Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on February 12 2025
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 00:00:05 We're good to go. All right. Thank you. Go ahead Madam Chair. Speaker 1 00:00:09 The Piscataway Township Planning Board meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the township clerk. Notice sent to the Courier News. Well no longer the star ledger, I guess. Will the clerk Clerk please call the role Speaker 0 00:00:33 Mayor Wahler Present. Thank you. Councilwoman Cahill. Here. Ms. Corcoran. Here. Ms. Saunders? Here. Mr. Atkins? Here. Mr. Hammed? Yeah. Here. Okay. Mr. Aria. He just emailed me. His zoom was updating. Here he comes. Speaker 2 00:00:56 Okay. No, I'm here. Thank you. Speaker 0 00:00:57 He's here. Thank you. Hi Phil and Madam Chair Speaker 1 00:01:00 Here. Mr. Barlow, would you please read the open Public meeting Notice? Speaker 2 00:01:05 Certainly Madam Chair, and keeping with the Department of Community Affair Guidelines, the planning board is going forward in this virtual platform. The appropriate login information was set forth in the notices that were sent out. If any member of the public, which is to be heard during a particular application, please raise your hand and the chair will recognize you and it's appropriate to go forward at this time. Madam Chair. Speaker 1 00:01:30 Okay. Thank you. The American flag is visible over my right shoulder. Can we all cross our hearts and salute the flag? I pledge allegiance through the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Can we have the swearing in of the professionals? Speaker 3 00:02:03 Can you please raise your right hand? Speaker 0 00:02:06 I Speaker 3 00:02:06 Have. Do you swear that the, do you swear that the testimony about the give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? Speaker 0 00:02:12 I do. I do. Thank Speaker 3 00:02:13 You. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1 00:02:15 Thank you. Are there any changes to tonight's agenda? Mr. Barlow? Mr. Barlow, I think your mic is off. Speaker 2 00:02:28 You are correct. No changes Madam Chair. Other than a reminder that with regards to number 10, the River Crest matter, I have a conflict and Mr. Kinneally is here to handle that matter. Speaker 1 00:02:40 Okay. Then the rest of our agenda stands. Can I have a motion to pay the duly audited bills? Speaker 3 00:02:48 Madam Chair, this is Carol Sons. I make a motion to pay the duly audited bills. Speaker 1 00:02:53 Do I have a second? Second. Councilwoman Cahill. Thank you. Roll call please. Speaker 0 00:02:59 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Speaker 3 00:03:05 Yes. Speaker 0 00:03:06 Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Speaker 3 00:03:11 Yes. Speaker 0 00:03:13 Mr. Echevarria? Yes. And Madam Chair? Yes. Speaker 1 00:03:17 Item number eight, adoption of resolutions to memorialize action taken for January 8th. Speaker 3 00:03:24 Madam Chair, I'd like to memorialize the resolution for application 24 PB 20 Riverdale Metals, urban Renewal, LLC. Preliminary and final site plan. Speaker 1 00:03:38 Do I have a second? Speaker 0 00:03:41 Mr. Atkins? Second Speaker 1 00:03:43 Roll call please. Speaker 0 00:03:44 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Speaker 3 00:03:51 Yes. Speaker 0 00:03:51 Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Hammed? Yes. Ms. Aria? Yes. And Madam Chair? Yes. Speaker 1 00:04:00 Ms. Saunders? Item number eight, adoption of minutes. Speaker 3 00:04:03 Okay. Madam Chair, I'd like to adopt the minutes from the regular meeting of January 8th, 2025. Speaker 1 00:04:12 Do I have a second? Speaker 0 00:04:15 I second. Speaker 1 00:04:17 Thank you. Roll call please. Speaker 0 00:04:18 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Speaker 3 00:04:26 Yes. Speaker 0 00:04:26 Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Hammed? Yes. Ms. Ochi? Yes. Madam Chair? Speaker 1 00:04:34 Yes. Item number 10, discussion regarding the redevelopment plan for blocks 73 0 5 lots. 19.01, 20 and 21. Speaker 4 00:04:45 Good evening Madam Chair. This is Jim Kinneally sitting in for Mr. Barlow. This is a redevelopment plan discussion for the River Crest Cabana Club. I believe we have Mr. Clark and present to lead the discussion. Speaker 5 00:04:59 Yes. Thank you very much Jim. Everyone see that? And can you hear me? Speaker 0 00:05:03 Yes. Speaker 5 00:05:03 Yes. Alright then let's get rolling. So yeah, as Jim said, I'll be presenting the River Crest Cabana Club redevelopment plan. If you recall, back in December last year, I presented the study so that paved the way for us to, or for me to prepare this plan on the board's behalf and I will run through it. So just a quick plan overview. So this proposes age restricted residential town homes as permitted as really the only permitted use within the designated area of this redevelopment. So this proposed use use fits in I believe with your current R 10 residential zone, which is where River Crest resides, at least in within that zone. And I think that the density will match the low density residential character of that zone. So I'll run through this plan. It's really just gonna go through the physical and structural nature. Different standards that I've put together. I won't read this. I think most of you're familiar with the River Crest Cabana Club at the end of River Crest Drive, the total law area is 2.14 acres. And just as a quick reminder, your R 10 zone only allows single family detached dwellings. It allows some accessory uses like pools or private garages, some conditional uses. And then these are the current standards. Speaker 5 00:06:33 Actually I just noticed a typo. I'll fix that for your R 10 residential zone. So I'm just gonna run through the plan goals and objectives really fast. So we won't wanna create land use requirements specific to the redevelopment area so that we can effectuate that development of underutilized parcels. That was found from the study that I presented back in December in such a way that really improves the area and benefits from such a redevelopment plan. So we wanna encourage redevelopment for tax rateables but also construct appropriate land uses within the zone in Piscataway. And we can leverage different financial tools such as tax abatement through the redevelopment process. But really the reason why we're going with modern age restricted residential units is because of the high demand for such a use. But the added benefit is, is that we can set aside three units as affordable so that we can help the township with its compliance for the fair share obligation for your affordable housing master plan. Speaker 5 00:07:41 So now I'll run through the land use plan if there's no questions. As I said, only principal permitted use allowed is residential town homes restricted to age 55 and over. I put in permitted accessory uses that are pretty typical. Your off street parking signs, gates, patios, electric charging stations for parking. And then your prohibited uses are basically anything that's not written in here or storage or warehousing of hazardous or dangerous materials. So bottom line page four, you'll see the proposed area yard and bulk requirements. So we're going with minimum lot area of 90,000 square feet, your minimum lot width and depth of two 50 and 200. So that fits in well with the two, roughly two acre size parcel that we're talking about. And the minimum rear and side yards are pretty typical for town homes but also fit well within the context of the R 10 zone. They're pretty similar. They can't be any higher than 35 feet these town homes. So no more than two and a half or three stories. And then your max impervious coverage and max building coverage are pretty typical as well in terms of density. So since it's only two units, we're proposing a total of 16 units in four residential town home structures. So basically you would have four units per building for a total of 16. And as I said, three of those will be affordable units. Speaker 5 00:09:19 I'm gonna skip ahead on the plan. The this section is really just that your, the relationship of this plan to your existing development regulations and your relationship to local objectives is making sure that the density is appropriate. So is the land use traffic, et cetera. In terms of traffic circulation, there's really not much. There's a proposed one parking lot in and out. We're proposing two spaces per residential units. So that roughly works out to 28 spaces, six of which will be plug in electric charging stations, stations and will be fully operational when it is built as a requirement of this plan. And then you'll also have five foot wide pedestrian sidewalks, not only along River Crest Drive but throughout the complex to connect the forest structures so that that residents can get into their units easily from the parking area. Speaker 5 00:10:14 And just a few more sections that I think are worth going over. Utilities are pretty straightforward, solid waste disposal. There will be an enclosure with a dumpster and you know this just lays out that no hazardous waste or anything like that. No bulk storage is allowed. Signage design standards are pretty straightforward. We're allowing one freestanding monument sign just for the overall development. Can't be any higher than five feet, no more than 50 square feet in size and it has to be set back 10 feet. Then you have your ty, typical directional signs that you find in parking lots, nothing. Or they may be illuminated as long as they're not flashing or anything like that. Speaker 5 00:10:57 Lighting shall be LED and shall not spill over to neighboring residents. Landscaping, we usually keep pretty basic in landscape plans 'cause we're, or excuse me, redevelopment plans as we, we trust in Piscataway Township staff to make it landscaped as desired. And I think that's really it. The additional design standards really just make sure fences are no more than six feet and they're not chain link and that they meet your property maintenance code. Yeah. Environmental assessment. There was no environmental concerns during the study so it does not seem that the redeveloper will have to do anything. But if something does come up, this just says that they are responsible for that. And I really think that's it. So quick summation, this is a redevelopment plan for River Crest or the River Crest Cabana Club total of 16 age restricted town homes in four structures with three affordable units. And that is the plan that we are proposing for this lot. So with that I can take questions. Speaker 1 00:12:09 Members of the board, do you have any questions of Mr. Clark and Speaker 6 00:12:13 Madam Chair? It's Councilwoman Cahill. Yeah, Mr. Clark. And just a quick question, and I'm sure you said it but I wasn't clear on it. The age restricted units are only the town homes or the entire development? Speaker 5 00:12:29 The entire development. Speaker 6 00:12:30 Okay. Thank you very much. Speaker 7 00:12:33 Lemme jump in and apologize. I had it in my calendar at seven 30. I don't know what the mistake was. Larry Lavender, I apologize. I thought it was set for seven 30 tonight. You Speaker 0 00:12:42 Didn't go yet, Mr. Lavender. Thank you. Speaker 7 00:12:45 Oh, we didn't go yet, Speaker 1 00:12:46 Sir, you're on Speaker 0 00:12:47 Next. So good timing. Speaker 1 00:12:51 Any other questions that Mr. If Speaker 8 00:12:52 I may, Madam chair I, this one's, yes ma'am. This for Mr. Kinneally. I just wanna make sure you know the age restricted. 'cause I know in at the senior housing we have problems with people qualified for the senior housing and the next thing you know you have extended family members living there and it turns into you have to go to court to get them out. Do we address this now or in the psych plan? Speaker 4 00:13:20 That would be, Speaker 8 00:13:21 I just wanna make sure Age restricted means age restricted. That somebody buys the units age restricted and they don't take off. And then next thing you know, you have somebody not, not agent restricted there living in a unit where the, the principal owner's not there anymore. Speaker 4 00:13:37 Yeah, mayor, that's a valid, even Speaker 8 00:13:38 Though they own the unit, Speaker 4 00:13:39 That's a valid consideration, but it's not a valid consideration for this discussion that would come up later at site planning. Speaker 8 00:13:45 All right. I wanna make a note to the planning staff that when we go do, when the do the site plan, that has to be a condition of approval and I want the attorneys to work on that. So we don't have an issue that we're having around town right now. Speaker 1 00:14:02 Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Kinneally or Mr. Clark and I should say? Okay, let's open it up to the public for any questions. Members of the public, you've heard a redevelopment plan for age restricted housing by Mr. Clarkin. Does anyone in the public have any questions for the testimony for Mr. Clark's testimony regarding this matter? Speaker 0 00:14:32 No. One, Madam Chair. Speaker 1 00:14:33 Thank you. Close to the public Speaker 4 00:14:35 Madam Chair. In anticipation of a positive reaction to this discussion, I have prepared a resolution recommending the adoption of this redevelopment plan for the consideration of the planning board. Speaker 1 00:14:46 Well, do we have to vote on it first? Mr. Kinneally? Speaker 0 00:14:51 Yeah, they do it different here, Jim. They do two votes. Speaker 4 00:14:53 Oh, okay. Speaker 0 00:14:54 Just the one. Speaker 1 00:14:56 Okay. Okay. Members of the board, does anyone have a motion at this time regarding how to proceed with this motion for redevelopment? Speaker 6 00:15:06 Madam Chair, this is Councilman Cahn Cahill. I would recommend that we move forward with the recommendation of the age restricted housing as laid out by Mr. Clark and in the redevelopment plan. Speaker 1 00:15:20 Do I have a second? Speaker 9 00:15:21 Dawn Corcoran. I'll second Speaker 1 00:15:27 Roll call please. Speaker 0 00:15:29 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Cochran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Speaker 3 00:15:37 Yes. Speaker 0 00:15:37 Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yes. Mr. Aria? Speaker 4 00:15:43 Yes. Speaker 0 00:15:43 Madam Chair. Speaker 1 00:15:44 Yes. Speaker 4 00:15:46 Now that the board is at, there you go. I do have a resolution. Speaker 3 00:15:52 Madam Chair, I'd like to memorialize the resolution for recommending adoption of the redevelopment plan for River Crest Cabana Club. River Crest Drive Block 73 0 5. 19.1 20 and 21. Speaker 1 00:16:08 Do I have a second Speaker 9 00:16:11 One? Corcoran. I'll second Speaker 1 00:16:13 Roll call. Speaker 0 00:16:14 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Speaker 3 00:16:21 Yes. Speaker 0 00:16:21 Atkins? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yes. Mr. Aria? Yes. Madam Chair? Speaker 1 00:16:29 Yes. Okay. Speaker 4 00:16:32 Thank you very much and I will return the meeting to Mr. Barlow. Speaker 0 00:16:36 Thank you. See you tomorrow night, Jim. Speaker 4 00:16:37 Thank you. See you tomorrow. Speaker 2 00:16:40 Thank you Jim. Speaker 1 00:16:44 Item number 11, honor our agenda tonight. 24 PB zero eight slash zero nine V as in Victor, LRN properties LLC. Okay, here we go. Speaker 2 00:16:57 Before Mr. Lavender begins, Madam Chair, I just wanna indicate for the record this is a continuation of a matter that was heard on December 11th, 2024. At that time, chairwoman Smith, Mayor Wahler, Councilwoman Cahill, Ms. Corcoran, Mr. Ahmed, who are on the meeting tonight were present during that hearing. Mr. Foster and Mr. Kinneally who were there in December are not present tonight. So those five members heard the testimony. Also, Mr. Atkins has reviewed the transcript and signed an affidavit indicating that he did so. So we have six members this evening that if the matter comes to a vote can vote. Okay. Ms. Saunders was not present unfortunately at the December meeting and Mr. Cheveria was not present. So I just want the record to reflect those are the six members who will vote Speaker 7 00:17:56 Will Speaker 3 00:17:56 Be able to vote. Okay. Speaker 2 00:17:57 Yes. Thank you. Mr. Lavender. I turn it over to you. Speaker 7 00:18:01 Sure. Mr. Barlow did, did the, so there's six members who are able to vote. Are there, did the members, any of the other six, did they listen to the transcript? Are they able to vote because they heard the transcript or no? Speaker 0 00:18:16 They were, well, five were there at the meeting, Speaker 2 00:18:18 Five were present. And then Speaker 0 00:18:20 The last one, the sixth one was the transcript. Speaker 7 00:18:22 Gotcha. Okay. Speaker 2 00:18:24 Okay. I just, there's two members that are unable to vote of, we have eight members on, so six can vote. That's all I wanted the record to be clear. Speaker 7 00:18:35 Okay. Thank you. And are my professionals on? I'm just looking through. Yep. Les is here. Speaker 7 00:18:46 Gotcha. Okay. Alright. Okay. Good evening everyone. My name is Larry Lavender. I'm the attorney for the applicant. Property at issue is located at 60 Normandy Drive, Piscataway, New Jersey. Applicant is requesting approval from the planning board to subdivide an existing 15,408 square foot parcel in the two lots. There's presently a single family dwelling on the property. Applicant is proposing to construct a new single family dwelling on the newly subdivided portion with frontage on Hancock Road. The existing single family house will be renovated, the two story addition and a rear patio. It'll be testimony given by the applicant's engineer and planner to address questions and comments from the board's professionals as well as those from the board and the community with the board's permission. If there are no questions for myself, I'd like to have our first witness sworn in. I believe our first witness will be less. Speaker 3 00:19:49 Okay. Mi Mr. Walker, can you please raise your right hand? Do you, do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? Speaker 10 00:19:59 Of course I do. Speaker 3 00:20:00 Thank you. Speaker 10 00:20:05 So, so at the last hearing, I believe I got my full testimony in, there are a handful of changes we, we resubmitted a couple of weeks ago and there are a, a couple of changes. We heard the concern over the lot coverage and the, the house, the proposed house on lot B, the, the additions to the existing house being a little bit excessive. So where the architect worked with the, the owner and got the building down to a 19.9% coverage. So we comply now with building coverage where 20 percent's allowed, we're at 19.9. And what that did was by compacting the footprint, it'll also eliminated a need for a side variance on the garage side. We had 5.7 feet before, and now we're fully compliant. And in the front, the, the existing house sits 9.7 feet back into the property from the right of way. Speaker 10 00:21:16 And that's, we were proposing previously 6.7 feet for a porch. And we have since reworked the architectural plans and we are holding the 9.7 feet where the existing home currently sits. So, so no longer need it, it's still a variance, but it's, it's not, we're, we're not exacerbating the vari the, the variance we're kind of holding the existing house setback. So, so that's, that's the highlights. I have the updated reports from the board professionals and, and you know, with, with the exception of a couple of items, I I think we can, we, we, we'll be fully, fully complying with those letters. And so if there's any questions or, or if you want me to go through the letters, however you wanna proceed. Madam Chair, Speaker 2 00:22:14 I guess Mr. Wall Walker, what don't you think you can comply with? Obviously the plan is you've reduced some of the variances that were needed in keeping with the comments from the board members. What is it that you, you don't feel you can comply with? Speaker 10 00:22:32 No, so, so we had a, there were, there were a few items pointed out in Ms. Corcoran's letter. She identified that we did not show the fiber twin, fiber optic conduit on Hancock. That was a drafting error. There was a misunderstanding. And those will be provided, they'll be added to the plan. There was a discussion about, one of the comments was about needing a right of way dedication at the inter intersection of Hancock and Normandy, where the property boundary currently goes out into what will be the, the improved intersection there. There's a, a plan by Remington Vernick that for, for improvements and, and where that, that curb, the curb between the two roads meets our property goes out into that road and we will make that adjustment. It changes the lot area for lot a from 99,596 feet, that would be 148 foot square foot dedication right of way dedication. So it reduces lot a to 9,448 square feet. And, and then there was a question whether or not giving that dedication would cause a lot coverage for lot cov coverage violation for lot a and it just changes from 15.4 of the way it was shown on a plan to 15.6 still considerably below 20%, which is allowed. So it doesn't, it doesn't cause a problem there. And we will make that, that right of way dedication. Speaker 2 00:24:24 Mr. Walker, can I just for to have those numbers again, I realize it's at 9 5 9 6 that dedication that was requested by Ms. Corker and, and the staff is how many square feet? Speaker 10 00:24:36 148 square feet. It's a small triangle where the, where the property goes out into the road, the right, the, the roadway so that the, the net number will be 9,448 square feet on lot A. Speaker 2 00:24:50 Okay. Thank you. So Speaker 10 00:24:51 It's a, it's a minor change. It doesn't and it doesn't impact anything else. Speaker 2 00:24:54 Okay. But the applicant is willing to do that dedication as per the request? Speaker 10 00:24:58 That's, that's correct. There was a couple other places where our, our plan had slightly different numbers than, than Ms. Corcoran's letter and we'll, we'll co fully comply and update our plan to, to match the her numbers. And other than that, there was a, there was a question about the location of the air conditioning units and screening the on lot a the condenser is shown in the side yard. There's, there's really, it's two front yards and a and side yard. It's a triangular shape lot with no rear yard. So obviously it can't be behind the home, but it'll be on the side. It, it complies with setback and we will provide the required screening in the form of a short screening fence and some, some evergreen shrubs. And then on the, the addition for the new home, we showed it behind the home, but that puts it closer than 10 feet to the rear property line. So to fix that same thing, we'll move that to the side yard alongside the garage and, and provide the same screening and then it won't require any, any, any relief for screening or location. Speaker 2 00:26:20 Okay. And you agree to work with the bar, the professional staff as to the landscaping, correct? Speaker 10 00:26:25 That's right, that's right. Speaker 2 00:26:27 And and Mr. Lavender, I think you probably saw on Ms, the staff report the requested deed restrictions. Yeah. The applicant has no issue with regards to complying with that? No, sir. Speaker 10 00:26:43 And that was, I forgot to mention that. So, so the on both homes and, and our architect is on, on both homes. The, the second, the second kind of main entrance was eliminated. It was the, it's the, the existing front door on lot B on the existing home is, is, is now eliminated. And then there was a, a, a external egress with, with stairs not a, not a bill coat a door, but, but like a, a full set of stairs to the, to the home on lot a and that's also been eliminated. So, so in hearing that the concerns over, you know, illegal to families that kind of just pop up, those, those external doors had also been Speaker 2 00:27:31 Ms. Corcoran, do you have any other concerns you would wanna address? Speaker 9 00:27:38 I do not. Tom, I think they've addressed everything in the staff report and no further comments on our end. Speaker 2 00:27:55 Larry, do you have anything else? Speaker 7 00:27:58 I believe we have one other professional, if I'm not mistaken. Do we have our planner? Speaker 10 00:28:05 Well, do you need the, do you need to see the architectural plans? The updated architectural plans? He's, he's here. Reggie's here if you need to to see the homes, if not, yeah, Justin, the planner is also one Speaker 1 00:28:23 Mm Madam chair. I wouldn't mind seeing the plans if they're gonna be here. Okay. Then let's call witness, give everybody a chance to see what we're, what they're talking about. Mr. Lavender, you wanna call the architect? Speaker 7 00:28:43 Yep. I'd like our architect come up and be sworn in please. Speaker 12 00:28:50 Hi, I am Reggie Pier. I am the architect. Hi, Speaker 3 00:28:55 Can you please raise your right hand first? Speaker 12 00:28:57 Sure. Speaker 3 00:28:59 Mr. Pier, do you swear that the testimony about to give we do truth and nothing but the truth? Speaker 12 00:29:04 Yes, I do. Speaker 3 00:29:06 Thank you. Speaker 12 00:29:10 So what I can walk you through, which are the plans that have been sent to the, to the township for review and for record. I can bring up first this, I'll try and stay in the same order that Les did with the lot B as first if I can share my screen. Speaker 1 00:29:32 Sure. Speaker 12 00:29:34 I would like to do that. So just to, to give you some orientation of where the location of it is. Again lot, lot B is here, which is in this circle. We submitted two set of documents to kind of delineate the, and and not confuse the two lots. So the first lot we're discussing, which is where the existing dwelling is, is where the addition addition has been been made. I will just quickly walk you through what the existing dwelling looked like. For now it is Speaker 2 00:30:14 Mr. Pj, Mr. Pja, if, if you wanna maybe go to the, the changes you made from the last plans. You, you did testify and went over the, the old plans and the existing conditions. You just want to highlight for the board that the changes you made from last time. Speaker 12 00:30:33 Sure, sure. So the changes, the difference from the last time, the last time we had an entrance at the, the ground level just for the, with a bedroom and had had us kind of a its own, own suite with the bath foyer. And then there was, this was the kitchen and then the living and dining room. So now that the, based on all the comments that we received, we removed this utility room. Since then, we have made all this the same level, which is the first floor. And I will show you here, which is now it's, you enter in from this side of the, of the dwelling and this all is all on one level. You have the living room, dining room, a powder room, and then the eat-in kitchen, one car garage. Whereas before we had the dwelling and then we had a, we had a a a two car garage on the side as well. And we also had a, a basement under the addition portion, which I guess we would consider that a cellar. Now we still remain with somewhat of a cellar utility room and rec room on the ground floor. Then on the upper floor, Speaker 12 00:32:10 Very much so we have changed, we have the primary suite here, walk-in closet, primary bath. Initially the whole primary suite consumed basically the whole second floor of this. And then there we had other rooms on the, actually I think I'm referencing in the older plant, but very similar. This was, we made this a, a study. It's not a bedroom. But anyway, this was the old older plan. And then, so now we have more of an office, two bedrooms. It's a small office, two bedrooms, and then the primary suite is, is over the garage and then with a, its own bathroom. And then there's bathroom for the main here in the laundry room. And then that's, and then we have the, the loft space with a powder room, you know, loft attic storage powder, mechanical closet. Those are the primary changes that we made for the, for B. Any questions related to b Speaker 1 00:33:38 Members of the board? Do you have any questions of the testimony so far? You need any clarifications? Speaker 9 00:33:54 Madam chair? If I may, I just wanna just, I don't, I apologize, I don't have the architecturals in, in front of me and they're very small on the screen. But the proposed garage, that that does comply with the size requirement in terms of it has to be 12 feet by 20 feet with no obstructions, correct? Speaker 12 00:34:11 Yes. Speaker 9 00:34:12 Okay, perfect. Thank you. Speaker 1 00:34:14 Okay. Any other clar members above the board need clarification? Okay. Cin, do your test testimony, Mr. Lavender, Speaker 7 00:34:35 It's not my testimony, I'm the attorney. Speaker 1 00:34:37 I don't, I don't mean your testimony, your, your witness's testimony. Speaker 7 00:34:40 If there's no further, if there's no further questions from the, either the audience or the board. Yeah, we can bring on our, I believe our final Speaker 1 00:34:47 Words. 'cause I believe before we post it to the, to the public, we should get the, the next witness. Speaker 7 00:34:55 My man absolutely believe is, I believe Justin is our planner tonight. Speaker 9 00:35:03 Can you unshare your screen please? Speaker 12 00:35:06 Sure. Speaker 9 00:35:07 Thank you. Speaker 1 00:35:08 Okay. Can you call your next witness? Speaker 7 00:35:12 Mr. Justin, I believe is our planner for tonight. Speaker 12 00:35:15 I'm here. Good evening. Speaker 3 00:35:18 Hello Justin. And do you swear that the testimony you're about to give you the truth and nothing but the truth? Speaker 12 00:35:23 Yes ma'am. Speaker 3 00:35:24 Thank you. Speaker 12 00:35:25 Thank you Mr. Speaker 2 00:35:26 Mr. Lavender. Justin did not testify at the last hearing, so if you could just qualify him. The other two witnesses were qualified but Ms wasn't Speaker 7 00:35:35 Sure. Justin, you wanna give a background of your qualifications, your resume? Speaker 13 00:35:39 Yes, absolutely. And thank you and good evening to everybody. I have a master's degree in, in city regional planning from Rutgers University. I've been a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey since 2008. I have approximately 20 years of experience in this profession. I've appeared in front of your board on multiple occasions, but I've appeared in 20 counties in the state of New Jersey on hundreds of occasions on different matters. I've done everything from master planning to redevelopment. I've done a lot of, you know, zoning ordinance, work on residential properties, commercial et cetera. And I'm very familiar with this type of testimony as well. You're acceptable, sir. Speaker 7 00:36:22 Thank you Madam Chairman. Speaker 13 00:36:23 Thank you Madam Chair. So I guess we can just get right into it. I did of course have the opportunity. I've been on, I think this is the second hearing. I've been working on this project now for I think approximately two years. So, you know, quite familiar with the, the genesis of this work and, and obviously the changes or the, the changes to the plans that have occurred since the hearing in December. But one thing that remains is that we're dealing with one lot and you know, as proposed, you know, two lots, if the subdivision is approved that are irregularly shaped. I mean these are some of the oddest shaped lots that, that I've encountered in my 20 years of, of plenty experience. So I think, you know, from a planning standpoint, these variance is, and, and I'll, you know, go through them one by one, but I'll be very brief. Speaker 13 00:37:32 These variances can, can be processed under the C one and C two criteria. The C one criteria being a hardship that's relating to the nature of the shape of the property and the C two criteria, which is the, the, you know, public benefit test. You know, what are the benefits of here to the community. So I'll just get, you know, right into it. As I just said, you know, under the C one criteria, these are oddly, this is one oddly shaped lot. It's essentially if the subdivision is approved, it's two double triangles essentially. This is the only lot that's in the area that shaped this way and which is also very different about this lot and unique is that this overall lot has frontage on 3D roadways, two roadways, you know, predominantly there are some, you know, there's some qualities of, of this overall law that are, that are inherent here that are really driving these hardships. Speaker 13 00:38:41 I'm going to reference just for, for ease of going through things, I'm gonna reference the, the, the staff letter dated June 25th, 2024, last revised 2, 3, 20, 25 does a nice job of, of brevity. And you know, really going through the, the variances, you know, that are required for proposed lot a, there's a variance for, for minimum lot area 10,000 square feet is required. Proposed slot area is 9,000 404 8 square feet. That is just changed obviously as you heard about the, I proposed the case a slight decrease even though this slot does not comply with his own requirement of the flood area. My argument here is that consistent with the character of the properties across from Normandy Drive 55 Normandy Drive is 9,500 square feet. 59 Normandy Drive is, is 9,500 square feet. So we're, we're right in the, you know, the ballpark. So really, you know, that goes to establishing the consistency with the immediate character of the area. Speaker 13 00:40:05 Also, it's consistent with the property that's adjacent on Hancock seven. Hancock Road is 6,000 square feet. So obviously we exceed the size of that lot appro 3,000 square feet. So all in a offerings getting there, he freezing up acquired is is 100 foot lot depth proposed is 55.89 feet lot depth. Again, this is an ly shaped lot. It's triangular nature. The, the, you know, the character of this lot is, you know, no fault to the owner. Whatever you're gonna put on this lot, whether it's this or something else, you're going to need a variance because of this condition. There's really no way to cure this condition. In terms of the front yard setback. 35 feet is required as proposed is 25 feet on Hancock Road and 44 4, I'm sorry, 24.45 feet on Normandy Drive. Again, we're dealing with two front yard setbacks here that goes to the C one hardship due to that. And also the triangular shape of the lot conformance is very difficult here for any type of dwelling that is gonna be reasonable in size, you know, to accommodate a single family unit. And I believe the next variance that relates to the, the, the conduit lines has been addressed by Mr. Walker in terms of proposed lot B, the minimum lot that's, that's required is 10,000 square feet proposed is is 5,812 square feet. Speaker 13 00:42:08 You know what's interesting about lot A and lot B is that both of them, because they're kind of existing both lots, you know, from the naked eye kind of exist on separate eyes because the point at which they combine is, you know, very narrow. So if you're standing on the street and you're looking at both lot A and lot B or proposed lot A and lot B, they're going to appear, you know, to be separate lots and that goes to the unique nature of this overall lot. But I would say what's important here, you know, even though the proposed lot area of lot B is approximately 4,000 square feet under, you know, what's required as a minimum in the zone, this lot area is predominantly consistent with the neighboring property at two two Bristol Road. That lot area is 5,967 square feet compared to the proposed lot area of 5,812 square feet. Speaker 13 00:43:12 So when you look at, you know, the impacts on the adjacent properties here, the, the property that that is actually contiguous with this property, it's not creating a condition of one small lot or one undersized lot next to a much larger lot. They're pretty consistent in terms of size. The next is the, the lot width, 100 foot lot width is required and 83.5 lot width is proposed. Again, you know, we're dealing with a lot that for all intents and purposes, even though there's it's one overall lot today, they still kind of appear to be separate lots. And again, this is not, in my opinion, this is really not discernible to the eye and it's really not gonna compare to be, you know, out of character, you know, with the area or you know, with the requirement of the a hundred foot lot width. The next variance required is lot depth, like lot depth, it's 100 feet and 76.5 is proposed. Speaker 13 00:44:19 Again, same argument here, we're dealing with a, with this AVI shaped lot that's triangular in nature and there's really no way to cure this condition. The next is the front yard setback, 35 feet is required and 9.7 feet, which is to the covered porch as proposed. This front yard setback is actually consistent with the, with the current condition of the lot. The proposed improvements do not exceed the existing and proposed front yard, which I would say from a planning standpoint and from an impact standpoint is, is quite, you know, pertinent here. And, and also for the, for the a rear yard setback, which is 25 feet required proposed is 1.2. What's what's unique about this variance is that there were two encroachments actually onto the adjacent property for the principal rear rear yard. And the, the accessory side and rear yards, both of them are being cured even though a variance is still required. Speaker 13 00:45:29 I think from a planning standpoint, again, this is a pretty unique condition where we have a portion of the structures on this property encroaching onto an adjacent property. So I think, you know, through this plan, you know, curing that that deficiency or, or that impact to the adjacent property is, is really proper planning. And, and lastly there's a variance for, for the lot frontage as required. It's a, it's it's 100 feet and as proposed is is six 6.4 of a foot to Bristol Road. I really see this more as a technical variance. It is a tiny bit of frontage on, on Bristol Road and really in terms of this, this proposed subdivision, there's really no impact at all to Bristol Road because this house is, you know, the, the orientation of the house and the driveway and really pretty much everything that's proposed to be developed on this property is, is pushed towards a Normandy drive. Speaker 13 00:46:34 And lastly, I believe the, the AC unit issue has been cured, as you heard from, from Mr. Walker. So that's the overall kind of gist of the, the technical justifications for the variances. I would say under the the C two criteria, I would say there are at least two purposes of the municipal land use law that would be advanced through this application. And that's purpose g to provide for a sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses. In this instance it's residential. I think, as I said, a lot of these variances are, are driven by C one conditions. This is a proposed use. The, the, the house that's currently existing on the property today is permitted and if the subdivision is successful, the other house will be be permitted as well. And it's my, you know, professional opinion and I would say that that opinion is supported and you know, buttressed, you know, by the opinion of the site engineer, I would say that there, there is sufficient space to accommodate the subdivision and also purpose i, which speaks to a desire visual environment and good civic design as you heard from, you know, from the architect, you know, what's proposed is gonna be a vast improvement over what's currently on the site today and there's gonna be a lot more functionality on the site than, than, than is currently situated as well. Speaker 13 00:48:09 So all in all, from the C two standpoint, I believe what's proposed is a better planning alternative than, than what you know, currently sits on the site. You know, despite of course the, the variances that are required this evening. Also, I think it's important as well, and this is referenced in, in the, the board planner's letter, the through lot condition is, is cured in this application as well. Again, you know, we're dealing with a very oddly shaped lot, which for all intents and purposes appears to be two separate lots that has frontage on three roadways, two, you know, two roadways, predominantly a sliver of of Bristol. But we always look to to to eliminate, you know, through lot conditions. And I think this is an application that serves that goal relative to the the master plan. And I believe the latest update was, was 2020. Speaker 13 00:49:12 There are some purposes that I think are pertinent. It does speak to high quality design and residential and other uses. I think this, this meets that goal preservation of the character and the quality of of, of neighborhoods. Again, I think the, the, the adaptive reuse of the existing structure on, on this property and the new structure as well certainly goes to the preservation of, you know, providing for two modern dwellings in this neighborhood. And possibly this can be a, you know, shot in the arm, which I think is always important from planning standpoint also, which is, which is also very pertinent as you heard at the, the, you know, last hearing. You know, the applicant's father is, you know, elderly and infirm and there is a purpose of, or a, a goal of of the 2020 update, which speaks to providing a, a variety of, of seniors, senior citizen housing alternatives. Speaker 13 00:50:17 And I think this, this proposal really, really goes to the heart of meeting that goal. So that's all the positive criteria. I'll just very briefly touch on the negative criteria and as the board is aware, there are two prongs and negative criteria. The first is a showing of whether or not the variances that are, that are presented will propose where will present at substantial detriments of the public good. And the second is a showing of whether or not the variances will impair the purpose of the zone plan, the master plan, the zoning ordinance. In terms of the, you know, the first problem I, I think it's important as well to also stress that the law states that there just can't be any detriment because two, reasonable pe two reasonable people can disagree whether something's a detriment. That's why it's kind of a higher level of being substantial I think in this, I think in this proposal, the, you know, proposed uses on these two separate lots of per minute and they're also obviously compatible with the single, single family character of the area. Speaker 13 00:51:25 One thing, especially when I'm on the public side doing, you know, plan reviews, I always look at lock coverage or, or building coverage in this instance, you know, per your, per your zone. And this is an application that doesn't require a variance for building coverage. And that really speaks to, I know we've all been experiencing seemingly, you know, in a hundred year storms on, on multiple occasions of, of the year. And I know that's a big concern of this board, but we do not require a variance for that. And I think that really speaks to, you know, an application that is not overdoing it, so to speak, with the proposed development of this lot. So I think that really goes to, you know, the heart of the negative criteria that we're not creating or we're not proposing a subdivision or, or, you know, two separate dwellings that are gonna create a condition that would have a negative impact on the neighbors. Speaker 13 00:52:22 You know, the applicant as you heard from the first hearing to to, you know, to now has made substantial efforts to improve this site. We, we, we've, you know, made efforts, we've gone back to the drawing board and, and we've made efforts to either reduce variances or, you know, remove them all together. And I think we're really proposing a plan here that's gonna mesh well with the character of the area. I'm not gonna reiterate all the testimony from the engineer or the architect, but I think there, there, you know, testimony was very clear that which proposed, you know, will be an asset to the neighborhood and the township as well. And, and lastly, whether or not there's going to be a negative impairment to the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and the zoning ordinance, the purpose of the township zoning ordinance meshes or you, you know, propels the same purposes of the MLUL and there are at least two criteria here of the MLUL that are advanced. So I would say that, you know, there's no impair, you know, to the, to the zoning ordinance. And lastly, we are proposing two permitted uses this evening. So we're not in any way going to fracture the intent of the zone plan of the zone as well. All in all, I think, I think my testimony has, has made it clear that in my professional opinion we're dealing with C one hardships and also in terms of the C two, the benefits do outweigh the detriments and if there are any detriments, they're not substantial in nature. Speaker 13 00:53:59 Thank you. Speaker 1 00:54:00 Thank you Mr. Lavender. Speaker 7 00:54:07 I think that's the extent of our witnesses this evening. The board has any questions for myself or any of the witnesses or we could with your permission, open it to the public Speaker 1 00:54:19 Board members. Do you have any questions of this witness? Speaker 14 00:54:25 Oh, just one comment if I could. Madam Chair. Speaker 1 00:54:29 Absolutely. Speaker 14 00:54:30 I mean I respectfully disagree that there's a C one hardship here. If this applicant was coming in to do something with the existing home and they were, they, they had a hardship because of the front yard setback, I'd agree, but they're subdividing this law. So I mean there is case law talking about the, I mean the raspberry decision talked about subdivisions and, and it had to do with D two use variance, but the, the spirit was if you subdivide a lot, you're kind of exacerbating the existing non-conforming conditions. So at that point, I don't think there's a C one, it's, it's almost like a self-created hardship. I would just defer that, you know, the applicant has provided testimony about the C two. If you, if you wish to consider that and, and weigh it. I I think it, you know, he has provided clarity on that, but I just respectfully disagree on the C one and basically just, I always put the footnote in there about C twos and I'll, I'll, you know, if the, if the planner wants to offer this, it says that the focus on the C two shall be on the characteristics of the land that presented opportunity for improved zoning and planning that will benefit the community. Speaker 14 00:55:47 I think he's kind of addressed it. If he wants to provide anything more, I, I'd offer him that floor, but, you know, I'll defer to you Madam Chair. Speaker 1 00:55:55 Thank you members of the board. Any other questions or comments? Okay, I'm gonna open it to the public. Does anyone in the public wish have any questions? Adam? Yes. Speaker 13 00:56:10 So if I may, may, Speaker 1 00:56:11 Oh, you wanna respond? Okay, sure. Yes, Speaker 13 00:56:13 Please. Yeah, thank you for that comment. I, I, you know, would say in, you know, terms of the, the C two criteria here, you know, I do understand your point about the C one, but you know, respectfully, I I I would say I, you know, do understand, you know, the point of, you know, having an extra house in this lot. But I would say that, you know, having, having these kind of double triangles in itself, the, the overall lot in itself I would say presents a, you know, hardship in terms of the, the C two criteria, you know, thank you for the opportunity to address this further. I would also add criteria m which speaks to the, the efficient use of land. I think, I think what's proposed this evening where we have a lot, which obviously has the two, Dr 2, 2 2 double double triangles. Speaker 13 00:57:07 The one portion, the larger portion of the triangle, which is undeveloped. I would say what's proposed is actually more efficient in terms of, if you look at the, the, the, the, the parcel map and then the lots in the area, this is really filling in a hole of the neighborhood and it, it's creating a, a condition, which I would say is actually more consistent with the, you know, layout of the area as well, you know, so I do think from a C two standpoint, what's proposed is actually creating a condition that is, is more so conditioned with the fabric of the community, despite the fact of course that we do need the variances. But, but I think these variances are all justified, you know, through the points I made in my testimony. Thank you for that. Appreciate it. Thank you. Speaker 1 00:57:57 Members of the board, comments, questions? Okay, let's open it up to the public at this time, members of the public, do you have any comments or questions of this witness or about this application? Would you indicate by showing your hand, waving your hand that you wanna have a question? Speaker 6 00:58:24 No, Madam Chair. Speaker 1 00:58:25 Thank you. Close to the public. All right. Members of the board, what is your pleasure, comments, thoughts, or you can make a motion. Speaker 6 00:58:37 Madam Chair, this is Councilwoman Cahill. I mean, I think based upon the fact that the applicant has comeback and complied with all of the comments from the staff and addressed the issues of sort of the intense size of the addition, I, I mean, I would put a motion forward that this board take a vote tonight and I'm of the mind to approve. But obviously that would be up to everyone else to decide. But I'd make the motion to approve it, Speaker 2 00:59:14 Obviously subject to all the conditions they agreed to on the record and the staff reports, right? Speaker 6 00:59:20 Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, that was my intent by saying they made all the adjustments, they came back, Ms. Corcoran noted that the staff had no further comments because the applicant had agreed to make the changes that had been suggested by the staff to make it not such an intensive sort of use there or land usage. So yes, with, with all of the compliances, everything that was agreed to. Speaker 0 00:59:51 We need a second. Speaker 1 00:59:52 Yes, we need a second. What about the mayor's concern about assuring that there would be no, oh, now that was the other application. I'm sorry, do I have a second? Speaker 9 01:00:06 Madam Chair, this is Dawn Corcoran. I agree with Councilwoman kl. There have been substantial changes to the plan at this point. They've agreed to basically everything, all of the concerns they agreed to all of the reports, so I would be comfortable making the second. Speaker 1 01:00:24 Okay. Thank you. Roll call please. Speaker 0 01:00:26 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Cochran? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam Chair. Speaker 1 01:00:37 Yes. Speaker 7 01:00:41 Thank you all very much. Speaker 1 01:00:44 Thank you. Good Speaker 0 01:00:45 Night. Speaker 14 01:00:45 Appreciate it. Speaker 7 01:00:47 Good night everyone. Have Speaker 2 01:00:48 A good night. Thank you. Larry. Speaker 1 01:00:50 Reminder that the meeting starts at seven o'clock in case anyone may not remember Speaker 7 01:00:57 Was that directed towards me, Madam Chairman Speaker 0 01:01:00 Holly? Speaker 1 01:01:01 There might be someone or us. Speaker 7 01:01:05 My staff is gonna get it tomorrow. Thank you all. Take care. Speaker 0 01:01:11 Have a good night. Speaker 1 01:01:12 Ajour Speaker 14 01:01:13 Adjourning. Okay, good. Have a wonderful evening. Speaker 0 01:01:18 Good night. You too. All right. Goodnight everyone. Goodnight Speaker 2 01:01:22 Everyone. Have a good Valentine's Day. Speaker 1 01:01:24 Yes, you too. Happy day Valentine's. I agree. Speaker 2 01:01:29 Now I'm going home. It's my wife's birthday. I'm already in trouble. Speaker 1 01:01:31 Oh, how are, Speaker 0 01:01:33 Yes. Speaker 1 01:01:34 Stay safely and quickly, all Speaker 14 01:01:35 To be safe. Enjoy. Speaker 0 01:01:38 Bye-bye.