Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on October 23 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 00:00:06 Are you good to go? All right. Go ahead Mr. Chairman. Speaker 1 00:00:08 Thank you. Zoning Board of adjustment meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Coer News notice posted on the Bolton Board of the Municipal Building Notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the Coer News in the star ledger. Will the clerk please call the roll? Speaker 0 00:00:25 Mr. Weisman? Speaker 1 00:00:27 Here. Speaker 0 00:00:27 Mr. Tillery? Here. Mr. Patel. Mr. Regio? Speaker 1 00:00:33 Here Speaker 0 00:00:35 Where he is. Here. Mr. Blo? Speaker 1 00:00:37 Here. Speaker 0 00:00:38 Mr. Hika? Here. Mr. Mitterando? Here. Mr. Ley here and Chairman Cahill. Speaker 1 00:00:44 Here, will everyone please stand to a salute to the flag? Speaker 2 00:00:49 I pledge Allegiance. Allegiance America, Speaker 3 00:00:53 The United States of America, Speaker 2 00:00:54 And to the Republic One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty Speaker 1 00:01:00 And justice for Speaker 2 00:01:01 All. Justice for all. Speaker 1 00:01:03 Mr. Kinneally, are there any changes to tonight's agenda? Speaker 3 00:01:06 Yes, we have two changes tonight. Anyone here on MSN Pharmaceuticals on Duke Road that will be adjourned until December 11th with no further notice by the applicant on NDK Realty South Washington Avenue that is being adjourned until November 13th with no further notice by the applicant. Those are all the changes I have. Speaker 1 00:01:25 Thank you, sir. Let's go to item number 6 25 dash ZB dash 43 V tillage. Sony. Speaker 4 00:01:34 Good evening, Mr. Cahill, board members, board professionals. My name is Tim Arch. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey and I'm here representing Mr. Sony. This is an application for 3 21 Hamilton Boulevard. I believe that Mr. Sony was in front of your board previously representing himself on this application and that he provided, provided testimony. And my understanding is that the board had some concerns with specifically one of the variances that was being requested. So just just to remind the board, this is a application for a addition to an existing single family home in the R seven R 7.5 zone. The purpose of this, of this home edition is 'cause Mr. Sony is getting older, his son and his son's wife and two children intend to move into his home to help care for him. And obviously it's important for Mr. Sony to still maintain his independence and privacy and they don't wanna be obviously on top of each other all the time. Speaker 4 00:02:36 Mr. Sony's son, who I believe is here tonight and who I believe is the one that testified earlier, he works from home, which is very convenient for caring for his father, but also obviously requires adequate, adequate workspace as well. So the variance at issue that the township staff was concerned about, as I understand it, is the request for lot coverage. The original plans that were submitted proposed a 23.9% lot coverage, and admittedly, that's a significant departure from the permitted 20%. So in response to the board's suggestion, my client went back to his architect and we resubmitted revised plans with a proposed coverage of 22%, which I think represents a substantial reduction. But even with that reduction, I understand that your board professionals requested the coverage be reduced more. And I certainly respect your opinion, Jonathan's opinions and the other professional's opinions. But one of the things that I also respect so much about this board, and I've seen it more times than I can count, is a, is a willingness to come to a reasonable compromise. Speaker 4 00:03:35 So briefly, I would like to see if I can convince the board that 22% is acceptable. I'm also gonna show my hand a little bit and let you know that I've, I've, you know, my client has worked really hard with the architect and we're willing to compromise and we think that we can reduce it even further to 21.5%. So if you're not willing to allow the reduced 22%, I think 21.5 is a reasonable compromise. But I have three points that I wanna make briefly, and hopefully after I make those points, you'll see things our way. And so with that said, I am going to share my screen and I will certainly be brief. Speaker 4 00:04:28 Does everybody see that? Yes. Okay. So this is the left side elevation architectural of the, of the 22% revised plans. The point that I wanna make is, so this is the left side, which means that the front of the, the, the building, the front of the house that's facing the street is to the right. And as you can see, that's all the existing home. And all of the addition would be in the back, the rear of the home. And actually the roof line sits underneath the peak of the existing home. And the reason that I wanted to highlight that is because, quite frankly, from the front of the house, you're not gonna see any difference. It's still gonna look exactly the same from Hamilton Boulevard. All the new massing is gonna be in the rear of the home. And so quite frankly, it's, it's not gonna create any additional, you know, bulk or mass that you can see from the, from the street. Speaker 4 00:05:22 So it's actually gonna look exactly the same. I also wanna show you a Google image, which I will mark as exhibit A one. And this is just a, a Google image of the home as it is now. We marked out the 25 foot rear yard setback and gave a rough e estimation of what that is going to look like, what the addition is gonna look like in terms of where the home is. Now, again, as you can see off of Hamilton Boulevard, you certainly won't be able to see the addition, but I also wanna highlight, if you look at the home that's directly to the right, that has three 11 right there, it's really in line with the other sort of massing of the home and the additional outcroppings of that home. But if you look to the house that's also right here to the left, 3 23, this one is actually a little bit sticks out a little bit farther into the rear yard than what we're proposing. Speaker 4 00:06:18 So certainly it's consistent with that coverage. And then if you look at this big boy over here at 3 35, this is quite a bit larger than what we are proposing with our coverage. So the reason I'm showing that is just by, by way of explaining that obviously the homes that are right there, the size of this house is going to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. And then finally, and I know this and I understand this and my client understands that each property is unique. And so, you know, what the board has done in the past on one property certainly doesn't set any sort of a precedent for what it's gonna go in the future. But I do wanna just note, I did compile a few resolutions from this board over the last year or two. And I just wanna point out, we have one here. I believe we have one here. Oh, sorry, that's not the first one. Let me go all the way up to the top. There's quite a few, I'll go, I'll go quick. So we have one here, I believe this is a typo. The mask 30%, I think that's supposed to be 20%, but this home was 26.83 building coverage that was granted. The next resolution is indicating 24% building coverage. There's another one that's 22.7% building coverage. There's one here, 23.4% building coverage, one here that is 31.9, which quite frankly, that's, we're not asking for that, that's too much. So we would not ask for 31.91 here, 22.9% building coverage, again, another 24.7% building coverage. Speaker 1 00:07:55 I think we get your point, sir. Speaker 4 00:07:57 So again, I understand each one is different and that's, that doesn't mean we're Speaker 1 00:08:01 All unique, absolutely, Speaker 4 00:08:02 But yes, but the board has granted these in the past, and so we just, we asked that we, we've really made steps to try to do, you know, in the spirit of what the board asked us to do, to come back and compromise. And, and I think 22% is a fair compromise. But as I said before, if we have to go down to 21.5, my client is willing to do that as well. So thank you and, and, and I, I appreciate the, the time to, to make our case. Speaker 1 00:08:31 Thank you Tim. Jonathan, just for clarity for the board, could you touch on some of the ba the specs that we have on this, the side effect? Speaker 5 00:08:39 Sure. One of the, one of the reasons that is leading to the SAPs opinion, just we have the floor plans that's been shared with the board. There's a family room on the ground floor, family room on the, the second floor. The home office is quite large. There's also a large exercise room. So it's our opinion that some of these could be reduced in size and potentially more savings from the building coverage can be gained there. Speaker 1 00:09:14 Okay, thank you. You know, I we're in the interest of compromise. I kind of understand where you're coming from. Tim, I, I was comfortable with 20.5 to give you for your overall percentage. I, I, I think 21 might be okay. If that's good with you. I can, I can read the table and I can read the, the board and I think 21 would be acceptable this evening. Speaker 4 00:09:44 I would have to ask. I, I believe my client is on. Thank you. Speaker 1 00:09:46 Take your time. Speaker 4 00:09:47 That's Mr. Sony, if you can, if you can unmute, you've heard the board's position, it sounds like they would be willing to compromise. Is it 21, 21, maybe 21.5? Did I hear that Mr? No, just 20. No, Speaker 1 00:10:02 You, Speaker 4 00:10:04 I'm sorry. I heard, I thought I had a 0.5 in there. Perhaps you can rework it a little bit to, to reduce it down to the 21%. Is that something that you would be comfortable with? Sure. Or I'm sorry, what was that, Mr. Sony? Yes, yes sir. Sure. Okay, thank you. We, we would be agreeable to compromise at the 21% Mr. Kale. Speaker 1 00:10:26 Okay. Do we need to put this off to a new, do we have, have new drawings submitted or anything, Jim, Speaker 3 00:10:34 Jonathan, to see whether or not he thinks he can do it after the resolution or whether or not I'd, Speaker 5 00:10:40 I'd like to see the drawings first if that's possible. Yeah, Speaker 1 00:10:43 Sure. Okay. So Laura, we're gonna have to put this off. I guess you're muted, girl. Speaker 0 00:10:50 I know I was trying to get the button prior today if you want to, I mean, November 13th is the next meeting. Speaker 1 00:10:58 Is that okay, Tim? Speaker 4 00:10:59 Yeah. Can I, can I just make one request that if, once we show the drawings, if Jonathan is satisfied with that, would it be okay if we, if we did not appear at that, if we get the okay from, from Mr. Ms. Rahi, I just don't wanna charge my client again for an appearance for if it is just something that, is that the board Speaker 1 00:11:19 That's acceptable to me? If that's the Jim, is that cool? Yeah, Speaker 3 00:11:22 A as long as you talk to Mr. Rahi ahead of time and make sure that there are no issues because if there are issues you're gonna be Speaker 4 00:11:29 Here to address right, it would be condition on his, on, on Mr. Ms Rahi being satisfied with the plans and, and Speaker 1 00:11:35 Employee. Yeah, of course. Speaker 4 00:11:37 Thank you. I appreciate that. Speaker 1 00:11:38 Yeah. Okay. Any other members have any questions about this application or comments? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public of any comments or questions about this application? Speaker 0 00:11:49 No one chairman. Speaker 1 00:11:50 Okay. I'd make a motion to approve this application. Speaker 3 00:11:52 I I thought you were adjourning it meeting. Speaker 1 00:11:54 I'm sorry. Are we're gonna move adjourn it to November 13th. I apologize. I like what Speaker 3 00:11:58 You, okay, so any, anybody here on the Sony application? It's gonna be adjourned until November 13th, 2025 with no further notice by the applicant. Speaker 1 00:12:07 Almost copied Tim. Dang, it's, it's there. You can't take it back. There's two, there's two more apps you might, might be able to get me in the next couple of minutes though. Alright. Okay, let's move on to item number 7 25 dash ZB dash 73 V 6 0 5 Fairview Avenue Properties. Speaker 6 00:12:25 Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board board professionals Lawrence Sacks on behalf of the applicant. 6 0 5 Fairview Avenue properties. It's block 1405, lot 10.01 located in your R 7.5 zone. The applicant is before you tonight seeking some bulk variance relief to construct a second story addition in a covered front porch. We noticed for three variances. Two of them I believe will be eliminated based upon recommendations from your staff. And so really the only variance that we're gonna be seeking is the front yard setback. 25 feet required. We're looking at 15 feet for the porch and 8.5 feet for the front steps. The variance for encroachment into a municipal right of way will actually be eliminated because one of the recommendations from your staff is to remove the fence and we will do that. And also the variance for driveways being paved with a hard surface. We're going to pave the first 20 feet of the existing stone driveway at, as per the recommendation. So it'll eliminate that variance, Mr. Chairman. So it's really just the one variance I have really one witness here this evening. I have Mr. Kermit Hughes, who is the architect who can just very briefly explain what's being proposed and also the principle of the LLC Mr. Dwayne ings is here if anyone has any questions. So if we can get Mr. Hughes and Mr. Ings unmuted and get Mr. Hughes sworn in. We'll, we'll go forward. Speaker 3 00:13:58 Mr. Hughes, are you present? Speaker 7 00:14:00 I am. Speaker 3 00:14:01 Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 7 00:14:06 Yes. Speaker 3 00:14:07 Your name and address, please? Speaker 7 00:14:09 Kermit Hughes, 180 5 Myrtle Street, Somerset, New Jersey. Speaker 3 00:14:14 Thank you. Speaker 6 00:14:16 All right, Mr. Hughes, if you can just briefly give the board some of your educational and professional background to be qualified as an architect. Speaker 7 00:14:23 Okay. I am a graduate of the University of Florida where I received a master's degree in architecture and I am licensed in New Jersey, registered architect. I'm also registered architect in Florida. Thank Speaker 1 00:14:37 You Mr. Hughes. Proceed. Mr. Speaker 6 00:14:39 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hughes, just briefly, if you can describe what's being proposed here in terms of this expansion. Speaker 7 00:14:45 Okay. So is it possible to to share a screen? Please do. Speaker 7 00:14:53 Let's see. Can we, can we see the screen? Yes, we can. Blue? Yes, sir. Okay. Alright. So I, I've put in color the, the actual building locations. This is the main portion of the house, and this is a, a, a garage that's sat there. And then this is the porch that's sitting a little bit closer than it needs to be. And then the steps that are here, the fence that he mentioned. And so over here, and I'll give you a a look at that building exist. This is the existing building and this is the existing porch. And the idea is the, to add to this second floor, everything's sitting on top of existing footprint, so no change in footprint or the pro process. And then on this existing porch, we wanna bring up a couple of columns and, and add a roof over that porch. I'll show you an elevation, what that wants to look like. Speaker 6 00:16:08 And Mr. Kinneally, I believe this was provided with the submission. Okay. Speaker 7 00:16:14 Okay. So yeah, so here's, here's the, the porch, here's the addition and then the, the roof that will go on top of that, that second floor that's being added, we'll go to floor plan. That second floor that's being added will come up these existing stairs. This is existing first floor will come up the existing stairs to the, to the right, there'll be a, a bathroom and a, a bedroom and down to the, the master, our primary bedroom. And then it has a bath and a walk-in closet and a bedroom. So there'll be three added to the second floor. And then the ground floor existing there was already a, a bedroom there. Speaker 6 00:17:06 All right. So we'll have a, we'll have a total of four bedrooms with obviously a, a very nice renovation to an existing dilapidated structure. So really the only variance then that we're seeking then is not necessarily for the second floor addition. It's for the front porch, which is encroaching into the front yard setback. Is that correct? Speaker 7 00:17:29 Yes. Speaker 6 00:17:30 Okay. And one of the comments in the staff report dated October 16th, 2025 is in site impact talks about the proposed side yard air condition shall be fully screened from the street and neighboring properties with the fence and or landscaping. And we will agree to do that. Speaker 1 00:17:50 Yes. We'll, Speaker 6 00:17:51 Yes. All right. All right. And then the covered the second point, the covered porch shall create an encroachment into the front yard setback of 15 feet. There's a request for us to discuss the need for the covered front and rear porch. I'm assuming the need for the cupboard porch is to protect anyone from the elements as they're getting into the house. And secondly, it would provide obviously a sitting area outside as well. Speaker 1 00:18:16 That is correct. Speaker 6 00:18:18 Okay. Okay. And Mr. Chairman, I think I've already mentioned the existing fence. Comment three was the existing fence to be re relocated out of the township right of way. We will do that. And the last comment was that request to pave the first 20 feet of the existing stone driveway. And we'll, we'll agree to do that, and by doing that, we'll eliminate those other two variances. So the only variance then that we're seeking is for the front yard setback. Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything further. Certainly if there's any questions, we can entertain those. Speaker 1 00:18:53 Jonathan, did you wanna elaborate at all? Speaker 5 00:18:56 Yes, thank you. The only thing I wanna add for the record is the required setback for this is 25 feet, so this is going to be a 15, they're requesting a 15 foot setback where 25 is required. Speaker 1 00:19:13 Got it. Speaker 6 00:19:14 Okay. Speaker 5 00:19:15 Less less if you include the steps. Right? Speaker 6 00:19:18 Right. Speaker 1 00:19:21 Is there any wiggle go on that, Mr. Saxon? Speaker 6 00:19:26 I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear you. Speaker 1 00:19:27 Is there, is there any wiggle room on that? Speaker 6 00:19:30 Well, I don't think so because we wanna obviously, we obviously want to get the, the second floor in there and that's obviously gonna sit on top of the covered porch. I mean, as you can see now, the house is really, you know, almost a knockdown, but you know, we're trying to save the actual footprint itself, so, Speaker 1 00:19:47 Understood. Understood. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Hearing none, we're gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application? Speaker 0 00:20:02 No. One chairman. Speaker 1 00:20:03 Okay. Close the public portion. And I would make a motion to approve this application as is. Can I get a second? I'll second. I'll second. Thank you. Call the roll. Speaker 0 00:20:11 Mr. Weisman? Speaker 1 00:20:12 Yes. Speaker 0 00:20:13 Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Regio? Speaker 1 00:20:16 Yes. Speaker 0 00:20:17 Mr. Blanc? Yes. Mr. Hika? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Riley? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Speaker 1 00:20:25 Yes. Speaker 6 00:20:26 Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, Speaker 1 00:20:27 Realize this is our next meeting. Speaker 6 00:20:29 Thank you Mr. Kinneally. Good seeing you. Speaker 1 00:20:31 Take care. Good. Have a good night, gentlemen. You too. Speaker 6 00:20:33 Thank you. Speaker 1 00:20:34 Okay, let's move on to item number 8 25 dash ZB dash 72 V and Nor Academy Incorporated. Speaker 4 00:20:42 Thank you. Good evening. Again, board members, board professionals. Tim Arch attorney license, the state of New Jersey here representing Ann nor also present tonight is Chma Malick, who is the, who is the director of the, of the Ann Nor Academy. You may recall, we've, we've been in front of the board with Ann, nor a couple different times. If you do recall over at the three ninety nine hose lane property is where they're currently in the process of trying to construct their, their new school space. In the interim, we were in front of your board asking for a temporary use to allow that school to take place at 1000 hose Lane, which is the, the Muslim Center of Middlesex County. And you, you graciously did grant us that ability to use that last year for last year's school year. The construction is still not done. There has been unfortunately delays and a lot of that has to do with there being multiple entities involved on that property. Speaker 4 00:21:41 Both the property owner, the and nor Academy. There's another use that's there as well. And all of them are essentially mixed together. There were two applications there at the same time. And there was a lot of, I think, confusion caused by that on the part of, I'm not saying it's part of the township, I'm saying I think at the part of the, the ownership entities and, and my clients, in any event, they are, they're pressing forward to get that done, but in the meantime, they, they need to operate at the, at the thousand hose Lane property for, for the time being. This is, you did grant this last year. My understanding is that there, there were no complaints or issues with them operating out of the campus. We did have testimony at the time about how it would work in terms of pickup and drop off and, and circulation and all of those would still be in effect. So essentially what we're asking for tonight is just a reaffirmation of that temporary use to, to, for this year so that we can have that six months to try to get 3 99 up and running. And, and so as I said, Mr. Malick is here. He can answer any questions that the board may have, but it's essentially a reaffirmation of the, of the application that we were in, in Speaker 1 00:22:58 Understood, understood. Mr. Kinneally, is there a precedent on the record that we can't do it? We can approve at this time, but then after that it's gotta be finalized? The, Speaker 3 00:23:10 The temporary use permit permits two six month temporary uses. This would be the second one. The ordinance does not permit a third. Speaker 1 00:23:20 Okay. And Speaker 4 00:23:21 We recognize that. We understand that. Speaker 1 00:23:23 Thank, thank you for the clarification. Appreciate it. Mr. Kingley, any other members of the board of any questions or comments? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Laura, anybody in the public have any comments or questions about this? No. Chairman. Okay. Close the public portion. I I grant them another six months. Can I get a second? I'll second. I'll second it. Please call the roll. Speaker 0 00:23:45 Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Mr. Regio here. Mr. Bla? Yes. Mr. Hika? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Riley? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Yes. Speaker 1 00:24:02 We'll memorialize this at our next meeting and send it to you. Thank you. Let's move on to item number 10 24 dash 24 dash db dash 69 slash 70 V Venture net properties LLC. Speaker 4 00:24:19 Good evening, members of the board, board professionals. My name is Tim March. I'm an attorney license in the state of New Jersey. I'm here representing Venture net. Likewise, we've been in front of this board for I believe, two temporary uses before on that property in order to start doing some interior fitouts. That was a little while ago. We are not here for any extension of temporary uses. This is the, this is the actual site plan. So we're asking for preliminary and final site plan approval to construct what will become eventually the, the headquarters of my client's company, which is, let me just pull up my notes here, which is a, a company called Home by Nature Corp. And that's a building materials company that specializes in furniture, flooring, wood doors, lighting related home improvement products. And it focuses on wholesale and professional trade customers like contractors, interior designers and builders. Speaker 4 00:25:18 And it, it, it's all imported materials. So we're asking for a, a use variance and a couple other bulk variances tonight in order to change the campus at 4 25 hose lane into a office slash showroom slash storage and warehouse. All for this, this company, I will be honest with you, it is not going to be built probably anytime soon. And the reason being is that, as I said, this is a, this is an import company and they import a lot of their stuff from China. And so when they originally put this plan together and we put all those plans together and, and this is their goal for the site, everything was going fine and then tariffs. So the tariffs are, are a huge concern for my client. And so I'm just being upfront that if you were to grant this, it's probably going to be unfortunately three years before things settle down a little bit. Speaker 4 00:26:17 And, and this can be, and this can be utilized the way that they want it to be, but we want to get the approvals, we want to get the, we wanna present it to you so that when, when, and if the tariff situation does subside, they're ready to, to go and start their, and start their business there. So, and by way of saying that, you may actually see us come back before you for intermediate, intermediate, temporary uses if there are other uses in businesses that we can, that can sort of help get us through that tariff issue. But tonight is the full site plan for the, for the ultimate usage of 4 25 hose lane. So we do have a, a couple witnesses tonight. I have Rob Murray from Menlo Engineering. I have Who else is on, where'd he go? I have Jim Kyle, he's our planner. I have James Chen, he's our architect. And I think I have, yes, Jay Troutman on who is our, is our traffic engineer. So unless there's initial questions of me, we can start with Mr. Rob Murray, Speaker 1 00:27:22 Please. Seat Speaker 3 00:27:23 Mr. Murray, are you present? Speaker 4 00:27:29 He is. I see him there. Speaker 3 00:27:31 Mr. Murray, can you hear me? Speaker 1 00:27:34 You, me muted. Speaker 4 00:27:40 I don't think he's muted. He's Speaker 8 00:27:41 Not muted. I'm sorry. I just switch mic. Can you hear me now? Yes. Speaker 3 00:27:46 Yes we can. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 8 00:27:53 I do. Speaker 3 00:27:54 Thank you. Your name and address please? Speaker 8 00:27:56 Robert Murray. R-O-B-E-R-T-M-U-R-R-A-Y 2 61 Cleveland Avenue. Highland Park. Speaker 3 00:28:04 Thank you Speaker 4 00:28:05 Mr. Murray, if you can, if you can please just go over your, your qualifications and your licensure so the board can accept you as an expert in engineering. Speaker 8 00:28:12 Yes. I graduated Stevens Institute of Technology in 2017 with a bachelor's in civil engineering. I've been a professional engineer for four years now and I provided numerous testimony throughout New Jersey, including Piscataway. Speaker 1 00:28:27 Thank you. Mr. Murray. Please proceed. Tim. Speaker 8 00:28:29 Thank you. Thank Speaker 4 00:28:30 You. Rob, if you can just take us through the site and if you can highlight some of the areas where we are asking for, for variance relief. Speaker 8 00:28:38 Okay. Can you see my screen? Speaker 1 00:28:41 Yes. Speaker 3 00:28:41 Yes. Speaker 8 00:28:43 This is our existing conditions exhibit, which is an aerial photograph of the sites and is surrounding. And just to orientate my drawings tonight, both of my drawings will be pointing north will be pointing up Speaker 4 00:28:58 And we can mark this as, as a one, as an exhibit Speaker 3 00:29:02 A one. Speaker 8 00:29:04 Thank you. The site better known as 4 25 hose lane is designated as lot 3.03 of blocks 6,003 in the township of of Piscataway. The property is located to the east of hose lane, approximately 600 feet north of Sydney Road. Access is also provided off of hose lane. Overall, the property is approximately 12.8 acres and is located entirely within the BP one zone. The site is surrounded to the north by commercial and educational uses to the east by recreational uses and to the south and west by commercial uses as it exists today. The site is currently a 59,866 square foot office building with 627 parking spaces on all sides of the building. The site also includes a small shed on the northeast side of the site. Speaker 8 00:30:10 Now if I can present our overall plan exhibit, and if the board wouldn't mind, I would like to mark this as exhibit A two. This is a colorized rendering of our site improvements with an aerial background. The applicant is seeking to demolish a portion of the existing parking area to construct a 46,249 square foot building edition on the east side of the site. This will be used for product assembly, shipping and receiving. And the addition will be connected to the existing building through a building overpass. The site includes circulation around the, the proposed building with a minimum of 24 foot, 24 foot wide two-way drive aisles on all sides, except for the east side, which is a 20 foot wide, one way on the east side of the building. This is enough to provide safe and adequate circulation. The site parking includes 390 physical spaces with 16 EE credits for a total parking count of 4 0 6 spaces where 4 4 13 is required. These spaces will be nine by 18. Speaker 8 00:31:38 The building will also have four dock positions on the east side of the the building. These will be 14 by 46 feet, where 12 by 50 is required. So a waiver is being requested on the north side of this of the building, there will be six truck truck storage, truck parking spaces that will be 12 by 46. And the site will utilize existing onsite utility to bring utilities to the, to the proposed building site. Improvements also include lighting and landscape. This landscape includes 35 de deciduous trees, 61 evergreen trees, 69 shrubs 320 ground cover. All of this meeting, the requirements of the ordinance lighting include lighting includes two pole mounted lights that are 25 foot high, 14 wall mounted LED fixtures ranging from 16 to 26 feet high. This provides a minimum of 0.3 foot candles and an average of 0.7 foot candles in the parking areas, which provides safe and adequate lighting. Meeting the township standards, the site is considered a major development because it serves more than an acre. We accomplish all stormwater management requirements by a reduction in impervious pavement and motor motor motorized surface. Speaker 8 00:33:13 And this meets all the N-J-D-E-P stormwater management requirements. Variance in, in existing nonconformities include accessory building, rear yard, existing nonconformity. The setback is 14 feet where 15 is required. Waivers include two-way aisle width of 24 feet. 24 foot is where 24 foot is proposed, where 25 foot is required. The loading length is 46 feet long where 50 is required. Bulk variance include rear yard setback where 55 feet is proposed, where 80 is required, and a parking variance where 4,406 spaces are provided where four 13 is required. And lastly, a, a use variance as pre previously stated by Tim. I've read the board's professional letters. We have no problem with the, with satisfying these comments with the exception of comment five of the township of Pisca way engineering and, and planning comment number five, we, we respectfully ask that the, the applicant only be required to repair and the damage as asphalt and curbing and not mill overlay the entire site and repair all site curbing. And that includes my testimony. Thank you. Speaker 4 00:34:45 Mr. Murray is available for questions. Speaker 1 00:34:47 Yes. Jonathan, do you wanna touch base on some issues here with the site impact? Speaker 5 00:34:52 Sure. I, from my site visits out there, I, I think if we were to just repair the asphalt in pieces, it's, it's gonna look like a patchwork. You're putting in a significant investment by proposing this assembly building warehouse structure. So it, in, in our opinion, it it makes the most sense to mill the entire surface course for the site to make sure that it's safe and cohesive. Speaker 4 00:35:24 If I can, if I can make a suggestion, since we don't know if this is, we don't know when this is actually gonna occur, it's quite possible that the stat that the condition, it's not gonna get better. It may, it may deteriorate by the time we actually do this. So it may certainly be necessary that that full mill and paving be done. I would just ask, and we've done this in other applications, that if we could have it indicate that if the professionals are willing to do a site visit at the time that we are proposing to, to do the construction and if there are any areas where maybe there could be some cost savings that they would suggest that, but if they feel that a full mill and repave and curb replacement is necessary, we, we would do that in the board or the professional's discretion. Speaker 5 00:36:07 Okay. Jim, would we wanna handle that through a developer's agreement or condition that I I Speaker 3 00:36:13 Can certainly include that as a condition in of approval. Speaker 5 00:36:16 Okay. And maybe we can and Speaker 3 00:36:18 Historic Correct. We have done that in other applications. Speaker 4 00:36:20 Correct. And, and to be honest, like I said, it, the, it's not gonna get better on its own. It's, it would only get potentially worse on its own. So I imagine that it probably will need a full mill and repave at, at a certain point. But just wanna, Speaker 5 00:36:35 Okay. Rob, can you, can you speak on the fiber optic conduit at all? Speaker 8 00:36:46 I'm not aware of any existing fiber optic. Speaker 5 00:36:50 We're, we're requesting it be installed along hose lane. Comment six on our report. Speaker 4 00:36:55 Yes, we will, we will agree to that. I I do believe Rob indicated that the only thing that we had any issues with was, was number five. We will agree to the, to everything else in the, I believe the 22 comments in the tri party staff report letter. One thing, one thing that I will note and, and, and several of those comments have to do with current site conditions in terms of things outside, things under tarps, I can certainly report that I believe 99% of all of the issues that the township has pointed out have been abated and have been cleaned up. The only thing that is still remaining on site is a little bit of scaffolding, which will hopefully be gone within the next week or two. So I know, I know the board, when they look at those comments, they think they think the worst, but we do want to indicate that, that it's actively being improved upon and we anticipate that it will be fully done to the township satisfaction within a week or two. Speaker 5 00:37:57 Okay. And I'll, I'll agree. I also took a trip out to the site. It's, it's, there's been a, an improvement with the site condition. Okay. I'll, I'll hold any comments for later Speaker 1 00:38:10 Professionals. Okay. Any other comments from on the board? Speaker 9 00:38:15 Mr. Chairman? I have a couple questions. Sure. John, the outside lighting, you're proposing 25 foot high poles? Speaker 8 00:38:24 Correct. Speaker 9 00:38:25 Are there any other poles on site? Speaker 8 00:38:30 I believe there are. Speaker 9 00:38:32 Are they 25 feet high? Speaker 8 00:38:36 Without, without, i, I don't have any information on the height of these pools. Speaker 9 00:38:42 Can we agree that they won't be any, the new ones won't be any higher than the old ones because I've been to the site. I don't think they're 25 feet on, but I didn't get a ladder out and measure 'em. So I stay off ladder is now Speaker 4 00:39:00 I was, I was gonna say I think there was some, some bad blood there between you and LA Mr. Speaker 3 00:39:04 Chaplin, Speaker 8 00:39:07 Steve, we could certainly work with the board professionals to, to provide adequate laing without, without exceeding Correct. Without being a detriment to the existing lighting, Speaker 9 00:39:23 But we just don't go, they know higher than the existing The other item, do you know whether or not your client needs them on all night long? Speaker 8 00:39:33 Excuse. Oh, it will leave them all night. Speaker 4 00:39:37 I, I think I can answer, answer that Rob. We will, we, we do know some I anticipated hours of operation there will be no overnight hours of operation and so I think as far as, I think only the, the necessary lights for security purposes would need to be on overnight. Speaker 9 00:39:53 That's fine. Speaker 1 00:39:56 Thank you. John, any other members of the board have any questions? Speaker 9 00:39:59 Just one other thing. The landscaping, John, you already looked, looked at over. Speaker 5 00:40:04 Yeah, it's gonna be, it's gonna be a good improvement, especially with the screening from the, the recreational element adjacent. So Speaker 9 00:40:12 Pretty not that great right now. Okay. Speaker 4 00:40:16 One of the things we are agreeing to in that staff report is to work with the, with Jonathan to, you know, make sure that the, that the landscaping is acceptable. Speaker 9 00:40:23 Perfect. No other questions, Mr. Chairman? Speaker 1 00:40:27 Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from anyone on the board for Mr. Murray? Okay. Put on your next expert, Mr. Arch. Speaker 4 00:40:36 Okay, next I'll go to Mr. Jay Troutman, who is our traffic expert. Speaker 3 00:40:40 Mr. Speaker 10 00:40:40 Troutman Speaker 3 00:40:41 Evening present. Speaker 10 00:40:45 I'm here. Speaker 3 00:40:47 Okay. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 10 00:40:50 Yes, I do. Speaker 3 00:40:51 Okay. Your name and address please? Speaker 10 00:40:54 J Troutman McDonough and Ray Associates. 1 0 5 Elm Street, Westfield, New Jersey. Speaker 3 00:40:59 Thank you. Speaker 4 00:41:02 Jay, if you don't mind, if you can please put your qualifications and licensure Speaker 3 00:41:06 On the record. I believe Mr. Troutman has appeared as a traffic engineer before this board on prior occasions. Speaker 4 00:41:11 Yeah, but you don't know what did in between Speaker 1 00:41:14 You can proceed Mr. Rs. Okay. Speaker 4 00:41:16 Thank you. So Jay, if you can, you've analyzed the site, if you can please just go through your, your expert analysis. Speaker 10 00:41:23 Yes. From a traffic impact standpoint, we're repurposing an existing site that previously operator's office space. This actually results in a, a reduced traffic impact due to the change to warehouse and showroom space. For a lot of the site it's about a hundred trip decrease on a weekday morning, peak hour, about 90 trips on a weekday afternoon, peak hour. In my review of the, of this particular tenant's operation, I would think that their, their operation's gonna be even lower than what the ITE would predict. Again, another favorable traffic matter, two existing driveways on hose lane. Those driveways have adequate design, geometry, site distance and capacity for the site generated traffic movements. The onsite traffic pattern is adequate for the site generated vehicles to safely access parking spaces and loading areas and the onsite parking supplies also adequate for the proposed tenant. Speaker 4 00:42:31 Jay, real quick, I know that we had asked our client to provide some anticipated truck and vehicle activity. If I can just get your confirmation that, that I believe our client indicated approximately three to five commercial truck trips a day for about maybe 20 to 25 weekly trips. Is that, is that what you recall? Speaker 10 00:42:51 Yes. Speaker 4 00:42:52 And is that, and, and I believe you answered already, but that's significantly lower than the, the ITE estimates? Speaker 10 00:43:00 Yes. That's, that's lower than a generic IT warehouse. Speaker 4 00:43:03 And, and I believe they also indicated that the majority of their trips would be box trucks and cargo vans, but there'll be the occasional 40 foot container truck, Speaker 10 00:43:11 Right? That's correct. Speaker 4 00:43:13 And again, that's a, that's a lower expected impact than what the what the ITE sort of generics would, would anticipate? Correct. Speaker 10 00:43:23 Yes. Alright. Speaker 4 00:43:24 I have no further questions for, for Mr. Troutman. Speaker 1 00:43:27 Any other members of the board have any questions? Mr. Troutman? Hearing none, let's move on to your next expert, sir. Mr. Arch. Speaker 4 00:43:36 Okay, our next expert is Mr. James Chen. He's our architect. Speaker 3 00:43:41 Mr. Chen, are you present? Speaker 11 00:43:45 Yes. Speaker 3 00:43:47 Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 11 00:43:52 Yes, I do. Speaker 3 00:43:53 Your name and address please. Speaker 11 00:43:55 My name is Chen. People call me James 22 Millstone Road. Princeton Junction, New Jersey. Thank you. And I'm the principal of JWC Architect Engineer. Speaker 4 00:44:10 Mr. Chen, I believe you've been accepted as an architect in front of this board before. I would ask if the board wants to know any more of your credentials or if they can or if they will accept you as a Speaker 1 00:44:18 No, let's just proceed at this point. Thanks. Speaker 4 00:44:20 Thank you. Mr. Chen, if you can please just go through your architectural testimony and I'm gonna ask you a couple questions more about the operation because I know that you've discussed that with our Speaker 11 00:44:31 Client. Okay. Can I share a screen of the the floor plan? Please do. Can you see the plan? Not yet. Okay. There we go. Oh, there we go. Okay, there. It's okay. The proposed building, it's a one story right angle ship structure with 40 feet, 42 feet by city four for the structure. Bay is a pretty regular, when we first initiate this layout, we are very sensitive to the surrounding how this presumed bulky warehouse could be impact from the street level. What we have decided is to make the building names to be lined up with existing buildings. So from the street there's no, it's pretty much no exposure. Speaker 11 00:45:30 We also set up the building at the 30 feet as as what is the manufacturing and the packaging, the building height and no higher than the existing building. And we also treated this building facade as very compatible to the existing office building. So it doesn't looks like a pla a building addition outta place. We try to use the similar building color, the panel to make the, the outside look as a uniform as possible. So it looks like a grow together. We have no changes on the traffic inbound and outbound. And then we go to the actual layout. It's a one big open space with two side of bathroom and the utility and the building had connection, the entrance to the existing office building, well it's necessary to move some product in and out. Other than that it's just one big open space. It will be steel structure with a metal deck. Roof. We have a four loading portion here. This is, this is exterior elevation as you can see, we try to make it looks compatible to the existing office building, which on this side and there is a big canopy separated at both building, but make the some protection for the people going inside outside to this, between these two building. I'm open for any question you have. Speaker 4 00:47:39 Thank you. James, if I can just ask real quick, because I know that you confirmed with, with our client any of the representations that I made about the nature of the business, about what it is that they do and the, and the, what they intend to do. Was I I was I accurate in my representations? Speaker 11 00:47:58 Absolutely. Yeah. The, I I do wanna point out the company home by nature, the signature philosophy of that, of the product is green building. They're very environmentally conscious and all the, all the product that they represent, it's, it's a, it's a high environmental standard and it's all pre-manufactured. It in oversee and ship here to be assembled and it to be displayed and then, and, and sell it to the professional. Speaker 4 00:48:38 Okay. And what I indicated about the showroom was that it's not gonna be for general retail use. Is that correct? It's gonna be for appointments of contractors or wholesale purchasers. Is that correct? Speaker 11 00:48:51 That is correct, yes sir. Speaker 4 00:48:52 Okay. And I think that just to touch upon the hours of operation, because I did mention that before, my understanding is that the office will be Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to five 30. The showroom is Monday through Saturday, nine 30 to six, and that's by appointment for trade customers. And then the warehouse is Monday through Saturday eight to five. Is that correct? Speaker 11 00:49:12 That is correct, yes sir. Speaker 4 00:49:14 Okay. And that there's no need for overnight operations and no Sunday activities except for if there's limited maintenance that needs to be done during off hours? Speaker 11 00:49:21 That's correct. Speaker 4 00:49:23 Okay. Speaker 1 00:49:25 Jonathan, just, I'm sorry, just yeah, you have set impact questions? Speaker 5 00:49:30 Yeah. What, what, what can be said about the, the noise generation if we're gonna be having this business open on Saturday, so close to that recreation element. Just curious what, what we anticipate on that front. Speaker 11 00:49:44 I, I will say in my professional opinion it will be minimum because the product is not gonna be really banging, cutting here. They're just the, it, they, it's like a furniture pieces that they're putting that together. There's no actual cutting and constructing over there. Speaker 4 00:50:08 So it's okay. Prefabricated components that are then being assembled but are not being, you know, there's no, Speaker 11 00:50:15 That is correct. Speaker 5 00:50:19 Okay. Speaker 1 00:50:20 Thanks John. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Okay. Speaker 9 00:50:27 I have just, I have just one quick question. I didn't see any outdoor dumpster areas on the plan. Is all the waste gonna be held inside the building? Speaker 11 00:50:40 There was, there was existing shed on the corner. Let me shell this plan again. Speaker 4 00:50:49 I believe, if I remember correctly, I believe there is an existing dumpster on site. We would, we would certainly screen screen that appropriately per ordinance. Speaker 9 00:50:57 I would think the nature of this business, there will be a lot of talking material that's gonna have to be dealt with. Yeah. Speaker 11 00:51:08 Let me, let me share this for Speaker 9 00:51:21 You up Mr. Chen. Speaker 11 00:51:22 Okay. This is this area in the corner, right? There's existing storage shade and also what's, Speaker 9 00:51:38 What, what's in it now? Speaker 11 00:51:43 I do not know. I didn't get the, it was locked it, this, some shade was locked. It, I didn't get a chance to see what they have inside the secretly. Speaker 9 00:51:52 I mean I would think there's going to be considerable packing material based on shipping it from overseas here. Speaker 11 00:52:04 I just, Speaker 9 00:52:05 I mean we, we could, we could basically sign someplace inside this new building as a, you know, recycling section or figure out what the needs are gonna be. I think that little shed in the back is, it might have been adequate for the office uses, but I don't think it's adequate. Yeah, it looks, looks a little small. Speaker 4 00:52:31 We, we can certainly agree that we will, that that we can designate area inside internal trash storage or if, if, if any revisions need to be made on the site plan to indicate a trash go back Speaker 9 00:52:47 Area, Speaker 4 00:52:47 Well we would also, we would appropriately screen them as well as long as they don't trigger any variance. Would it be possible to indicate in there that if we do need any outdoor it would be reviewed by the professionals and as long as appropriately screened and doesn't trigger Speaker 9 00:53:01 I'd be, I'd be very comfortable with having it into a space and if you need to change that sometime in the future then you could deal with that Speaker 4 00:53:11 I think. I think that would be fine then we would, we would agree to maintain that inside and if that is not feasible we'll come back to the board. Speaker 9 00:53:21 We just don't want this stuff filed up over the corner someplace. Speaker 4 00:53:25 Oh understood. Speaker 1 00:53:26 Thanks John. Any other members have any question? Alright Tim, put on your last expert, Speaker 4 00:53:33 Last expert is Mr. Jim Kyle. He's our planner. Speaker 3 00:53:36 Mr. Kyle, are you present? Speaker 13 00:53:38 Yes, I'm here. Speaker 3 00:53:40 Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 13 00:53:44 I do. Speaker 3 00:53:45 Your name and address please. Speaker 13 00:53:47 Sure. James. Last name is Kyle, KYLE. It's two East Broad Street in Hopewell, New Jersey. Speaker 3 00:53:53 I believe Mr. Kyle has appeared before this board as a professional planner in the past. Speaker 1 00:53:58 Thank you Mr. Cane. You can proceed Mr. Arch. Speaker 4 00:54:00 Thank you. James, if you can please just give the board a of your professional opinion. Speaker 13 00:54:06 Sure. So just to let the board know what I did in preparation, I've visited the site, I've reviewed all the plans in the application that was submitted. I've reviewed the township master plan and ordinance as well as the memos from the board's professionals also visited the site as well. I'll kind of dispense with the background on the site setting since Mr. Murray already covered that and we'll jump right in. So we do require D one use variance here. There is an office component to this use. However, the wholesale aspect, the showroom and the shipping and receiving and assembly is not permitted in the BP one business professional office district. So we do need a D one variance for that. As Mr. Murray covered, there's also a rear yard setback for the new structure. 80 feet is required and 55 is what's proposed. There's a bulk variance for the existing accessory structure. Speaker 13 00:54:56 The shed that we were just speaking about. 15 feet is required and 14 feet exists. And then we also need the variance for parking. So let's talk about the D one variance on the use first. So we're required to demonstrate both the positive and negative on the positive. I believe the public welfare is promoted 'cause the site's particularly suited to the use. We have an existing large office building, it's in a non-residential zone. It's vacant can readily be repurposed for the applicant's intended use. Just converting portions of the office space into the showroom space works well for them. We also have a mature site with good screening to surrounding properties including and probably most importantly screening to the park directly to our east. So the new building that's proposed at the rear is about 30 feet, 34 feet with the power pit. So it's not gonna be visible from hose lane as Mr. Chen pointed out. Speaker 13 00:55:52 And then we have mature screening along the back line with the park. There's a pretty good line of white pines there. I was happy to see when I was out there that, that they haven't done what white pines typically do and lose branches on the bottom they're pretty full and dense. And then we're also supplementing that with some additional plannings on the north end of that. As Mr. Ech indicated, we've agreed, as Mr. Chadwick pointed out in his memo, there might be some holes that we need to fill and we'll certainly work with professional staff to make sure that's achieved. The resulting appearance here is much like we the surrounding sites, so many of them have multiple buildings so it's not really gonna result in something that's inconsistent with the area visually. We also have a good separation of grade from the park down to where the new building will be a situated, there's about a six or seven foot difference there. Speaker 13 00:56:43 So combined with the fact, as Mr. Chen said, this building is low lower than the existing office building, we think we, it makes a good site for this addition. And then for this use as well, really based on Mr. Chapman's traffic testimony, this is gonna be a significant reduction in traffic versus a straight office use. We have adequate access and it's a good regional location for use like this. So I think the site is suitable. It also promotes purposes of the MLUL, notably purpose A to promote the general welfare. So granted the relief in this case allows the applicant to repurpose this vacant site and ensure that it remains productive. Generally, as we all know, the office market in Middlesex County has continued to suffer post COVID data recently published by Colliers. And when I say Colliers not the engineering firm, the real estate arm shows that there's currently about a 20% vacancy rate still in the south I 2 87 submarket. Speaker 13 00:57:43 Overall New Jersey sits just under 25%. So here this is, it's a great idea to repurpose this building and what it does is not only make this useful, but it also helps the overall vacancy situation in the market. So it it makes other straight office buildings that could be released more attractive and, and helps on that front. So an approval on this situation, as we've described the use tonight, I believe looking at uses that exist around the site and those that are permitted in the zone that this use is compatible. So while there is a storage component here, this is not a warehouse and distribution use, as you heard, the truck traffic that we're expecting here is between 20 and 25 a week. So certainly less impactful than some of the typical warehouse and distribution uses that we see in the region. And then also purpose g to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses. Speaker 13 00:58:43 Based on the site suitability testimony provided, I think this can be considered an appropriate location for this use. We also have to demonstrate the negative criteria. The first part of that is that there's no substantial impact to adjacent properties. As Mr. Troutman noted and in his traffic report, the use proposed will generate significantly less traffic than just a straight office use. Even with the additional floor area that we have proposed, we have a maximum here of about 25 employees across all aspects of this use. So that's significantly less than has been on the site previously. So we don't expect there to be a significant amount of traffic as Mr. Troutman hinted to. The, the aspects of this actual use are much less than what the, it would suggest in the data that Mr. Troutman pulled together. Speaker 13 00:59:33 As I said, the site, despite the assembly use and and the the small warehouse proposed is not gonna generate a significant number of truck trips in any given week, maximum of about 25. That's mostly gonna be box trucks and cargo vans and we'll have the occasional container from overseas as components are brought to the site. But that, that doesn't represent a significant number of trips. There's really no residential uses of budding the site. The new building will be adequately screened from the park. And again, we're willing to supplement that as suggested by staff. And then the height of the building in that grade differential really means that it's not gonna dwarf surrounding properties or buildings. So overall I think there's not a substantial negative impact to adjacent properties. Second part of the negative criteria, we have to show that there's no substantial impairment to the intent, purpose of the zone plan. Speaker 13 01:00:23 And we have to meet the Medici enhanced proof, which is that the grant of the relief is not inconsistent with the master plan and that we can reconcile the fact that this is not a permitted use here in this zone. So the purposes of the ordinance in section 21 2 mirrors the purposes of the MLUL and as I noted, it's my opinion, the purposes A and G are promoted here. While there's no purpose statements for individual zones in the ordinance, we do have a 2005 master plan and then the, the 2020 reexamination report. Couple of notable goals from the 2005 master plan to ensure the harmonious interrelationships of the various land use activities throughout the entire township and with neighboring municipalities and to provide for the continued expansion of the economic and tax base of the township. There's also a notable thing in the 2020 reexamination report, it was more of a challenge that was identified and it was adaptive reuse of existing sites and buildings compatible with surrounding land use. Speaker 13 01:01:26 Really when you think about it, that's what we're doing here. This is a, a relatively low impact use. It's a good way to repurpose this building and this site that has been vacant and we'll meet that goal of, of really adaptively reusing this. This is more of an issue now than ever with, you know, the office vacancies that we see in the market, in the state. So this is a great way to repurpose this site and building. So based on the purposes, the goals and objectives, the grant of the relief here is not inconsistent with the intent, purpose of the zone plan and the zoning ordinance. There are goals that are directly on point with the current application and, and others that are present are not substantially impacted by this proposal. So on the Medici enhanced proof, again not inconsistent with the zone plan and zoning ordinance and there are adequate support in the goals and objectives for providing adaptive reuse of this site. Speaker 13 01:02:18 As far as reconciliation, I think the board can find that, you know, the, the site is suitable for the use, the change circumstances of the office market and the county and the state really demands that. We find adaptive reuse for buildings like this that have gone vacant and this is a good way to do that. So I, I believe that's the best way that we can reconcile the GR of relief in this case. Yeah. Moving on to the bulk variance relief for the rear yard setback on the positive, I think this promotes the general welfare 'cause it really enables the adaptive reuse of this campus. The rear is really the only location where this storage and assembly building could be put. Speaker 13 01:03:00 So given the existing improvements and the new building is really integral to the overall use of the site. The building also proposed, excuse me, replaces a significant amount of motor vehicle surface on the site. As Mr. Murray had said, we're reducing impervious coverage, but that reduction in motor vehicle surface is important from a stormwater quality perspective. 'cause we're getting rid of surfaces, that vehicles will drive over replacing it with a roof that the DEP considers to be clean runoff. So that's a benefit here in the payment reduction on the negative. As I noted, the overall height of the building with the parapet is 34 feet. We have that great difference from the park. That's really probably the most sensitive receptor to this proposal. And we also have that existing vegetation along the rear that we're gonna supplement, which should do a very good job of screening this from the adjacent park. Speaker 13 01:03:54 This relief also won't substantially impair the intent of the standard. While it's not expressed in the master plan or the ordinance. Setbacks are generally geared towards providing adequate light air and open space on the property as well as for those adjacent. I think here, given the combination of the change in elevation and the existing screening, means that we will not substantially impair that intent on the accessory structure setback, again, this is a, a shed that is existing. Our assumption is there was either a permit or a site part of a site plan approval granted. So this is an existing structure that maybe was just built one foot too close to the property line. So at, at this point, the shed's well integrated within the site. It's situated on a, a pretty substantial concrete pad, so it would be particularly difficult to relocate this to a conforming condition. Speaker 13 01:04:45 We're really talking about a departure of one foot on the negative criteria. Again, it, it's a very small structure. The only impact point is really to the park and we are proposing some additional screening in the back there. There's also a fenced area. There's additional vegetation that's present on the park side of the fence. So overall it should be well screened. I don't think it'll be a substantial impact to the park. And again, the intent of these standards is making sure that we're providing adequate separation. And I think given the screening that we have and that we're also installing, that intent will not be substantially impaired. Last one was the parking variance. I think this promotes purpose a of the MLUL, the general welfare based on the employees that the number of employees that I noted that we're gonna have at the site. We, we really don't have a substantial parking demand. Speaker 13 01:05:39 So here, I think the elimination of parking, as I talked about, the paved surfaces that has environmental benefits. So that's, that's really the benefit of the grant of this relief. It's not gonna substantially impact adjacent properties. The, the real issue with a parking reduction is generally people seeking parking on other sites and then walking back to this site, we have more than adequate parking on the site. And that really is gonna be unlikely given that we have hundreds of parking spaces and we're gonna have less, you know, less than 30 employees at the site. There will be, you know, as we talked about, people visiting the site for the showroom, but that's not expected to be a, a significant demand for parking. And then as far as the intent of the standard, obviously the intent is to make sure that we have adequate parking on the site based on the characteristics of the use. We have more parking than, than we would probably ever need, even though we do require relief for it. So I don't think that intent will be substantially impaired. Mr. Chairman, that's all I had in the way of direct. I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have. Speaker 1 01:06:40 Sure. Jonathan, do you wanna jump in at all? Speaker 5 01:06:45 I don't have any comments at this time. I know we're likely gonna need a new set of drawings and potentially a, a developer's agreement, so I'm gonna hold my comments until we get the revised back. Speaker 1 01:06:57 Gotcha. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Hearing none, Mr. Arch, you wanna surmise? Speaker 4 01:07:05 Well, this board knows it's generally my policy not to, not to give a summation after good planning testimony. So I will, I will leave Mr. Kyle's, I think very good justifications as the last thing the board hears. Speaker 1 01:07:17 Fair enough. Any members of the board have any questions or comments for this hearing? None. I'm gonna close the, I'm, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone from the public have any ca questions or comments? Laura? No. One chairman. Okay. Mr. Archer, I'm not prepared to vote on this tonight. I'd like to afford the rest of the board members and myself an opportunity to go out to the site. So I would ask that we could put this off for, I would say, what do you got, Laura? Next month? 13th? Yes. November 13th. Yes. Is that acceptable to you and your client? Speaker 4 01:07:53 Yes. As I said, I I, we believe that we are 99% complete of cleaning up the site and that should be done well before the next meeting. And, and I would certainly want the board to, to see that we are true to our word, that everything is is brought up to, to the township's liking. And it occurs to me that I believe I'm gonna be here on November 13th anyway for NDK. So if I could just ask, I I do, we need all of our professionals to be present on that day for any additional testimony. Speaker 1 01:08:21 Mr. Kinneally, Speaker 3 01:08:23 It's up to the applicant. If you do not wish to bring your professionals, you run the risk that questions may occur from the board members based on their site visit. But that's a calculated risk that you take. Speaker 4 01:08:37 Understood. Speaker 1 01:08:38 Okay. Speaker 3 01:08:39 And I, I believe that you will generate some goodwill with the board if that cleanup is complete by the time of the November 13th meeting. Speaker 4 01:08:48 Absolute understood. Speaker 1 01:08:50 Good. Thank you. And I would urge board the board members to, at your convenience, get out to that site 4 25 hose lane and take a look at the progress that they're making and get back to me with some feedback. It'd be great. Alright. Speaker 3 01:09:05 So anyone here on the Venture net properties, it is gonna be carried to November 13th with no further notice by the applicant. Speaker 1 01:09:13 Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Good evening. Speaker 3 01:09:14 Thank you everyone have Speaker 1 01:09:15 A good evening. Let's move on to item number 12, adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting of October 9th, 2025. Speaker 3 01:09:22 First resolution is Heather Fam, which you voted to approve. Mr. Patel. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Speaker 1 01:09:33 Yes. Speaker 3 01:09:34 Mr. Duka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman Cahill? Yes. Next is Antoinette Rouse. This was a withdrawal. I will need a motion and a second on that. Before we call the roll, Speaker 1 01:09:48 I make a motion to accept the resident. The thank you Speaker 3 01:09:55 Mr. Weisman? Speaker 1 01:09:56 Yes. Speaker 3 01:09:57 Mr. Tillery? Speaker 1 01:09:59 Yes. Speaker 3 01:09:59 Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Speaker 1 01:10:03 Yes. Speaker 3 01:10:03 Mr. Duka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman Cahill? Yes. Next is Leanna Commanders, which you voted to approve. Mr. Oria? Yes. Mr. Blount? Speaker 1 01:10:18 Yes. Speaker 3 01:10:19 Mr. Duka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman Cahill? Yes. Next is Yaah Gonzalez, which you voted to approve. Mr. Patel. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Speaker 1 01:10:38 Yes. Speaker 3 01:10:39 Mr. Duka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman Cahill? Yes. Final resolution is Jorge Mina, which you voted to approve. Mr. Or Yes. Mr. Blount? Speaker 1 01:10:56 Yes. Speaker 3 01:10:56 Mr. Haya? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman Cahill? Yes. That's all that I have for this evening. Thank Speaker 1 01:11:07 You. Item number 13 at adoption of minutes from the regular meeting of October 9th, 2025. All in favor say aye. Speaker 14 01:11:13 Aye. Speaker 1 01:11:14 Aye. Item number 14, adjourn. All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay guys, once again, thank you for your volunteering and we'll see you in a couple weeks. Happy Speaker 14 01:11:24 Halloween meeting Speaker 1 01:11:24 Everyone. Happy Halloween everyone. Laura, Speaker 14 01:11:27 Are you still on Laura? Yes. Laura, do you have my cellular number? Can you please give me a call? Sure. Afterwards. Thank you. Sure. Speaker 0 01:11:36 Yeah, I think I, yeah, I have your cell number. Speaker 14 01:11:38 Okay, thanks. Speaker 0 01:11:39 Alright, thanks Rodney. Alright, bye. Good night.