Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on September 26 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     00:00:19    Taylor will be chairing this evening. Chairman, you may start the meeting.  
Speaker 1     00:00:25    Hey, good evening Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News notice published on the bulletin board in the municipal building notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the carrier News and the star ledger. Will the clerk please call the role  
Speaker 0     00:00:50    Mr. Patel?  
Speaker 1     00:00:52    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:00:52    Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blo?  
Speaker 1     00:00:56    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:00:57    Mr. AKA Here. Mr. Mitterando? Here. Mr. Ellie Here. And Mr. Chairman Tillery  
Speaker 1     00:01:05    Here. Okay. Will everyone please stand for the salute to the flag please. Flag of United States of America one Nation, indivisible.  
Speaker 2     00:01:26    Justice. Justice. Justice.  
Speaker 1     00:01:31    Okay, Mr. Kinneally, are there any changes on tonight's agenda?  
Speaker 2     00:01:37    The end new application on PO Lane is adjourned until October 24th with no further notice. The on switch application in New England Avenue is adjourned until October 24th. With no further notice. The face field application on seventh Avenue is adjourned until October 24th with no further notice. Finally, the Wellspring adult daycare on whose lane is adjourned until November 14th with no further notice. Those are all the changes that I have.  
Speaker 0     00:02:07    Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:02:09    Okay, we're gonna go to item number 5 2 4 ZB dash 19 V Sushma Sharma.  
Speaker 2     00:02:20    Is it Sushma Sharma present?  
Speaker 3     00:02:23    Yes. I'm  
Speaker 2     00:02:25    Okay. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?  
Speaker 3     00:02:34    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:02:35    Okay. Put your hand down. Give us your name and address and explain to the board why you're here.  
Speaker 3     00:02:42    My name is Oshima Sharma. The address is one Bru Hollow Road, Piscataway, New Jersey 0 8 8 5 4. And I'm here to, for the variance, which I've applied for a shed.  
Speaker 2     00:03:00    Do you also want to keep an existing fence and accessory structures?  
Speaker 3     00:03:04    That's right. Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:03:06    Okay. Mr. Chairman, you may wanna talk to Mr. Miss Rocky about this report.  
Speaker 4     00:03:13    Yes. Good evening everybody. So essentially there are three accessory structures constituting about 240 square feet of area. I had someone representing the applicant stop by our office. They indicated a willingness to remove accessory structures as the board saw fit to reduce the overage on lot coverage. There's a few items in the staff report, including a condition that the fence may remain until it is ever replaced, repaired, or removed, that the fence must be installed in a conforming location and all remaining accessory structures shall receive applicable permits and approvals from the building department. So if the applicant is agreeable to the terms laid out in the staff memo, I believe we can determine which accessory structures we'd like to have remain.  
Speaker 2     00:04:12    Ms. Sharma, are you agreeable with what Mr. Goomer wrote this report?  
Speaker 3     00:04:17    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:04:21    Okay. Mr. Rahi, do you have a recommendation with regard to  
Speaker 3     00:04:27    Kim? You're breaking up again.  
Speaker 2     00:04:30    Mr. Rahi, do you have any advice on the accessory structures?  
Speaker 4     00:04:35    Yes. According to my notes, should B was supposed to be removed on the 31st of August. Did that happen?  
Speaker 3     00:04:41    Yes, it is. It has.  
Speaker 4     00:04:43    Okay. So that reduces, that reduces the building coverage by 85 square feet. And there was also a freestanding covered roof attached to that shed. Was that also removed?  
Speaker 3     00:05:01    Is it, is it the gazebo you're talking about? There is the one gazebo tie,  
Speaker 4     00:05:04    The gazebo that's attached to the shed?  
Speaker 3     00:05:07    No, the gazebo has not been removed. It's there. The shed behind the gazebo has been removed.  
Speaker 4     00:05:15    Okay. So that means there's two remaining nonconforming accessory structures with approximate square footage. So if the board would like to see one removed, that would greatly reduce the amount of overage on the building coverage for the lot. So that, that would be my my recommendation.  
Speaker 2     00:05:35    So you're recommending that one additional be removed?  
Speaker 4     00:05:39    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:05:42    Ms. Sharma, are you agreeable to removing another shed?  
Speaker 3     00:05:46    The shed? There are two. As per Jonathan, what he explained, there are two modes, two more structures, right? Yes. One has been removed. One has been removed. Out of the three. So there are only two more. One is the gazebo and one is the shed shed where when we put in our, what do you say, all the tools and everything, we have kept the tools and everything. So there are only two structures now.  
Speaker 4     00:06:11    So would you be agreeable to removing the gazebo?  
Speaker 3     00:06:17    Okay. If you, I'm not sure on that because that's the place where we sit. But anyways, yes. If you say so that it has to be removed. So we are, we can remove the shed where we have kept our tools. I don't know. Any one of them has to be removed  
Speaker 4     00:06:34    Only, only one would have to be removed. I, I think if you have tools, it's okay to keep the, the shed. It's in a non-conforming location. So you'd have to agree that if the shed needs to be replaced, that you would locate it in a conforming location? Yes. But the gazebo would, would reduce the amount of building coverage that you have. So I would recommend that that be removed.  
Speaker 3     00:06:57    Okay.  
Speaker 2     00:06:58    Okay. If they removed the gazebo and they've already removed, should be, can you tell us what the lot coverage would be?  
Speaker 4     00:07:09    I could calculate that again, but it would take me a moment.  
Speaker 2     00:07:15    If the board is agreeable, we can get that finger tomorrow.  
Speaker 3     00:07:22    I would really appreciate if I'm allowed to keep both of them so that, but whatever the board says, I'll agree to that.  
Speaker 2     00:07:31    Okay. Mr. Chairman, you may wanna open it to the public to see if any members of the speak.  
Speaker 1     00:07:37    Okay. I was gonna open up to the board. Any board members have any questions or comments? Anyone from the public have any questions or comments?  
Speaker 0     00:07:50    No. One chairman.  
Speaker 1     00:07:52    Okay. Public portion is closed. I make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second about a second  
Speaker 0     00:08:05    Roll call? Mr. Tillery?  
Speaker 1     00:08:07    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:08:08    Mr. Patel?  
Speaker 1     00:08:09    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:08:10    Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blo?  
Speaker 1     00:08:13    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:08:13    Mr. Hika? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Mr. Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:08:19    Ms. Charman, your application's been approved and as long as you removed the placebo and you already removed the we'll memorialize in a written document in our next meeting and send that to you.  
Speaker 3     00:08:30    Okay,  
Speaker 0     00:08:32    Great. Thank you. Have a good night.  
Speaker 3     00:08:33    Good morning. Okay, thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:08:36    Okay, moving on to item six.  
Speaker 3     00:08:39    I can leave the meeting doc? Yes,  
Speaker 2     00:08:41    Ma'am.  
Speaker 3     00:08:41    Okay, thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:08:44    Okay, moving on to item number 6 2 4 ZB 44 V. William Bender.  
Speaker 2     00:08:54    Is Mr. Bender present  
Speaker 5     00:08:56    Right here?  
Speaker 2     00:08:57    Mr. Bender, I need to swear you in while you're raising her id. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?  
Speaker 5     00:09:03    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:09:04    Thank you. Your name and address, please?  
Speaker 5     00:09:06    William Bender. Nine Harmony Street, Piscataway, New Jersey oh 8 8 5 4. I'm requesting the granting of a bulk variance for my  
Speaker 2     00:09:19    Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mr has recorded this matter.  
Speaker 4     00:09:25    Yeah. Thank you. I want to clarify one or two points, Mr. Bender. This is an existing fence that you're trying to retain. Fantastic. Have you spoken with your neighbor at 14 Linden Street?  
Speaker 5     00:09:39    I sent them a letter out, but I'm in Florida, so I'm not there.  
Speaker 4     00:09:43    Okay, I understand.  
Speaker 5     00:09:44    I'm in Florida right now, so  
Speaker 4     00:09:46    I understand. Yeah. My concern with this application was the visibility of the neighbor coming out of the driveway creating a safety concern. My recommendation or my, my thought was if the fence was brought in to be in line with the side of your dwelling, that would provide a safer site triangle for, for the neighborhood.  
Speaker 5     00:10:12    No one's ever said anything to me, so no. Been there for 36 years.  
Speaker 4     00:10:18    Okay.  
Speaker 5     00:10:18    So I mean, again, yeah, that's not seeking relief though. If I pull it all the up to the line of my house, then I gotta move the whole fence, which is what I'm trying to seek relief from tonight. Can  
Speaker 4     00:10:31    It still be in a non-conforming location?  
Speaker 5     00:10:36    I, I'm not sure what you're saying.  
Speaker 4     00:10:39    By moving the fence to be in line with the house, we're still, it would still be relief from the total distance. It would need to be, so it's, it we're meaning in the middle.  
Speaker 5     00:10:54    Well  
Speaker 0     00:10:54    Then you're required to have 35 feet and they're proposing 19 feet. That's what he means by relief.  
Speaker 5     00:11:00    Okay. I don't know how many feet it is right now to the street. Again, I'm not there. So that fence has been there since I bought the house in 88. So I just replaced it with a different fence. So I, I don't know what the regulations were originally. Okay. But again, my whole purpose was to try to not move the fence. That's why I'm trying to go through the variance here with you folks. So I, I don't know what else to say.  
Speaker 4     00:11:32    Okay. I don't, I don't order  
Speaker 2     00:11:34    To prove your case. You need to provide certain proofs by board should do this. So far you haven't provided those proofs. And if the board wanted to, they could deny the application because you hadn't provided any evidence.  
Speaker 5     00:11:50    Evidence of what in particular, what are you speaking of?  
Speaker 2     00:11:55    You need to justify the variance that you were seeking. And to do that, you have to provide the order with evidence, not just that you want it  
Speaker 5     00:12:03    Evidence. Okay. I don't know. I tried to follow all the steps that were laid out. I'm not sure exactly when you say evidence, what, what else I was missing here.  
Speaker 2     00:12:17    You have to provide certain justifications under the land use law to justify granting a variance.  
Speaker 5     00:12:25    Again, I I, I notified everybody. I, I don't know what else I'm, you know, defense was there, I just replaced it. I notified all the neighbors. Nobody has any problems with it there. It's not a, it's not a line of sight issue on the corner, as I've been told from the, the memorandum from the zoning board. So I don't know what else, what else I was, should, should have done or what I could have done or what I can do. I'm at a loss to understand that, I guess.  
Speaker 6     00:12:56    Did, did you get a fence permit to replace the old fence?  
Speaker 5     00:13:03    No, I did not. So again, that's why this whole thing ensued.  
Speaker 6     00:13:08    Okay. The contract, did the contracted say  
Speaker 5     00:13:11    It? It was a contractor. It was a contractor, but I didn't know I needed another permit when the fence was already there and I just replaced it. So that's why that was the disconnect I had. I did not realize that it had to be re permitted  
Speaker 6     00:13:26    Under, under zoning. If you have something that's nonconforming and you remove it, then you lose that grandfathering. If you had rep repaired it, then it was preexisting. That isn't what you did. You took the old one down and put in the oil  
Speaker 5     00:13:42    Different fence chain link.  
Speaker 6     00:13:43    Yeah. I'm surprised the contractor didn't say something to you. Okay.  
Speaker 5     00:13:50    Again,  
Speaker 0     00:13:50    A chain, a chain link would be allowed though. Forfeit chain link, your corner is allowed to the property line. You put a solid fence up. That's where the issue was.  
Speaker 5     00:13:58    Okay. Okay. Well that's part of the relief on here that I'm looking at. The notice form proposed six foot vinyl fence located along the front yard property line and within the front yard setback proposed. That's what's on here. 21 dash 6 1 19 that do three.one. So I'm guess I'm just a little confused as to what you're saying and what I'm, what I was supposed to do. I thought I followed,  
Speaker 6     00:14:41    Lemme, lemme try to help you out. You had a chain link fence you just heard from Laura that was conforming to the ordinance. Right? It was four feet high and it was open. Now you've got a six foot high fence solid  
Speaker 5     00:14:55    Right  
Speaker 6     00:14:56    In the same location. The problem is that one does not on the audit, you wanna think about what was offered to move the fence, what was it to 19 feet from the right away? Yeah. And as opposed to 35 feet, which is what the ordinance requires, it's like a half a loaf here and you might want to consider it. I don't think it's a big project to move that fence.  
Speaker 5     00:15:22    Well, if it's 35,  
Speaker 6     00:15:24    No, not what we're asking for, but 19 feet  
Speaker 5     00:15:28    Okay. 19 feet would take it to the line of the house. Is that what you stated prior?  
Speaker 1     00:15:33    Yes.  
Speaker 6     00:15:34    Yes.  
Speaker 5     00:15:35    Okay. So I'm still moving the fence. Alright. So that's pretty much where I started here, that I had to move the fence and try to go get a variance. I didn't have to move the fence. But what  
Speaker 6     00:15:46    You don't understand is what the board attorney said to you as if it's rejected. You have to eliminate it all together.  
Speaker 5     00:15:53    Right. I understand that. I, that I understand. Now if it's 35 feet, there is no fence. It's gotta all come down because  
Speaker 6     00:15:59    No, it's, forget the 35, we're talking about 19 feet.  
Speaker 5     00:16:02    Right. But that's why I'm here to move it from you're saying from the 35 to the 19 proposed instead of 35. So which is the zone the  
Speaker 6     00:16:11    Board has, has offered you a compromise.  
Speaker 5     00:16:13    Okay. 19. Okay. Right. Okay. If that's all that can be offered to me, I, I don't know what else to say then I guess that's what you guys are, you folks are saying, so, okay. I guess I, I have to settle for that then. That's fine.  
Speaker 1     00:16:38    Okay. Okay. Okay. Does any board members have any questions or comments? Okay. Anyone from the public have any questions or comments?  
Speaker 0     00:16:56    No. One chairman.  
Speaker 1     00:16:59    Okay. I make a motion to approve this application. I need a second. I'll second.  
Speaker 0     00:17:07    Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blo?  
Speaker 1     00:17:12    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:17:13    Jca? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Elli? Yes. And Chairman Tillery?  
Speaker 1     00:17:19    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:17:20    Your application has been approved ass amended. We'll prepare a written document and submit document to you. Good luck.  
Speaker 5     00:17:27    Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:17:32    Okay, we're gonna move on to item number 9 24 dash CB dash 41 V Venture net properties LLC.  
Speaker 7     00:17:44    Good evening, members of the board, board professionals. My name is Tim Arch. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey. I'm here representing Venture net. This is for a, a property located at 4 25 hose lane. You may recall approximately five months ago we were in front of you and you were gracious enough to grant us a temporary zoning permit to utilize one of the two existing buildings that are on the site to store materials. Just to to remind you, my client is a home furnishing company. They want to use this property at 4 25 hose lane as their North American headquarters. They, you know, they, they sell home furnishing furniture, things of that nature. We want to ultimately turn that property into not only their headquarters, but also a showroom and whole bunch of different site improvements. Sort of similar to the FW web building, if you're familiar with that in Piscataway, we are diligently working on that site plan.  
Speaker 7     00:18:49    We, our engineers are Menlo engineers. They hope to be done the, the actual full site plan drawings within about a month's time. So we're confident that we're gonna be able to submit our full site plan application before the end of the year. But the delay was because of the new 2023 flood hazard rules. We had to do all new surveying of the site flood hazard surveying, and that that just took longer than what was expected. So we're asking tonight, essentially for two things. Number one is we're asking for an extension of that six month temporary use. That way it'll allow us to have that additional time to get our full site plan in. Again, we feel that we're gonna be, we're confident we're gonna get it in before the end of the year, but that six months gives us a bit of a buffer for the staff to then review it and for us to actually have a hearing within that time period.  
Speaker 7     00:19:40    So that's a, that's ask number one. The other ask is, you had allowed us to, there's two existing buildings, building one and building two. You had allowed us at the, with the original temporary use permit to do internal fit outs of building number two and use that to store product. We're not moving anything back and forth on the site. We're just storing our product there and doing an internal fit out of the building. And we've done that to building number two and we we're storing our product there. Now the reasoning for that was the sa was what it was back five months ago, which is obviously we're, we're trying to make the most efficient use of time and, and do things on the site that we can hopefully do at our own risk obviously before, before we get in front of you for site, for full site plan approval.  
Speaker 7     00:20:30    So that's all been done. So we're asking you if you would consider extending that temporary use to building number one and allow us to do a fit out, an internal fit out of building number one and to be able to statically store materials there as well. During this time period while we're getting our site plan in front of the board, we recognize, my client recognizes that if you were to grant that it would be entirely at our own risk, such that if you denied our site plan or if you, if the board required or the board professionals required amendments to our site that affects something that we've already installed or put in or built, it would be our, you know, we would be on the dime to, to change that and to, and to amend it. And that might just be potentially money wasted and my client is aware of that. So we have two staff reports and I think we can address all the questions in the staff reports. And I do have only one witness and that is Mr. James Chen who is here. He is our architect and he's also here as a representative of Venture Net. And so I would ask if we can have him sworn in. I think we can go through the reports fairly quickly. And that's all I got.  
Speaker 2     00:21:47    Mr. Chen, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're allowed to give should be the truth?  
Speaker 8     00:21:53    Yes, I do.  
Speaker 2     00:21:55    Okay, thank you. Your name and address please?  
Speaker 8     00:21:58    My name is James Chen, 29 El Park Road. Princeton, New Jersey. New Jersey 0 8 5 4 0.  
Speaker 7     00:22:12    Okay. Thank,  
Speaker 8     00:22:13    I'm a principal of JWC architect Engineer.  
Speaker 7     00:22:20    Thank you. I would ask that Mr. Chen be accepted as a, an expert in, in architecture. He was previously, I believe at the last hearing we had on this,  
Speaker 2     00:22:30    Has he, I don't recall him testifying before the court of the search.  
Speaker 7     00:22:35    I, I believe he did at the, at the original temporary use. But in any event, I would ask him to be recognized as a, as a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. And  
Speaker 2     00:22:45    You're a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey?  
Speaker 8     00:22:47    Yes, I do.  
Speaker 2     00:22:49    Thank you Mr. Chairman, I think you can accept him as an expert  
Speaker 7     00:22:54    Architect? Yes. Yes,  
Speaker 2     00:22:55    He's fine. Yes.  
Speaker 7     00:22:56    Okay. Okay, so first question James, is you heard my introduction is everything that I said in my introduction accurate as you are as you are aware of the site?  
Speaker 8     00:23:08    Yes sir.  
Speaker 7     00:23:09    Okay. We do have two reports and so we'll go over those two quick very quickly. One of which is a, I'm calling it the tri-party report, the one that's signed by by Dawn Corcoran, Joe Herrera and John Rahi. That was dated August 21st, 2024. I wanna just go through that with you very briefly. So the first question was testimony should provide as to why we are seeking extension. I think I covered that in my introduction, but we need that additional time to get the site plan together and we feel that we should be able to do that by the end of the year. Is that correct, James?  
Speaker 8     00:23:43    That is correct, yes, sir.  
Speaker 7     00:23:45    Okay. Number two says the previous approval indicated that there would be no storage of any hazardous materials within the building. We would agree, number one, there is no hazardous materials and we would agree to continue not storing any hazardous materials and if they granted us the ability to utilize the other building in, in a similar matter, we would do the same and and agree as a condition that there would be no hazardous materials. Is that correct?  
Speaker 8     00:24:10    That is correct, yes sir.  
Speaker 7     00:24:12    Excellent. Number three is indicating that the application has to be approved by the Township Fire Commissioner, same as we did with the first building. You agree that we will have to work with the township's fire commissioner to make sure that every, all the, you know, it's up to fire code and that it is up to his satisfaction in terms of safety. Is that correct?  
Speaker 8     00:24:30    That is correct.  
Speaker 7     00:24:31    Okay. And one of the comments here is it, it indicates from the demolition plans that the fire suppression systems are proposed to be removed. It's not the entirety of the fire suppression systems. If you can just very briefly explain what we are proposing in that other building to do as part of the demolition.  
Speaker 8     00:24:50    I'm happy to The building number one had a two story currently is a two story structure and each story had about 13 feet ceiling high from the floor to the structure deck. And given the mechanical space and the, the re drop, the ceiling and the clearance of the structure is not enough for the client to store the material, what they're seeking for. So we are proposing to remove part of the second floor structure entire, a portion of the structure enabled to us to provide a higher ceiling. And in fact, we'll be losing about 20,000 square foot of the area by doing so. That's the reason the second floor, the, the first floor portion of the sprinkler system, it will be removed in conjunction with the structural removal.  
Speaker 7     00:25:52    Okay.  
Speaker 8     00:25:53    But, but, but the second floor sprinkler system will remain and it will be modified to provide adequate fire protection for the entire facility.  
Speaker 7     00:26:05    Okay. So we're not removing the entire fire suppression system and we are going to make sure that it is modified and working properly for the interior fit out that we're proposing, correct?  
Speaker 8     00:26:17    That is correct, yes sir.  
Speaker 7     00:26:18    Okay. And I believe the last question was just a timing schedule so that to ensure that no further extensions are necessary, what I said was correct that we anticipate that we will absolutely be putting in a full site plan application by the end of the year and given that we won't need to request any additional extensions, is that correct?  
Speaker 8     00:26:37    That is correct, yes sir.  
Speaker 7     00:26:38    Okay. I wanna jump over to Mr. Chadwick's report dated September 5th. There were three comments. I think we've pretty much hit upon all of them, but I just wanna double  
Speaker 6     00:26:48    We do have do.  
Speaker 7     00:26:50    Excellent, thank you Mr. Chadwick. I have no further questions at this time of, of Mr. Chen.  
Speaker 1     00:27:00    Okay. Does any board members have any questions or comments? Hearing  
Speaker 2     00:27:06    None,  
Speaker 9     00:27:07    I got, I got one. You mentioned the fire commissioners, I believe it's the fire marshal who has to approve everything just to make sure, is that what we're, we're talking about?  
Speaker 7     00:27:22    We will, we will certainly work with any fire official that has jurisdiction. I believe it was the, I believe it's the marshal, it's Piscataway fire marshal that I, I believe has the, the side on. Right. So I apologize, I I was just reading all, there's,  
Speaker 6     00:27:35    There's two jurisdictions, the fire sub code official and the fire marshal.  
Speaker 9     00:27:40    Correct. Okay.  
Speaker 7     00:27:42    And we, we agree to satisfy obviously any, any official that has any jurisdiction over those safety concerns.  
Speaker 9     00:27:47    That's all I have. I'm sorry.  
Speaker 2     00:27:52    Okay. Mr. Distillery, I on behalf of the, a concern has been raised about the amount of truck traffic that would be involved if they end up sorting things in both building two and building one without a safety. I'm not sure that we've heard any evidence from the applicant that justifies extending the storage to building one because that would vastly increase the amount of storage space and truck traffic. We don't have a site plan here. Perhaps the applicant can address that concern.  
Speaker 7     00:28:36    Certainly James, in, in terms of what we're asking to do to fit out the building. One is basically what we, is the same thing that we did to building two originally, which is modify it to just store items there not to  
Speaker 2     00:28:52    Your total is 48 70  
Speaker 7     00:28:55    Not to utilize it as a distribution center where items are gonna be going in and then going out and going in. And this is purely, this is purely going to be a static storage usage until and at full site plan approval to allow any other uses on that site. Is that correct?  
Speaker 8     00:29:20    That is correct. The, the main distribution, the receiving and the assemble and the shipping, it will be on the building number three, which is we are waiting for the finalized site plan and which we just got a clear completed the new flood study. So we have a clear finished elevation to complete the building design.  
Speaker 7     00:29:47    Correct. So no, no type of there, there's not gonna be any sort of distribution or any sort of truck traffic coming in and outta the site until or when and until we would get any sort of site plan approval, this would merely be to fit out that building one during that, during the time period of, of site plan approval and just use it to store materials because if we weren't storing them there, they would have to be s stored someplace offsite, which would be an additional cost, an additional burden, and would ultimately have to come onto the site anyway at some point in the future. So doing it now versus doing it then doesn't actually generate any additional truck traffic, then what would be, we would essentially just be postponing that down the road.  
Speaker 8     00:30:39    Yeah, your statement is absolutely correct.  
Speaker 2     00:30:43    One of the elements of a temporary use permit is that the applicant can show that there be a effect upon uses. I don't think that the applicant has demonstrated satisfaction of that aspect in order to use the second building for storage clearly to store things there, there have to be deliveries that will vastly increase the number of deliveries to the site and without site plan approval. And deliberately that, that aspect of the temporary use ordinance that I have no objection to the board granting extension of the temporary use for single building.  
Speaker 7     00:31:29    I, I think I got what you said, Mr. Kael, you were cutting in and out there a little bit, but I think I understood what you said, James, if I could, I, if I could, and I don't know if my is is the client on the call as well, I just wanna confirm if they're on as well, just so that they can hear.  
Speaker 8     00:31:45    Hey Debbie and Thomas, are you both there?  
Speaker 2     00:31:48    Yes, I'm here.  
Speaker 7     00:31:49    Okay. Thomas  
Speaker 2     00:31:50    Not here.  
Speaker 7     00:31:51    Okay. I just wanted to make sure that you were on, so just so that you understand, I believe what Mr. Kinneally is indicating is that the township is not necessarily comfortable at this point under a temporary use permit to extend the amount of storage and the amount of work being done on the site from one building to two buildings without a full site plan coming in. And so what I think what the suggestion is, is that they will grant the extension of the existing temporary use permit so that we can still utilize the building, building number two that was already fit out and is already storing materials, but they wanna wait until we get a full site plan in so that they can fully assess the site before they're allowing any additional construction and storage on the site. I believe that's what Mr. Kinneally was indicating. I apologize if I if I've misinterpreted that at any point.  
Speaker 2     00:32:45    No, you were correct. I'm sorry I was breaking.  
Speaker 7     00:32:48    That's that's alright.  
Speaker 1     00:32:50    Yes.  
Speaker 7     00:32:53    Would you be, would you be okay with that considering that we're, that we're very close to being able to put that site plan application in? I think it makes essentially is the difference between maybe a couple months at most, is that, is that something that's maybe acceptable?  
Speaker 1     00:33:09    Yes, that's, that's okay.  
Speaker 7     00:33:11    Okay. So Mr. Kinneally, I believe that if the board were, were able to grant the extension of the existing zoning permit, we would be agreeable to to that and not extending it to the other building and we'll, and that'll be more motivation to get the site plan in even quicker  
Speaker 2     00:33:30    And, and that addresses all Mike legal concern about this application.  
Speaker 7     00:33:43    I don't know if there's any other board members that have anything or if  
Speaker 1     00:33:46    Okay. Any members? Does anyone from the public have any questions or comments?  
Speaker 0     00:33:56    Attorney? No. One chairman.  
Speaker 1     00:33:58    Okay. I make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? Second. Second.  
Speaker 0     00:34:08    Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Bla?  
Speaker 1     00:34:14    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:34:14    Mr. Heka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando?  
Speaker 10    00:34:19    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:34:20    Mr. All? Yes. And Chairman Tillery?  
Speaker 1     00:34:23    Yes. Mr.  
Speaker 2     00:34:25    Goomer Memorializes in our next meeting and send a copy to you.  
Speaker 7     00:34:29    Thank you.  
Speaker 0     00:34:31    Have a good night.  
Speaker 1     00:34:34    Okay, moving on to item number 10 24 dash ZB zero five slash oh six V. So America Limited Liability Company.  
Speaker 10    00:34:49    Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Peter Chicanas. I am an attorney at the law firm of Highland Levin Shapiro. My office represents the applicant of Solar America, LLC. This is for the property located at 5 55 New Durham Road, also known as block 8 5 0 1 Lot 45.02. There's currently a Wawa on this site, the convenience store and the, the gas canopies obviously. And the application that is before the board tonight is very, very simple. We're simply looking to install solar panels on the gas canopy of that Wawa technically, because the Wawa itself is not a permitted use within the the R 10 zone, which is where this property is located, we will need a use variance in, in the sense that we're expanding an existing nonconform use and we need a variance from section 21 dash 5 0 1. In addition, solar panels according to the township's code are conditionally permitted as on any, on all principal structures within the township I believe, or in certain in this particular zone.  
Speaker 10    00:35:56    However, this is being installed, installed on a, an accessory structure. So we need a variance from Section 21 14 3 A. I would note again that this is a really, a very simple application. Again, we're simply installing sonar panels on top of that gas canopy. I would note that per Mr. Chadwick's review letter dated August 23rd of this year, it notes that the solar is an inherently beneficial use, which typically takes care of the positive criteria relative to a, a variance of any kind. And it says in his letter quote, only negative impacts are to be addressed and there are no negative impacts, which we would agree with 100%. I would also note that in the letter from the division of Engineering and Planning and Development dated August 22nd of this year, it says, quote, the proposed solar installation is an inherently beneficial use. So it also acknowledges that the positive criteria is essentially met here and then it says quote, we'll have a minimal visual impact on the site. With that said, I do have one witness with me here today. That is Mr. John Scone who is the principal over at so Air America. John, can you hear me?  
Speaker 11    00:37:10    Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me?  
Speaker 10    00:37:11    Yes. Yeah, I can  
Speaker 2     00:37:13    Swear you. Could you raise your right hand?  
Speaker 11    00:37:15    Yes. Aware this  
Speaker 2     00:37:16    Testimony you're about to give should be the truth.  
Speaker 11    00:37:20    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:37:21    Thank you. Your name and address please?  
Speaker 11    00:37:23    My name is John Scone, president of Solar America. My address is 2 0 7 South State Road, upward Arby, Pennsylvania 1 9 0 8 2.  
Speaker 2     00:37:32    Thank you.  
Speaker 10    00:37:34    Okay, John, we've done this a few times in a couple different townships, so you know the drill. Please introduce yourself. Yes. Describe your role at Solar America and let the board know what we're looking to do here.  
Speaker 11    00:37:44    Good evening. My name is John Squon. I am president of Solar America. We are partnered with Wawa to install solar on all gas canopies in New Jersey. We currently have developed over 135 already in the state. And as Peter alluded to, we've done quite a few of these meetings in the last few years and what we're looking to do per our contract with Wawa and our partnership is to install, utilize the gas canopies to produce renewable energy for the stores and exclusively the stores. Our canopies usually are solar canopy project, pretty much on average uses about, provides about 20% of the Wawa power.  
Speaker 10    00:38:36    Okay. And describe a bit how the, you know, how the process works, how the, the canopies are installed and you know, I think they're, they're gonna be located about, what was it, I think six inches technically above the, or what is the measurement there?  
Speaker 11    00:38:49    That's, that's exactly right. So they are attached directly to the existing roof, which is a, a a metal roof, a standing seam roof. So our racking is attached to the metal, to the metal roof and the panels are attached to the racking approximately it follows the exact angle of the roof. It does not protrude over it or in any on the sides. The top to the bottom, it stays within the footprint of the roof approximately about six inches off the existing roof between the, the roof and the, and the panel.  
Speaker 10    00:39:24    Okay. And there's, there's no danger of any kind of glare or anything like that with the panels?  
Speaker 11    00:39:29    No. So it's a misnomer at, we get a lot in these meetings. Solar panels actually absorb light. They do not reflect light. So yes, there is no reflection whatsoever. It's actually the exact opposite. And also we use all existing infrastructure so there's no new infrastructure going in. So all current conduit that's required for the project, it's already installed per the, the construction of the, of the building pre-installed. So we're not adding anything except for the panels  
Speaker 10    00:40:01    And all wiring and things like that that's located underground, correct?  
Speaker 11    00:40:05    That's correct.  
Speaker 10    00:40:08    Okay. I think that concludes my direct testimony. We would invite questions from the board of the board professionals  
Speaker 2     00:40:13    Judge you someone address the rest of the comments in dated August 22nd, 2024. You address number one. But no one's  
Speaker 10    00:40:24    Mr. Mr. Kinneally, if I'm pronouncing not same, correct. I I'm having trouble hearing you. You're kind of breaking up.  
Speaker 11    00:40:29    Yeah, it broke up on me too. I, I  
Speaker 2     00:40:30    Apologize. Could you address Mrs report dated August 22nd, 2024?  
Speaker 4     00:40:37    Yeah, if you could, if you could address my report that I signed with Don and Joe dated second.  
Speaker 10    00:40:43    Yes, certainly. So the first item, I think it just, again, I've quoted it already. It mentions that this will have, it's inherently beneficial used and will have minimal visual impact on site. I can say, and John, you can confirm that the applicant has no problem with item number two securing all necessary approvals and permits through the building department and the fire commissioner. That's no problem. Agreed.  
Speaker 11    00:41:03    Items  
Speaker 10    00:41:03    Three through five are a bit tougher simply because that's a bit beyond the applicant. We are not the owners of the property. Wawa does own the property. So it's tough for us to say that we'll remove any debt or missing landscaping can fix the broken concrete or any faded striping simply because it's not within our power to do so. So  
Speaker 11    00:41:22    I can answer  
Speaker 2     00:41:24    With Bawa then you can tell Wawa that they need to take care of these things.  
Speaker 11    00:41:29    Yes. So I can answer those three. So our construction will not remove or damage any existing landscaping whatsoever. It would also not damage or remove or any existing asphalt or concrete. We were not in any, we're not adding anything to the site except for panels to the roof. So those items would not be an issue for the construction whatsoever? None. It is not applicable to this installation,  
Speaker 2     00:42:02    No. But the items remain necessary to clean up a site and to the extent that blah blah, once this happen they should agree and I'm not sure you're gonna get  
Speaker 11    00:42:15    Well of course. Well I'm just saying it's a, a moot point because none of those,  
Speaker 10    00:42:19    John, very quickly, can you hear me now obviously it's, it's, we're we're not saying no again, if the board wants to, we're  
Speaker 11    00:42:25    Not saying no  
Speaker 10    00:42:25    Wants to condition the approval upon those three items. That's We agree. That's fine. We can't necessarily disagree with that, but that's, that's the board's pleasure.  
Speaker 11    00:42:34    That's fine. Thank you. Agree  
Speaker 10    00:42:38    And I think that addresses all of the comments on both of the, both of the review letters.  
Speaker 2     00:42:47    I don't have any further comment.  
Speaker 1     00:42:49    Okay. Does any board members have any questions or comments?  
Speaker 12    00:42:54    Yes, he did say that they were comply with the should be fire marshal, not the inspectors fire marshal In regards to the installations or anything with the township?  
Speaker 10    00:43:07    Yes. Any  
Speaker 12    00:43:08    That  
Speaker 10    00:43:09    We need through the building department or the fire marshal, fire commissioner, whatever the appropriate positional term is. There we're, we're we'll absolute. Absolutely be agree with that.  
Speaker 12    00:43:18    Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:43:22    Any other board members have any questions or comments? Does anyone from the public have any questions or comments?  
Speaker 0     00:43:35    I keep muting myself. I'm sorry. No one chairman.  
Speaker 1     00:43:38    Okay. I make a motion to approve this application. Can I ask for a second?  
Speaker 12    00:43:44    Second?  
Speaker 0     00:43:49    Where? Here, hold on. Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Gio? Yes. Mr. Blo? Yes. Mr. Hica? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ellie, there he is. He's driving. Mr. Alley?  
Speaker 11    00:44:09    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:44:10    Yes. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman Tillery?  
Speaker 1     00:44:12    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:44:13    Your application's been approved. Will memorialize our next meeting and send a copy to you. Good luck.  
Speaker 10    00:44:19    Thank you so much. Thank  
Speaker 11    00:44:20    You. Everybody on the board.  
Speaker 1     00:44:22    Okay. Good luck. Thank you. Okay, moving on. Item number 12 24 42 slash 43 V, Fox and Fox Development LLCI.  
Speaker 13    00:44:37    Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Kevin Morris, attorney at Woodbridge, New Jersey. I'm appearing this evening on behalf of the applicant Fox and Fox Development LLC. Subject property is block 1401 lot two located on nine Stelton Road in Piscataway. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure at the subject property and to construct two separate townhouse buildings. Each of those buildings will contain six units. Those units will be two bedroom units. So in the total that would be the construction of two, excuse me, 12 two bedroom townhouse units. I did submit our affidavits of publication and mailing previously. I wanted to confirm that they have been received and that they are in order so that the board has jurisdiction to proceed this evening.  
Speaker 2     00:45:27    They were received. They are in order to accept the jurisdiction proceeding.  
Speaker 13    00:45:32    Thank you. I have two witnesses this evening. One will be Steven Fox who is testifying on behalf of the applicant, one of the principals and I have Angelo Tuto who will be testifying both as our professional engineer and our professional planner. If Steve Fox could please be sworn.  
Speaker 2     00:45:50    Mr. Fox, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?  
Speaker 14    00:45:56    Yes sir.  
Speaker 2     00:45:57    Thank you. Your name and address please?  
Speaker 14    00:46:00    My address is nine 40 Amboy Avenue, suite 1 0 1 Edison, New Jersey oh 8 8 3 7.  
Speaker 2     00:46:08    Thank you.  
Speaker 13    00:46:10    Alright. Mr. Fox, you are a principal or one of the owners of the applicant, Fox and Fox Development LLC, is that correct?  
Speaker 14    00:46:17    Yes sir.  
Speaker 13    00:46:18    On and the applicant is a licensed builder in the state of New Jersey, is that right? Yes it is. And you are also, and you are also a licensed realtor in the state of New Jersey, is that correct? That is  
Speaker 14    00:46:28    Also  
Speaker 13    00:46:28    Correct. And you have been involved in both of those businesses for I, I think about 32 years now, yes. All right. Now the business of the company and you have a business partner, Bob Fox, that's the two X's who you've been in business this entire time with, correct? Correct. You and you're in the business of two things. Number one, you are builders of new homes and buildings predominantly in Middlesex County, is that right? Correct. And in addition to that, you also have residential real estate holdings. I understand about 150 units that you various different buildings in Middlesex County that you self-manage and run as part of your business. Is that also correct? That  
Speaker 14    00:47:10    Is correct.  
Speaker 13    00:47:11    Right now you had the pleasure of testifying before this board back in 2018. The board may be may recall at a property right up the street, 19 Stelton Road not far from this subject property where you, you received approval and built a beautiful mixed use building with residential units above and commercial use below, correct? Yes sir. And that building has up been up and running for years and I understand it's been very well received in the Piscataway community, is that right?  
Speaker 14    00:47:40    Absolutely.  
Speaker 13    00:47:40    Now the proposal before the board this evening is for the construction of, as I said, 12 two bedroom townhouses in total, is that right? Yes. And these will be units that will be offered for sale, is that correct? At market,  
Speaker 14    00:47:53    Yes. For sale? Yep.  
Speaker 13    00:47:55    All right. Now I understand that, that you have a color rendering. Our architect wasn't available this evening, but can you share a screen and pop up a color rendering of the the film?  
Speaker 14    00:48:06    No. Gimme a second.  
Speaker 13    00:48:14    I see that you're as computer literate as I am  
Speaker 14    00:48:16    Kevin. I played with it for 10 minutes and I called hell you what? That okay. Is that good Kev?  
Speaker 13    00:48:24    I can't see anything so I don't know.  
Speaker 14    00:48:28    Did Laura, could you allow me to share screen? Yeah, you  
Speaker 0     00:48:32    Can. You just said share screen on the bottom. It should be able to come  
Speaker 14    00:48:34    Right up. We did, yeah. I'll do it again. We'll do it again. Share.  
Speaker 0     00:48:39    There we  
Speaker 14    00:48:39    Go. Oh good. Okay. So this is one of the six unit buildings. This is the front facade and Kevin and board members, I could scroll when you want me to scroll, Kevin. Okay.  
Speaker 13    00:48:57    Yeah, so this obviously gives a depiction of some of the colors, although it's, it doesn't come across exactly as, as great as when I look at it as a PDF. Flip over if you could, for the board just before you,  
Speaker 6     00:49:07    Before you do that. Yes. Is this the same rendering that was filed with the board? I don't recall Shutters  
Speaker 13    00:49:14    On the front facade,  
Speaker 14    00:49:15    Correct?  
Speaker 13    00:49:16    No. So thank you Mr. Chadwick. I should, we should mark the, we should have this marked as a one for identification if, if that would be acceptable to board counsel? Yes, it's all right. So Steve, just for the record, we're getting ahead of ourselves. What you have produced here is a one, this is from what I understand, a color rendering of the architectural plan that was submitted in this before the board. However, certain enhancements have been added to what was previously submitted to the board, is that correct?  
Speaker 14    00:49:49    Yes, it is. According to Mr. Chadwick's letter, we applied every, all of his comments to this new rendering.  
Speaker 13    00:49:54    Alright. So for example, there are shutters on the front of the building now that were added from the original plan, is that correct? Correct. And I believe you have some side el elevations? Yep. If you could flip to that  
Speaker 14    00:50:05    Also, also the left and the right side, we added more windows as per Mr. Chadwick's comments.  
Speaker 13    00:50:12    Okay. And so are  
Speaker 6     00:50:13    The shutters there as well?  
Speaker 14    00:50:15    Yes sir. Yep, they're right there. That's what I thought. Yep.  
Speaker 13    00:50:18    Okay. So th this is a depiction of what we intend on building. Now look, our engineer is going to testify regarding the site details and he will go through the bulk of the three professional reports that we have. But some of the, the items require your testimony. So I'm going to direct our attention to the in-house memo of the division of engineering that's dated September 23rd. Item four, you've confirmed the units will be for sale. Please tell us how trash and recycling will occur. That would be item six of that memo.  
Speaker 14    00:50:56    Yes. What we plan on doing with the trash and recycling is of course this will be a first sale condo unit. So there'll be a condo association and with that we will hire our garbage company that maintains all of our properties. We'll provide one garbage pal and one recycling pal that homeowners will store in their garages and nights before pickup. They will be put in a paver pad area right outside their driveway.  
Speaker 13    00:51:27    Okay. Now moving on to item 13 of that memo. There's a request for the pavers between the driveways being replaced with landscaping. We can accommodate most of that, is that correct?  
Speaker 14    00:51:43    Absolutely. We'll, we'll change it over to landscaping, but like I said, we just want a little bit of a pad to be able to place those recycling and garbage pals on for the days that they need to be picked up.  
Speaker 13    00:51:54    Okay. So we can make that adjustment as you've stated. Yes. Item 14 of the memo talks about additional amenities, a lock and grill, some tables and benches near the gazebo. Is the applicant prepared should the board look favorably to add those additional items to the satisfaction of the board? Absolutely.  
Speaker 14    00:52:13    We think, we think that's a great idea also.  
Speaker 13    00:52:14    And you're willing to coordinate the gazebo color scheme in, in a manner to compliment the architecture of the two buildings to be worked through with the municipal officials, is that correct? Yes it  
Speaker 14    00:52:26    Is.  
Speaker 13    00:52:26    Right. And then item 15, I think you've sort of covered it already, and this is also dovetails into Mr. Chadwick's memo, but th this is some color, some additional items. And if the board looked favorably on the application, Mr. Fox, would the applicant prepared to take what you started already and otherwise finalize this in terms of the color schemes, shutters and so forth to the satisfaction of the, the staff's concerns?  
Speaker 14    00:52:57    Yes, definitely.  
Speaker 13    00:52:58    Okay. Now, and for the record this was produced to address the comments three, four, and five of Mr. Chadwick's memo dated September 17th. And our professionals again, we'll our professional will cover the rest of this. Is that correct?  
Speaker 14    00:53:18    Yes.  
Speaker 13    00:53:19    All right. So look, I have no further questions Ladies and gentlemen, at this time of Mr. Fox, he will be available through the entire hearing. Some of these were testimony items he needed to complete. With regard to the memos, Mr. Tuto is going to testify about the site plan and the rest of the memos. So, so you want to have Mr. Fox stand down and ask him questions Now we're wait until we complete the rest of the engineering presentation and hold questions. We leave that up to you.  
Speaker 2     00:53:50    Hey, that's fine.  
Speaker 13    00:53:52    Okay, so then you can stand down for the moment Mr. Fox and stand by and I will next call Angelo Tuto who happens to be sitting next to me in my office because he is another computer literate person and he figured he, he wouldn't have to get blamed if he couldn't log in. So I've got him with me and I would ask that he be sworn please.  
Speaker 2     00:54:12    Do you swear that testimony you're about to give the truth?  
Speaker 15    00:54:16    I, it's coming across unclear, but  
Speaker 2     00:54:19    Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give be the truth?  
Speaker 15    00:54:23    Yes sir, I do. Angelo, your name  
Speaker 2     00:54:25    And address please?  
Speaker 15    00:54:26    Sure. Angelo j Tuto, V-A-L-E-T-U-T-T-O 4 24 Amboy Avenue, Woodbridge, New Jersey oh 7 0 9 5. Licensed professional engineer, licensed professional planner, state of New Jersey, both licensed Mr.  
Speaker 2     00:54:43    Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Tu accepted as an expert planner before this work. Yes. I found them both accepted, yes.  
Speaker 13    00:54:52    Alright, so then just thank you. So you've, you are accepting me as a, as an expert in both professional engineering and professional planning just so the record's clear and we thank you.  
Speaker 2     00:55:01    Yes.  
Speaker 13    00:55:02    Alright, so Mr. Tuto, you prepared the site plan that is before the board this evening, is that correct?  
Speaker 15    00:55:07    I did. With the assistance of a licensed surveyor and of course Mr. Fox and the architect.  
Speaker 13    00:55:14    Alright. Can you please describe the property as it exists and the proposed development? Sure.  
Speaker 15    00:55:20    The property as is shown on sheet, one of the site plan that was submitted is on the easterly side of Stelton Road having a frontage of 134.36 feet in the front and it narrows only slightly at the back easterly side, 1 33 56 similar, it's not a complete square so the depth is varies from 214.88 feet on its northerly side down up to 220 feet on its southerly side. The property did have a structure on it that was removed and there is also fairly extensive paving throughout the property. As part of the application we intend to demolish all of the site improvements and as is shown on sheet number two and as presented by you in the opening comments and Mr. Fox we're proposing two structures that pretty much mirror each other with having the six units each two bedrooms, each being three stories and that the area of which is a center aisle of 24 feet whereas all of the units will have access into a one car garage and additional parking space outside of it in their driveway. There's also gonna be a total of five additional parking spaces, one being the van accessible handicap spaces at the northeast or excuse me, northwest section of our parking lot. And on the flip side on the on northeast side is two spaces and then there are two spaces that are proposed that are in the proximity of the gazebo that was as submitted. However, as is usually the case when we go through the board, both with the board professionals and then the board itself, we'll be making further enhancements so as to satisfy the comments. Alright.  
Speaker 13    00:57:44    Now egress and ingress to the site is solely from Stelton Road, is that correct?  
Speaker 15    00:57:49    That is correct. It's in the similar proximity of the southerly portion of the property where there now is and as part of the board approval we are seeking obviously all of the site improvements of curbing, paving, landscaping, lighting, as well as everything within Stelton Road, which is a county road. And once we, if we receive the benefit of the approval from the board, we'll immediately move on to entering the portal of Middlesex County to seek their approval as they are the only outside agency that we will require once we get hopefully the approval from the board this evening.  
Speaker 13    00:58:40    Alright. Generally drainage at the site, how is that handled?  
Speaker 15    00:58:43    Drainage is handled with regard to internally there's gonna be a, a seepage design that we acknowledge is under the purview of both the Joe Herrera from the min from the municipality as well as Charlie Carley who has also authored a report that we will be addressing later. Alright.  
Speaker 13    00:59:08    Now will there be any negative drain of impact impacts on adjacent or neighboring properties as a result of this proposed development of the property?  
Speaker 15    00:59:17    No sir. None whatsoever. The design as will be further reviewed and approved by Mr. Carley will prove that we are handling our drainage onsite within the seepage pits and Mr. Fox as he is typically is ahead of his time, he's already gotten us the various information with percolation tests and all. So we can provide that to both Mr. Herrera and Mr. Harley for purposes of their review and analysis to show that we meet all of the standards that are required for what we are proposing  
Speaker 13    00:59:54    Right now. There was a comment in one of the memos about lighting on the site if you could touch on that please.  
Speaker 15    01:00:00    Sure. Lighting is is shown on what else? The lighting and landscaping sheet and shows the coverage and comments and maybe if you would like, we'll go through it, we'll comply in total to satisfy the comment by the professional or professionals who had made comment regarding the lighting.  
Speaker 13    01:00:23    And with regard to the number of parking spaces, I understand that 28 spaces are required, this application provides 29 parking spaces, so we're compliant with the parking ordinance and reus, is that correct?  
Speaker 15    01:00:34    Yes sir, that is correct.  
Speaker 13    01:00:36    Alright, so I'd like to direct your attention to the various memos. First your attention to the September 25th, 2024 memo issued by DNR Mr. Carley, we had the opportunity to review this memo together with the applicant today, is that right? Yes  
Speaker 15    01:00:53    Sir, that is correct.  
Speaker 13    01:00:54    Alright, number one, if you can just comment, well,  
Speaker 15    01:00:59    Do we wanna go one by one or do we want to just say we can comply with one through six in total? Should see the benefit of the approval with regard to number seven and number eight. They're both statements of fact. With regard to the number nine, we will comply. In total we thought that we did have all of the proper construction details, but we either flip flopped one or whatever, but we would comply in total. Similar with regard to number 10, we'll provide the information in total, which is after construction, showing the various conditions as they exist after construction. And then number 11, we'll meet with the engineering supervisor, Mr. Herrera I believe with regard to if there is a logistic plan being offered. And that's something we'll work in conjunction with Mr. Fox who, as you heard already has worked within I guess just about 200 feet or less of the subject property and has the experience and certainly we'll be able to satisfy that in total. And then the pre-construction meeting is also something we'll comply in total. And number 13 is the outside agencies, which we will comply or if not provide sufficient proof to Mr. Carley that there is no need for an approval from that particular agency.  
Speaker 13    01:02:38    Alright, so we have the entire contents of that memo covered then let me direct your attention next to the memorandum of the Piscataway division of engineering that's dated September 23rd. Number one, affordable housing obligations. I can tell the board that the applicant has spoken to the appropriate municipal official about its requirement for affordable housing we're, we are prepared to comply with that. Items two and three, Mr. Tuto, we will comply with those.  
Speaker 15    01:03:10    We are, we're both compliant Mr. Charlie, Mr. Carley's Word, he already did and then it makes reference to a fire commissioner but I, I know that there are typically two individuals, one person who does the inspection of a site prior to it's built and then once it's in play with the building permit, it's handled with the fire inspector within the municipality. Alright, number number four was already testified that it was gonna be for sale number five, you indicated that we meet the res parking standards. Number six, Mr. Fox had already indicated with regard to how to trash and recycling. Number seven and eight we will comply in total and those are with regard to the fiber optic conduits so that the city will be prepared that any fiber optic optics can be installed underground. We will comply in total with number nine, 10, and 11 and I believe MR. 12 and 13, Mr. Fox has already testified. Well  
Speaker 13    01:04:26    12 actually is for you. If you can just con confirm as to whether a TWA permit is necessary for this application.  
Speaker 15    01:04:32    Oh, I'm sorry, we, we skipped over number 12. The answer is no with the DEP for TWA, you would have to either have a eight inch pipe come into your property or to have an additional flow of 8,000 gallons per day. Under the 12 two bedroom townhouse units, it's 225 gallons per day based on the state requirements, that comes up to only 2,700 gallons. And that's for the new proposal. So we're under 8,000 and we don't even have to require to get a credit for what was on the prior, which was only just under 270, but we're well under the 8,000 trigger for A-D-E-P-T-W-A permit.  
Speaker 13    01:05:24    Okay. And then items 13, 14, and 15, Mr. Fox has already testified to and we've made our representations with regard to that. And you've already touched on we'll submit to the Middlesex County Planning Board should we receive the benefit of approval. Is that correct?  
Speaker 15    01:05:39    Yes sir. Almost immediately knowing Mr. F, he has me on speed dial and probably call me hopefully once we get our approval to move that quick to get it through.  
Speaker 13    01:05:48    Alright, now with regard to Mr. Chadwick's memo that is dated September 17th, when we're concluding or concluding your engineering testimony, you will present planning testimony to address item one, item two. Again, the affordable housing the applicant has prepared to comply with that.  
Speaker 6     01:06:06    Can I interrupt one second. You said you had met with someone at the township, you come out with a just shy of three units. Are you just gonna round up?  
Speaker 13    01:06:22    I didn't have that discussion. I know that it's been suggested that we provide one, one moderate one low and then there's going to be a monetary payment to satisfy the obligation, whatever it ultimately turns out to be, we will comply with the requirements by the,  
Speaker 6     01:06:41    Did you discuss with your client what that monetary payment? Yes. Might be because I think the, I did the calc, it's 2.8 units, it's it's 15% of 12. Right,  
Speaker 13    01:06:56    Right.  
Speaker 6     01:06:57    Okay. Which comes out 2.8 if you're gonna pay 0.8 of a unit, you're talking about a substantial number.  
Speaker 13    01:07:06    Yeah. I don't know what was the, the, if the discussions were finalized, but again, suffice to say the applicant will work with the municipal official that orchestrates the affordable housing. Okay. To, to that person's satisfaction, understanding there is gonna be a monetary payment in addition to the unit designations.  
Speaker 2     01:07:25    And Mr. Chad, that's my understanding as well.  
Speaker 6     01:07:29    I'm sorry Jim, I  
Speaker 2     01:07:30    Could not, that's, that's my understanding as well.  
Speaker 6     01:07:33    Okay. If you stay closer to your mic, it seems like it's clearer.  
Speaker 2     01:07:38    Okay. I'll try that.  
Speaker 6     01:07:40    Yeah, that's better.  
Speaker 13    01:07:42    Okay. Alright. Thank you Mr. Chadwick. Now items three, four, and five we've already talked about with Mr. Fox and the color rendering and what we're prepared to do with that. Item six, Mr. Valentino, you'll adjust any. Yep.  
Speaker 15    01:07:55    Number six will comply with regard to number seven. We will shift the two parking spaces back to align them pretty much with the parking spaces for the building in the back so that those two spaces won't have as lengthy a backup or make it more of a challenge for drivers that will also have the benefit of further decreasing our pavement impervious area and be able to lessen, provide  
Speaker 6     01:08:27    A little more outdoor space is what it really does.  
Speaker 13    01:08:30    Yes. Yeah, so we're prepared to do that. And then nine, eight, item eight, the lighting plan. I don't know that we showed illumination on the front of the building  
Speaker 15    01:08:41    Now what we will comply. Typically it's what I like to refer to as mood lighting that the architect tells us what the lights are and then based on that we'll show 'em on our plan so as to show all the lighting, not only for the parking and the access roads but also for the front of the buildings based on what the architect has designed. Okay.  
Speaker 13    01:09:05    You're not gonna  
Speaker 6     01:09:06    Put any spotlights on these buildings, right?  
Speaker 15    01:09:08    No sir. Good. Alright. As I call the mood lighting.  
Speaker 6     01:09:12    Okay. Yeah, I know what you're saying.  
Speaker 15    01:09:15    Thank you.  
Speaker 13    01:09:15    Alright, so that would conclude our engineering or physical testimony about the site again, Mr. Fox and or Mr. Tuto if we have questions now and then I will be calling Mr. Valentino asking him to switch gears and present his planning testimony. So I dunno if there's any questions at this point the board would like us to entertain or I'll move on.  
Speaker 4     01:09:39    I did have one or two points that I'd like to receive some clarification on specifically from the division of engineering planning and development staff. Memorandum in regards to items three and item six, would it be possible to generate a, a truck turning diagram proving that there's sufficient space for a fire truck to get in and out of the site as well as trash and recycling vehicle?  
Speaker 15    01:10:09    Most definitely.  
Speaker 4     01:10:11    Fantastic. Yeah.  
Speaker 15    01:10:13    Yes.  
Speaker 4     01:10:14    In regards to item 15, was the building height addressed in the comments of revisions based on Mr. Chadwick's comments or are you still proposing 38.09 feet in height? Oh, the  
Speaker 13    01:10:29    Building height has not been changed. We have started to make some alterations, IE shutters, some different window to add to add some improved interest as it were and I don't think we're finalized yet, but obviously this applicant is prepared to make adjustments and I think as he has in the past, he can work with the municipal officials to finalize the, that part of it, the facade, the colors and so forth. But the height remains the same.  
Speaker 4     01:11:01    Okay. And my last, my last comment was regards to number five. I recognize the testimony identifying that the standards have been met for parking on site. I was hoping to receive a little bit more clarity on the times of extenuating need for celebrations, family events, things of that nature where there be a temporary increased need where you envision the parking facilities for that to be. It's  
Speaker 14    01:11:32    Steve, Devin, you want me to jump in?  
Speaker 13    01:11:33    Yeah, Steve, if you could handle that because you have tremendous experience in this county with with you built other townhouses like this, you have commercial properties, you have residential units, so yeah, if you could follow up on that Steve.  
Speaker 14    01:11:45    Yes. So within, with regard to that issue in our experience and we just recently got approval for Green Brook for 85 residential units that's sitting over 10,000 square foot of retail and there was a big controversy about the EV credit that is going on and whether there's enough parking or not and it's the same answer that we've experienced that these situations tend to work themselves out. So as far as celebrations, as far as parties, graduations and so forth, people that are looking to buy these units are gonna go into our unit complex. They're gonna see driveways, they're gonna see the amount of parking, there's gonna be signs visible for guest parking and people that live that lifestyle probably won't buy this unit. And in our experience with the square footages of these units and the price point, generally those type of people will find other means of celebrating whether it's out at a restaurant or other people's homes. I live in a little larger home being 56 years old and you know, putting in my time and I know my niece and nephew a lot of times have their celebrations at my house or my parents' house than in their eighties. So it ends up working itself out.  
Speaker 13    01:13:16    Thank  
Speaker 4     01:13:16    You Mr. Thank you.  
Speaker 14    01:13:17    Thank you.  
Speaker 13    01:13:23    All right, so if there's no further questions at this point the board's permission, I'll have Mr. Tuto switch gears and ask him some ask him to reduce his planning analysis.  
Speaker 1     01:13:36    Does any other board members have any questions or comments?  
Speaker 13    01:13:40    Alright, so Mr. Tuto, you've also now had the opportunity to analyze proposed development from the standpoint of professional planning. Is that correct? Yes sir, that  
Speaker 15    01:13:50    Is correct.  
Speaker 13    01:13:51    I would ask you to detail your analysis, your findings for the board, any opinions that you have reached or conclusions on the basis for those, for the board's digestion. Thank you.  
Speaker 15    01:14:04    As we usually do and as is required when working with you and Mr. Fox, we go through the analysis of the application from like I, you just asked the planning perspective visitor site walked around the area, the latest being this morning through the raindrops, reviewed the zoning ordinance and master plan, the New Jersey municipal land use law. And what I found in my last visitation for tonight's meeting was there was a variety of uses and one of the things that seemed to be what appears is that a number of what I believe are to be P two business professional zone uses appear to be where most of the vacancies are. We do have, I believe it was a three family house on the opposite side of the street closer to the next intersection, I think it's Lakeview that was there across the street from there is an automobile shop as you continue down there is a church property that at least has a sign up.  
Speaker 15    01:15:21    There was no activity at all. Next to that's a funeral parlor on our side of the street next to us is a veterinary hospital. Then we have on 19 or between the vet there's a building under construction. I can't tell what it's gonna be for right now. All it is is a concrete slab and they have the pipes coming out. So I can't tell if it's for residential and if it is, it's gonna be for apartments or townhomes because of what I see as a layout. Then beyond that is the 19th Stelton, which you had indicated one that was built by the applicant. And then as you go further on, there are a number of residential single family and small other business uses. Then there's a large property that appeared to be a school and that is the one that has a number of signs up there for purposes of, for people to come in and to occupy 'em.  
Speaker 15    01:16:30    So there is a mixture and then of course as you continue Stelton towards going towards 2 87, that's where you're really getting to the heart of the business and retail type uses. The property as we've been talking is located in the BP two business professional zone. As has been identified in the professional reports and in your opening comments, the we're seeking a use variance approval since the proposal for the development of the property for townhouses is not listed as a permitted use in the zone, which is primarily the commercial use in that BP zone. There's also the bulk variances that were approved were being sought, excuse me, and they were identified in a report we had to receive from the zoning officer. First is with regard to the building height where we have 35 feet is the maximum permitted and what we are showing at the moment is 38.09.  
Speaker 15    01:17:44    I know that Mr. Fox is in the process of modifying facade and all, but I do not believe based on my conversation with him that the 38.09 feet is going to be modified. There is also with regard to front yard setback principal building where 25 feet is the minimum required. There's a 17.5 feet distance that is proposed to the landing on the porch and then a 15 foot setback from the steps where it goes above what the ground is. With regard to the use variance, in my opinion, the requisite criteria exists to justify the applicant's request for the use variance approval under the positive criteria or special reasons also known by achieving the goals under the municipal land use law 40 55 D dash two I offered a file following our MET letter A to encourage a municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare letter C to provide adequate light air and open space letter G to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial industrial uses and open space both public and private according to their respective environmental requirements.  
Speaker 15    01:19:28    In order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens and letter M to encourage the 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. In my opinion, with the reasons there are advances, the area where the subject property is located contains a number, as I've just testified earlier, of vacant uses and buildings that are in need that in my opinion are what would be referred to as tire and it need to be updated and and spruced up and in my opinion, a proposed development would be a better use of the subject property and provides the infu infusion of new buildings, which will be both appropriate and will be positive for surrounding area as well. The proposed density that we have, in my opinion is consistent with the other, with other users that are tennis for the area as well as what have been developed and the proposed construction will continue in my opinion, to vitalize the the area by virtue of it meeting the side and rear setbacks.  
Speaker 15    01:20:58    It meets the adequate light air and open space, not the variances with regard to the front, but we are within that 60 foot right of way and that provides where there's no adverse impact in my opinion to any adjoining property from their light air and open space. In terms of particular suitability of site subject property is located in an area that gains various other uses, which include the residential uses that I indicated and the example that it would not be testimony without utilizing it is the one that was developed by the applicant located at 19 Stelton Road, which was approved by this board in 2019, in which I had the honor of testifying as the planner on that application. It is in close proximity and functions well within the neighborhood and we believe that with this one, if we received approval it would act as a bookend and just add to what we hope will be a continued stimulus to the development of new structures or at minimum improvements to the existing structures that can utilize it.  
Speaker 15    01:22:26    Property size in my opinion, can appropriately accommodate the proposed development of townhouses with the only de minimis bulk variance relief. As we mentioned earlier, this section of Tel Stelton road and the subject property are located in close proximity to recreational areas and municipality within walking distance. I might, I might add, suggest and that the, for those reasons in my opinion, the subject property is particularly suited for the proposed development of the townhouses in terms of the enhanced quality of proof. As such, this application is not, in my opinion, inconsistent with the master plan and zoning ordinance as has been proven by what the developer has done at 19th Stelton Road and with other residential uses in the area. With regard to negative criteria, in my opinion, the rela requested relief can be granted, number one without substantial detriment to the public good for the reasons I have testified and then as been enhanced by the request and with which we will comply with the comments from the board's professionals.  
Speaker 15    01:23:52    I see no detriment to the public good, no negative impact on any of the 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 for the reasons that I have stated. Nevertheless, the bulk variance is requested by the applicant or cognizant, cognizant of other the C two, flexible C because we meet that criteria as well as being subsumed under the higher standard of the use variance. Number one, it relates to a specific piece of property is oversized for the zone and can clean completely handle the proposed development. Number two, that the purposes of the municipal land use law would be advanced by the deviation from the zoning ordinance requirement again, as testified to earlier, and that the variances in my opinion, can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. I see no detriment only positive results by what we're trans, what the applicant is transforming the property into what we're proposing and that the number five, the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment. And again, my testimony is I see no detriment. Number six, that the requested variances will not substantially impair the intent and pur purpose of the municipality zone plan and zoning ordinance as I have testified to throughout my planning testimony. Alright,  
Speaker 13    01:25:44    So does that conclude your planning analysis, Mr. Tuto?  
Speaker 15    01:25:48    It does, sir. Yes.  
Speaker 13    01:25:49    Alright, so Mr. Chairman, members of the board, that would be our presentation for this application.  
Speaker 1     01:25:59    Okay. Very well. Anyone from the public have any questions or comments?  
Speaker 0     01:26:05    Mr. Fox, can you unshare your screen please? Thank you. No one chairman.  
Speaker 1     01:26:15    Okay, I make a motion to approve this application. Can I please get a second, Mr.  
Speaker 6     01:26:20    Mr. Chairman, just before you make that motion, the testimony did kind of circle around the master plan update that really says the new market area needs to be upgraded. It didn't say it needed redevelopment, but it needed to be upgraded and clearly the testimony goes to that theme for that area. I think it's important that we have that on the record. Thank you Mr. Chadwick. Thank you.  
Speaker 0     01:26:59    Okay, we need a second please,  
Speaker 2     01:27:03    Officer.  
Speaker 0     01:27:04    Thank you Mr. Patel. Okay. Mr. Patel?  
Speaker 2     01:27:08    Yeah.  
Speaker 0     01:27:08    Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Bla?  
Speaker 6     01:27:12    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:27:12    Mr. Haka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Riley? Yes. And Chairman Tillery? Yes.  
Speaker 2     01:27:21    We will memorialize this in our next meeting to you.  
Speaker 6     01:27:25    Alright, thank you. Alright, thank you ladies and gentlemen for your time. Everyone have a pleasant evening.  
Speaker 0     01:27:30    Thank you. Have a good night. Thank  
Speaker 2     01:27:31    You.  
Speaker 6     01:27:32    Thank you.  
Speaker 1     01:27:36    Okay, item number 14, resolutions to be adopted.  
Speaker 2     01:27:41    The first resolution is, which is  
Speaker 0     01:27:48    Jim, you froze. Mr.  
Speaker 2     01:27:52    The Mohamed, we can't  
Speaker 0     01:27:56    Hear you. We can't hear you. Do you want me to read the resolutions? 'cause we can't hear you at all. Jim? Yes, please.  
Speaker 2     01:28:01    I'm,  
Speaker 0     01:28:06    You want me to read them? Yes. Okay. 24 ZB. 36 v Mohammed was approved. Mr. Tillery?  
Speaker 1     01:28:15    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:28:16    Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Bla. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Yes. Second one. 24 ZB 32. That's withdrawal for Andrea and Bethe. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blo?  
Speaker 6     01:28:40    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:28:40    Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Mr. Ellie? Yes. 24 Z-B-O-A-V. Arvin Patel. It was also withdrawn. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blo? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali?  
Speaker 2     01:28:57    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:28:58    You approved 24 Zb. 47 V New York, Verizon approved Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Bla? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Riley? Yes. 24 ZB 37 V Harris Patel, you approve the application Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blo? Yes. Mr. Heka? Sorry. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Mr. Ley? Yes. And the last one is 24 ZB 46 V. Atul Al, you approved it Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blo? Yes. Mr. Haka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. You? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Okay. Those are all the resolutions and we have adoption of minutes from the regular meeting of September 12th, 2024. All in favor?  
Speaker 1     01:29:54    Aye. Aye. Aye.  
Speaker 0     01:29:56    Thank you.  
Speaker 1     01:29:58    Motion to adjourn. Second. That  
Speaker 0     01:30:03    Nine on the news. Alright. Alright. Thank you everyone. Have a good evening.