Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on September 25 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 00:00:00 Just to confirm it. Speaker 1 00:00:02 Lemme get record. Speaker 0 00:00:04 Good Lord. Speaker 1 00:00:06 Go ahead, chairman. We're ready. Speaker 0 00:00:07 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 posted on the Bolton Board in municipal building notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the current news and the star ledger. Will the clerk please call the role Speaker 1 00:00:26 Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Speaker 0 00:00:32 Yes. Speaker 1 00:00:33 Mr. Blanc? Speaker 0 00:00:34 Yes. Speaker 1 00:00:35 Mr. Hica. Mr. Ellie? Yes. Mr. Weisman? He's trying to get on and Chairman Cahill Speaker 0 00:00:44 Here, will everyone please stand for salute to the flag? My pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States Republic for which one? Nation Under God, indivisible, public liberty and justice for all. Mr. Kinneally, are there any changes to tonight's agenda? Speaker 2 00:01:08 Yes, we have quite a few changes. The application of Jorge Mina 24 Old New Brunswick Road is adjourned until October 9th. They must notice Edgar Lopez, 12 Howard Street adjourned until November 13th. They must notice MSN Pharmaceuticals 20 Duke Road adjourned until October 23rd with no further notice. Venture net properties 4 25 hose lane adjourned until October 23rd with no further notice on switch. 51 New England Avenue adjourned until December 11th with no further notice. Those are all the changes that I have. Speaker 0 00:01:46 Thank you Mr. Kinneally. Let's move on to item number 7 25 dash ZB dash 63 V. Barbara Barbara Ichi. Sorry, I just came back from Italy so I was getting a little It could Speaker 3 00:02:00 Be, it could be ear each. Speaker 0 00:02:02 Ma'am, Speaker 2 00:02:03 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 00:02:11 Yes. Speaker 2 00:02:12 Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here? Speaker 3 00:02:18 I would like to have a variance for my fence. Speaker 2 00:02:23 You can put your hand down. Thank you. Speaker 3 00:02:25 That is not in code. Speaker 2 00:02:30 Mr. Chairman, you may wanna Speaker 0 00:02:31 Check with Speaker 2 00:02:32 Mr. Rahi. Speaker 0 00:02:33 Yes. Yes. Jonathan, you have some points? Speaker 4 00:02:37 Yeah. There's a couple other points that we wanna make about this property. First of all, have you had a chance to read the staff memorandum dated August 19th? Speaker 3 00:02:48 Yes. Speaker 4 00:02:50 Okay. So you understand that you're over on building coverage, so we need to bring your property back into conformance with building coverage. Would you be agreeable to modifying either the carport or removing one of the sheds? Speaker 3 00:03:05 No. Speaker 4 00:03:08 Okay. Why, why not? Speaker 3 00:03:12 I, well, financially it would not be feasible and I quite frankly don't understand why I would have to. Speaker 4 00:03:22 There's a requirement for building coverage not to exceed 20% of your lot area. When we were reviewing your property survey to perform the calculations, it became apparent that your property is over 20% coverage by roof structures. So it's the, Speaker 3 00:03:46 The structures have been present for over 30 years and I would not be in a position to make any of those changes at this time. Speaker 4 00:04:03 Okay. So our additional request to move the fence in 12 feet from the property line along Birchwood, would you be agreeable to that or would you give the same, same reason as to No, Speaker 3 00:04:16 It's same. Speaker 4 00:04:20 Okay. These are fairly non-negotiable in regards to building coverage and with the proximity to the property line. So I, I would really encourage you to consider making some of these changes or finding a way that we can make some of these changes scoot Speaker 5 00:04:40 Over a little bit. Hi, I, I'm Barbara Sdo, am I allowed to speak on her behalf? I'm sitting right Speaker 2 00:04:45 Next. I can, I can swear you in. Ma'am, what's your name? Speaker 5 00:04:49 My name is Melissa Manna. Speaker 2 00:04:51 Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 5 00:04:55 Yes. Speaker 2 00:05:01 Go ahead ma'am. Speaker 5 00:05:02 Okay, so just we, we'd like to know what exactly what it is that she needs to change or do as 13 feet in from the, from, from the street. Seems a bit extreme. Consider it's been, it's been up for 30 years and so have all the other structures on her property. Are you suggesting Speaker 2 00:05:19 The fact that it's been there for 30 years makes no difference. Speaker 5 00:05:23 Okay. So are you suggesting the structures need to be taken down completely or she will have to pay a fee? Or what's, what's the ramifications if, if she's not agreeable to removing any of the structures? I guess is our question. Speaker 4 00:05:38 You'll be receiving violations from our code enforcement department. Speaker 5 00:05:43 Okay. Speaker 0 00:05:46 Ma'am, at this point, at this point, the way we normally lean with our experts, we normally lean towards their judgments. I, I don't agree with the coverage. I think that she's 20.2 and their, the, the ordinance calls for 20. So I'm, we, I'm, I'm willing to put it forth to the, to the board here that we show the relief for the coverage, but the fence has gotta come in and if you don't agree to something tonight, the chances are they're gonna, I can read the room pretty well and you, you will not get an approval and code enforcement can come out at that point. Speaker 5 00:06:19 Okay. Can I ask you can, can I ask you, is it 13 feet minimum or thir, is that, is that set in stone or can that be negotiable? 12, Speaker 4 00:06:29 12 feet minimum from the property line, not from the street. Speaker 3 00:06:38 If, if I put a four foot fence right where the existing six foot fence is, would that be acceptable? Speaker 4 00:06:50 As long as it's 50% open, as in picket fence, Speaker 0 00:06:57 Is that something you could agree upon, ma'am? Therefore you wouldn't have to move. Speaker 1 00:07:04 Mr. Chairman. One question though, would she be able to do the four foot up to the 12 feet and then once to 12 feet she could put the six foot? There's two different ways to look at that we need to know for the resolution. Speaker 5 00:07:16 Thank you, Laura. That was my next question, Speaker 2 00:07:23 John. I think we need Jonathan's opinion on Speaker 4 00:07:24 That. Yeah, I I would, I would agree with Laura. I think if, if they do agree to do a four foot, 50% solid, they could with the variance at 12 feet from the property line, step up to a a six foot panel, Speaker 5 00:07:40 12 feet from property line. Speaker 4 00:07:41 Okay. Yeah. Speaker 5 00:07:44 Is is there a, a time allotment on that, that she needs to adhere to? Speaker 0 00:07:52 Can we put that in some language there, Jim? Yes. Speaker 2 00:07:54 Yes. Whatever the board decides. Speaker 0 00:07:57 What time are you, what timeframe? Yeah, what kind of timeframe are you looking at, ma'am? Couple of months. Well, Speaker 5 00:08:05 Frankly she's not, because we, we thought with, with the affidavit and, and all the signatures that she got over the past two months that this would clear the problem. Right. So we were really weren't even thinking about a timeline, quite frankly. Speaker 3 00:08:17 And I wasn't thinking I was going to have to make these changes. Speaker 0 00:08:22 And then I, I hear that for almost every applicant that comes before us, unfortunately. I'm so sorry you're in this position, but it is what we have to deal with Speaker 5 00:08:30 And I I I appreciate the candor, but I I I do need to ask you, is there a reason why she had to go and get all of 25 signatures for an affidavit if this was gonna be basically declined anyway Speaker 2 00:08:42 To state law? Ma'am, these, these are the notice requirements set forth in state law. Speaker 5 00:08:48 Okay. So whether she did or did not get the signatures, this is would've, this would've been the outcome anyway. Speaker 2 00:08:54 If you didn't get the signatures, you would not have a hearing. Speaker 5 00:09:01 Okay. Speaker 0 00:09:06 To the, the the fence. What Speaker 5 00:09:08 I have Speaker 0 00:09:08 To do, what? Speaker 5 00:09:11 I'm sorry, can you repeat that? I'm sorry. Speaker 0 00:09:15 I said are you am able to, what Laura suggested with the four foot 50% solid and then breaking it out to a six foot, Speaker 5 00:09:24 It's up to you. It's your property mine to stay in the position it's currently No, no, it's either got it, it's either gotta be, Speaker 4 00:09:34 Well keep the fence from where it is property to 12 feet in the fence will stay in the same location. It'll be four foot tall, 50% solid. Then after you pass that 12 foot mark, you can step up to that six foot solid fence Speaker 1 00:09:51 And they're gonna let you keep the sheds. So if you say no, there's a chance the whole thing could be denied. Speaker 5 00:09:57 So this is a bar, this is a bargain is what we're doing right now. Okay, so lemme say Speaker 0 00:10:02 It's a compromise. Speaker 5 00:10:03 When you say a four foot fence, that means a slotted fence. So it's open and it's four foot tall. Yes. And 50% it say the same footings in the same position? Speaker 1 00:10:13 Yes. Speaker 4 00:10:14 Yeah, you can leave the footings in the same position. If it's a two inch pick, two inch gap. That's what we mean by 50% solid. Speaker 5 00:10:21 Okay, so it's a see-through fence and it can't be a solid cedar, which she has now, which is six foot. Correct? Correct. Okay. And the property line does not have to be moved if she will agree to a four foot, two inch opening gap fence Speaker 4 00:10:37 An equal, an equal opening to the size of the slide. Yes. Speaker 5 00:10:40 Okay. Okay. And you have to agree to what mom, because apparently that that's, they didn't stick to what they, they told you originally. So you have no choice Speaker 0 00:10:54 If, if there's a financial hardship involved, would would put putting this off until spring of 2026 help you out at Speaker 5 00:11:02 All. There's absolutely a financial hardship, which is why my mom walked around the neighborhood at 80 years old getting 25 signatures. We thought that this would be right. That's like this would be our attorney. Speaker 1 00:11:13 No, it was explained to you. The signatures were for noticing you had to go in front, it's the board's decision, not your neighbor's decision. Speaker 5 00:11:20 But what, what were excuse my, I I my, my question, Speaker 1 00:11:26 I've helping your mother through this for months. Speaker 5 00:11:28 What was the que what would the signatures for then to agree with? What if, if she still needs to move structures? Speaker 1 00:11:34 They don't have to agree with anything. Speaker 2 00:11:35 The signatures have nothing to do with agreement. The signatures are to be sure that everyone within 200 feet of the applicant's property is on notice that this application has been made. It's not that they agree to it. Speaker 5 00:11:52 Okay. So, so the final decision is made by the zoning board? Speaker 2 00:11:56 Yes. Speaker 0 00:11:57 Yeah, Speaker 3 00:11:58 They have, I have seen fences where in vinyl where it almost looks like a louvre. Is that, is that what you mean by where it's open, slotted? No Speaker 1 00:12:14 Picket fence Speaker 3 00:12:16 It fence. It could be picket Speaker 1 00:12:18 Or chain link. You could do a chain link, right? Speaker 6 00:12:23 Do you want me to speak or you don do you not want me to speak? Speaker 1 00:12:26 You could do either or at time of permitting because Speaker 6 00:12:29 It's gonna be a problem if I speak, Speaker 0 00:12:32 You can do a real fence. Speaker 3 00:12:35 Yeah, by all means. I Speaker 6 00:12:38 I I don't wanna take up Speaker 5 00:12:39 Any more of the court's time. My mother, like I said, she's, she walked around the neighborhood to get all of these signatures thinking that she could keep her her property, you know, in the, in the same shape that it was for many years. So now you're saying, so if defense, if the fence does come down, it just needs to be, pick it in the, in the sense that it can't be a shadow fence is what she I think that's what she was referring to. Yeah. It's gotta be actual two inch gaps in between slotts is what you're saying. If Speaker 2 00:13:09 The slotts are two inches wide, the gaps have to be two inches wide. Speaker 5 00:13:14 That's big sense. Okay. Okay. And that's the only option except to move it 12 feet in from the property line Speaker 0 00:13:23 That that is Speaker 5 00:13:24 Correct. And keep it at and keep it at the same height, correct? Speaker 0 00:13:28 That is correct. Okay. That's the, Speaker 5 00:13:30 Okay. And we can, we have until spring to actually have this work done Speaker 0 00:13:34 Give you, give you until April when the ground is nice and warm and you know, maybe it can, it'll be a lot easier to put the fence up. Speaker 5 00:13:42 Okay. And it can be, it can be uniform, but the same fence that she has, in other words, she's got the cedar, she's got the vinyl, the vinyl cedar color fence that goes around the whole property and she doesn't on, obviously we don't wanna bring down the property value by making it look worse, which is gonna happen with the suggestion. So can we can keep, we, we can keep the same fence if we move it in. Speaker 0 00:14:07 Yes. Speaker 5 00:14:08 Okay. Speaker 6 00:14:10 There you go. Speaker 3 00:14:13 Alright, Speaker 0 00:14:15 So you're agreeable to that then. Speaker 3 00:14:18 And that's it. I mean, Speaker 0 00:14:21 On the more question Speaker 5 00:14:23 Again, not to take up the time. Speaker 3 00:14:24 Alright, that's the, that's the fence issue. Are there any other issues? Speaker 5 00:14:28 I, I I just wanted to ask. No, I Speaker 0 00:14:29 Told, I already told you, you know, I already told you that the coverage is something that I think I'll waive. It's 0.2, thank you. Over and it's, it's dimis in my eyes, so you just need to make a decision on the fence. Speaker 5 00:14:41 On the fence. And, and one more Speaker 0 00:14:43 Question, the suggestion made. Speaker 5 00:14:45 Hmm? I just have one more question. So if, if she does remedy the fence issue, why is it that you waived the, the sheds as needing to be removed? It, I'm not, I'm not understanding why one trumps the other Speaker 1 00:15:02 Two different issues. Speaker 4 00:15:06 In, in, in Sean's opinion, the 0.2% is de minimis, meaning it's of low significance compared to the impact. The fence being too close to the street has on vehicular traffic safety. Speaker 3 00:15:24 And there's no way, I, I was under the impression that the solid four foot in the position that it's in now would be okay. That's not okay. The whole thing. It is. Speaker 5 00:15:34 Okay. Speaker 2 00:15:35 That is, that is not okay. Speaker 3 00:15:37 It's not, or it is. Speaker 4 00:15:38 The four foot fence would need to be 50% solid at a minimum. Right? So as Laura said, that could be the picket or the chain link. Correct. Speaker 3 00:15:47 At the four foot Speaker 5 00:15:47 Level. At the four foot chain link or Speaker 6 00:15:49 Picket, you're not gonna have any privacy mom, you're losing your entire, entire privacy. So you either have to bump in 12 feet Speaker 5 00:15:55 Or go with the picket. We understand what you guys are proposing. Speaker 0 00:16:01 Do you wanna put this, we could put this off to another meeting if you guys wanna take time to discuss it. This the options. If you don't, if you feel pressure to make a decision like this in the next couple of minutes, I don't wanna put that on you if you wanna take Speaker 5 00:16:14 She certainly doesn't feel comfortable. Like I said, it's definitely fi finances are an issue we have. Yeah, yeah. If we can put this off again just before a short Speaker 0 00:16:26 Term fair enough. That's, that's probably the, the proper decision. Make, let's, let's put this off for Laura. We got, what do we look like in November? I mean, October. Speaker 1 00:16:37 October 9th. Speaker 0 00:16:40 Okay. Is October 9th enough time or Speaker 3 00:16:43 We have to do the six? Speaker 5 00:16:45 I'd like sons. I'd like your son's to maybe sit in on this. Maybe, I don't know. Speaker 1 00:16:50 Can I ask Chairman though? Are you gonna ask her to send revised plan like on my end? What, what are we gonna be looking for or doing? Like, we're gonna put it off for a month, but I mean, is it gonna change anything? If Speaker 5 00:17:01 It's gonna be, yeah, if it's gonna be the same answer, then no. But when does she have to have this fence put up? Is this is not gonna happen overnight? I mean, there, there definitely is financial. Speaker 0 00:17:10 I I told you April, April of 2026 is, yeah. Speaker 5 00:17:14 Okay. Speaker 0 00:17:15 10 months out. Speaker 5 00:17:16 All right, let's do that and we'll forego the next meeting then. Yes. Okay. Speaker 1 00:17:19 Not gonna change. Speaker 5 00:17:21 Yeah, if it's not gonna change, there's no point. Thank you Laura. And having another meeting. Speaker 1 00:17:24 Okay, so do you wanna do a vote tonight? Speaker 5 00:17:27 Yes. Yes. Speaker 1 00:17:29 Thank you. Speaker 0 00:17:30 Okay. Again, that was a whirlwind there. Where, where we, she's moving the fence in and keeping it the same Speaker 2 00:17:37 Four, four foot, 50% open. You have Speaker 6 00:17:40 To decide what you wanna do. Speaker 2 00:17:42 Property line then up to six feet. This Speaker 6 00:17:44 Is what this is about. Oh, are you moving the fence in 12 feet or are you going to do a picket at Speaker 1 00:17:48 The same line? Slack, I'm gonna move in the existing chairman, she could get the variance for the forefoot and then if she wants to do the 12 foot, she could always just move at the 12 feet is the same exact thing, right? Correct. That's what I want. Okay. Yes. Speaker 0 00:18:03 Alright. Is that good with you Jonathan? Speaker 1 00:18:07 Yes. Speaker 0 00:18:08 Okay. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments about this? Speaker 1 00:18:12 No. No? Speaker 0 00:18:13 Okay. Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application? Speaker 1 00:18:20 No. No. One chairman. Speaker 0 00:18:23 Okay. Close the public portion and I'd make a motion to approve this application with the stipulations outlined. Can I get second? I A second. Thank you. Call the roll please. Speaker 1 00:18:34 Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Bla? Yes. Mr. Haka or he was here? Mr. Ley? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Speaker 0 00:18:51 Yes. Speaker 2 00:18:52 Your application as amended has been approved. We'll memorialize this in a written document at our next meeting and we'll send that document to you. Speaker 1 00:19:00 Thank you. Thank Speaker 0 00:19:01 You. Have a good night Ladies, let's move on to item number 8 25 dash ZB dash 54 V. Michael Murray, Speaker 2 00:19:11 It's Mr. Sullivan present? Speaker 7 00:19:13 Yes I am. Good evening everybody. My name's John Sullivan. I'm an attorney with the offices of Vest and Sullivan and I'm representing Michael Murray, who is the owner of the property at 25 Stelton Road. That property is fully improved with the two and a half story building along with the driveway and a parking area that can fit six vehicles. This property was subject to a prior zoning board approval back in 1982, and that allowed the mixed use of the property with, at the time a chiropractor's office on the first floor and a residential apartment on the second floor, with the caveat that the second floor apartment could only be occupied by the proprietor of the first floor office. The proposal before you tonight is to allow us to convert the use of the property to a two-family dwelling with one apartment on the first floor and one apartment on the second floor. Speaker 7 00:20:12 We do not really propose many site improvements, however, we have had a chance to review the staff report and we will agree to, to those conditions that are set forth there. So that would be the only, the exterior improvements to the site. Oh, also if you look at the, at the site plan, there were some sheds there and we were going to remove those sheds as part of this application. The relief we are requesting is a D one use variance. There are several bulk standard nonconformities, but as I understand it, they were previously approved back during the, I believe, the 1982 approval. What we've submitted tonight is the variance plan prepared by Casey and Keller with the date of May 6th, 2025. We also submitted the survey dated June 20th, 2025, also prepared by Casey and Keller, as well as the architectural plans prepared by Taylor Architecture and Design, which are dated May 7th, 2025. We have three witnesses. We'll, we'll try and keep this as brief as possible. We have Jerry Williamson, who is our realtor, Brian Taylor, who is our architect, and Brian Conway, who is our landscape architect and professional planner. So if I may, I would begin with Mr. Williamson. Please Speaker 8 00:21:37 Proceed. Speaker 2 00:21:39 Mr. Williams, are you present? Speaker 8 00:21:40 Yes, I am. Speaker 2 00:21:41 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 8 00:21:48 Yes. Speaker 2 00:21:49 Your name and address please? Speaker 8 00:21:50 Gerald Williamson. 12. Anita Drive, Piscataway, New Jersey. Speaker 2 00:21:54 Thanks. You can put your hand down. Speaker 7 00:21:57 Mr. Williamson, you are a licensed New Jersey realtor, is that correct? Speaker 8 00:22:01 Yes, it is. Speaker 7 00:22:03 And how long have you been so licensed? Speaker 8 00:22:05 Since 1981, I was a real estate agent and in 1987 I became a real estate broker. Speaker 7 00:22:14 And your license remains in good standing? Speaker 8 00:22:16 Yes. Speaker 7 00:22:18 And can you just briefly describe to the board the nature of your practice? Speaker 8 00:22:23 I do pretty much everything from residential to vacant land to commercial, pretty much anything. Mr. Sullivan, you can move on. Speaker 7 00:22:34 Thank you. And Mr. Williamson, you're familiar with the the site as well as the building on the site? Speaker 8 00:22:40 Yes. Speaker 7 00:22:41 And I understand that you listed it for sale? Speaker 8 00:22:45 Yes, I listed the property for sale on four nine 2025. Speaker 7 00:22:50 And what did you do in terms of advertising? Speaker 8 00:22:53 I put it into all Jersey, the Garden state MLS. So Speaker 7 00:22:58 Multiple listing services? Speaker 8 00:22:59 Multiple listing services, yes. And then I had a sign in front of the property, which I got numerous calls on. Speaker 7 00:23:06 Okay. And I understand you did list it as a mixed use in accordance with that 1982 zoning board approval, is that correct? Speaker 8 00:23:14 Yes, I did. Speaker 7 00:23:15 And you said you did get numerous calls on it? Speaker 8 00:23:18 Many calls mostly looking for residential use. Speaker 7 00:23:23 Okay. Was any, was anybody interested in the, the particular use that the, that's permitted to be used for Speaker 8 00:23:31 The other? I did have a few showings from professionals who did look at it, but the feedback was they felt the first floor was too small. Speaker 7 00:23:41 And then you mentioned you did have inquiries about uses residential. Was that as a two-family home? Yes. Speaker 8 00:23:47 Yes. Many people called wanted to know if it was a two-family. Speaker 7 00:23:52 And do you feel that the, the unit size being relatively small, I think around 700 square feet for each floor, did that detract from being able to sell the property for the permitted use? Speaker 8 00:24:06 Yes. And, and also that the professional would also have to be the one that occupied the, the apartment. They didn't have the option of, you know, letting somebody else live upstairs. But I just think from a professional standpoint, it really didn't appeal to many people. The two family had a much more, much more of an appeal. Speaker 7 00:24:26 Okay, thank you. That's all I have for Mr. Williamson. Speaker 0 00:24:30 Any other members of the board have any questions for Mr. Williams? You can proceed Mr. Salva. Speaker 7 00:24:35 Thank you. Next would be our architect. Brian Taylor. Speaker 2 00:24:40 Mr. Keller, president? Speaker 9 00:24:43 I am. Speaker 2 00:24:44 Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 9 00:24:51 Yes, I do. Speaker 2 00:24:52 Thank you. Your name and address please? Speaker 9 00:24:54 Brian Taylor. 95 Wung Avenue, north Plainfield, New Jersey. Speaker 2 00:24:59 Thank you. Speaker 7 00:25:02 Mr. Taylor, would you state your qualifications for the board? Speaker 9 00:25:05 I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey as well as six other states. I attended the New Jersey Institute of Technology for my bachelor of architecture and I've been in my own practice for 23 years. Speaker 0 00:25:19 It's Mr. Sullivan is, credentials are perfect. That's fine. Speaker 7 00:25:23 Thank you. And Mr. Taylor, you're familiar with the site and the application, correct? Speaker 9 00:25:28 Yes. Speaker 7 00:25:29 And you prepared the plans that we've submitted to the board? Speaker 9 00:25:32 Yes. Speaker 7 00:25:34 And can you describe to the board the, the structure as it exists now and what we are proposing? Speaker 9 00:25:40 So the structure now, essentially this was built as a single family home. It's a, it's a two and a half story wood frame structure with a front porch, very residential looking. Apparently it was converted at the first floor to be an office. I believe it was a chiropractor's office. It was a small office and the second floor remained as a residential apartment. So that's pretty much the, was the, is the existing use right now. Speaker 7 00:26:15 And would you describe the proposed renovations for the proposed use? Speaker 9 00:26:21 Sure. So the renovations are exclusively on the first floor and essentially we are converting that first floor office use into an apartment. So we are adding full bathroom because there was only a powder room there. We're adding a full kitchen, we're adding two bedrooms, a living room, and a home office. And these are all just interior alterations. We're not proposing any exterior alterations. And I will note that, you know, like I said, that the home is a, has a very residential, you know, character to, it was a single family home. It has a nice curb appeal, it has a nice front porch and it's in good condition on the exterior. Speaker 7 00:27:06 Okay, thank you. That's all I have for Mr. Taylor. Speaker 0 00:27:09 Any other members of the boards have any questions or comments from Mr. Taylor? None. Mr. Sullivan, put on your next witness. Speaker 10 00:27:17 Mr. Chairman, just the statement from the architect was that it's a two bedroom apartment. If the board approves it, I would make that a condition of approval. Speaker 0 00:27:32 Okay, Mr. Sullivan, in Speaker 7 00:27:36 Agreement? Yes. Next would be Brian Conway. He is our landscape architect and our professional planner. Speaker 2 00:27:44 Mr. Conway, are you present? You're muted. Speaker 11 00:27:52 Okay. Everybody hear me? Okay, could Speaker 2 00:27:56 You raise your right hand? Speaker 0 00:27:57 Yes. Speaker 2 00:27:59 Do you swear the testimony you're about to give you the truth? Speaker 11 00:28:02 Yes sir. Speaker 2 00:28:03 Your name and address please? Speaker 11 00:28:05 Brian Conway. Professional address, 2 58 Main Street, Millburn, New Jersey 0 7 0 4 1. Speaker 7 00:28:15 Mr. Conway, would you state your qualifications for the board as both the landscape architect and a professional planner? Certainly. Speaker 11 00:28:23 I'm a graduate of Rutgers University Cook College. I've been licensed as a landscape architect since 1992. Licensed as a professional planner since 1993. I've been practicing since then doing all types of different projects. I've done several in Piscataway, certainly before the planning board. Thank, I don't know that I've been before Piscataway, thank. Speaker 0 00:28:45 Okay. Please proceed. Okay. Thank you Ms. Speaker 7 00:28:48 On your firm, your firm prepared the, the engineering plans that we submitted to the board? Yes Speaker 11 00:28:54 Sir. Speaker 7 00:28:55 And you're familiar with the site as well as the proposal? Speaker 0 00:28:58 Correct. Speaker 7 00:29:01 If you could just start out by describing the site as it currently exists. Speaker 11 00:29:06 Certainly. Can everybody see the screen share? Speaker 2 00:29:10 Yes. Speaker 0 00:29:10 Yes. Okay. Speaker 11 00:29:17 The site is a rectangular lot on the east side of Stelton Road between Lakeview Avenue and Academy Street. It's 60 feet wide by about 180 feet deep. That's a 10,691 square foot site with 0.25 acres just about a quarter of an acre and proved with an existing two story mixed use building. The property is wholly located within the BP two business professional district. The first floor contains an approximate 720 square foot office space. The second floor contains an existing 700 square foot, approximately two bedroom apartment. The site is generally flat with the fox and Fox apartment buildings to the north and east is their parking lot and there's an office building to the south. The site ingress is via the south, a one-way drive, and the site egress is via a one-way drive. On the north side of the building, there are six existing parking spaces. It's conforming with all of the bulk requirements of the zone except for lot width and front yard, which there was previous variance approval given in the 1982 application. Just a a couple statistics to note that I'm gonna reference later. The total impervious coverage on the site is 53.8% and the total pervious or landscape coverage of the site is 46.2%. These are all existing conditions that will remain unchanged by this application. Speaker 11 00:30:46 Just gonna give a little bit of neighborhood context and the plan I'm referencing is the plan that was submitted and I'm gonna zoom in on the aerial photo on the top left of the drawing. The property in question is within the center blue rectangle. The outer blue rectangle is a 200 foot distance for the 200 foot properties. So for neighborhood context surrounding properties within the Stelton Road business district include commercial offices, institutional uses, single family homes, new multifamily, and existing multifamily residential. The township amenities in the area include the Westergard Library, new Market Park, and Columbus Park for the site history. According to the multiple listing, the house was built in 1875 and was formerly a one family residence in 1982. A variance was granted to create a chiropractor's office on the first floor with a second floor apartment with the condition that the office be used by one professional who must necessarily be the occupant of the apartment. The chiropractor's office is closed and the building remains vacant. The building remains vacant. The variance approved in 1982 is a very specific and niche approval. The office space on the first floor is small at about 726 square feet. Mr. Mary purchased a property this year and has it been unable to find a, a tenant? Speaker 11 00:32:23 I'm zooming back over to the, the plan itself. The application proposed to leave the building exterior as is and to renovate the interior by converting the first floor office space into a two bedroom apartment. The second floor apartment will remain as is. The site will remain unchanged except for the improvements and repairs requested by the Piscataway staff report memorandum dated today, September 25th, 2025. The minimum parking requirement for the two two bedroom apartments is five parking spaces. There are six existing parking spaces on on site that shall remain. To reiterate, this is a change of use variance application and proposes no changes to the building. Exterior. Exterior, no changes to the site except as requested by the town and minor renovations to the first floor interior. Speaker 11 00:33:16 That's the description of the site. Existing conditions, I'm gonna go into the planning testimony now. What we're seeking is a use variance to change the use of a mixed use BU building first floor office and second floor apartment approved by prior variance to a two unit residential use with a first floor apartment while maintaining the second floor apartment to D variance we're asking for under the municipal land use law 40 55 D dash 70 D one. We have to provide positive TER criteria or special reasons and we have to review and discuss the negative criteria and show that the project can be approved without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose. Intent and purpose of the zone plan and the zoning ordinance for the positive criteria. The special reasons to establish special reasons and meet the positive criteria. Speaker 11 00:34:13 The applicant must show that the proposed project carries out a propo, carries out a purpose of the zoning as defined by the municipal land use law. Case law finds that there are sufficient special reasons for the grant of a D variance when a proposed project carries out any of the 16 purposes of zoning as defined in NJS four D 55 D dash two, the purposes advanced by this project A is to encourage the municipal action to guide appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. A vacant property has a negative impact. A fully rented utilized building is a better neighbor and promotes general welfare. These two apartments proposed are within the Stelton Road business District District with easily, easily walkable access. As mentioned before, other than the minor reservations renovations inside the building, the building will remain, remain as is with the exterior unmodified. Speaker 11 00:35:18 The existing site will also remain as is spare repairs and improvements requested by the town. Considering this, the project carries out several other purposes of the municipal landus law, including C, to provide adequate light air and open space, the site's 46.2% pervious landscape area will remain unchanged under this application. In other words, almost half of the site will remain landscaped, impervious, and then e to promote the establishment of appropriate pro population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the wellbeing of persons, neighborhoods, communities, and regions and preservation of the environment. The preservation of an existing building in site largely intact with a adaptive reuse that does not require extensive demolition, construction or disturbance will help to preserve the environment. We also have g to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial uses and open space both public and private according to with the respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens. Speaker 11 00:36:33 So providing a variety of housing types to meet the needs of the community. The proposed application makes an additional small two bedroom unit available to help meet the residential needs of Piscataway in the surrounding area. We also have Jay to promote the conservation of historic sites and districts, open space, energy resources and valuable resources in the state and to prevent urban, urban sprawl and degradation of the environment through the improper use of land. The change of this building built in 18 18 75 without changes to the exterior and with only minor site plan changes requested by the township will commit the continued use of the property without additional impacts to the environment and the community. In my mind, this project advances five purposes of zoning in addition to advancing these general purposes. Case law also requires that we show that the site is particularly well-suited for the proposed use in order to further promote general welfare. Speaker 11 00:37:40 A few caveats demonstrating that a site is particularly suitable for use does not require proof that there is no other potential location for the use within the community, nor does it demand evidence that a permitted use couldn't work on the property. Rather, it's an inquiry into whether the property is particularly suited for the proposed use in the sense that it's especially well suited for the use in spite of the fact that the use is not permitted in the zone, the site is particularly well suited for the project, the existing the, because the existing building can easily accommodate the change of use without any exterior modifications. The site can easily accommodate the use without modification. Again, the only site plan changes proposed are as being requested by the town. The site is located within the Stelton business district with easy pedestrian access to building businesses and recreation. Speaker 11 00:38:34 The existing parking exceeds what's required. And it is likely that the site has been a residential use for 150 years or so, as Sherry had testified to. The site is not in demand for the permitted uses and the, the site is particularly well suited for the proposed use. I'm gonna briefly discuss the negative criteria and in order to share the negative criteria, we have to demonstrate that no substantial detriment to the public good and there's no substantial detriment impairment to the intent or purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance. And so far as no substantial detriment to the public good, there's no detriment here to the character of the neighborhood. Impacts are mitigated by, there's no changes to the building exterior. There are minimal changes to the site that are requested by the town. There's sufficient onsite parking and the change from an office to a two bedroom apartment will reduce traffic albe, albeit it will be a minimal change. Speaker 11 00:39:39 While there are always some possible negative impacts, in my opinion, there are none that are substantial and I believe that the benefits outweigh any detriments and so far as substantial impairment to the master plan or the zoning ordinance. I spent a lot of time reading through the master plan reexamination report of 2020 and land use goals. One of the land use goals is to ensure the harmonious interrelationships of various land use activities throughout the entire township and with neighboring municipalities. And here we have an existing building in the neighborhood that's been there for, you know, approximately 150 years. Also in the examination report there was discussion of challenges section three and it talked about the adaptive reuse of existing sites and buildings compatible with the surrounding land use. I think this is an adaptive reuse of a site and given that it's on the, in the BP two zone in the Stelton business district, I think it's would be a, an additional benefit that the residents would be able to walk and support the businesses along Stelton Road. Additionally, in the master plan, Reeva reexamination report, number four, assumptions as vacant developable land diminishes in the township. Public and private redevelopment, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse efforts will continue to increase, particularly in the older sections of the township and on older developed land parcels and buildings. I think that everything that I've discussed so far supports that base. So in, in my mind's eye, I believe that the use proposed is not inconsistent with the master plan. That concludes my testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions or have any discussion should anybody Character. Speaker 7 00:41:28 Well just before we do that, you did have the opportunity to review the staff report dated September 25th, 2025 with the applicant. And in particular the recommendations under site impact items number two through six. And it's my understanding that the applicant will agree to each of those conditions. Is that correct? Correct. Speaker 11 00:41:51 We'll we will work through all those conditions with the township officials. Speaker 7 00:41:55 Okay. And did you need any, did you need any clarification on item number four, installation of the optic line? Speaker 11 00:42:05 We have been working in Piscataway and we have worked with this on several of other projects. We actually were doing a plan revision for a project on Centennial Avenue today. So I'm, I'm sure that we'd be able to coordinate with the town. I believe Joe Herrera is who we were coordinating with on net revision to their satisfaction. Speaker 7 00:42:26 Okay. And then the county planning board did issue a letter of no interest dated June 24th, 2025, correct? Speaker 11 00:42:33 Yes. Speaker 7 00:42:35 And that is all I have for Mr. Conway. Speaker 0 00:42:37 Okay, Mr. Conway, take your screen down please. Any members of the board of Well, how about Jonathan? Jonathan, would you like to chime in here? And again, they, they agreed to the, all, everything on the site impact, so that covered a lot of stuff. But maybe you have another question. Speaker 12 00:42:58 The item number five, is there an intention to add signage to this property? Speaker 11 00:43:04 What would be the intent of the signage? Jonathan? Speaker 12 00:43:07 Directional or Speaker 11 00:43:09 Would would arrows? Would arrows on the, on the, will the ground be sufficient in and Speaker 12 00:43:13 Out? That's what, that's what I thought. You don't have to, I'm, I'm just curious if that was being considered. Speaker 11 00:43:18 I think it would be less cluttered if we were to paint arrows on the driveways for directions as opposed to add signs. Speaker 12 00:43:23 That works. Okay. That's all I have. Speaker 0 00:43:26 Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Speaker 10 00:43:30 Mr. Chairman? I have just one comment. I think the, the, it's a repurpose of a building that's been there for 150 years and we've got multifamily next to it and an office building on the other side. It seems to make, I guess I support the testimony that the planner gave. Speaker 0 00:43:52 Yeah. Thank you. John, any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the pub and Mr. Sullivan, I'm gonna take it to the public now and then we'll vote. Do you have anything else you wanna add? You're done? Speaker 7 00:44:07 Yeah, I'm done. Thank you. Okay, cool. Speaker 0 00:44:09 I'll, let's open it to the public. The public have any questions or comments about this application? Speaker 1 00:44:17 No. One chairman. Speaker 0 00:44:18 Okay. Close the public portion and I'd make a motion to approve this application. Speaker 10 00:44:22 I'll second I make motion. Speaker 0 00:44:24 Please call the roll. Speaker 1 00:44:25 Mr. Weisman? Speaker 0 00:44:27 Yes. Speaker 1 00:44:28 Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blo? Yes. Mr. Hika? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. And Chairman Cale? Speaker 0 00:44:39 Yes. Mr. Sullivan will memorialize this at our next meeting and send a copy to you. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you everyone have a good night. Thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you. Item number 1125 dash zv dash 69 slash 70 V-A-C-M-Y. Speaker 13 00:44:57 Thank you Mr. Cahill, members of the board and board professionals. My name is Tim Arch. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey and I'm here tonight representing Acme LLC. Great are the owners of, let me just pull up my outline owners of the property at 4,100 New Brunswick Avenue. We're here tonight seeking amended preliminary and final minor site plan and a temporary use permit approval for the property, which is located in the M five industrial zone. We're proposing to use a portion of the site, which is currently comprised of compacted gravel and is unused as a temporary tractor trailer storage. The proposal is to add 2012 by 55 foot spaces delineated along the western side of the site with no other changes to the current building or site operations. As I mentioned, the property is located in the M five zone, which allows as an accessory use for the principal use on the property to have tractor trailer parking. Speaker 13 00:45:55 However, the intent is to lease this, this space to a third party tenant that's not operating outta the site. So that's why it requires that the temporary use permit or ultimately a use variance. And I mentioned that to highlight what your staff report already confirms, which is that this location is really ideal for this purpose. Very well suited for, for having it as it's in the industrial zone. And in fact the site has consistently had tractor trailers parked on it since 1970 according to historical aerial photos that we were able to to look at. So I did mention this is a, a temporary six month use permit. The intention is to come back before the board within that six month period with a full use variance application and site plan application showing a more permanent delineated tractor trailer parking plan. But there's actually a lot of interest, immediate interest to utilize the space for tractor trailer parking. Speaker 13 00:46:52 So that's why we're coming in for that, for the temporary use permit. Now I do wanna acknowledge that we have two staff reports. We have Mr. Chadwick's report and we also have the, the famous Piscataway tri-party staff report we can agree to and answer all the items in the reports. I do wanna highlight one comment in particular, however before we move on. And that is on the tri-party report. Comment two of five and I'll read it verbatim. The site is well-suited for the temporary use of trailer storage end quote. So I always like to highlight when, when I see something like that in a staff report. I I do only have, I have one witness planned for tonight and that is Mr. Rob Murray from Menlo Engineering. I also have Lester Weiss here who is the applicant in case there's any specific questions that only he can answer. But I think that we can address all of the, of the reports with Rob's testimony. So unless there is any questions of me beforehand, I'm ready to proceed with, I Speaker 2 00:47:55 Think you should proceed with Mr. Murray. Thank you. Speaker 13 00:47:57 All right, Speaker 2 00:47:58 Mr. Mr. Murray, are you present? Speaker 14 00:48:00 Yes. Speaker 2 00:48:02 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 14 00:48:07 Yeah. Speaker 2 00:48:09 Your name and address please. Speaker 14 00:48:11 Robert Murray, 2 61 Leveland Avenue, Highland Park, New Jersey. Speaker 2 00:48:15 And put your hand down Speaker 13 00:48:18 Mr. Murray, if you can please briefly go through your, your qualification so you can be accepted as an expert in engineering. Speaker 14 00:48:24 Yes. I graduated from, excuse me, Stevens Institute Technology in 2017. I've been a professional engineer for about four years now and I provided test testimony in, in front of numerous boards including Pisca. Speaker 2 00:48:40 And we can proceed Mr. Arch. Speaker 13 00:48:42 Thank you Mr. Murray. The floor is yours. If you can take us away and just demonstrate the site for the, for the board and what we're proposing. Speaker 14 00:48:51 Yes. Can everyone see my screen? Speaker 2 00:48:58 Yes. Yes. Speaker 14 00:48:59 Okay, thank you. This is our amended minor site plan exhibit, which is a aerial photograph of the site with the very minor improvements colorized. And just to orient the drawing north is facing up the property better known as 4,100 New Brunswick Ave is known as lot two oh 0.03 of block 1701 in the township of Piscataway. The site is located to the northeast of the intersection between New Brunswick Avenue and Tyler Place with two accesses off of New Brunswick Ave. Overall, the property is approximately 10.99 acres and is located entirely within the M five industrial zone. Speaker 14 00:49:48 The site is surrounded to the north by industrial use to the east, a site under construction for residential to the south beyond the conrail industrial and educational uses. And so West Woodlands and the li to zone as the site exists today, it is currently a 96,080 square foot building with warehouse manufacturing and office space uses. The site currently has 95 parking spaces and the, the applicant is not seeking to change anything with parking. The applicant is proposing 20 trailer spaces behind the building on the west side. These spaces will be 12 by 55 feet. The applicant anticipates that only a few trips will be, will happen a week for trailer storage, third party trailer storage. And the applicant agrees to evaluate their striping every monthly to decide whether it's necessary to retrip the improvement. There are no changes to the structure, no changes to the parking. The applicant simply is just seeking a third party, excuse me, a use variance for the third party trailer storage and a variance for the gravel parking for the trailer storage. And that briefly thumbs up the, the improvements to the site. Speaker 13 00:51:22 Thank you. Rob, I think we've addressed, I just wanna highlight the, the two comments that you made as to the frequency of the, the tractor trailer. As you indicated that we only anticipate that they're going to be moved possibly just a couple times per week. This isn't gonna be a, a daily switching of, of the, the trailers, is that correct? Correct. Okay. And I believe you also indicated, 'cause one of the comments on the reports was the frequency of res striping, if that's necessary. And I, I know we indicated that it's gravel, but I think we had spoken about that this is actually a, a really a compressed gravel and so we actually think that the lines are gonna hold up very well, but we would agree as a condition to monitor that on a monthly basis and retrip as necessary. Correct? Speaker 14 00:52:11 Correct. Speaker 13 00:52:12 Okay. I think the only other comment was from Mr. Chadwick's report that we need testimony on, and that was some commentary on what type of materials would be within the trailers. And I think if I recall when we discussed with with ownership earlier today, that that's all, that's ultimately gonna depend on that third party tenant. However, we would be happy to agree to a condition that there would be no hazardous materials of any kind stored in those, in those trailers. And we anticipate that what's gonna be on site is either going to be actually empty trailers for the most part, but if they do have items in them, those would be the common non-perishable items that would be shipped over the road that are not hazardous in nature. And again, aren't anything that are gonna cause any sort of a nuisance or a a problem, it would just be the normal type of, of items that, that get shipped over the road. Is that correct? Speaker 14 00:53:03 Correct. Speaker 13 00:53:05 Okay. Speaker 10 00:53:06 One comment brief. Can you agree no tanker trucks, Speaker 13 00:53:12 No tanker trucks as in like oil tanker trucks or, or Speaker 10 00:53:15 Any kind of a tanker truck? Speaker 13 00:53:18 I believe we have Mr. Weiss on. I don't think that's gonna be an issue, but if I would just ask to confirm that with, with Mr. Weiss, who I believe is who is on as well. Speaker 2 00:53:28 Mr. Weiss, I'll need you to swear you in. Are you present? Speaker 15 00:53:31 Yes, I am. Speaker 2 00:53:32 Okay. I need you to swear you in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 15 00:53:38 Yes. Speaker 2 00:53:39 Your name and address please? Speaker 15 00:53:41 Lester Weiss, 4 77 Ocean Avenue North Long Branch. Speaker 2 00:53:47 Thank you. Speaker 13 00:53:48 Mr. Weiss, you heard what Mr. Chadwick indicated that he would ask that there be a condition that no tanker trucks be be utilized. Is that something that you would agree with? Speaker 15 00:53:58 Yes, I would. Speaker 13 00:54:00 There you go. Speaker 0 00:54:03 No other questions. Speaker 13 00:54:07 Thank you. I don't believe we have any, any further testimony unless the board or board professionals require any additional testimony. I would like to give a brief summation at this time and just to indicate that quite frankly, but for the end user of the parking spaces not being affiliated with the principal use on site, this would be a permitted use in the M five zone. So functionally, this is precisely what the zone is intended for. So to that end, it certainly fits in ideally with township master plan and as your professionals have confirmed and they're soon to be framed and placed on my fridge. Staff report is particularly suited for this property. So because it is in line with the township's intended plan, there's no detriment to the surrounding properties. The location is, again, I say ideally suited and by allowing parking on this industrial site, it's lessening the need to store these tractor trailers on other properties possibly within the township, possibly on sites that are far less suited for this use. So this is an adaptive reuse of an underutilized portion of the site and we believe that it certainly meets the criteria for a temporary use permit and look forward to coming back in a few months with a full site plan and use variance application. Okay. Speaker 0 00:55:14 Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Arch, any members of the board have any questions or comments about this application? Speaker 13 00:55:20 Rob, if you can stop sharing your screen please just so we can Speaker 0 00:55:23 Yeah, I appreciate that sir. Thanks. Thank you. Any members of the board of any comments or questions? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone from the public have any comments or questions about this application? Speaker 1 00:55:37 No one chairman. Speaker 0 00:55:38 Okay. I close the public portion. I'd make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? I'll second it. Speaker 1 00:55:46 Mr. Weisman? Speaker 0 00:55:47 Yes. Speaker 1 00:55:48 Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blanc? Yes. Mr. Hika? Yes. Mr. Riley? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Speaker 0 00:55:59 Yes. Thank Speaker 13 00:56:01 You. Speaker 2 00:56:01 Mr. R will memorialize this to our next meeting and send a copy to you. Speaker 13 00:56:05 Thank you. Have a good evening everybody. You Speaker 0 00:56:07 Too. You too. Let's move on to item number 14. Adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting of September 18th, 2025. Speaker 2 00:56:16 First resolution is a resolution of denial. A vote Yes. Is to denying the application. This is Delton Black. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Hay Duga? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Next. Ronak Patel, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Hi. Duga? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Next is Farid Unin Ed, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Duka? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Next is David Lowey. Would you voted to approve Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Duka? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Last resolution is Ankit Shah, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Those are all the resolutions I have this evening. Speaker 0 00:57:47 Okay. Item number 15 is adoption of minutes from the regular meeting on September 18th, 2025. All in favor say aye. Speaker 2 00:57:55 Aye. Aye. Speaker 0 00:57:56 Alright. Next is A and German. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Hey guys, see you in a couple of weeks. Thanks again for coming out. Speaker 2 00:58:05 Good night. Speaker 0 00:58:07 Good night. Good night. Good night. Speaker 2 00:58:09 Good night. Thanks everyone.