Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on August 10 2023
Transcript generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Use the audio player to verify any passage.
Aug 10 2023 · Zoning
0:00
–:––
Speaker 0Hey Laura. Hello?
Speaker 1Hello.
Speaker 0Yeah, Laura, it's Kalpesh.
Speaker 2Oh, you made a Kalpesh. I'm sorry I had to run down the hall.
Speaker 0No, no, no, no. You, you have enough people today.
Speaker 2I'm still waiting for Rodney.
Speaker 0Okay,
Speaker 2So we have Roy's on. So we have Jeff, Steve, three, four, we'll have five. The where'd Bill go? Recording in progress? No, we have Bill. Yeah, we'll have five without you. And the last one's a use,
Speaker 0So should be okay.
Speaker 2I hope so.
Speaker 0Otherwise I can stay if you want is not a big deal, but I would not speak too much.
Speaker 2Okay. How about you just listen and vote? Yeah.
Speaker 0Okay, because
Speaker 2The last one is a use variance. We would like more members to vote on the use variance if possible, so, okay. Okay, so you don't, you don't have to second tonight. We'll make somebody else do it. How's that? Yeah,
Speaker 0Yeah, please.
Speaker 2All right. Thanks Kalpesh. I appreciate it.
Speaker 0Thank you. Bye.
Speaker 2Okay, Chaill, we're just gonna wait one more minute. We're waiting for the TV guys to
Speaker 0Sure.
Speaker 2Do their thing. Okay. She just yelled. We're good. Gimme one second. Okay, ready to go. Chairman.
Speaker 1Oh, thank you. The zoning board of adjustment meeting. Please come to order adequate notice. Notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Coer News notice published on the Bolton Board of the Municipal Notice made available to Township clerk notice sent to the Coer News install ledger. Will the clerk please call the role?
Speaker 2Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 0Here.
Speaker 2Mr. Patel?
Speaker 0Here.
Speaker 2Mr. Blo. Mr. Heka? Here. Mr. Mitterando?
Speaker 0Here.
Speaker 2Mr. Ellie
Speaker 0Here.
Speaker 2And Steve Weisman
Speaker 1Here. Thank you. Will everyone please stand for the salute to the flag. My pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One Nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Thank you
Speaker 1Mr. Can, are there any changes to tonight's agenda? There are many changes to tonight's agenda. The Santiago matter will be adjourned until September 14th. They have to notice the newspaper and the board of Ed. If you receive the notice, you will not receive a new notice. 11th Street partnership is adjourned till September 28th with no further notice. Ronco Development 1 46 Hillside adjourned to September 28th. No further notice. Ronco development one 60 Hillside Avenue adjourned to September 28th. No further notice. 100 Lakeview rear. Everything's 100 Lakeview rear adjourned until October 12th. No further notice. Lnr at, I just need the volume up adjourned until September 28th. No further notice. Those are all the changes I'm aware of. Correct. Mr. Kinneally? Okay, that was pretty quick. I hope I called them all. If I don't, please correct me. If I ask for one, I have a list. We gonna move right along here. Alright, we'll start at number five. Yes, it got buried. 15 12 8 9. Here we go. I'm sorry, this is not my normal office. I'm at no item. Item 5 23 dash ZB dash six seven V. Andrea Calabrese, is she here?
Speaker 3Yes. Hi, John Sullivan. I'm an attorney with the office is of Vest and Sullivan representing Ms. Calabrese. I actually have her here in my office so she'll come on screen just a moment. Assuming we have jurisdiction.
Speaker 3Thank you. Street address is four 40 Webster Avenue. It is Lot 18.01 in block 1 0 0 3 on your tax map. The property's located in an R seven 7.5 zone, has a lot area of 7,500 square feet and is fully improved with a single family dwelling, an attached garage and a deck to the rear. What brings you, brings us before you tonight are bulk variances to permit the site, essentially to remain as it is now. And we do need variances for building coverage. 20% is permitted under the ordinance and existing is 21%. And second is for the rear yard setback for the deck. 25 feet is permitted and 15.4 feet are proposed and existing. All of this is preexisting. We're not proposing any new development. We have submitted a survey paired by Robert Horvath, dated May 1st of this year, and several site photographs. And I do have Ms. Calabrese here. I'll ask her to come on screen and if we can get her sworn in, I will have her give you the particulars.
Speaker 1Ma'am, could you raise your right hand please? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 4Yes, I do.
Speaker 1Your name and address please?
Speaker 4Andrea Calabrese, four 40 Webster Avenue, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Speaker 3Thank you. Okay. Ms. Calabrese, you are the owner of the property at four 40 Webster Avenue? Correct. And how long have you owned that? Since
Speaker 440 was in 1977, so 46 years.
Speaker 3Okay.
Speaker 4Lemme see the screen a
Speaker 3Little more. Okay. Okay. And you live there?
Speaker 4I'm sorry?
Speaker 3Do you live there? Yes, I
Speaker 4Do.
Speaker 3And the house itself, is it the same footprint as when you purchased it in 1977? That's correct. You did not put on any additions? Did not, no. But you did construct a deck in the rear yard in approximately 1991, is that correct? Correct. That's
Speaker 4Correct.
Speaker 3And you learned through the town that you needed a a variance, that deck? That's
Speaker 4Right.
Speaker 3And as part of that, you learned about the variance condition for the building coverage? Correct. Now the deck has been there since 1991. That's right. And you provided several photographs showing the the rear yard deck. That's right. What is the height of that deck
Speaker 4Approximately? A foot, foot and a half.
Speaker 3Okay. And what are the dimensions in terms of width and depth?
Speaker 4About 15 and a half by 15.
Speaker 3And your entire rear yard is fenced in?
Speaker 4Yes, it is.
Speaker 3Have you yet any, had any issues with the neighbors due to the deck location? None. None
Speaker 4Whatsoever.
Speaker 3And has your property experienced any drainage issues like ponding and things of that nature? No, it has not. And could you just briefly describe your neighborhood?
Speaker 4Certainly it's on a dead end street. There are approximately seven houses on the street. There are four on my side and three on the opposite side there. It's a mix of ranches, bi levels, and split levels. And it's a very quiet, typical neighborhood.
Speaker 3And your home is a one story? That's
Speaker 4Correct.
Speaker 3And it's three bedrooms in one bath? That's right. And it's not larger than the other houses in the neighborhood, is it? No, it is
Speaker 4Not.
Speaker 3Mr. Hinterstein report. Condition number three is that you would not enclose this with a roof, walls or any other type of overhead structure?
Speaker 4I would not, no, I would not.
Speaker 3Okay. And you agree to that condition? Yes, I do.
Speaker 4Okay.
Speaker 3That's all I have for Ms. Ms Calabrese. Thank you. Do you have anyone else? No. Okay.
Speaker 1Henry, do you have one comment here?
Speaker 5Really there I, in my report I pretty much reiterate many of the, many of the things that were just stated by Mr. Sullivan and Mrs. Calabrese. The deck is only about a foot off the ground. I don't see really any issue with it. There's a solid fence that surrounds the property that provides buffer and screening and the coverage variance is the minimus in my opinion. So I don't really see any issues with the variances other than, especially if they're agreeing to the condition that if that they will not enclose the, the deck. So that being said, I think it's, it's an okay application.
Speaker 1Thank you. Anyone on the board have any questions, concerns, or statements you'd like to make at this time? Hearing none, I would like to open up this to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, concerns, or comments at this time? Laura?
Speaker 2No. One. Chairman.
Speaker 1Okay. I'd like to close the public portion of the, of this application and I would like to make a, not a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second?
Speaker 3A second. I'll second.
Speaker 1Chairman. Thank you. Arnie, will the secretary please call the role?
Speaker 2Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel?
Speaker 5Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Heka sounds so bad there. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Riley? Yes. And Chairman Weisman?
Speaker 1Yes. Mr. Sullivan, we'll memorialize this at our next meeting and send a copy to you.
Speaker 3Thank you very much. Have well, I'm gonna be back in it for another hearing. A few minutes. Okay.
Speaker 1Thank you. Thank
Speaker 2You. We'll see you later.
Speaker 1See you soon. Okay, moving on. Item number 6 23 ZB seven four B. Daniel Piper, if I'm pronouncing it correctly, is he here?
Speaker 2They need to unmute. There we are.
Speaker 1Oh, I see him. I see an ar. Arlene Piper, Daniel, are you here?
Speaker 2They're here but we can't hear them.
Speaker 1They're not muted, right?
Speaker 2No,
Speaker 1I don't see it muted.
Speaker 2They're not muted. Okay. Okay. I guess they're having technical difficulties. If you wanna move on to the next one.
Speaker 1Yeah, let's, we'll come back to them.
Speaker 2Yep. Number eight.
Speaker 1Number eight. Thank you
Speaker 2Carolyn. Number eight.
Speaker 1Hello. Okay, number 8, 23 ZB 50. You here? Yeah, she's here. Yes. Hi, we, we are here. Yeah, they're, that is the Gor fa. Okay. Very. We're for anybody that's gonna be testifying tonight, could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 6Yes.
Speaker 1One at a time. Could I have your name and address please?
Speaker 6Caroline DW 1648 Short Street, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Speaker 1Put your hands down and your, your name, sir? Robert Johnson. And my address is 66 King George Road, Warren, New Jersey. Thank you. Could one of you explain to the board what you'd like to do at this property? Yes. We have a, a variance on the table to discuss a shed that's on the property, a canopy and a fence that's on the property right now. The fence has been on the property for do, do you know how long? Since
Speaker 62009.
Speaker 1Since 2009, we've recently had some curbs and sidewalks installed along Mabel Street for the park that's across the street from Mrs. Gorm. The issue with the fence is, was that it, it's a bit close to the street, however, the unique shape of the property doesn't allow the fence to be within the normal setbacks of the, the actual property lines. The, the house itself sits less than 30 feet from the actual street, and the height of the fence is, is it's about 62 inches in height. The good thing about the fence is that it's actually on the side of the house and it's about 60 feet. It's less than 60 feet from the actual intersection of Short Street and, and Mabel Street. It's actually Short Street, Mabel Street and Ann Street. So the fence doesn't create any blind spots or impede the visibility of that intersection at all.
Speaker 1The Mrs Gorn actually needs this fence for privacy in her backyard and it does create a little bit of security and protection for her home. As for the two sheds, the the the shed is in the rear corner of the property. It doesn't sit against anyone's home. It, it's, it's a P V C fence and it's, it's rubber, rubber shed Rubbermaid shed. It's, it's was created and set on a, on a concrete foundation. And as for the canopy, the canopy sits also sits behind the fence in the rear of the yard and is actually can't be seen from the street due to fully trees and shrubbery that's on that side of the property. And that, that's really all we had for the property. Do you have anything that you wanted to say? Thank you, Henry, you have comment on this? You're muted. Okay.
Speaker 5Yeah, this is a unique property. The majority of the property is front yard. It's not even, it's not even a rectangular, it's a sort of a irregular shape property with, again, frontage along short street as well as a long frontage along Maple Street. The Township recently undertook some road improvement projects, as was stated in the area which caused the roadway to be, you know, closer and the, the curb line to be closer. Now it's in the right of way, but it's, it's closer to the fence than when it was originally installed. Again, this is really such a unique shape lot and there's really very, very limited space on this property. If the fence was not to be located where it is along the Naval Street frontage. That being said, it, it is close to the right of way, but I don't see really, I think the inherent hardships here really allow this application to, to be looked at, looked upon favorably.
Speaker 5The shed is, is in my opinion, is a very modest shed. It's in the back corner. It is screened by the existing fence similar to the canopy. My only concern would be that for some reason the shed again or the canopy is destroyed and has to be relocated. It should be, they should be relocated in a conforming location, not just put in without permits. So again, the condition would be is there fine for now if it's approved, but if they are destroyed or replaced, they need to be located in a conforming location and the canopy should not be, should not be enclosed or it should not be converted to a more permanent structure. The canopy's really more of a sort of a portable, it's not really a permanent type canopy. It's one that you could set up, you could easily take it down. So I'm not too concerned with it, but my opinion is it shouldn't be converted to a more permanent type of structure that's anchored with, with footings or anything of that nature or any permanent walls put up to enclose that, that canopy space. That being said, I don't have any issues with the application as long as they're in agreement to that condition.
Speaker 1We're in agreement. Thank you. That was my question. Anyone on the board have any questions, concerns, or comments at this time? Hearing none, I'd like to open this to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, concerns, or comments at this time?
Speaker 2Lauren? No. One. Chairman.
Speaker 1Thank you. I would like to close the public portion of this meeting and I would like to make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second?
Speaker 2I'll second it
Speaker 1Chair. Thank you. Mr. Tillery, will the secretary please call the role?
Speaker 2Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Hika? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. And Chairman Weisman?
Speaker 1Yes. Your application has been approved. We will memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting and send that document to you. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Have a good night. Good night. The pipe is here. Did they get the problem fixed?
Speaker 2They're here, can't hear them. No.
Speaker 1Yeah, we see 'em but cannot hear 'em. Okay, then we'll move, we'll come back. Next item.
Speaker 2Maybe they should sign off and sign back.
Speaker 1Number nine.
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 1G N a properties Property development. That's 23 ZB 5, 5 55 V G and A property development. L l c.
Speaker 7Alright, thank you Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Members of the board. My name is Kevin Morse Woodbridge, New Jersey and I'm the attorney representing the applicant G and A property development L L C. The subject property is block six 14 lot 3.01, located at 4 47 Washington Avenue and we are before you this evening requesting certification of a long existing use of the property, namely a mixed use building that has a commercial unit in the front and a single apartment in the rear seeking certification that this board determined that that is a lawful, preexisting, non-conforming use of the subject property. I had previously submitted our affidavits of publication and mailing and wanted to confirm that they have been received, that they're in order, in order that the board has jurisdiction to proceed.
Speaker 1They have been received and reviewed. They are in order and the board has jurisdiction.
Speaker 7All right, thank you Mr. Kinneally. I have two witnesses available. First Kristen Antonelli who is a principal of the applicant and I have sitting next to me, Angela Tuto who is our licensed professional engineer and professional planner. Now by way of some background for the board, I'm gonna try to go through this very succinctly. The property was acquired and the, I will get confirmations for you under oath by the applicant. The, the property was acquired by the applicant in 2021. The applicant's principles are Giovanni and Kristen Antonelli. Kristen is present again and we will swear her for some confirming information, but when they bought the property it was a mixed use building. Again, as I've described a commercial unit in the front and a apartment in the rear. The commercial unit had just been vacated. It's an office use in there and the applicant put a business called the Wax studio by ano Anna in the commercial unit and that business wax studio, personal service business, certainly a conforming use in the sea zone.
Speaker 7The property located began operating. The apartment had just been vacated. There was an elderly tenant who had passed away and before they put someone in that the Township determined there was a question as to whether or not this site never had any for formal site plan approval for the use. And so they held off on Rerenting the apartment, the wax studio. Ana was in operation and and members of the board may recall that operator appeared before you back in August of 2022 and obtained a temporary use permit so that she could continue operation of the studio business. I was then engaged to review the status of the property, do some research, and I did obtain from the Township tax assessor's office the revaluation cards from both 1956 and 1974, which were submitted as part of the application package as attachments to the application form. Now both of those revaluation cards show that the subject property contained a mixed use building, again a commercial unit and a residential apartment.
Speaker 7And in looking at the, in particular the 1956 reval re reevaluation card, which is part of the application packet, that would show that there's a mixed use as configured for 67 years to date. And in fact, if you look at the 1956 revaluation card, it shows there was a barbershop and an apartment on that. That card is particularly important because it also describes that the property itself had been existence for 30 years. So if we take what we contend as the mixed use building 30 years prior to that, we're looking at potentially 97 years of the property, almost a century. In that configuration, I would call Kristen Antonelli who is the principal of the applicant. If she could be sworn please as she, she is logged in so she can confirm some information.
Speaker 1Ms. Antonelli, could you raise your right hand? Sure. Do you, do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Yes. Your name and address please? Kristen Antonelli.
Speaker 8Eight Saddle Mount Avenue, Warren, New Jersey 0 7 0 5 9.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 7Right now, Kristen, you are one of the owners of the applicant together with your husband Giovanni, correct? Yes. Now you've been logged in and you have listened to my presentation, the background information and description I have given with regard to your acquisition of the property and your use of the property since you have acquired it, correct? Yes. Is everything that I've described for the board, is that absolutely true and accurate in every respect?
Speaker 8Yes it is.
Speaker 7Right now by way of some background for the board, your family, you've been members of the Piscataway business community for about 40 years now, correct? Yes. Okay. I understand that your husband is the second generation owner of a business. I think a lot of people are familiar with Capelli's Hair Salon, which is a property close to this property, correct? Yes. And you're here this evening because your, your family enjoys a longstanding good business neighbor relationship in the community and you're before the board because you want to continue to maintain that relationship and straighten out or resolve any issues with regard to the subject property, which is a new property for you, correct? Yes. And to that end, you engaged Angelo Tuto who prepared what we called an existing conditions plan and you also had the opportunity to review the memo that's been generated by the Township Division of Engineering Planning and Development, correct? Yes. Okay. So I have no further questions of Ms. Antonelli. I wanted to her confirm the information I presented and I have Angelo Tuto prepared to address the memo and just to give some additional information for the board's consideration. And Ms. Antonelli will be available during the entire hearing. Should a question come up,
Speaker 1Is Mr. Tuto present?
Speaker 7He is. He's sitting next to me. You can barely see him and I would call him next if you could slide over a little
Speaker 3Bit. I'm always in his shadow.
Speaker 1Mr. Tuto, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 3Yes sir. I do.
Speaker 1Your name and address please
Speaker 3For the record. Angelo j Tuto, V A L E T U T T O, licensed Professional Engineering Licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. And
Speaker 1Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tuto has appeared before this board on numerous occasions and his accomplishments have been accepted. Thank you. He's acceptable.
Speaker 7Alright, and again, I just wanna confirm that will be at his capacity as both professional engineer and professional planner to be commenting in both regard?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 7Okay, thank you. Alright, so now Mr. Tuto, you prepared and we submitted what we called an existing conditions plan for the subject property, correct?
Speaker 3Yes sir, that's correct. And as always, engineers would be nothing without the surveyor who did the basic. Okay. So we used that as our basis.
Speaker 7And now the reason you were engaged, even though we're seeking a certification and not seeking a site plan approval is because we wanted to demonstrate that the site itself, which contains the existing MIS mixed use building, actually supports that use and it sort of makes sense. Is that correct?
Speaker 3Yes sir. Correct.
Speaker 7Alright. Now also it further confirms, at least from what I understand, that from an engineering or a site standpoint, the township's tax records and the way the property's configured are, are true and accurate with regard to the mixed use building, is that right? That
Speaker 3Is correct. As you indicated, the earliest it goes back to is 56 and at that time it called the building was age of approximately 30 years. We have to go back to 53. So we're more than beyond that point in my opinion.
Speaker 7All right. Now we had the opportunity to review the applicant with the applicant, excuse me, the memorandum dated January 6th, January 18th, 2023 by the townships Division Engineering Planning Development, correct?
Speaker 3Yes sir, we did.
Speaker 7Now typically, you know, when we, when we're here on a certification case and not a site plan approval, I suppose technically the board does not have the authority often to impose conditions. But in speaking with the applicant, applicant and certainly in the spirit of cooperation and consistent with the applicant's intent to continue to be a good business neighbor in the community, the applicant is prepared to comply with the requested improvements which are set forth as items two through five in that memorandum. Is that correct?
Speaker 3That's correct. And really the basis for us, when we did the plan showing it as existing conditions, we wanted to show that it can support the use in terms of the ability for off street parking. We did show striping, but that again was to show the board and its professionals that we can meet the off street parking and we could also meet the various comments in Mr. Stein's report in terms of the parking, the handicapped parking and dedicating spaces, two spaces for the tenant and certainly number five, any condition on the property or along its frontage that needs repair will be repaired.
Speaker 7Okay. And, and again, while these changes don't require a site plan approval, this applicant again, just in, in terms of enhancing the property, making it better since their purchase was really prepared to do really the things that are suggested by Mr. Hinterstein just in terms of property maintenance, upkeep and enhancement. Is that correct?
Speaker 3Yes sir. That's correct. They want to do everything proper and which is why we're here this evening. Alright.
Speaker 7Now putting on your planner's hat for a moment, you, you reviewed the revaluation cards that were provided to us by the tax assessor and supplied to the board, correct? Yes sir. Alright. You visited the property in the surrounding area, correct? I have. You've looked and reviewed in your, as a professional engineer, the physical structure itself, correct? Correct.
Speaker 3And it's clearly one that while having an advanced stage is in good shape.
Speaker 7Alright, but from a planning standpoint, would it be your opinion that the property configuration that we presented consistent with the tax assessor records, that the this mixed use building would've predated the ordinance of 1953? Most
Speaker 3Definitely.
Speaker 7All right. Right. I have no further questions of Mr. Tuto. Mr. Chairman. I submitted a report dated June 21st and there are two questions raised in that report. One of 'em is a statements, I agree that it pre-exist the ordinance, but the other one is the documentation of where the retail or commercial use is in the apartment use is not clear in the application right now, Mr. Chadwick, I must tell you, we have never received a memo because I would've already called upon Mr. Tuto to address that, but we're happy to address your comments we submitted as part of the application package and actual sketch, sketch, building layout, showing the, both the physical, the room configurations. There's two rooms, it's a sketch in the application packet for the commercial, and then it also shows the configuration of the apartment, which is a one bedroom apartment with a living room, kitchen, seating area, and bath.
Speaker 7So that should have been part of your application for whatever reason, I did not review it. Okay. It was probably sent and it's my mistake. Okay. There is a document as part of the file that would be part of the, if the board approves this clear document. The other one, my review of property showed a lot of electric meters. Do you know what that's all about? No, I don't. I, I must tell you, I don't know that Ms. Antonelli, I can ask her knows about that they've only owned the property since 2021. Clearly there are only two units there and we are only seeking certification for two units. I would ask Ms. Antonelli, do you know the status of the electric meters there?
Speaker 8I can tell you that I, that there are two accounts like two P, s, e, and G accounts, right? One was from the front and one's from the back. So they're separated. So I can tell you that that's all I know about. Alright,
Speaker 7Why don't we just leave it just this way, there'll be separate. There are, are and will continue to be
Speaker 1Separate utilities to the individual uses.
Speaker 7Yes. No objection there. Thank you. And I apologize, anything else? Your memo would not, I would've not glossed over that. Yes.
Speaker 1Anything else sir? No. Mr. Chadwick. Okay, thank you. Henry.
Speaker 5I do not have anything. I believe that everything in my report has been addressed. They're willing to comply, so I do not have anything further.
Speaker 1Thank you Mr. Morris, do you have any other,
Speaker 7I won't belabor the testimony. Look clearly detachments own records bring us back to 1956. Without question, we need that extra three years because the ordinance went in fact in 53. But I think all things considered, you know, the separate meters, the configuration of the property, the age of the structure, I think this board can I respectfully submit fines and determine that this misuse building predates the ordinance so that it should be certified as a preexisting non-conforming use. And if the board were to look favorably again, although technically conditions would not be able to be imposed, this applicant, if we stated, are willing to agree to the conditions as presented by Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Stein's dismember their memos should you look favorably upon the application.
Speaker 1Thank you. Anyone on, on the board? I'd like to open this up to the board. Any members of the board have any questions, concerns, or comments at this time?
Speaker 9Hello?
Speaker 1Hearing hear me? Who's that?
Speaker 9Can you hear me? Well,
Speaker 2We're not doing public yet.
Speaker 1I didn't, I let the board go first. I'll open to the public hearing, no comments from the board. I'd like to open this up to the public. Anyone from the public have any questions, concerns, or comments at this time? Now you have an opportunity. Yes. Can you please state your name?
Speaker 9Okay, I have a question. Mahmud Ahmed.
Speaker 1Okay, Mr. Ed, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Yes. And your address please?
Speaker 91 38 Hillside Avenue, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Speaker 1And your question is,
Speaker 9We had a, a date today, but the password given is wrong and we couldn't get in. My neighbor had the same problem. We couldn't get into, put our opinion on both
Speaker 2Mr. Kinneally. They called, I gave them the correct number. They had it backwards. 2 8 2 to get in. You're here for the Hillside applications?
Speaker 9Yes, I am.
Speaker 2Yeah, they were postponed till September 28th.
Speaker 9Okay. Yeah,
Speaker 2They're not going forward this evening. Evening.
Speaker 9Okay. Thank you. Very,
Speaker 1So they will be on for September 28th.
Speaker 2Yes. So call the office in a few weeks and I'll give you the correct, the, the new Zoom information for you to log on.
Speaker 9Sure. Can you gimme the number I should call?
Speaker 2We're we're, we're in the middle of a meeting. Call the office tomorrow that you called earlier.
Speaker 9Sure. Alright.
Speaker 2Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 9Alright,
Speaker 1Have a good night. Anyone else in the public have any comments, questions, or concerns
Speaker 2For this application?
Speaker 1For this application? Thank you.
Speaker 2No one Chairman, Ms.
Speaker 1Buckley?
Speaker 2No. One Chairman. Thank you.
Speaker 1I'd like to close the public portion of on this request and I would like to make a, a motion to approve this application meeting all the requirements laid up by Mr. Hinterstein and Mr. Chadwick, can I get a second
Speaker 2Party?
Speaker 1Party? Thank you. Artie. Will the secretary please call the role?
Speaker 2Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Patel? Yeah. Mr. Hika?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Mitterando?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Weisman?
Speaker 1Yes. All right. Mr. Morrise will memorialize this at our next meeting and send you a copy. Alright, thanks very much everyone. Have a pleasant evening.
Speaker 2Thank you. Have a good evening. You too. Thank you. Chairman?
Speaker 1Yes,
Speaker 2The Pipers are on.
Speaker 1Oh, terrific. Let me get back to the Piper question here.
Speaker 2Hello?
Speaker 10Can you hear me? You hear me?
Speaker 1Yes. Are you the Pipers
Speaker 10Okay. Yes.
Speaker 1Okay, thank. Could you raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 11Yes.
Speaker 1Okay. Could I have each of your names and addresses please?
Speaker 11Daniel Piper, 21 Birand Drive.
Speaker 10Arlene Piper, 21 Drive. Piscataway.
Speaker 1Thank you. Could one of you explain to the board why you're here?
Speaker 11We are doing a bulk variance because we were told that the variance has to be done on the house before we can get an approval for a addition put on the house.
Speaker 1Okay. Henry, do you have any questions at this point?
Speaker 5Well, the, the applicant came in to, I think my understanding is to submit permits for an addition. As he stated, when we looked at the survey and they did a site inspection of the property, it appeared that there was a deck to the rear of the existing garage and also a shed type structure that was added to the side of the garage without permits. That's, that's why they're here, is because of those items. Now, can you confirm that the deck from behind the garage, I believe you said it was removed?
Speaker 11Yes, I submitted pictures to that.
Speaker 5Okay. So yeah, it was tough to see in those pictures, so I just wanted to confirm that the deck was removed. So really the only issue is the sort of addition of sort of that shed to the side of the garage. Again, again, this is next to the UND drive multifamily development. So there's no, I don't think structure that's that close to the, the side of this property. And there is a solid P V C fence that exists on the, on the multifamily side of the development. My concern would be is it appears that you have sort of a dilapidated fence that's up against their fence. You know, fortunately you can't see it from the other side, but you may want to consider taking that out. And if the board finds it favorable or finds the application favorable, my suggestion would be is that they need to submit for a building permit to make sure that that shed structure was constructed in a, in a manner that's, that's safe so that it doesn't fall on somebody. So any approval should be conditioned upon them getting a building permit so that the building department could go out and do an inspection of the, of the structure to make sure it's safe. Other than that, I really don't have two. Again, the structure appears to have been there for quite some time. Again, it was done legally.
Speaker 5It's really, you know, the board's up to the board. I don't see having a huge impact on the neighboring property due to the existing fence that's there and the shape of the shed. It's, it's relatively low in nature as far as the height because it's the height of the garage eve. So I, I don't see a huge issue with it. My only concern would be is that a building permit be secured so that we can confirm that the structure safement sound.
Speaker 1Mr. Mr. Piper, Ms. Piper, do you understand what Ms. Hinterstein is saying?
Speaker 11Yes.
Speaker 10The fence that's falling down the townhouse put it up.
Speaker 5We
Speaker 10Would to ask them if we can take it down, I guess
Speaker 5Isn't, didn't they install a vinyl fence on their side?
Speaker 10Yeah, they put that also.
Speaker 5So they put the second fence up without taking the other fence down, correct?
Speaker 10Yes. The se the, the wooden fence was up for quite a while.
Speaker 5Okay. Again, you may wanna contact them then and see if you can work something out with them or see if they don't care that you dispose of it. It's just as long as it's not falling apart, I don't have a problem with it staying. It's on your side of the property. If you guys have a, an issue with it, then since they put up a second fence adjacent to that, my suggestion would be is that, you know, you really don't need that additional fence. It's just gonna te keep deteriorating and, and eventually we will fall apart if it hasn't yet. So you may want to contact them and see if they'll remove it for you. Okay. It's on their property.
Speaker 11All right.
Speaker 1And you will pursue a permit for the other structure, correct?
Speaker 11A permit for what structure? For the shed. Shed, right?
Speaker 1Yes. The shed.
Speaker 11Yeah, the shed. We, this is a bulk variance permit, isn't this?
Speaker 5No.
Speaker 11Okay, so
Speaker 5This, this is a bulk variance.
Speaker 11Okay.
Speaker 5The variance allows you to keep the shed in the location that you built it illegally. It doesn't, it doesn't negate the fact that you didn't take out a building permit for that. And the fact that, well we don't, we don't take out that building permit. Know
Speaker 11If there was a building permit taken out for that building because when we moved into the house, it's on the original survey. Okay. We've been here for close to 30 years now.
Speaker 5Well, you could find out from the building department if there was a permit, all you'd have to do is secure that permit that was taken out and if there's no building permit on file for that, you would then just have to take it out and the building department will do an inspection.
Speaker 11Alright. So I guess I'll have to come up tomorrow to, to D P W and find that out, whether, yeah, you
Speaker 5Could always do an request as well through the clerk's office and ask if any building permits were ever secured for a shed garage addition for the property. If they have any on record, they will email it to you.
Speaker 11Okay. So I have to call, I have to talk to Laura tomorrow. Yeah,
Speaker 2Call me tomorrow. I'll, I'll explain what you need to do tomorrow.
Speaker 5Okay?
Speaker 11Okay.
Speaker 1Thank you. Anyone else on the board have any questions, concerns, or comments at this time? Hearing none, I would like to open this to the public. Anyone on the public have any questions, concerns, or comments on this request? Laura,
Speaker 2One person. Pat.
Speaker 1Pat.
Speaker 4Hi.
Speaker 1Hi. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Yes. Where the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 4Yes. Your
Speaker 1Name and address please.
Speaker 4Pat O'Mara. 1 39 Keswick Drive. Piscataway.
Speaker 1Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 4I'm sorry.
Speaker 1Go ahead ma'am.
Speaker 4I had a question. I know that you're talking about the structure, but I had received some copies from Laura that it looked like there was an addition being put onto the house itself at for 21 Birch Run Drive.
Speaker 1Laura Kinneally hear?
Speaker 2Yeah. Yeah, I explained this. I believe I talked to you over the phone. The addition is legal. The variance is not for the addition. Okay. The addition is conforming where it's supposed to be. That's legal. The existing structure that was there needed the variance application. Okay. So whether they had that shed or not, that addition was gonna be legal. We're not here for the addition. Okay.
Speaker 4That's what I just wanted to clarify. Yep.
Speaker 2Yep. So yeah, so the addition's fine. It's conforming, it's perfectly where it's supposed to be. They're just here for the shed only, not for the addition.
Speaker 4Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify.
Speaker 2You're so welcome Pat. Thank,
Speaker 4Thank you.
Speaker 1Anyone else in the public?
Speaker 2No one else. Chairman.
Speaker 1Thank you. Laura. I'd like to close the public portion of this request and I'd like to make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? A second. I'll second. Thank you. I Marty will the secretary please call the role?
Speaker 2Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel?
Speaker 4Yeah.
Speaker 2Mr. Heka?
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Riley? Yes. And Chairman Weisman?
Speaker 1Yes. Your application has been approved. We'll memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting and send that document to you. Good luck.
Speaker 4Thank
Speaker 13You. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1Have a good night. You moving on to item number 10, that's 23 ZB seven, eight B Dania, Duran Duran
Speaker 2Deia Duran.
Speaker 13Yes, correct. Chairman,
Speaker 1I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 13Yes sir.
Speaker 1Your name and address please?
Speaker 13Deia Duran. 300 Highlands Avenue, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Speaker 1Mr. Dur Rand, could you explain to the board why you're here?
Speaker 13Yes sir. The board and Mr. Hinterstein were kind enough to a approve a variance back in January 26th of this year. The, the condition that Mr. Hinton provided us with was to create an build an addition with a 8.5 setback to our side yard. At that time, our blueprint for our audition was at 12 feet wide, creating a 6.5 setback. We then went back to the drawing board and brought forth a addition at 10 feet wide, subtracting the two feet thinking that the setback would be cleared at 8.5. Unfortunately, we have learned the hard way that the 10 foot wide addition does not completely clear that 8.5 setback. I am here this evening seeking a variance to try to retain our addition. I am in receipt of Mr. Stein's report and I completely agree with him. We should have gotten the addition correct to clear that 8.5 setback I surely did not want or plan to be before you again this evening, seeking a second variance. However, just ha we've re based on the survey, the way the house is built on an angle that a corner of the addition was not cleared by that 8.5 setback, that is our only saving grace, is that the majority of the addition clears the 8.5 setback with no problem. However, we are short in that back corner by eight inches of the setback. So I'm here this evening seeking a variance for the eight inches of that corner setback with my sincere apologies to Mr. Hinterstein and the board for not getting it right the first time.
Speaker 1Thank you, Henry, if you have any observations here.
Speaker 5Yeah, I mean she, she outlined it pretty well. Again, again, I just wanna reiterate, you know, case law's pretty clear on this matter that, you know, it's, it's the homeowner's responsibility and their employees slash engineers contractor surveys to get it right. If everybody came in and said, oh, my contractor made a mistake, they did this, they did that. The problem is we would just have people just doing then whatever they wanted. And again, and obviously it's eight inches, it's a corner. I, I totally take, you know, Mr. An for, for her word that it wasn't her intention. That being said, you know, the, the mistake happened again, the saving grace here is really only impacts the small corner of the, the home because the, the, the, the home is skewed to the property line and the setback line. So it really isn't a huge impact. So again, I, I think in this particular case, you can, I think, favorably approve this application with that additional eight inches. I think being di minimis in nature, since it only affects a small portion of the corner of the addition. But again, it's, it's the homeowner's responsibility to, to manage their employees on, on construction sites to future reference and to, you know, to check what's going on during, during that construction. But again, I, I don't, because of the small nature of this encroachment, I don't see any issues with it.
Speaker 13Thank you. Thank you Mr. Hinterstein. And my apologies again.
Speaker 1And this is only a, this addition will only be a one story edition, right?
Speaker 13Correct. Yes sir.
Speaker 1It'll stay that way. Okay, good.
Speaker 13Yes sir.
Speaker 1Anyone on the board have any questions, comments, or concerns at this time? Hearing none, I'd like to open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, concerns, or comments at this time?
Speaker 2No. One Chairman.
Speaker 1Thank you. I'd like to close the public portion. I'd like to make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? I'll second it. Mr. Chairman, thanks Chairman. Thank you.
Speaker 13Thank you.
Speaker 1Will do Secretary please call the role.
Speaker 2Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel?
Speaker 13Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Hika? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. And Chairman Weisman?
Speaker 1Yes. Mr. Durran, your application for an amended approval has been granted. We'll memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting and mail it to you.
Speaker 13Thank you so much. Good luck. Have, have a great, good evening everyone. Thank you too. Have a good night. Good night.
Speaker 1Laura, I just wanna verify number 12 is next. That's T-Mobile?
Speaker 2Yes. T-mobile. And then the last one, Sanders and then Cal Kalpesh could go back to sleep.
Speaker 1Okay, thank you. Item number 1223 dash ZB dash 45 slash 46 b T-mobile Northeast l l c.
Speaker 14Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Edward Purcell. I'm an attorney at Price Me Schulman and di Arminio here tonight on behalf of T-Mobile Northeast. With respect to the subject property that's block 53 0 1 lot 14.04, that's 1551 South Washington Avenue. T-Mobile currently operates an existing wireless communications facility that is on of an existing building by way of a 2003 zoning board approval. And that particular building is being replaced pursuant to a redevelopment plan. And T-mobile will be per, will be permitted to place its antennas back onto that building when it's constructed. But you know, that's gonna take approximately two years between the time that building comes down and when a new building is, is replaces it. So obviously the need for wireless service is consistent. T-Mobile can't wait for two years to provide service. So as a stopgap me measure, T-mobile is proposing a temporary ballast mount pet tower that's at roughly the same height as its existing locations to operate.
Speaker 14While this building is under construction, and as will be discussed, T-Mobile will agree to stipulate as a condition of the approval that the approval that we're asking for for that temporary tower would expire at 90 days after CO is issued for that new building. So again, it ensures there's a temporary approval. This isn't gonna run with the land into perpetuity. Just a way of background, the properties in the l i five zone where the use is conditionally permitted, we do need a few D three use variances with respect to setbacks. And the reason that we need those variances is 'cause we have to place the antennas and the towers towards the edge of the property in order to permit the construction of the new building. But as will be discussed from an RF perspective, it's important to keep the facility here on this building at the same heights that it, that it already, that, that, that, that it is currently located on in order to provide a comparable coverage to what exists today. We do have three experts that are gonna provide testimony tonight. There's John Bosco, he's our engineer. Daniel check our our, he's gonna provide radio frequency testimony and then Tim Cronk, our planner is gonna be providing planning testimony. With that, I'd like to move on to our first witness. John Bosco.
Speaker 1Mr. Bosco, are you present? Is Mr. Bosco present?
Speaker 14John, can you hear us?
Speaker 1Yes, you're good John. Okay. Could you raise your right, do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? I'm having trouble hearing Mr. Bosco. Yeah,
Speaker 14He's very well. Hey John, can you get a little closer to your mic?
Speaker 1This better? Yes,
Speaker 14A little bit. Yeah. Mr. Bosco, can you provide your qualifications and experience with respect to en engineering?
Speaker 1Yes, I have a BSS degree in civil engineering from Lehigh University. I have over 40 years of experience, including 15 years in the telecommunications industry. And I am a registered professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. I think his credentials are good. You can proceed as an expert.
Speaker 14Okay. Mr. Bosco, you, you know, provide your testimony, review the surrounding areas, the conditions of the site, and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 14And feel free to share the screen and show the plans what you to the board
Speaker 1Do. What we have on, on the screen is the set of plans prepared by my firm French and Perello Associates describing as Mr. Purcell indicated the existing conditions and the proposed location of the temporary tower on the subject property. Here you can see a detail showing the proposed temporary tower and what's called a ballast frame at gr at grade, which will support the tower and support it against any wind loads. These are the proposed antennas which will be placed on the tower total of 12 antennas. These antennas are existing on the roof of the existing structure, which as Mr. Parcell indicated, will be demolished. So the exact same antennas will be relocated once the temporary tower is installed onto the new tower. These are details of the equipment, cabinets supporting the antennas and the detail of the ballast frame base.
Speaker 14All right, Mr. Bosco, can you just begin just talk about the review the surrounding areas to, to orient to the board, to the location of the site.
Speaker 1If we go back to the plan view, you can see the subject building in the center of the plot. You can see Interstate 2 87 to the right and Washington Avenue. At the bottom of the sheet there are adjacent industrial commercial buildings to the left of the subject property and then a small residential area in the upper right corner of the pla of the plan.
Speaker 14And the site's located in the l i five light industrial zone, is that right?
Speaker 1That is correct.
Speaker 14Okay. And the parcel is approximately 10.1 acres in, in size,
Speaker 1That's also correct.
Speaker 14And there's an existing office building on the property that's what's in the center there.
Speaker 1That's what's located in the center? Correct.
Speaker 14And there's antennas on that building. Do you know the height of those antennas? Is it 56.9 feet?
Speaker 1The center line of the antennas is that 56.9 feet above grade.
Speaker 14And how is access provided to the property?
Speaker 1A paved driveway from Washington Avenue.
Speaker 14Right? It's South Washington Avenue I believe. Correct?
Speaker 1That that's correct.
Speaker 14Yeah. And what's the purpose of the temporary tower?
Speaker 1Temporary tower will provide a temporary location for the existing antennas, which will be removed from the existing roof of the existing building before that building can be demolished. It'll be, as you said, approximately two years to demolish that building and then construct a new warehouse on the property
Speaker 14And the interior. And the, right now, the interior buil, the interior portions of the building are being demolished. Is that, is that correct?
Speaker 1That is in progress, that's correct.
Speaker 14And the, the, the actual building won't be demolished until the exterior, you know, until the temp tower is up and the antennas can be removed from the existing building, is that right?
Speaker 1That's exactly the purpose of the temporary tower.
Speaker 14Yeah. And the antennas will play be placed at, you know, when they come back to the building once it's constructed, the new building, the antennas will be placed at 57 feet on the new permanent building, the new warehouse. Is that, is that correct? On,
Speaker 1On the new building at 57 feet? Correct.
Speaker 14Okay. Alright. So the antennas are staying at, at essentially the same height going from the existing building to the temporary and then back to the new building. Is that right? Three
Speaker 1Three steps? Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 14Okay. Are there any util util easement on the property that impact our installation?
Speaker 1There are none.
Speaker 14Okay. And why is the, why is the, why is the ballast man tower being placed at the edge of the property as opposed to a location on the property where it would comply with all setbacks?
Speaker 1Well, as, as you mentioned, there's gonna be quite a bit of demolition and construction activity where the existing building is now. So to get the tower and the antennas away from that activity, we selected the location to the far left in the parking lot on the plan there. And that will allow all the demolition and construction activity to take place without interference. And
Speaker 14That, and that location is sort of on the far extreme away from the, the residential zone that the property bus, is that correct?
Speaker 1It's the furthest away from that residential area,
Speaker 14Yeah. Okay. And the ballast mount blocks, can you talk about those dimensions, what the purpose of the ballast blocks is?
Speaker 1Yes. The, the ballast frame itself is 15 feet square. The ballast blocks are large concrete blocks, which are needed to resist wind loads on this tower to prevent overturning
Speaker 14The, and that's an incredible No, those, that's a very, those are very large and weighty. Correct. Those, those ballast mount blocks, those, those, those aren't going anywhere, I would say
Speaker 1Necessarily quite large in order to resist the wind load overturning moments.
Speaker 14And will the equipment and that, that is required for the, for the antennas be placed on top of the ballast mount blocks?
Speaker 1Yes, they will.
Speaker 14Okay. Is there a generator for this site?
Speaker 1There is no generator proposed. It will only be battery backup.
Speaker 14Okay. And can you talk about the, the chain link fence that's gonna be around the, the ball mount blocks and perhaps maybe you can move to the portion of the plans for that shown.
Speaker 1You can see on this, on this sheet, we will have a seven foot temporary chain link fence around the ballast frame. This will be 20 feet by 20 feet, the dimensions of the chain link fence.
Speaker 14Okay.
Speaker 1And that, that is shown on this, on this particular plan.
Speaker 14And with respect to the temp tower, the site's unmanned, is that, is that right?
Speaker 1The site is unmanned. It's monitored electronically remotely and it will be visited by a technician approximately every four to six weeks.
Speaker 14And have you prepared or reviewed a structural analysis for this proposed ball mount tower?
Speaker 1Yes, we have reviewed the structural analysis for the tower.
Speaker 14And will the applicant provide that structural analysis to the Township as a compliance item?
Speaker 1That's correct.
Speaker 14I think you, you would have to provide that anyways when we pull construction permits. Is that your understanding?
Speaker 1I'm sorry?
Speaker 14I said a structural analysis is Eva is generally required with respect to, you know, pulling construction permits. Is is that, is that your understanding? That's correct. That's correct. All right. Is the tower designed in accordance with all applicable code code requirements?
Speaker 1Yes, it is.
Speaker 14And what happens if there's a failure with respect to the tower?
Speaker 1Well, it's a, in the very unlikely event of a failure take, keeping in mind that these structures are designed for very high wind loads per the T i a 2 2, 2 2 antenna code, in this case 113 miles per hour. But if there were a a, an overload condition, the most likely failure scenario would be a buckling within the shaft of the tower such that you would have in effect what will look like a bent drinking straw. It would fold at that point of failure and basically the upper portion would be, would be hanging onto the shaft.
Speaker 14Okay. Can other cellular cellular communications carriers co-locate onto the proposed tower?
Speaker 1It's, it's possible. It's, it's probably not likely due to the fact that there are no other existing carriers on the existing building roof. There's certainly capacity in the temporary tower should a co-location be required, but it's, it's not in the plans and as I said, probably unlikely.
Speaker 14Will there be any ground disturbance or excavation related to, related to the project?
Speaker 1No. The ballast frame will be placed on the existing paving parking lot. There'll be a six inch thick layer of leveling stone placed before the ballast frame is located on the parking lot pavement. And that is the only activity.
Speaker 14All right. Just moving on to the zoning requirements in the l i five zone. Could you go over, you know, what the applicant is requesting tonight and what, what variances are needed?
Speaker 1We're requesting minor site plan approval and variance relief, specifically approval for a minimum side yard setback. The code requires 50 feet and T-mobile proposes 17 and a half feet to the nearest point of the ballast mount frame and 25 feet to the tower itself. D three conditional use variance relief code requires a minimum setback of a thousand feet to the nearest residential property. Line T-Mobile proposes a setback of 553 feet from the nearest corner of the ballast frame. Also a minimum setback of 200 feet from all property lines. T-Mobile proposes a setback of 17 and a half feet at the nearest property line. On the left side of that plan, we looked at height variance relief code requires a 50 foot maximum height for principal and accessory structures. T-Mobile proposes 61 and a half feet in height to the top of the antennas.
Speaker 14Okay. And is it, with respect to the code's definition of a minor site plan, the code defines a minor site plan as development that is less than 10,000 square feet. Is that correct?
Speaker 1That's correct. And we are, we are well less than that.
Speaker 14Okay. And that's why we're applying for a minor site plan, is that right?
Speaker 1Also correct.
Speaker 14Yeah. Can you just go over the lighting and impact on neighboring properties?
Speaker 1The only light, re light proposed is a work light near the chain link fence. This will be pointed downward and this light is on an automatic timer so it shuts off within the appro, within the selected time.
Speaker 14And as far as you know, technicians, when they come to visit the, the, the site, are there, is there parking spaces available?
Speaker 1There are many parking spaces on the existing parking lot, which will be used by the technician? Correct.
Speaker 14Okay. And then as, is there any impact on trees with respect to the proposed ball mountain tower?
Speaker 1There's no, no. Trees are anticipated to be removed during this process.
Speaker 14And can you again explain the process replacing the applicant's facilities from the existing office building to the temp tower and then back to the new building
Speaker 1E? Exactly. As we said, the existing towers, existing antennas on top of the existing building roof will remain there while the temporary tower is being installed at the time that the temporary tower is complete, those antennas will be relocated through the temporary tower and demolition of the exterior of the existing building can begin. The construction of the new warehouse will then begin when it is complete and the roof is ready, the antennas will once again be moved off of the temporary tower to the roof of the new warehouse.
Speaker 14And what is the applicant's procedure for snow removal? For providing access to the site? If there's snow on the ground,
Speaker 1Either the technician, the T-Mobile will hire an outside company to plow, or it's possible that they will plow themselves in, in case of snow.
Speaker 14Okay. And will the removal of the monopole, the bousman tower, include restoration of all areas in removal of all the equipment?
Speaker 1That's correct.
Speaker 14Okay. All right, Mr. Chairman, that's all I have for Mr. Bosco.
Speaker 1Thank you. Mr. Bosco. Next witness.
Speaker 14Does, does any member of the board or the public have any questions for Mr. Bosco or Mr. Mr. Chairman or do you wanna do that all at the end? I'd
Speaker 1Like to do the questions at the end, Mr. Chaill.
Speaker 14Okay,
Speaker 1That's fine. Okay, thank you. Okay.
Speaker 14Alright. Next I'd like to call Daniel Check. He's our Mr Present.
Speaker 16Daniel,
Speaker 1You raise your right hand testimony you're about to give. Should be the truth.
Speaker 16Yes.
Speaker 1Your name and address, please?
Speaker 1663 Beaverbrook Road, Lincoln Park, New Jersey.
Speaker 1And your, your name and spell last name please.
Speaker 16Daniel Ze, c z e c h.
Speaker 1Thank you. Alright,
Speaker 14Mr. Che, can you go over your qualifications and
Speaker 16Experience? Yes. So I have a bachelor's degree in engineering from N G I T with an emphasis on communication systems. I'm experience in running propagation analysis on wireless carriers and I've calculated several RF emissions for F C C compliance.
Speaker 1Mr. Check is your, your requisites are excellent. You can be proceeded as a expert. Thank you.
Speaker 16Thank you.
Speaker 14Right. Thank, thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Check, have you reviewed the radio frequency justification report dated October 5th, 2022 prepared by Francis Biste?
Speaker 16Yes, I have.
Speaker 14Okay. And we've marked that that report as exhibit a A one, Mr. Che, can you just pull that exhibit up and I'm sure you'll use it during your testimony.
Speaker 16Yes,
Speaker 14You can share your screen and show it to everybody.
Speaker 7Mr. Chairman, can I interrupt a second? Mr. Parcel? Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Chaill,
Speaker 7This site is part of the system and operating and previously approved by the Township and I we're moving it, moving the actual facility maybe a hundred or 200 feet on the distinct site. So in terms of proving a need for the facility, it's part of the network now, it would not seem that we would have to reprove this.
Speaker 14Well that's part of our testimony to say that, you know, we're, it's like a Mr. Check I believe is gonna talk about how it's like a puzzle piece and we're just, you know, putting the puzzle piece, moving it
Speaker 7Over. Alright. I'm just trying to, trying to
Speaker 1Expedite things,
Speaker 7Ize our testimony.
Speaker 14Lemme let's, we'll do very quickly with Mr. Check, we'll take out the bells and whistles. Try to get through it. Thank you. All right, Mr. Che, can you briefly review how, well, actually, you know, Mr. Chek, can you just kind of go over using your exhibits, can you identify the existing coverage, the coverage with the sites decommissioned and the coverage of what the proposed sites?
Speaker 16Yes. So if we take a look at the map titled T-Mobile's existing 2100 megahertz, L t e coverage. This shows all the existing on-air sites that are located on the map. They're shown with dark blue markers. So in the center of the map, we have site NJ 0 6 4 4 2. From the northeast we have NJ 0 6 5 2 8. From the east we have NJ 0 6 2 4 0. And from the west we have NJ 0 6 9 5 5. And coverage is shown with a light blue hue showing in building commercial coverage and light green showing in-building residential coverage. Then we take a look at the next exhibit. We have T-mobile's existing 2100 megahertz coverage with site NJ 0 6 4 4 2. That is the rooftop mount. And then we could see that much of the coverage in the center of the map is lost and gaps are created. These bound, these are bound by Cumberland Road from the North Stelton Road from the East County Road 6 0 9 from the South. Gick are plain from the, the west. And this affects businesses such as Walmart, ShopRite, CubeSmart, several warehouses in the area as as well as many residents that will lose in-building coverage. And then could you do,
Speaker 14Yeah, go ahead. Sorry. You could continue.
Speaker 16And then if we take a look at the, the next exhibit, we have T-mobile's existing 2100 megahertz l t e coverage with the proposed temporary site. And this is showing how coverage is restored once the temporary site is installed. You know, gaps are filled as they were before. So due, due to the site being similar in height and the location being rather close to the existing facility coverage stays very close to what it was previous.
Speaker 14And then Mr. Che, could you just go over very briefly in the same way the 700 megahertz frequency band maps?
Speaker 16Yes. So here we have T-Mobile's existing 700 megahertz l t e coverage seven, 700 megahertz Frequency band is, it's able to propagate a little farther due to the nature of the band, but T-Mobile still sees a coverage lost when the site is taken offline. So now if you look at the map, this is T-mobile's existing 700 megahertz L t e coverage without the site NJ 0 6 4 4 2. And we could see that there are coverage gaps that are present in the area. And then once again, if we take a look at T-Mobile's existing 700 L t e coverage with the proposed temporary site, we can see that that coverage is once again restored.
Speaker 14Right. And then, and just looking at those, those maps, obviously, you know, the, it is a commercial area, right? This the, the, the area adjacent to this site, the and is is what, this is what this is showing is that by, if you wanna go back to the, the last slide where it shows with the, with the gap created, created, then the, that commercial area only becomes suitable for in residential, in-building residential coverage. Is that, is that right? Yes,
Speaker 16That is correct. Then if
Speaker 14You're in one of those commercial buildings, you won't be able to have service basically.
Speaker 16That is correct.
Speaker 14Okay. All right. And then again, just to clarify, is it important from an RF perspective to maintain the location height of the existing facility as much as as much as possible to keep the necessary coverage?
Speaker 16Yes.
Speaker 14Okay. And it's like a puzzle piece, right? We have to, is that how you describe it? That, you know, we were, you had a, you know, in 2003 we got the approval to put this here, it filled that puzzle piece, puzzle piece is coming out, temp tower puts the puzzle piece back. Is that a good way to describe it? That
Speaker 16Would be a pretty good way of describing it.
Speaker 14Okay. All right. Just moving on to the admissions analysis. This was previously sent to the board, the September 21st, 2022 E M F report. Mr. Che, can you show that on your screen?
Speaker 16One second.
Speaker 14We marked that as the eight two.
Speaker 16I think I I closed it. I'm sorry. Let me just open it really quick, quickly.
Speaker 14Okay. So Mr. Chek, have you reviewed this report?
Speaker 16Yes.
Speaker 14And can you describe the applicable F e C and New Jersey standards?
Speaker 16So the standards that are used for the analysis or the F C C standards, which are conservative nature, conservative nature of standards, and the New Jersey Radiation Protection Act standards.
Speaker 14Okay. And can you describe the methodology of, of the analysis?
Speaker 16Our tests are based on worst case and they're conservative and cumulative. They assume that all the antennas are on and there is no cable loss.
Speaker 14And can you review the findings of the analysis?
Speaker 16So our analysis reported that the proposed T-mobile facility would emit 7.5% of the F C C allowable limit. That's 13 times below the limit and 1.5% of the New Jersey maximum permissible exposure limit for the general public. And that's 66 times below the limit. And obviously this is well below the limit.
Speaker 14Okay. And again, you know, so the, obviously the existing antennas comply with those F E C and state requirements. Is that, is that right? That
Speaker 16Is correct.
Speaker 14And these antennas are on the same height, the same antennas. So it's the same type of RF IM impact, which is still compliant. Is that, is that correct?
Speaker 16Yes.
Speaker 14Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have for Mr check.
Speaker 1Thank you. Mr Check.
Speaker 14Dan, you can take that off the screen. Thank you very much. All right. Next I would like to call Mr. Cronk who as our planner.
Speaker 1Mr. Cro, are you present?
Speaker 17I am present. Could
Speaker 1You raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give be the truth?
Speaker 17I do.
Speaker 14Mr. Cro, can you just provide your background and educational qualifications?
Speaker 1Yes. I believe Mr. CRO has been accepted as a professional planner before this board on several prior applications.
Speaker 17Yes, I have, including the original approval on this building in 2003. Great.
Speaker 1We can proceed.
Speaker 17Thank you.
Speaker 14All right, Mr. Crock, have you reviewed the zoning ordinances and the redevelopment plan for this site and the master plan? Yes,
Speaker 17I have.
Speaker 14Okay. Mr. Crock, we submitted as exhibit A three to, to the board November 22, November 22nd, 2022 to two PHO photo simulations to the board. Is that correct?
Speaker 17Two photo simulations. I I believe it's
Speaker 14Four we sent, I'm sorry, November. We submitted a photo simulations to the board dated November 22nd, 2022. Is that right?
Speaker 17Yes, that's correct. Thank you.
Speaker 14All right. And then we marked those exhibit A three. We also submitted an aerial that you provided as exhibit A four. Is that correct?
Speaker 17That's correct.
Speaker 14Okay. Mr. Cronk, can you review the surrounding area and the zoning of the site and then review the photos Sims?
Speaker 17Yes. Subject property is located in the LI five zone. This is a zone that conditionally permits wireless telecommunications. The proposed application by T-Mobile does have two D deviations from the conditional use standards. The first one is the, is the setback from the nearest residential property line. A thousand feet is required by ordinance and the proposal by T-mobile is for a setback of 553 feet. And could
Speaker 14You, could you just show the aerial real quick and then the pho photos sims just so sure. See proposed and then we'll get into it. Sure.
Speaker 17The photos sims are marked a three. I'll actually go to the aerial that's marked a four and share screen. Do you have that? Yes. Yep. Okay. The, this is Google Earth image with a date of June 19th, 2022. It gets marked as exhibit A four with the subject proposed tower location represented by the red dot approximately in the center of the aerial labeled site. The existing building is just south on south of there along Washington Plaza Drive property abuts 2 87 to the south, south Washington Avenue to the west, and a warehouse building to the north self-storage facility to the northeast. And then a small section of residential properties along New Brunswick Avenue. This area is zoned R 10 and is a little triangle wedge that runs from Stelton Road along 2 87 back to Stelton. As I mentioned, subject property is in the l i five zone and outside of the R 10 properties, pretty much everything else on here is l i five with a small band of gb, general business along Stelton Road.
Speaker 17Okay. And just the photos. Yep. And just, so there, there are four yellow dots on the aerial photo exhibit here. A four. Those represent the four photo locations that I will go to next. The first one is an one in the parking lot of the subject property. And you'll see that one is illustrative because it's the only location where the tower and the compound could be seen. So that's actually why I did a simulation from this location was because there was nothing offsite where you could get a full view of the tower. Number two is over on New Brunswick Avenue. Number three is up on Stelton and number four is out on South Washington by the intersection of the, the entrance road.
Speaker 18Okay. And,
Speaker 17Okay, do you have photos, simulations? Can everybody see them? Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. So the photo simulations were prepared based upon a a balloon test. That balloon test was performed on September 8th, 2022 for the purpose of preparing the, the visual then analysis. The red weather balloon that's in the middle of this first exhibit was floated to a height of 60, 61 and a half feet. And then photographs of visible locations in the surrounding area were taken. And those photographs do accurately depict the existing conditions at that time. So this is the first one that's in the actual parking lot of the property at 1551 South Washington. And then if we go to the next photo, this is the actual simulation. And in the simulation, the red weather balloon has been removed and the proposed T-mobile tower at 61 feet, six inches with 12 antennas has been inserted via computer simulation as depicted on the engineering drawings. And as I mentioned, this one was more for the board just to see the whole tower since it was not visible from anywhere off site. So you can see the 12 antennas, same as the, the currently on the, the rooftop of the subject property, the proposed tower and the, and the compound and ballast frame that would be visible from this location.
Speaker 17Next photo is the one
Speaker 15Oh,
Speaker 17Next photo location is on, on New Brunswick Road. This is a photo location that's 700 feet away. This is actually taken, there's a small, there's two residence residential properties in the R 10 that abut the l i five. And then there's a little strip of New Brunswick that runs along the, the su the abuts, the subject property. This is kind of right in between those two houses where the road abuts subject property. And this is a photo from the same date with the red weather balloon visible in the, in the photo. And then on the photo simulation, the proposed tower, the portion of the tower would be visible from this location has been inserted into the photo.
Speaker 17Next one is the, the location from 5 21 Stelton Road. This is by the Goodyear Tire. The just balloons just visible over this, over this property, over the roof in the center of the photo. And then in the computer simulation, what would be visible from this location has been inserted into the photo. And last photo, photo number four, this is the one from Washington Plaza in South Washington. So actually the, the building on the left here is the adjacent building, not the existing, 'cause we're kind of tucked it back in the corner behind here. So we have the balloon at, at 61 feet, six inches. And then the, the tower inserted via a computer simulation for the portion of tower that would be visible from this location.
Speaker 14Okay. Thank you. Mr. Cronk, can you just go over the zoning for the site?
Speaker 17Yes. As I mentioned, the, the property is in the l i five zone. We do have the, we do have the two conditional use standard deviations. There's also one more variance required in the nature of AC variance. The underlying l i five zone does have a 50 foot setback requirement. And as was testified to, our actual tower is 25 feet and then we have 17 feet five inches that would be from the property line to the actual ballast frame. Normally in these situations we're measuring to a tower that doesn't have a frame. So we would just normally address the tower setback. But in this one we just pointed out both, both distances that, that we, we have because the unusual situation. And lastly, there is a, a deviation for a height on the maximum height permitted in the underlying LI five zone is 50 feet. And as we are proposing 61 feet six inches. So we do exceed the maximum height in the underlying zone by more than 10 feet or 10%.
Speaker 14Mr. Kron, could we just just go back one to one issue with respect to approval, the tower, would T-Mobile agree for the approval of sunset 90 days after CO is issued for, for the new building that's gonna be constructed on the site at which time the temp tower would be removed?
Speaker 17Yes, that is is fine. We are actually working very closely with the, the developers, the redevelops of the site. So we have, we have their latest drawings. We already have, you know, started our drawings 'cause we are going to need to seek approval for the installation on the rooftop. So we will be moving towards filing that, you know, pretty much as soon as we get this temp on the air. So we'll be letting
Speaker 14We go. And you understand and you understand that the property owner is gonna be filing for that, that approval with the planning board pursuant to the redevelopment plan within the next 30 days? That's the expectation?
Speaker 17Yes. I believe that is the plan.
Speaker 14And Mr. Clo cronk, we, the applicant marked a letter August dated August 8th or August 9th, 2023. It's a letter from my office to James Clarkin setting forth T-mobile's position with respect to this, with setting forth that stipulation. Is that, is that right?
Speaker 17Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 14Okay. And that was marked as exhibit A five. And then have you reviewed Mr. Stein's planning memo to the board dated August 9th, 2023?
Speaker 17Yes, I have.
Speaker 14And do you have any comments regarding to that, regarding that memo?
Speaker 17The only, the only question I had with regard to that memo was under number three, since the proposal to return to the building will be conforming with the redevelopment plan, I w I was thinking we would be going to the planning board instead of the zoning board retaining jurisdiction. That was the only question I had on that.
Speaker 1Mr. And I have discussed this. That's really not an issue for the zoning board at this time. That that jurisdictional question will be answered at the time. Okay. In the future when that comes up.
Speaker 17Okay. That was the only question I had regarding that memo.
Speaker 5Okay. I, I think my comment was more in the realm of it. For some reason during construction, the need comes up for the temporary poll to be relocated again for some reason. Oh,
Speaker 17This isn't being relocated. I hope it doesn't. Yeah, but
Speaker 14Well that, that's understood. Yeah. And that's understood and stipulated too.
Speaker 17I was just, yeah, I was just trying to, I just wanted to address the jurisdictional issue. Yeah. Since I thought,
Speaker 14So Tim, could you just go over now the, your, your proofs for the D three use variances, the bulk variances and the height?
Speaker 17Yes. Under the, under the D three, we addressed this deviation under the Coventry Square analysis. Essentially the fact that the framers of the ordinance are already determined that this is an appropriate location for a wireless telecommunications facility. What we really do focus on in this application is the deviation from those conditional use standards. And as I mentioned, there are two, two deviations to them. The first is a thousand foot setback from a residential property line where 553 feet is proposed as you can, as you saw on the aerial photograph and the engineering drawings. We are actually, you know, we worked again closely with the redevelop or the property to find a location that was the maximum distance away from the residential zone. There was no place that we could obtain a greater setback than the 553 feed due to the, you know, proposed total demolition of the existing building and the construction of a, you know, a different building, different configuration.
Speaker 17So they had very little space available and, you know, this was the farthest that we would able, were able to, you know, locate this temporary facility. The other conditional use deviation relates to the setback of the side yard setback where 200 feet is required from all property lines. And we are proposing 17.5 to the base of the tower and 25 feet to the tower. Once again, this is purely related to the proposed demolition and construction activities. We are, you know, there was no place that we were able to go. And certainly the temporary nature of this installation and the fact that we are only proposing a, a dislocation for two years certainly does mitigate that as opposed to a permanent installation. And also the fact that we are, you know, tucked in between two warehousing and storage facilities both in the l i five zone and where this, where this use is also permitted. So we are completely compatible with the property lines that we are violating the deviation on the required setbacks there. So as I mentioned under the Coventry Square, Coventry Square standard, we focus more on whether the subject property would remain particularly suited for this use despite the deviations. And I certainly believe that these deviations for a temporary facility would render this property continue to be particularly suited for the wireless telecommunication installation that is temporary in nature and conditionally permitted on the subject property.
Speaker 17With regard to the, the negative criteria under the country square, the analyst fo the analysis focuses more on the damaging of the character of the neighborhood and as you saw from the photo simulations. And that's why we prepare them and prepare the balloon test. You certainly can see while there is some visibility to the surrounding areas, including the residential areas of R 10, that the visibility associated with this installation certainly is not something that will rise to the level of damaging the character of this surrounding neighborhood. And besides the visibility associated with the tower, this use is identical and the equipment's identical to what's been been on this building and broadcasting for, for years.
Speaker 17We do have somewhat of a a a D six deviation. As I mentioned. The underlying l i five zone does have a 50 foot maximum requirement. We are proposing 61 6 61 feet, six inches. But I really do believe that this would be suum under the wire, the wireless telecommunications ordinance because in that ordinance, the underlying wireless zone does permit a tower up to 100 feet for, I'm sorry, a 110 feet for a single use tower. And as was mentioned earlier, this is designed for co-location. Not sure that anybody's gonna use it for co-location due to the temporary nature of the facility, but we do comply with the height requirements of the, of the tower itself. And also the height is actually assumed into the use. 'cause if the board were to grant us the, the conditioner use approval, but would tell us, would tell us we could only have the 50 feet essentially that would render this property useless for this engineering driven technology. So the height itself does become part and parcel of the use.
Speaker 17And, and with regard to the, the underlying setback variance for the l i five zone 50 feet is required. Once again, we have the same 17.5 feet to the ballast frame and 25 feet to the tower. I do believe the board can grant that relief under the flexible C two deviation and the fact that the purposes of the M L U L would be advanced under, under small a since the site does promote the general welfare. Since the carrier does possess the requisite F C C license, I do believe the variance can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good. Certainly don't believe there is a substantial detriment. Really the only detriment is the visibility and it would not rise to that level. I do believe the benefits of deviation would sa substantially outweigh any detriment. The detriment, once again would be primarily the visibility of the TA temporary tower and the ability to continue to provide wireless telecommunication services to the, the residents, the businesses of Piscataway, as well as the traveling public on, on 2 87. And I do believe the variance would not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone planner's own the ordinance since we are a conditionally permitted use at this location. And this is a, a temporary structure and we will be returning to the new building, certainly would not impair the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance.
Speaker 14Okay. Thank you Mr. Cronk. That's all I have.
Speaker 17Thank you.
Speaker 1Thank you. Henry, do you have any comments first?
Speaker 5No, I think all my comments were addressed. I did not believe they agreed to the time limit, the 90 days of the, of the variance sun setting after the 90 days, a certificate of occupancy. So that satisfies with my comments. May wanna check with John
Speaker 1I'll Mr. Chadwick.
Speaker 7Yes, I did submit a report dated July 24th, 2023. The testimony as addressed it most critical one was a, a timeframe for what? When the temporary tower would be removed. I don't know, Jim, if you think they should have some kind of restoration bond to make sure it comes down. If for some reason the redevelopment plan doesn't go forward, Mr. Peril.
Speaker 14So the question is, should we have a re a require a bond if the redevelopment plan doesn't go forward? Well
Speaker 7Yeah, you're, you're basically at the control of the redevelop.
Speaker 14So
Speaker 7For whatever reason they don't go forward. It doesn't sound like that's situation, but,
Speaker 14Well, I guess, I guess
Speaker 7Some,
Speaker 17Well if they don't remove the existing building, we're staying on the existing building. So they're not gonna remove the existing building until they have their approval. So we would just stay there.
Speaker 7They remove the building, but they don't build the warehouse.
Speaker 17Alright, then we're coming here for another application. Yeah,
Speaker 14I I
Speaker 7Don't wanna make this a big deal.
Speaker 14All right. No, no, no. Lemme comment because I, I did think about that. I did have that thought, that cross my mind. 'cause I know in talking to Mr. Clark and, you know, we were ping this to the co you know, if we could, if we could say that, you know, that we pa it to the CO 90 days after the CO was issued or two years after the, the, the date of the approval, whichever is first. You know, I think that would probably allay your fear, Mr. Chadwick, if this does not at all move forward,
Speaker 7I wouldn't, I I'd give you a little more time than two years, but that's fine. Either cap on it or this doesn't go on forever, so we'll make it three years.
Speaker 17Okay. I think that's good because if all of a sudden we didn't have a building to go back on, we would, you know, need a little more time to, for a, for a, you know, plan B.
Speaker 7So we'll, we'll make that three years, three
Speaker 1Years or 90 days from the co issuing of the co. Correct.
Speaker 14Okay. Yep, that's fine.
Speaker 7The, the other comments in the report have been addressed with testimony.
Speaker 1Thank you, John. At this time, anyone on the board have any questions or comments or concerns for these witnesses? Hearing none, I'd like to open this up to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, concerns, or comments on
Speaker 2This? We have, we have several. I have an M Par.
Speaker 19Yes.
Speaker 1Okay. Par 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 19Yes, I do.
Speaker 1Thank you. Could I have your name, address please? If I have your name, could I have your address please?
Speaker 19My name is Hel Pik. I live in 4 6 4 7 New Brunswick Avenue Picard. Where,
Speaker 1Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 19Okay. So my, I live on the group of residents, which was referenced several times in this discussion, which lives next to the building. And I'm the closest one to the, to the tower. I have a question for Daniel Chaill, since he's the most expert on the radiation. My question is, what is the safest distance to live from this existing antennas? According to the, you mentioned some Radiation protection Act.
Speaker 16Yes. Well, the F C C has done significant amount of research on whether RF emissions are safe. So the F C C has many studies that prove that up, that to that limit there you will be safe in the, the, the region.
Speaker 19So, but what, what is the limit? What is the distance? Is, is it a hundred feet thousand feet? There should be something missing, right?
Speaker 14Yeah, no, Mr. I understand that. Mr. Check, I think what he's asking is, is that there's a, you know, the F e C says you can't get, you know, right up against the antenna. Correct. That there are certain spatial distance, at which point it's, it's safe. And can you comment on what that, what that would be in this case?
Speaker 16Yes. That that is correct. You can't be standing directly in front of antenna as that is not safe due to the exposure being so high when you're so close. But that is not possible given that this structure is mounted 60 feet in the air. So there's no way that the general public would ever exceed the limit.
Speaker 19Okay. So you mean to say that I, I live, when I, when I measured it on the Google Maps, I live around 700 feet from the antenna. And honestly, I, I just moved two years ago and I didn't know that there is an existing antennas on the existing building, otherwise I wouldn't have have been moved here. But now it's, it was like 500 feet from my house. So my question is, is 500 feet distance from my house is safe to live from the antennas because I have four year old daughter and I, I'm, I'm, me and my wife both work from home. So we are practically 24 hours, 365 days from home.
Speaker 16The RF emissions inside your home would be s significantly less. These RF emissions are calculated if you were standing outside of your house, but inside your home, the, the values that I've provided today, they would be even lower. So you would be one you would be safe in.
Speaker 19Okay. So yes, it, I'm, I am safe in my house, lower, higher. I don't know about the values, but in short, I'm safe in my house.
Speaker 16You are, you're safe anywhere in that you could achieve any location in, on the general, like where the general public can be? Yes, you are. I've basically done, I've assured that these calculations are correct and that you'll be safe. Yes.
Speaker 19Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1Thank you. That all
Speaker 19From, are there any,
Speaker 1Are there any other from the public, any other hands up?
Speaker 2Yes, there is. Oh, they, and they brought their hand down. There was a Bob Sisk, I don't know if he still wants to speak and his hand's back up again. Yes. Bob Sisk.
Speaker 20Yes. Mr.
Speaker 1Si, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Yes. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth?
Speaker 20Yes.
Speaker 1Your name and address please?
Speaker 20My name is Bob Sisk. My address is 46 35 New Brunswick Avenue.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 20Yeah, I'm the, I'm the yellow number two on your map. And myself and Mr. Cro I think are the only two that were at the meeting in 2003 when we discussed this. And the question came up about the safety, obviously for RF frequencies and what do you have for data? And obviously at the time he said we don't have any, it's new technology, new and emerging technology, I believe is the, the sentence that he said. And so now we have 20 years that's gone by. Can you show me the data and the studies that have happened between then and now on the safety and of the RF frequencies?
Speaker 14Well, Mr. Mr. Sisk, I think Mr. Check would be the person to, do you have any questions about our f safety? Mr Prompter's, our planner. So Mr. Che, would you like to respond to that?
Speaker 16As I stated before, you know, the F C C has the, the limit they have set that they deem as based on their countless research that they deem as safe. And according to our calculations, you should not be concerned of RF emissions at the time, as you know, our, our admission report shows that we are well below the limit.
Speaker 20Are you aware that the limit in the United States is 60 times greater than any other country? According to the fccs numbers?
Speaker 14I'll just say that, you know, from a legal perspective, you know that the pertinent question is what is the FCC standard here? You know, the, the tele the Telecommunications Act says that that's the only, the only applicable question in these cases is what is the F C C standard? And do we need that standard? Any other consideration of health and safety impacts is, you know, not to be considered by state local governments enacting on these applications.
Speaker 20Yeah, and I'm impressed you pulled together some very smart people. I'm definitely not one of 'em. I'm just trying to take care of my family. We moved here 20 years ago, this tower will stare right into the bedroom. My son, there's a lot of neighbors here that moved out because of what was going on there right after it happened. And, you know, it's, it's gonna be something we're gonna be staring at. I mean, I could throw a baseball from his bedroom window and hit that tower. It's, you know, it's, and you described the safety is based on the distance from the tower and that's half the truth. The other half is time. It's distance and time is what creates safety. So if you're far away but you're there for a really long time, you're gonna absorb the same amount of frequency. So that's why we're, we're concerned.
Speaker 20And now what you guys are proposing, and I use the word minor and subtle and small changes, and I really want the board to think about this for a second. They're not, they're not, you're talking about 20% taller. You're talking about 17 feet from 200 feet. You're talking about major changes. And then we get to look at, we we're only talking about the visible looking at it, but now being exposed to it for two full years, that tower is way bigger than the one that's sitting on top of the building. And you guys promised that you would cover it last year for this to get approved by the board. They said, okay, can you build some covers around it so the tenants don't have to, so the neighbors don't have to stare at it? And they did. They built boxes around it. Now this is just gonna be a, a pure tower standing straight up for everybody that pulls in and wants to buy a property in that neighborhood.
Speaker 20Go, whoa, we're outta here. And you know, I know I saw the one picture there where it didn't look like a big deal, but that's not from my property and it's even worse for my property. Our request is that you take your tower and go over across the street to a, the new warehouse that's there and just put it there. You'll still have the same puzzle piece that you need. You'll still have the same colors on your map and you'll still be able to compete with at and t for the space. It's across the street. That's all we're asking. Don't put the temporary one in the parking lot staring back at us. Move it across the street and put it on the building that's there. And you might find out you like that even better. And make it permanent. They'll enjoy the revenue the same way Paychex enjoy the revenue for all these years. And the, and the Township of Piscataway won't be losing anything. That's our request. And can and and who would accept, you know, who is going to accept the responsibility for the safety of the residents? Is it T-mobile or is it the Township of Piscataway? Do you have anything else Mr. Sisk? Just the waiting for the answer to that question. That
Speaker 1Question cannot be answered.
Speaker 20Why not?
Speaker 1Can't be answered. I'm the board's attorney. I'm telling the board it can't be answered.
Speaker 20Can can the executives from T-Mobile and, and the hired help here answer that question.
Speaker 1The board. I, I'm, I'm telling the board that that question cannot be answered. Nobody has to address that anymore. Do you have anything else? Mr
Speaker 20Would you answer that question?
Speaker 1I said to Mr. Pursel, he's not to address it anymore. Mr. Sisk, do you have anything else?
Speaker 20No, sir.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 20Thank you
Speaker 1Ms. Buckley. Are there any other hands up at this time?
Speaker 2Yep, now we have more. Kelly ber ber I'm gonna say it wrong, I apologize.
Speaker 21That's okay. It's Kelly heor.
Speaker 2It's called
Speaker 1Ms. Heor. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand?
Speaker 21Yes.
Speaker 1Swear. The testimony you're about to give should be the truth.
Speaker 21I do
Speaker 1Your name and address please. I have your name, your address, please.
Speaker 21My name's Kelly Heor, h e y b o e r. I live at 57 School Street Tuin and my family owns a house at 46 22 New Brunswick Avenue.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 21I had two questions. The first one is, you said that this will be a temporary tower that would be taken down within 90 days of the c e o of the new building. And then the question was rightly raised, what if the new building doesn't get built or what if, you know, they don't get the financing and, and don't build. So you mentioned three years that it would be, so would it be whatever comes first? Nine? Yeah,
Speaker 1Whatever comes first.
Speaker 21Okay. And my second question is, why this particular location? Why not move the tower to the front of the property closer to Washington Avenue? Where would be further from the residences?
Speaker 20Mr. Pronk, you wanna speak to that?
Speaker 17Sure can. The, the reason we could not get any farther away esp especially closer to the front of the building, is due to one, the demolition of this building and then the construction process for the new building. They're not gonna be exactly in the same footprint and there's no ability to move the tower once it's up. So it's, it was due to the construction requirements of the property owner that's redeveloping. And
Speaker 21This
Speaker 17Was the max, this was the maximum location, maximum distance from the residential zone that we could locate it without interfering with operations or requiring it to be moved, which can't be done after it's up
Speaker 21Because this is in view from my, from my property, my family's property from our second floor. This we have a picture window. This is directly in view from there. So anywhere else on the property would be better for us. I know it's a visual problem. And lastly was any, but
Speaker 17Just one other thing is you're saying in the front of the building, when they tear down the building, you're not gonna have a building there to block it either. So I mean, tucked over there at least there's some vegetation, you know, in that little, you know, milk area
Speaker 21On both. Well, there's a vegetation in the air, there's some vegetation in the air.
Speaker 17So, but it's a, it's short tower. So there is closer.
Speaker 21Yes. It it's closer to us than it could be. And lastly was, was anything explored moving this to a neighboring building where it could be covered up as it was on the previous building?
Speaker 17And with regard to temporary facilities, using the existing buildings is not feasible. There's, there's just too much, you know, modification required when this type of installation goes into a building. So the temporary structures normally are, you know, some type of ballast pole or you might have seen the, the cows, the cell on wheels. Those are the type of of structures we use for temporaries. But modifying buildings in temporary nature is just not feasible.
Speaker 21Not feasible. Meaning it
Speaker 17In terms of cost. It takes, it takes, it takes, you know, the, the time and the modification of buildings to put up a temporary, it's just not, it's not practical.
Speaker 21Okay. And I just asked the board to consider the, the neighborhood that surrounds this and, and we're, it looks like we're already getting a, a warehouse coming our way, whether we want it or not. So I'd ask you to consider the people in the neighborhood and, and what this will look like visually for us for the next several years. But thank you very much.
Speaker 1Thank you Ms. Buckley.
Speaker 2It's one big name. Willam Makita.
Speaker 22It's William Makita.
Speaker 2Okay. It's one big word. Sorry.
Speaker 1Mr. Makeda, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 22I do
Speaker 1Your address please.
Speaker 2220 Woodlake drive Piscataway.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 22Mr. Kron, you, you talked about the construction requirements. I mean I've, I've seen the building, I know where the area is. I don't understand it. It's a big parking lot. What are the construction requirements that prevent it from being closer to Washington Avenue
Speaker 17Right now in front of the existing building? It, there's not much space. That was never, there was just no way from a construction perspective, I'm not building the new building. I had to work in conjunction with the re developers of the property. But that was an area that we were not able to go do due to. I said the demolition construction, staging, mobilization, they have all that already laid out the property that they need to use for their, their activities.
Speaker 22This, this is, you have it. I think if, if I'm correct, the, the the tower that you're the temporary towers more in, I guess would be the back of the building towards New Brunswick Road. I actually don't understand. It seems like it's a a pretty large, so it's it's a somewhat large parking lot. I don't understand why it can't be towards the front. And they have the, the, the, the area, you know, to the side and, and closer to the back where you, you're putting the, the tower.
Speaker 17I don't, did you see, did you see the aerial photo before I did. Of where it's located? I did. We're really, we're really not towards New Brunswick Avenue. We're located to the north. We're tucked in between the warehouse building on South Washington in the, the storage facility in that little cutout in the parking lot. Do you want me to pull that ariel up again?
Speaker 22Go ahead, pull it up please. Sure. I'm a, I'm a lawyer so I'm used to this
Speaker 17Oh, wrong one. Sorry. Okay, now I gotta share that
Speaker 22I do many zoom depths, so I know, I, I,
Speaker 17Okay. Okay, so you see where the, where the red.is labeled site? Yep. Okay. So we're really not moving, I mean currently the antennas are on the building. We're not moving towards New Brunswick Ave. Actually some of the antennas are probably gonna be twice as far from New Brunswick Avenue as they currently are in the, in the temporary situation. We're moving farther away from that. The R 10 zone,
Speaker 22I can see where, so number two is where New Brunswick Avenue is, right?
Speaker 17Yes. That was the photo location from New Brunswick Avenue? Yes. Yep. This is New Brunswick Avenue in the R 10 zone. And then everything, the subject property and the surrounding properties are all l i five zone properties. So the existing antennas are on the building here, which is about half the distance to New Brunswick Avenue as the temporary facility is over here.
Speaker 22Why? I mean, there's a thousand feet variance for a reason. Why does it have to be reduced to 5 53? Why couldn't you just do it? I mean, you talk about construction requirements, it seems it's the construction requirements not by, you know, something that it has, it's in your purview. It's it's in the, the redeveloper purview, but I still don't understand why it, you just couldn't comply.
Speaker 17I don't believe there's any place on the property. Even though we have a 10 acre lot where we could meet a thousand foot setback from the R 10 zone. As you can see right now we're from New Brunswick Avenue, we're on the farthest part of the property at 553 feet. There's no place we could meet that thousand foot setback.
Speaker 22And now why, why 61 feet versus 50 feet
Speaker 17For Oh, the height. The height we are match actually matching the, the existing height of the antennas on the building. So the antennas essentially are gonna remain the same height as they are on the existing building in the temporary scenario. And then when they return to the new building, we're maintaining the same footprint. We're not trying to gain additional coverage in the temporary scenario. We're keeping it the same.
Speaker 22But even if you had done, have you done any studies to say, you know, what's the coverage at 50 feet versus 61 feet?
Speaker 14That that's not a
Speaker 17We're match the, if the height's the same, what was on the building before and what was required and what's been ex in existence for 20 years, we're matching that. Like the RF engineer said, we're taking a a, a piece out of the puzzle and just putting it back in the practically the same spot.
Speaker 22But you're also, you're asking for, for a variance to, to raise it. So that's I guess the, the variances are there for
Speaker 17Well, okay, put it this way. As I mentioned the underlying zone, the l i five zone has the 50 foot height requirement. But if you go to the wireless telecommunications ordinance that conditionally permits this use on this, at this location, at this property in this zone, and that actual ordinance supersedes the underlying l i five zone, that ordinance allows 110 feet at this property for a tower with one carrier on it. So we might So you're
Speaker 22Saying you don't need this variance thing? I it's,
Speaker 17It was, it's called, well you're an attorney belt and suspenders. That's what we're doing. Why,
Speaker 22Why are you here then? We don't need the,
Speaker 17Well, well we still had, we still had deviations under the conditional use standards. But you're addressing the height and why we don't go lower. I'm telling you, we can actually go higher under the wireless telecommunications ordinance on this property.
Speaker 22Except you're still asking for a variance of more than, you know, 11 feet
Speaker 17The underlying li zone when the, when the specific wireless telecommunications ordinance actually does supersede it. If,
Speaker 22Okay, so you're saying that you don't, are you, are you now stating that you don't need it? Is that where we just
Speaker 1Covering originally.
Speaker 22Okay.
Speaker 14He said that in his testimony that
Speaker 1He didn't, Mr. Crock has not changed his testimony. He said that originally.
Speaker 22Right. Okay. Good luck. Thank you.
Speaker 17Thank you
Speaker 22Ms. Buckley.
Speaker 1Are there any
Speaker 22More hands up? You're muted
Speaker 2Now. I know I hit the button. It just, I didn't click it hard enough. It's getting tired Mr. Perry. He already spoke. I don't know if he's allowed to speak again. I thought it was one turn, but yeah,
Speaker 1Everybody else has spoken and you wanna let them go a second time? You may. Okay,
Speaker 2So he's the last one.
Speaker 22Hi,
Speaker 19I'm, I'm here again. I, I have like, I, I heard the discussion and I, I, I have a request for Mr. Daniel check if he can send me some sort of, of a return study or anything that I am safe in my house, having a tower, 700 feet from my house and exposed to a radiation that will be really appreciated. Is it possible to, so
Speaker 1The, the RF reports are on file in the zoning board office and you can make a request through an Oprah request for a copy of that.
Speaker 19I, I have that, but it doesn't say anything that I am safe the resident's property as safe from the distance of the antennas. So if, if, if there is anything that Daniel Check can provide as a written document or a study that certain distance from the antennas are safe to live, I really appreciate.
Speaker 16Yeah. Well, Mr.
Speaker 14Che, well first off mi Mr. P Perry, we can't provide an indi an individualized study for your particular property, but I can Mr. Chek can speak to the fact that, again, you know, the report has been done. And Mr. Chek, can you speak to what the, i, what the, what the effect is or how you would view the, the radiation to Mr. Greek's property given, given what's in your report?
Speaker 16I mean, I, I can provide him f c c studies that would further affect what he's asking.
Speaker 19Okay, so how should I, how should I get, should I send my email address to Ms. Laura?
Speaker 14Yeah, Daniel. Daniel, will you provide the RF RF reports? That's, that's what we do, you know, the single RF report to the board. Okay.
Speaker 19And my last request to the board of members, please consider like this tower, if, if please consider to vote, like if this tower was placed near your house, what would you vote? How would you vote? How would you react to that? I'm a re I'm proud resident of Picard Way. Please consider the safety of the residents office. Wway before voting is voting to this request. Please consider that this tower is next. Like when you're voting, please. I, I, I don't know what the right words, but please consider when you're voting that if this tower is built next to your house, how would you react and how would you vote? That's all my, my, from my act. Thank you. I'm really nervous about this being a, being a dad, a four year old daughter.
Speaker 1Thank you Ms. Par for your comments. Ms. Buckley. Anyone else?
Speaker 19No more public. Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1Thank you. I would like to close the public portion of this, this request, and I would like to make a motion to approve this, to approve this application. Can I get a second? I'll second. Thank you. Kalpesh. Will the secretary please hold the role?
Speaker 2Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Hika? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ellie? Yes. And Chairman Weisman?
Speaker 1Yes. Mr. Perel will memorialize this at our next meeting and send a copy to you.
Speaker 2Thank you very much. Have, have a good evening.
Speaker 1Thank you. Good night. Thank you. Good night going. Moving on to number 1323 ZB two three V Marika Sanders. I'm sorry. Martha,
Speaker 2You?
Speaker 3Good evening.
Speaker 2Hi John.
Speaker 3Hi. John Sullivan from the offices of Vestal and Sullivan representing the applicant. The applicant is the owner of the property at 3 39 Rock Avenue.
Speaker 3That is a property that is fully improved with a two story, two family dwelling with an attached garage, a shed on the property, and then the related site improvements, which includes a driveway at the front of the dwelling and a parking area to the rear property situated in the R 7.5 zoning district. That as we know, that district allows single family homes, but it does not allow a two-family home as a principal permitted use. We feel that this two-family use is a legal non-conforming use in the area and we are seeking a first, a certificate of non-conformity with regard to the original two family use. However, there was an addition put on the building somewhere in the 1990s. So we were also requesting a D two variance for an expansion of a non-conforming use. We have submitted a number of documents along with the application, including the municipal tax records, which take us back showing at as, as early as 1956. This was listed as a two-family dwelling on the property tax card. We provided a copy of the deeded as well as site photographs. We provided construction permit records to show that the addition was put on with the permit and also that recently a permit was issued to install two water heaters and two boilers on the property. We provided the survey and floor plans and we provided certificates of continuing occupancy for each unit, which were issued in January of this year. Our witnesses tonight are Scott Sanders, who is the applicant's husband, and I believe it's Alex Dougherty who's gonna act, serve as our professional planner. If I may, I would begin with Mr. Sanders. Mr.
Speaker 1Sanders, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 23I do.
Speaker 1Your name and address, please?
Speaker 23Scott Sanders, 4 1 7 Center Street in Piscataway, New Jersey.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 3Okay. Now, Mr. Sanders, your wife is the owner of this property?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 3And how long has she owned it? Since,
Speaker 23Since 2014.
Speaker 3And she took title from her father. And how long did he own it? Since,
Speaker 23Since 1985.
Speaker 3And he took title from actually his son. And do you know how long he owned it? Since,
Speaker 23I believe it was 1983.
Speaker 3So the property's been in the family since 1983?
Speaker 23That's correct.
Speaker 3And has it always been used as a two-family?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 3Now you provided a survey dated January 24th, 2023, and that survey shows the existing home, the driveway, the rear parking area, and a shed on the site.
Speaker 23That's correct.
Speaker 3And all of that is still existing?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 3And what is the total onsite parking capability?
Speaker 23About eight cars, two in the front and six in the back.
Speaker 3And you prepared the floor plans that were submitted to the board?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 3And you could, could you briefly describe each unit, what it has in terms of rooms?
Speaker 23The first floor has a two bedrooms, a family room, a dining room, and a kitchen and two baths. The second floor has three bedrooms, eating kitchen area and a bath.
Speaker 3And does each unit have have a separate entrance?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 3And are there separate mailboxes?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 3And you had mentioned each one has its own kitchen, restrooms and things of that nature?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 3Now with regard to the utilities, does each unit have its own hot water heater?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 3Does each unit have its own furnace?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 3And there is no central air conditioning, correct? No. And with regard to utility meters for gas and electric, does each unit have its own separate gas and electric meter?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 3And with regard to the water, that's a common meter for both units?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 3And you've had a chance to review the property tax records and they indicate that this house was originally built in 1914?
Speaker 23That's correct.
Speaker 3And the property tax card for 1956 and all subsequent property tax cards and records show this as a two-family dwelling?
Speaker 23That's correct.
Speaker 3Now there was an addition built on the house in 1992?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 3And the records show that a construction permit was issued for that?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 3And can you briefly describe that the addition, what it consists of and where it's located on the dwelling?
Speaker 23It's on top of the existing garage. It was built, it's just primarily an extension of the first floor, apartment only. It's created a family room. It has in it a, a fireplace, any sliding patio door, a door to the front patio or fa front deck, and that's it. And an entrance from the first floor.
Speaker 3Okay. And that was built over the garage, so it did not increase the, the footprint of the home?
Speaker 23No.
Speaker 3And it did not add any additional bedrooms to the home?
Speaker 23Nope.
Speaker 3And you recently obtained permits to install two water heaters and two boilers in the house?
Speaker 23That's correct.
Speaker 3And in January of this year, you obtained continuing certificates of occupancy issued by the town, one for each unit?
Speaker 23Yes, sir.
Speaker 3And the property is registered as a rental property with the municipality?
Speaker 23Yes. Landlord registration.
Speaker 3And that is all I have for Mr. Sanders.
Speaker 7Thank you Mr. Sanders. Mr. Sullivan, do you wanna call your next witness?
Speaker 3Yes. Yes,
Speaker 7I believe it. John, before you start, I, I didn't get it. Did did the addition add bedrooms to either of the units?
Speaker 3No, it did not. It just created a family room for the first floor unit.
Speaker 7So it was always two, two bedroom units.
Speaker 3Mr. Sanders
Speaker 23Bedroom on, on the first floor, three bedrooms on the second floor,
Speaker 7Three bedrooms on the second floor. But the addition did not expand the second floor at all?
Speaker 23No, sir. Only the first floor has entrance. It's a one floor. Is the basement
Speaker 7Is, I'm sorry? Is the basement used at all as part of the apartments or is it just storage and utilities?
Speaker 23Basement is storage and utilities and only used by me.
Speaker 7Okay. Is the garage is The garage is punctual, right?
Speaker 23The garage is not used for parking. It's also used as storage. That's why I put, you know, material over that. I left over from fixing or having things fixed,
Speaker 7Whatever. So it Do the the tenants have access
Speaker 23To the garage? No,
Speaker 7No. To the basement.
Speaker 23They could, they, there's a door that they can go into, but they are not, they don't go into it, in other words, but they have access to it, but it's not there. They, they're not using it.
Speaker 7Alright, so the addition didn't change occupancy, it did not add additional bedrooms?
Speaker 23No, sir.
Speaker 7Okay. I couldn't. All right. I'm sorry, John.
Speaker 3Not a problem. Mr. Doherty, are you here?
Speaker 24Yes. Yes I am. Can you see me?
Speaker 1I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Swear the testimony you're about to give be the truth.
Speaker 24Yes.
Speaker 1Your name and address, please.
Speaker 24Alexander Doherty. Last name is d o u g h e r t Y. We're on behalf of McDon Associates at 1 0 1 Tral Avenue, suite one A.
Speaker 3Thank you. Yes. Mr. Doherty, would you state your qualifications for the board?
Speaker 24Certainly. I am a licensed professional planner. My education's at Rutgers Stein with a master's in city regional planning, concentration and development redevelopment certification of public policy. My license p for New Jersey is good and current, as well as my national A S C P certification. I testified,
Speaker 3Mr. You're, you're acceptable as, as an expert witness. Thank you. Thank you. Now, Mr, do you're familiar with the area, the site and the proposal that we've presented to the board?
Speaker 24Yes, I'm,
Speaker 3And could you describe the site in the area?
Speaker 24Certainly if it pleases the board, I do have a, a visual exhibit packet consisting of six slides of maps and photographs for orientation purposes, and I'll share my screen.
Speaker 23You see
Speaker 1Previously supplied to the board?
Speaker 24I, I don't believe so.
Speaker 1Okay. We're gonna need to mark this as a one, this package and Mr. Sullivan, you'll, you'll get a paper copy to the board for the file. I,
Speaker 3I will, yes.
Speaker 24So the first slide, if you will, I'll zoom in a little bit. Here is the property in question. We're looking at one tax lock block, two 15 lot 15.01. Indicated here in yellow. We're at the corner of Rock Ave and Elk Street. When we look at the surrounding conditions of this, this area, it's part of this, what we call a cluster of two and three families right here at this corner as well. As well as we can see some scattered throughout the area. Yellow representing one families blue, two and three red. So we're, it's kind of a little bit of a mix. I think it's a healthy balance here as we've heard, the plan is simply to validate the one story edition over the garage that was constructed nearly 30 years ago. At this point, the addition was basically an extension of that lower unit.
Speaker 24As you just heard, there really was no change to the upper unit. The bedroom counts that were on this property remain. As you see here. We have the garage with the separate entrance here. This is the one dwelling, and then we have the primary dwelling here. The larger structure, again, with its separate interests over here. When we look at the zone, we are in the R 7.5 residential where two families are not permitted in the zone. This exhibit here really indicates the, I guess the timeline, if you will, starting from the right on the side here. This is the original structure where these three arrows are, are indicating as well as down here, the garage. This addition, second story addition over the garage is, is, you know, reflective of, of, you know, the construction that took place with construction permits As and, and c cos as well.
Speaker 24This, this detached now dwelling garage here is that second unit. When we look at the zone relief here, section 68, certification of pre-existing non-conforming use and essentially we'd like to validate this use and, and have it on the record as, as we've just heard real briefly. It's, it's been, it's been existing in the public fabric for quite some time. This fifth slide is more of an aerial top down, if you will, where we see we have the curb cut in the front. We have some parking in the back. We believe we have a healthy balance of a off street parking for these uses. The garage is just being used as storage. It's, it's not sealed off. It certainly can if need be, be used in, in the capacity of a garage. This last slide is your, your tax, your tax assessment cars, if you will, outlined in ye red if you will, indicates the important information for tonight. As we can see the, the building classification as a two-family on the top in red. I'll zoom in a little bit here. We have a, the building information, the type in use, again outlined in red is multi-family, the style as well. Again, multi-family, so it has been identified several times as counsel has opened with as a two-family use here on the site. Nonetheless, we'd like to expand upon that, have that recognized and validated as many of the municipal departments have.
Speaker 24The essence of this, if you will, we have the D two relief for the expansion of a non-conforming use for the construction. That was after the 1954 as we've heard that construction took place in 1992. But that being said, the essence of that D two is a little bit more relaxed than that D one for the wholly pro prohibited use test. The essence of D two test is site betterment. It's not really the question of where the use belongs in the first place. It's about bettering the site and enhancing that site in the undertone of what that that zone requirement is, which is residential. That's when we look at that here, we have really a good looking structure, a good looking site. I don't believe it takes away from that. These, these two dwelling units though on one lot do have unique features that really signify that they are two separate dwelling units.
Speaker 24It doesn't really give the impression of your typical two family where you have the two doors side by side and you know it, it really does look independent but cohesive at the same time, complementary to the primary larger structure. With that being said, when we look at the positive of this application, the addition enhances the living environment and like I said, overall compliments the architecture of the structure. This type of housing is beneficial. We call this the missing middle housing, which fills that gap between the one family and those larger apartment housing complex. We see also when we look at this becoming more of a trend in the planning world in zoning reform, taking a a hold across the country is what we call these accessory dwelling units. Housing is, is, is, is paramount finding quality housing, a range of housing options. So this really does fit that narrative as well.
Speaker 24The project, multi efficient use of land, the variety of land uses and positive aesthetics. All the above promote purposes of the missable lane use law, a g I and M. When we look at the negative criteria, it was interesting because the use has really been here for quite some time. If there really was a, a substantial negative impact here, I think overall this would've been addressed in by the municipality early on. I believe this relief at this location would be granted without substantial detriment to the public or the zone. The use is compatible with the character of the area as it showed you. On slide two from our density map, we do have a, a fairly healthy balance. It's not, it's not overpowering, but there, there is a balance here of two families within the area. I think it certainly is compatible with that character and it's not gonna overpower it.
Speaker 24We have that little bit of a cluster right there as we see on the slide. The addition has existed without detriment for decades. As I stated it, it certainly is not hidden. This is in the public realm and if need be for the board for the purposes of, of tonight, for the validation. If the validation wasn't to be recognized that, you know, this was, was here, we can certainly satisfy this under the D one, which is the Medici test, where we believe the site as, as we see here is particularly suited. We are on that corner. There is some existing here. It's not outta character. We do believe we have ample off street parking to it accommodate this two bedroom build out as well as a three bedroom. We look at this, the addition to all the special reasons that were cited above the sites, particularly suited for the use really in the context of this neighborhood as well.
Speaker 24It's an easier retrofit. It's compatible with the uses around it. I don't believe this will erode the intent of the zone plan. Again, this has kind of that cohesive look, but identifiable, separate, indicating dwelling units, which is that single family zone narrative and undertone. The negative criteria here, negative criteria for this, the enhanced Medici reconciliation and the omission of the use, I think can be justified by the virtue of the distinct characteristics at this particular site. The relief relates to a distinct site, not the whole zone. This will not constitute a rezone and I believe the board can move comfortably and favorably upon this application. Simply at the validation standpoint. As we've heard, this is in the public realm. This is not hidden. There's construction permits. We have separate water heaters, utilities and so forth. We have cos for the occupancy of the building. With that being said, I believe the statutory criteria for grant for relief have been met and approval would be warranted and I'll stop there for any cross or questions.
Speaker 1Are there any questions from anyone on the board, Henry or Sean? Do you have any questions or comments?
Speaker 7I don't, I don't. The testimony is addressed. I submitted a report April 18th, 2023 and the issues raised in that report were answered by Mr. Sanders.
Speaker 1Thank you, John Henry.
Speaker 5I'm satisfied with the testimony provided by the planner by justifying the, the expansion. I, I think the two family use is clearly, I think the, the proofs have shown that it was an existing preexisting nonconforming use, so I think that it's appropriate that in one hand I think the, the certification would, if the addition wasn't on the home would've been granted. But again, I clearly think with the addition, it's a, it's an expansion of a non-conforming use and the testimony, I think satisfactorily justified approval of that expansion.
Speaker 1Thank you, Henry. Anyone on the board have any questions? Excuse me. I'm sorry. Was someone speaking? No, I coughed. I'm sorry about that. Oh, okay. Thank you. Mr. Sanders. I apologize. Anyone on the board have any questions, concerns, or comments at this time? Hearing none, I would like to open this to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, concerns, or comments at this time? Ms. Buckley?
Speaker 2No. One. Chairman.
Speaker 1Thank you Mrs. Buckley, I would like to close the open session and I would like to make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second?
Speaker 25I'll second it. Mr. Chairman?
Speaker 1Thank you. Mr. Tillery, will the secretary please call the roll?
Speaker 2Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 25Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Patel, you still on? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Hika? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ellie? Yes. And Chairman Weissman?
Speaker 1Yes. Mr. Sullivan. We'll memorialize this at our next meeting and send a copy to you.
Speaker 3Okay? Thank you very much and this time I will say everybody have a good night.
Speaker 1You too. Thank you. Thank you all. Moving on to the next item, adoption of resolution from the regular meeting of July 13th. First resolution is Chadwick Herbert, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 25Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel. Mr. Duka? Yes. Next is Kinneally Lie, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 25Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Heya? Yes. Next is Paul Oglesby, which was on approval. Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 25Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Duka? Yes. Next is Rick sua, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 25Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Duka? Yes. Finally is Mark, do four, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 25Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Weisman. I had abstained from that. Had you Excuse me, sir. Abstained from this. Thank you Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. Duku? Yes. Those are all the resolutions I have this evening. Thank you. Can I get a motion to adoption of the minutes from the regular meeting July 13th. All in favor? Aye favor? Aye. Moving on. Adjourn. Can I get a motion? Yes. Yes. Second. Everyone have a good night. Enjoy rest. See you guys in September. Yep. Enjoy. All right, bye. Bye guys.