Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on June 11 2026
Transcript generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Use the audio player to verify any passage.
Jun 11 2026 · Zoning
0:00
–:––
Speaker 0You can start. Okay. Thank you. Zoning Board of adjustment meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the carrier news notice posted on a bulletin board of municipal building notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the carrier news and the star ledger. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Speaker 1Mr. Weisman? Here. Mr. Tillery? Jeff's here.
Speaker 0I see him muted here.
Speaker 1Good job. Thank you. Mr. Patel. Here. Mr. Regio. Here. Mr. Blo. Mr. Mitterando. Mr. Ellie is out. Chairman Cahill.
Speaker 0Here everyone please stand, but salute to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American to the republic. To the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. Mr. Kinneally, are there any changes to tonight's agenda?
Speaker 2There are no changes that I'm aware of.
Speaker 0Okay, let's proceed. Gonna start with 26 dash ZB dash 22 v. Christopher George
Speaker 2Is Christopher George. Present is Christopher George present.
Speaker 1He's here, he is trying to unmute.
Speaker 2Okay.
Speaker 3Yes. Present.
Speaker 2Mr. George, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 3Yes.
Speaker 2Thank you. You can put your hand down and explain to the board why you're here, please.
Speaker 0Here. The,
Speaker 3I I applied for a variance. I have an existing pool that was put in about 20 years ago on our property and we're in process of selling the property and I had found out that this pool was installed without permits and I let the authorities know on that. Joe Hoff, I did write a letter to Joe and explained the situation, but the, the pool is about 34 inches too close to the property line, so I needed a 10 feet. It has to be away from the rear of the property line, but it's about seven foot two.
Speaker 0And Jonathan, can we clarify this a little bit?
Speaker 4Yes, certainly. So just to clarify, Mr. George, the pool was installed 20 years ago. You were the owner at that time?
Speaker 3I was not. You
Speaker 4Were not. Okay. And can you tell us the condition of the existing shed that's located too close to the property line?
Speaker 3Yeah, the shed is on the property line that was installed in about 2022. Yeah, it was, it's, it's set right up to the property line in a fenced in backyard.
Speaker 4Did condition need to be repaired? Replaced? What? What's your opinion?
Speaker 3Oh, oh, no. It's, it's in great shape. It's pretty new. It was brand new. It's one of those lifetime vinyl sheds. It's on a wooden platform and it's, it's, it's in good shape.
Speaker 4Okay. I think Mr. Cahill, if we could get some sort of agreement with the buyer of the home, that if the pool needs to be replaced, it needs to be relocated in a conforming location as well as the shed. Okay.
Speaker 0I think that's reasonable.
Speaker 4That's all our comments.
Speaker 0Okay. Mr. Kinneally, can we make that part of the approval?
Speaker 2Yes, we can include that as a condition of the approval.
Speaker 0Okay. Any other board members have 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 1No. One chairman.
Speaker 0Okay. Close the public portion. I'd make a motion to approve this application with the restrictions that Jonathan mentioned. I a second. I'll second.
Speaker 1Roll call. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. George, your application's been approved. We'll memorialize this in a written document at our next meeting. You don't need to be present for that. We'll mail that document to you.
Speaker 3Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Speaker 0Have a good evening, sir.
Speaker 1Have a good night.
Speaker 0Item number 7 26 dash ZB dash 15 v. Harold Israel
Speaker 6Present.
Speaker 0Good evening, sir. Good evening. It's been a couple of weeks. I understand you didn't have the opportunity to con converse with Jonathan about some alternative plans for the offense.
Speaker 6We had the opportunity to exchange emails.
Speaker 0Okay. In, in the next two weeks. If I was to, if I was to put this off for another vote in two weeks, would you have an opportunity to talk to him during business hours?
Speaker 6I did propose a date that I'll be available, which is the 19th, but the 19th was before tonight.
Speaker 0Okay. I think, are you off on Juneteenth there, Jonathan?
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 0Yeah, so that's not gonna work out for you either, right? Well at is what about any time after that? The 19th?
Speaker 6Probably June 29th.
Speaker 0What day of week is that?
Speaker 6That's a Monday.
Speaker 0Jonathan, you have to check your schedule. Maybe you could convert. Yeah, I
Speaker 4Got it in front of me right now. I'm just checking. 29th Monday the 29th. I'm available all day.
Speaker 0Okay, let's do that then. Let's make a plan for you two to get together and talk and explain the options that we have at this point and then we'll settle it for the How many meetings are in July, Laura? One and what date is that?
Speaker 1Ninth, I believe.
Speaker 0Okay. So we could July. July 9th. Yeah.
Speaker 1Okay. And he's good. He's good on time. He won't need an extension, so we could do July 9th.
Speaker 0Perfect. Okay. So Mr. Israel, you Yeah. Get set up an appointment with Jonathan for the 29th. Try try and iron it out. And then on July 9th we'll convene again and vote to see what, how we're gonna
Speaker 1Proceed. Yeah. No further notice
Speaker 2Anyone here on the Israel application. It is being carried to July 9th with no further notice by the applicant. The only notice you're receiving is this announcement here tonight.
Speaker 0Okay. Hopefully we can get this resolved. Thank you, Mr. Israel. Have a good evening.
Speaker 6All right, thank you. Take care. Have a good night.
Speaker 0Let's move on to item number 8 26 dash ZB dash zero eight v Marie pre I know I room that day present?
Speaker 7Yes. Good evening. Tim Arch Attorney license in the state of New Jersey here representing the applicant filling in for David per David Psad who actually had his first child a couple weeks ago.
Speaker 0So I tell congratulations. I
Speaker 7Will, it actually said its first word, you know where it was?
Speaker 0Gotta guess it's a lawyer joke
Speaker 7Approval. Oh
Speaker 0Yeah. Yeah. That's a curse word on this board. It's an
Speaker 7Omen. I know. So anyway, I'm here for, let me get my script up. I am here for 41 Chicago Boulevard Block 3 0 0 3 lot 17. This is an application that's gone through several iterations with your staff. We're proposing a single family house on an undersized lot. We've made a couple different submissions and with working with the staff, we were able to sort of dial back the size of the home and we've been able to eliminate all variances, all bulk variances as they relate to the home. The only variances that we are seeking are those that are created by the undersized lot. And so that is lot frontage width and lot area. Those are existing. There's really nothing we can do to make the lot, lot larger. The surrounding lots are all fully dire developed and they're actually slightly non-conforming on either side. So if we were to propose to take a portion of that, it would only exacerbate a non-conformity to the, to the left or to the right of ours.
Speaker 7And so short of that, there's really nothing that we can do to make the lot larger. So what we are proposing is a fully conforming single family home. And despite the smaller lot size, we've designed it to fit all the bulk standards and setbacks, including height. We do have the following reports, A DPW report dated 4 17 26. We totally agree with the DPW report. And then we have a tri-party staff report that was last revised on June 2nd, 2026. It consisted of four points. We agree with all of those with the exception of number three. However, subsequent to the report being issued, I did have an opportunity to speak to Mr. Herrera, to Dawn and to Jonathan. And actually my understanding is that 0.3 is now gonna be eliminated. That was a prohibition on having a basement. I was able to provide some additional reports, soil bore, water table testing.
Speaker 7And my understanding is that the township staff does agree that a basement would be appropriate now for this, for this spot. So I believe that that comment is removed. There was also another comment that I had an opportunity to speak with who I'm gonna call the newly appointed borough architect, Mr. Clarken, as to the, as to the height of the, of the home. And we are agreeing, given the fact that this is an undersized a lot and we don't want to have the home be too overbearing, we're gonna limit the maximum height to 25 even though we can go up to 35 within the zone. So we're gonna do that as as a, as sort of a recognition that it is an undersized lot and we don't want any additional massing or appearance. So with that said, I do have one witness tonight, unless there's any preliminary questions for me. I do have one witness tonight. And that's Mr. Mike Bignell. He is both an engineer and a planner, although we probably aren't gonna have too much engineering testimony, we'll probably just focus on the planning. But he's available for to be sworn in.
Speaker 8Good evening board members. Good evening.
Speaker 2Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 8I do, yes. Thank
Speaker 2You. Your name and address please?
Speaker 8Mike Bignell. I work at Daystar Engineering. The engineering company address is 31 Clyde Road, Somerset, New Jersey. Would you like my home address as well or no? No, that's fine. Okay. I am a licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey. Both of my licenses are active and a good standing. I'm also a certified municipal engineer and I graduated from Rutgers School of Engineering in 2013. Mr. Arch, please proceed.
Speaker 7Okay. Mr. Bignell, just to confirm everything I said in my introduction, you agree that was correct? Correct?
Speaker 8Yes, everything was correct.
Speaker 7Okay. And so the only known conformity is really related to the existing lot, having it be undersized, which affects the width of frontage and the overall area, correct?
Speaker 8That is correct. There are no variances requested for any setback relief or anything like that.
Speaker 7Okay. And so I'm essentially gonna let you go and focus on essentially what the planning justifications are for, for what we're proposing today.
Speaker 8Awesome. Alright. So as the board is aware, the property is located within the R 10 zone where a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of a hundred feet and a minimum lot frontage of a hundred feet are required. The subject property is an existing lot containing approximately 6533.87 square feet of lot area with approximately 50 feet of lot frontage and 50 feet of lot width. As a result, variance relief is required for the lot area lot width and lot frontage. As Mr. Arch just said, I think it's important to recognize that these are deficiencies that aren't being created by the applicant. They were longstanding conditions inherent to the property itself and the applicant did not subdivide the lot or otherwise create these nonconformities. The applicant is proposing a single family detached dwelling, which is a permitted principle use within the R 10 zone. As Mr. Arch and I mentioned before, despite the substantial dimensional deficiencies associated with the the lot itself, the applicant has been able to design a home that complies with all of the remaining bulk requirements of the ordinance, as well as limiting the height to be more in line with the surrounding houses in in the neighborhood.
Speaker 8The only, yeah, so the only variances that the board need to grant relate to the existing lock characteristics themselves. In my professional opinion, the positive criteria can be satisfied pursuant to both a C one hardship analysis and alternatively, under a C two flexible C variance analysis. Under the C one analysis, the hardship arises from the physical characteristics of the property. The lot contains only approximately 65% of the required lot area and only 50% of the required lot width and frontage. These are extraordinary physical conditions unique to the property that were not created by the applicant. Strict application of the ordinance would create practical difficulties in developing the property for the very residential use contemplated by the zoning district. The hardship therefore stems from the existing law configuration and not from any action by the applicant. Alternatively, I believe the positive criteria can also be satisfied under a C two analysis.
Speaker 8The proposal advances several purposes of the municipal land, use municipal land, land use loss, excuse me, by promoting the appropriate use of land, encouraging development consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood and allowing an existing residential lot to be put to productive use with a permitted single family dwelling. I reviewed the surrounding neighborhood and the township tax maps. Based upon that review I observed there are several nearby properties along Chicago Avenue that appear to possess lot areas and lot widths that are smaller than those currently required by the ordinance. There are at least two other lots that are deficient in lot area and at least three other lots that are deficient in lot width. And that's just all within the same block alongside the property side of Chicago Ave. While I have not completed a complete zoning analysis of every property in the area, the review demonstrates that the subject property is not an isolated anomaly, but rather reflects an established residential development pattern within this portion of the township.
Speaker 8Accordingly, approval of the requested variances would not introduce a new development pattern or alter the character of the neighborhood. Turning to the negative criteria, it's my opinion that the requested variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. The proposed use is a single family detached residence, which is exactly the type of development contemplated within the R 10 zone. The dwelling has been designed to comply with the applicable setback requirements, height requirements, and other bulk regulations. As a result, I don't anticipate any substantial adverse impacts relating to light air, open space, privacy traffic, public services, drainage or neighborhood character. It is my opinion that the requested variances can be granted without substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. The board is not being asked permit a prohibited use. Rather, we're requesting the board allow us to construct a permitted single family residential use on an existing undersized lot.
Speaker 8The proposed development remains consistent with the residential planning objectives of the ARC 10 zone and the township master plan, the requested relief simply recognizes the reality that the lot, the existing lot is undersized and predates the current zoning standards. Based upon all of that, it's my professional opinion that the positive and negative criteria have been satisfied and that the requested lot area lot width and lot frontage variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Accordingly, I recommend that the board approve the application. That's all I got. Thank you guys very much.
Speaker 0Well, let me see if anybody on the board has any questions for you, Mr. McNeil, before we let you go?
Speaker 8No problem.
Speaker 0Jonathan, anything you wanna throw on on top of this?
Speaker 4I don't have any questions. I think staff has a few conditions they'd like to apply. Should, should this be granted this evening?
Speaker 0Okay.
Speaker 8I know that we spoke previously with staff, we are proposing a seepage pit that the roof leaders and some pumps will connect to. So there shouldn't be any drainage concerns on that, but if we were very happy to work with the town, if they want something different or something changed, we're very happy to work with them and, and, and make, make sure they're satisfied.
Speaker 0Thank you sir. Tim, you have anything to add?
Speaker 7Just I'm sure that we'll agree with whatever the conditions Mr. Ms. Raw, he is gonna indicate if he wants to just put those on the record, I can just quickly indicate that, whether there's any issues with any of those.
Speaker 0Okay. No other members of the board have any questions. I'm gonna open it to Steve.
Speaker 9No, I do, I do. Steve Weisman,
Speaker 0Go ahead. Steve,
Speaker 9The expert just now said that there are other houses that have also been built on undersized lots. I'm curious, this is a 35% differential. Are the other ones that you mentioned also in that range,
Speaker 8They weren't quite as substantial, but they were undersized compared to the zoning standards of 10,000 square feet. A hundred feet and a hundred feet. There were some, i I don't have the tax map directly in front of me right now, but I believe they were in some, there was one in the 75 range for a lot frontage. So it varies.
Speaker 0You good, Steve?
Speaker 9I I understand the answer. Jonathan, are you familiar with the, that area? How does this compare with the other smaller lots?
Speaker 4I would say the proposed changes and the comment on the reduced height would make a structure of 25 feet in line with the other heights of the buildings in that area. There is a lot of Cape Cods ranches. One, the house story structures. It is exactly like what Mr. Bignell said. It is a definitely a, a, a very small lot
Speaker 2For the zone. Mr. Weisman, the case law on undersized lots is the applicant has to try and obtain land to make it a conforming lot. In this case, there is no adjacent land available because the other lots are developed. So that creates a hardship for the applicant and the hardship, merits, variance relief regardless of the size of the lot.
Speaker 9I understand.
Speaker 0Thank you Steve.
Speaker 9No other question here.
Speaker 0Okay. Any other members of the board? No. Hearing none, I'm gonna, no, I'm gonna open it up to the public.
Speaker 4No, Mr.
Speaker 0Chairman. Okay. Close the public portion and I would make a
Speaker 2Before, before you do that, I believe that Jonathan
Speaker 0Wants to, well, you've gotta outline that, that Jonathan. Yes, I'm sorry about that.
Speaker 4Thank you. I just wanna make sure there will be no discharge of the sum pump or the roof leaders into the right of way. A hundred percent of site drainage will be managed through the seepage pit.
Speaker 8Yes. I can confirm the seepage pit's proposed in the rear yard and all of the roof leaders and, and sum pumps will be tied directly into that. So there's, there'll be no discharge into the, the right of way or into any of the storm sewer.
Speaker 4Great. If, if we move, if the board moves forward tonight, we would like a revised set of architecturals confirming that height of 25 feet as well as an opportunity for staff to review the design. Absolutely. I can agree with that. And a note, a note on the plan along the lines of the staff report item four with the broken sidewalks and curbs.
Speaker 7Yes. We, we, we'd agree to that as well. That that was one of the things we did not take issue with. We will replace all broken curb and sidewalk.
Speaker 0That's,
Speaker 4That's everything. I
Speaker 0Thank you, Jonathan, for adding that to the record. Okay. Now I'll make a motion to approve the application with those caveats. Can I get a second? Okay,
Speaker 1Mr. Tillery. All right. Mr. Weisman?
Speaker 0Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Arch, we will memorialize this at our next meeting and send a copy to you.
Speaker 7Thank you very much everybody. Have a wonderful
Speaker 0Evening. You too, sir. Thank you very much. I appreciate being here tonight. I hope everyone has a great night. Take care. You too. Item number nine, adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting of May 28th, 2026.
Speaker 2First resolution is Angeline Mappa, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Chairman Cahill?
Speaker 0Yes.
Speaker 2Next is Christopher Iese, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Chairman Cahill. Yes. Those are all the resolutions for this evening.
Speaker 0Item number 10, adoption of the minutes on the regular meeting of May 28th, 2026. All in favors, aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. I Number 11. Adjournment. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Goodnight everybody. Sorry it was a long
Speaker 1See you in two weeks. Thanks everyone.
Speaker 0Let's go.