Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on December 13 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     00:00:33    Madam chair, you can start the meeting.  
Speaker 1     00:00:36    Good evening. The Piscataway Township Planning Board meeting will please come to order. Order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News 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. Ms. Buckley, will you please call the roll  
Speaker 0     00:01:03    Ms. Corcoran Here. Ms. Saunders? I know here.  
Speaker 3     00:01:12    Can you hear me?  
Speaker 0     00:01:13    Yes, we can. Thank you. Carol. Reverend Kinneally. Here. Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 2     00:01:19    Here.  
Speaker 0     00:01:20    Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 1     00:01:22    Here.  
Speaker 0     00:01:22    Mr. Ahmed Madam chair  
Speaker 1     00:01:27    Here. Mr. Barlow, would you please read the open public meeting Notice?  
Speaker 2     00:01:33    Certainly. Madam chair. I'd just like to place on the record that we're doing this meeting by way of a virtual Zoom platform in light of the DCA guidelines that were promulgated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We've done our best to comply with the DCA guidelines and the link for the zoom meeting has been properly noticed. Thank  
Speaker 1     00:01:55    You. Thank you. The flag is over my right shoulder. Can we all recite the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic which stand one nation under God invisible with liberty and justice. Can we have the swearing in of the professionals please?  
Speaker 3     00:02:26    Yes. Can you please raise your right hand? Sorry. Can you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 1     00:02:35    I do.  
Speaker 3     00:02:36    Thank you, Ron.  
Speaker 1     00:02:37    You are welcome. Mr. Barlow, are there any adjustments or amendments to tonight's agenda?  
Speaker 2     00:02:46    Assuming the board members have the revised agenda with 12 12 23 in the upper right hand corner that Ms. Buckley promulgated, that is the most recent agenda and there are no adjustments to it.  
Speaker 1     00:03:02    Does any member of the board not have that agenda? I have that agenda. I guess hearing no response, I guess everyone else has a copy of that agenda. Okay. Can I have a motion that any duly audited bills be paid?  
Speaker 4     00:03:26    Reverend Kinneally, I'll make a motion that the, the duly audit bills to be paid.  
Speaker 1     00:03:30    Do I have a second  
Speaker 3     00:03:32    Saunders second  
Speaker 1     00:03:34    Roll call please.  
Speaker 0     00:03:36    Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 4     00:03:41    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:03:41    Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahmed?  
Speaker 2     00:03:50    He, he signaled his mute affirmation. He's  
Speaker 0     00:03:54    Madam chair. Okay.  
Speaker 1     00:03:56    Yes. Item number eight, adoption of resolution to memorialized action. Taking on November 8th, 2023.  
Speaker 3     00:04:06    Chairman, I'd like to memorialize application 23 PV 25 ILE 1551 South Washington, LLC. Preliminary and final site plan.  
Speaker 1     00:04:17    Do I have a second?  
Speaker 4     00:04:19    Reverend Kinneally? I'll second it.  
Speaker 1     00:04:21    Roll call please.  
Speaker 0     00:04:23    Ms. Corrin? Yes. Ms. Saunders?  
Speaker 3     00:04:26    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:04:27    Reverend County?  
Speaker 4     00:04:28    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:04:29    Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yep. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:04:38    Yes. Item number nine, adoption of the minutes from the regular meeting on November the eighth, 2023.  
Speaker 3     00:04:49    Okay. Madam Chairman, I'd like to memorial adopt the minutes from the regular meeting of November 8th, 2023.  
Speaker 1     00:04:56    Go. I have a second.  
Speaker 4     00:04:58    Madam Chairman. Madam Kinneally. I'll second it.  
Speaker 1     00:05:00    Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 0     00:05:02    Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders?  
Speaker 3     00:05:05    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:05:06    Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 4     00:05:08    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:05:08    Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:05:16    Yes. Item number 10. Discussion. Mr. Barlow  
Speaker 2     00:05:22    Chair. I believe Mr. Lenni is here on behalf of his client, L'Oreal usa. Products Arco slash Murray National, which is application 19 PB 36 and 37. The planning board had previously granted preliminary and final site plan in bulk variance, and I believe the applicant's attorney is here to request an extension of time for one year, which is allowed under the municipal land use law until February of 2025, correct? That  
Speaker 5     00:05:57    Is correct. Thank you very much, Mr. Barlow. That is correct.  
Speaker 1     00:06:01    Mr. Linus, do you wanna put your reasons on the record?  
Speaker 5     00:06:03    Yes. Thank you. Madam chairperson on February 12th, 2010, this board, some of you may recall granted memorialized and approval for a site plan and bulk variance for 81 New England Avenue. That's the location of L'Oreal at this, at this location in Piscataway, and it was for a water reclamation project. We're now seeking a one year extension. This is our final extension and the reason we're seeking a one year extension is because of the fact that the locals wanna implement the water reclamation project because it is an environmentally helpful project to implement. However, corporate is, is, is not as desirous, so we're trying to get corporate in line to hopefully in, in 2024 to have the project launched.  
Speaker 1     00:07:00    Does the board have any questions regarding this request? Hearing no response from the board, I guess then if this wish is Grant, if this request is granted, you will have one year from tonight to perfect your, your proofs in this matter.  
Speaker 5     00:07:20    Alright?  
Speaker 1     00:07:21    Okay. I, I guess we should call for a roll call.  
Speaker 2     00:07:24    We, we would need a motion to, to grant the extension as requested with a second and then a roll call and I'll prepare a resolution for the next meeting. Madam chair.  
Speaker 5     00:07:34    Alright.  
Speaker 1     00:07:35    Madam, such a motion?  
Speaker 5     00:07:36    We did, we did come pre, we did come prematurely and we're looking for the extension through February 10th, 2025. Correct.  
Speaker 1     00:07:44    Okay. Madam chair. Dawn. Corcoran. I'll make that motion. Do I have a second?  
Speaker 6     00:07:49    I second it.  
Speaker 1     00:07:51    Roll call please.  
Speaker 6     00:07:53    Mike Foster. I second it.  
Speaker 0     00:07:56    Ms. Cochran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 2     00:08:04    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:08:04    Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 6     00:08:06    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:08:06    Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:08:10    Yes.  
Speaker 5     00:08:11    Okay. Thank you very much and happy holidays to  
Speaker 1     00:08:14    Everyone. Thank you. You too. You  
Speaker 2     00:08:15    Too. You too, Francis.  
Speaker 5     00:08:16    Bye-Bye.  
Speaker 1     00:08:18    Item number 11,  
Speaker 2     00:08:21    Madam chair. Similarly, this is a request for a 60 day extension of time for KD capital to Perfect our minor subdivision on application 22 PB 27 and 28. I believe Mr. Dash is present. Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:08:40    Mr. Dash?  
Speaker 7     00:08:41    Yes. Good evening. Madam Chairwoman, members of the board, this was a minor subdivision previously approved by the board. We are virtually at the point of having this application finalized. In the abundance of caution, we've just to avoid having a deadline lapse, we'd like just the 60 days to, to extend the, the time to finalize the perfection. I believe the subdivision deed has already been signed. Ministerial step to review the final revised plan from the Township engineer just needs to be completed. We anticipate that being done in the next week or so, but again, in, in the but of caution, just asking for the courtesy of the board for a short 60 day extension  
Speaker 2     00:09:26    And I can confirm that Mr. Dash had submitted the deeds. We had a little tweaking to do and engineering just has to look at 'em, so I think he'll have no issues getting this done within the 60 days he's requested. Madam chair,  
Speaker 1     00:09:38    Thank you. Members of the board, do I hear any questions or would someone like to make a motion to grant this? This  
Speaker 3     00:09:45    Is Carol. I just have one question because I noticed previously the Browns weren't kind of kept up, so will they be kept up over the next 60 days?  
Speaker 7     00:09:55    Yes, ma'am.  
Speaker 3     00:09:56    Okay.  
Speaker 7     00:09:57    Yes, ma'am.  
Speaker 3     00:09:59    All right. Thank you. That was my only question.  
Speaker 1     00:10:01    Sure. Okay. Do I have a motion? Madam  
Speaker 8     00:10:04    Chair? Dawn. Corcoran. I'll make that motion.  
Speaker 3     00:10:07    Carol Saunders. I'll second.  
Speaker 1     00:10:09    Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 0     00:10:12    Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders?  
Speaker 3     00:10:15    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:10:15    Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 2     00:10:19    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:10:19    Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:10:25    Yes. Thank you.  
Speaker 7     00:10:26    Thank you very much. Good evening.  
Speaker 1     00:10:29    Item number 12,  
Speaker 2     00:10:32    Madam chair keeping with the theme of this evening so far, this is a request for extension of time on the Yates matter at 10 23 River Road application 20 PBO six. This is a matter that was originally approved in April of 2022. There was a action, a little prerogative Ritz, and an updated resolution was adopted on June 14th, 2023 and the applicant is seeking a 90 day extension. There was some work they had to do on the site, which I believe has now been completed. The updated survey has been submitted to Ms. Corcoran and the Township for their review. I believe their council is, is here also with regards to the request. Madam chair Arthur?  
Speaker 9     00:11:22    Yes. Thank you. Madam Chairman and members of the council. Effectively as, as Barlow said, we've basically had a resolution passed on April 14th, 2022. It was amended by way of resolution June 14th, 2023. Mr. Yates has complied with most of the conditions and we're just looking at to have the matter reviewed and to have the deeded executed so that he can have it perfected. This is like, again, just an abundance of caution to make sure that you know, we're not under the gun and make sure that we can get this done without in case any minor tweakings needed or any other issues a arise in the interim.  
Speaker 1     00:12:03    Thank you. Members of the board, do you have any questions or would someone like to make a motion?  
Speaker 8     00:12:11    Madam chair. Dawn. Corcoran. I'd like to make the motion to grant the extension  
Speaker 1     00:12:15    For 90 days. Saunders second.  
Speaker 3     00:12:18    Carol Saunders. Second.  
Speaker 1     00:12:20    Okay. Roll call please.  
Speaker 0     00:12:22    Ms. Corcoran?  
Speaker 8     00:12:24    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:12:24    Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 4     00:12:28    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:12:29    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 2     00:12:30    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:12:31    Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 2     00:12:32    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:12:33    Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:12:37    Yes. Thank you. Item number 1323 PB 1951 Holly Road Associates, LLC for a final and major final major subdivision. Mr. John Wiley?  
Speaker 10    00:12:52    Yeah. Ms. Wiley's here representing 51 Holly Road Associates, LLC. This was a four lot subdivision with no variances, which the board has granted preliminary approval. We've have submitted everything that's required for the final subdivision that we've met with the, I guess the subcommittee that reviews this and no issues were raised.  
Speaker 1     00:13:24    You have any witnesses to call tonight?  
Speaker 10    00:13:27    I do not.  
Speaker 2     00:13:28    No. Madam chair this Dawn. Why you speak to it?  
Speaker 8     00:13:32    No. I'm sorry, Tom. I just wanted to Madam chair and the, the board members just to confirm that they have complied with all the conditions of the preliminary subdivision approval, so they're, they're ready for the final  
Speaker 1     00:13:46    Do I have a motion from a board member to proceed to approve this application since everything's been approved? Madam  
Speaker 4     00:13:52    Chair. Kinneally Madam chair make a motion that this application be approved.  
Speaker 2     00:13:58    Ma Madam chair, I would just open to the public real quick.  
Speaker 1     00:14:01    I think you're right. I'm, I'm sorry that was an over  
Speaker 2     00:14:03    And not that I expect any comment, but if there is any No from  
Speaker 1     00:14:07    The members, I need to do that. Ms. Buckley, would you Members of the public. This application is being presented tonight for a final major subdivision. It's on the agenda. Does anyone in the public have any questions about this application?  
Speaker 0     00:14:30    Noah Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:14:33    No. No response?  
Speaker 0     00:14:35    No. Noah and Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:14:37    Okay. Thank you. Close to the public members of the board. Do you have a request or a motion to make at this time regarding this application? I,  
Speaker 4     00:14:52    Reverend Kinneally. I'll make motion that this application be approved for final.  
Speaker 1     00:14:59    We'll have a second Saunders. I seconded. I'll second roll call please.  
Speaker 0     00:15:04    Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 5     00:15:12    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:15:12    Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Hammed? Yes. Go ahead and Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:15:19    Yes. Thank you and thank you Madam chairwoman and members of the board. Thank you. Item number 1423 PB 13 slash 14 B as in Victor 10 Marion Court trust major subdivision in bulk variance.  
Speaker 5     00:15:43    This is Peter Vasquez of Vasquez held LLC on behalf of the applicant, the 10 Marion Court Trust.  
Speaker 1     00:15:51    You may proceed. Mr. Vasquez.  
Speaker 5     00:15:55    Thank you Madam chairwoman of the board. Have good evening here everybody. Peter,  
Speaker 2     00:15:59    Could you just either raise your volume? I I'm having a hard time hearing you.  
Speaker 5     00:16:04    Sure. Is this better? Sometimes yes. I'm on my earbud some something. I can take those out and makes it better, but if you're having a problem, let me know  
Speaker 0     00:16:11    A little better.  
Speaker 5     00:16:13    Hold on one second. Is this better?  
Speaker 1     00:16:22    Yes. Yes.  
Speaker 5     00:16:24    Okay. All right. Sorry about that. All right. This is subdivision application. My client lives at 10 Marion Court. His name is Ibar Nadiem. He's the trustee of the trust and he lives there with his family. It's existing block 12 1000, sorry, 12,201 lot 6.03. He lives at the end of a cul-de-sac. It's one of those ones at the end where it's kind of on an angle. It's an odd shaped property At the end of a dead end street. What he would like to do is purchase the rear of his neighbor's property and that is six 13 hose lane West. It's existing lot five. If you're familiar with the area, if you reviewed the plans hose lane West, the yards are very long and deep. The houses are towards the front of the properties towards the street and there's a lot of room in the back.  
Speaker 5     00:17:22    Marion Court goes all the way down the side of Mr. Keenan's property who owns six 13 hose West. My client's all the way at the end and the back of my client's property abuts the back of Mr. Keenan's property. What my client is looking to do is to purchase the rear portion of that property to give him more room in his backyard for his kids to play. There's an existing pool on the property that was there when he purchased it. That takes up pretty much the whole backyard and he wants to get a, a grass area there in the back. If this is granted, as a result, Mr. Keenan's property will still be, you know, a little more than half an acre. My client's property will increase to about three quarters of an acre. It's a fairly simple application, but what we found that when we filed the application to get this approved, that there were certain items that have existed for decades that don't exactly meet the zoning requirements, so we need a couple variances to formalize the existing conditions that have existed for quite some time.  
Speaker 5     00:18:35    In particular, there's three variances for 10 Marion court and two for six 13 hose lane west for Marion court, there's a 40 foot front yard setback that's required. The existing is 39.4 inch, 39.4 feet. The second one's a 10 foot side yard setback. There's a nine and a half the existing setback for the current house there. The third one for 10 Marion court is a hundred foot lot frontage where there's 66.7 existing and if I remember right, the, the, the, this may have been eliminated because of the cul-de-sac shape. They may not need a variance for that anymore. The professional planner could talk to that when he testifies, but for these it appears that, you know, this subdivision was approved and granted some time ago and the house hasn't been changed from any, you know, that I, that I can tell from its construction. These are minor items that seems to be built a little off of where it should be.  
Speaker 5     00:19:45    They're all very minor issues and we just need to formalize that and get them approved. Similar thing for six 13 hose laying west on that property there's a detached garage and the footprint of that garage is 27 by 37 where the zoning code calls for a maximum of 25 by 25, so we have an oversized footprint there and then the maximum height of the accessory building by the code is 18 feet and the existing building is 21 feet. Again, we have another situation where this has been in existence for a very long time. To my knowledge there's been no issues with it existing there and we'd just like to formalize that and get that approved so that moving forward there's no issues with the properties moving forward. I know the review by the board's professionals had some questions that we're here to answer. We have a professional planner who'd be the first to test them. We also have the engineer that prepared the site plan that's here on the call as well. I saw Mr. Keenan on the call and my client was supposed to be here. I haven't seen him yet on here, but if we get to that anyway, I'd like to proceed with my first witness, which would be Nicholas Ano, the professional planner.  
Speaker 1     00:21:16    Oh, your first witness.  
Speaker 5     00:21:21    Okay, I see here you're taking off mute.  
Speaker 3     00:21:25    Second. Hi Mr. Sorry about that. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give with the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 5     00:21:35    I do.  
Speaker 3     00:21:36    Please state and spell your name for the record.  
Speaker 5     00:21:39    Yes, my first name is Nicholas with an H, last name Ano, GRAV as in Victor, IANO.  
Speaker 3     00:21:47    Thank you.  
Speaker 5     00:21:49    I am a planner and partner with Ano and Gillis Architects and Planners with a business address of 1 0 1 Crawford's Corner Road in Homedale, New Jersey.  
Speaker 3     00:21:58    Thank you.  
Speaker 5     00:22:00    Mr. Ano, have you testified before this board before? Yes. I have been previously qualified by this board Madam chairperson. Would you like me to requalify him or the fact that he was previously qualified? Would that be acceptable to the board?  
Speaker 1     00:22:15    Just could you, could you just give a a few of his qualifications, sir,  
Speaker 5     00:22:19    For the record? Sure. Yes, certainly. I hold a bachelor's degree from Rut Rutgers University, a master's degree in city and regional planning from Rutgers University, a law degree from the Temple University School of Law. I'm an A ICP certified planner. I'm also a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey and I've testified in over a hundred municipalities in 18 different counties in the state.  
Speaker 1     00:22:45    Thank you. That's sufficient, sir, for foundation.  
Speaker 5     00:22:48    Thank you for having me. Appreciate it. Mr. Gravano, have you had a chance to review the site plan for this 10 Marion court application? Yes. I've had a chance to visit the site on two occasion as well as reviewing the proposed minor subdivision plan as well as the professional review reports. The applicant is before the board this evening requesting a minor subdivision with the variances that were summarized by Mr. Vasquez. The subject properties are known as block 22 1 22 0 1 lot 6.03 and lot five. After the subdivision, they'll be known as lots 5.01 and and lot 6.08. After the subdivision lot, 6.08, we will encompass 30,659 square feet at 5.01 will encompass 23,149 square feet. Both of those lots are well in excess of the 15,000 square feet, which is required in the R 15 district. As you heard in the intro, all of these variances being requested tonight are a result of existing conditions.  
Speaker 5     00:24:04    None of the variances are being created by this application. First for lot 5.01, we have the variances required for the accessory buildings for both the dimensions and the square footage. 25 by 25 is permitted, whereas 37 by 27 is existing and proposed. Additionally, the 999 square foot detached garage is in excess of the permitted 625 square feet. Additionally, the existing garage has a height of 21 feet whereas 18 feet is permitted by code. Moving on to lot 6.08, you heard the required front yard setback 40 feet is required. 39.4 feet is existing and proposed minimum side yard setback. Nine and a half feet exist and proposed whereas 10 feet is required. And then lastly, this is a cul-de-sac lot. It does not meet the minimum frontage. It fans out towards the back as is customary with a cul-de-sac. A hundred feet of lot frontage is required, whereas 66.67 feet is existing and proposed.  
Speaker 5     00:25:17    All of these variances can be granted under both the C one and C two criteria with respect to the C one criteria. These are existing conditions not being created by this application. They have existed for quite some time. The garage has existed since the nineties. The subdivision on Marion court was, was approved somewhat thereafter. A strict application of the towns zoning code would create an undue hardship upon the developer. Certainly no substantial impairment of the zone planner zoning ordinance with these existing conditions variances as well as no substantial detriment to the public good. In terms of the C two criteria, the applicant does not need to demonstrate hardship, what the applicant must demonstrate that it relates to a specific piece of property. Here you have two existing single family dwellings in a single family zone. The applicant simply seeks to transfer 15,000 square feet of land to one prop from one property to the other, which certainly helps promote purpose G sufficient space and appropriate location for variety of residential and recreational uses to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens.  
Speaker 5     00:26:32    The applicant is before you this evening to augment the rear yard space in their home to prov to provide more usable space. Certainly this also advances purpose. I desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. And as with the C one variance, this could be granted without substantial impairment to the zone planner, zoning ordinance or the public good. So in summary, both all, all five requested variances can be granted under both the C one and C two criteria without substantial impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance. You anticipated my last question. The other question I have for you are, are, and if not I can ask a diff with different witness. Are you familiar with the, the existing property on 10 Marion court in the pool fence?  
Speaker 5     00:27:25    Yes. Okay. Can you describe Yes, the app, how the pool is fenced in for the board? Yes. The, the, the pool is pre presently fenced in, you know, in the rear of the yard. Certainly with the subdivision the applicant agrees to comply with all applicable building code requirements for the fencing of the pool. And there, there the pool has its own specific fence around it in addition to the fence that the entire yard has on the property line. Correct? Yes sir. There is a double fence situation in this scenario and Madam chair per and I have a, I don't know if I know how to do exhibits here, but I do have a picture if the board would like to see it of the existing condition of pool with the fence.  
Speaker 2     00:28:07    Sure. You can share your screen and we'll mark that as exhibit A one.  
Speaker 5     00:28:12    Okay. Gimme one second. I'll bring it up. All right. Screen share. Can that be seen by everybody? Yes. Okay. Mr. Gano, does this accurately represent what you viewed as the pool fence when you were there? Yes, it does. And that fence is gonna remain even with the new added area to the rear of the property, correct? That is correct. I'd like to have that marked as Exhibit A one as Mr. Barlow said.  
Speaker 2     00:28:56    And Mr. Vasquez, that's, I guess it's specifically in response to item number five of Mr. Hinter Epstein's report of October 10th, 2023. Donna, is that acceptable?  
Speaker 8     00:29:16    It appears to be Tom, certainly we the, there's certain co certain regulations that have to follow under the building code if need be. We can always have one of the inspectors confirm, but,  
Speaker 2     00:29:30    But Mr. Vasquez, the applicant will agree to comply with all of the pool code requirements, correct?  
Speaker 5     00:29:36    Yes, that is correct.  
Speaker 2     00:29:37    Okay, thank you.  
Speaker 5     00:29:39    Thank you. Why not, the board also has some questions about, or, or the professionals have some questions about the garage itself and what is it being used for? I know Mr. Keenan's on the call before I get to him, Mr. Greno and I can ask Mr. Keenan if necessary, but did, did you, I know you said you visited the properties, do you have any knowledge regarding the inside of the, the garage what it's being used for or should I save those questions for Mr. Keenan? I, I was able to access the garage, you know, was part of the comment letter of the application, the garage, the upper level is used for storage as well as the bottom level. There are no finished parts of this garage. This garage is, is totally unfinished.  
Speaker 5     00:30:32    I have, it doesn't contain any living quarters. No living quarters, no plumbing whatsoever. I have four photographs of the inside of the garage that I would like to show as exhibits. Guess it'd be a 2, 3, 4, and five. Yep. If that's accepted by that Sounds good. Mr. Vasquez. Okay. Is the first picture this will be a two. Mr. Gano, did this resemble what you viewed when you visited the property? Yes. That represents the conditions I saw when, when visiting the property. This would be a three, same question here? Yes, A three clearly highlights, you know, the unfinished nature of, of the detached accessory structure. And then I got two more. This is a four, this is the upstairs area I'll call it.  
Speaker 5     00:31:44    And also a five as well. Does that represent what you viewed in the upstairs area? Yeah, so all of those pictures gave the full length of the garage to show that all portions of that upper level or not finished and there is what appears to me in the top left of this picture, a light. So there is electric to the garage. Did that, does that, is that correct? Yes. The garage is serviced by electricity, however, there are no plumbing fixtures in the garage whatsoever. Thank you. That's all the questions I have for Mr. Ravi. I'm not sure if any of the board members have any questions for him. You're muted Ms. Smith.  
Speaker 1     00:32:34    I'd like to allow the board an opportunity to ask questions if they have any Please. Members of the board, do you have any questions of this witness? If you have no questions, Ms. Buck Buckley, would you please see? Check with the, see if any members of the public have any questions. This, this wit this witness is open to the public for any questions of having heard his testimonies. Does the members of the public have any questions of this witness?  
Speaker 0     00:33:09    No. And Madam chair,  
Speaker 1     00:33:11    Thank you. Close to the public. You can call your next witness if you have another.  
Speaker 5     00:33:17    I believe Mr. Gravano has, has covered everything since he was able to take care of the use of the garage and the pool fence. I think we've covered the basis for the variances and the questions that the, the board's professionals had. If there's nothing else, consider the questions the board would like us to answer. I have Mr. Keenan available. Mr. Neves, who's the engineer available and if not, we'd let them move for approval of the subdivision.  
Speaker 1     00:33:48    Have all the items of concern on the staff report been addressed?  
Speaker 8     00:33:52    Ma Madam chair, this is Dawn Corcoran. I think the only item that we didn't cover was number seven with regard to the property only being used for residential accessory use. Like it can't be it, it has to be used for that single family dwelling only. So the additional space does, does your client agree to that condition?  
Speaker 5     00:34:20    Yes, he does agree to that condition. Okay. Yes.  
Speaker 8     00:34:24    The other thing, just, just for the record, at one point I know there was a reference to a future pool house with guest quarters that is not part of this application, correct? That is not  
Speaker 5     00:34:34    Part of this application that was removed. And we understand that that is not an accepted use and that if he did wanna do that, that require a variance for a pool house.  
Speaker 8     00:34:43    Great, thank you.  
Speaker 2     00:34:45    And Ms. Corcoran or Mr. Vasquez in item four of Mr. Stein's report, you've, you've addressed, if approved the structure should not be allowed to contain any living quarters or kitchen. I assume the applicant will agree to that there's been testimony there's none in there so far and that a deeded restriction would be provided to that effect.  
Speaker 5     00:35:09    Mr. Keenan, you're talking about the Mr. Keenan garage lot 5.0 in the garage, correct?  
Speaker 2     00:35:16    Yes.  
Speaker 5     00:35:17    Mr. Could I have Mr. Keenan speak to that as it's his property?  
Speaker 2     00:35:25    Sure.  
Speaker 1     00:35:25    Yeah.  
Speaker 5     00:35:26    Okay. Mr. Keenan, can you unmute yourself and does he need to be sworn? Swear  
Speaker 2     00:35:29    I'm unmuted. Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:35:31    Mr. Keenan, can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony about to give be the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 11    00:35:40    Yes, I do.  
Speaker 3     00:35:42    Excuse me,  
Speaker 5     00:35:46    Mr. King, can you, can you respond again?  
Speaker 0     00:35:51    Well, he just crossed over as participant, so give him a second for it to catch back up.  
Speaker 2     00:36:01    Oh, there he is. Oh,  
Speaker 11    00:36:02    There I am.  
Speaker 3     00:36:04    Okay. Can you please raise your right hand?  
Speaker 11    00:36:07    Yes I can.  
Speaker 3     00:36:08    Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 11    00:36:12    Yes, I do.  
Speaker 3     00:36:13    Thank you  
Speaker 5     00:36:15    Mr. Keenan. Good evening. Are you the owner of six 13 hose lane West? Yes  
Speaker 11    00:36:20    I am.  
Speaker 5     00:36:22    And were you on the zoom when I showed the witness the pictures marked a two through a five of the interior of the garage.  
Speaker 11    00:36:31    Oh yeah. I was so happy everybody saw that  
Speaker 5     00:36:35    We  
Speaker 2     00:36:35    Won't hold it against,  
Speaker 5     00:36:39    So you, you do not use the garage right now for any type of living quarters or kitchen or anything like that? Correct?  
Speaker 11    00:36:47    There could be a bat in there.  
Speaker 1     00:36:53    He better not be cooking.  
Speaker 5     00:36:59    The, the, the Township wants to be sure that in the future it's not used, you know, for those purposes and they're requesting a, a deed restriction to be provided to that effect. And Mr. Barlow was bringing that up and asking if that was understood and acceptable. And since it's your property, I wanted to, you're bringing to give an answer to that so the town could be assured that it's not gonna be used in that as a secondary residence or anything like that moving forward.  
Speaker 11    00:37:27    Yes. We're not gonna convert that to any living space.  
Speaker 5     00:37:33    Mr. Brother, is that acceptable?  
Speaker 2     00:37:35    Yes, as long as someone's gonna provide the a deeded restriction, the town will be fine with that.  
Speaker 5     00:37:41    Okay, I'll prepare that.  
Speaker 2     00:37:45    Ms. Corcoran, is there anything else on your end?  
Speaker 5     00:37:49    No, Tom, everything's been covered. Thanks.  
Speaker 2     00:37:51    Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:37:53    Members of the board, do you have any more questions to the applicant or the witnesses that have been provided so far?  
Speaker 5     00:38:01    No.  
Speaker 1     00:38:03    If the members of our board have no questions for one last time I one last opportunity, I'd like to open it to the public members of the public. Do you have any questions of the witness that's provided information on this application?  
Speaker 0     00:38:20    No. Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:38:22    Thank you. Close to the public. Mr. Vasquez, are you, is your application complete?  
Speaker 5     00:38:29    Yes. That's all the witnesses, unless there's anything else the board would like answered.  
Speaker 1     00:38:34    Members of the board, you've heard this application and all the witnesses in support of the same. What is your pleasure? Would someone like to propose a motion?  
Speaker 4     00:38:46    Madam chair Trevor Kinneally. I'll propose a motion that this application be approved providing that he meets all the requirements that's requested of the garage use and so forth.  
Speaker 1     00:39:01    Do I have a second? Carol Saunders second. May I have a roll call please?  
Speaker 0     00:39:07    Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 4     00:39:13    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:39:13    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 1     00:39:15    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:39:16    Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yes. Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:39:22    Yes. Thank you gentlemen. Thank you everyone. Application's been approved.  
Speaker 12    00:39:29    Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:39:37    Item number 1523 PB 20 slash 21 V as in Victor, Amal Pharmaceuticals, LLC for preliminary and final site plan.  
Speaker 13    00:39:51    Good evening, Madam chair, members of the board Court Klein from Sills cum and gross on behalf of the applicant. Amal Pharmaceuticals. LLC?  
Speaker 1     00:40:03    Yes sir. You wanna give us an explanation of your application? Yes.  
Speaker 13    00:40:08    So we have submitted an application for preliminary and final site plan approval, bulk variances and design waivers in connection with the proposed expansion of and improvements to the existing parking area of the existing pharmaceutical facility, pharmaceutical company, along with ancillary site improvements to the parking area such as grading, drainage improvements, landscaping and lighting properties located at one New England Avenue and identified as lot seven and eight in block 46 0 1 on the Piscataway Township tax maps. The reason that we are here before the board, this was initiated by a a, a notice from the zoning officer that there was an issue with the parking lot which had been previously approved as a like banked parking, which could be expanded at a later date. And what happened was the applicant had put down gravel in that area and we're here before this board to, to comply with the Piscataway Township ordinance and make this parking lot expansion, which was previously earmarked as banked parking to do the other site improvements to comply with your ordinance. The property is located in the LI five light industrial zoning district and we serve notice by certified mail and published notice of the hearing and we have submitted proofs of such publication and service to the board. And I wanted to ask that the board acknowledge receipt and that jurisdiction is properly before this board.  
Speaker 1     00:41:57    It is Mr. Kelley.  
Speaker 13    00:42:00    Very good, thank you. So tonight we are presenting one witness, Mr. Mike Lanza Fama of Casey and Keller, a licensed professional engineer, Mr. Lanza Fama is also a licensed professional planner, so he'll be testifying first with regard to the site engineering and then as a professional planner, he'll testify in support of the requested relief. So I'd like to call Mr. Lanza Fama.  
Speaker 1     00:42:27    You may call him  
Speaker 3     00:42:31    Lan, can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 14    00:42:39    I do. Can you, my name is Michael Lonza Fama. That's L-A-N-Z-A-F-A-M-A. I'm a licensed professional engineer, Lance Planter, licensed in the state of New Jersey. I'm a principal with the firm of KC and Keller Incorporated, 2 58 Main Street, Millburn, New Jersey. And I've testified before this board on numerous occasions actually the original site plan for this building.  
Speaker 1     00:43:08    You may be testifying, you may proceed.  
Speaker 14    00:43:11    Thank you. Madam. Chairman. The application at hand as the the attorney pointed out, was a result of a situation where we had an approval for bank parking. The owners of the property thought that they could just implement that approval without any follow-up approvals. So as a result of the notice that we were put under, they engaged our firm to provide detailed engineering plans in accordance with Piscataway standards, with regard to parking lot construction, curbing, landscaping lighting. We've prepared a stormwater management plan which meets the latest stormwater management ordinances of the municipality as well as the state of New Jersey's, new BMPs. We have submitted those plans and that drainage report to the municipality. I believe DNR engineering has reviewed them. And we have reports from Mr. Hinterstein, from DNR as well as your planner, CME. I believe that Corey, you can correct me if I'm wrong, that we also received approval from the fire department on this particular application. Madam chair if I have permission to share my screen. You may. Thank you.  
Speaker 13    00:44:41    Yes, we did. We received approval from Mr. Gore.  
Speaker 14    00:44:45    Okay, so what you see on on the screen is an aerial image of the subject property. The image was taken from a near maps software that we have, which is high resolution aerial imagery that is available online and it gives you a good understanding of the property. As you can see, it's an irregularly shaped property. It's O 15.6 acres plus in size. It's composed of two lots, lot seven, which is the more southern parcel and lot eight, which is the wooded area that you see where my cursory is in the northern section of the site. It has frontage on New England Avenue, which has access to the existing parking fields. That driveway then extends all the way to Centennial Avenue, which is on the southern side of the site or the left side of the exhibit. There's no proposal to modify the existing structure. The application at hand is to take what you see in the lower left hand corner of the property, which is the southeast corner of the property. This gravel area which is shown with cars parked on it to formalize that into a plan that is compliant with the ordinance with regards to the size of parking stalls, aisle width, appropriate lighting and landscaping. We do need some design waivers and there's a question as to whether or not a parking variance is also required for this application. I'd like to bring up as an exhibit. We've taken sheet 4.1.  
Speaker 2     00:46:41    If, if I can just interject for one second the, we'll, we'll mark the prior exhibit as a one and this as a two and just go along with that. Okay, Mr. Lonza Fama,  
Speaker 14    00:46:53    Certainly Mr. Barlow. And just for point of reference, a one is the plan set that was submitted and is made up of multiple sheets. A two is a colorized version of Sheet 4.1, which is the detailed site plan, a layout plan that you should all have as part of your submission. And what that shows you is that we are proposing to construct a a bituminous parking area for 70 parking spaces. The parking spaces will have the appropriate backup of 25 feet. There are nine by 18 stalls. There will be islands at the end of each the parking row that will provide for landscaping within the parking area. In addition, we're gonna be supplementing the existing trees that you see in the western corner of the lot, the southwestern corner of the lot with some supplemental landscaping. And I will share that with you shortly. There will be two access driveways from the existing parking lot, which will cause the reduction of two parking spaces in that area.  
Speaker 14    00:48:14    In addition to the addition of the 70 parking spaces, we are converting four parking spaces to electric charging stations as required by state law. This also provides us with a reduction in the required number of parking spaces based upon, excuse me, based upon the size and uses of the existing structure, we're required to have 330 parking spaces. So with the four car credit for the EV charging stations, that brings our required number of parking spaces down to 326. Currently on site we have 133 parking spaces available, 128 standard spaces and five handicap accessible spaces. With the additional parking, the additional parking field of 70 that will bring our parking count, our provided parking count up to 203 parking spaces. So that leaves a deficit of 123 parking spaces. However, under application oh six PB 20 V, which is dated August 9th, 2006, we were granted a parking variance for up to 169 parking spaces.  
Speaker 14    00:49:46    So when you apply that to the shortfall, I believe that we would be compliant with regard to the number of parking spaces that are needed. This does meet the demand for Aneal Pharmaceutical. Over the years, they've had some changes in their processing and had to increase their staff. So that was the, the need for the additional parking. Obviously parking on Centennial Avenue is not available and they were parking on onto nor New England Avenue, which is permitted. However, they felt that wasn't appropriate. So they decided to put in the bank parking that had been approved, approved under prior applications. The location of the parking area is approximately 60 feet from Centennial Avenue, which means that approximately 15 cars that are located on the southern end of the parking lot are within the front yard area. Parking is permitted within the front yard area, provided that it has at least 20% landscaping.  
Speaker 14    00:51:01    And in a moment I'll show you our landscaping plan and how we are compliant. So we do need a waiver with regard to the setback of that parking from Centennial Avenue under your code. The requirement for that is 80 feet is the required setback, but that is a design waiver and not a variance. The minimum front, the parking should meet the required front yard setback. However, we're at 60 feet. However, given the location of the existing parking lot, that causes certain practical difficulties in developing the property. Trying to make efficient use of the space by preserving some of the landscaping in the southwest corner of the site of the parking area, causes us to condense the parking and spread it from north to south, thereby encroaching 20 feet into that area. So I believe that design waiver is appropriate, would not cause any significant detriment to the public good or in the intent and purpose of your zoning ordinance or your zone plan.  
Speaker 14    00:52:21    And you'll see in a second the landscaping that we are proposing would mitigate any negative impacts associated with that design waiver. We are showing 20 foot driveway at the western side as well as the interconnection to the two parking lots, the two driveways into the parking lot and Mr. Stein's memo, he indicates that they should be, they should meet whatever the Township standard is for two-Way driveway. Since there's no vehicles backing into that area, I thought the 20 feet would be appropriate. We can certainly make this Western driveway 25 feet wide. However, the two driveways that interconnect with the existing parking lot, if I made those 25 feet wide, would result in the loss of two more vehicles within the existing parking lot. I feel that the 20 feet is appropriate and can work work and would ask for a design waiver for those two locations alone. But we would make the Western driveway 25 feet wide as the other driveways are.  
Speaker 14    00:53:38    There's an indication in Mr. Stein's memo as well as the planner's memo that we were seeking relief to provide a gravel parking area on, on our initial submission. When we went to the track, we were proposing a porous pavement median called gravel pave. We've eliminated that. We've made a conventional parking lot with standard asphalt surface, which has a depressed curb at the southern end. And what what we've done is we've allowed that parking area to sheet flow into the lawn panel that exists at the southern end of the site and going back to a one and we go to the drainage plan.  
Speaker 14    00:54:35    What I have up on the screen now is I believe, let me just check the sheet number, that's sheet five in your plan set. And what that shows you is it shows you how we've pitched this parking area. So the water sheet flows through a depressed curb. There would be wheel stops as required within Mr. Interesting's memo. He asked for wheel stops in this area. We would provide that it would sheet flow into a bio retention basin, which would be a landscaped element within the front lawn. This would receive the runoff from that area, allow it to percolate through a sand filter, and then be piped out to the municipal storm source system, which is on the eastern side of our property within a 20 foot easement that purifies the water. It also detains the water so that we meet the state standards for peak runoff rates for the two 10 and 100 year storms as required by the state and your municipal ordinance. We're reducing the two year storm from this area by 50%, the 10 year storm by 25%, and the 100 year storm by 20%, thereby meeting the standard.  
Speaker 14    00:56:01    So we have no issue with providing the wheel stops that are suggested in in Mr. Stein's memo as well as a gravel strip. He thought it might be appropriate that we use some Delaware River gravel, maybe three feet wide at the very edge of the parking area to help diminish any potential for erosion as the water sheet flows off of the proposed parking area. Moving on to what I have here is, this is sheet number six would be a three. This is a colorized version of the lighting and landscaping plan that is proposed for this parking field. If you look to the, the left side of the exhibit, let me just blow this up.  
Speaker 14    00:56:55    This shows that we are using LED type light fixtures and the little tick marks with the numbers indicate the foot candle levels. We have two dual head LED light fixtures proposed within the parking area and they show that there is an adequate illumination of the parking field with a minimum of 0.4 foot candles at the southeast corner. On the right side of the exhibit is to propose landscaping plan and we are providing a significant amount of plant material to screen the parking area from Centennial Avenue. This was one of Henry's requests that we, we do that Mr. Stein's request as well as adding some supplemental landscaping on the east side of the parking of the driveway, or excuse me, the west side of the, of the driveway. There's no ability to plant on the east side of the driveway because this is a utility easement with a 54 inch storm sewer in it as well as a water main, a 12 inch water main that runs through the complex. So we would not be able to plant over that easement, but we did the best we can to screen the parking area with a variety of evergreen trees, shade trees, as well as ornamental trees. You can see we've preserved a significant amount of landscaping in in the area immediately to the west. And we've supplemented with some additional evergreens to further screen some of the existing accessory structures out from Centennial Avenue.  
Speaker 14    00:58:47    Also as required by your ordinances and and it within Mr. Stein's memo, we will be providing sidewalks along Centennial Avenue. Our site plan currently only shows the, let's look at the full site plan, go to the, the site plan. The overall site plan shows that we're, we are including new concrete sidewalk all along New England Avenue. I've had a conversation with Mr. Hinterstein today and he indicated that we would also need to install new concrete sidewalk all along our centennial frontage, which we are willing to do. There was also some cleanup work that he asked us to do in and along our loading area. We will also be performing that work as well. The final comment in Mr. Hi interesting's memorandum was that we install two four inch diameter PVC conduits along our frontage for potential future fiber optic installations within the community. We're willing to do that however we would work with your engineering department. We just want to be certain that it's two four inch Cahn PVC conduits. I would imagine it would be a Schedule 80 conduit and nothing more than that. We don't know what fiber optic company might want in the way of installation. We just don't wanna put in something that then we have to replace or, or upgrade. But we're happy to do and, and work with the municipality on providing that element that Mr. Hinterstein had requested. So  
Speaker 2     01:00:54    Mr. Lanza Fama, with regards to the conduit, we could do it as a condition of approval that you'll work with the township's professionals as to the nature and kind of conduit. Would, would that be something the applicant could agree to?  
Speaker 14    01:01:09    I I, I think that's fine. Provided it, it doesn't go from two four inch PVC conduits to six eight inch conduits. We, we would, we would like to know that the two four inch conduits are the upper end of the responsibility.  
Speaker 2     01:01:24    Un understood. And I think Dawn can confirm that.  
Speaker 8     01:01:27    Yes, Mr. Lonza, this has been a re that has been a requirement of all applicants, that two four inch conduit line. I don't foresee that changing whatsoever.  
Speaker 14    01:01:37    Excellent. Thank you. Thank  
Speaker 2     01:01:38    You. And just to clarify something you had said that you, and I believe it was in response to Mr. Hesser Stein's report item 10, where he wanted trees on the easterly side of the Centennial Avenue, which is Barron, I believe I Is that the area you mentioned? Has  
Speaker 14    01:01:56    That, that's the area, that's the, that's the utility easement, yes.  
Speaker 2     01:01:59    Okay. So it's Barron for a reason, frankly. Correct.  
Speaker 14    01:02:02    Okay. And, and we did our best to, to landscape the west side.  
Speaker 2     01:02:06    Understood. So it's really, it, it's not something the applicant could even comply with. Correct. So understood. I just wanted to make sure that, that we're on the same page. Okay. Excellent.  
Speaker 14    01:02:18    So I believe that that pretty much covers our testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board members of the public might have.  
Speaker 13    01:02:27    Mike, before we go to the board, members of the public, I just wanted to confirm the, the area with the, the loading door, which is rarely if ever used, did you discuss the, the access to that loading door?  
Speaker 14    01:02:45    Yeah, our, our plan that was submitted did show removal of some of that gravel area. And we, we were indicating at 10 foot wide surface we've indicated as, as pavement. However, in talking to the client, we thought that maybe something more like a, what they call a true grid, which is a stabilized area that looks like grass, but trucks can drive on it. This loading door, this roll-up door was installed to get, because the, there was a specific piece of equipment or multiple pieces of equipment that were extremely large and they couldn't get them into the building. So they literally had to cut an opening in the wall of the building to get the equipment in and put a roll up door. This will never be used again until that equipment needs to be removed to be either upgraded or repaired. So it may not be used for the until for the next five years.  
Speaker 14    01:03:48    So instead of paving this, we thought it might be more appropriate to make it what we call true grid, which is a, a grid system that you put topsoil and actually seed it and it just looks like a lawn panel, but it can support truck traffic and heavy equipment such as fire vehicles or trucks. So we would like to do that in place of putting a driveway, a formal driveway in there. Sounds good. And I could work with engineering and Henry on that to come up with a final design. I'd be happy to do that.  
Speaker 2     01:04:26    Would that be considered pervious then?  
Speaker 14    01:04:30    It would be considered pervious? That's correct. Okay. That's the whole point.  
Speaker 2     01:04:33    So it would help with runoff and  
Speaker 14    01:04:35    Exactly water  
Speaker 2     01:04:36    And so,  
Speaker 14    01:04:37    And just visually it, it just visually looked much better.  
Speaker 2     01:04:41    Okay.  
Speaker 13    01:04:44    So you mentioned the variance for parking, which, you know, as we explained, it was an existing variance and we're making the condition better, but in an abundance of caution, we are requesting the variance. We mentioned the design waiver for the aisle width, also the design waiver for the, the parking within the setback area. I don't know if you mentioned there's a design waiver to permit less than 10% of the total parking area.  
Speaker 14    01:05:13    We, we comply with that. We did an analysis on the, on the landscape on sheet six, if you take a look at that.  
Speaker 13    01:05:26    So we now do comply with the landscaping requirement.  
Speaker 14    01:05:29    Yeah, we, we've, we believe we do. We have some calculations at the bottom of the sheet. You have the front yard parking space area, 20% of that is 1,410 square feet or is 551 square feet? We have 1,410. And and just to be clear, what normally we count is like the corner park areas here would be counted as as landscaping as well as the areas along here. And if you felt that that wasn't appropriate, if you normally what we've done in the past is every five spaces we'd introduce an island, but if I did that, this parking area would shift to the west, which would impact the existing landscaping here only to put new trees in. And along here we felt that the row of trees along the edge of the parking area as well as the preservation of the trees at the corners met that standard.  
Speaker 14    01:06:32    And the intent of the ordinance to be the 10% standard requirement of, or 20% standard for landscaping islands within the front yard. The rest of the site was, there's six trees required. We have six trees proposed, so we're compliant. The val the balance of the parking area, 10% of the 8,586 square feet of parking area would require 859 square feet. We have 1,424 proposed or feel we're compliant. It's one tree for every thousand square feet of parking area. So that's nine trees required. We have nine trees provided. So it's our opinion that we are compliant with those sections of the ordinance.  
Speaker 13    01:07:25    Great. And with regard to the utility easement that prevented us from putting landscaping in that area, is that in a front yard that requires the design waiver for, for screening of the front yard? Or did we address No, we  
Speaker 14    01:07:41    Broke, we provided the screening in the front yard. The design waiver is for the setback distance from Centennial Avenue. 60 feet is proposed, 80 feet is required.  
Speaker 13    01:07:51    Perfect. And just for the record, can you just go through the, the proofs for the, I guess the, the one variance and, and two waivers that were, were left with?  
Speaker 14    01:08:04    Well, I went through the, the proofs. I can do it again for the, the proofs for, with regard to the design waivers, I felt it was appropriate because of the location of the existing parking area that we had to work with and the need to get the 70 additional parking spaces and the desire not to elongate the parking lot extensively, but to project out in the north and south direction that caused us to encroach 20 feet into that required setback. Again, with the landscaping, we're proposing the significant setback of 60 feet. I don't feel that that's a negative and a detriment to the public good or the intent and purpose of Piscataway zone plan. In addition, all of the driveway aisles where vehicles back up will be compliant at 25 feet, we're only asking for 20 feet at the two access points from the existing parking area because of the configuration of the existing parking area and our desire to preserve as many parking spaces along this area as possible.  
Speaker 14    01:09:18    So again, it's a function of a, an existing feature on the site, similar to a C one variance, although it's not a variance, it's a design waiver. This is definitely an improvement over strict compliance with the regulations as they exist. 20 feet is more than adequate for two-way access into and out of these parking areas. These are employees. It's not a, like a customer area, retail area where you're gonna have constant movement. You're gonna have minimal amount of movement at a specific period of time. So I feel that that too could be granted without any detriment. With regard to the parking variance, the, the property owner, the applicant knows, his staff, knows his requirements, knows his needs to simply park the, the property to comply with the ordinance. It would only add additional impervious area, remove existing landscaping and, and existing wooded areas on the site. 15.6 acres is more than adequate to provide the extra 123 cars that we need. So in my mind that's clearly a C two variance, that strict compliance is not a good planning alternative that granting the variance would provide for a better planning alternative. The positive being reduction in impervious area, preservation of wooded areas, less runoff, more green space. And this meets the needs of a neo pharmaceutical.  
Speaker 2     01:11:02    Mr. Lon, just and just to, I guess piggyback on what you said. The, the prior approval, 2006 PB 20 V at that time, the requirement was 292 spaces and a variance was granted by the planning board for 123. So essentially for 169 less than was required the application. Now, some 17 years later, 332 are required and 203 are being proposed. So essentially the applicant is also reducing  
Speaker 14    01:11:41    Exactly the parking,  
Speaker 2     01:11:43    The shortfall.  
Speaker 14    01:11:44    That's correct.  
Speaker 2     01:11:45    Still providing adequate parking. Is that, and just so my numbers are right, 332 is required.  
Speaker 14    01:11:54    I, I have 330 are required where my calculations minus four for the credit for the ev charging stations brought us to 3 26 required. And we would have 203 proposed for a deficit of 1 23.  
Speaker 2     01:12:13    I was just going by Dawn's report, which indicated  
Speaker 14    01:12:15    3 32. Oh, okay. It might, it might've been some minor variation in it could have been in the rounding. Perhaps  
Speaker 8     01:12:23    That's what it was. Mr. Lanza Fama. It's just the rounding. That's why we're off. I think Ron even had 3 31 as 3 32. You were three 30. So,  
Speaker 2     01:12:31    So it, it's your testimony three 30 are required and you're, I always wonder does the credit bring it down or does the credit add to what you're proposing? The  
Speaker 14    01:12:45    Way I, the way I, we should ask Mr. Smith, but  
Speaker 2     01:12:48    6 0 1 half dozen of the other Mr.  
Speaker 14    01:12:52    The way I read Mr. The way I read the ordinance, it's a reduction or,  
Speaker 15    01:12:56    Yeah. I've always taken the approach that I wanna know what physical spaces are there, so if you increase it and, and that parking lot's full. I wanna know where those four spaces are that are mythologically shown on the site plan. So I've always suggested deduct from the requirement,  
Speaker 14    01:13:13    Correct. Gotcha.  
Speaker 2     01:13:14    So 3 26 and 2 0 9.  
Speaker 14    01:13:18    2 0 3.  
Speaker 2     01:13:19    2 0 3. Okay. We still have a lowering of the shortfall?  
Speaker 14    01:13:24    That is correct.  
Speaker 2     01:13:26    Okay, perfect. Thank you for clarifying.  
Speaker 14    01:13:29    No problem. I believe that concludes my testimony. Any other questions? I'll be happy to answer.  
Speaker 1     01:13:42    Could you take your, the exhibit down, sir? Oh, sure.  
Speaker 14    01:13:44    Sorry. There you go.  
Speaker 1     01:13:48    This concludes your testimony at this time, sir?  
Speaker 14    01:13:50    Yes ma'am.  
Speaker 1     01:13:52    Members of the board, do you have any other questions individually of this witness? Hearing none, I'd like to open it to the public, members of the public who have an opportunity to ask questions of this witness on this application. Is there anyone in the public who would like to ask a question at this time?  
Speaker 0     01:14:09    No one. No one. Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     01:14:12    Thank you. Close to the public. Do you have any other witness? No call. That's my only, that is my only witness. Okay. Members of the board, you've heard this application, would you, would someone like to make a motion?  
Speaker 8     01:14:31    Madam chair. Dawn Corcoran. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the application subject to the board professional's reports.  
Speaker 1     01:14:37    Thank you. Is there a second? I second it. Thank you. Roll call.  
Speaker 0     01:14:44    Ms. Corcoran.  
Speaker 1     01:14:46    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:14:46    Ms. Saunders?  
Speaker 1     01:14:51    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:14:52    Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 1     01:14:55    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:14:56    Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 1     01:14:57    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:14:58    Mr. Hammed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     01:15:02    Yes. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Everybody have a good holiday. You too. You too. Gimme one second to clean up my mess here. Okay. Me too. All right, thank you. All right. I believe we're on Applic item number 16. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Item 1523 PB 28. La LaMi LaMi. Yes. Yeah, LaMi. Okay. And I don't, I can't pronounce the rest of the name for a minor subdivision. You may proceed, sir.  
Speaker 16    01:15:53    Madam chair, this is Tim Arch is,  
Speaker 1     01:15:54    Thank you Mr. Arch. Yes. Okay. Tim Arch.  
Speaker 16    01:15:58    I'm doing great tonight. Madam chair Esteem members of the board and board professionals. My name is Tim Arch attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey, and I'm here tonight representing Lakshmi Sujan and Vel Pima. They are the owners of eight and 10 Brotherhood Road. A little bit of background, you may recall that this was a property previously subdivided under a, a previous applicant. It used to be just eight Brotherhood Road. It is now eight and 10 Brotherhood Road. There is a moratorium on road opening for Brotherhood Road and that moratorium is in place until 2029. Currently, the Property eight Brotherhood, because it had a previous house on it, both properties are currently vacant, but because it had a previous home on it, it already has a curb cut for a driveway and it has utilities servicing that lot. Unfortunately, 10 Brotherhood does not have a curb cut and does not have any utilities that service that lot.  
Speaker 16    01:16:59    And because of the, of the road, the moratorium on road opening, we cannot cut into the roadway in order to access both the road and the, and the utilities in order to construct a single family residence on that property. This, this, this was all known. So I'm not saying that this was anything that was a surprise to the owners, but this was, this was all disclosed and this was known. We did go to the administration and we did suggest the possibility of entering into a developer's agreement in order to open the roadway and then repave it and post a maintenance bond. But the administration was not open to that idea of, of doing it by way of a, a developer's agreement. So we're left with a situation where we have a property that can't be developed until 2029 because of the road opening moratorium. Some land use attorneys would make the argument that that's an unconstitutional taking and there's case law that maybe backs that up, but we don't have to even worry about that or discuss that because we actually have an alternative tonight that gets around this whole issue.  
Speaker 16    01:18:03    And it's, and it's only possible because of the unique situation of these properties. Right now, they're actually currently owned by two brothers. And so because of that unique situation that they're owned by two brothers, we, we have a, a unprecedented cooperation between the two of them to, to get, basically get to the finish line on this. So what we are proposing is because there is access to utilities and because there is access to the roadway on the existing eight brotherhood property, is that for a temporary basis, while that moratorium is in effect to share those utility laterals and share that road driveway access between the two properties. I'm gonna bring up, if I can just share the screen for a moment, I'll bring up the, the, the plan that we had submitted, just so that the board has something to look at besides myself. Does everybody see my screen?  
Speaker 2     01:18:55    Yeah. So yourself sort Tim.  
Speaker 16    01:18:58    So just, just as a, as a visual representation, you can see here, here's Brotherhood Street. This is, this would be the proposed driveway utilizing the access that's currently there. And then you would be able to access the other, other lot this way. And then the utilities are, would also, in a similar way, you would be able to connect into the utilities as well. Again, this would only be for a temporary basement, sorry, for a temporary basis to allow development on that property and them to actually build a habitable and livable a livable home so that they can live there. And then when 2029 comes around, the idea would be when we can open the road at that point to provide a curb cut for the 10 Brotherhood property and provide utility access for that 10 brotherhood property. So I do have basically one witness tonight, I have two witnesses here, but one witness tonight and that would be Sackville Che who is the, the homeowner who owns 10 Brotherhood. I also have Mr. Paul Fletcher here, who is the engineer. He's available unless in case there's any direct questions of the board that need to be addressed. But I think if we can call Mr. Ani to, to be sworn in, I think we can address all of the conditions of the, of the reports through his testimony.  
Speaker 17    01:20:22    Okay. Mr. Arch, you may proceed  
Speaker 16    01:20:27    If I can ask for Mr. Pima to be sworn. Yeah.  
Speaker 3     01:20:30    Okay. Thank you. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 17    01:20:37    Yes, I do.  
Speaker 3     01:20:38    Can you please state and spell your name for the record?  
Speaker 17    01:20:42    Tiani, S-A-K-T-H-I-V-E-L, Piani, P-I-C-H-A-I-M-A-N-I.  
Speaker 3     01:20:53    Alright, thank you.  
Speaker 16    01:20:55    Okay, so basically everything that I said in my opening, do you agree, was I accurate or do I get anything wrong? Yeah,  
Speaker 17    01:21:02    It's accurate. Like I testified to confirm that we are in our agreement that the shared driveway and the utilities that that will be subject to, you know, approved by the utility company will also be, you know, temporary until the morum is up. Once the morum is lifted, then we will share, we'll remove that shared and then we can separate the utility and the  
Speaker 16    01:21:27    Driveway. Okay, excellent. And just to, just to focus in on those, I think those were pretty much the conditions of Mr. Hinterstein report, but just for the record, I'd like to indicate we do have a report from Mr. Hinterstein that's dated November 22nd. We also have a CME report that is dated November 20th. So just to, to recap what you just said of the comments on Mr. Hinterstein report, it indicates, number one, that there's gonna have to be an easement provided across both properties in order to, to effectuate this. And we agree that those easements will be provided. Is that correct? Yes.  
Speaker 17    01:22:03    Yeah.  
Speaker 16    01:22:03    Okay. And further, any, anything that's conditioned here, obviously we would need to also have the approval of PSEG, the electrical company of Middlesex water, or sorry, American Water, the water company. And we would have to confirm that the, that the sewer laterals are capable of, of handling any flow that we're putting in there. So you would agree that those would all have to be conditions of this approval as well if you are approved? Yes.  
Speaker 17    01:22:27    Yes. Yeah,  
Speaker 16    01:22:28    I agree. Okay. And then finally, you would also agree that, and this is probably gonna be accomplished by way of entering into a developer's agreement, that these are going to be temporary measures so that you can build your house, get in your house, live in your house, and then once the moratorium is up to separate it so that the two lots can be separately serviced and separately accessed. Correct? Yes,  
Speaker 17    01:22:53    I agree with that.  
Speaker 16    01:22:53    Okay. And I think the only thing that was really mentioned in, in Mr. Ryerson's letter, and, and he'll certainly correct me if I'm wrong, is that there were some questions as to, just to make sure that the designs of the homes and, and when you're building the homes, you understand that when eventually the homes get designed and built, that if there's anything that you would have to abide by the township's code and, and if there's any variances or design waivers from that code, you understand you'd have to go back in front of the board and, and request that. So for example, if you're asking for setback variances or anything along those lines, correct? Yes. Yeah. Okay.  
Speaker 2     01:23:30    Yep, I understood.  
Speaker 15    01:23:32    Excellent. And, and, and Mr. Arch, and, and I'll defer to you and Mr. Barlow on this, there was one of the conditions of approval talked about, you know, it would be within the, the footprint of what was shown. Now this one is not within a footprint, but our, our, our review said everything complies with current zoning. So I'll leave it between you and Mr. Barlow on how, you know, if, if any kind of rewording has to be done, I always look at box approvals as, unless there's some kind of condition that's, that that calls for the exact footprint to be shown. As long as you're complying, that's what you really need to show that you're gonna be complying. And in this particular case, this was one of the, the first applications I had here, one of the reasons for the subdivision was this was an extraordinarily, extraordinarily deep lot that had a lot of size. So, and, and that that's why the, the, the, the variance were granted in the first place. So I don't think the footprint itself was Dr. Driving force with what needed to be a condition of approval. You know, again, I'll defer to you guys how to word it.  
Speaker 2     01:24:36    What, what I would say is that reading the condition, it indicated that if, if it didn't take place within the building footprint and as a result of the review of the township's professional staff, any bulk variances were then triggered, the applicant would've to go back before the board. So as long as the applicant builds and doesn't require any bulk variances, he's fine. I don't think that's an, an issue at all. Perfect. And, and Tim, just from a housekeeping standpoint, since you're agreeing to all the conditions of Mr. ine, essentially you're looking to amend the prior approval subject to basically changing the site plan as has just been discussed with those conditions.  
Speaker 16    01:25:21    Correct? I think from a, I think from a technical standpoint, the previous approval was a subdivision approval. This is an amended subdivision approval. We are not seeking to change any of the subdivision lines. The subdivision's actually already perfected exactly. Not changing anything with the lot. It's really, it's really just a unique situation in that there isn't a specific code or ordinance in town that that prevents or that, that prohibits any of the stuff that we're talking about here. However, no such the unique situation, we, we felt that it was necessary to come back in front of the board and to, and to make a record of all of this.  
Speaker 2     01:25:57    I, I agree with you a hundred percent, but it's so unique. I was trying to figure out what the resolution looks like and I think the cleanest way is to give an amended minor subdivision with both variances. Note, you're subject to all the prior conditions correct. Of the prior resolution with the noted changes that the applicant has just discussed, you've discussed and has agreed to in Mr. Henderson's report.  
Speaker 16    01:26:24    I wholeheartedly agree. I think that's the,  
Speaker 1     01:26:26    Alright.  
Speaker 15    01:26:27    And, and just as a, as a reference, I think that Mr. Arch, correct me if I'm wrong, the, the, the street trees in the, in the sidewalk that was agreed in the previous approvals is already been done. From what I can see, I counted five street trees were, I think was in the original resolution and I counted five if I, I had one hand, so I could do that anyway,  
Speaker 16    01:26:51    So, so I, I believe that's all the testimony that, that we would need to present. As I said, Mr. Paul Fletcher is here. If there's any, if we have any questions as to engineering or as to planning justifications, he's certainly here. But since really nothing is changing from a, from a technical or engineering standpoint, I, I don't know if there are any specific questions to him, but short of that, that would essentially be our ask of the board.  
Speaker 1     01:27:19    Yeah, I don't think you're required. Mr. Board, do you have any questions? No. Ms. Cochran, do you, has everything spoken?  
Speaker 8     01:27:28    They've addressed everything  
Speaker 1     01:27:29    We approved. Okay. Okay. Okay. Then I'd like to open it to the me the public, any members in the public would like to have, have questions as to this application. You may do so now.  
Speaker 0     01:27:44    Noah Madam chair,  
Speaker 1     01:27:46    Close to the public. All right. Members of the board, does anyone wanna make a motion or have any other questions?  
Speaker 8     01:28:03    Madam chair. Dawn Corcoran. I'll make the motion to approve the application subject to the board professional's reports furthermore that the applicant agrees to enter into a developer, excuse me, developer's agreement with regard to comment number six of the staff report.  
Speaker 1     01:28:21    Carol Saunders second roll call please.  
Speaker 0     01:28:26    Ms. Corcoran?  
Speaker 1     01:28:28    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:28:28    Ms. Saunders?  
Speaker 1     01:28:29    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:28:31    Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 1     01:28:34    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:28:34    Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 1     01:28:36    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:28:37    Mr. Hammed?  
Speaker 16    01:28:38    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:28:39    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     01:28:41    Yes.  
Speaker 16    01:28:44    Thank you so much everybody have a wonderful night.  
Speaker 1     01:28:47    You too. You too. Thank you.  
Speaker 2     01:28:49    Just stick around for one sec. Tim. Oh  
Speaker 16    01:28:51    No, I see that there's a discussion item. Did see that  
Speaker 1     01:28:56    We have a resolution. Okay.  
Speaker 2     01:29:00    No, no. Number 17 is an number 17. Number extension of time. We're going back to the beginning.  
Speaker 1     01:29:05    Okay. Back to the future. Okay, go ahead Mr. Barlow.  
Speaker 2     01:29:11    I believe this is Mr. Arch's request for an extension of time to perfect the subdivision on application 22 PB 23 and 20, I'm sorry, 22 and 23 V that this board had approved on February 7th, 2023. Is  
Speaker 1     01:29:30    That correct?  
Speaker 16    01:29:31    That is correct. Mr. Barlow, this is for, let me just get the number. 1 49 Stratton Street Grand Home investments. We had, we, I believe the Township is in possession of the deeded. I believe it's probab. It's probably already signed at this point. I know my client has signed it. There was some delay in getting a an LOI from N-J-D-E-P and that was what caused the, that was one of the, the outlying conditions that, that caused us not to be able to perfect. In time. And so we are just asking for an extension of time. I'm asking for 190 days, which is, which is allowable. I don't think it's gonna take that long, but I always like to air on the side of caution 'cause I'd hate to have to come back and ask for another one. As much as I love seeing you guys, I'd hate to have to come back on the same thing again.  
Speaker 2     01:30:23    Yeah, well I think the 190 days takes you till February 23rd. 2024. So  
Speaker 16    01:30:30    Yes,  
Speaker 1     01:30:31    2025 wouldn't,  
Speaker 2     01:30:32    No, no, no. You're allowed to grant the extension after the time technically runs. So the, okay. Original resolution was back in, I think January of 23. So the extension is for 190 days, which takes this applicant till February 23rd, 2024. Which should give Mr. Arch more than enough time to perfect it since we have the deeds.  
Speaker 1     01:30:57    All right. That members of the board would, somebody might like to make a motion to grant this request for extension of time.  
Speaker 4     01:31:09    Reverend Kinneally. I'll make the motion for the extension of time for this applicant for the amount of 190 days. Yes.  
Speaker 2     01:31:19    Yes, sir.  
Speaker 1     01:31:20    Harold Saunders, second roll call please.  
Speaker 0     01:31:24    Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders?  
Speaker 1     01:31:27    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:31:28    Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 4     01:31:29    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:31:30    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 2     01:31:31    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:31:32    Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yes. Ed here?  
Speaker 1     01:31:38    Yes. Item number 18.  
Speaker 2     01:31:42    Discussion.  
Speaker 16    01:31:43    See you guys. I'll see something tomorrow.  
Speaker 1     01:31:45    Okay?  
Speaker 0     01:31:46    Yes. Bye. Tim. Well,  
Speaker 1     01:31:51    Mr. Barlow,  
Speaker 2     01:31:53    Number eight 18 is a referral from the Township Council on Ordinance to amend some of the zoning ordinances. And as the board is aware, you have the opportunity to review and comment as to their consistency with the master plan. And as to the first one, kind of supplementing a bunch of different chapters and I think Dawn can address the ones that would specifically be of interest to the land use board.  
Speaker 8     01:32:26    Sure. So this is, we're actually amending the land subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review ordinance to require the installation of fiber optic conduits. It's going to be very specific in terms of, you know, how many the size it's gonna defer to the engineer for the placement of those lines. But that is what pertains to this board. It's strictly the fiber optic conduits  
Speaker 1     01:32:59    Members of the board, do you have any questions? Hearing no questions. Would someone like to make a motion to approve the amendment of these  
Speaker 4     01:33:12    Mayor? Reverend Kinneally Mad Madam chair, I make a motion that be approved that for the fiber optic for the cities to change the, the ordinance.  
Speaker 3     01:33:24    Carol Saunders second  
Speaker 1     01:33:26    Roll call.  
Speaker 0     01:33:28    Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders?  
Speaker 3     01:33:31    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:33:32    Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 4     01:33:33    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:33:34    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 2     01:33:35    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:33:36    Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     01:33:42    Yes. And Ms. Cochran, did you have any other comments to that?  
Speaker 8     01:33:48    So the second one is just to amend the zoning ordinance to include a definition for make writing parking spaces.  
Speaker 1     01:34:01    Would someone like to make a motion? Chairman  
Speaker 3     01:34:04    Is Carol Saunders. I make a motion that we approve.  
Speaker 1     01:34:07    Will I have a second? I second. Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 0     01:34:14    Ms. Corcoran?  
Speaker 8     01:34:15    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:34:16    Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 4     01:34:19    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:34:20    Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 2     01:34:23    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:34:24    Mr. Hammed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     01:34:29    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:34:35    Mr. Marlow, do we have resolutions for those two?  
Speaker 2     01:34:38    We, I, I, I should have said that For both of the, both of the ordinances Madam chair, I, I prepared resolutions because we're up with some timeframes before the end of the year. So if you want to do the fiber optic resolution first and then the ready, make ready parking resolution second. Ms.  
Speaker 1     01:34:59    Saunders, do you have that resolution? The fiber optics?  
Speaker 3     01:35:02    Yes, I do. You may  
Speaker 1     01:35:04    Proceed.  
Speaker 3     01:35:05    Okay. Madam Chairman. I'd like to memorialize the ordinance to em. Admit the supplement chapter XX for the fiber optic conduits.  
Speaker 1     01:35:15    Left a second.  
Speaker 0     01:35:18    Reverend Kinneally. I'll second it.  
Speaker 1     01:35:19    Roll call please.  
Speaker 0     01:35:22    Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Hammed? Yes. Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     01:35:34    Yes.  
Speaker 3     01:35:37    Madam chair. I'd like to memorialize the ordinance supplementing chapter XXI for make ready parking spaces.  
Speaker 1     01:35:46    Do I have a second? Second. Roll call.  
Speaker 0     01:35:52    Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders?  
Speaker 3     01:35:55    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:35:56    Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 1     01:35:59    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:36:00    Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yes. Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     01:36:07    Yes. We don't have another re resolution?  
Speaker 2     01:36:13    No, no. We made it to the end. That's number 20.  
Speaker 1     01:36:16    Okay. Then do I have a motion for an adjournment  
Speaker 3     01:36:22    Chair? Motion for adjourn.  
Speaker 1     01:36:24    Okay. If I don't see you guys next week at the other meeting, have a happy holiday. Happy holiday.  
Speaker 2     01:36:33    You look good.