Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on February 26 2026
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 You good to go? Speaker 1 00:00:10 Zoning. Board of adjustment will meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice this meeting is provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Coer News notice posted on the bulletin boards of the municipal building notice made available to the township clerk. Notice sent to the Courier News and the star ledger. Will the clerk please call the roll? I think you're muted. Laura. Laura, you muted. Speaker 0 00:00:40 Good. I'm wondering why Steve ain't answer me. I'm muted. Mr. Weisman Speaker 1 00:00:44 Here. Speaker 0 00:00:45 It's been a day. Mr. Tillery. Here. Mr. Patel. Mr. Regio? Speaker 1 00:00:51 Here, Speaker 0 00:00:52 Mr. Blanc. Mr. Mitterando here and Chairman Cahill. Here, Speaker 1 00:00:58 Will everyone please stand for a salute to the flag. My pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice, rule justice for all. Mr. Kinneally, are there any adjustments to the agenda tonight? Yes. Speaker 3 00:01:21 We have a number of adjustments. Jose Castro, 37 RS Avenue is postponed until March 12th, 2026. He must publish in the newspaper only tillage. Sony Hamilton Boulevard is adjourned until May 14th, 2026 with no further notice on Switch, Inc. New England Avenue is adjourned until March 26th. They must notice MSN Pharmaceuticals Duke Road is adjourned until March 26th with no further notice. NDK Realty South Washington Avenue is adjourned until March 26th with no further notice. Those were all the changes I have this evening. Speaker 1 00:02:01 Thank you Mr. Ka. Let's move on. Excuse Speaker 0 00:02:03 Mr. Chairman, just to record, show Kalpesh on the meeting. Speaker 1 00:02:08 Okay, thanks. Welcome Cal Fish. Thank you. Item number 7 26 dash ZB dash zero three V. Jorge Mina and Luz Rago, Speaker 3 00:02:18 The applicant's present? Speaker 4 00:02:20 Yes. Speaker 3 00:02:21 And 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 4 00:02:28 Yes. Speaker 5 00:02:29 Yes. Speaker 3 00:02:29 Okay. One at a time. Could I have your name and address please? Speaker 5 00:02:35 Jorge Enrique Mina, 24 on New Brunswick Road, Pisca years. Speaker 4 00:02:44 My name is Lena Delgado. I am the realtor and I live at 58 Harrison Drive, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. Speaker 3 00:02:53 Okay, you can put your hand down. Could you spell your last name, ma'am? Speaker 4 00:02:57 My name. Speaker 3 00:02:58 Y you spell your, your last name please. Yeah. Speaker 4 00:03:01 Delgado. That's D-E-L-G-A-D-O. Speaker 3 00:03:05 Thank you. Could someone explain to the board why you're here? Speaker 4 00:03:08 We are here because Jorge Mina present the, the seller of the property located in 24 or New Brunswick Road apply for a certificate of occupancy. The certificate of occupancy was not given to him because he has a room, which was, is, is a flex room. It's not a bedroom, but it's an storage room and it used to be a garage at some point. But Mr. Mina bought the house in 2003 like this and the inspector notified us that because this was done previously without any permits by the previous lenders, we have to apply for a variance if we wanna keep it like that. Speaker 1 00:04:00 Okay. You Jonathan? Speaker 6 00:04:03 Yeah. So I'll, I'll just reiterate that this modification to the floor plan was done without permits. The garage panel door is still present on the outside. So it, it appears from the street that there is a garage where none is actually present. I don't believe this meets the, the requirements for the zone with respect to off street parking and garages for single family homes. Speaker 1 00:04:36 Okay, so your recommendation is to switch, Speaker 6 00:04:39 Convert the space back to a garage Speaker 1 00:04:41 To the original. Okay. Any other members of the you okay with that Ms. Delgado? Speaker 4 00:04:50 No. Well, the property has been like that for over 30 years. They have, they have a space in the driveway to park about like three cars. They don't use, I mean they haven't used the garage for, for as a garage for many years. Speaker 1 00:05:06 What the previous owner did was illegal, unfortunately. When your friend bought the property or, or your client bought the property. I, I inspector should have probably saw that and pointed it out before he purchased the home. I unfortunately, we, we just can't turn the black a blind side to, to this type of situation. So I'm gonna put it to a vote. I'm gonna let hear from the public first, but any other members of the board of any questions or comments for this hearing? None. I'm gonna open it to the public. Laura, anyone in the public have any questions or their hands raised? Speaker 6 00:05:44 No one chairman. Speaker 1 00:05:45 Okay. I'm gonna make a recommendation that the it be converted back to a garage the way it previously was. Unfortunately, again, your client was deceived when he purchased the property, but that's not unfortunately something that we can tolerate. So we, we let this go outta hand, it gets rampant and then it becomes the new norm for the, the township and we can't do that. So make a recommendation to ver back Steve? Yeah, I second it sir. Thank you. Please call the rollover. Speaker 0 00:06:14 Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Speaker 1 00:06:21 Yes. Speaker 0 00:06:22 Did Mr. Blanc show up? Nope. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Speaker 1 00:06:28 Yes. Speaker 3 00:06:29 Okay. Your application has been denied for the variance, you'll have to convert it back to a garage. Speaker 1 00:06:35 Thank you. Let's move on to item number 8 26 dash ZB zero one V. Daniel Chin. Speaker 8 00:06:45 Yes, Speaker 1 00:06:49 You're muted Mr. Morris. Speaker 3 00:06:50 Mr. Morris present? Yep. Speaker 9 00:06:52 Alright, there he is. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Kevin Morris, attorney for Mr. Daniel Chin, who you just heard from. Subject property is 1820 West seventh Street Block 6 0 3 lot 46.01 located within the municipality. It's in an R seven five zone and we're kind of the exact opposite of the application that was just before you. This is a house that contains a, an existing single family dwelling and an existing detached garage thought that go back to 1921 and we're before you seeking to do renovations to turn the garage really back into a functioning garage for vehicle parking. So before we proceed, I would just ask that Mr. Kinneally or, or the board secretary to confirm I had previously submitted our applications of publication and mailing. I wanted to make sure that they were in fact received and order so that the board has jurisdiction to proceed, Speaker 3 00:07:52 Notices were received and they are in proper order. The board has jurisdiction to go forward. Speaker 9 00:07:57 Alright, thank you Mr. Chairman. I would first call my only witness, Daniel Chin, who is present. If he could be sworn please, please proceed. Speaker 1 00:08:04 Could Speaker 3 00:08:04 You raise your right hand? Speaker 10 00:08:08 And to be honest with you, it is you Speaker 3 00:08:10 Have And do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth Speaker 10 00:08:14 And and it's just like Speaker 8 00:08:15 Yes. Speaker 3 00:08:16 Thank you. Go ahead Mr. Morris. Speaker 9 00:08:19 All right. Now Daniel, you are the owner of the subject property, is that correct? Speaker 8 00:08:23 That is COR correct. Speaker 9 00:08:24 Right. And you purchased this property back on June 17th, 2008, correct? Speaker 8 00:08:29 That is correct. Speaker 9 00:08:30 And when you purchased the property, you obtained a survey in connection with your purchase and that survey was submitted to the board as part of your application package. Is that also correct? Speaker 8 00:08:40 That is correct. Speaker 9 00:08:41 Right now the survey shows that there's an existing signal, family dwelling and existing detached residence. They still exist in that configuration today, is that correct? Speaker 10 00:08:52 I didn, I didn't Speaker 8 00:08:53 Yes sir. Speaker 9 00:08:54 You phone Now the garage, when you purchased this property back in 2008, it did have a bathroom in the back of it, correct? It Speaker 8 00:09:03 Does, that is correct. Speaker 9 00:09:06 Okay. It also had a column on the inside that really prohibited a vehicle from being parked inside because the ve the, the column blocked space for which a vehicle could fit, correct? Speaker 8 00:09:18 Yes. Speaker 9 00:09:19 Okay. And there were also, at the time you bought it, an actual stairwell that went from the garage floor up to the second floor, which was another room, an attic room if you will. Correct? Speaker 8 00:09:31 Yes. Speaker 9 00:09:32 Now we are before the board actually seeking to renovate this garage to bring it back to a configuration where it can be used as a, as a usable, a usable garage for parking because you can't fit a car in there right now. Is that correct? Speaker 8 00:09:45 Yes sir. Speaker 9 00:09:46 Right. So part of the proposed renovations are that you're going to remove the attic stairwell, there will be no full set of stairs and instead have a typical pull down stair only to get access to the attic for storage, correct? Speaker 8 00:10:00 Correct. Speaker 9 00:10:01 You're going to remove the column inside and put a new structural main beam inside the garage that will not require a column for support that will then free up the garage space so that you can fit a car in there. Is that correct? Speaker 8 00:10:15 That is correct. Speaker 9 00:10:16 And now there is an existing bathroom in the back that was there when you bought it, correct? Speaker 8 00:10:21 That is correct. Now Speaker 9 00:10:22 The genesis of that bathroom, as I understand from from you that there was an above ground pool in the back of that property next to the garage for many years and some prior owner was really using the garage, for lack of a better word, sort of a pool cabana. So it had a a, a shower and a bathroom for use for the pool people so they didn't have to come back into the house because it's a small house. Is that correct? Speaker 8 00:10:44 Yes. Speaker 9 00:10:45 Okay. Now, and you proposed that to remain because I understand it's your intention to, to put another new above ground pool with proper permits of course in the backyard and that would be a nice amenity for use of the pool given the small size of the house and the distance from the house. Is that correct? Speaker 8 00:11:02 Yes. Speaker 9 00:11:03 Right. Now I also understand that the plans that are before the board you had gone down to the building department and from the terms of construction or building, they seemed to be okay with the plans but you couldn't get a building permit because you first needed to get a zoning permit, correct? Speaker 8 00:11:19 Yes. And Speaker 9 00:11:20 When the zoning permit was sought to be obtained, it was determined, and this is really the bulk variance before the board that dimensionally we're off by about a foot on the depth of the garage based upon the municipal ordinance requirements for the size of the inside area to park a car. Is that right? Speaker 8 00:11:37 Yes. Speaker 9 00:11:38 Okay. 'cause now the, and the board should be aware, the ordinance for the garage requires a 12 foot wide by 20 foot depth of a garage. Right now with the column it's 18 point 17 feet wide, but you still can't fit a car 'cause the column blocks it, its side and the inter interior parking depth is 18.92 feet when it should be 20. So we're off by a a 1.08 feet and that's really the, the, the real bulk variance we're here for. Now, there are other preexisting bulk variances. The location of the garage, which is in a back corner typically as they were the dwelling and so forth. But those are all pre-existing. Nothing that we're proposing here with these renovation is going to exacerbate any of the, any of the pre-existing conditions. And with regard to the survey itself, the back of the garage had been squared off but, but not past what you see on that survey to make it a, a square dwelling. Speaker 9 00:12:36 And so I just wanted to bring that to the board's attention. Now. Now, Mr. Chin, we took a look at a memo that was generated by the staff dated February 9th, 2026. There's a plan review comment number one that indicates at the time of future county road improvements, the applicant shall relocate the wall and steps outside of the right of way. That that is the wall and steps at the very front of the property that apparently encroach a little bit into West seventh Street, correct? Yes. And you are prepared of course to comply with that condition or have that to be a condition of of, of this approval for any future owners. Those would have to be removed if so requested by the county for future road winding and you understand and agree with that, correct? Yes. And factually just item two, it is correct, this overall renovation is not adding any additional height to the existing structure of what we see today, correct? Speaker 9 00:13:31 Correct. Not at all. Alright, so that is really Mr. Chin's testimony. Now of course we're requesting above variance Mr. Chairman and I don't have a pre professional planner available this evening and I don't attest intend on testifying as a planner, but I, I believe I can offer for the board's consideration what we call a legal proffer because the board has its own expertise in evaluating whether or not to grant or not grant bulk variance relief in this case. I think the board could find that there's a hardship on this applicant and that would justify the granting the relief. We've relief. We've got a a, an old lot contains a, an existing single family dwelling and detached garage and I attached the tax records to this application. They were built in 1921. They're both there for, for over a century 105 years and it would certainly be a hardship on this applicant if he was disallowed to renovate this a hundred year old garage back to what it's really supposed to be that of a functioning garage to park cars in. Speaker 9 00:14:32 Alternatively, I think the board could also find that under the C two or flexible C analysis this application could meet that criteria as well. We've got, again, a unique piece of property as I've just detailed and certainly there are purposes three of them of the municipal land use law that are advanced. Namely the board can find this would encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use of development of all lands in the state in a manner to promote public health, safety and welfare, provide adequate air, light and open space. And the third one to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial industrial uses. And those are enumerated under the municipal land use laws as items or purposes AC in V for the record. And I would submit respectfully for the board that you consider these purposes would be advanced because what we're trying to do here is to make a garage again function as a garage for vehicular parking. Speaker 9 00:15:33 And we know that this min municipality favors garages for off street parking. In fact, the zoning ordinance requires that single family residents have at least a single car garage, fort vehicle off street parking. So I believe the proposal meets those purposes and again brings a garage back into conformity for its intended purpose to be used as a garage. And so with either one of those, either a hardship or a, or a flexible C analysis, I respectfully submit this board can find the variances we're asking for can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zone or ordinance. Again, that is my proffer for you to consider the basis for our requested relief and that would conclude our presentation. Mr. Chairman, if you have any Speaker 1 00:16:22 Thank you Mr. Morriss. Thank you Jonathan, do you have anything to add at this point? No thank you. Okay. Anyone, any other members of the board, any questions or comments? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public portion have any comments or questions? If, Speaker 0 00:16:40 If you're on the phone you head star six. If not, you could raise your hand. No one chairman. Speaker 1 00:16:46 Okay. Close the public portion. I'd make a motion to approve this application as is I a second call the roll. Speaker 0 00:16:52 Mr. Weissman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Reggio? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Speaker 1 00:17:02 Yes. Speaker 11 00:17:03 Morris. We'll memorialize this at our next meeting. Alright, Speaker 9 00:17:06 Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen, have a pleasant rest of your evening. Speaker 1 00:17:09 Have a good night sir. You too. Thank you. Alright Mr. Chen, let's move on to item number 9 25 dash ZB dash 90 v Sigma Construction. Speaker 11 00:17:19 Good evening, I'm James Mitchell on behalf of the applicant Sigma Construction. If I may, I have a brief introduction. Speaker 1 00:17:30 Go ahead. Speaker 11 00:17:32 Okay. As a reminder, this is application we were here in February, January rather. Okay. January 12th. And the applicant's a builder that will be constructing a new home for a family that owns the existing home on the property. The applicant plans to redevelop the existing 9,375 square foot lot at 49 Charles Terrace in the R 19 zone. Tonight we're seeking approval of bulk variances for a variety of existing conditions which include the lot area as I said, 93 75 where 10,000 is permitted, it was required lot width, 75 where a hundred is required and lot frontage, 75 where a hundred is required and any other necessary relief to permit the construction of a proposed single family dwelling. I will note that since we were last with you, we believe we have removed all of the variances. Well actually, after we reviewed your professional's most recent letter, we have no new variances, only existing conditions with respect to the application. Speaker 11 00:18:39 When we reviewed your professional's recent letter the regarding the updated architectural plans, we then examined them in light of those, that review letter. And as you'll hear, our architect will testify tonight that we would agree to modify the plans to clarify that the front yard setback as constructed will be no less than 35 feet and that the rear overhang on the house will be no more than 18 inches and that the garage will be at least 20 feet deep. In addition, we will add a detail showing the installation of the fiber conduit on the revised plans. With those clarifications, this application should need no new variance relief. Tonight I plan to represent the applicant's architect William Coh and our professional planner Brian Del the architect will explain the revisions to the details of our proposal and Mr. Seidel will address the revised impacts of the proposal. Both witnesses were previously sworn and qualified. Do you wish to res swear or requalify 'em? Speaker 12 00:19:34 Not necessary. They remain sworn in. Speaker 11 00:19:36 Okay. Alright then I would begin with our architect William Co, to review Speaker 12 00:19:40 Please proceed Speaker 11 00:19:41 Details. Okay Billy, you are previously sworn and previously qualified in this. Speaker 12 00:19:49 Very good. Good evening. Can everybody hear me? Yes sir. Yes. Ah, very good. Thank you very much for rehearing. Our submission as explained just a few moments ago, we have made revisions to the plans in order to accommodate the comments that were given to us at the last hearing last month. Most notably, I wanted to let everybody know per the plans that we have reduced the overall footprint and square footage of the home. So with that we are at 19.9%. Now on the gross area of the lot, just shy of the 20% threshold per the review letter that we did get the other day two point were brought about that we just discussed a few moments ago. One of them is that the garage needs to have an interior dimension of, of 20 foot clear and we are shy by an inch and three quarters, which we can easily adjust with negligible impact, anything as previously presented and we can discuss that further. Speaker 12 00:20:55 The second item that I mentioned that we're we're below the 20% threshold, however, was brought to our attention in the review letter from a few days ago that if there is a cantilevered second floor that extends more than 18 inches, that square footage of that cantilever is considered. So I wanna let everybody know that that cantilever on the second floor in the rear of the house is actually designed at one foot 11 inches. That being said, the additional five inches equate to roughly 20 square feet, which will put us just over that 20% threshold. But I will let the board know that we would be happy to make that adjustment, that the second floor would be five inches less in the rear and we could easily achieve that so that that rear cantilever on the back of this house would not be considered in the 20% calculation for ground floor area or I should say the site area. Speaker 12 00:21:58 In addition, there was in the review letter as previously discussed, the the required setback is 35 feet. The original home, I believe it was set at 32.8 or 32.9 feet. And originally we did place the new home at that exact same location. I will let you know that there was a note in the review letter stating that when the drawing was scaled, not that it should be scaled, but when it was scaled it appeared to be slightly off. I will testify today that the numbers that we are showing as a front setback of 35 feet and the rear of 51 point 65 are accurate and if there is a slight deviation pictorially or visually, we were happy to make that quick adjustment. But the calculations are in fact correct based on our current design. Speaker 12 00:22:51 As I pointed out a few minutes ago, the review letter does state that the garage needs to be an inch or so bigger. So we will shift the house back one and three quarter inches I think is the exact number to offset that additional square footage that's needed for that letter. Aside from that, we took great efforts to modify this house that our homeowner was very eager to start construction on and we're very excited about. We had to make a number of very, very careful adjustments in order to make the, the design intent of the house still work. And we feel we've accomplished that. Once again, we will, we have no problem making that little adjustment to the garage and the adjustment to the cantilever to make sure that we are in fact within that 20% lot coverage requirement. And then also as previously tested a few minutes ago, we will add the fiber optic conduit that we've previously agreed to. That'll certainly show up on our plans in the future. Speaker 11 00:23:54 Okay. And and to summarize, will there be any new variance relief or deviations with respect to our proposal? Speaker 12 00:24:00 Not at this time. Speaker 11 00:24:01 Okay. I would also note that we would agree to provide the season high groundwater table information and the calculation regarding the roof runoff and sump pump discharge. We would request that be a condition of approval ideally due with the time of permitting. Correct. Any other questions for our architect about the design or design changes? We could either open to the public members of the board professionals or Speaker 1 00:24:26 We can go I, I'm gonna wait till the end to be honest with you. I just wanted, John did you have any concerns at this point or do you want to address everything at the end? Let's address everything at the end. Okay. You can move on Mr. Mitchell. Okay Speaker 11 00:24:38 Then we'll move to our planner. Brian call. You have previously been sworn and qualified in this matter? Speaker 13 00:24:45 I have. Speaker 11 00:24:46 Okay. And you want to give us the benefit of your insight on the planning impact and the proofs related to the application? Speaker 13 00:24:51 Sure. I believe I provided the proofs and overall description of the property. The project and the variances are requested at the last hearing. In summary, when the application was filed, there were a number of variances that were requested for both existing and proposed conditions. What we're looking at now through a series of revisions is essentially just the request for variances associated with the existing conditions. The lot area, the lot width, the lot frontage and the rear yard setback for the existing accessory structure is what the relief is being requested here? Speaker 11 00:25:30 No, Brian actually I believe the shed is going as part of the revisions, so that's correct. Rear Speaker 12 00:25:35 Yards no long included in this application. Speaker 13 00:25:37 Sorry about that. My apologies. No, what was also requested was a front yard setback as the architect indicated. However, we are removing that variance now as well and complying with that regulation. So essentially the, the variances that we need, insufficient lot area and lot width and the lot frontage. We really can't change, we can't improve as part of the application. So I believe the variances that we are requesting are or can be approved under the C one criteria as a hardship here again, this is a residential zoning district permits residential uses and the master plan contemplates this as a residential area. The application as it's proposed complies with all other relevant criteria according to the zoning code. Variance will advance purpose of zoning particularly purposes A to guide the appropriate use of land I to provide a desirable visual environment through quality design J to prevent urban sprawl through the redevelopment of an existing lot, no detriment to the zoning good zoning plan zoning ordinance. This is again consistent with the ordinance and I believe the approval of the variances related to the existing conditions are appropriate to warrant the improvements to the existing residential lot. Speaker 11 00:27:06 Thank you Brian. I don't have any other questions at this time for this witness. Speaker 1 00:27:13 Okay. Jonathan, I think we've heard most of the te I won't, the testimony we're about to, we already heard her that I should say. Why don't you jump in and see what your concerns are. Speaker 6 00:27:24 Thank you. Just two quick comments for Mr. Cohen. Just to be clear, if the overhang is over 18 inches, that's okay. Provided that we're underneath the coverage and the setback. So if just, I'm just putting that out there as long as it's being considered with the calculations. And then the other comment I'll make is just echoing other comments before seasonal high groundwater table and the design and calculations for the seepage pit. I'm comfortable picking those up in a compliance review prior to permitting. And that's all my comments. Speaker 1 00:28:00 Okay Mr. Cohen, did you have a comment on what you said or no? I agree. Okay, fantastic. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? None that you wanna make your summation Mr. Mitchell? Speaker 11 00:28:14 I would be very brief. As you've heard, the application would enhance the public good and can be approved without any substantial detriments. We think that this is a very reasonable and a appropriate relief given the fact that it's a residential lot bartered by other residential lots. There's no ability to enhance the size of the lot without taking away from other lots. Similarly with the lot width and we would request the board approve the application. Speaker 1 00:28:42 Thank you Mr. Mitchell. Any other members of the board? Any questions or comments? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions about this application? Speaker 0 00:28:51 The first one is a John, well let me give him Speaker 3 00:28:56 John, can we have your full name please? Speaker 1 00:28:58 He's muted right now. Yeah, Speaker 0 00:29:00 You need, you need to unmute. I gave you all permission. Speaker 3 00:29:06 John, can you unmute? Speaker 14 00:29:09 It should be, yep. Speaker 1 00:29:10 Yep. You good to go? We hear you. Okay. Speaker 3 00:29:11 John, can I have your full name please? Yeah, Speaker 14 00:29:13 John Watkins. Speaker 3 00:29:15 Okay, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 14 00:29:21 Yes. Speaker 3 00:29:22 Thank you. Your address please. Speaker 14 00:29:24 51 Charles Terrace. Speaker 3 00:29:26 Thank you. Go ahead. Speaker 14 00:29:28 Okay, three concerns that I have are all the houses, even the ones that were redone and gone up, they all maintain a 30 foot distance between the houses 20 on one side, 10 on the other side. And from what I've seen on the previous drawings, it's being bumped out to the side. So it appears that the 20 foot on the 49 Charles terrace side is no longer gonna be 20 foot reducing the spaces between the houses. Now that's a concern, you know, for fire issues because the houses are now closer together. So that's one of my concerns is that encroachment to closer of the houses on the previous, I don't know if there's a new drawing or not, but they had I think air conditioning units within a 10 foot of the property line. Now those condition units I would imagine are gonna be large units, since it's a much larger house, it's gonna be essentially right outside my bedroom. So I will be hearing their noise. So I'm concerned about that. And the third item is the house having a much larger roof structure is going to have a lot more water coming off of it in a rain. Now the topography of the land is sloped so water's gonna run downhill. So I am concerned that all that extra water and being closer to my property that it is would essentially turn my property into their water retention pond. So those are just my three concerns. Speaker 1 00:31:27 Thank you John. Appreciate your testimony. Laura, anyone else? Speaker 0 00:31:37 Anyone wanna raise their hand or if you're on the phone it's star six. There's Sam. Speaker 1 00:31:43 Sam. Speaker 3 00:31:44 Sam, could I have your full name please? Speaker 15 00:31:46 Samantha Pangborn. Speaker 3 00:31:48 Your and your address? Speaker 15 00:31:50 43 Charles Terrace. Speaker 3 00:31:52 Thank you. I need to, I'm Speaker 15 00:31:53 Also, I'm also, oh sorry. I'm also on here for my parents that live at 45 Charles Terrace. Speaker 3 00:32:01 Okay. I need you to be sworn in. Could you raise your right hand? Okay. Do you swear the testimony about the gifts should be the truth? Speaker 15 00:32:08 Yes it is. Speaker 14 00:32:09 Thank Speaker 3 00:32:10 You. Go ahead. Speaker 15 00:32:11 Okay, so I'm concerned and I I about the basement situation that they're building and I'm just worried 'cause none of these houses that I believe have a basement. I have to call and get several permissions to put a fence post up in my yard. And I'm concerned if they're gonna start digging into the shale and disrupting everything. We already have tons of pipes even this past week that have, you know, gotten damaged and stuff and I'm just worried that, you know, this basement situation is going to disrupt the, the pipes and everything in the area. And also, I don't know why they would want a basement because that is gonna flood like crazy. So that was my concern. Okay, so Speaker 1 00:33:02 Thank you Samantha. Appreciate the testimony. Ms. Buckley. Anyone else? Speaker 0 00:33:10 Stephanie Nce. Speaker 3 00:33:14 Stephanie, can you hear us? Speaker 0 00:33:16 You need to unmute. She's Stephanie Speaker 16 00:33:22 Can you, can you guys, can you hear me now? Yes, Speaker 3 00:33:25 We can. Can hear you. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Yes. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth? Speaker 16 00:33:31 Yes. Speaker 3 00:33:32 Your name and address please? Speaker 16 00:33:34 My name is Elda Stephanie Fon, address 47 Charles Terrace. Speaker 3 00:33:39 Thank you. Go ahead. Speaker 16 00:33:42 So I am totally agree with Sam here. So I'm, my side of the house is on the right hand of the these new proposal, so I'm quite concerned about the same things that she mentioning. So we, a few months ago we had a problem with our pipes and then we realized that in our backyard we have old pipes that are still connected with the new system in the house. I'm worried that when they're like working on the backyard removing all of that, at some point there's gonna be some effect done into the landscape of the houses that are near the property. Speaker 1 00:34:33 Thank you. S appreciate testimony. Thank you. Ms. B. Speaker 0 00:34:39 Anyone else have any questions or comments? Raise your hand or hit star six. Unmute. I don't believe so, chairman. Speaker 1 00:34:49 Okay. We're gonna close the Speaker 3 00:34:51 Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I could just, since the neighbors have some concerns, it would be appropriate to include a, if you wanna vote in favor of this, a condition of approval that if any of the construction or runoff from this property comes onto neighboring properties that the applicant be held accountable and have to remediate that. Speaker 1 00:35:14 I agree. Absolutely that would be made part of the, the application approval. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Laurie close the public, right? Correct. Okay. Hearing none, I'm gonna make a motion to approve this application with the comments that Mr. Kinneally just made. Can I get a second? Yes. I'll second it. Please call the roll. Speaker 0 00:35:36 Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? I lost? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. You got Patel and Chairman Cahill? Speaker 1 00:35:55 Yes. Speaker 3 00:35:57 Mitchell, we'll memorialize this and send the copy to you after the next meeting. Thank you very much and thank you all for your time. Have a Speaker 1 00:36:03 Good goodnight Carolyn. Speaker 0 00:36:03 Have a good night. Thank you. Alright, Speaker 1 00:36:04 Thank you very much. Let's move on to item number 11, I believe 26 dash zb dash zero five VVFV properties. Speaker 18 00:36:14 Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, Steve Ick from the law firm of Green be Rose Smith and Davis here on behalf of the applicant, VFE properties, LLC, who is here, what's listed on your, your agenda here as three variances, but we did resolve one of those variances. So the two that are remaining and we'll get into it, are existing conditions. They're, they're nothing that we can hand deal with. We do have one witness that I think we're gonna set a record on the brevity of his testimony, but we have Mr, Speaker 1 00:36:42 We'd like to hear that Speaker 18 00:36:44 From Steyers Associate Associates PE that's ready to be sworn in Speaker 1 00:36:47 False Speaker 3 00:36:48 Steyers, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 19 00:36:54 I do. Speaker 3 00:36:55 I believe Mr. Steyers has been accepted as an expert before this board on prior occasions. Speaker 1 00:36:59 I agree. Please proceed Mr. Thank you. Speaker 18 00:37:01 Alright Mr. Steyers, you were retained by the applicant here to prepare plans in connection with this application. Can you give a brief, brief overview of why it is we're here today Before the board, Speaker 19 00:37:12 The applicant is looking to demolish an existing house and construct a new dwelling on a lot that has a lot width that does not meet the requirements of the zone. It is required to be 100 feet and the lot is 79.24 and I guess that would go along with the frontage. The lot is essentially sandwiched between two former subdivisions that are, have been approved and houses constructed. So there's no way to get additional space from either either of those lots. So we're kind of stuck with what we have and as Steve said, it's an existing condition. Everything else meets the conditions or the requirements of the zone Speaker 18 00:38:00 And the planning review letter and the agenda identified variance for ordinance section 21 dash six 14, which is the installation of fiber optic conduit along the property frontage. But we've amended that and are gonna comply with that ordinance. Is that correct? Speaker 19 00:38:14 Yeah, that was actually on the plans. We, like Dawn said she'd just liked to have it labeled so it's actually there, but so that's why it's been removed as one of the variances. Speaker 18 00:38:25 Very good. Thank you Mr. Steyers. Mr. Chairman, we are here for a single family home which complies with the zone and two variances for a lot. That, as Mr. Steyer says, was sandwiched in between two subdivisions and, and the lot width and the lot frontage are both existing conditions. So your prototypical C one hardship variance request, we have no further testimony tonight Speaker 1 00:38:46 At this point I'd like to get some comments from our expert. Jonathan, please. Yeah, Speaker 6 00:38:51 Thanks for the testimony. We just wanna make sure for our board file we do get a copy with that note added to it. Otherwise I don't have any comments on this. Speaker 1 00:39:01 No problem. Okay, sounds great. Any other member of the board have any questions or comments? Hearing none? I'm gonna go to the public. Anyone of the public have any comments or questions for this application? Speaker 0 00:39:15 You could unmute or hit star six if you're on a phone. No one chairman. Speaker 1 00:39:20 Okay. Close the public portion. I'd make a motion to approve this application. I'll second thank you. Call roll. Speaker 0 00:39:27 Mr. Weissman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Speaker 1 00:39:38 Yes. Your Speaker 3 00:39:39 Application's been approved. We'll memorialize it at our next meeting and send a copy to you. Speaker 18 00:39:43 Thank you Mr. Kenley. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Have a good evening. Speaker 1 00:39:45 Have a good evening. Governor. Moving on to item number 1226 dash ZB dash zero six V, surrender s jassal and NDA Jassal. Speaker 20 00:39:58 Good evening, Mr. Chairman, my name is Jordan Friedman of Ol Sullivan. I'm here on behalf of the Jass. I'm sorry. I'm sorry Mr. Ka, Speaker 1 00:40:13 I, I pronounced your name wrong. I apologize. Good. Speaker 20 00:40:18 Tonight we're here to request issuance of a certificate of non-conformity. The subject site is three 50 Rock Avenue, that's block two 10 lot 1 26 0.01. The site is improved with two separate single family dwellings. The property is situated in the R 7.5 zone, which permits single family dwellings. In connection with our application, we submitted a host of documents. They include a survey from September of 2002, municipal tax records and tax property record cards from 1974 and since 2000 each indicating that the property is improved with two separate single family dwellings. Certainly as per the 1974 cards and confirmed by the more recent cards. In fact, the cards reflect construction of the structures way back into the early 1920s and, and in fact, 1919 we've included the deed. We've included photographs, the flood hazard determination construction permits dated between 1998 and 2021. A title insurance policy showing no easements or restrictions, the landlord's rental registration statements. The letter of Mr. Publici dated August 13th, 2025. Speaker 20 00:42:06 Sanborn Maps from nineteen twenty seven, nineteen forty seven, nineteen fifty nine, showing two dwellings that are single family on the property. We have an expert, mark Bunting, who will testify about the Sanborn maps as well as aerial photographs which are between 1931 and 2023. Those photographs also show two dwellings that are single family on the property. And lastly, we also submitted certificates of occupancy for both of the single family dwellings on the property. Tonight you'll hear them referenced as either, you know, the front or the rear dwelling as a first witness. Rupinder Jassel is here with me. If Mr. Chairman, I could proceed with this testimony. I will Speaker 1 00:43:08 Yes. Be sworn in. Speaker 3 00:43:10 Mr. Jasel, please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 20 00:43:17 Yes. Ruel, Speaker 3 00:43:19 Thank you. Speaker 20 00:43:20 Go ahead. Property address C 50 Rock Avenue Piscataway. Speaker 1 00:43:24 Perfect. Please proceed. Speaker 20 00:43:27 Thank you. Mr. Jasel, are you o one of the owners of the property? Yes. And have you owned the property since September, 2002? Yes. And before you purchased the property, did you visit the site? Yes. And at the time that you visited the site, did the property have two separate single family dwellings on it as it does now? Yes. Okay. And are you familiar with the survey from September, 2002? Yes. Mr. Chairman, do you need me to share my screen so that the survey is visible or does everybody have it? All Speaker 3 00:44:10 Of your at attach, all of your attachments were provided with the application to all of the members so they have them. Speaker 1 00:44:16 We all have got it in our packet, so we're good. You don't have to share the screen. Okay, Speaker 20 00:44:19 Thank you. All right. So based upon your familiarity with the survey, could you confirm whether it shows two separate single family dwellings? Yes. And are those two dwellings still on the property? Yes. And the survey, the layout on the survey, has it changed since you purchased the property? No. Okay. And you heard me say before that there the dwellings will be referred to as the front dwelling and the rear dwelling, correct? Yes. Okay. Could you describe for the board the front dwelling? So the front dwelling dwelling is a three bedroom house with one and a half bath with kitchen, living room and a dining room and an unfinished basement. And also has a two parking spots in the back. Okay. And fourth, the rear house goes, the rear house is a two bedroom, two bedrooms, one bath, living room, kitchen, and a unfinished basement and has a two parking spots in, in, in the side of the house, which is the front door. Okay. And do both of the dwellings have separate utilities and mailboxes? Yes. They have separate wall and electric and mailboxes? Yes. Okay. Speaker 20 00:45:50 And insofar as the tax records that were procured in order to present the application, did you have a chance to review the tax records? Yes. Okay. And did those tax record, did I accurately express what the tax records show that there are two single family dwellings on the property? Yes. Okay. And regarding the certificates of occupancy, did you hear me mention those in my introduction? Yes. Okay. And there's a certificate of occupancy for the front? Yes. So for each apartment has their own separate license or seal. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions for Mr. Jassel. Speaker 1 00:46:48 Okay. We'll take it from here. Any other members of the board of any questions or comments? Oh, Jonathan, I want ask you if you could jump in with any concern. Yeah, Speaker 6 00:46:55 Thank you. I just wanna make sure the Jassel understand the limitations of a certificate of non-conforming use. That if the property is expanded, one of the buildings is removed, et cetera, that the certificate is abandoned, considered abandoned. Speaker 20 00:47:11 Yes. Speaker 6 00:47:12 Okay. That, that's the only comment I had. Speaker 1 00:47:15 Thank you, Jonathan, appreciate it. Any other members of the board of any questions or comments? Okay. Is that your final summation, sir? Speaker 20 00:47:26 Well, I was gonna present Mr. Bunting briefly regarding the Speaker 1 00:47:31 Sure. Speaker 20 00:47:32 I ju just so we have it on the record and because Fair enough. Okay. Speaker 3 00:47:37 Bunting, are you present? Speaker 20 00:47:38 You there? Speaker 21 00:47:39 Yes. Speaker 3 00:47:40 I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Sure. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 21 00:47:45 Yes. Your Speaker 3 00:47:46 Name and address please? Speaker 21 00:47:48 My name is Mark Bunting. My address is 206th Avenue Asbury, apartment 20 Asbury Park, New Jersey. Speaker 3 00:47:55 Thank you. Speaker 20 00:47:57 I'm Speaker 21 00:47:58 Go ahead. Speaker 20 00:48:00 Mark, could you give the board the benefit of your educational and professional background? Speaker 21 00:48:07 Sure. I'm a environmental scientist. I, my degree from West Virginia University. I've been an environmental professional for 27 years. I've been doing phase one environmental site assessments, preliminary assessments for 24 of those years. Those are historical records reviews. Speaker 1 00:48:27 I think we can move forward. Your, your credentials are good. Thank you. Okay. Speaker 20 00:48:31 Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mark, in connection with this application, can you explain to the board what it is that you did so that we could provide all the information that would be useful? Sure. Speaker 21 00:48:46 I mean, do you guys, since you have these records, you know, the first thing I, I essentially did because I was asked to evaluate aerial photographs. So we purchased commercially available our photographs from company called EDR Environmental Data Resources. I evaluated those photographs within that purchase. We also purchased the Sanborn and Fire insurance maps since there was coverage available. And then I'm just basically looking for, was asked to look for structures. I also evaluated tax records to note and noted that the structure, at least one structure was constructed in 1921. And then I evaluated the sanborns probably provided the, the best information because of clarity. But essentially there's a, a 1927 Sanborn fire insurance map to pick two structures and those structures remain. They're the same exact structures that remain on the property now, footprints remain the same. So that's basically what I surmised, I confirmed it additionally with aerial photographs that go through from 1931 through, I think it was 2025. Speaker 20 00:50:13 Okay. I don't have any further questions for Mr. Bunting. Mr. Chairman. Speaker 1 00:50:20 Okay. Jonathan, any questions for this gentleman? No, thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other members of Okay, I think we can take a vote on this if you're okay. Okay. With it Speaker 3 00:50:34 Public. Speaker 1 00:50:35 Oh no, you forgot. So sorry. Anyone in the public have the comments or questions? I, I apologize. Speaker 0 00:50:40 Yes. Hold, we have Dan Lakin Lampkin you could hit unmute. Yes. Speaker 22 00:50:46 Can you hear me? Yes. Speaker 20 00:50:47 Yes, Speaker 3 00:50:47 Yes. Denise, ma'am, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Yes, sir. Yes. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 22 00:50:54 Yes. Speaker 3 00:50:55 Your name and address please Speaker 22 00:50:56 Dice Lambkin seven Richard Terrace. Speaker 3 00:50:59 Thank you. Speaker 1 00:51:00 Go ahead ma. Proceed. Ma'am, Speaker 22 00:51:02 I'm not very versed in zoning. And, and I would just like to clarify some things. Is this the residence that's right next to the bar on the corner that has two buildings is a residence in the front and a resident in the back. Is this the location Speaker 3 00:51:22 Mr. Friedman? Speaker 20 00:51:24 Yes. I'm assuming that's what the, we the address is three 50 Rock it, it provided that she's referring to three 50 Rock Avenue. Sure. Speaker 22 00:51:36 So this is a location next to the bar that's on Fourth and Rock, correct? Speaker 20 00:51:47 Yes. Yeah. Speaker 22 00:51:49 In previous years that house in the back was used to storage supplies for the liquor store on the corner. Is that still being done? Speaker 20 00:52:01 The liquor store has nothing to do with that house. That's a, you talk that's separate property. Speaker 22 00:52:07 Okay. They, Speaker 20 00:52:08 They have their own three car garage. Speaker 22 00:52:12 Okay. Speaker 20 00:52:13 We're not talking about the same topic. Speaker 22 00:52:19 So you're saying you said we were Yeah, Speaker 1 00:52:22 It's not, it's not the same. Speaker 22 00:52:26 So you're not the second house from the corner, the light, there's a light on West Fourth and Rock. Speaker 20 00:52:36 There, there are certificates of occupancy for these dwellings to be used for residential purposes. So I'm not really certain where the, the questioning is supposed to be going. If, if it were used for any other purpose, the certificates of occupancy would not have been issued. That's our position, Mr. Chair. Speaker 1 00:53:01 Okay. Speaker 22 00:53:02 Okay. So this request, this application is to continue residency for those have residency for those two dwellings. Is that correct? Yes, Speaker 3 00:53:12 That's correct ma'am. Speaker 22 00:53:15 Okay. Okay. I am an objection because the, the second house in the back has extra company and the music and the type of visitors there cause a lot of noise. And I've gone around the corner to re to complain if we're talking about the same residence. Speaker 3 00:53:35 Okay. Ma'am, this is the zoning board that we can't consider that sort of thing. If you have a problem with neighbors making too much noise, you could contact code enforcement. Speaker 22 00:53:45 Understood. Speaker 1 00:53:48 Thank you ma'am for your testimony. Anyone else? Anyone else out there? Laura? Speaker 0 00:53:55 No one chairman. Speaker 1 00:53:56 Okay. Close the public portion and I'd make a motion to approve this application. I'll second please call the roll. Speaker 0 00:54:04 Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Reggio? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Speaker 1 00:54:14 Yes. Speaker 3 00:54:16 Your application's been approved. We'll memorialize it at our next meeting and send a copy to you. Speaker 1 00:54:20 Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Have a good night. You too. Laura, I think we're up to 16. Speaker 0 00:54:28 Yes. Resolutions. Speaker 1 00:54:29 Okay. Adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting of February 12th, 2026. Speaker 3 00:54:35 First resolution is Alvin Ru, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Chairman Cahill? Speaker 1 00:54:49 Yes. Speaker 3 00:54:51 Next is Tobias Kade Za, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mitterando? Yes. Chairman Cahill? Yes. Those are all the resolutions for this evening. Speaker 1 00:55:06 Item number 17, adoption of minutes from the regular meeting. February 12th, 2026. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. I Number 18. Adur. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Thanks guys. Have a great night. Thank you. Happy St. Patty's Day if I don't see you. Aye. See you guys. Speaker 0 00:55:22 Have a good night.