Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on April 25 2024
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 00:00:43 Adjustment meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. One notice published in the Curry News two notice posted in the bulletin on the bulletin board of the municipal building. Three. Notice made available to the township clerk or notice sent to the Curry News and the star ledger. Will the clerk please call the roll? Speaker 1 00:01:05 Mr. Weisman? Here. Mr. Patel? Here. Mr. Regio. Mr. Blo? Here. Mr. Mitterando? Here. Mr. Ellie Speaker 2 00:01:16 Here. Speaker 0 00:01:18 Thank you. We have a quorum. We do. We Speaker 1 00:01:22 Have five. Thank you Speaker 0 00:01:23 Sir. Will everyone please stand for the salute to the flag? I pledge Allegiance Speaker 2 00:01:30 PGI to the flag to flag of the United States Speaker 0 00:01:35 And to the Republic for which Speaker 2 00:01:36 It stands. One Nation Individual. Speaker 0 00:01:44 Thank you Mr. Kinneally. Are there any changes to tonight's agenda? Speaker 3 00:01:48 Yes, there are. The application NBAD one LLC 4 31 Park Avenue is being carried to May 9th, 2024 with no further notice. Next, the appeal on Sparks car Wash Stelton Road has been withdrawn. Finally, LNR properties, that application on 60 Normandy Drive has been moved to the planning board. Those are all the changes I have this evening. Speaker 0 00:02:16 Thank you Mr. Kinneally. Okay, moving. Moving right along. Speaker 1 00:02:20 Mr. Weisman, I would like to note Mr. Reggio was on the meeting. Speaker 0 00:02:24 Thank you. Thank you. Good evening Mr. Reggio. The application. Oh, come on. Item number 6 23 ZB 1 0 4 slash 1 0 5 B. Transcontinental Steel Inc. Speaker 4 00:02:43 Alright, thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members of the board all present. My name is Kevin Morris, attorney Woodbridge, New Jersey. I am appearing on behalf of the applicant Transcontinental Steel Incorporated. Subject properties block 8 0 5 lot 31, commonly known as 2 0 1 11th Street in Piscataway Township. We are before you this evening for preliminary and final site plan use and bulk variance approval requests for the subject property. To set the table, give you a little background. Former applicant, former, the former occupant of the property was the company everybody knows Pinsky and Snyder. They've been in business there for about 25 years. A business fixture in the community. They conducted a custom pipe fabrication business with outdoor storage, which is a permitted use of course in the Alli zone where most of this property is located. Speaker 4 00:03:35 They were there without a formal site plan approval. That company really recently ceased operations. The applicant, transcontinental Steel, some of you may recall actually be appeared before this board on June 22nd, 2023 where we sought a temporary use permit so that Transcontinental Steel could move in and conduct business operations. That temporary use permit was granted. It was memorialized by resolution dated July 13th, 2023 and one of the provisos in that resolution was that we submit a request for formal site plan approval to the board, which of course we have done and we're before you this evening seeking that. I can tell you since the permit was issued, the applicant's principal, Joel Rosenthal, acquired the property, owned it, owns it now with his real estate holding company and trans continental steel has moved in and commenced its business operations. Mr. Kinneally, before we proceed, I just want to confirm I previously submitted our affidavits of publication and mailing. I wanted to make sure that they were received, that they're in order so that the board has jurisdiction to proceed this evening. Speaker 3 00:04:49 They were received, they are in order and the board has jurisdiction to proceed. Speaker 4 00:04:54 All right, so folks, I have two witnesses this evening. Joel Rosenthal who's the principal of the applicant who's testified before you before. And Angelo Tuto who hasn't testified on this application yet, but I know you know his credentials as well. So I would first call Mr. Rosenthal if he could be sworn please. Speaker 3 00:05:11 Mr. Rosenthal, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? I do. Your name and address please? Joel Rosenthal. Home address 29 Summit Court, Westfield, New Jersey. Thank you. Speaker 4 00:05:25 Alright, Mr. Rosenthal, you are the owner of Transcontinental Steel Incorporated, is that correct? Correct. And it is a steel fabrication business, which I understand has been conducting operations since 1999, is that correct? Speaker 3 00:05:40 96 but Speaker 4 00:05:41 Yes, 96. So I was close right now. Previously you were conducting business operations at a site in Newark, New Jersey and as you've heard me describe to the board and the history of the property, you've acquired the subject property and moved your business and joined the Piscataway business community. And I understand you commenced operations in the fall of last year, is that accurate? Correct. Alright. So I'm gonna ask you to confirm testimony that you had previously placed before this board back in June when we were appeared and you testified regarding our application for the temporary use permit. Again, just describe for the board what the steel fabrication business produces, what you do. Speaker 5 00:06:25 We, we fabricate building parts for mostly jobs around New York City. Speaker 4 00:06:31 Okay. And the steel fabrication has commenced and continue to be conducted indoors at the existing building at the property that you moved into, is that correct? Correct. And there is an outdoor storage component for either material or finished fabricated product which you're commencing and doing right now, is that correct? Yes. Now that outdoor storage has and will continue to be located at the property in the area that's depicted on the site plan, basically where it was before when you moved in, we're now formally showing it on the site plan. We will let Mr. Tuto give some details on that, correct? Yes. Right now this outdoor storage again is predominantly on racks with some on wood blocking on the ground and the height of the racking will not exceed 12 feet, is that correct? Correct. Right. Now to confirm again your hours of operation, your business hours are Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM and Saturday 7:00 AM to 7:00 AM to 1:00 PM is that correct? Speaker 4 00:07:35 Correct. Alright. And again, as you previously testified, your staff is 40 employees on site during business operations about 25 in the shop area inside the building and maybe 15 in an office area in the building. And that varies a little bit from day to day, is that accurate? Correct. Right Now, based upon your business only transcontinental, you testified there's sufficient parking on the property to accommodate the vehicles of your employees. Yes. And I understand those vehicles are either personal employee vehicles or some of them are work pickup trucks for your business that they utilize. Is that correct? Correct. And I do also understand that you mentioned to me that a number of your workers, is it typical in these type of work environments, actually carpool work, so they, a few guys come in with a car, is that correct? Yes. Right now, again to confirm your deliveries, average delivery is one steel trailer incoming per day for material and two steel trailers outgoing per week with product. Is that still accurate? Yes. Right now you Mr. Morris, Speaker 3 00:08:39 Can I interrupt you for a minute? Speaker 4 00:08:40 Yes. Speaker 3 00:08:41 I just want the record to reflect that Mr. Haa has joined the meeting and since testimony has just commenced, I believe he would be eligible to vote on the application if we get to a vote tonight and we now have seven members. Speaker 4 00:08:53 Right. Thank you very much Mr. Kinneally. All right. So now Mr. Rosenthal, you've been, you've been in operation at the site since the fall number of months now and I understand your business operations have not created any type of issues for the surrounding neighborhood. Is that accurate? No, none I'm aware of, no. Okay. But you've made a big investment into the Piscataway business community. I just asked are you happy with the relocation of your business from Newark to Piscataway? Yes. Yes. All right. Now one thing we are additionally requesting besides the approvals for your business, the formal approvals is you have a portion of the existing building that space you don't need to utilize and you have a proposed tenant lined up to occupy that space, is that correct? Yes. Now I understand that proposed tenant is a business known as like new products. Is that accurate? Speaker 4 00:09:46 Yes. Right now from what I understand the like new products business is a, is a business that does or conducts small electronic repairs and refurbishments. Is that correct? Correct. Now I also understand that these repairs and refurbishments basically done for the Amazon company and it has to do with fixing up small electronic items like cell phones or iPads, things of that style and nature. Is that accurate? Yes. Now this particular tenant I understand would get one delivery a day to the site and either an Amazon or UPS box truck. Is that accurate? Yes. And on that one day delivery boxes are offloaded for with with items that need to be worked on and BO and boxes are also unloaded with repaired and refurbished items ready to go back out. Is that accurate? Correct. Now, importantly here, all work of this proposed tenant within the existing building that's gonna be conducted inside the building only. Speaker 4 00:10:45 Is that accurate? Yes. And there's absolutely no outdoor storage component proposed or required for this proposed tenant. Is that accurate? Yes. Alright. Now with regard to your tenant's operations, I understand they're a little little less than yours, their operations would be Monday through Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Correct. And they don't have any weekend hours, is that accurate? Correct. I understand there'll be approximately 10 tenant employees at their, their tenant space, is that correct? Yes. And in the nature of this business, it's a little, a little bit hybrid, I understand some of those employees will actually drive to work, correct? Yes. But I also understand that this particular business has a number of other locations and that they often will drop employees off in a van because they'll put certain employees in different areas depending on the, the workload of the different sites. Is that accurate? Correct. So some of the employees I understand typically will actually not be driving or parking on the property anyway, although there's sufficient parking to accommodate all 10 if they did park at the property, is that correct? Speaker 5 00:11:54 Correct. Speaker 4 00:11:54 Alright. So based upon your business now, you've settled in for a couple of months, excuse me, the proposed tenant. Is it your opinion as an experienced businessman that the site will cont has and will continue to operate adequately egress and ingress also your parking that will accommodate both your business and not of your proposed tenant Speaker 5 00:12:19 Based on the the proposed side plan? Yes. Speaker 4 00:12:22 Alright. All right. So look, I have no further questions but Mr. Rosenthal, at this point Mr. Tuto is going to give you some more details. Mr. Rosenthal will be here for the entire hearing if questions come up unless there are questions now I'll move on to my next witness. Speaker 6 00:12:40 Mr. Chair, Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions and I think it's probably more appropriate to ask Mr. Rosenthal than to Mr. Tito. Speaker 4 00:12:50 Okay, Speaker 6 00:12:52 Go ahead. There are two reports on this application. One is staff report and it's dated, revised April 17th and a second report, a revised report of myself dated April 22nd, both referring to the latest revised site plan submission. My report and the staff report I think can be considered collectively because we get to the same items, but the items I think need to address was Mr. Rosenthal is the outside storing as a proposal of racks 12 feet high? Is that correct? Speaker 5 00:13:45 Yes. That currently they're already there. And when I met, I don't want to elaborate. When I met with, before I brought the property, that's, that's what they asked for and they asked us to put him on that, we'll call it the side lot closer to 11th Street and that's where we put him. Speaker 6 00:14:03 The fence you proposed is six feet high, correct? Speaker 5 00:14:08 I don't recall proposing a fence. Speaker 6 00:14:10 There's a, there's an existing is an fencing, we're on lots of the property. Correct. In some cases it's excellent condition and in some cases it's in terrible condition. Speaker 5 00:14:22 A agreed. So the the fe the fe the area where the racks are right now are all bush covered? We'll, we'll, we'll we'll fix the fence there but it's all, you can't see it from the street as, as it is now. Speaker 6 00:14:35 Well I haven't been able to get to that site since the revised playing game and I didn't know what you were going to do. So I'll take you at your word that it's, Speaker 5 00:14:46 Thank you. Speaker 6 00:14:46 It was the strawberry was there then and it's still there. Speaker 4 00:14:52 I'm Speaker 5 00:14:52 Sorry, Speaker 6 00:14:52 Repeat that. The shrubbery was there and it's still there. Yeah, Speaker 5 00:14:55 The shrubbery hass been there since way before. I mean it's tall way before we moved and honestly way taller than 12 feet Speaker 6 00:15:01 Probably. Have you probably, have you reviewed the staff report? Speaker 5 00:15:07 I went through it briefly with Mr. Morris. This, I got it around four 30 today. Speaker 4 00:15:11 Okay. I can tell you Mr. Mr. Chadwick, just so you know and, and Mr. Rosenthal will confirm, Mr. Valentino and I are prepared to go through these item by item most of it pretty quickly because there's really not, not a lot. And I will have Mr. Rosenthal confirm on the record 'cause I think we'll get through it quicker and we'll cover everything and he will confirm what we already discussed with him earlier today if, if that's okay with you. If not, we can do it Speaker 6 00:15:36 The other way. The the one item is the, one of the variance is the outside storage. Speaker 4 00:15:42 Correct. Speaker 6 00:15:42 And you're proposing to be 12 feet in the air and both reports from myself and the staff suggest lowering that. And I think you could probably have a compromise. If in fact the landscaping that exists covers up this new storage area, then I think the height is at 12 feet is acceptable. If it's looming over the top of the fence, then I think you would need to return and either demonstrate to the board new landscaping to be installed or lowering, lowering the racks are a combination. Speaker 5 00:16:31 I I I could comfortably say the fence is a lot lower than the, than the landscaping. And the landscaping more than covers the racks that are already there. And honestly, I don't believe they're more than 10 feet tall. But I'll, I'll double check that to be particular Speaker 6 00:16:44 All. So you are comfortable with that as a compromise? I, Speaker 5 00:16:47 I'm comfortable that if the landscaping doesn't cover the racks that that Speaker 6 00:16:50 We, let's go back to Mr. Moss. Do you have a better way of moving this along, be my guess? No. No Speaker 4 00:16:56 It's not. I'm not suggesting a No, Speaker 6 00:16:58 I agree. Speaker 4 00:16:58 Please don't, don't misunderstand me. I just, we had taken the time and I want to make sure we hit everything and address every item for you. So go Speaker 6 00:17:07 Right in. Speaker 4 00:17:08 Alright so look, I'll, I'll call Angelo Tuto. I don't want to change your procedure in any way, shape or form, but if Angelo can testify and then we'll wrap it up with whatever else the questions are. If he could be sworn please. Do Speaker 3 00:17:22 You swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth? Speaker 7 00:17:24 Yes sir, I do. Angelo j Tuto, V-A-L-E-T-U-T-T-O 4 24 Amboy Avenue, Woodbridge licensed professional engineer, licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. Both licenses are in good stead and I've had Mr, Speaker 3 00:17:41 I believe that Mr. Tuto has been accepted as an expert engineer before. Speaker 4 00:17:49 All right, so if you're accepting in both disciplines, I would first call him in his capacity as an engineer. Mr. Tuto, you prepared the plans that are before the board this evening, is that correct? Speaker 7 00:18:00 We have. And the revisions are, as you had stated earlier, in response to the original staff memorandum and we believe has resulted in an improvement to the plan and hopefully something that everybody will be happy with. Speaker 4 00:18:22 Yeah and and just so the board's aware, we filed a site plan, we got a staff report and we took the time to go through the first staff report and address almost all of the items on that report to refine the plan. So I'm happy to report when we go through that in a minute. All that stuff has been covered. We took that opportunity so that you could see that we could comply with the items and otherwise follow your suggestion. So that being said, just briefly describe the site as it exists today. Speaker 7 00:18:52 Well the site I like to refer to as a peninsula in that it has three frontages which makes it difficult from the standpoint of the setbacks and that's part of the bulks that are existing that we are asking to continue. In addition, the vacation of the street that ran through the property in parallel to 11th is really what the split zoning was. Everything to the 11th Street Streetside is in the LI Light industrial and everything beyond it is in the R 10 which lends itself to the number of variances that were identified in Ms Corcoran's report. Speaker 4 00:19:37 Alright, so just describe the, generally the improvements to the site. Speaker 7 00:19:43 Well a major improvement to the site is with regard to a parking lot that we are proposing coming in off of Mansfield Road. We have it set back 23 feet to allow for that heavy growth that has, Mr. Rosenthal had indicated that exists pretty much along the corner of the intersection of Mansfield and 11th and would help buffer the parking lot. We're showing a a number of spaces of 32 parking spaces on that pocket lot with regard to the additional parking spaces that exists on the main property. Now we come up with a total of 50 spaces that are striped in including 10 that we are proposing for EV spaces. And with regard to the EV spaces, it is our proposal to put four of 'em into ready use as an EV parking and the balance the remaining sits in accordance to what the law is and I believe it's over six years to accommodate that. And even without seeking any credit for the EV spaces, we have more than enough that's required for not only for the main purpose Mr. Rosenthal's use but also for the tenant's use. Speaker 4 00:21:19 All right. And the building itself is already constructed. There is three existing outdoor storage trailers, they're located behind the building. Is that accurate? Speaker 7 00:21:29 Yeah, in the back corner essentially these were containers that were up against the building by the prior tenant and Mr. Rosenthal have them moved into what I call a horseshoe shape and then he put a canopy over the top to allow his men to be able to do some ready repairs without getting into disrupting and doing it outside. Speaker 4 00:21:57 Alright, thank you. And then we have the outdoor storage racking, is that correct? Speaker 7 00:22:02 That is correct. And the racking and I can support what Mr. Rosenthal had indicated, if you are a pedestrian walking along Mansfield or the frontage of 11th, we are it, it's covered by the growth. I wouldn't call it shrubs, just the overgrowth of it so that you don't see it. And the wraps which we have a detail on the plan are really wraps that have three different levels and the top level keeps it under the 12 mark at little over 11 and a half. But certainly it would be my suggestion or recommendation to Mr. Rosenthal that something he's already agreed to. So I'll just say we'll so obviously include that into any hopeful condition of approval we are fortunate to receive. Alright. Speaker 4 00:22:58 From a drainage perspective, does the proposed improvements that we have, I know they're limited, is that gonna create any negative impact with regard to drainage on adjacent or ne neighboring properties? Speaker 7 00:23:08 No sir. None whatsoever. Whatever. And again, the grading and the stormwater management, which is in the staff memorandum is to be reviewed by the township engineer and we accept that as a condition which is right, is not an issue. Speaker 4 00:23:22 Alright, so let's go through then since you've brought it up first let's look at the staff memorandum dated April 17th, 2024. I just wanna make sure we go through the items so we have accuracy items one and two are acceptable, correct? Speaker 7 00:23:37 They are, and I believe there's notes on both of them and if there isn't on the second we can add it but I believe we have a note there. Speaker 4 00:23:44 Item three, you'll provide planning testimony mo momentarily, correct. Item four is accurate, no signage is proposed. The applicant does understand if we need to put signage that doesn't conform a result in us coming back here for relief, correct? Speaker 7 00:23:57 That is correct Speaker 4 00:23:57 Right now. Item five, there was initially a re a request for a traffic impact statement, however we believe that had to do and the original application had parking proposed along the side of 11th Street that backed out onto the street that was disfavored by staff, which is one of the reasons why we revised the plan, which I believe eliminated the circulation report with regard to the driveways or the swing gates. I understand. And the turning templates requested as well as item six, the parking spaces, you'll confirm those items to the satisfaction of the township engineering department. But you believe those all work appropriately? Speaker 7 00:24:40 We will. And if any event the swing gates do not work, we always have an option of using a sliding gate but we believe we can make it work with the existing gates. And again, one of the items that was touched upon by Mr. Chadwick, we do indicate that the entire perimeter or property that has the fencing will be repaired, removed, replaced as necessary to meet the township standards. And one of the major conditions that we have on the plan is that the, all of the barbed wires is gonna be removed. Speaker 4 00:25:18 Right item seven through 14, we've reviewed those, those are all acceptable, correct? Speaker 7 00:25:24 That is correct. Speaker 4 00:25:26 And and particularly with item eight, the corner rounding easements I, so I sent those over to the township attorney today. They were in place already. They were offered or and they're recorded produced for the in favor of the municipality by the prior owner. So that's already done and I sent those to the township attorney. 15 shipping containers. You talked about that there are three we do agree with the Speaker 7 00:25:49 Well did you indicate that nine through 14 we're gonna comply with? Yes. Okay. Yeah, Speaker 4 00:25:53 15 shipping containers. You testified there are three requests here that they shall not be stacked on top of each other. We are prepared to accept that condition. There's no intention to stack them and then there's the limitation of they're not higher than 12 feet either, correct? That Speaker 7 00:26:11 Is correct. And there's no intention the, the layout as we've described them and is out there now and it has been out there every time I visited the site is what the proposal is. There's no intention for stacking or anything else. It was just as I indicated to use the three that were already on the site so as to prevent a somewhat covered area for repair work to be done without having going into the building. Speaker 4 00:26:40 Alright. Now item 16, we already talked about the storage rack height item 17, the lighting, I understand that Mr. Rosenthal, Mr. Boss? Yes. Why Speaker 6 00:26:49 Don't we put a note on that? There's probably some minor revision. Put a note in of no stacking or inventory higher than 12 feet so it's right on the Speaker 4 00:27:01 Plan. That would be fine. Item 17, the lighting plan board should be aware of that when Mr. Rosenthal acquired the site little green initiative but he took all the bulbs out and replaced them with LED lighting, which of course is efficient and much more, much more energy efficient. I think he only added two fixtures, Mr. Rosenthal, is that correct? And they shine towards the building itself, is that right? All the Speaker 5 00:27:28 Ones on the building are the same. Fixtures are replaced. We added two in the parking lot that face back towards the building. Speaker 4 00:27:35 All right, so the only item, and I'll cross over to Mr. Chadwick's report that I believe we Speaker 7 00:27:40 Number Speaker 4 00:27:41 Five would need to comment on your report Mr. Jack. This is number five. Talking about like a light out provision. Speaker 6 00:27:50 Yeah, any problem with that? Speaker 4 00:27:53 I think we could work that out with staff. Obviously we need security lighting as you've denoted, you know, at some point we're prepared to work with staff to an acceptable resolution of that fine. All right. 1818 we've is acceptable. Speaker 6 00:28:08 You've agreed to that, right? Speaker 4 00:28:10 Right. 19 note on the plan already that's acceptable. Number 20 EV spaces, we did have discussions today earlier with staff the, you know, there's a sliding scale, you start with two co-ops that it goes up to nine. In the spirit of cooperation we would agree to initially have four spaces made ready and then follow the status of the law when they have further spaces have to be implemented. So a little more than we initially would need to start with, but that's a bit in the spirit of cooperation as we, you know, improve the site's overall for operations items 21, 22, 23, those are acceptable? Yeah, Speaker 7 00:28:53 In fact we believe that they are on the current revised plans. I had the benefit from Peter Checo who provided me with all the current details for the township. However, we obviously will agree that we will comply to meet the township standards for all improvements on this site. Speaker 4 00:29:15 Alright then with regard to items 24 25, there's a request for some plantings along 11th Street and some shade trees. I can tell you because my client had a thought, it's something I think we can resolve subject to the satisfaction of all parties is a long building facade and I did speak to the township attorney today 'cause it would require some, some input from the township, but we may be in a position if, if detachment agrees to offer that as a some type of municipal mural to be painted along the whole side of the building and there was some interest in receptivity to that suggestion. Again, subject to a mutual agreement that might be a student initiative, it's right across from the park might be a beautification thing. So with regard to 24 and 25, we request that we have the ability to work that out to the satisfaction of the landscape architect and also possibly with a, as an alternative part of that might be a mural, some offset, but leave that subject to working out with staff if that's acceptable. Speaker 7 00:30:26 With regard to number 26, we will agree because the existing vegetative wooded buffer to the back, which is in the residential zone and buffers are used from all the residential properties, we'll be happy to meet onsite and go through the entire area to ensure that we meet what they're looking for. Not only in terms of trees to be replaced but also in terms of the type of trees and the heights which are already identified in staff memo. Speaker 4 00:31:01 Right. So that being said, and and then moving over to Mr. Chadwick's memo. I think at this point Mr. Chadwick, I think he's been covered with the other comments. Okay, just wanted to make sure. So that would be our, and I just want to confirm Mr. Rosenthal, we did have the opportunity, you've heard the representations Mr. Tuto and discussions, you're in agreement with the, the itemization and responses to the two memos that we discussed. Is that correct? Yes. Okay, so we've got that. So unless there are any technical or engineering questions at this point for Mr. Tuto, I'm prepared to have him switch over, put his planning hat on and have him testify with regard to his planning analysis. Speaker 7 00:31:45 There's no, go ahead. Speaker 4 00:31:47 All right, so Mr. Tuto, I'm gonna ask you to switch gears now. You had the opportunity to review the application from the standpoint of professional planning, is that correct? Speaker 7 00:31:56 Yes sir. That is correct. Speaker 4 00:31:57 Right. I would ask you to detail your analysis for the board, any conclusions or opinions that you have reached in the basis for them? Speaker 7 00:32:05 Definitely and and as part of it I visited sites, the surrounding neighborhood drove around, walked around and I think I did it inconspicuous enough because nobody called the police to say I was a stalker. Speaker 4 00:32:19 And in fact you've been over to that site on a number of occasions working with Mr. Al. It wasn't just a one time for this hearing, but you've been there on multiple occasions, Speaker 7 00:32:27 Correct? Yes sir, that is correct. Speaker 4 00:32:28 All right, so Speaker 7 00:32:29 We reviewed the zoning ordinance, master plan, New Jersey municipal land use law. The surrounding neighborhood is pretty much we're at the center point, meaning everything across the street is that beautiful park field. There's also a park across from Mansfield, some indu light industrial uses as you go on the other side of Pelham. And then once you go into the R 10 zone it's all a nice, well-developed single family residential units. As far as the use of the property, the was already stated Transcontinental Steel has been in possession and currently in use of the property pursuant to the temporary youth permit that was approved by the zoning board of adjustment by resolution dated July 13th, 2023. The majority of property is located in the I one zone, the industrial with the, the balance of the property, which is pretty much the northerly. I would say 25% is in the R 10 residential zone, which lends itself into a majority of the variances because the use which has existed as has been already testified and confirmed with Mr. Chadwick report for over 25 years. Speaker 7 00:34:03 The applicant uses the property for, as was already testified as steel fabrication business with outdoor storage and anyone who's visited site knows this is not where people can go in and just pick up some copper iron just to try to get out. These pieces are substantial and, and would not be easy for anyone to try to attempt to remove them. The applicant doesn't Provo propose any changes to the footprint of the existing building at the property and all the fabrication will incur will occur indoors. The outdoor storage is conducted for business operations of this Transcontinental Steel only. The applicant utilizes nearly all of the same equipment operations, outdoor storage and the processes that were previously used by the prior owner operator of the property, Minsky and Snyder, which occupied the property for approximately 25 years. The applicant also proposes as was introduced by both Mr. Morris and Mr. Speaker 7 00:35:16 Rosenthal to use a portion of the existing building of the property for electronics refurbishing business, which the business will not conduct any outdoor storage on the property. Thus, from a planning use perspective, based on the consistency between the prior use of the property and the applicant's current and proposed use of the property, property will continue to be used as the same light industrial purpose that it has been for over 25 years. Use variance approval is requested in as much as while the proposed use of the property is permitted within thei zone, it's not permitted in the rear 25 30% of the property, which is the R 10 residential zone as the proposed outdoor storage and long-term use of shipping containers is not a permitted use in either of those zones. The bulk variance approval is also requested as noted in the site plan note number three, zoning requirements and specifically identified in Ms. Speaker 7 00:36:24 Corcoran's report. In terms of the positive criteria or the special reasons looking at the municipal land use law 40 55 D dash two, I offer the four for consideration letter A to encourage the municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in this state in a manner which will promote the public health safely, morals and general welfare letter C to provide adequate light air and open space, both of which are really not changing with regard to the main development. The only change as we spoke is with regard to the outside storage with regard to racks and on the pallets letter G, to provide sufficient space in appropriate location for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial uses and open space both public and private according to their respective environmental requirements. In order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens and as always my favorite letter M, to encourage coordination of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping land development with a view of lessening the cost of such development and to a more efficient use of the land and we're gonna achieve that all of the utilities that service the property are in place. Speaker 7 00:37:54 We did agree with regard to staff's comments to put in some conduits for the future expansion of underground utilities and that the fact that we are as part of the request by the by staff putting in curbing and sidewalk around the entire perimeter, which will also assist in these goals by providing for a safe pedestrian travel. With regard to the particular suitability of the site, the longstanding prior and continued use as been permitted in the LI one zone for over 25 years really confirms that the property is particularly suited for the continued use and that the appli that the applicant is seeking. For the reasons I've testified, it is something that has been pretty much consistent with regard to its location as it relates to the adjoining residential use. Site improvements requested do not change the particular suitability of the site, but rather are nice improvements that simply enhance the continued use of the property as we propose the property has existed with its light industrial use for these many years as part of the fabric, as I indicated of the surrounding area in terms of the enhanced quality of proof. Speaker 7 00:39:34 As such, this application is not, in my opinion, inconsistent with the master plan and zoning ordinance. As far as negative criteria, the request for relief in my opinion can be granted without substantial detriment to the public. Good for the reasons IFO testified to and which was already discussed with regard to the racks, the outside storage and to have it buffered pretty much from the adjoining properties, the residential, and also the traveling public on the streets that we front on, I see no detriment to the public good and no negative impact on any adjacent properties. Number two without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance as the application is not inconsistent with the master plan and zoning ordinance. Again, for the reason that I so stated, it is also my opinion that the bulk variance requests are equally subsumed by the use requests which carry a higher standard of proofs, which I believe the applicant has satisfied based on our presentation and my testimony. Speaker 7 00:40:51 Nevertheless, the bulk variance requested by the applicant are cogni cognizable under the C one or hardship analysis duty, exceptional odd shape and as I indicated, calling in a penins Bullard peninsula with three front yards, which requires setbacks with regard to all three of our frontages that a new hardship would replace upon giving. The majority of the property is located in the LI one zone, also known as the industrial zone with the remaining 25 30% in the R 10 zone, which is, as we've discussed, the residential zone. The bulk variances requested by the applicant, in my opinion, are cognizant also under the C two or flexible C analysis as the application meets the criteria as well. Number one relates to a specific piece of property. It's a unique piece of property given its location surrounding uses and the two zones it's located in and the requirements there under. Speaker 7 00:42:02 And also the fact that it has been utilized for similar uses for well over 25 years. Number two, that the purposes of the municipal land use law would be advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements. Again, for the same reasons that I've already testified to under the applicant's use variance application under either bulk variance relief analysis. Again, the negative criteria in my opinion, are satisfied the fact that the variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. I see no detriment only ultimately will be of positive benefits from everything with the improvements along the public right of way to the enhancements with the mural or landscaping that will ultimately be proposed along the building frontage on the 11th Street, that the debt benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriments. Again, I see no detriments. And finally, that the requested variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the city's zone plan and zoning ordinance as I've testified throughout my discussion. Speaker 4 00:43:20 Alright, that concludes your planning testimony, Mr. Tuto. Speaker 7 00:43:24 It does subject to any questions by the board or when they open to the public. Speaker 4 00:43:29 Right, so that would conclude our presentation. Mr. Chairman. Speaker 0 00:43:32 Thank you Mr. Morris. John, do you have any questions or concerns at this point? Speaker 6 00:43:38 I think the, going through the staff report at length satisfy satisfies the use variance criteria, but it also, it set up all the conditions, which I'm sure Mr. Kinneally took down that they've agreed to. Yes, I did. I think is the complete case and it's, I think, more important it's a building old tired building that they're going to fix up, dress up, fix up the outside the bureau part of the application is very interesting concept. I think it could add from the park to look at this wall would be a vastly different perspective. I think it would be something that would be somewhat unique Speaker 4 00:44:30 And that was Mr. Rosenthal's suggestion and you know, sort of embrace the community a little bit. Give it a, a canvas to perhaps work on. So well hopefully we can work that out. Speaker 6 00:44:42 I think it, I think it would be, it's a unique setting and it's across from the park and it's probably something that could be done over and over. Speaker 4 00:44:54 Yep. That may be true. Speaker 0 00:44:56 Thank you, John. Speaker 6 00:44:57 You're welcome. Speaker 0 00:44:59 Anyone on the board have any questions, comments, or concerns at this time? Hearing none, I'd like to open up to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, comments, or concerns at this time? Speaker 1 00:45:13 No. One. Chairman. Speaker 0 00:45:15 Thank you. I'd like to close the public portion of this meeting and I would like to make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? Speaker 4 00:45:23 I? A second. Speaker 0 00:45:24 Thank you. Can you call the roll please? Speaker 1 00:45:27 Mr. Patel? Speaker 4 00:45:28 Yes. Speaker 1 00:45:29 Mr. Regio, we lost him. Mr. Glam? Speaker 4 00:45:38 Yes. Speaker 1 00:45:39 Mr. Haka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Speaker 3 00:45:43 Yes. Speaker 1 00:45:43 Mr. Ellie? Speaker 3 00:45:44 Yes. Speaker 1 00:45:45 And Chairman Weissman? Yes. Speaker 3 00:45:48 Mr. Morse, we will memorialize this at our next meeting and send a copy to you. Speaker 4 00:45:52 Alright, thank you. I would ask, could you please send me a draft, Mr. Kinneally? I just wanna make sure that we cover everything we talked about. Speaker 3 00:46:01 Yes. There will be a lot of conditions, so we will review those together before we vote on it. Speaker 4 00:46:06 I appreciate that. Thank you. Alright, ladies and gentlemen, we thank you for your time. Have a pleasant evening. You too. Speaker 0 00:46:13 You too. Thank you. Speaker 3 00:46:14 Goodnight. Thank you. Speaker 0 00:46:16 Moving on to item number 10 on the agenda, adoption of resolution from the regular meeting of April 11th. Speaker 3 00:46:25 The first resolution is Manish Patel, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Haa? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Second is Haile Soriano, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery. Mr. Patel? Speaker 4 00:46:48 Yes. Speaker 3 00:46:49 Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Duka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Those are all the resolutions for this evening. Speaker 0 00:47:01 Thank you. Item number 11, adoption of the minutes from the regular meeting of April 11th, 2024. All those in favor? Aye. Speaker 4 00:47:09 Aye. Speaker 0 00:47:10 Opposed? It carries. Finally, item number 12, adjournment. Make a motion to adjourn it. Do I get a second? Yes. All those in favor? Aye. Have a good night. Speaker 6 00:47:23 Good Speaker 1 00:47:24 Everyone.