. Buckley? Speaker 1 00:15:21 No Speaker 0 00:15:22 One sir. Seeing none close. Close the public portion and make a motion to approve this application. Speaker 8 00:15:34 Second. Speaker 0 00:15:34 I get a second. Speaker 1 00:15:38 Mr. Weisman? Speaker 0 00:15:39 Yes. Not all. Mr. Hillery? Yes. Speaker 1 00:15:41 Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Speaker 0 00:15:45 Yes. Speaker 1 00:15:45 Mr. Blan? Speaker 0 00:15:47 Yes. Speaker 1 00:15:47 Mr. Hay daca? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Speaker 0 00:15:50 Yes. Mr. Morse, we will alize this at our next meeting, Speaker 4 00:15:54 Right? Thank you folks. And Mr. Chadwick feel better? Speaker 8 00:16:01 Thank you, Mr. Kale. I am going to excuse myself. I'm not Speaker 0 00:16:12 Please yourself and, and men up. Okay, we'll, we'll see you at the next one, okay? I will. Let's proceed to item number 6 23 dash CB dash 17. Venkat name? Speaker 10 00:16:30 Yeah. Speaker 0 00:16:31 Okay. I my best. Okay. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 10 00:16:40 Yes. Speaker 0 00:16:40 Your name and address please? Speaker 10 00:16:46 New Jersey 8 8 4. Speaker 0 00:16:48 Thank you, sir, could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here? Speaker 10 00:16:51 Yeah, I request for six feet solid vinyl fence for five, five feet inside the property from the property line. That's my request for the variance. Speaker 0 00:17:10 Did you have an opportunity to look at Mr. Hinterstein report? Speaker 10 00:17:16 Yes, I did look into it. And if I understand, is suggesting to put 15 feet off of the property line? Speaker 0 00:17:25 Yeah, the current proposed location is in the site triangle, so we cannot app approve that. And Mr. Hinterstein is suggesting that you're moving 15 feet off the property line. Can you do that? Speaker 10 00:17:36 May I re request for 10 feet off? Because my property itself is very small, so I'm okay to do like 10 feet inside instead of 15 May I on the map side, Speaker 0 00:17:51 Mr. Chairman, you may wanna check with Mr. Hinterstein. Yes. Henry, could you please comment about this? Speaker 11 00:17:56 Yeah, a again, this is a typical solid fence in a corner property. As we've asked many times before, we've asked residents and applicants to move the fences typically 15 feet, if not more, in order to keep the site quarter open of the, the roads so that they don't, the encroachment of the fences do not impact the neighboring properties. In this particular case, we are in R 75 zone, so the front yard setback is a little bit less at 25 feet. With that being said, I, I think maybe we could compromise a little bit, maybe 12 and 12 and a half feet, which is half of the, the setback in that zone I think would be an appropriate compromise. But I, I believe that that is the extent of, I think where the, the, the varying should end. I don't believe the fence should encroach any more than that 12 and a half feet from the property line. The applicant also has the ability to put a four foot fence that's 50% solid up to the property line. So you know, if it's a matter of wanting to fence the property, you know, they're entitled to to do a, a four foot high, 50% solid fence. But if they want to use a six foot solid fence, my recommendation would be 12 and a half would be the bare minimum that the board should approve. Speaker 0 00:19:31 That's a good compromise, sir. Speaker 10 00:19:34 Okay, so in that case, I'll go with the 12.5 feet inside the property line with 6.6 feet solid fence. And can I put the picket fence on the remaining area? Like on the one feet leaving from the property line, can I put a picket fence? Speaker 11 00:19:54 You're entitled to put a, that conforms with the ordinance up to the property line. Speaker 10 00:19:59 Okay, sure. Thank you. Speaker 11 00:20:01 It just cannot be in the site triangle. So no fence can be in the site triangle easement. So you might have to step it little bit further in as far as how close it gets to teary court in order to comply with that, that site triangle. But otherwise you could do a four foot high, 50% solid fence up to the property line along Maple Avenue and, and, you know, closing the property just cannot be located in that site triangle. Speaker 10 00:20:34 Okay. Understand. Speaker 0 00:20:38 Any other comments, Henry? Speaker 11 00:20:40 Nope, that's really it. There is a variance for AC compressors being within the side yard setback, but due to defense being installed, I think that's gonna sa satisfactorily buffer and screen the AC compressor unit. So I don't see any issue with that variance as being Speaker 0 00:20:57 Requested. Got it. Okay. Thank you Henry. Any other members of the board of any questions for this applicant? Hearing none, I'm gonna open the public portion. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions for this application? Speaker 1 00:21:13 No. One Speaker 0 00:21:14 Chairman. Thank you. Laura, close the public portion and I'd make a, a motion to approve the application. Speaker 1 00:21:21 Aye. Second. Speaker 0 00:21:22 Thank you. Mr. Dacey. Speaker 1 00:21:26 Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Dacey? Yes. Mr. Bla? Yes. Mr. Hidaka? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Speaker 0 00:21:39 Yes. Your application has been approved as amended 12 and a half feet off the property line. We will memorialize this in a written document at our next meeting. You don't need to be there for that. We'll mail that document to you. Thank you very much. Good luck, sir. Let's move on to item number 7 23 ZB dash 14 v Patricia Bell. Speaker 12 00:22:05 Good evening, Mr. Chair. Members of the board. This is Jeremy Solomon, the law office of Bob Smith and Associates to represent the applicant. Patricia Bell, excuse me. Speaker 12 00:22:15 This is a, the plan is a consolidation of two lots and a renovation and an addition to an existing single family home in the R 20 district. I'm authorized to tell you that having reviewed the Mr. Henderson's memo, that the applicant has agreed to amend the proposal to eliminate the last two variances listed. The driveway will be paved. It's not gonna be a gravel driveway, but it'll be paved and the garage will be enlarged. So it's to conform to the ordinance. So the final two variances listed will be eliminated. The request for them will be eliminated the remaining four variances, the first two are existing the lot area of 13,840 and a half square feet where 20,000 square feet is required. That's existing and the lot depth of 125 feet where 150 feet is required is also existing preexisting. The remaining variances are for a proposed 27 and a half foot front setback where 40 feet is required and then two side yard setbacks, 1.8 foot for the covered deck and 2.7 feet for the shed. Speaker 12 00:23:18 In both cases, eight feet is required. We'll have the testimony from the engineer, but with respect to the front yard setback, I believe it's for the most part dictated by the architectural covering over the entranceway. You'll hear some more testimony about that as well. The, the side yard, I'm told that they both have existed for many years. The side yard setbacks that are existing, the 1.8 feet for the, and the, the 2.7 feet for the shed. In fact, I'm, I'm told by the applicant that her husband constructed that deck over 30 years ago and she's never had any complaint from a neighbor or anybody. Excuse me. As a witness, I have Paul Fletcher, he's an engineer and a planner who will testify as to the details of the proposal. The architect, Phil Ito, is present if you have any questions for him as well. The applicant, Ms. Bek is also present. I anticipate that only the engineer will need to testify, but I have them available if you have questions that Mr. That the engineer isn't able to answer, if we could arrange to have him sworn. And Mr. Fletcher, Speaker 0 00:24:25 Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 13 00:24:31 Yes, I do. Speaker 0 00:24:32 Your name and address please? Speaker 13 00:24:34 Yes. Paul J. Fletcher 54 West Pond Road in Hope Lawn, New Jersey. Speaker 0 00:24:41 I believe Mr. Fletcher has been accepted by the board as an expert engineer and planner on prior applications. Speaker 12 00:24:46 I'm taking the liberty of sharing my screen. Let me know if you can see the engineering plans. Speaker 0 00:24:53 Yes, we can. Speaker 12 00:24:54 Okay. Mr. Fletcher, I, I'm sorry, you said he is qualified, you accept him as an expert? Speaker 0 00:24:58 Yes. He's appeared before this board on prior occasions. Speaker 12 00:25:00 Mr. Fletcher, can you address yourself to the variances requested in this application? Speaker 13 00:25:04 Certainly. Subject property 30 sunny Avenue lots 15 and 16 in block 77 6. Property is currently improved with a single family house, one story and has had some fire damage. The applicant proposes to expand the footprint, putting a to the right side, a two-story edition, putting a second floor edition over the existing house, and also a two-story edition at the rear. There is some, there is also a, an extension of the second floor over the front porch by two feet, which I think adds some character and aesthetic appeal to the, to the elevation. As you mentioned, there's a number of existing variances required. Mineral lot area 20,000 square feet existing is 13840.54 square feet. I believe the, and that is an existing situation, which could be under the C1 criteria where the hardship appears to be no land available. Speaker 13 00:26:23 Similarly, for the lot depth, 150 feet is required in the zone. The R 20 zone and 125 lot is existing. Again, that's, I believe a C1 variance where it's a hardship and the actual variance for the front yard setback, the existing front yard is 29 and a half. We're seeking a a two foot increase to 27 and a half. And I think that could be justified outta the C2 criteria where the benefits significantly outweigh any detriments. I don't see any particular detriment to a two foot overhang on the second floor with pillars that would make the building much more attractive. And I think the aesthetic improvement to the, to the look, the benefit to the neighborhood. With regards to the side yard setbacks, again, these are are existing conditions. Eight foot is required. There's a covered wood deck that's at 1.8 feet, a accessory structure shed, which is a 2.7. Speaker 13 00:27:38 Again, this is been in existence for quite a number of years. To our knowledge, there's been no complaints and I would suggest that the board has the authority under C1 where it would be a hardship for the current homeowner to, to have to move these structures. And as you had mentioned, the last two variances regarding paved driveway, we will be paving the driveway and again, as you mentioned, the garage will be enlarged to comply with the ordinance requirements. Revised architectural plans will be provided and revised plot and grading plan will be submitted reviewed by the board professionals. Overall, I, I think this, this application can be granted without substantial detriment to, to the public good without detriment to the Piscataway zone plan or master plan. And I would respectfully request the board approve the application Speaker 12 00:28:47 Just for the benefit of clarity of the record. Ms. Fletcher, can I ask, do you see any negative impacts from approving these variances? Speaker 13 00:28:53 I do not. Speaker 12 00:28:54 And do you see any negative impact to the surrounding or neighboring properties? Speaker 13 00:28:58 I do not. Speaker 12 00:29:00 That's all the questions that I have. Mr. Chairman, oh, and I should specify Mr. Chairman, that the plans that we're working on are the plans that were submitted with the application. They are dated September 30th, 2021. Speaker 0 00:29:13 Thank you Henry. Further comment, Speaker 11 00:29:21 I'd like to just talk a little bit about the, those variances. And really, I, I don't have any issue with the majority of these variances stated, the majority of these variances were for preexisting conditions for the two, which was the, I believe the lot area in the, the frontage or the lot depth, I forget which one it was, but that was a preexisting, the, the existing setback or the proposed setback for the front. I have a little bit of an issue with in the sense that, again, this is a zone that requires a 40 foot front yard setback. And typically when we've had additions, we look for the addition to improve upon the, the requirement that the zone requires not, not exacerbate the existing variances. You know, if the variance was, you know, 35 feet where 40 feet was required, then, you know, perhaps I could agree with Mr. Speaker 11 00:30:17 Fletcher that, you know, it's really a C2 and it's the minimus, but here we're going from a variance that's almost, you know, quite a bit substantially over, you know, it's, it's an intense variance to begin with. And then now we're, we're asking for a variance of actually 27 feet, not the 27 and a half feet. Because when you look at the architectural plan, the soffit has to be included as well on that setback. There's no, there's no grandfathering or exception for soffits when you are already in a variance situation. So typically you would get credit for the soffit if it was 18 inches over the property line. But since this is already a substantial variance, you get no credit for the soffit or no allowance, I should say, for the soffit. Therefore again, it, it, you're just increasing the mass and really exacerbating that front yard setback more so than, than it really should be. Speaker 11 00:31:19 I, I think that you could accomplish the same thing with an open covered covering over the front door, but not increase the mass of the structure by adding that second floor addition. Maybe the architect could speak of that and I think it would pretty much still give it that architectural character that you're looking for as well as the, the covered entrance area. But I believe it should just stop at an open, you know, pillared roof without the, the addition above it to increase the mass of the building into the front yard setback. As far as that existing covered deck in the back, just because it's been there for 30 years illegally does not justify any variances or create any hardships that hardship is self-created. It wasn't permitted. There was no variance ever issued for that covered deck as such. The case law, I think is pretty clear on that, that there's, it's a self-created hardship. Speaker 11 00:32:21 The requirement of eight foot set setbacks for rear inside yard setbacks on accessory structures is there to protect, I think, good zoning practices and not have structures right up against neighboring property lines. And as such, and, and due to the fact that it, it was done illegally and, and there's ample room, I believe around the property for this deck or structure to be relocated, I don't see a reason why it could not have been put into a conforming location from the start and it should have been permitted. So the fact that it's been there for 30 years illegally, I I think the, the homeowner should be thankful that they got to use it for 30 years without any issue. But it doesn't, it doesn't make it right. Speaker 0 00:33:10 Okay. Does that also apply to the shed? Thank you, Henry, Speaker 11 00:33:14 The shed in itself is very close to the allowed, it's a slightly over what the 10 by 10 requirement is for the three foot setback requirement for a hundred square foot shed. So as such, I don't have an issue with the shed because it's just slightly over the hundred square foot allowance of a, of a shed in the, in the sense that it's not an accessory structure. So I don't have an issue with the shed being on the one side, slightly under the requirement that a normal shed would be required to have. This is slightly more than the a hundred square feet, which is why the eight foot requirement exists. But I think it's close enough to that a hundred square feet that, that, that variance is, is acceptable. I think for the shed, it's really just the covered deck that is extremely, you know, out of character with the, the accessory structure requirements. Speaker 11 00:34:11 Again, it was a legal structure, it wasn't permitted or, or variance was never issued for it. And as such, I i, I think it should be relocated to a conforming location or removed. I mean, there's not, if it's 30 years old, it might be on its last leg anyway. But that being said, I'll leave that up to the applicant and, and again, I, I think I don't have an issue in, in concept with the covered entrance way. The, the issue is the, the mass of it with the second floor addition above it. I think if it was just the covered entranceway with, with the pillars and just stop with a, with a, either an A frame or a pitchback slope back roof, I think we're fine. But once you, I think put that second floor edition on top of it, now you're really exacerbating the mass of the structure and the front yard setback that exists there today, which is already an intense front yard setback variance and definitely further out than all the other, or the other two homes on either side of this property. Speaker 0 00:35:14 Bless you, whoever that was. Speaker 12 00:35:20 Mr, can I ask Mr. Fletcher to weigh in on the issue of the second floor, the two foot that Mr. Henderson was referring to? I, I, I re nobody asked my opinion, but I I, I re I see it as an existing 2025 some feet and the applicant is only asking for an additional two feet, but nobody, I mean, I'm not a planner, so I'm wondering what Mr. Fletcher thinks. Speaker 13 00:35:47 My comment would be that I think it's aluminous increase, although it's, we are already in a nonconforming front yard setback. But I think the addition of two feet over whatever the width is, maybe 12 feet is, is de minimus. And as I mentioned, I think it would add aesthetic value, but you might like to have the architect comment on that. Speaker 12 00:36:18 And that was my next move. If I could ask Mr. Anto to unmute himself and address the board. Speaker 14 00:36:29 Okay. I've unmuted myself. I don't know if the video's working, but Speaker 0 00:36:34 Y yes it is. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 14 00:36:40 Yes. Speaker 0 00:36:41 Your name and address please? Speaker 14 00:36:44 Phil ATO 66 Blossom Hill Road, Lebanon, New Jersey. Speaker 0 00:36:50 Thank you. Speaker 12 00:36:52 Mr. Ato, can you give the board the benefit of your qualifications as an architect? Speaker 14 00:36:57 I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey since so 1989, I believe. I have never been in front of board in Piscataway, but I have been board members. I have been a board member and I have been in front of many boards throughout the state. Speaker 0 00:37:16 I I'm happy with your qualifications, please Speaker 12 00:37:18 Proceed. Thank you. Mr. Anita, would you address Mr. Stein's comments in particular with respect to the a the additional two foot projection on the front setback? Speaker 14 00:37:30 Yeah, well the additional, Speaker 12 00:37:32 I'm sorry, lemme interrupt you if you'd like, I will show the architecturals on the screen the, again, Mr. Chairman, these are plans that were submitted with the application and just so that the record is clear, I believe they're dated, is it May 18, Speaker 14 00:37:50 May 18th, 2018, I believe. Was it 19? Speaker 12 00:37:54 That sounds right. Speaker 14 00:37:58 Okay. So the request two requests were made of me when we were designing this particular area. One was to have step gables and two was to have some type of protection at the front porch. Now, initially we just had the projection that two for projection as a cantilever and we were trying to bracket it and it didn't, it didn't look appropriate and we decided to add the columns at one. You know, I do understand that once you are in a variant situation, the 18 inch allowance for projections does not exist anymore. But the concept initially was to, you know, to do that, to take advantage of something we really couldn't take advantage of. However, I don't have really a problem with a covered porch. The, because we could still create step gables. The question is, is that with, with the design like this, a two foot Kinneally protect the door and if we were to do a a roof, it wouldn't look appropriate if it weren't at least three or four feet deep. So we would have to be, it would, I think in order to look appropriate, it would have to project out fur just a, you know, a, a design comment, a two foot gable, a a projecting gable that's only two feet deep doesn't look appropriate, you know, it's just not deep enough. Speaker 12 00:39:31 Is it fair to say that, you mean to say if there was only a roof there, it would actually project further into the setback than the existing structure that you've proposed in Speaker 14 00:39:39 Order to look Speaker 12 00:39:40 Structure you have proposed Speaker 14 00:39:41 In order to look appropriate? I, I would suggest that it would have to be, be further, you know, project further at least, you know, three feet. If not, you know, if we could get four, I'd prefer it, but at least three. And then Speaker 12 00:39:54 This design. So this design accomplishes the goal of protecting the front entryway while projecting less into the setback than a simple roof would? Speaker 14 00:40:03 Yes. Speaker 12 00:40:05 Okay. Speaker 11 00:40:07 Mr. Majewski? Speaker 14 00:40:08 Yeah. Speaker 11 00:40:10 The, the a-frame gable that you have over the addition, isn't that two and a half feet? Speaker 14 00:40:19 The A frame gate? Speaker 12 00:40:20 This bit, this part here? Speaker 11 00:40:22 Yeah, the gable over the addition over the entrance was two and a half feet. And you just said that a two and a half foot gable wouldn't look right. Speaker 14 00:40:31 Well that's a, that's a Kinneally projection. A two and a half, a two and a half foot. Just, just gable with window. Would it just the roof itself? Speaker 11 00:40:41 Yeah, but it's really the same thing. I mean, covered porch. Yeah. The issue I have is the, the mass of the structure above, above the entranceway. I don't have the problem. So if that gable was lowered to so that the point was at the, you know, at that window or maybe the window was shortened a little bit and Yeah, you know, the gable was just over the door with an A frame, you know? Yeah. Would it be better if it was wide or short? But the, again, the problem is you, you're have an existing variance situation here, which is over 10 feet more than what's required by the ordinance. So I mean, the problem is, is balancing what the want and what, you know, ideally would be looked the best with, with the ordinance. And I think the, the really, I, I mean I think the Township could just say, you know, I don't think that the exacerbating that front yard setback is a good idea. I'm not saying that, I'm saying that I think the mass has gotta be more open and, and, and less, less than what's there now. I mean, the addition does provide a little bit of architecture character and, you know, again, perhaps the, the a frame just over the doorway or some other modification to that would, would still, I think give it some interest and some character without really substantially increasing the mass of the structure into that front yard sat back, which is already in such an intense variance state. Speaker 14 00:42:18 Okay. Just to, not to complicate things, but there is a, a stone veneer, which could be thin stone, so it would only be two inches. So we do have, you know, from the existing facade, we would be another with finish, we would be another, you know, two inches beyond the siding that's there now because the, the, the desire is to put a, a stone veneer, but it could be thin stone, let not four inch a thin like applied stone. Speaker 11 00:42:52 Well, again, if you're putting the covered roof over the entranceway, that's gonna be projecting, Speaker 14 00:42:59 It Speaker 11 00:42:59 Would project probably two and a half feet out anyway. So it's gonna be more than what the stone veneer is anyway. So I don't see the stone veneer being the issue. Speaker 14 00:43:08 I mean, I would re, I would request if I could to, for the roof with its soffits to be like three feet from, for the, if we did it just a gable so I could have enough room to make it look appropriate. At least Speaker 11 00:43:23 I don't have an issue with that as long as the, it's just a gable roof over the entranceway without the addition above. I think that could work. Speaker 14 00:43:30 Now I could try a, a hip as well as gable roofs, you know, until the owner's satisfied. Speaker 11 00:43:38 Okay. Speaker 0 00:43:41 Thank you Henry. Speaker 0 00:43:45 Mr. Cahill, we're, we're at a, a point where it looks like an applicant might have to supply revised plans for the consideration of both the board and Mr. Henderson. Mr. Solomon, can you talk to your client or find out how you'd like to proceed with this? We, you can see obviously that we're, the temperature in the room is that Henry wants certain things to be adhered to and the board nine, you know, nine times outta 10, we always go with the expert engineers that we have in the Township. So I think, I think we're at a bit of an impasse. Speaker 12 00:44:24 Yeah. Might be more efficient, most efficient. If you want me to quickly address the Mr. Henderson's review letter. Speaker 0 00:44:31 Oh sure. Please. Speaker 12 00:44:32 I might as well. Just so that we have a complete record. We haven't discussed item one or number two and the applicant will comply with those items. We discussed item number three. Number four is the setback that we just finished discussing the paved driveway is number five, which we said we would comply. And I think number six is something Mr. Fletcher or Mr. Aita will take care of. Speaker 0 00:44:57 Okay. Speaker 12 00:44:59 Anyway, in the interesting completeness, I thought we should address that. Speaker 0 00:45:02 No, I appreciate that. Unless we have to deal with next time. Speaker 12 00:45:04 If you wouldn't mind, I could go on mute and re try to reach out to my client. Speaker 0 00:45:10 Please proceed. Yeah, that's fine. Speaker 12 00:45:11 Thank you. Speaker 0 00:45:17 Mr. Chairman, would you like to do the resolutions while we're waiting? Yeah, that's not bad idea either. Let's move on to item number eight. Adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting of March 9th, 2023. First resolution is Michael per which? Hillary? Yes. Yes. Mr.. Dacey. Mr. Dacey. Can't hear you Jim. Mr. Hayah? Yes. Chairman. Cahill. Yes. Next is Debra Doro, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Chairman. Cahill? Yes. Next application are you Khali, which you voted to approve? Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Dacey? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Chairman. Cahill? Yes. Those are all the resolutions I have this evening. Well, let's move on to the adoption minutes from the regular meeting of March 9th, 2023. All in favor say aye. Aye. Mr. Solomon to come back Speaker 15 00:46:38 Only Speaker 0 00:46:43 Is Henry there? Speaker 11 00:46:45 Yeah, I'm here. Speaker 0 00:46:46 Yeah. Henry, just make sure that we get the language down pat that, that we want the Township before we we take a vote. Yeah. Cause we're, we're all little bit all over the map a little bit with what they proposed. No problem. You know what I mean? Speaker 11 00:47:01 It's really, I mean there's really, at this point there's two issues if they agree to remove the deck and I think, you know, modify the, the, the roof over the, the entranceway. I think we can move on this tonight. Okay. And then I'll work with the applicant on the design of the porch as long as it's not more than three feet, so, got it. I Speaker 0 00:47:21 Mean, okay. No, that's push Speaker 11 00:47:24 Back on the other issues then that could be an issue. Okay. Speaker 15 00:47:33 So I mean, I would, I would to, and Speaker 12 00:48:54 Thank you for indulgence Mr. Chairman. I did stop sharing screen, right? Yes. Yes you did. Thank you. Okay, good. I spoke to my client, she understands that a re a, a redo of the application concerning the addition over the porch is appropriate and she would agree to a simple roof over the front porch rather than the, I guess it's a second floor addition, I guess is the best way to describe it. Is that accurate Mr. Hinterstein? Yeah. Yes it is. So she will agree to that. I will say she's not comfortable removing the deck and having been there so long and having been built by her husband, I certainly understand that it's a, within the board's jurisdiction to consider, make that a condition of the application. I trust that answers any open questions. Yes, Speaker 11 00:49:47 Mr. Cahill? I think that I think we can move forward. I I think that if they're willing to agree with the three foot covered, open covered roof, and I'd like to work with, definitely work with the architect on, you know, a plan that's acceptable to that, to that effect, we can modify the, the variance to be three feet and front yard setback for strictly an open covered roof or covered porch, however you want to call it. That is not to be enclosed. The setback would be 26.5 feet. Jim? Yes. And I, I would impose the condition that the illegal covered deck structure needs to be relocated or removed as a condition simply because again, I I just don't feel that if we allow illegal structures, regardless of how long they've been in place to, to allow to be, to remain as such, then what's, you know, what's the point of having a, a zoning ordinance and, and requirements when, when people just do what they want and then say, you know, when they finally get caught, well, it's been there 10 years. It, it doesn't make it right. And I think, again, case laws proven the fact that even mistakes went honest do not justify hardship variances when they're self created. Speaker 12 00:51:11 If I could, Mr. Chairman, I, I'd say I certainly agree with Mr. Henderson's interpretation of the law. I have no quibble with that. My point being only that it's been there this long and no one has complained about it. Beyond that, I'll submit to your jurisdiction. Speaker 0 00:51:24 Can we put a timeframe on the removal of the set deck? Speaker 11 00:51:29 Yes, but I, I wouldn't, again, because it's an illegal structure, right, Mr. Cahill? I I think that, you know, I I think a shorter amount of time is in order, especially since we're talking about pulling permits for additional work. Because once they have the permits, I, I think that, no, you know, in cases like that, typically we want the illegal issues resolved prior to building permits being issued. Speaker 0 00:52:00 Understood. It's not, Speaker 12 00:52:01 You're suggesting that's a condition of permit issuance Correct. Rather than seal. So Speaker 11 00:52:05 Yeah, Speaker 12 00:52:06 Understood. Speaker 0 00:52:09 I was just pulling on heartstrings. Hopefully they could use the deck for the summer or whatnot, but if that's the recommendation I understood. Ask anybody. Speaker 12 00:52:19 It's certainly within your jurisdiction to make that a condition of permit issuance. Yes. Speaker 0 00:52:25 I, I follow the lead of my expert engineer and I'm going to re Rene on that offer. I would ask any other members of the board, did they have any questions about this application or any its witnesses? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions about this application? None. Laura, you're muted. Laura, Speaker 1 00:52:52 Sorry. Kenneth counsel? Speaker 0 00:52:55 Yeah, I have question. Okay, hold on. Sir, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Yes. Your name and address please? Kenneth Johnson. 54 Seward Avenue, Piscataway, New Jersey. Thank you Mrs. Johnson. Yeah, so my question is, you're increasing the impervious surfaces. You're not inclu, including the pool as an impervious surface and there's so much impervious surface on this small lot. I'd like to know what effect that's gonna have on flooding. Mr. Fletcher, can you address that question? Sorry? You beat me to the mute button. Speaker 13 00:53:47 Yes. Or calculations that are shown on the plan. Pre-development impervious is 3,400. Post-development is 3,700. We're increasing the total impervious on the lot by 316.5 square feet. So I don't believe that that is a significant increase. Speaker 0 00:54:13 What, what, what do you base that decision on? Do you have data to support that? Speaker 13 00:54:20 Well, I can calculate the increase in runoff and it will be nominal. Speaker 0 00:54:26 Yeah. But the problem is nominal is that runoff runs into my yard, which I've been here for 45 years with no flooding until the past couple of years. And now my, he's telling me my flooding is gonna be even worse. Maybe just a little, but it's gonna be worse. Speaker 13 00:54:43 Well, the roof leaders will be directed towards the gutter line, as will the runoff from the driveway. The increase in impervious is from the house, so I don't think it's gonna exacerbate the runoff to the Speaker 0 00:54:57 Neighbor. Where does that water go? Speaker 13 00:54:59 We're gonna direct it to the front of the property. It'll go over the fact there's an inlet in front of the property. We can tie the roof leaders into the, into the inlet. If the Piscataway engineering, Mr. Hinterstein Hinterstein wouldn't prefer, Speaker 11 00:55:18 I don't see any issue with directing the, the roof leaders to the, to the inlet. That should not be an issue, which would eliminate some of the existing and proposed runoff. Speaker 0 00:55:29 What do you mean by inlet? Speaker 13 00:55:32 There's a storm sewer inlet in the street. Speaker 0 00:55:37 I thought Piscataway didn't allow runoff to go to the street. I I read that we, it had to be handled on your property. Am I misunderstanding that? Speaker 11 00:55:51 I believe you are. Speaker 0 00:55:54 So I can take my runoff and run it right out to the street. You're telling me I can do that, Speaker 13 00:56:00 Henry, he Speaker 0 00:56:01 Might be thinking of some pump. Speaker 11 00:56:02 You can, you cannot directly pipe to the street. He's talking about piping directly into a storm sewer catch basin. So you're not gonna see the water. The water's not gonna be directed to the curb line where it can freeze. In the wintertime, it gets directly piped into the inlet catch basin. And so that runoff is actually not gonna be directed to the street. It's not gonna be overland flow anymore, which is the way it is now. Probably. That's what I think. Perhaps you're, you're maybe confusing, you're not, the Township doesn't want some pumps or liters directed or piped to the road directly due to icing conditions in the wintertime. But if, if you directly have it, the ability to pipe it right into an inlet due to the close proximity of an inlet, which there is one in front of this property, that, that is never looked upon, usually in this mag. So I think that's a good solution, which will actually reduce the runoff from this property to the neighboring properties and probably increase, improve the situation that may exist out there today. Speaker 0 00:57:20 And and does that go for the backside of the house as well? They're gonna be directed towards the front of the house, yes. And and is that going to be included in the plan Speaker 11 00:57:35 In in Speaker 0 00:57:35 The revised plan? Yes. Okay. I'm worried because I, I haven't seen flooding. I've been here for years and the past couple years I've seen flooding and it's coming from that lot. I I have a couple more questions. This application, it says it was filed by the ex-wife of the owner. I'd like to know if the owner's aware of it and are his children aware of it? Mr. Solomon? Speaker 12 00:58:07 I guess I don't know how to answer that question. Memory serves the application includes sign off from the husband if that's who he means by the owner, Speaker 0 00:58:14 The, the cop, the copy that I have, there's no sign off by the husband. Speaker 12 00:58:18 It's a separate, I i I be, I don't have it in front of me. I believe it to be a separate document that's included with the application Ms. Buckley. Is that accurate? Speaker 0 00:58:27 Yes. Speaker 12 00:58:28 Okay. That and also I, I guess I don't know what relevance the children of either of the two parties would have to this application. Speaker 0 00:58:37 Well, I mean, these Speaker 12 00:58:38 Are the owners of the house, so they both have signed off on the application. Nobody else asked. Speaker 0 00:58:43 That was, that was my question. And I just feel their children should know about it too. Speaker 12 00:58:49 I see. Speaker 0 00:58:51 And then I have one other question. The shed that in question here is, in a state of disrepair, there's no doors on it, so it's very likely that shed is going to be replaced in the near future. The shed's been there for over 45 years. Can we somehow specify that it would be located correctly when it's replaced? Speaker 11 00:59:19 Mr. Solomon? That's the request Speaker 12 00:59:21 Correction. I was thinking I was gonna ask you, Mr. Hinterstein, if in the process of replacing a shed like that, should it become necessary? A new permit is required anyway, right? Speaker 11 00:59:31 New permit is required, but technically if you've replaced it exactly in kind and there's a variance issued, it could technically go in that same location. But I think for, Speaker 12 00:59:45 I'm sorry, you mean the location that it's been in for 45 years? That location Speaker 11 00:59:49 With the variance, again, it's a, it's a, that's a reasonable request and we've done that before where we've allowed things to remain. But once they are replaced, we, we say that they should be replacing a conforming location. Again, if it's a hundred foot square, a hundred square foot shed that is put in, this would move literally, you know, four inches from where it is now and it would conform. So, but I think that's the reasonable request and I don't think the, the applicant should have really any issues with that Speaker 12 01:00:24 If I'm sure she wouldn't. Speaker 0 01:00:33 Johnson, you have any other questions? That, that's all. Okay. Thank you sir. We appreciate your input. Any other members of the public have any questions or comments about this application? Speaker 1 01:00:46 No. One Chairman Speaker 0 01:00:53 Close the public portion. I make a motion to approve this application with the concession by the, the applicant. A second. Please Call the roll. Speaker 1 01:01:07 Mr. Weisman? Speaker 0 01:01:08 Yes. Speaker 1 01:01:09 Mr. Tillery? Speaker 0 01:01:10 Yes. Speaker 1 01:01:11 Mr. Patel? Yes. Regio. I had two orders. Sorry, I muted them. Yes, Mr. Thank you. Mr. Blo? Speaker 0 01:01:23 Yes. Speaker 1 01:01:23 Mr. Dacey. Yes. And Chairman. Cahill? Speaker 0 01:01:27 Yes. Mr. Solomon. We'll memorialize this at our next meeting and send a copy to you. Speaker 12 01:01:34 Thank you Mr. Kinneally. I appreciate your courtesies as always. Speaker 0 01:01:38 Thank you very much. Speaker 11 01:01:39 All take Speaker 12 01:01:40 Care. Thank you again. Good night. Speaker 0 01:01:41 Okay, let's move on to item number 10, which is an adjournment. Can I get Yeah, yeah. All favor. Aye Aye. Aye. Once again, thank you for volunteering people and go have a great evening. Speaker 1 01:01:59 Have a good night, everyone, everyone. Good night Bill. Have fun Saturday. Oh, Speaker 16 01:02:04 I can't wait. Speaker 1 01:02:06 It's interesting. Have fun. Speaker 16 01:02:07 It's, we, it's Wednesday night. Speaker 1 01:02:09 Wednesday. Oh, it's, we, yeah. Everybody else's Saturday. You're doing Wednesday? Yeah. Yeah. Next day. Call me and let me know how you like it. Oh Speaker 16 01:02:15 Yeah. I just, my internet, I, I have a feeling Speaker 1 01:02:18 It's gonna last that long though. You'll be fine. You'll do it. Yeah. Let me know how it goes. Okay. Okay. Gotcha. All right. Thank you. Goodnight. Goodnight Roy. Nice Sean. Nice.