Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on April 12 2023

Note: Transcripts are generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Please listen to the recording (below) if you feel any text is inaccurate.

Speaker 1     00:00:14    Sit over.  
Speaker 2     00:00:18    There's the Mayor  
Speaker 1     00:00:25    It off.  
Speaker 2     00:00:27    Mayor's on  
Speaker 1     00:00:29    All I'm I'm gonna mute you Mayor cause you're echoing a little bit. All I guess we could get started. I sent, I just re-email Dawn the link. Can,  
Speaker 3     00:00:43    We can see the Mayor so we're good.  
Speaker 4     00:00:45    Laura, just so you know, if anybody's echoing, that just means that they have two audio sources.  
Speaker 1     00:00:50    Yeah, I know that. But  
Speaker 4     00:00:51    So they just need to shut off whatever their secondary audio source is so it doesn't loop.  
Speaker 1     00:00:55    Yeah, he probably has on his phone and the iPad.  
Speaker 3     00:01:00    Oh well Tim is branching out into it.  
Speaker 1     00:01:03    Oh no. Well we all started this three years ago. He's doing him and are the ones that helped me learn. Yeah, just, just tell the Mayor that like Mayor, if you have the phone on, just turn it off. Yeah. Shut the phone off if you have to star six Mayor. Well he was unmuted. Yeah, well I muted him for the echo.  
Speaker 3     00:01:27    Oh, I  
Speaker 1     00:01:28    Heard him. Yeah, he All right. Okay. Madam chair, we can start the meeting.  
Speaker 5     00:01:32    Okay. The Chataway Township Planning Board Planning Board meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News and the star ledger notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the Township clerk notice sent to the Courier News and the star ledger. And will the clerk please call the roll?  
Speaker 1     00:01:59    Mayor Wahler. Here. Councilwoman. Cahill Here. Ms. Corcoran is working on it. Ms. Saunders, she's here.  
Speaker 3     00:02:10    She's not.  
Speaker 1     00:02:11    I see you. Carol. Can you hear me? She's good. Oh, here. I hear you now. Reverend Kinneally. Okay here. Mr. Atkins. Here. And Madam chair  
Speaker 5     00:02:22    Here. Mr. Barlow, would you please read the open public meeting Notice?  
Speaker 2     00:02:27    Certainly. Madam chair. This meeting is being conducted by way of the Zoom platform and keeping with the Department of Community Affair guidelines that were promulgated originally as part of the Covid protocols. The notices that have been sent out all have the zoom link and it's been provided to the public choose to participate. So we are good to go.  
Speaker 5     00:02:48    Very good. Roll call please, Ms.  
Speaker 1     00:02:52    We did just  
Speaker 2     00:02:53    Did that.  
Speaker 5     00:02:55    Did we do the roll call? I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah.  
Speaker 1     00:02:57    Next is  
Speaker 5     00:03:00    Allegiance. The flag over my right shoulder. Let's repeat the pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance, allegiance to flag. Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, which stands one day. Indivisible. Liberty. Liberty Justice. Well, would you please swear in the professionals? Please?  
Speaker 6     00:03:29    Can you please raise your right hand? You swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth.  
Speaker 1     00:03:35    I do.  
Speaker 6     00:03:36    Thank  
Speaker 5     00:03:37    You. Thank you. Are there any announcements of changes to the agenda? Mr. Barlow?  
Speaker 2     00:03:43    Madam chair, there are no changes to the agenda that I am aware of. And Hello, Ms. Corcoran. I see you.  
Speaker 7     00:03:50    Hi. I apologize. Having a little difficulty with the internet. Sorry.  
Speaker 5     00:03:59    There are no agenda changes, right? Can I hear? I'd like to have a motion to pay the bills.  
Speaker 8     00:04:06    Madam chair. Reverend Kinneally, I make a motion to pay the bills.  
Speaker 5     00:04:09    Do I have a second? Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 8     00:04:23    Geez.  
Speaker 1     00:04:24    Maybe that's why nobody's answering me. Mayor Wahler. Yes. That's the woman. Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders?  
Speaker 6     00:04:35    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:04:36    Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 5     00:04:40    Yes. Item number eight. Adoption of resolution to memorialize action. Taken on March 8th, 2023. I don't think we have any. Is that not, not applicable, Ms. Buckley? Correct. Okay. Adoption of the minutes from the regular meeting of March the eighth, 2023.  
Speaker 6     00:04:59    Madam Chairman, Carol Fonds. I like to adopt the minutes from the regular meeting of March 8th, 2023.  
Speaker 8     00:05:08    Madam chair. I'll second that.  
Speaker 5     00:05:11    Thank you. Local please. Representative  
Speaker 1     00:05:13    Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Ms. Saunders?  
Speaker 6     00:05:21    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:05:22    Mr. Atkins? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 5     00:05:26    Yes. Item number 10 22 PB zero six slash zero seven B as in Victor A and Rafa far locked. 8,001 lot nine zone R 10 for a minor subdivision in bulk variance. Mr. Arch?  
Speaker 4     00:05:53    Good evening, Madam chair. Good evening. Members of the board, board professionals? I'm Tim Arch. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey and I'm here representing Mr. Jve and Mr. Faruki, this is an application for a minor subdivision at 1 11 2 Brookside Road. This is an oversized long lot. So dimensionally It actually is multiple times the requirement for for length existing and for area. And we are proposing to subdivide into two residential properties with proposed single family homes which are permitted in that area. I housekeeping question. I would ask Mr. Barlow if we have proper jurisdiction in front of the board.  
Speaker 2     00:06:35    You do Mr.  
Speaker 4     00:06:36    Arch. Thank you Mr. Barlow. And also we have three reports. I have a C M E report dated March 17th, 2023. I have a memorandum for Mr. Hinterstein dated March 21st, 23. And I have a D N R memo dated March 10th, 2023. I'm gonna cut to the chase and say that we will agree with all of the conditions and the comments contained in all of those, all of those reports. Just so that the, the board is aware by way of, there are two comments or two questions, or I guess requests for clarification on Mr. Ryerson's report, the C m E report. And so by way of background, I wanna kind of tell you how we got to this point and I think that'll answer at least one of the questions in the C M E report. This is a, an application that's been going on for quite some time.  
Speaker 4     00:07:25    When we originally applied for this, what we did is that because a property is abutting up against Township property and because we are requesting, I I should actually go over the, the minor variances that we're requesting dimensionally the two lots that we are creating, we're proposing an 88.07 foot lot width for one of the new lots, which also is, is the same as the lot frontage where a hundred feet is required. And on the other lot proposed lot 9 0 2, we are requesting an ADA 0.07 foot minimum lot depth where a hundred feet is required. And on that lot we are asking for a front yard setback of 23 feet as opposed to the 35 feet for the home that's proposed on that lot. As far as the dimensional requirements, we did send a letter out, which is the, our practice, to send a letter out to the adjacent property to see if they were interested in purchasing, or sorry selling any of their adjacent land in order to make our lots more conforming.  
Speaker 4     00:08:27    That's Township property. When we originally filed this application a while ago, we did send a letter out and the feedback we got initially was that the Township was not interested in selling any portion of the adjacent lot. So then as the process of the application went on, the Township actually contacted us and indicated that they would be interested in, in selling a 10 foot portion of the adjacent lot. And so that's what would bring our dimensions more closer to the hundred feet and get us to, to that 88 as opposed to a 78 foot dimension. And so we do have a letter of intent that is signed to purchase that. So if we, if you do look favorably on this application, you certainly can make a condition and we will be purchasing that 10 foot strip in order to, to bring further into compliance the, the lots that we are, that we are creating.  
Speaker 4     00:09:16    So I think that answers at least one of the clarifications in the C M E letter. The other one is, I believe number seven, which is we are listing that we have a seller and Mr. Rson just wanted us to confirm whether it's a seller or a basement. It is in fact I believe technically a seller per the, per the ordinance. And we are not proposing any sleeping quarters or any bedrooms in that cellar. And, and if the board were to make that a condition, we would certainly agree with that. So I don't wanna go through all of the reports cuz they're, they're quite lengthy. But I will just note that we are going to comply with all the comments in those reports. And with that said, I do have one witness tonight who is Miss Kathy Mueller. She is our professional engineer. And you'll see when we go through, she's gonna show her plans and, and you'll see some of the, where these variances are and, and and why we're, why the constraints of the property require us to ask for these variants. So I would ask at this point that, that Ms. Mueller be, be brought into  
Speaker 5     00:10:27    Testimony. You may proceed. May have Ms. Sworn in. Please.  
Speaker 6     00:10:31    Ms. Mueller, can you please raise your right hand? Please swear that the testimony about to give will the truth and nothing but the truth.  
Speaker 9     00:10:38    Yes.  
Speaker 6     00:10:40    Can you please state and spell your name for the record?  
Speaker 9     00:10:42    Sure. Catherine with a c Mueller, m u e l l e r.  
Speaker 6     00:10:47    Thank you  
Speaker 4     00:10:50    Ms. Mueller, if you could, can you briefly go over your, your credentials as a engineer?  
Speaker 9     00:10:55    Sure. I'm the, the owner and principal of page Mueller Engineering in Warren Township, New Jersey. I'm a registered professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is in good standing. I have a Bachelor's of science degree in engineering, civil and environmental Engineering from Clarkson University. I've given testimony in front of many boards throughout Somerset, Middlesex, Morris, Passaic, union County. I've been in front of the Board of Adjustment here in Piscataway, but I don't believe I've had the pleasure of the planning board until tonight.  
Speaker 5     00:11:31    Thank you. I see no reason why she can't testify as an accident.  
Speaker 9     00:11:36    Thank you. Thank  
Speaker 4     00:11:37    You Madam chair Ms. Mueller, I'm gonna, if you wanna share your screen and if you wanna just briefly go over your, your plans and what the relief is that we're asking for.  
Speaker 9     00:11:47    Sure.  
Speaker 2     00:11:49    Tim as we go through the exhibits, we'll just go A one can continue that way unless there're these specific plans that were submitted.  
Speaker 4     00:11:57    I believe, and I'll have Ms. Mueller confirm this. I believe these are the, the plans that have been submitted and that they aren't altered in any way. But if they are we can certainly mark them.  
Speaker 2     00:12:07    Perfect.  
Speaker 9     00:12:08    Sure. The plans I have on the screen are what were submitted to the Township dated February 10th, 2022. Last revised February 23rd, 2023. So I'm just gonna go through the, the plans here. It's a three page set on the cover page. I'll just briefly describe the existing conditions. It is a corner lot. I'm going to just for ease of description, I'm going to refer to the Brookside roadside as north. It's kind of that corner, it's the physical corner of the intersection. VA court runs to the west. We have single family lots to the south and as you've heard to the what I'm terming, the, the east is a vacant lot owned by Piscataway Township. So our application is for both it block 8,001 lots nine and 10.01. The majority of the improvements, all the improvements will be on lot one. We've included Lot 10.01 because we are proposing the 10 foot minor subdivision to include the transfer of 10 feet to the the project lots.  
Speaker 9     00:13:25    There is an existing single family house that fronts on Brookside Road. They have one driveway curb cut, single family house detached shed in the back and through the middle of the lot you'll see that there's some environmental constraints. The applicant did file with the D E P for an loi, which is valid until 2025. It indicates the features to be state open waters, no associated wetland buffers, but as there's a defined channel in bank, there will be a repairing buffer associated with that feature. We studied the drainage area to, to the ditch. It's less than 50 acres so there is no flood hazard elevation associated with it. And just as you heard Mr. Arch describe where I we're, a narrow kind of rectangular lot under existing conditions we're 78.07 feet wide or deep depending on which way you're looking at it. And then the long axis on average is about 558 feet. The lot in total for lot nine is exactly one acre or 43 5 60 square feet. And the adjacent Township lot is approximately two acres. If nobody has any questions about the existing conditions, I'll go to our minor subdivision.  
Speaker 5     00:14:55    You may proceed to the next portion. Good testimony.  
Speaker 9     00:15:00    So what we show on this plan is basically the 10 foot dedication or the 10 foot port purchase from the Township lot. This interior dash line was the old property line. We're adding 10 feet from the adjacent lot and essentially dividing the property into two lots. The resultant lots we've labeled as 9.01, which will be the corner lot of Brookside Road and Vacca Sano and what I'll refer to as the interior lot, 9.02 9.01 will be 24,571 square feet. And just a reminder, we're in the R 10 10,000 square foot zone. So we're almost two and a half. We are almost two and a half times the size in land area. And the rear lot similarly is 24,539 square feet or 639 square feet. I apologize. So again, almost two and a half times the land area.  
Speaker 9     00:16:06    So what we did then and with consultants and input from your consultants, we struck the yards in Piscataway. The narrowest frontage on a corner lot is ma is measured for both the frontage and the lot width. So that's where we arrive at our two variances for proposed lot 9.01 because we're measuring the lot width in frontage along the shorter access access of the property. So that's proposed at 88.07 feet. We have two front yards. The side yard abuts the Township property and the rear yard is adjacent to the new lot line. The rear lot of can see that is actually analyzed different. It has one front along VA Sano, which exceeds the required a hundred foot lot frontage and lot width. And then our lot depth is 88.07 and we've, we are requesting that variance. The lot does have a little bit of a unique boundary as it as vacca san's right of way curves away from the lot, the lot Cahn continues straight along vacca Sano. So we end up with a little bit of a, a radius along the front yard utilizing that property corner. Then we have the minimum side yards and the required rear yard adjacent to the Township property.  
Speaker 9     00:17:50    So we've created two buildable areas on the property. And then if anybody has any questions on that, I'll, I'll switch, I'll move right along the to sheet three with our proposed development plan.  
Speaker 5     00:18:05    Are there any questions from the board at this particular time as to this portion of her testimony? Then I think you can proceed.  
Speaker 9     00:18:13    Thank you.  
Speaker 9     00:18:16    So what we show here is two conceptual single family dwellings. Again, I'll start by describing lot 9.01. We're going to be removing all of the existing improvements which are up in fronting on Brookside Drive. And we're gonna turn the house and it will front on Vacca Sano court. The existing driveway will be abandoned, will comply with any curb replacement as per your engineer's review letter. And we'll have a two car garage, 20 foot wide driveway accessing vodka casino. The combination of the two car garage and the length of the driveway, width of the driveway per the R S I S will be 3.5 parking spaces, which is sufficient for the single-family dwelling, which we are proposing.  
Speaker 9     00:19:09    The footprint of the dwelling is approximately 1,990 square feet. It's in line with the other homes along Vaca Sano. The majority of those, although approx approximately measured off of an aerial photo, are much larger. Those range from 2,400 to tw 2300 to 3000 square feet across the road. So they're appropriate for the neighborhood lot point lot 9.01 other than the dimensional variances that we're seeking. The house will fit with no other side yard, front yard, rear yard variances required. We do have the front porch, which is allowed to encroach into the required 35 foot front yard setback  
Speaker 9     00:20:04    Lot 9.02. We did do some consideration on this lot. It's the, the same footprint. We've flipped it per the architecture that was submitted so that the driveway and the garage will be on the left again two car garage sufficient length and width to be considered 3.5 spaces per R S I S. But we've pulled the, the house forward. We've done this because we do have the repair and buffer in the rear. So basically what the riparian buffer regulates is vegetation. We've set the house where we have it so that we are not removing any trees within the riparian buffer. The work that's proposed will be considered and qualified for a permit by rule. And we've left a little bit of room around the, the back left corner so that we're not encroaching 25 feet from the top of the bank, which is one of the criteria of the permit by rule, the placement of the house will be 23 feet from the front yard setback. That's what we're requesting. But where we locate it as you come down vacca sano, we are not located within the front or actually, you know, blocking the view of the adjacent house over on lot 3.13. So again, it's very, it's the same house, 1,990 square feet, two car garage. This one we're meeting the, the setbacks of the two side yards technical side yards, the rear yard setback and reque requesting the 23 foot front yard setback when 35 is required.  
Speaker 9     00:21:55    So we've received and looked through all of the professional memos. We don't have any, as Mr. Arch had said, we don't have any objections to any of the comments. I know there was some concern about these trees have not been pruned properly over the years. We'll agree to remove those. There was some discussion about doing the whole lot for the tree locations. We will be locating in field surveying that the street trees along bano it is fairly wooded. So we'll identify those and if more street trees are deemed required, we'll we'll certainly agree with that. The other more significant request is that sidewalk be installed. As you can see it ends at the corner of Brookside and bano. And then also at the adjacent neighbor, we will be applying to the D E P that will require a permit because we are going through the riparian buffer and also we will be within 25 feet of that top of bank.  
Speaker 9     00:23:01    So that'll be a general permit with the D E p, which if the board finds favorable for the subdivision, we will be applying for that as as a condition of approval. We've indicated stormwater management in the, in the, with the proposed dry wells, they've been sized for three inches over the roof per today's standards and green infrastructure and, and distances to groundwater and infiltration. We will be doing soil tests to ensure that those will both work properly and be in compliant with all the regulations. And if we need to revise it from a standard concrete dry, well there's, there's many other methods that we can, we can use in plastic arches. So the, the true improvements we would propose to do at the time of plot plan, we'll put the footprints on, we'll do full soil erosion and sediment control per the Township standards and then we'll do the soil test and propose a stormwater management system that is compliant with the soils. Both houses will be served by public water and public sewer. The existing house has both utilities, which will utilize and the new house will connect into vaca San Vaca Santa Court. So that's the gist of the, the improvements in minor subdivision. Again, that these are gonna be oversized lots. We do have the dimensional variances as I described with the, within the frontage and also the depth of 9.02.  
Speaker 4     00:24:43    Thank you Ms. Miller, if I can just, I just wanna ask you one or two quick follow up questions. Just to confirm, we are happy to work with all the Township professionals to address any of their concerns that were brought up in the letters. Would that that's accurate?  
Speaker 9     00:24:56    Yes.  
Speaker 4     00:24:57    Okay. And I just wanna touch upon, you had indicated number one that the house really, we can't move it back anymore because we're constrained by those environmental concerns. The, the location of the tree and the location of the riparian zone. Is that correct?  
Speaker 9     00:25:11    That's correct.  
Speaker 4     00:25:12    Okay. And you had also mentioned the way that the right of way curves down VA and the, and sort of the lot line continues straight, that while it's technically a 23 foot setback visually, I think you were indicating that it actually will appear to be not as imposing into the setback because the right of way actually curves away and flares out. Is that correct?  
Speaker 9     00:25:37    That's correct.  
Speaker 4     00:25:39    And, and you can't see the lot lines obviously when you're out there in the real world, you really just judge that by where the, where the right of way is, is correct?  
Speaker 9     00:25:46    That's correct. Okay. Relative to the curb, it's gonna be very similar to the adjacent house  
Speaker 4     00:25:52    And, and yeah. And one thing I did want to ask is I think that we, that we had essentially an estimate of the adjacent house, what its setback is. Do you, do you recall what that is or do you have that shown on your plan?  
Speaker 9     00:26:04    We do, it's 27.3. Again, this is estimated off of aerial photos. So 27.3 on the curve.  
Speaker 4     00:26:14    And, and that's Cahn that's fairly consistent with what we're asking for minus one or two feet?  
Speaker 9     00:26:21    That's correct.  
Speaker 4     00:26:22    Okay. I have no further direct questions.  
Speaker 5     00:26:26    Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board members of the board at this time of this witness?  
Speaker 10    00:26:34    Ma Madam chair? I do Mayor Wahler n not so much a question, but a statement from Mr. Arch. One of the problems that we've been having with some of the properties that homes that back up to Township property or Township Parklands, that residents over time don't know where the boundary lines are and then they end up going in using Township land or Township parkland. So we're gonna request as part of the board approval that there be on the corners adjacent the lot corners adjacent to the Township parcel, a small sign or delineation of where the boundary lines that what, what we've been putting up is that Township property beyond this point. And on the other side of the sign, I'll say private property beyond this point. So I, I wanna know in the future that if Public Works has to go out there for any reason, everybody knows where everybody's boundary line is and nobody's guessing and nobody's putting brush or tree limbs on Township properties and then calling the Township public works saying that it needs to be removed because it fell from a tree or something like that. I just wanna make sure everybody knows where the boundary lines are out there on these two, on this two lot subdivision.  
Speaker 4     00:27:52    I think that sounds completely reasonable and I don't see any reason why we wouldn't agree with it. I do know we have represented the, the ownership is here and certainly if I say anything that they disagree with, they can unmute and let me know. But I think that's perfectly reasonable and we would agree with that.  
Speaker 10    00:28:08    Okay. Thank you Ms. Arch  
Speaker 2     00:28:10    Mayor, while, while you're unmuted, a quick question on the last subdivision, you had mentioned something about with new construction running a certain type of pipe to the house almost Yes. To run something in the future  
Speaker 10    00:28:26    To run a blank conduit line up to the two homes. So when new fiber optic lines eventually in the future come in, that they won't have to be run overhead, they could be run on the ground. So it'll be just like a, a four inch PVC blank conduit line going up to the home to be stubbed out at the curb line  
Speaker 4     00:28:49    Again, seems very reasonable. I have no objections to that and, and I would ask Ms. Mueller if there's any engineering objection to it, to ju to jump up and down, but I, I don't think that's happening, so I think we're fine.  
Speaker 10    00:29:00    Okay. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Soch.  
Speaker 5     00:29:03    Okay. Any other questions from any other board members? Okay, at this time I'd like to open it up to the public for any questions that they may have. Ms. Bark Buckley,  
Speaker 1     00:29:14    Ms. Mueller, can you one share your screen please? Thank you. You're welcome. We have two Madam chair. Jenny.  
Speaker 11    00:29:28    Hello, this is Jenny Mac. I'm one of the current residents on Voce Court.  
Speaker 2     00:29:36    Msm, Ms. Mack, I, I don't mean to cut you off, but if, if Ms. Saunders is gonna have to swear you in. So if you could state your name Sure. Spell your last name and give us your address and then Ms. Saunders will swear you in.  
Speaker 11    00:29:48    Sure. My name is Jenny Mac. J e n n y. Last name m a k.  
Speaker 2     00:29:55    And your address ma'am?  
Speaker 11    00:29:57    My address is 16 Cord Getaway.  
Speaker 2     00:30:01    Okay, thank you.  
Speaker 6     00:30:05    Msm, can you please raise your right hand? Yes. Whether the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth.  
Speaker 11    00:30:11    Yes, I do.  
Speaker 6     00:30:12    Thank you.  
Speaker 11    00:30:13    Thank you. Okay. Yeah, my question is, we do have a homeowner association for VO court. So I wonder, given that, you know, this variance and lots are going to be on the street as well, you know, especially the entrance is gonna be from Mo Sano, would they be, you know, are we supposed to include these two new lots into the association or just a general question?  
Speaker 4     00:30:44    That's a very good question. I, I actually don't know the answer to that. I would defer to if anybody on the board or if any board professionals know the answer to that. I, I honestly do not know  
Speaker 11    00:30:54    Because we do pay for like common charges. What? Right. Like, cuz right now you guys saw that it's a wood, you know, it's, you know, a lot of wood. Right. We actually chip in right for the common use base, including, you know, taking care of the lawns and the trees or debris, whatever in that space right now, you know, for the entire street. So that's what we have a small, you know, O N J Estates Homeowner Association and that's my yes. Mr.  
Speaker 2     00:31:25    Arch, do you know the existing homeowner that existing home that's there now that's being knocked down? Are they members of the association? I, I don't believe they are counselor. Okay.  
Speaker 4     00:31:37    Yeah, I don't, I don't think they are and quite frankly, I would think I, I would think, I guess the, the, the, the homeowner's association formation documents would probably control as to who is part of the homeowner's association or not. So, quite frankly, I can't answer that question one way or another until I have more information about it.  
Speaker 11    00:31:57    Yeah. So, so I know the corn, the, the, that current existing small home is not part of the association, but the lot, the second lot that I see, you know, the plan is trying to build, we kind of jointly maintain that area, like, you know, especially, you know, the detention basin that's leading off from there. So I just wanted to bring it up.  
Speaker 4     00:32:24    It's certainly something that I, that I'll look into.  
Speaker 11    00:32:26    Thank you.  
Speaker 2     00:32:31    Is that all? Do we have another? No,  
Speaker 11    00:32:33    There's one more Digest. Patel?  
Speaker 2     00:32:36    Yeah, I, hi, my name is  
Speaker 12    00:32:38    Desh Patel and I'm deciding on 38 was Accord  
Speaker 2     00:32:44    Mr. Barlow. I'm sorry. So I, I see it up on the screen. Is it D I g e s h is your first name, last name's Patel. P A T E L?  
Speaker 12    00:32:55    Yes, exactly.  
Speaker 2     00:32:57    And what is your current address, sir?  
Speaker 12    00:32:59    It's 38 was court.  
Speaker 2     00:33:02    Okay. Ms. Saunders is gonna swear you in and then you can have whatever comments you want, sir.  
Speaker 12    00:33:09    Yeah. So  
Speaker 6     00:33:10    Please raise your right hand, please.  
Speaker 12    00:33:13    Yes.  
Speaker 6     00:33:14    Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give me the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 12    00:33:18    Yes, attorney. Thank you. So I had the same question, what Jenny has asked, because even like I have seen the property, the entrance door of the, both the new construction, proposed construction, both are going to be going out from the bo court entry. So they should be the part of the homeowner association, which we have been when I moved in on two, 2011 on the same address, new address at 38. I've been joined, I have to join the part of the homeowner association. So anybody who is entering on that road, any, any construction is supposed to be a part of the homeowner association. That's what I'm just believing.  
Speaker 2     00:34:08    Do you wanna address that Mr. Arch? You want me to, or  
Speaker 4     00:34:12    I I mean, again, again, I can't really give any more informed answer than I gave before. Mr. Barlow, if you have anything else to add, you certainly,  
Speaker 2     00:34:20    I mean, just from a real estate perspective, if, if the, the lots that are the subject of this application, were not part of whatever development formed the homeowners association, they're not necessarily bound by it unless there's something in the agreement that Mr. Arch and I are completely unaware of. I guess they could certainly be invited to join the association if, if that's something the association would wanna do. But that's not something really within the purview of, of this board as it pertains to this lot. That's the subject of the subdivision.  
Speaker 12    00:34:50    So, so until now, before the, that construction happened the whole entire, from the entry of the Brookside Road to the entire left-hand side of areas, which is being maintained by the homeowner associates. And then we are paying the fees every year to ensure that the entry level, all the trees and the grass are cut on properly and maintained in a good condition. So the two houses which are going to be facing on those line area, are they going to maintain their own or they, if they are not the part of the associates, and then they have to maintain the whole long script, which is being their responsibility as the home homeowner because then they should not be expecting that the other side of the property on the is being maintained by homeowners association and not by the on their side. So that should not be the cons like constraint at the later on.  
Speaker 2     00:35:59    The short answer is, I don't, this board's not gonna dictate who has to mow the lawn on their own property at this junction. They have  
Speaker 10    00:36:08    Mr. Dacey  
Speaker 2     00:36:08    Their own property.  
Speaker 10    00:36:09    That would be a property maintenance issue. Of course. Absolutely. They'll be maintaining it and if they don't, then they're gonna get summonses  
Speaker 2     00:36:16    Town will come out. Yep.  
Speaker 10    00:36:18    Yeah.  
Speaker 12    00:36:19    But will it not affect the, if they're not maintaining the property, I don't know when the was called houses was, was built at that time. The main purpose of the association fee collection is to ensure that the, even though the Township property on the beginning entry side, it is supposed to be maintained by the owners of the other house. And until the proposal for these two houses are come on the board, the homeowners association has maintained that property.  
Speaker 2     00:36:57    Your your comments are, are noted, sir.  
Speaker 12    00:37:00    Okay.  
Speaker 5     00:37:03    Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who wish to question this witness? No. One Madam chair. Okay. Thank you. Close to the public. Mr. Arch.  
Speaker 4     00:37:14    Thank you Madam chair. As I indicated there are, I do have the, the potential homeowners or the applicants are here if there's any direct questions the board have for them, however, I don't intend to ask them any direct questions. I would just sum up to say that again, I think these are are relatively minor variances that we're requesting and I think they're quite frankly dimensional variances and frontage variances that, that your board all the time and is not inconsistent with the, the variance relief that this board has granted in the past. I think that we've shown that there are some, that there are some environmental features on the land that really lead to the need for these variances, which are unique to this piece of property and is not seen in other pieces of property. And I think that we've also demonstrated that these variances can be granted without a substantial detriment to the surrounding area. We are creating, you know, improving beautifying, adding, adding the sidewalk and putting in homes that are consistent, if not actually less intense than some of the homes that are in that area based on square footage. So with all that, I think that we have met the, the criteria for the DC variances. And I I thank you for your, for your time tonight.  
Speaker 5     00:38:27    Okay. Board members, you have put your pleasure on this application.  
Speaker 10    00:38:35    Ma Madam chair. I just wanna make sure whatever we do, Mr. Barlow, we have those, the items that I discussed in part of with the memorialization  
Speaker 2     00:38:43    Absolutely though, and the applicant had agreed to them, they would be conditions of approval of those. The subject of a motion in favor.  
Speaker 5     00:38:51    Thank you. Do I have a motion?  
Speaker 8     00:38:55    Reverend Kinneally? I make a motion that this application be granted for this, these two that can be forced tonight.  
Speaker 2     00:39:07    Subject. All conditions,  
Speaker 8     00:39:09    Conditions, conditions be met.  
Speaker 5     00:39:14    I have a second. Counsel  
Speaker 1     00:39:16    Second.  
Speaker 5     00:39:23    Roco  
Speaker 1     00:39:24    Mayor Wahler?  
Speaker 5     00:39:25    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:39:26    Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders?  
Speaker 6     00:39:31    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:39:32    Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 8     00:39:33    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:39:34    Mr. Adkins?  
Speaker 5     00:39:35    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:39:35    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 5     00:39:37    Yes. Thank you Mr. Arch. Thank you very much everybody have a wonderful evening.  
Speaker 8     00:39:42    Thank you.  
Speaker 5     00:39:46    Item number 1122 ZB 27 28 V, the Capital Ventures  
Speaker 6     00:39:59    Madam chair. Madam chair. This is Carol Saunders. I need to recuse myself from hearing this application. Personal reasons.  
Speaker 5     00:40:08    Okay,  
Speaker 1     00:40:09    Thank you Carol.  
Speaker 5     00:40:10    How does that Thank you. Do we still have a quorum? Ms. Buckley?  
Speaker 1     00:40:14    Yes. Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:40:17    Swear.  
Speaker 5     00:40:24    Mr. Aithal, is this your matter? Yes.  
Speaker 13    00:40:27    Yes. Good evening. I'm Adam Chairwoman, ladies and gentlemen of the planning board. I'm representing the applicant, Katie Capital Ventures, on this app, minor subdivision application with with a C variances. It's in the R 10 zone. We're proposing a two lot subdivision, minor subdivision pursuant to the Piscataway Township ordinances. I have with me tonight Tony Gal of Harbor Consultants to offer planning and engineering testimony with respect to the variances. We have in addition, review the Township planning Board reports and are prepared to address any concerns, but we are prepared to address and comply with all of the conditions. We have previously met with the members of the planning board as a pre-concept meeting and are prepared to go forward tonight with any concerns the board may have.  
Speaker 5     00:41:26    Thank you.  
Speaker 13    00:41:29    And I may add that we have provided due notice and, and certainly deferred to Mr. Barlow notice has been provided pursuant to Njs a 40 55 D 12, as well as all owners within 200 feet and utilities. So I submit that for Mr. Barlow's consideration if we have proper jurisdiction before the board.  
Speaker 2     00:41:50    You do sir, you can call your first witness.  
Speaker 13    00:41:53    Thank you so much Mr. Galino. If you could please enter your appearance and he's a licensed engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey. Tony?  
Speaker 14    00:42:05    Yes, sure. Do I need to be sworn in first?  
Speaker 2     00:42:08    Yes. If you could state your name, spell your last name and give us your professional address.  
Speaker 14    00:42:13    Sure. It's Anthony Gal, spelled g a l l e r a n o with the firm of Harbor Consultants. We're located at three 20 North Avenue East in Cranford.  
Speaker 2     00:42:27    Raise your right hand sir. You swear the testimony give before this board will be the whole truth, nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 14    00:42:33    I do.  
Speaker 2     00:42:35    You're a witness Mr. Dash?  
Speaker 13    00:42:37    Yes. Ms. Garner, would you pry the board the benefit of your qualifications please?  
Speaker 14    00:42:43    Sure. So I graduated from the New Jersey Institute of Technology in 1984 with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. I've been licensed as a professional engineer and professional planner since 1988. Since then, I have prepared numerous land use applications. I have testified throughout the state of New Jersey, I have been qualified numerous times as an engineer and planner. I also provide services to several, several municipalities in the capacity of board engineer, board planner, and a municipal engineer.  
Speaker 2     00:43:24    Thank you. You may testify as an expert in  
Speaker 13    00:43:26    Engineering. Thank you.  
Speaker 14    00:43:27    Thank you.  
Speaker 2     00:43:29    And planning Madam chair and planning both capacity.  
Speaker 14    00:43:33    Thank you. So I'd like to actually go right to a share screen. I want to bring up, hold on one sec. Lemme do that again.  
Speaker 2     00:43:50    And Mr. Dash, if any of the exhibits your witnesses use, if they're the exact plans that were submitted, that's fine. But if there's any alterations, coloring, anything, just we'll identify 'em as a one and keep going.  
Speaker 13    00:44:01    Thank you Mr. Brown.  
Speaker 14    00:44:04    Okay, I'm gonna actually start with the subdivision plans that were submitted with the application. These are actually unaltered. So I do have some other exhibits, but this one actually is, is again alter. These are exactly what was submitted. So, so starting with the cover sheet, which is sheet one of our, of the plans, just wanna identify the location of the site. This is lot 8 0 1 in block 11 2 0 7, located at 1 64 Fisher Avenue. It's located on the north side of Fisher between Forest and Deerfield Avenue. You'll note Fisher Avenue was actually was formally known as New Brunswick Avenue. Forest Street was formally known as Fifth Street and Deerfield Avenue was formally known as sixth Street, which you'll have some relevance a little bit later in the testimony. This this lot is a little bit unusual. It's actually a reverse frontage lot, which means it has frontage on two streets. It has a 100 foot frontage along Fisher Avenue and a 75 foot frontage on Park Avenue. There is an existing dwelling and I'm just going to scroll to sheet two, which is shows the existing conditions. As you can see, there's an existing dwelling fronting on, on Fisher Avenue. The portion fronting on park is actually unoccupied the entire lot area 17,500 square feet. The total depth is 200 feet, which is consistent with with the block.  
Speaker 14    00:45:54    So with that, I'm gonna get out of this exhibit outta this site plan. I do have a site exhibit, which can everybody see this?  
Speaker 0     00:46:09    Not yet.  
Speaker 14    00:46:10    Not yet. Okay. I think I have to, let's have to go back in. This is giving me a hard time why my site exhibits not coming up. I'm trouble with the site exhibit. Just try one more time. Okay. How about now? Now it's up. Okay. Okay. I was getting in trouble. So with the, this is, so this is a colorized version of the, the subdivision plan. This again, this is, this was not submitted with the, with the refer, we'll  
Speaker 2     00:47:45    Refer to that as A one.  
Speaker 14    00:47:46    A one. Okay. So what the applicant is looking to do is just basically subdivide the property, basically split the property in half. Follow the, the 100 foot depth that basically is consistent with the block. This will create two lots, a a 75 by 100 foot lot on Park Avenue and a 100 by 100 foot lot on, on Fisher Avenue. The lot on Fisher Avenue, we've identified as lot 8 0 1 and that will contain the existing dwelling. The lot along Park Avenue. We've identified as lot 8 0 2 and what the applicant is proposing is to subdivide and a create a construct, a future single-family dwelling. This, this dwelling is, will be a one car garage, one car driveway. Again fronting on Park Avenue. This is located in the R 10 residential zone. In order to create this subdivision, there will be several bulk variances required. So first off, with the existing dwelling to remain, there is currently a, a pre-existing front yard non-conformity.  
Speaker 14    00:49:10    The front yard requirement is 35 feet. The existing front yard setback is 25.2. And again, that will remain unchanged with the subdivision. A new variance will be created for the rear yard of the existing dwelling. And I'm just gonna zoom in on that a little bit with the creation of the subdivision line that will rec create a rear guard setback of 19.5 feet, where 25 feet is required with respect to the, the dually created lot on Park Avenue Lot 8 0 2, that will require several variances with respect to lot width and lot frontage. This is a 100 foot zone, so lot frontage and lot width is required to be a hundred feet. Where 75 feet is proposed. The lot area requirement is 10,000 square feet, where 7,500 square feet is proposed. So those, those three variances are being created. The front yard setback for the existing dwelling I would represent as a C1 variance.  
Speaker 14    00:50:24    The remainder I would again represent as a C2 varis and we'll, we'll get into the proofs in a few minutes. If you were to look around the surrounding area, you'll find that the majority of the lots are all in increments of 25 feet. They're either 50 foot, 75 foot and a hundred foot. And there's a reason you'll, I'll explain a minute why I believe how those lots were created that way. With respect to the reverse frontage lot, we, we don't typically, as engineers and planters typically create reverse frontage lots by design. They're usually reserved for situations where you have maybe an, an undesirable frontage like it would be like say a, a highway or a very very busy street where you wouldn't wanna put a front, put front several homes on that frontage, creating a lot of driveways that would have to, to, you know, exit onto a busy road. So if we were creating a new subdivision, you might wanna try to avoid that and that's where you, we could potentially create a reverse frontage lots. You wouldn't typically see them in a, in a residential subdivision, like of this setting where you're basically creating typical, you know, reside typical residential subdivision lots.  
Speaker 14    00:51:43    So with that, I do have one other, I do have another exhibit that I'd like to bring up and go over if I can get that to work. So again, this is another exhibit. This was again not submitted with the package. So lemme assume we make that a two. Correct. Okay, so this is the, this is the file map that was actually recorded and created the, the existing subdivision. This map is identified as a map of section a new Brunswick Highlands, and it's dated March of 1920. So what we did was we highlighted onto the file map, which is the current lot configuration, as you can see this map, as I mentioned earlier, Fisher was formally known as New Brunswick and Deerfield was formally known as sixth Street and Forest was formally known as Fifth Street. So back in this era, you know, early 19 hundreds, this was typically subdivisions were created in this fashion where you would basically subdivide everything in small increments like 25 feet, 30, 40 feet.  
Speaker 14    00:53:05    In this case, all of these original lots were all subdivided in into 25 foot increments. And then typically people would purchase multiple lots depending on what size lot they ultimately wanted, right? So if somebody wanted a 50 foot lot, they'd buy two. If they wanted a 75 foot lot, they'd buy three. If they wanted a hundred foot lot, they'd buy four. So that's why you see in this, in this neighborhood, lots of 50 foot, 75 foot hundred foot because the lots were originally subdivision subdivided in 25 foot increments. In this case, somebody bought three 20 fives on park and four 20 fives on New Brunswick. And those were at, at that point probably conforming, we don't know what the zoning was, but assuming they were conforming somewhere along the line, these lots were merged, right? So you had a a 75 by a hundred foot lot on park and a hundred foot, a hundred foot lot on New Brunswick.  
Speaker 14    00:54:03    They were pro, they were somewhere along that, somewhere along the line they were merged. They could have been merged, you know, intentionally by the owner. I think it's more probable that they were probably merged by the tax assessor at some point when the zoning was changed to a hundred foot, you now had a non-conforming lot on Park Avenue and you adjoining a incumbent ownership to a a, a conforming lot. So you're probably merged, but in either case, that's what you have and that's more than likely how, why you have this reversed frontage lot because you normally don't do that by design, so shouldn't see what the applicant's looking to do is just put the lot line back where it was originally. Of course, with that we know that, that now we, because the zoning has changed and now it's a hundred foot zone, that's gonna create several variances, which I had obviously, you know, pointed out before. So with that, I do have one, one last exhibit that I'd like to share. Bring that up. And this is a highlighted version of the tax map. And again, this was obviously again not submitted with the application. So guess we mark at eight three?  
Speaker 2     00:55:24    Correct sir.  
Speaker 14    00:55:25    Okay. So what we did, as mentioned before, if you, if you look at the tax map, you'll see lots of like varying sizes, right of 54, 75 foot hundred foot. I looked at an area just adjoining the property question. So along Park Avenue I looked at lots on both sides of the street within the same block. And it's the same on Fisher Avenue. And all these lots that I identified were a CRC red circle. Those are all lots that are currently undersized. They're either 50 or 75 foot, just total 33 lots in this study area. 16 of 'em are undersized. If you, if I pan around and you can't even look at the adjoining block, you'll see again, there's all different sizes, right? There's 50 footers or 75 footers, there's a hundred footers and that's pretty typical within that area that was created with that original file map.  
Speaker 14    00:56:23    It all kind of follows the same theme. So with that, I believe taking into consideration the, the, the area that the, the size of the lots, I think that the creation of that 75 foot by a hundred foot lot is gonna be consistent with the neighborhood. I, I don't see that having any negative impact on any of the surrounding properties. So I, with that, it kind of leads into the negative criteria for the planning proofs. I, I, I believe the negative criteria is satisfied. I don't see, again, the, the lot size having any negative impact. Also with respect to the rear yard being created, rear yard setback variance being created for the existing dwelling, again, I, I don't see that that 19 and a half foot setback having any negative impact on any of the, of the surrounding area. So again, I, I believe that a negative criteria is satisfied with respect to the positive criteria.  
Speaker 14    00:57:27    I believe that the purpose of zoning is advanced under paragraph M, which talks about efficient use of land. So I, I believe that the, there is the adequate, you know, criteria to, for the granting and the variance. I, I don't believe again, we'll have any substantial detriment to the surrounding area zone plan or, or zoning ordinance. And then lastly, we are in receipt of all of the, the professionals reports, the board professionals reports. And as our attorney pointed out, we're, we're, we're, we're perfectly capable of addressing all those comments. So with that, I do not have any other direct testimony.  
Speaker 5     00:58:12    Thank you.  
Speaker 13    00:58:13    Thank you. Welcome. Thank you'll note for the record that we are also in addition eliminating the through lot that currently exists, which is an additional benefit of this subdivision Madam Chairman. I have no further questions for the, our, our only witness. I would return it back to the board for any questions or any questions from the public  
Speaker 5     00:58:38    Members of the board. Do you have any questions of the prior witness, Mr. Galino?  
Speaker 14    00:58:45    Yes.  
Speaker 5     00:58:47    Okay. Hearing no questions,  
Speaker 3     00:58:49    Matt Madam chair, can I ask one? Sure, absolutely. Question or two, how are you doing, Tony?  
Speaker 14    00:58:56    Sure, how are you? Good  
Speaker 3     00:58:57    To see you. I think we're gonna see each shows tomorrow night. Just, I, I just want to get this narrow, the through lot condition, it's not a preferred configuration on it, on a, on a, on its owning perspec on a planning perspective. Would you agree  
Speaker 14    00:59:12    With that? Yeah, absolutely. Like I said, we don't usually design, you know, create these by design.  
Speaker 3     00:59:17    Yeah. And, and and I and I think you showed that historic map that shows there are some unique conditions going back decades before zoning even, you know, was implemented. So you're eliminating that through lot condition. All the lots next to the lot that's being created are developed, correct?  
Speaker 14    00:59:37    That's correct.  
Speaker 3     00:59:38    So there's no opportunity to create a conforming law.  
Speaker 14    00:59:43    Yes, I I  
Speaker 3     00:59:44    Agree. Absolutely. So yeah, so so is it a balance here? You're, you're eliminating a bad thing. So in in essence, would, would your professional opinion be that, you know, it, it benefits the community to eliminate this through law condition and, and, and, and put a house eliminate, I heard this term a couple weeks ago about gaps in, in the, they said it, it looks like a missing tooth. In other words, when you go along park, this is gap there. So they're gonna put a house. Does that complete the, the, the street grid that is kind of envisioned raising?  
Speaker 14    01:00:19    Yeah, I'm gonna agree a hundred percent. Absolutely.  
Speaker 3     01:00:22    Yeah. I I I never heard missing tooth before and I liked it and I, and I, and I kept it in mind. So anyway, I just wanted to, you know, just kind of narrow that, you know, while there's other undersized laws in the area, there's some unique conditions specific to this site that, you know, relates to the variances you're, you're requesting.  
Speaker 14    01:00:43    Agreed. And I like that Tom, too. I'm gonna, I'm gonna steal that from you.  
Speaker 3     01:00:46    Yeah, well it wasn't from me. I'll, I'll tell you who it was on an email, but it was, I'd never heard it before and I said that's good.  
Speaker 14    01:00:53    Yeah, I like it.  
Speaker 5     01:00:57    Since if the board doesn't have any questions of this witness, can we open it up to the public?  
Speaker 1     01:01:02    Yes. We have a Joyce Hancock.  
Speaker 5     01:01:07    Miss Hancocks,  
Speaker 2     01:01:08    Ms. Hancock  
Speaker 15    01:01:10    Hear.  
Speaker 2     01:01:11    Oh, that doesn't sound like Joyce. That's  
Speaker 15    01:01:13    It's  
Speaker 3     01:01:14    Husband.  
Speaker 5     01:01:16    Can't say that.  
Speaker 2     01:01:18    Okay. Well, one of the time who's going to be testifying?  
Speaker 15    01:01:22    Jeff Williams.  
Speaker 2     01:01:24    Okay, Mr. Williams, if you could spell your name, sorry, state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address,  
Speaker 15    01:01:32    Sir. Jeffrey Williams. Last name w i l l i a m s.  
Speaker 2     01:01:40    Okay, and your address, sir?  
Speaker 15    01:01:42    It's 1 55 Park Avenue.  
Speaker 2     01:01:45    Okay. So if you could raise your right hand, you swear the testimony you give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 15    01:01:53    Yes, I do.  
Speaker 2     01:01:54    Okay. What would you like to tell the board, Mr. Williams?  
Speaker 15    01:01:57    Well, before I, before we start, I'd like to just say that we have owned this house. This house was built by my father and law. Joyce Hancock is my wife. I am actually the, the house and property adjoining this property. I do a few things. I'd just like to say currently there is a driveway that we use that's on the property. The day my, my father-in-law built this house, we've been using this driveway as an easement to get to the back of our property since 1960. So over 60 years. I actually grew up in this neighborhood. So this, this property has a historical significance to this community that I want the board to understand there. A lot of children have grown up on this property or played in this property. This is property until it was recently sold, has been part of my wife's family. Currently, like I said, there's a driveway that we've been using before the board makes any ruling on this.  
Speaker 15    01:03:06    I would like an opportunity to possibly consult a lawyer to see what my rights are and, and, and the use of the continued use of this easement, which has been granted to us, like I said, for over 60 years currently. I would also like to address the parking situation specifically in this block. And correct me if I'm wrong, I think Mr. Gallo said that they were gonna build a one car garage with a one car driveway. Currently we have a number of vehicles that park on the street because there is not enough parking in driveways, I think in building a house would negatively affect the parking on this street, which is already a hazard. Piscataway just recently put in rumble strips because this is a busy street.  
Speaker 15    01:04:03    I know people who don't live here may not know it, and some people may, as Mr. Stelton may have said a a, a broken tooth or whatever. But we don't see it that way. That is, that is a lot that has been there. It has been used. I think putting a house here will negatively affect our block and our neighborhood, especially since you need so many setbacks. So I'm asking that the board maybe deny this application to, to divide this lot into two lots and install a second house on this lot. But at the very least, I like the chance to, before you make a ruling, consult a lawyer as to what legal rights I have to use this easement, which is currently on the property, but has been granted to my wife and her family and me since I bought this property and has been in use for over 60 years.  
Speaker 2     01:05:00    So just by, I have one question and then I'm Mr. Dash may either clarify, I have some questions. You, you keep using the word easement. Is there a, a, a filed legal document that's been, you know, filed with the clerk's office granting a legal easement? Or are you just indicating that over time you've used it  
Speaker 15    01:05:21    Over time? We, we don't have a legal signed document. Okay,  
Speaker 2     01:05:26    Okay. Well, okay, that's fine then.  
Speaker 15    01:05:28    But it's, but, but it's been, in our family, we've used it for 60 years. It's well documented. I can provide testimony and, and witnesses that  
Speaker 2     01:05:37    No, that's not necessary. I mean the, the, the property owner has the right to use the property as, as he chooses, you know, and sees fit regardless of the, the prior historical use of it. It, it's still private property, but that's why an easement is a legal term that actually has some additional legal connotations. That's why I just wanted a, a clarification. I if Mr. Dash, do you want to, I dunno where Mr. Dash went.  
Speaker 15    01:06:12    Hmm.  
Speaker 2     01:06:14    I think you might have got knocked off. Ms. Buckley, do you see Mr. Dash? No,  
Speaker 3     01:06:19    I do  
Speaker 10    01:06:19    Not. Mr. Barlow, while we're waiting to get the legal counsel back from the applicant, I understand the concerns of the residents out there, but unless there was a formal easement out there, it really wasn't an easement. Even though historically they've been using the property. Correct?  
Speaker 2     01:06:38    Correct. They, they've actually been trespassing le from a legal perspective. They've gone on the private property. Now again, they may have had the permission of the owners or, but without a file easement, it's, it's the individual's, the property owner's right. To do to attempt to do what the property, whatever the law allowed or the  
Speaker 10    01:06:59    Planning board. So when a case, like in a case like this, Mr. Barlow, technically the new owner who's filing the application here today, technically can legally put a fence up and block access there because it's, there's, there's not a legal document saying that they can have access  
Speaker 2     01:07:17    Absolutely. To put up a fence tomorrow morning.  
Speaker 3     01:07:20    It in Mayor Wahler, I took a site visit to see here and, and you know, I'm not taking sides or anything, but, you know, and these comments were, you know, well-founded, but I think they also have access to all street parking on their property itself. I mean that, that's what I observed. So this was additional, this was additional access and you know, whether you're not call it trespassing, it's not like they're cutting off existing, you know, access to off-street. You needed off-street parking.  
Speaker 2     01:07:51    Can I just stop Second, Mr. Gal, I thinks trying to get our attention,  
Speaker 13    01:08:03    The objection of owner. However, I'll note there's been no formal, we've satisfied both positive and negative criteria for the variances. You know, this is obviously the first time we're hearing of this, there hasn't been a formal claim submitted for any type of adverse possession or easement. I would submit that this is a private dispute that goes beyond the jurisdiction of this board. And in as much as we've satisfied the criteria under the Mr. Dacey, I would respectfully submit that this step of objection is it goes beyond the perview of the jurisdiction.  
Speaker 2     01:08:43    I mean, I would agree with regards to, you know, access from an adjacent property owner. Did are, do you want to, are you okay proceeding on the, on the telephone? I guess you got knocked off. The zoom is fast.  
Speaker 13    01:08:56    Yeah, that's fine. I'm, I'm trying to connect. That's fine. Uhm that's fine. That's fine.  
Speaker 2     01:08:59    Sounds okay. And, and you're asking that the board move the matter this evening one way or the other, but you, you're not consenting or asking for an adjournment?  
Speaker 13    01:09:10    No, no, I'm not. Based on testimony. This satisfied the criteria under the lul for, for the granting of this subdivision as we've met both the positive and negative criteria for the variances.  
Speaker 10    01:09:25    All right, Mr. Barlow, let, let's cut to the chase  
Speaker 2     01:09:28    Here. Yeah.  
Speaker 10    01:09:29    I would be willing to punt this application for one month. And here's the reason why the applicant's not going any place because there's a moratorium on Park Avenue. They're not gonna be able to cut into the road anyway for another five or six years. So they may grant, get the, eventually get the grant and the variance, but they're not gonna be able to, to cut into the road. Cause we just finished Park Avenue and there's a moratorium on it for utilities. So giving an additional one month to iron out, I don't have a problem with doing that because this application's not going any place anytime soon. They're not gonna be able to break ground anyway. So I do wanna add into those conditions that as the prior application about the fiber optic and making sure that they do have sidewalks, if the board eventually agrees to the application, sidewalks on both lots. And I wanna do ask Dawn Corcoran to check in about possible if they have a two, two car garage, unless they don't have enough room.  
Speaker 13    01:10:38    Does  
Speaker 10    01:10:39    The moratorium moratorium out there?  
Speaker 2     01:10:41    It's in Mr. Stein's report.  
Speaker 10    01:10:44    Mayor, I just, it's, I just wanna make sure the applicant is crystal clear that it's not gonna be able to cut into the road for utilities.  
Speaker 1     01:10:53    There is a moratorium Mr. Mayor also, aren't we asking, and it might be in the report, but I didn't notice you and looked about, who were you just asking about for future? Either it, it was either fiber optic, some, some, yes. What what is that again? It's  
Speaker 10    01:11:10    The fiber optic Conduit. Conduit.  
Speaker 1     01:11:12    Okay. The, do we have that too as well? Mr. Barlow in the  
Speaker 10    01:11:17    Staff report? Well, condition,  
Speaker 1     01:11:19    I mean that's, I'm sorry, John, the  
Speaker 2     01:11:22    Mayor, I'm sorry, the Mayor just raised that as a condition, which Mr. Dash, do you have any objection to that?  
Speaker 13    01:11:29    No, no, no. As far as that condition, we, we do not have any objection.  
Speaker 2     01:11:33    Okay.  
Speaker 10    01:11:33    Thank you  
Speaker 2     01:11:35    Ms.  
Speaker 1     01:11:36    For, so I apologize, just to be clear, that is the sidewalks and the utilities, correct?  
Speaker 13    01:11:45    Yes. We noted that there's a request add the, the sidewalk and it's, it's the applicant's desire to comply with that condition.  
Speaker 1     01:11:54    Okay. Okay. That is a condition. Okay. But I do, I do wanna bring up the same concern that the Mayor just mentioned is, you know, the, the ordinance on the, the two car garage, I mean, we know, we know that, and of course this lot is only 75 foot, but isn't that our ordinance now? Am I wrong Dawn?  
Speaker 10    01:12:15    You have to provide for a one minimum, one car garage,  
Speaker 1     01:12:18    A one car garage. But the driveway has to be able to fit so many cars. Is that, is Dawn?  
Speaker 7     01:12:24    They are proposing a new garage for the new dwelling. However, the ordinance does state if that, if a home predates 1978, a garage is not required. And that's with the existing, maybe Mr. Dash can just tell us what the age of the existing dwelling is. The board can certainly still require it. But that could explain why there's not currently a garage for the existing,  
Speaker 2     01:12:50    I I think the question was the one car garage on the new construction.  
Speaker 7     01:12:54    Yeah. Right. And that's on the  
Speaker 1     01:12:56    Architectural consistent  
Speaker 2     01:12:59    With the ul.  
Speaker 1     01:13:00    Right. And then I'm  
Speaker 3     01:13:01    A little confused.  
Speaker 1     01:13:02    This is based on the driveway room for two cars, one in the garage, one in the driveway. Is that accurate? Dawn?  
Speaker 7     01:13:09    I have to look to see how many bedrooms are proposing on these  
Speaker 1     01:13:12    Plans. Oh, that's right. It's based on bedrooms,  
Speaker 3     01:13:15    Isn't it? Yeah. When I went out to the site, I, I witnessed that the existing home has a garage, a one car garage.  
Speaker 13    01:13:23    Yes, that's correct.  
Speaker 3     01:13:24    They're saying that there, there's not a garage. Now there may not be enough distance on the driveway for a parking spot. See that's the thing, they have a one, it looked to me like a one car garage. But you know, you, you have to see is there enough space for a second car in the driveway  
Speaker 7     01:13:43    And is it still a garage? There hasn't been, we've been getting a lot of these illegal garage conversions. So perhaps they can just confirm that as well, that it still is in fact, you know what I mean, Ron, sometimes they have these garage doors.  
Speaker 3     01:13:55    Exactly.  
Speaker 7     01:13:56    We've been seeing that so many times now.  
Speaker 3     01:13:59    We see that all the time in, in different communities. I represent, all I say is what I saw was a, looked like a garage, whether or not I did not go inside, but they a, you know, know, so maybe that needs to be clarified. What are they using it for?  
Speaker 15    01:14:14    Okay, well just to be clear, my concern with the house,  
Speaker 2     01:14:21    There's a lot of interference. Hold on Mr. Goomer. Is, is Mr. Dacey trying to comment? Yes,  
Speaker 13    01:14:28    Ma'am.  
Speaker 2     01:14:29    Yes, please. Okay. Well let Mr, we're you're, you're talking while other people are talking, so, and I we wanna hear you. Sure. So please go ahead.  
Speaker 13    01:14:39    Yes, I I just respectfully submit that the neighboring property owner who had voiced the objection there is an existing driveway and garage with parking space that would, it seems to me avoids the issue that's been raised by, by the objector.  
Speaker 2     01:14:58    And my understanding is according Ron, according to your report, there's a garage, a one car garage, and one car driveway for a total of two for both locks. The R S I S requires two and a half, but you're round down. So the applicant is compliant with the R S I S standards Cahn, according to your report. Correct, your Honor.  
Speaker 3     01:15:21    Cahn confirms yes. Okay. If,  
Speaker 2     01:15:23    If, if so there is enough parking provided Councilwoman,  
Speaker 14    01:15:28    There, there is 25 feet front of the garage. So there is enough space to to to put a car in the existing driveway so you can get a Yeah, and,  
Speaker 3     01:15:37    And  
Speaker 1     01:15:38    I, the reason why I wanted to bring that up if I could, Ron and Mr. Ra, the reason why is because the resident who is on the line wanting to object to this has a valid point about the parking on the, the off-street parking on park. Right. That is a valid point. The, that the property is an entirely different thing, you know, without an agreement that is entirely private property up to whoever owns the property to, you know, do with not as they will, but come before the board for housing. So that's an entirely different issue. But I do want the board to recognize that on park there is an issue with off-street parking and I travel it every day. So it it, it's really got to be that whatever house goes on the Park Street house has the parking faces, has the garage, has the room for the car.  
Speaker 3     01:16:36    Yeah. Yeah. I, I parked on, was it Foster on, on there? You know, I didn't park on either, either way, but it's a valid point. But it seems that the applicant is providing the, the parking that they need from park. And, but the other thing is, and you see these comments about basements and such and, and the Mayor raised this a couple months ago, since R S I S is driven by bedrooms, it's always important to say, Hey, what is each floor having, because any additional bedrooms anywhere is gonna change the parking requirements and, you know, we see it time and time again. So it's good that it's vetted. And going back to Dawn's comment about the, you know, what the existing home has, I mean, we've gotta make sure that that garage is used as a garage, not, you know, another apar another bedroom or something.  
Speaker 13    01:17:30    As the applicant on behalf of the applicant, we would've no issue in and having done as a condition, we, the applicant does not intend to use the garage as, as any type of residential corners.  
Speaker 15    01:17:44    Can you still hear me?  
Speaker 2     01:17:46    Yes. Yes sir.  
Speaker 15    01:17:47    Yes. Yeah. So just to be clear, I'm, I'm, I'm not really concerned about the house on Fisher Fisher, I'm concerned about the house on Park Avenue, like I said, that they haven't built, that's so, I mean the, the Fisher House is not the one I'm concerned about. As Councilman Cahill explained, it's more so of parking on Park Avenue currently directly across from that house, we have a house that doesn't have enough parking and they actually have, currently they have six cars, four of 'em, which are on the street now. And that's my concern that if you don't have enough parking with whatever size house you put there, it's just more parking on the street, which is a nightmare now. So that's really my concern. It's not the Fisher Avenue house, it's the new house being proposed on Park Avenue with the parking  
Speaker 2     01:18:38    Un understood Mr. Williams. There's certain standards that the, that are put out called the R S I S standards and the applicant is complying with those standards. So beyond that they, they've complied with the requisite standards for what they're proposing.  
Speaker 3     01:18:56    And Mr. Barlow just to help out, you know, you know the, the neighbor here, they're here for a subdivision application. They eventually, they have to come back if they are applying whether or not park avenue's on the moratorium they have to build, apply for a conforming home. Would that be correct? In other words, has to comply with all the regulations they've presented a concept, a concept line.  
Speaker 2     01:19:20    Well, if, if they don't, if what they plan to build changes from what they've submitted and it requires additional variances, they would have to come back before this board for an amended resolution. Or theoretically if it's just a bulk variance, they could go back before the zoning board, but  
Speaker 3     01:19:40    Correct, correct. And  
Speaker 2     01:19:41    They're being granted, they're being granted certain variances, they can't suddenly build a house twice the size cuz it would trigger more variances.  
Speaker 3     01:19:50    You know,  
Speaker 1     01:19:51    Mr.  
Speaker 3     01:19:51    Barlow, that helps the neighbor. Right?  
Speaker 1     01:19:54    It definitely does. But Mr. Barlow, just to be clear, is that when the proposed development comes then to be built and is filed any variance Okay.  
Speaker 1     01:20:08    Above and beyond what is granted today, it will trigger that so that the, the neighbor here who's on the line will know that if the lot size approved, and to be honest with you, I mean I understand that the space and people playing there, but there are homes that are, that are 75 foot 50 and we know we don't do that anymore. But housing is at a premium now and the lot can be developed at 75 feet because we have plenty of other homes like that. However, I just wanna make sure that we are very clear with what the variances we are granting today. Because if the, if the house comes in with an inch more of what's being granted, the variance must be triggered. And I wanna, I'm saying that for the benefit of the resident, we, we all know it happens, but residents don't always know what happens. Right.  
Speaker 2     01:21:11    100% Councilwoman and you know, Mr. Hinterstein and Dawn are not gonna let that happen. So that is gonna conform or they'll be right back before you.  
Speaker 13    01:21:21    Yes. And we, we intend to comply with that. Dom.  
Speaker 2     01:21:24    Yeah.  
Speaker 5     01:21:26    All there Any other members of the public who have any questions with reference to this application? Yes,  
Speaker 1     01:21:32    There's a Keegan Rollins  
Speaker 5     01:21:35    Come forward. Okay.  
Speaker 2     01:21:40    Hello? Keegan Rollins?  
Speaker 16    01:21:42    Yes, I'm here.  
Speaker 2     01:21:45    The spelling of your name as per the zoom is k e e g a n, last name Rollins, r o l l i n s?  
Speaker 16    01:21:54    That's correct.  
Speaker 2     01:21:55    Could you give us your address, sir?  
Speaker 16    01:21:58    My address is 1 79 Park Avenue. I am the owner of the corner lot adjacent to the subdivided property.  
Speaker 2     01:22:06    Okay. If you could raise your right hand, you swear the testimony I'll give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth. So if you got  
Speaker 16    01:22:14    I do.  
Speaker 2     01:22:15    All right. What would you like to tell the board, Mr. Rollins?  
Speaker 16    01:22:19    Okay, so shortly I appreciate your guys' time. So when we bought the house, my wife and I a few years ago, the previous owner, Mrs. Jackson, you know, had explained to me that, you know, her and her husband had owned, I guess all of that surrounding property and over time it had been subdivided and sold off. If you remember looking at the pictures of the, the lot and the property, you know, the portion, the 75 foot lot, you know, is, is pretty close to my property as well. Now on my side, I actually have a driveway there. I believe technically though it's only three quarters of the driveway, that's exactly where my mailbox is. So when you guys talk about it not negatively affecting or impacting the community, I don't believe that's accurate. Again, that's, that's, that's a driveway that I've used, especially for el elderly relatives who are coming to visit. It's the best way to get them into my home.  
Speaker 16    01:23:22    In addition, I heard, I believe it was Ms. Cahill talking about new homes being built that size. Are you guys currently building homes that size in, in, in, in, in town almost size lots. I mean, it seems like if you look at Park Avenue, you have a lot of older homes. I mean the ver the the, the disparity in size in homes is vast. You've got tiny homes cram next to bigger homes, cram next to smaller homes. I'm just curious as to what the plan is because parts of the street looks great. Other parts, you know, you have a lot of, you know, different, different constructions going on there. I'm just concerned that based on what I've seen on the construction of the current property, you know, I I'm not confident that what they're gonna be putting, there's gonna be something that I'm gonna want to have next door to me, especially if it's gonna be compromising my ability to use my secondary driveway.  
Speaker 2     01:24:21    Sir, just to clarify that the secondary driveway, is that the, the the property that's part of this application or are you talking about your own property?  
Speaker 16    01:24:31    So again, where, where this property meets my property at the corner, I don't know if you have a, a map of the property in front of you.  
Speaker 2     01:24:42    Well, I'm just, I'm just asking is it on your property or is it the, the other person's  
Speaker 16    01:24:47    Property? The driveway itself is, is in between the current property. It's in between, it's, it's three quarters. My property, 25% to my understanding their property. So it would, okay, well it would, it would become unusable is what I'm saying to you.  
Speaker 2     01:25:02    Oh, okay. But he, but a private citizen has the right to use their own property the way they choose  
Speaker 16    01:25:09    To.  
Speaker 2     01:25:09    That's, that's fine. That's why  
Speaker 16    01:25:11    I'm just bringing this up in response to the fact that it was stated several times that it would be an improvement to the community to put a tooth there where there isn't a tooth and sometimes too many teeth means that you have crowding. So I'm just trying to understand, you know, you know what the thought process is, you  
Speaker 2     01:25:30    Need a coat where, where it, it's a, it's a term of art in planning and land use that you, you want to infill vacant locks, which is what the applicant is proposing.  
Speaker 16    01:25:42    Okay. I mean, has the applicant, has the applicant thought about against selling some of that property? I mean, to the neighbors perhaps. I mean, that might be a better situation.  
Speaker 2     01:25:53    Well, again, this board doesn't get involved in the private negotiations between parties or neighbors. That's, that's this board's function is, is to hear the evidence on the application and decide based on the law and what their charge is as to whether or not to approve an application, what private citizens want to do between themselves. That's up to the private citizens, sir.  
Speaker 16    01:26:22    Okay. My last thing to that point is that the property, you know, was intact as one property and I, I object to it being subdivided, so,  
Speaker 2     01:26:34    Okay. Thank, thank you for your appearance this evening,  
Speaker 16    01:26:38    Sir. Thank you  
Speaker 10    01:26:39    Mr. Barlow. If I may, I, I'm gonna unfortunately have to leave the meeting, so I am asking the board members to hold this off till next month until some of this other legal wrangling can get taken care of. But we should conclude whatever testimony that needs to happen tonight and from whatever.  
Speaker 1     01:26:58    I'm gonna agree with that. I'm gonna agree with the Mayor because you know, the fact is that no construction can happen right away. Yeah. There's no reason not to pause for just 30 days. Yeah. These residents may be wanting to contact the landowner to purchase it. I'll say it's probably a premium for anyone who's still on the line, but maybe that that's what they would wanna do. And I think it's a fair enough because of the situation, not as a standard, but because they can't go to build right away, 30 days should not negatively affect this application. That's my opinion.  
Speaker 2     01:27:38    Okay. Just I know you have to Mr. Dash, you don't have any other witnesses you were planning on calling, correct?  
Speaker 10    01:27:45    That's correct.  
Speaker 2     01:27:47    Okay. Okay. So the, the board is, is moving to close the testimony on this application. There would be no further notices that you'd be required to submit. Okay. Anyone on this hearing? You're not gonna get another notice. The next meeting is scheduled for May 10th, 2023 at 7:30 PM Okay. If, if the, based on your comments, if you want to reach out to the property owner, you've gotten a letter from them, you can do that. But the board plans to take action at the next meeting, so thank you. If there's a motion to carry this to the May 10th meeting, that will be  
Speaker 1     01:28:28    Appropriate. Yeah, I'll make that motion. And I wanted to also, just to be clear to the residents who are on here, is that the private property issue is private property. If there were papers, something other words, then that's a legal issue. And again, this board does not get in the middle of that piece of it, but when we do come back, if there is gonna be no sort of deal struck or whatever the case may be, I can just tell you is that, you know, this board will tend to probably approve this application based on these, I just wanna set an expectation that this isn't an, an extraordinary ask as compared to a lot of things we've seen. But I think it's fair enough that the board is giving to you, the residents the opportunity to contact the property owner about the one gentleman who's using that OneDrive, the other gentleman with his driveway abutting so close and maybe interested in purchasing it. But, but I do want to say that out loud and, and if that's, you can understand that and understand that's a fair statement. I'm, I'm willing to move the application and I hope somebody will second that.  
Speaker 5     01:29:44    Do I have a second to that motion?  
Speaker 8     01:29:47    Reverend County Madam chair. I'll second that motion that we table this for a 30 day  
Speaker 5     01:29:54    Ms. Buckley, will you call the roll please?  
Speaker 1     01:29:56    Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 8     01:30:03    Yes.  
Speaker 1     01:30:03    Mr. Kins? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 5     01:30:06    Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Members of the board. Thank you. Excuse me.  
Speaker 13    01:30:12    I just wanted to thank the board for its time and indulgence and just to confirm with Tom, that there's no further legal notice will be required for the May 10th meeting,  
Speaker 5     01:30:22    Correct? Correct.  
Speaker 13    01:30:23    Okay. Thank you  
Speaker 1     01:30:24    Mr. Dash. I'll email you the new noom information.  
Speaker 13    01:30:27    Thank you, Laura.  
Speaker 1     01:30:29    You're welcome.  
Speaker 5     01:30:31    The next regular meeting will be on May 10th at seven 30. Do I get a motion? Do I have a motion to adjourn?  
Speaker 8     01:30:40    Reverend County?  
Speaker 5     01:30:41    Second? Do I have a second? Thank you. All in favor?  
Speaker 1     01:30:49    Aye. Aye.  
Speaker 5     01:30:50    Any opposers? Goodnight everybody. Everyone. Thank you. Take  
Speaker 1     01:30:55    Care. Goodnight everyone.