Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on October 26 2023
Note: Transcripts are generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Please listen to the recording (below) if you feel any text is inaccurate.
Speaker 0 00:00:07 Chairman, you are good to begin. Speaker 1 00:00:10 We good? Laura? Speaker 0 00:00:12 No. Gimme one second. Chairman. Speaker 1 00:00:14 That's what I thought. Thank you, George. Speaker 0 00:00:21 Go ahead, Chairman. Thank you. Speaker 1 00:00:23 Okay. The zoning board of adjustment meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Coer News notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the Township clerk notice sent to the Curry News and the star ledger. Will the clerk please call the roll? Speaker 0 00:00:41 Mr. Weisman? Here. Mr. Tillery? Here. Mr. Patel? Here. Mr. Regio? Speaker 1 00:00:52 Who? Speaker 0 00:00:54 Here. Roy, are you here? I don't see Roy. Mr. Blo? Here. Oh, there. Mr. Haka? Here. Mr. Mitterando? Here. Mr. Ellie here. And Chairman Cahill. Here. Speaker 1 00:01:12 Will everyone please stand for the salute to the flag Speaker 3 00:01:22 States of America to the Republic, which it stands. One Nation under God with liberty, justice for justice for all. Speaker 1 00:01:33 Mr. Kinneally, are there any changes to tonight's agenda? Speaker 2 00:01:36 Yes, there are. The application of Alan Cruz on Maple Avenue is adjourned until December 14th. The applicant must notice the application of Azar Naqui Paul Street is adjourned until November 9th. They must notice those that they missed the first time. If you received the notice on this, the only notice you're receiving is my announcement here tonight. NBAD one on Park Avenue is adjourned until December 14th, 2023. Laura? I believe they noticed. Speaker 0 00:02:05 Yes. It's December. Yes. December 14th. My apologies. Okay. Speaker 2 00:02:08 December 14th with no further notice. Those are all the changes that I Speaker 1 00:02:11 Have. Thank you, Mr. Cornelia. Let's proceed to item number 5 23 dash ZB 87 V. Walter Hernandez and Lia Lopez. Speaker 2 00:02:23 Are the applicants present? Speaker 4 00:02:26 Yes. Speaker 2 00:02:27 Okay. I need to swear both of you in. Could you each raise your right hand? Speaker 4 00:02:32 Who do you need? Myself, my father. Speaker 2 00:02:35 Who, who's gonna be testifying? Speaker 4 00:02:38 I guess my father and I. My, my, well, my, my father doesn't speak English. Speaker 2 00:02:42 Okay. Speaker 1 00:02:43 Would Speaker 2 00:02:44 Be, do you wanna testify on Speaker 4 00:02:45 I'll testify and my boyfriend, 'cause we've been filling out the applications with him. Speaker 2 00:02:48 And is this Walter Hernandez? Speaker 4 00:02:51 No, Walter Hernandez is not here. Illa Lopez is my mother. She's upstairs. Speaker 2 00:02:55 Okay. And your name? Speaker 4 00:02:57 Lucero Goro. Speaker 2 00:02:59 I'll swear you in and we'll go from there. Okay. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 4 00:03:06 Yes. Speaker 2 00:03:07 Thank you. Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here? Speaker 4 00:03:11 Basically everything started as my father who's retired. He just wanted a, a detached garage. 'cause we don't, you know, we live in a small house and he just wanted, you know, to basically put down the shed that he has right now and make something bigger so that he can fit all his tools and stuff like, stuff like that. That's just a detached garage. Speaker 2 00:03:34 Mr. Hint, would you kind of adjust for the issues here? Speaker 5 00:03:39 Yeah, I mean, the biggest issue here is that the garage was started without permits, without zoning application, without construction permits. If that, if those permits were secured, were submitted, then we would've flagged this right away and said, you know, that this wasn't acceptable because it's not in the right location. Accessory structures have to be eight feet from the rear property line, eight feet from the side property line. So to just start building it where you wanted it or because you already had, you know, a, a pad there, whatever, unfortunately is not, you know, a reason to then ask for a variance to allow it to, to remain again. I mean, you, you, the onus is on the, the resident or the, the applicant to secure the proper permits. And for that reason, if you do something or you know, you come into us and say, I want to build the garage in a certain location, we would've then been able to tell you, Hey, you know, that's not, it's not the right location. Speaker 5 00:04:46 The zone, the ordinance says that you have to be this distance away from the front, the back. And you know, this has to be the height. And we could have guided you at that point, but because you went and did it, unfortunately, you know, case laws Mr. Kinneally could tell you, you know, the, the, the fact that you didn't secure permits and now you're asking sort of for forgiveness because you started building this. There is not really, it's a self-created hardship is what's called in in planning. And so you sort of created the hardship that you're in now by starting the construction without the permits. And that's not really, unfortunately a reason to, to issue a hardship variance. You know, I don't know how far along you are with the construction, but you know, I really think that this, it's the size of the garage isn't the problem. Speaker 5 00:05:36 You have a decent sized lot, there's plenty of space on this property for the garage to be built in a conforming location. It's just literally moving it up, I believe three feet, 3.1 feet from the back end. I think, you know, the side has to be, again, be eight feet. So it was a lot closer to the side than what it's supposed to be. And that's, that's the biggest issue. You know, I could see maybe issuing the variance for it to remain where it is from front to back, but it has to be eight feet from that right. Property line. So maybe, you know, you don't have to rip the whole thing down, but my recommendation to the board would be is I don't have a big issue issuing the variance due to the fact that there's a tremendous amount of vegetation behind this property and it is almost five feet from that rear property line. But it's extremely close to the side property line. And my recommendation would be is not to grant any variance along that, that right. Property line. Speaker 1 00:06:40 Any other members of the board of any questions? So can you explain to the applicant, ma'am that it, the, the structure's gonna have to be moved? Speaker 4 00:06:53 Yeah. Also, I just wanna clarify one thing. 'cause I, I don't, I don't think I did it and I just, just to for my father's sake, you know, he basically lived most of his life in Peru. And then over there they have that custom to just, you know, once you buy a property, it's yours and you can do whatever you want. And he thought understood, he thought the same thing here. You know, he, he thought the same thing here. He, he started most of this without even consulting with most of us because, you know, he just wanted, it's just something that he was accustomed to. He doesn't, Speaker 1 00:07:22 It's an honest mistake. Yeah. It's an honest mistake. And we, we get it all the time, but we, we are rules and structures that we have to abide by. No, no, Speaker 4 00:07:31 I totally understand. Speaker 1 00:07:32 Unfortunately. So if you wanna explain it to you father, if he's willing to move it, you know, then I think we're, Henry said it, was it three feet on the Speaker 5 00:07:41 Four, 4.9 on the rear is fine, but the side yard has to comply with the eight foot requirement that the ordinance requires. Speaker 1 00:07:51 So they agree to that. Henry, we can grant this Speaker 6 00:07:56 The Speaker 4 00:07:57 Rear is Speaker 6 00:07:57 Fine, correct Speaker 5 00:08:01 The rears. Okay, Speaker 4 00:08:03 Go ahead. Sorry. Speaker 6 00:08:04 Okay, sorry. Speaker 1 00:08:06 Henry. Speaker 5 00:08:08 Say if you're in agreement with the, to be 4.9 feet from the rear and you move it eight feet in from that right property line, then you know, that's, that's my recommendation reward. So I would hope that you would be in agreement with that. Again, we still have to hear from, you know, if there's any public on this and what the rest of the board thinks. But are you in agreement with, with those conditions? Speaker 4 00:08:34 Yes. Yes we are. Speaker 1 00:08:35 Okay, great. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? No one else. Okay. Let's open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments for this application? Ms. Buckley? Speaker 0 00:08:52 No. One Chairman. Speaker 1 00:08:53 Okay. Close the public portion and with the applicant agreeing to move the, the structure eight feet from the property line on the right side, I'd make a motion to approve the application. I second I get a second. Thank you. Please call a roll. Speaker 0 00:09:13 Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Speaker 1 00:09:21 Yes. Speaker 0 00:09:22 Excuse me. Mr. Blo? Yes. Hika? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Yes. And Chairman Cahill, Speaker 1 00:09:32 Yes. Speaker 2 00:09:33 You've been granted one variance, but the other variance has been denied. We will memorialize this in a written document at our next meeting and send that document to you. You'll need that document to get your permits so that you can continue. Speaker 7 00:09:46 Okay? Speaker 2 00:09:47 Okay. Speaker 1 00:09:48 Good luck guys. Thank you. Speaker 0 00:09:49 Thank you. Speaker 1 00:09:51 Move on to item number 6 23 dash ZB dash 89 v Sodat. Lilia? Speaker 7 00:09:59 Yes, I'm here. Speaker 2 00:10:00 I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Sure. Do you, do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 7 00:10:06 Yes. Speaker 2 00:10:07 Your name and address please? Speaker 7 00:10:08 Sodat Lilia eight Study Avenue, Piscataway, New Jersey 0 8 8 5 4. Speaker 2 00:10:13 Thank you. Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here? Speaker 7 00:10:16 I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? Speaker 2 00:10:17 Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here? Speaker 7 00:10:20 Sure. I have an existing chain link fence, which I would like to have removed and put up a, a five foot semi-private fence to the edge of my home that extends out to seaward and, and or around the perimeter of my property. So five foot semi-private on the seaward side and the remaining perimeter of the property. Six foot solid fence. Speaker 1 00:10:46 Okay. Mr. Hinterstein, would you please chime in here? Speaker 5 00:10:52 Yeah, I mean, again, there's, there's a couple issues here. One is the proposal. It falls within the site triangle of this corner of property, which we don't allow. And the, the other issue is, is that again, we allow four foot, 50% solid or chain link fences up to the right of way line, but we don't allow any fence larger or more dense than that to be located within the front yard setback. So this fence technically needs to be 40 feet because this is an R 20 zone from the property line. Now, although it's an R 20 zone, this development wasn't developed to the R 20 standards. So I understand that that being said, the house is approximately 30 feet from the C word right of way line. And I think the recommendation that I gave is if you wanna five foot fence, that's the style that you want. Speaker 5 00:11:51 I think it needs to be at least half of the setback of the house, which is 15 feet from the property line or 25 feet from the curb face. If you want that solid of a fence at at five, five foot height, that will do two things. One, it's gonna pull the fence out of the site triangle, which it is currently as you have it designed. And number two, it opens up that Seward Avenue sort of street corridor. So it's a little bit more of the road is visible down the roadway, especially at a corner, which I think is important. And it also, I think, doesn't pen in your, your neighbor give that neighbor that sense of, you know, you're, you're, you're closing him off a little bit to that road visibility. So that's my recommendation. I think it's a good compromise in the sense, again, the ordinance requires, if you want that solid of a fence, it requires it really to be 40 feet in this zone. Speaker 5 00:12:45 Again, the house is 30 feet. But again, I think meeting us halfway I think is a good compromise. And again, and I think it, it benefits you. And then if you really wanted to, again, I wouldn't even have an issue with it being six feet at that setback line if you set it back the, the 15 feet. And I would just even give you that as another option. That style fence you, you propose is fine at the 15 foot setback. It could even go up to six, six foot in height. But other than that, that's my recommendation to the board. As you know, we get dozens of these every year and we always try to look for a compromise, but we usually never allow that fence to be right up against the sidewalk if it's, if it's not four feet and 50% solid. Speaker 7 00:13:35 So if I was to do a four foot semi-private PVC pretty much with the, the, the image of the documentation that I provided, would I be able to go up to pretty much the, the property line or would I still be restricted to the Speaker 5 00:13:50 You be restricted because that's not, that, that fence that you're proposing isn't 50% solid. Okay. It's more like, it's more like 75 to 80%, you know, there's some visibility through there, but it's still not, it doesn't meet that, I think threshold of being 50%. So even if you were to put, make it four feet, I would say that, you know, maybe, maybe you could go 10 feet off the property line versus 15. 'cause you are coming down in height. So I'll leave that up to you. But that's a decision you need to make now because you know, the board does need an actual dimension for the variance. So if you bring it down a foot and with that style fence, then I don't have an issue with it being 10 feet off the property line, which is 20 feet off the roadway. But again, it's not only that, it's also the back and the rear that, that the side portions or the front and the rear portion that connect to the side portion, they can't be, they can't be six feet high and solid either. That's still in the front yard setback. So it would be, you know, it's, it's really everything that is protrudes out further than the house is technically supposed to be four feet and 50% solid because it's in the front yard setback. Speaker 7 00:15:11 Okay. The other option, so you could, Speaker 5 00:15:14 I'm sorry. So you could make all of that fence four feet Speaker 7 00:15:17 Okay. Speaker 5 00:15:18 Up to 10 feet from the property line. Or if you wanted to get five feet on that side there and do six feet, then my recommendation or even up to six feet is that it should be 15 feet back from the property line. Speaker 7 00:15:32 The other, well my other third option that I had, I was, while I was thinking was that if I did a four foot chain link fence around the entire perimeter, Speaker 5 00:15:42 You could go up to the property line up to the property line not in front of it. So Speaker 7 00:15:47 Foot off of the property line? Speaker 5 00:15:49 Yeah, I mean six inches. Speaker 7 00:15:51 Yeah, it goes as close as you want just to go over it. Okay. So in that case I would be able to go up to the Seward side, correct. Up to the property line. But also, and, and I think on the documentation I had to also requested on the, on the study side of it to go up to the edge of my home. Would that still be possible or is it not possible? Speaker 5 00:16:13 You could do, we would give you the variance so that you could put a six foot solid fence up to the edge of the home and then the remainder would have to be all chain length. So anything that protrudes further out, then your house along Seward Avenue would have to be, you know, the, the fence that you know, you again, Speaker 7 00:16:34 Well, I'm sorry Speaker 5 00:16:35 You're changing this around a lot. It's very difficult on the fly to, to try to come up with what it is you're looking for. You're either, you're asking for the variance, I I could give you the variance as modified by as I said. And then if you decide that you wanna do chain link for the portion that's in the front yard setback, we'll give you the variance as you propose it with the exception of moving it. And then if you wanna change it afterwards, if you put chain link instead of that fence that complies with the ordinance, you don't need an additional variance to change that back to what's allowed by ordinance. So you have the ability to do what we're talking about because you have the variance for it, or if you want prefer later on and you say, Hey, you know what, I'd rather just go with the four foot chain link. You wouldn't be here if you did four foot chain link fence for the whole perimeter. You could just do it, you could just pull the zoning permit and get your permit and it complies as long as it's four feet and 50% solid. So you can get the variance as as discussed. And then later on if you feel like you know what you'd prefer that space to be closed off all the way to the property line with four foot and 50%, you know, solid chain link fence or picket fence, then you can do that. Speaker 7 00:17:48 Okay. Yeah, the, I mean the goal was to have enough of a a, a greater amount of the property enclosed because I've had issues where people use my property as a throughway to get from Seward sometimes on onto study. And also I've had issues with, you know, people walking their, their pets and doing their business on the property. No. So just the goal was to try to enclose a lot of it within the fence. But I think, you know, doing the four foot chaining fence, and again, sorry if, if I'm asking the same question, the going onto to the study side on the, pretty much if you're looking straight at the house on the left hand side on on study, am I, would I be able to go right up to the edge of the home with the, with the chain link fence, I'm assuming, or, or is that a I would have to have some sort of a setback to go further back or further in Speaker 5 00:18:41 With solid fence or chain link fence Speaker 7 00:18:43 Chain link fence Speaker 5 00:18:44 Chain link fence. You could surround your whole property with a four foot high 50% chain link fence. Okay. No issues even in the front if that's what you so choose to do. If you're gonna go with a solid fence, we would give you the variance to put up, up to a six foot solid fence, even with the front of your house down the side, along the rear up to where the side of the house is on Seward Avenue. And anything beyond that should really be that five foot fence that you, you propose up until 15 feet of the property line, which is what my recommendation was. And then if you want to change anything else and swap anything out for four foot 50% chain link fence or you know, which chain link fence is 50% or or greater, you can do that without any issues. You just have to note it on the plan and submit the, the zoning permit. Speaker 7 00:19:39 Okay. Speaker 5 00:19:40 So then you can make that decision after the fact, but you'll have the variance and you'll have options. Speaker 7 00:19:47 Okay. Fair enough. So Speaker 2 00:19:48 Would you like, would you like to proceed with the four foot high solid fence 10 feet off the property line? Speaker 7 00:19:54 No, I proceed with a four foot chain link fence to enclose most of the property. Speaker 2 00:20:00 Okay. If that's your choice, then you don't even need to be here before the zoning board, is that correct, Henry? Speaker 5 00:20:06 Correct. I mean, like I said, you submitted, you wanted to do portion, portion of the property in five foot, I mean in six foot solid. Again, you can do that even without a permit, but you just can't go into the front yard setback with any solid fence without the variance. So Speaker 2 00:20:23 He can do that without a variance, not without a permit. Speaker 5 00:20:26 Yeah. But because it's an R 20 zone, Jim, it's, you're, you're, it's supposed to be 40 feet, the houses are weird over there. They're like thirties because that the, the property was not developed to the R 20 standards. So I would say we should just add at a minimum, give the variance for a six foot solid fence along the left side and the rear up to the, you know, even with the house, which bas basically is a long study, a long study that would be 30 feet and on seaward along the rear property line, it is same thing really for the most part 30 feet on both sides. So up until 30 feet of the property line, they could do six foot solid if they, if they wish Speaker 2 00:21:19 15, 15 feet from the property line. Speaker 5 00:21:23 Yes. On, on c word up along that C word line, it would be five foot as shown on their drawing. It's like a semi-transparent, I don't know what the percentage is, but it's okay. A five foot high semi-transparent, that would be up to the 15 feet from the property line. Speaker 1 00:21:45 Mr. Lilia, what would you like to do? And then, sorry, Speaker 5 00:21:49 I think that's what they're doing. Speaker 1 00:21:53 Chain link? Speaker 7 00:21:54 Yeah, chain link. We'll do the chain link and so I guess we wouldn't need to apply for, for the bearings at this point. I, the only reason why I did put it in for the privacy was that we, we, we were trying, trying our options to see if it, it was the, the, if we would could have that approach. However, like I said, we're trying to enc close most of the property as possible within, within a fence. So I guess to meet the, the requirements and also, you know, to come to the compromise, I guess we can do the four foot chain link fence around the entire perimeter. Speaker 1 00:22:26 Perfect. Speaker 5 00:22:27 Then you don't need, Speaker 2 00:22:28 You don't need the zoning board then Speaker 1 00:22:30 We don't even vote on it. Speaker 2 00:22:31 And it seems you're withdrawing your application. Speaker 7 00:22:35 Yes. Speaker 2 00:22:36 Thank Speaker 1 00:22:36 You. Okay. Speaker 7 00:22:37 All right. Thank Speaker 1 00:22:37 You. Thank you sir. Good luck with that. Speaker 7 00:22:39 Thank you. Speaker 1 00:22:40 Let's move on to item number 7 23 dash ZB dash 91 V. John Minow. Speaker 2 00:22:48 Is Mr. Minow present? Speaker 8 00:22:50 Yes, I'm right here. Speaker 2 00:22:52 I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth? Speaker 8 00:22:57 Yes. Speaker 2 00:22:58 Your name and address please? Speaker 8 00:23:00 John Minogue. 1402 Glenwood Drive, Piscataway, New Jersey. Speaker 2 00:23:04 Thank you. Mr. Mano, could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here? Speaker 8 00:23:08 I have a pre-existing shed and a pre-existing deck from that were installed long before I purchased the house. I need to get variances so I get COOs for them. Speaker 1 00:23:23 Henry, we're calling you a lot tonight. I appreciate it, but can you, yeah, help us out here, Speaker 5 00:23:30 I believe on this one. Lemme just get to the right report here. I think the only recommendation is, is that if, if hopefully the applicant will be willing to, again, there's a couple issues here. The, the deck and the house are both close to the road, but would you be willing to just do some landscape buffering on the side of that deck? If you look at your driveway, you have some nice plants on the left hand side of your deck. Yeah. Maybe putting like three or four of those sort of somewhere between the deck and like maybe 10 feet out or something like that just to provide a little privacy and buffer from the roadway for the deck area. Yep, Speaker 8 00:24:05 Absolutely. That was our plan all along that would, but we didn't want to spend money until we knew. Speaker 5 00:24:10 Right. Yeah, no problem. You know, that would be great. I think if that's the case, I think, you know, again, they bought the property like this. Right. And then the same would go for the shed again. The shed's is an accessory structure I think. I think the zoning officer picked up the variance for this. Some, some variance for this. What's the shed variance on this application? Speaker 2 00:24:36 Three feet from the property line. He's located two and a half feet. Speaker 5 00:24:39 Yeah. The only problem is she forgot was that it's also a shed located in a front yard, which I think it has to be located in a rear yard. So it would be a va another variance so that the shed could remain. I'll see what we, if there's a setback given, given, so there's no setback given but it's in the front yard, Jim. Okay. In the location. I could get you that tomorrow. Yeah, if you'd like the same but on. What was that Jim? You're Speaker 2 00:25:16 Also looking for landscaping on the shed? Speaker 5 00:25:19 Yeah, on the shed. Just again, the same landscaping that you have on the side of the driveway, maybe put two or three more just on the side of the shed. 'cause it is so close to your neighbor's property that'll just help buffer it a little bit. Yeah, absolutely. That's it. So if you're in agreement to the landscaping, I think we're okay. Henry is, Speaker 2 00:25:35 Is there temporary construction easement issue here? Okay. Speaker 5 00:25:40 Yes, there is on Glenwood Drive. There's a possibility of future road improvements. So we were looking for a five foot temporary construction easement, which means if they ever improve the roadway there, if they do any damage to the lawn or anything else, that they're, we're responsible to replace it. But we have the ability to do that. If we encroach a little bit further than the property line, we would have an additional five feet to be able to work and then repair if we, if we do any, any damage to the lawn areas. So that's a temporary easement. We, again, it would only be if we ever do road work along there, it gives us the ability to repair any lawn damage that, that we would do, let's say installing sidewalk or anything of that nature. Speaker 2 00:26:31 You agreeable to that? Speaker 8 00:26:32 Oh yeah. And that's, that's five feet from the roadway, Speaker 5 00:26:36 Five feet from the property line. So it's actually probably closer to 15 feet. Okay. So the property line already goes 10 feet from the curb line or the edge of the road, and then there's probably an additional five feet. So we would be allowed to go into the right of way area anyway. Right. It's just in, in case, let's say they're putting in a sidewalk and we disturb an extra foot or two of lawn, we'd, we'd have the ability to repair it or same with the driveway. We'd have the ability to repair it. Speaker 8 00:27:03 Yeah, that's, no, that's no problem for me. I just wanted to get that whole number for when we do do landscaping so that we don't block that. Speaker 5 00:27:12 Yep, no, no problem. Speaker 1 00:27:14 Okay. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions about this application? Speaker 0 00:27:27 No. One Chairman. Speaker 1 00:27:28 Okay. Close the public portion and I would make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation set for and agreed by the applicant. Can I get a second? A second. Thanks. This call Roe. Speaker 0 00:27:43 Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Speaker 1 00:27:51 Yes. Speaker 0 00:27:57 Mr. Blo? Yes. Mr. Heka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Speaker 5 00:28:02 Yes. Speaker 0 00:28:03 Mr. Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Speaker 1 00:28:07 Yes. Speaker 2 00:28:08 Mr. Au Your application has been granted. We will memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting and send a copy of that document to you. Speaker 1 00:28:16 You Thank you sir. Thank you very much. Have a good night Mr. Minne. On to item number 8 23 dash ZB dash 88 v. Mohammed Ri. Speaker 9 00:28:27 Yes. Speaker 2 00:28:28 Mr. Ri, 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 9 00:28:34 Yes sir. Speaker 2 00:28:35 Your name and address please? Speaker 9 00:28:37 Mohamed Ri 4 1 3 Lodge Street. Skyway. Thank Speaker 2 00:28:40 You. Could you explain to the board what you're doing here? Speaker 9 00:28:43 Yeah, this is the, this is the second time I come to the parents because the first time I have the addition to make it in my house and I take the approval, but now I have issue with the front step and the approval. I have it for the three step going back to 18 feet. But when I try to finish the house, I can move it, the step to make it like back 18 feet because I have the height from the la from the land to the finished floor 47 inch. So that you mean you have to be five step to go in entrance to the house. So that's why I can, going back like, like the approval Speaker 1 00:29:33 Pam, me, wasn't that part of the stipulation the last time he was here that Yeah, Speaker 5 00:29:40 So, so the, so the problem here is they came before this board previously, I forget the exact date, it looks like it was in 2021 to do a Speaker 9 00:29:51 Two story addition, July 21 Speaker 5 00:29:52 To do a two story edition on the property. At that point, their plans showed the stairs being moved back so that the front yard setback to the steps would be improved. Which is maybe one of the reasons that you approved the other variances that existed pre-existing variance that existed as part of the application. So the both the architectural plans showed a staircase that was redone and it also showed a engineer plan that showed that same staircase being, I believe it was 18 feet from the property line. And again, that's what was approved as it was represented to the board. And again, and I think that was done because the landing was shortened and maybe they limited a step. I don't, I don't know how, Speaker 9 00:30:49 I don't know how he make it, you know, because Yeah, but Speaker 5 00:30:52 The unfortunate thing is it was shown on the plan and that's what you represented to the board. Speaker 9 00:30:57 Yeah. Yeah, I know. That's why I just refinished it, the all the step, and I keep it the same way I can make it Speaker 5 00:31:02 Because, but you, you didn't come to us and say, hey, I, you know, there's a problem as you were building it and fortunately you did it and now you're trying to get your co or, and then, and you come back. So the proper sort of order to do that would've been is I have an issue, this is impossible to do and then you come back again. I don't know if it's impossible to do because again, landing, Speaker 9 00:31:25 I have, I have all the measure here, so if you wanna Yeah, but Speaker 5 00:31:27 How big is the landing right now from the front door to the first step? It looks like Speaker 9 00:31:32 It's about the is five is five feet. Speaker 5 00:31:35 Okay. So that's the difference. So on the previous approval, your landing was supposed to only be three feet, maybe three point something feet. So Speaker 9 00:31:44 Okay, if you made the Speaker 5 00:31:45 Landing, if you made the landing three feet and even with four steps, you would be at seven feet from where the existing house is. So the existing house is at 24.7. Yes. So you would be at least, you know, 17, Speaker 9 00:32:01 It gonna be 17 feet, Speaker 5 00:32:02 17 Speaker 9 00:32:03 Is gonna be 17. You would, Speaker 5 00:32:05 You would improve the setback. So, and I think that's what the board wanted you to, you remember you're coming in here asking how to put a second story on, on a house that was much closer to the road than what it was supposed to be. I think it was like 25 feet and it's supposed to be 35 feet. So they said fine, but you know, improve your front yard setback in some manner, which you did by showing us the steps in that particular Speaker 9 00:32:30 Okay. But I showing you like the existing stick because the problem, if I go back like the, I make the platform three feet, couple inch is gonna be just to save like just a feet and a half, you know? Speaker 5 00:32:43 Well, yeah, it's gonna be to save, to be honest with you, it's gonna be closer to two feet because you're almost two feet now. So it's Speaker 9 00:32:50 Not gonna be two feet like he say in the first one. Speaker 5 00:32:52 Well, you know what, like I said, I mean it's sort of a self-created hardship. You, you know, the, the previous approval, I mean, I'll again, I'll let Mr. Kinneally talk to that fact. You can't represent something to the board, get an approval and then come back to this board and say, you know, oh, I made a mistake, but you built it already. You know, I, I don't know what to tell you. It's really up to the board. I'll leave it in the board's hand. I, I, you know, and, and maybe some legal advice for Mr. Kinneally, you know, bottom line is you're saying you, the steps could be rebuilt. You're saying that it's only two feet, but it's, it's two feet and the board needs to determine, you know, how they feel about, you know, the previous approval being a, and then that approval being Speaker 9 00:33:45 Disregard. That's why I keep the existing one. I just bullet like new tone in the top and that that's all. Speaker 5 00:33:51 But the board at the previous hearing approve your application based on what you represented to them or what you told 'em that you were gonna do. So again, you know, Sean, it's, it's really, it's, it's up to, it's up to the board how they feel about it, the steps. There's no doubt about it. The steps were in that location previously for the old house, correct? Speaker 9 00:34:17 Yeah. You what you say? I'm sorry? Speaker 5 00:34:20 The, the steps the way they are now. Yeah. Are they in the same exact location as they were for the previous home? Speaker 9 00:34:26 The existing one? Yes. Speaker 5 00:34:29 So again, you represented he was gonna improve it because he was building a large addition, but that turned out to not be the case here. He, he left them where they were. So it, you know, it's really in the boards. Maybe the board wants to, to chime in on that. Again, I don't have a huge issue with it staying, it's more a procedural thing and I think it's not, you know, again, we just, we heard a little bit about what self-created hardships are. And again, in this particular case, the steps were there during the, when the previous home was there. But it also a two story home now versus a a one story home and any Yeah, because regardless of what happens, regardless of what happens, my recommendation would be is that the steps and stairs never get covered or enclosed as any kind of condition, regardless if they're rebuilt or remain as is. Speaker 1 00:35:28 Is that okay, Ms, Mr? Speaker 9 00:35:31 I'm sorry, what, what, what, what the Speaker 1 00:35:33 Step, the steps would never be enclosed or, or capped in? Speaker 9 00:35:36 No, no. The step is like exactly the sa the exactly the size for the existing one. I never, when I buy the house, it's the same size. Exactly. I don't do it. I just rebuilt the step. Speaker 1 00:35:49 Let if, if Speaker 2 00:35:49 The board, if the board votes in favor of this, would you agree to never enclose or cover the steps? Speaker 9 00:35:56 Yes. Speaker 1 00:35:58 Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Lemme see if there's anybody in the public that might have any questions. Open the public portion. Anyone have any questions in the public or comments about this application? Speaker 0 00:36:14 Chairman, there's a donna that would like to speak? Sure. Speaker 11 00:36:17 Yep. My name is Donna Kaza. I live next door immediately. Next door. Speaker 2 00:36:23 Thank you. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Certainly. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 11 00:36:29 Yes. Speaker 2 00:36:30 Thank you. And you gave us your name. Give us your address please. Speaker 11 00:36:34 4 0 9 Lodge Street, Piscataway, New Jersey. Speaker 2 00:36:38 Thank you. Speaker 1 00:36:39 Please proceed ma'am. Speaker 11 00:36:41 Thank you. I I really don't understand all the technicalities that you're discussing. However, I'm here to support Mr. Ry. I live next door and I, I don't have any problem at all. It's certainly a great improvement on how the previous house looked. And of course I can only speak for myself, but in general, conversations with the neighbors, everybody else is sort of in agreement. Nobody has any problem with the change in the setback, so, okay. Speaker 1 00:37:14 That's, thank you ma'am. You're welcome. We appreciate your input. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Any other members out there, Laura? Speaker 0 00:37:21 No one. Chairman. Speaker 1 00:37:22 Okay, we're gonna close the public portion. That's, any other members of the board have any comments before I give my own? Okay. I think Ms. Coser actually said it pretty well there. Procedurally, this was not handled correctly. I don't think that it was there was any ill intent by Mohammed. I think it was, it just worked out the way it worked out. And again, the steps of where they were with preexisting. Procedurally, we granted you a, well, we approved your application last time based on the information that you provided to us. Part of that did is not coming to fruition. Do we hold your feet to the fire? I don't think so. I think in this case we can accept and, and approve this application based on the minor hardship even if the applicant created it himself. So I vote to approve the application. Can I get a possible second? Thank you, please. The roll. Speaker 0 00:38:21 Mr. Weisman? Speaker 1 00:38:23 Yes. Speaker 0 00:38:23 Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Speaker 1 00:38:29 Yes. Speaker 0 00:38:31 Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Speaker 1 00:38:35 Yes. Speaker 0 00:38:35 Mr. Heka? Speaker 1 00:38:37 Yes. Speaker 0 00:38:37 Mr. Mitterando? Speaker 1 00:38:39 Yes. Speaker 0 00:38:39 Yes. Mr. Riley? Speaker 1 00:38:41 Yes. Speaker 0 00:38:42 And Chairman Cahill? Speaker 1 00:38:43 Yes. Speaker 2 00:38:45 Mr. Alri, your application has been approved. We will memorialize this in a written document at our next meeting and we'll send that document to you. Speaker 1 00:38:52 Thank you. Goodnight sir. Have a good day. We're gonna move on to item number 1222 dash ZB dash 69 V. Derek Bradshaw and Ida Gonzalez. Speaker 2 00:39:09 They are represented by counsel. Is Erica Edwards present? Do we see any of the applicants or the attorney? Speaker 0 00:39:25 No, we do not. Speaker 1 00:39:28 You wanna do the you wanna do the, was it discussion? Yeah, Speaker 0 00:39:34 We, the discussion? No, the, their council Chairman their council had emailed me. She was under the impression 'cause they have a violation. The judge gave them to December for the meeting, but they have to be done by December. I emailed her back, but she still didn't come on the meeting, so I believe we should just put them on for the November meeting. Speaker 1 00:39:50 Fair enough. But enough Speaker 0 00:39:51 Notice. Speaker 1 00:39:52 Fair enough. Let's Speaker 2 00:39:52 Do it. Anybody here on the what, what's the date of the November meeting, Laura? Speaker 0 00:39:56 November 9th. Speaker 2 00:39:57 Anybody here in the application of Derek Bradshaw and Ada Gonzalez? 1500 Quincy Street That's gonna be carried to November 9th with no further notice by the applicant. Speaker 1 00:40:12 Okay, let's move on to item number 13. That's a discussion. Mr. Kinneally. Speaker 2 00:40:19 I believe Mr. Arch is present on that matter. Speaker 12 00:40:22 I am. Thank you. Team members of the board and board professionals. My name is Tim Arch. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey. I'm here representing VJ Singhal. This is a discussion item concerning 4 46 second Street. You may remember Mr. Singhal, we were here, I believe it was last year, asking for an approval for a single family home. You may recall Mr. Singhal has a, a handicapped daughter who is wheelchair bound, has a very serious condition. And this home was designed to accommodate her needs in mind. And you were, you were gracious enough to, to grant the required variances to construct the home while doing some tests at the property. Mr. Singhal actually found that the water table was slightly higher than what was anticipated. And instead of just building the house and coming back and asking for permission later, we did, I think what is the correct procedure, which is we've requested to come back before your board to ask if we can, if you would allow a permissible field change as opposed to having to go through an entire amended application. Speaker 12 00:41:36 The, the proposed change would be the, the property does not, or the, sorry. The design of the house does not change at all. Everything just gets raised five feet. There was no height variance required for this, if you recall. And actually even with that fight, five foot height increase, we're still below the, the 35 foot maximum height in the area. So this does not trigger any new variances, does not exacerbate any existing variances or anything that was previously granted. So under the MLUL, you are permitted to do what are called some field changes as long as they are not significant enough to warrant an amended application. And so we're here tonight to ask if the board would agree to allow the, the zoning professionals to consider this as a not significant field change such that we wouldn't have to file a whole new amended application and come back before the board. Again, no new variances are being triggered and this was something that was, that was discovered before construction. I do have Mr. Vijay Singhal here. I also have Mr. Mark Marcel, who's the architect in case there's any questions that you have of them. But I think that pretty much sums up what the, what the request was in the letter. And I would just ask for, for your, the board's opinions, Speaker 2 00:42:58 Mr. Mr. Cahill, since there is no variance created by this change, I agree with Mr. Arch that it does not constitute a significant change. And I believe the board would be on firm legal ground if they authorized a field change as opposed to a amended application. Speaker 1 00:43:16 I I agree. And unlike previous applicants or a lot of other residents, I, I like the fact that they did not build and then come back later and say, oh, you know, this was a mistake. Or they're doing it the right way by coming before construction starts telling them that they, there's a, a glitch in the system and I, I honestly believe the same thing that we could grant this field change. Does any other members of the board have any questions or, or comments? Speaker 5 00:43:46 Well, I just have a couple Mr. Kaley, oh, go ahead. Yeah, I don't know if anything's changed. This was an undersized lot and so when it's an undersized lot and you're over on coverage and the height offered, I think goes to the fact that it's an undersized lot. I think everything sort of is in play and you know, when you have two modest homes on each side, a ranch on each side of this home, I think the height, even though it's not a variance, was offered sort of in conjunction with the undersized nature of the lot. Again, whether that's significant or not, I think that's up for debate. I think again, due to the fact that this was an undersized lot that they're over on coverage, I feel that the height, although not creating a new variance is important and, and may have an impact on the neighboring property. Speaker 5 00:44:34 So I I sort of differ in that opinion. I'll leave that to, to you to determine. The other thing was is we were given a letter and a floor plan. The floor plan has no basement floor elevation. It has no no site plan to go along with this. It just says we're raising it five feet. Okay. I don't even know what the height of the basement is. Maybe there's a 10 foot ceiling in that basement that's not needed. So, you know, I understand, you know, you categorize this as a walkout basement, but the plans don't show any access to the basement from the exterior of this house. So it's not a, a walkout basement and it's not, there's a lift in the back of the house. So whether or not there's a basement or no basement has nothing to do with access to this house because the access is on the first floor. Speaker 5 00:45:24 Again, the plan showed previously 4,000 square feet the home, now it's showing 6,200 square feet. Previously the volume went was 62,000 cubic feet. Now the volume is 51,000 cubic feet. So I don't know how the square footage went up to 62 22, maybe they'd include the basement previously. And now the, the volume is, it looks like the, I believe it's the volume right volume of the new structure went, went down 11,000 feet. So I, again, if you feel like this is a technical change, that's fine. I just don't feel like we have enough information to determine what that height should be. So to just blanketly say it should, you know, we we're gonna prove it at 32 feet. I just don't think we have enough information to make that determination because to be honest with you, if you have this as a nine foot ceiling in the basement, I wholeheartedly disagree with the fact that a nine foot basement ceiling height is needed. You know, definitely a smaller basement height than would be I think appropriate here when you're talking about, you know, trying to accommodate this home, which is again, oversized for the undersized lot. Speaker 2 00:46:40 Based upon Mr. Henderson's information, I would change my opinion and agree with him that we maybe need more information. Speaker 12 00:46:51 I would just add that I know Mr. Hinterstein indicated that there's no new site plan. The site plan was, is the same as what was previously provided. Again, the, the, the, the, the envelope of the house is not changing at all. My understanding is that the floor plan of the house is not changing at all. That literally it is just a raising of the, of what was approved by five feet to accommodate the, the water table. Again, the question I think before the board is whether or not they consider that that is significant enough to warrant an amended application to go through an entire amended application approval process with new fees, new, new, new submissions. And quite frankly, to, to put this into what I would imagine would be the next year and delay construction of this, of this, what is essentially all approved as a, with the exception of a five foot difference. Speaker 12 00:47:44 And I understand, and I know Mr. Christine had his concerns about the size of the house and the coverage at the time of the original application and voiced those concerns at that time. And I imagine that his concerns are still the same as those original concerns that he voiced. Again, I would just ask that it's a five foot difference. We coming back before you, it's, it's due to the high, a high water table. It's not a design change that occurs on the whim that the, that the, that the applicant decided he wants to make the house five foot taller. If he could, if he could physically do what was originally approved, he would do that. But I would say that the MLUL is is pretty, pretty clear as to what is a significant change that warrants an amended application and the fact that this has no variance that is being created by this change that is still underneath the permissible height in that zone. And that there, and that it does not exacerbate any other variances is, is a fact that it can be treated as, as a field change. But I will ultimately leave it to the determination of the board because you are the board. Speaker 5 00:48:56 Henry, you got cut off there for a second. I think you wanted say so. Yeah, I was gonna say, I mean, again, there's no basement floor elevation and there's no information on the basement structure, the heights, ceiling heights in the basement. So again, I understand they ran into a water issue, which something that probably should have been looked at previously when you come in for, you know, a home. But that being said, again, there's no reason for a nine. I don't know what, I don't have enough information to say Yeah, 32 5 foot again, if you're coming in here asking for a nine foot basement height ceiling again on, and I and I I sorry Speaker 12 00:49:36 To cut you off, Mr. If I, if I can't Mr. Mar, Speaker 5 00:49:40 Mr. Arch, there's no new variance to create it, but you have an undersized lot, so then everything goes into play when it's an undersized lot and I'm sure the M-U-M-L-U-L states that, that you could decide what's appropriate sized home for an undersized lot and the, the height and all the other setback requirements and coverage and all that goes into play when you're talking about an undersized lot. So I say this is just, you know, can I, Speaker 12 00:50:08 Can I ask two things? Can I, number one, I, we do have Mr. Marcel here, he is the architect, so if you have any questions, if you need any more information, we can certainly provide that. But Mr. Hinterstein, the setback that was granted, is that changing at all from this change? No, the setback variance is the same, therefore it does not exacerbate that variance. But again, we can have a difference of opinion on that. Mr. Marcel is here and, and i I he turned his camera on. I'm assuming that he can answer any of the additional information that you need. But again, the ultimate decision is to the board as to whether or not they believe that this is significant enough to warrant a whole new amended application or whether this is a permissible field change. But I'll certainly leave it to Mr. Marcel if he wants to add anything. Speaker 13 00:50:50 Yeah, I'd be happy to get sworn in and answer some of the questions. Sure. Yeah. Speaker 2 00:50:52 This isn't a, this is just a discussion matter, so we don't need to swear you Speaker 13 00:50:55 In. Okay, cool. Yeah, so 'cause we found the, the water table was too high. We essentially just took the whole structure and slid it up five feet as was indicated. The reason that the square footage increased is because when a first floor is more than, it's, it's really just a semantics kind of a code issue. When a first floor is more than six feet above grade for more than 50% of the perimeter, it then it, the floor below it becomes a story. So from a code perspective, the basement becomes a story as defined by the building code. It's not a a Township code issue, it's a building code issue. So the be technically accurate, I had to add the basement square, excuse me, I had to add the basement square footage to the square footage of the house for that reason. Where, where if if the basement, if the, if, if the house were still sunken in the ground, the basement wouldn't count as heated floor area from a building color perspective, which is why the square footage increased the, the square footage of the house with the basement and the previous application was exactly the same. Speaker 13 00:52:02 Again, the basement just didn't count because it was below grade. Speaker 5 00:52:06 Mr. Marcel, do you Speaker 13 00:52:07 The proposed lab is one foot six below grade, where previously it was I think six foot or seven feet below grade. What's Speaker 5 00:52:16 The grade Speaker 13 00:52:17 Currently the proposed basement slab is now roughly one, one and a half feet below grave, Speaker 5 00:52:25 One and a half feet below grave. Speaker 13 00:52:28 And that's because we had, that's as low as we can go in order to stay above the, the mean high water table. We're not allowed to go lower. Speaker 5 00:52:34 What's the height of the basement? Speaker 13 00:52:37 Nine feet. It's no longer a basement. It's actually the first floor. Speaker 5 00:52:40 Okay, so this is a three and a half story house now. Correct? Speaker 13 00:52:43 It's a three story house. Speaker 5 00:52:44 It's a three story house. Our ordinance only allows for two and a half stories and 35 feet. So if you are over two and a half stories, that would be a new variance. Speaker 13 00:52:56 We are over th we, we are over two and a half stories. This is now technically a three story house. Speaker 5 00:53:02 So Mr. Can variance is necessary, A variance is necessary. And I, and again, a nine foot ceiling I don't think is re required in a basement. I think an eight foot ceiling would suffice. No Speaker 13 00:53:14 Longer a basement. It's a, it's a first floor. Speaker 5 00:53:16 Okay. Alright. Think either way. I think it's, that question is answered. I think a new variance is being created. Speaker 2 00:53:31 Yeah. Mr. Chairman, the new variance is being created. I don't think there's any alternative to making 'em file for an amended application. Speaker 1 00:53:38 Yeah, I agree. Let's put it to the, anyone on the board have any questions or comments? None. I agree. I think we're gonna have to amend it. Speaker 12 00:53:50 Understood. Thank you so much for your time. Speaker 1 00:53:57 Let's move on to item number 14 still Mr. Arch? Speaker 12 00:54:03 Yes. Still Mr. Arch still attorney license in the state of New Jersey? I'm here tonight. This is on 15 Stelton and I always mispronounce this, I think it's er, ary court. And this was an application that was done back in, I believe it was 2018 under LA Porta Builders for, it was an approved project that was a, had two components. There was a residential components, which was the, the, the court area with I believe it was nine single family homes. And then there was also a 15 unit apartment portion of that as well. After that approval was granted, the single family home portion of that was sold to my client. And Mr. Emmett, I believe is here if you have any questions for him, because everything was approved holistically under one application, there are certain bonding requirements that were tied to the entire project as a whole, even though now it has two separate ownership and really on two separate tracks for full completion. Speaker 12 00:55:16 Some of the single family residential homes are completed and actually are occupied under temporary Cahn or under TCOs. And so what we'd like to ask the board is to give the zoning department the ability to use their discretion to decouple the single family home portions on the court section from the, from the 15 unit apartment section. They're on two separately different, two completely different lots and only for the purposes of bonding and certificates of occupancy, just so that the, the zoning professional can use their discretion to say that because, for example, a public improvement that only affects the, the apartment lot isn't completed that, that should hold up a co being granted for the single family, the single family portion of it. Also because both are under separate ownership. Now it makes sense for, for them not to be quite frankly, tied to one another just because they all came in one packaged application in front of the board. So again, Mr. Mr. Emmett is here in case there's any questions from the board, but it's essentially just asking to empower the, the staff to use their discretion when it comes to imposing and releasing bonds and when it's time to issue final certificates of occupancy. Speaker 1 00:56:42 Got it. No problem. Henry, are you on board with this? You're muted. Yes, Speaker 5 00:56:48 I have. I have no issues with this, this discussion item in total agreement, the way this was handled, there was, you know, sort of like two projects in one and them sort of being separated out and, and I really don't have any issue with this. Speaker 1 00:57:03 Okay. Thank you. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments about this discussion? Hearing none, I say we make a motion to approve. Speaker 14 00:57:15 I make a motion. Second it. Speaker 0 00:57:21 Mr. Weisman, we need a vote. Speaker 1 00:57:25 Okay. Speaker 0 00:57:26 Thank you Mr. We Speaker 1 00:57:29 Yes, again, Speaker 0 00:57:31 Mr. Tillery? Speaker 2 00:57:32 Yes. Speaker 0 00:57:33 Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio. There's Roy. Mr. Blanc? Yes. Mr. Heka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ley? Speaker 2 00:57:50 Yes. Speaker 0 00:57:51 And Chairman. Cahill? Speaker 1 00:57:52 Yes. Move on to item. You're welcome. Goodnight. Let's move on to item number 15, adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting of October 12th, 2023. Speaker 2 00:58:03 First resolution is which you voted to approve. Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Speaker 1 00:58:21 Yes. Speaker 2 00:58:23 Which you voted to approve Hillary? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman Cahill? Yes. Speaker 1 00:58:39 Mr. Speaker 2 00:58:39 Raphael Santiago, which you voted to approve? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Jeremy? Speaker 1 00:58:55 Yes. Speaker 2 00:58:56 Next with the temporary use permit for guest room events and Expo center, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cahill? Speaker 1 00:59:13 Yes. Speaker 2 00:59:15 Northeast. The site plan exemption, which you voted to approve Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Speaker 1 00:59:21 Yes. Speaker 2 00:59:22 Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Speaker 1 00:59:25 Yes. Speaker 2 00:59:26 Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cahill? Speaker 1 00:59:31 Yes. Speaker 2 00:59:32 Next is PWI Chicken Restaurant New Jersey, which you voted to approve for the Bojangles. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Speaker 1 00:59:40 Yes. Speaker 2 00:59:40 Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Speaker 1 00:59:44 Yes. Speaker 2 00:59:44 Mr. Mitterando? Speaker 1 00:59:46 Yes. Speaker 2 00:59:47 Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cahill? Speaker 1 00:59:50 Yes. Speaker 2 00:59:51 Okay. Next we have a resolution of withdrawal for 11th Street Property Partnership. I would need a, a motion and a second and a roll call. Vote on that this evening. Speaker 1 01:00:00 Make a motion to withdraw. I say a second. Speaker 0 01:00:07 Mr. Weisman? Speaker 1 01:00:08 Yes. Speaker 0 01:00:09 Mr. Tillery? Speaker 1 01:00:11 Yes. Speaker 0 01:00:12 Mr. Patel? Speaker 1 01:00:13 Yes. Speaker 0 01:00:14 Mr. Regio? Speaker 1 01:00:15 Yes. Speaker 0 01:00:16 Mr. Blank? Speaker 1 01:00:17 Yes. Speaker 0 01:00:18 Mr. Haya? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Speaker 1 01:00:22 Yes. Speaker 0 01:00:22 Mr. Elli? Speaker 1 01:00:24 Yes. Speaker 0 01:00:25 And Chairman. Cahill? Yes. Speaker 2 01:00:27 Mr. Is Weger in 19 Brunswick Avenue This was approved on September 28th. Mr. Weisman? Speaker 1 01:00:35 Yes. Speaker 2 01:00:36 Mr. Tillery? Speaker 1 01:00:37 Yes. Speaker 2 01:00:38 Mr. Blount? Speaker 1 01:00:40 Yes. Mr. Speaker 2 01:00:41 Duka? Speaker 1 01:00:41 Yes. Speaker 2 01:00:42 Mr. Mitterando? Speaker 1 01:00:43 Yes. Speaker 2 01:00:44 Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cahill? Speaker 1 01:00:47 Yes, Speaker 2 01:00:48 Mr. All the resolutions this evening. Speaker 1 01:00:49 Thank you sir. Item number 16, adoption of minutes from the regular meeting of October 12th, 2023. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Number 17. Adjourn. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Henry gets combat paid for tonight. What was that? I said you get combat pay for tonight. You took it on the camera. Thank you for all your dedication and hard work. I love you guys. You're great. Take care. Speaker 0 01:01:20 Happy Halloween.