Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on August 13 2020

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    Okay.  
Speaker 1     00:00:15    The screen editor.  
Speaker 0     00:00:18    Okay. We're recording. We're ready to go. Chairman,  
Speaker 1     00:00:26    Is there any board of regression meeting an outcome lawyer adequate notice, and this meeting was provided in the following ways nobody was published in the courier news. Notice posted on a bulletin board. The, this no building, no one is made available to the township clerk notice sent to the carrier news in the star ledger. Will the clerk please call roll call  
Speaker 0     00:00:46    Mr. Cahill. Mr. Tillery, Mr. O'Reggio. I see him. Roy. You have muted. He's here. Mr. Weissman. Mr. Zimmerman. He's still connecting to audio. He's raising his hand. Mr. Patel. Where's Kalpesh and Chairman Blake.  
Speaker 1     00:01:17     everyone. Please stand and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag.  in the middle of the ball. Rolling. When the mood is passionate to change the storage gender.  
Speaker 2     00:01:48    Yes, we do. The application of alien Soriano is postponed one, two and 3020 with no further notice, except she has the notice. The Middlesex county planning board. The second change is the application of Mary. Stephanie Rogers has been withdrawn without prejudice. So that application will not be heard. The next change we have is James Livingston that is postponed until September 24th, 2020. That applicant must notice and publish. And we have this evening equity land group that is postponed until September 24th, 2020 with no further notes. Those are all the changes I have.  
Speaker 1     00:02:31    Okay, well just prior Danielle Hutchinson, what's the status we had  
Speaker 2     00:02:37    Hutchinson is, is ready to be heard tonight and they are here. Okay. But you have a hearing ahead of them.  
Speaker 0     00:02:43    Okay. Number six.  
Speaker 1     00:02:48    I am number six. Is Jody Gale. Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:02:56    Yes. That's correct. And they are present  
Speaker 3     00:02:59    Gary Hoffman as well.  
Speaker 2     00:03:04    You're both going to testify.  
Speaker 1     00:03:07    We will as needed. Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:03:08    Well, let me swear both of you. And then could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, so help you God, as a one at a time, could I have your name and address please?  
Speaker 3     00:03:21    You already gel 49 north Randolphville road, Piscataway New Jersey. Oh 8 5 4.  
Speaker 1     00:03:29    And Gary Hoffman. Same address 49 north Randolphville road.  
Speaker 2     00:03:36    Good. One of you explained to the board what you'd like to do here.  
Speaker 3     00:03:40    Well, we'd like to take an old chain link fence on the back of our property, which is also described as the side of the property so that we can have privacy. I don't know how old it is, but it's, what's the word for it. Almost diseased. It's full of terrible disrepair. It's a much better way, Gary. The neighbors don't even want to come close to it, but it is the chain link aside, the walkway that one-year mat, those guys, the walkway that Peabody street to north Randolphville road is a part of our property. And we have a fairly large property and that's where we're visible and where the champion fences, which is four feet long and very old. And there we'd like use a long them poison Oak and poison Ivy. And what we'd like to do, which is going to cost us a lot of money, but we're more than willing to do. So is have someone come by, this does not involve you folks by the way, and take away all the weed like trees along that side of the property, our property line, or before our property line. So that we may install a pen similar to my name, which is kind of like a seafood six foot tall wooden fence, all along there and probably two other wood alone. He bought it to complete my neighbor, my neighbor's fence on my right side to put a fence up several years ago.  
Speaker 1     00:05:25    Yeah. So it will end up cleaning up the property line and then installing a six foot high privacy fence, which will allow backyard privacy, which we don't currently have.  
Speaker 2     00:05:39    Mr. Chairman, if there are no questions from the board, but I believe Mr. Hinterstein has a report that he may want to address.  
Speaker 1     00:05:45    Is there any questions or comments from the board Mr. Chairman, if I may in and the  
Speaker 4     00:05:57    Report, I just point out the fact that same sort of a unique property considered a corner property with two frontage is, but that being said, they, the side is really is a paper street. So there's no road in that location. Currently. There's just a sort of bike or walking path that exists that connects north random whole road to Peabody street and central avenue. So it's sort of a busy cut-through for, I believe kids going to school on north Randolphville road. So, you know, I do sympathize with the gills regarding the, some of the privacy issues that may, may hurt in that location due to the fact that there's walking paths exist in this location. So there's only a 25 foot right of way there. And again, it's, it's, it's a right of way, but I don't anticipate that road ever being built. It's more of just the location of that connector of path for pedestrians and students to get is shortcut manner from Peabody central avenue of development through to the school.  
Speaker 4     00:07:13    I believe it's located on north mandible road. That being said by my main comment in the report is that the facts should go in the exact location that defense exists now or behind that. So it shouldn't be any further or closer to the, to the right of way line and that location that's correct. Are you okay with that comment? They did mention some issues with the wine remove trees that have no issue with that. As long as the trees are on within your property, you're entitled to do that with hope that you save anything. That's a good quality, not in your, you know, not in the way, but that that's really the only comment. If they're willing to keep them in the same location or further into the property. I don't see any other issues at this location to due to the fact that it's an industry.  
Speaker 3     00:08:03    I could ask a question to you, but it comes to a triangle and we're going to clear all that, that wean inside the triangle because the deer go in there and, and the animals and whatnot, make sure it's cleaner. But on the right side is the PBI. I would extend my two neighbors and my neighbor right next door to me on north Randolphville Jim, Nick, I forget his last name. He has put a fence similar to the fence. I'm going to put on the other side, there's a little bit of a gap. When you come towards Peabody on the left side of the be body house, may I fill in two plates? Still two would semi-private plates, just like the other wood plates on that side as well. I believe that's what you wrote down that I could do. In other words, it involves more than just that one long side. I'd like to close it up at the triangle with one or two wood sides as well.  
Speaker 4     00:09:16    Yeah. The way you, the way, the way he chose it on the survey, you show that. And I don't think there's any issue with that. So as long as you install it in accordance with the survey that you submitted, that I think it shows her wrapping around that triangle and tying in with the existing board and work that I don't see any issue with it. The only issue is that me in the same location as the fence, that's on the Peabody right. Of way, or refer to the random as long as that's complied with the next community, any issues with me around sentence.  
Speaker 1     00:09:50    Okay. Anyone else have any questions or comments from the board regarding this application? Well, perhaps there's the public. Anyone in the public force, you didn't have any questions or concerns regarding this application.  
Speaker 2     00:10:06    Ms. Buckley, do you see any member of the public that wishes to be heard?  
Speaker 0     00:10:09    No, sir.  
Speaker 1     00:10:13    Can we have any motions or any,  
Speaker 2     00:10:16    Yeah. Before the board makes a motion. I just have a question for Mr. Hinterstein. Is there still a variance necessary for a fence located in the site triangle?  
Speaker 4     00:10:27    There is not. And the reason being is that as a pointed out, the survey was quite old. And since that time, one with Randolphville road has been reconstructed and widened out. So when they did that, the post and rail fence was relocated. I believe at that time into the area outside of the brighter light,  
Speaker 1     00:10:49    I hear Henry Chairman Chaill yes. Mr. Kao, I'd like to make a motion to approve that application. Okay. Motion made to approve this application, Steve  
Speaker 4     00:11:05    Wise, in your own  
Speaker 1     00:11:06    Second lap, seconded by Mr. Weitzman clerk. Please call the roll.  
Speaker 0     00:11:11    Mr. Kay hill. Mr. Taylor, Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Weissman, are  
Speaker 2     00:11:23    You waving?  
Speaker 0     00:11:27    Yes. There we go. Mr. Mr. Mr. Patel, did he make it? Nope. And chairman Blake,  
Speaker 2     00:11:39    Ms. Gill, your application's been approved would memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting. You do not need to be there for that. We will mail a copy to you,  
Speaker 3     00:11:48    And there's nothing more to sign, sir.  
Speaker 2     00:11:52    You'll need that document. Get  
Speaker 1     00:11:53    Your permits. Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:11:55    The next meeting is September 10th. I'll mail it out as soon as it's adopted. Okay. You're going to start the clean up in the meantime, because that has nothing to do with  
Speaker 4     00:12:04    Yeah. The cleanups, not an issue. You could, you could remove trees. You don't need a permit, your own trees on your own property. The only issue Jim, I just want to circle back. Unfortunately, the sight triangle easement is for the existing chain link fence. I believe that's there.  
Speaker 3     00:12:22    And the trees that went,  
Speaker 4     00:12:23    So that's still show as being in the, that little section is the entire section of that chain link fence being removed. Yes. So even though you're just putting in the stockade fence where you have the pink line, so you're just starting to fix up the garage. You're not replacing the fence, but my garage,  
Speaker 1     00:12:45    Right from the garage, going back towards the triangle and then looping around to the right and tour meets the existing sense of our nature  
Speaker 4     00:12:54    In front of that in front of the garage, going towards north Randolphville road, what's happening with that portion of the fence that you just removed it. No change there, no change. So then we will meet the, the, the really, what I would recommend then is that, that piece of fence that you have that's in the right of way, you really should take out the one section. Cause we typically don't allow it's in the right of way. And I don't have a problem issuing the site triangle, easement variance due to the fact that it's not a, a true road. It's, it's a paper street with solely the bike path in it. Right. So that would be my only recommendation. Think the one section of fence out that's in the right of way in, you know, so basically post the post and you're fine with the rest of it, staying where it is.  
Speaker 3     00:13:43    So let me just reiterate, you're saying Mr. Hinterstein that the sides of the fence is starting at the beginning of the garage, going back, it's going to be destroyed also that, that other fence that was bought to the front of our property.  
Speaker 4     00:13:58    Right. Very, very end of that.  
Speaker 3     00:14:01    Yes. Okay. There's no problem with us ever planting over there though. Is there, and as long as property and no fat, no, of course. That's what, yeah.  
Speaker 1     00:14:14    Okay. I'll prepare a resolution that reflects the, what we just discussed. Okay. Okay. We can proceed with site clearance, but no, no fence construction until after September 10th. Yes. You, you, you need the resolute, the written resolution in order to get your permits. Okay. Very good.  
Speaker 3     00:14:38    Okay. And one more time. We'll be notified as such.  
Speaker 1     00:14:44    We will send you a copy.  
Speaker 4     00:14:46    Okay.  
Speaker 2     00:14:52    We have number seven, Danielle, how Are you? Both, are you both going to be testifying tonight? Yes. Okay. Could you each raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth so help you God. And then from me, thank you. And one at a time that I have your name and address, please.  
Speaker 5     00:15:15    Danielle Hutchinson, 25 Mitchell avenue, Piscataway New Jersey, 0 8, 8 5 4,  
Speaker 2     00:15:21    Lengthen T Hutchison 25 Mitchell avenue, Piscataway New Jersey, 0 8 8 5 4. Thank you. Could one of you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?  
Speaker 5     00:15:32    Sure. We are looking to replace our existing six foot fence with the privacy fence. Currently we have a six foot fence with lattice at the top. When we, when we purchased the home in or about March of 2017 of 2020 in 2007, we were not aware that some of the construction on our property was not within code compliance. We did not find out until we attempted to replace the wooden fence because after several storms it had become, it had become torn up. It was damaged and we had been replacing it and we were looking for a more permanent fix. So, so we were looking to upgrade it with vinyl. We retained a couple of things, companies, and one of them told us that our fence was not in compliance. So we needed to seek out a variance. And that's why the application is so that we can replace the fence.  
Speaker 5     00:16:33    But in, so doing, we found that our who also wasn't in compliance and there were several other things on our property, even including our lot size that was not in compliance with township code. We were not aware of things such as even our size, not being the size that it should be everything, you know, it's smaller than what it should be. It's just a whole host of issues that we were not aware that we inherited. We were only this, we were the second purchase as the first homeowners. They built the house as far as I understand it. So we're trying to bring our home in, in compliance with township codes and in, so doing, we'd like to also replace our bats.  
Speaker 2     00:17:16    Have you seen Mr. Hinterstein is August 7th, 2020 report? I  
Speaker 5     00:17:20    Absolutely did see  
Speaker 2     00:17:21    It. And can you address the items in that? Whether or not you can comply with that or do you want to,  
Speaker 5     00:17:27    But the primary thing that I, I would say that we would not be able to comply with this. He's asking us to relocate the current fence, at least 10 feet off of shovel court, which would literally take up our yard. And the fence would literally, even if we remove the paper, it would be right in front of our pool, which would not necessarily a safe condition for our children. So we have eight children and six of which are under the age of 16. And my youngest being five years old. I mean, I just, I to put the fence over there, I don't think that that would create a safe environment for my children. So I don't think that that's practical not to mention the course would be Redis for us. We are, my husband is early to degree and we just don't, we're not in a position in this climate to be able to take on the renovations that this type of project would require us to do.  
Speaker 4     00:18:23    And the whole setup of the fence and the pool in relation to the compliance code. It's, it's, it's a bit awkward because we, we, we, this existing fence, I mean, it's, it's beat up. And if you look at it from Google, it's probably a, an eyesore and decreasing our property value. So he would think that we would like to really, you know, have it replaced because, you know, again, we're not doing a whole big, big construction job. We just went through change the existing portion that's that's facing right on Sheryl court, correct? Any that's the saddle Sheryl court that's facing, not the side that's facing Mitch Mitchell avenue. Just, we want to go around and show him what area,  
Speaker 5     00:19:06    The primary issue that we have in terms of what Mr. Hendrick, I I'm sorry. Hinterstein I apologize if I, I didn't say it incorrectly. The primarily primary issue that we would have, I believe is the offset of the 10 feet off of Chaill. If I can understand what he's asking or proposing us to do in his, in his recommendation. The other thing is we would like to be able to have a privacy fence as well. We've already had a six foot fence and, you know, again, we had children and lattice. One of our it's been our, our experience, even with the lattice. We had a young man that actually went over our fence using the lattice. So that's another reason why we were opting to have the privacy fence, because it's less than it gives younger children yet teenagers. And they have friends sometimes, you know, the whole climate thing. So we're, we have a pool. So just for safety, we would prefer to have a privacy fence where it's not as easy to climb. That's why I see that. He also mentioned a lattice as a compromise of some sort, but as I said, because we have children and sometimes children will use the lattice, the climb over it. It presents a whole different problem.  
Speaker 4     00:20:19    My experience with the lattice in this area, even with the existence, we constantly have to replace the lattice, the old wooden fence because we get that cross wind. And it's so strong as it. So it does a lot of damage to the lattice. So my wife and I was were, were thinking that, you know, we just get a full privacy fence. That'll avoid, we can avoid that problem.  
Speaker 5     00:20:43    There, any comments on this,  
Speaker 4     00:20:46    You know, unfortunately I could synthesize sympathize with the Hutchinson, but unfortunately, everything that was done here from what I've researched was done illegally, the pools in a, in a location that typically would never be allowed. It's in the, located in the front yard of the, of the Sheryl court. There's no evidence that I could find variants ever getting given for this. So how it was built is something that I can't answer to, you know, it's, it's there. And again, the fence is in right of way. So again, no permit was ever taken out for the fence and, you know, and again, I can sympathize, but, you know, just because it's there now, and it was all done in illegal just to come in and say, well, it's always been there even though it was done illegally and say, it's a hardship. That's not, you know, planning basis in my eyes for, for granting this variance, every person who comes in with corner properties, your offense applications, we've never typically allow a fence to go right up against the property line, six foot solid banks.  
Speaker 4     00:22:04    We typically may move it back. A minimum is 10 feet. In this particular case, you got to understand the ordinance is 40 feet. The solid fence is plus be even with the front yard setback, you know, they're asking for it to be 10 feet off the right of way line. I think that's more than adequate compromise that Alex making in order to, you know, just not have it so close to the road, but, you know, come into somewhat of compliance with what the ordinance and 10 is, again, the topper of the fence being lattice. And you don't understand your concerns about climbing, but you know, if somebody really wants to climb the fence, regardless of what it is, they're probably going to climb it. But again, the ordinance requires the defense 50% silent. You're asking for a completely solid fence, that's all the way up against the property line.  
Speaker 4     00:22:56    So I'm making suggestions that are compromised and they're much more of a compromise, I think on the township ordinance side than it is on your side. I think that these compromises could be, you know, something that you know, could be accomplished and it still would provide you with sufficient space. Now your pool is 27 feet from the front yard setback. According to the zoning officers report, you move the fence back 10 feet. You're still have 17 feet between your pool and the fence. So the fence isn't right on top of your pool, the pavers, which there is still be 17 feet of pavers in that area, not to mention all the pavers that you have around the pool and on the backside of the pool. I personally don't care and there's no ordinates. If you want it, the paper, you know, 40 feet behind the ball, that's fine.  
Speaker 4     00:23:47    That would be the area then that you paver. But to say that, you know, these pavers are right up against the property line, the science is right up against the, over the property line, I believe, or right up to it and, and the retaining walls in the property and over the property line. So again, all the things that I pointed out were I think, minimal compromises to try to get this to be in somewhat of a little bit more in compliance of what the ordinance is intend to these ordinances are regarding front yard fences regarding calls regarding, you know, retaining walls, nothing right away. So all of those things are meant to bring this application more into compliance even though by all means even the compliance that we're asking for is it, I think a vast deviation from the ordinances that we're, you know, we're, we're, again, I think being more than accommodating city, those ordinances by allowing the fence to be 10 feet off the property.  
Speaker 5     00:24:52    May I just say that when we heard, we've been speaking with our neighbors, one of which have been here since prior to shovel court being actually built. And what she has informed us is that the, the second, the owners that was here, the original builders it's quite possible that shovel court was not fully well then paid yet. It wasn't actually shown in court yet, which is perhaps why there was no variance needed because it wasn't a natural road. So  
Speaker 4     00:25:20    Even, even if the road didn't exist, I'm pretty sure that the right of way would have been there. So even if it was a paper street, you know, your marriage would have still been probably required. Again, I can't speak to the, you know, I didn't look at when Sheryl court was, was built, like all the houses there and looked like they were built approximately at the same. So again, I didn't really look into see when every house on that street was built, but again, I have found no evidence of, of those. I mean, that may change things, but regardless the road exists there today, the right of way exists there today. And now you're asking to replace this fence that is right up against the property line. And again, I, I don't want to speak for the board, but I think the board to reiterate the fact that I don't think we've given any variances for anything less than 10 feet off of the property line, especially when the requirement is 46,  
Speaker 5     00:26:25    W we're asking the board to consider is that we are only the only the second owners of this property. And if in fact, the previous owners built the home prior to shovel court actually existing. And even if the variants, you know, I don't know, we're talking about 1950 something, we're talking about way I was even born. I just don't want to be penalized. You know, we, we've invested so much of our time and our family in this phone. And I'm just asking the board to consider, you know, this, what we are asking was, you know, it's not as if this was intentionally done, we're asking to be considered because we are only the second owners of the home and the investment that you are asking us as a family to, to put in. It's not some that we're able to do because of the previous owners, maybe ignorance of the fact that they needed a variance. I understand what the challenges with the township ordinances are now concerned. What is currently there? I'm just asking that the board would not penalize us as a result of the previous owners. Ignorance. I just don't want to be pre to be penalized.  
Speaker 4     00:27:36    And it just might've had, if barriers with is denied, what, where does that leave the existing fence? What, what should we do in a case like that? And then if, if there's nothing to be done with it, what's the I'm just asking. What's the problem with replacing the existing one?  
Speaker 6     00:27:55    I mean, what I mean did jacked on this, on the downs, you're planning something, the defense around the pool. First of all, it doesn't comply to what the construction goes requires. They're supposed to have a fence at school for the eyes. It's not climbed bubble. We ever even talked about that. The idea of being paralyzed, you're going to replace his fence in any case. So I don't understand the cost issue that's being raised.  
Speaker 5     00:28:23    No, I'm talking about penalized, asking us to now move it and do, and have consistent.  
Speaker 6     00:28:28    We've discussed enough. Henry described it to you. You don't want to give up the dead feet comply with the township code. You'd have to remove the pole. That's crazy.  
Speaker 6     00:28:40    Even let's not even go there, but that's how non-conforming you are. So it would seem to me that Mr. Hinterstein suggestions make a lot of sense. You're going to have to replace the fence. Anyway, when you do that, make sure that the construction code says it complies with the construction code. You do not want to put this fence up and then ever expect to come. I tell you this doesn't comply very important. At least you heard your guy or one of your contractors that, you know, this is a very, and see if we put this up, you're going to get cited. There was two parts to that. Then the nature of the fence, you have to make sure that comply and all the discussion I've heard at this point, nobody even knows about it, but we do investigate that area as well.  
Speaker 1     00:29:41    You have any questions or comments from your board Hearing nine-year-old brown, sniff public, anyone in the public portion, never any questions or comments you've already done. This application is Buckley to see anyone that wishes to be heard.  
Speaker 7     00:30:02    No, I do not.  
Speaker 8     00:30:17    Mr. Chairman, Sean Cato,  
Speaker 1     00:30:19    Mr. Perry, over my head,  
Speaker 8     00:30:23    The a hundred. And I, we, we sympathize with you. I've been on this planet as a doting board for 14 years. And the 10 foot compromise that we're offering is more than generous because we abide by the letter of the law. We could say if on the bus is 40 feet, but instead we're trying to compromise your truck or trying to work with you. I I'm sorry that you're in the physical moment that you're in. I would have hoped that maybe your homeowner's effective when you bought the house. Might've pointed that out. But again, it's the case of buyer beware, unfortunately, unless you can. We, we, most of the people on the, on the board are blue collar people. We rely on the professionals, the engineers in this case 10 weeks is that engineer. We always follow his recommendation because if there was compassion offered in his recommendation and there's also the legality that's offered in his recommendations. So unless you are willing to comply with the site impact, I would be voting against this application tonight. I just didn't know if you want us to think that over.  
Speaker 5     00:31:33    I'm sorry. So what, just so I'm clear about what you guys are asking us to do. You're saying that when we replace the fence to bring it into 10 foot, 10 foot within 10 foot, is that what you're saying? When we replace it  
Speaker 8     00:31:50    And we could do radio right? Or reiterate  
Speaker 4     00:31:53    The fence would be located 10 feet from the property line. So we could follow the contour of the property line. The property line has a sort of a curve to it. It would just be 10 feet in from more or less where it's at now, maybe nine and a half feet. It's very close to the property line. So almost I imagined, if you look at it, that sort of 45 degree angle you have on that fence, connecting the best that goes along your driveway to the fence along the front, it would probably be back to that point almost, and then draw them on the same fashion as the property line. Again, just 10 feet back. So, I mean, technically you don't have to remove pavers. I would suggest that only because that would, then you could maybe use those pavers and him somewhere else on the property.  
Speaker 4     00:32:41    And when he would also be able to do is if you want to do is add more landscaping in front of the fence from what you have now, but that would be up to you. So if you're concerned about the cost, you could always relocate the fence. And then at some point in the future, you could, you could relocate the pavers or remove the papers. But my concern really is, is when you put the fence back, put back in the position, that's at least the, from the property. And as Mr Chadwick said again, I, I think we can live with dispense being completely solid. You know, that may be something that we can, we can live with if you move the fence back to that 10 foot setback. Okay.  
Speaker 2     00:33:34    So are you willing to the fence back 10 feet off the Cheryl street property line?  
Speaker 4     00:33:39    Yes.  
Speaker 8     00:33:44    Jen, did we address the other issues with the Fanny pack? Yeah.  
Speaker 2     00:33:48    Henry, do we need to address the retaining wall?  
Speaker 4     00:33:51    No. I think the retaining wall is, is, is been there. You know, we have the other retaining walls in town that are right up against the sidewalk. I think it's one of those, one of those items that when people build these retaining walls for grade issues, close to the sidewalks, instead of leaving a foot or a foot and a half between the walk and one wall, which typically end up getting overrun with weeds and they just build these walls right up against the sidewalk. So they exist. I could see issuing the variants. I think the only, the only comment would be, as you just have to know, you do have a wall that's in the right of way. So for any reason, if the catcher had to come in here, replace the sidewalk, do any work on that right away, you know, any costs associated with your retaining wall, they're going to be your expenses because they're in the right of way. So if anyone wants to get moved or it's damaged because of the sidewalk being replaced, unfortunately it's your responsibility because technically it's not, but as long as you're in agreement that, you know, you'll, you understand that I have no issue with retaining all staying in the, in the right of way. Okay.  
Speaker 8     00:35:03    And what did we determine as far as  
Speaker 2     00:35:05    The issues that were outstanding?  
Speaker 8     00:35:09    Kim? What, what additional capital, what do we decide about the fence five foot with one foot, a ladder?  
Speaker 2     00:35:17    Well, I think Mr. Hinterstein said it's, it's set back 10 feet. He could compromise and allow a solid.  
Speaker 8     00:35:26    Okay, great. All right. So is that okay with you? Cause I'm willing to absolutely. Thank you. Okay. At this time, Mr. Chairman I'd to make a motion to approve this application.  
Speaker 1     00:35:40    Let's see. Why is it that your motion made by Mr. JL secondary by Mr. Juarez.  
Speaker 0     00:35:53    Mr. Kao? Yeah. Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Weissman. Yes. Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. And then chairman blank. Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:36:08    Your application has been approved as amended. We will memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting. You will need to be present on a zoom meeting for that. We will mail a copy of that document.  
Speaker 1     00:36:19    Thank you. Thank you for your next 90 agenda. We have item number eight. Adam tends to deal.  
Speaker 2     00:36:31    Is Mr. Penfield present  
Speaker 9     00:36:33    Somewhere,  
Speaker 2     00:36:34    Raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth. So help you God. Yes. Your name and address please.  
Speaker 9     00:36:42    Adam Penfield, 56 Raul hall Boulevard, north Piscataway.  
Speaker 2     00:36:48    Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?  
Speaker 9     00:36:51    I'd like to install an eight foot deer fence around the back portion of my property. B basically the back side of my driveway through covering the backyard, my property back to the Rutgers ecological reserve. So your real issue, a deer fence is the least offensive, but look at it in terms of being able to see each around. And the reason for the height is simply keep the beer out the back. Fortunately, the driveway would be the most area seen of the fence. If you want. That is roughly 83 feet back from me roadway. That's more than more than sufficient in terms of spacing. How  
Speaker 1     00:37:52    Far did he say Mr.  
Speaker 9     00:37:53    Penfield by 83 feet? The deer offense is listed on website is listed as being virtually invisible from roughly 20 key. It's a black plastic mesh. I believe I included a picture, but basically this is what it looks like while we'll get on the camera. You know, the whole point is to be able to see the logical preserved and atrial around me without being obstructed by a solid stock gate type that  
Speaker 8     00:38:27    Mr. Penfield, Mr. , Mr. Penfield, you able to get this anything in eight foot strips? The reason I'm asking is because I believe Mr. Hinterstein suggested 7.5 because I believe Henry chime. I think you said that you saw them online and they come and strip the seven and a half.  
Speaker 4     00:38:55    Yeah, I believe it's standard height for this fence. Another hike that they provide is seven and a half feet. And I feel like, although it's only a half a foot to a half a foot, when you're talking about an foot fence is a half a foot that the neighbors have to look at. So my opinion would be is the seven-and-a-half foot fast would probably be again a compromise. And I don't really think it would have any bearing on the, the usefulness of the feds. I think of an eight foot fence a year out. I believe the seven and a half foot you're out as well. And again, it's just this simple compromise. There are adjacent homeowners, and I think you're going to have a photo be beneficial,  
Speaker 9     00:39:37    Looking at the way to say it, that I was looking to go through guest. It does appear they come from seven and eight foot sections, special standard sizes for ear fence. I believe from what I've read and seen at the eight foot he's recommended. I've seen him read articles that do reference that you're capable of jumping easily an eight foot fence, especially from, from upon, which is the reason why I propose me to put fence.  
Speaker 8     00:40:14    I don't, I don't see a problem with the six inches. I mean, I asked the agent, she wants the eight. I know, I don't think it's a big issue. I'm okay with it.  
Speaker 6     00:40:26    And again too, I've had to deal with a number of the Andrews, right? They come seven and a half. They come eight. I don't know. I don't think in terms of visibility. I think if you're going to grant this, you want to specify this the black, black plastic mesh, because that is pretty much invisible when you get 30, 40 feet from it. The other thing, the photos, and just, there's a bunch of gates and things on this. So are you planning to put gates in this?  
Speaker 9     00:40:55    Yes. So there would be a double gate basically inside the driveway basically find where the cars are parked.  
Speaker 6     00:41:04    The gate is up towards the house and it's not the back  
Speaker 9     00:41:12    The  
Speaker 9     00:41:17    So yes and no. So there, there, I included one picture of a large double eight double Gabe would be on the, by the driveway side for me to access in case I needed to, you know, like mulch to the back or get stuff out. Any, any other gates that would be around for accessing would be the smaller and believe that either four or five feet wide the access with, with a lawn mower when it was deployed, the one on either side by the front of the property, then probably one porch. The back in case I needed to get out out backside.  
Speaker 6     00:41:55    That's not your property going out the back. That's the Rutgers property Greg. Correct? Because of the framing for the gates is what becomes the most obvious. We're trying to make this thing as visible as possible. So I can see the convenience to be able to get out of the back under Rutgers property, but I don't see the need for it.  
Speaker 9     00:42:22    Well, okay.  
Speaker 6     00:42:25    Yeah. Needs and the need is correct.  
Speaker 9     00:42:30    I'm sorry. Say it again.  
Speaker 6     00:42:31    The convenience and the need. There are two different issues  
Speaker 9     00:42:35    That is correct. Is that correct? I mean, in terms of looking at the plan of the property, I mean, I'm willing to concede to put one double gate behind like the driveway area and then a single safe five foot eight. I'm sorry, I can't see it. But on the left side of my property, on the other side in the front to be able to access from either side, I will eliminate the secondary by foot gate on the driveway side, which I believe would eliminate additional bars to be seen that  
Speaker 6     00:43:18    I have no other comments,  
Speaker 1     00:43:21    Comment, tumor board, or public, anyone in the public portion. You have any questions or comments regarding this application? It's Buckley to see anybody that wishes to be heard? No, I do not. Public fortune is closed. Do you have any comments from the board or emotions on the floor?  
Speaker 8     00:43:48    Mr. Chairman? It's shrunk tail guy. Just ask. Can we hang out? Are you okay with, with muster Penfield with the, with the relocation of the gate?  
Speaker 4     00:43:58    Yeah, I, I think one, even in the morning, I think eliminating the one additional game on the driveway side, the one man game will be beneficial. Cause that's the last that you'll see from at least from the street, I'm sort of in agreement with John. I don't see what the need is. You know, of a gate leading to property. That's not his. He really wants to go back. There you go. Outside the fence. No, it's convenience. I dunno. It just sort of with John on that one, I don't see what they, what they need. It's it's more want versus need w eight foot. We're giving you an eight foot fence and we're worried about visibility. As John said, the gates are what, when a really dependable items, but I'll leave that up to the,  
Speaker 1     00:44:47    So it's the Wiseman. So we move deals the gain to the side instead of the back. And there's less visibility. We'll let them keep the foot fence. I'm good with that. I did a walk by, it's not that far from where I live is in the best fencing is, is near invisible on the constant come up.  
Speaker 4     00:45:08    W you don't want any gates on  
Speaker 1     00:45:12    Just the park system.  
Speaker 8     00:45:15    Okay. Mr. Penfield, it's Sean kale. Is that, are you okay with the location of the gate?  
Speaker 9     00:45:20    So I guess I'm just a little confused cause they moved around. So the driveway gate, the large gates there is okay. The one on the other side of the front is okay, but the back is not, or  
Speaker 8     00:45:34    Yeah, I think that, of course they're saying the back with the act that Rutgers is not good.  
Speaker 9     00:45:40    I mean, as long as I can keep the, I mean, honestly, as long as I can keep a double gate by the driveway so that I can have access to the backyard more freely with, you know, whatever. And, and on the side, the small section, I'm happy with that. Yeah. To be able to, you know, and really even like the man that gate that's on the smallest, the far side deal, the only reason I would go to like pour feet that big even is you can't get a lawnmower in smaller.  
Speaker 4     00:46:13    Yeah. I think that's acceptable.  
Speaker 8     00:46:16    Okay. Mr. Truman,  
Speaker 1     00:46:19    There's an insecurity  
Speaker 8     00:46:21    Based on the last 30 seconds of testimony and the comments, I would make a motion to approve this application.  
Speaker 1     00:46:30    Okay. Motion made to approve your application. You mentioned emerging problems. See why is my second surgery by Mr. Weissman, please call Mr. Cahill. Yeah. Mr. Tillary. Mr. O'Reggio. Yes. Mr. Weissman. Yes. Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. Chairman. Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:46:57    Mr. Penfield, your application's been approved. We'll memorialize it in the written document at our next one. You don't need to be present for that. We will mail a copy to you.  
Speaker 9     00:47:05    Perfect. Thank you. Good  
Speaker 8     00:47:07    Luck.  
Speaker 1     00:47:08    And you tell me agenda. We have item number 10. Matt. Who's not hand  or . Oh yeah. Good.  
Speaker 2     00:47:36    Is the applicant present? Yes. Okay. Oh, there you are. Are you going to testify this evening? Yes. Yeah. Could you each raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give you a one at a time. Could I have your name and address please?  
Speaker 1     00:47:54    Well, those are the sunny three 17 million w McCutcheon.  
Speaker 2     00:48:01    We can't hear her. Okay. Could one of you explain to the board what you'd like to do here and keep your voices up where you were a little hard to hear?  
Speaker 1     00:48:13    Yeah. Is it better enough? Yes. Alright. So he punches his property rehab, the existing one and a half story, Cape Cod style and structure on the crawl space, including a detached garage, a one car detached garage. So considering, I mean, sorry, it's our, it was our intention to add a second floor bedrooms and an additional bathroom there. But upon further inspections, we observed like a significant termite damage on the property and the water damage to the foundation and building walls and blowers. So the existing re covered porch was also pretty damaged. It not have a roof over it. There was a water all over there. So it was that the point that it was, it came to be, I believe unsalvageable. So in consultation with our architect who performed the field, visit their investigation, investigated and inspection, it was just, I mean, it was determined that the structure is salvageable. Therefore it is in the best interest to demolish it and construct a new single family, two story with a attached garage and a co-hort and brick porch and right open deck. So, I mean, at the time we purchased the property, we did not realize that it wasn't existing non-performing lot. So, because I think it is under sized pipe, 5,000 square feet or tens or minimum 10 thousands. Perfect. So EAP making a decision, we had to come for variance like we're making, if you have to add a level. So, and the property has been abandoned and disrepair for many years, so proposed structure by demolishing it and making a new family structure, I believe would be a recommendation for the neighborhood.  
Speaker 1     00:50:44    Any questions or comments from our board? Henry, did we have any,  
Speaker 4     00:50:52    Well, you know, this is a unique situation. I mean, there's, it's a 50 foot lot, so it's half of what's allowed in the zone and trying to get a full two story home, although it's, it's minimal, you know, minimal coverage variance is being requested. So I don't see that being as an issue. The issue is it's just the tight lot. Did you, did you now I'm not, I didn't look at the adjacent lots that closely. Is there, did you approach either of the adjacent lots or did you look into see if there was any extra land that either of the day Jason blocks, it's all you and still to both lots conforming?  
Speaker 1     00:51:31    No, I think that it doesn't lock the next house. I think one 50, they did an addition. That's what we thought we going to do. So obviously they wouldn't be selling there and yeah, because they recently did their addition and they were moving in. I talked to the neighbor and do you know how wide that lot is or what that's that lot sizes as well? 50 by a hundred. And what about on the other side, other side? I believe it was, I don't know, to be honest, the other side of,  
Speaker 4     00:52:06    I believe that lots of conforming a hundred by a hundred, but I believe the two houses to the facing the house, the two houses to the left, I believe a ranches and the one house to the right is a one and a half story, sort of a modified Cape with, with the complete dormer doubt of stairs. I believe that that resident came before us just recently, for some addition in the very near past, again, I don't have a huge issue with the two story. Is there, I mean, the biggest issue is that you have a, two-story out a 50 foot lot with ranches on one side. So you're sort of in close proximity to that. Is there any way perhaps to look at the architecture of the, of the home and see if it'd be possible to do it different kind of roof line on the, on the home where you would maintain two stories, but perhaps bring the roof line down, maybe more of a mansard road for, you know, sort of in, in line with like a, a Cape, you know, where perhaps the, it doesn't look like a two story, you know, you have, I think a 28, 28 and a half foot height request here for the new structure, you know, somewhere a little bit closer to the Cape that you have on the one side and ranches where a lot, a lot level, or on the other side, there was, there was a compromise your house.  
Speaker 4     00:53:37    Doesn't stick out as this much taller home between two smaller homes.  
Speaker 1     00:53:44    Yeah. I mean, I think the architect is as well on this call and he did made changes and we at least submitted based on the changes that were proposed by the, by the, I think we're reviewed the plans before the meeting. If you have any of these compressions, my architect. And what is your architect's name? Mrs. Staci Berger. Are you present on the call? Yes, I am. Okay. Could I swear you in, would you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to stop. You got yes. Your name and address please. Steve Droga architect, two 50 Stella road, Piscataway New Jersey. Perhaps you could address Mr. Hinterstein his recent comment. Yes. So we had lowered the hider to house the 28 feet. It can visually by creating a hip roof to the front would give her a lower view of the house or possibly even lowering the pitch of the roof to bring it down. Typically, a ranch would be like a 16 to 18 foot peak. This house would be on peak color and is set back 30 feet rather than the 26 feet originally existing. Does that answer your question,  
Speaker 4     00:55:18    Steve you're you're saying that you can modify this to create a, put a hit roof on the house to lower it a little bit, because when you're showing now as an aid for right  
Speaker 1     00:55:28    Total height would be the same, but the hip roof, because it's sloping away from the street, gives it an parents of being lower, you know, and you don't have a vertical wall going up in the Gable end. You have the roof line starting at above the windows and then loping away from the street, which gives it a lower view we'll list on view  
Speaker 4     00:55:51    12, eight picks the, the, the minimum pitch that you would recommend, or can you go to 12 step  
Speaker 1     00:55:59    And the lower, maybe six on 12, take a look at it with seven on 12. Definitely would be a problem that would lower the foot herself.  
Speaker 4     00:56:10    Okay. I mean, I think anything we do here to try to lower that height and bring given the appearance of it in I think,  
Speaker 1     00:56:20    Yeah. Well, that's the other reason we located further from the left property line, away from the ranch and towards the other two-story or one and a half story that's on the right-hand side is where you get more space between the ranch and this proposed residence.  
Speaker 2     00:56:40    Okay. So let me interrupt for a moment. You referenced the revised plan. Are you still seeking front setback, variances and rear setback variances,  
Speaker 1     00:56:51    Just the front setback variance.  
Speaker 2     00:56:53    And what is that?  
Speaker 1     00:56:56    Paul is 30 foot setback work. 35 foot is required.  
Speaker 2     00:57:00    And is that for the porch or the steps or  
Speaker 1     00:57:02    Both? That goes from the property line to the start of the porch, the front porch.  
Speaker 2     00:57:10    And what is the setback for the steps?  
Speaker 1     00:57:13    The steps I believe should be what? 10 feet? Less 27.5.  
Speaker 2     00:57:22    Okay. That was the original proposal. If, if you move the, the porch back to the steps also move back.  
Speaker 1     00:57:29    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:57:31    And what is the step setback right now?  
Speaker 1     00:57:36    Step setback should be about 27 feet. I didn't really consider that as part of the setback requirement, but porch itself. Yes. The color orange is  
Speaker 4     00:57:49    The plan has re it does. Three is reflecting that what the variances are. That's what the zoning officer picked up. This the plan hasn't been modified since it's been in it. I think when we're talking about revisions, it was probably prior to their submittal. So those setbacks, just to point out the, the, the proposal improves a couple of conditions that the previous front yard setback is 26 feet. It's now going to be 30 feet previously. The side yard setback on the home was eight feet on the one side of the house. Now it's going to be 10 feet. So I think they try to improve the existing variances that existed on the property. As far as the setbacks go, the, the warming you real variance is the, the coverage bearings.  
Speaker 2     00:58:42    Okay. And on the agenda, we're also showing a rear yard setback variance. Is that not?  
Speaker 4     00:58:49    That would be for the deck perhaps, right? Is that what you pointed out? Right. And the deck is, is minimal when it's only being shown as 12 foot in depth. So 17 feet, 17 and changed 17 or 17 and a half from the rear property line. You don't have a big issue with that. That, that, that, that gives two, three feet off the ground. Steve.  
Speaker 1     00:59:22    Yes. Correct. So it's even the, okay. I don't have any other questions, Mr. Chairman, what caused this to Jabber the new plan? Joe's overhead wire connect. You and you got to put that underground. Hello? That's a question to me or yeah. Client. Yes. It can be put on the ground. I'm sorry. We do house don't you have to the ground. That's where the afternoon I can't be put on the ground. Okay. Quick question.  
Speaker 8     01:00:20    It can be put in the ground. It's not the same. It will be put on the ground. You have to apply  
Speaker 1     01:00:26    On that. That's the Sony input on that? Yes. On if required. We will do that.  
Speaker 8     01:00:35    Okay. Well, you'll put them all. Guidewire will have to be put on the ground. That's fine. That sounds great.  
Speaker 1     01:00:43    And the questions from the board,  
Speaker 4     01:00:46    Mr. Chairman, my recommendation would be is that they just, again, you know, at a minimum, they, they try to modify the roof to, as Mr. DRUGA stated, you know, I think converting the roof to a hip roof and changing the pitch to 612, if possible, would, would help lower it a little bit and give the appearance, at least from the street that the height of the structure is a little bit less than what is shown now, which will, I think blend in a little bit better with the adjacent homes that exist now. So the applicants, because with that, that would be my recommendation.  
Speaker 1     01:01:28    Yes, we are good with that. Thank you, Henry. Anyone out of your car has comments or questions you already in this application, you came down.  
Speaker 8     01:01:39    No. Open it up to the public.  
Speaker 1     01:01:42    Anyone in the public, of course she didn't have any questions or comments. We're patient. Ms. Buckley. You see anyone that wishes to be heard her. Nope. Right hearing. Then the public portion is closed  
Speaker 8     01:02:01    With the pyramid on kale, with the applicant, willing to put the overhead wiring now underground. And with the architect, I'm thinking that the, the roof pad, I would make a motion to approve this application  
Speaker 1     01:02:19    Made to approve with me affirmation conditions, Steve Weisman. I'll second that by Mr. Weiss, Claire, please call the roll.  
Speaker 0     01:02:35    Mr. Tillery, Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Weissman, Mr. Zimmerman and Chairman Blake. Yes.  
Speaker 2     01:02:45    Your application's been approved as amended. We will memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting. You don't need to be present. We will mail a copy to you. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     01:02:54    Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have item number 11.   
Speaker 2     01:03:05    Does Mr. Pozzo present?  
Speaker 10    01:03:08    Yes, I  
Speaker 2     01:03:08    Am. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give it should be the truth so help you God? Yes, I do your name and address please.  
Speaker 10    01:03:18    So Eugene Bazo at 300 tab avenue in Piscataway, New Jersey.  
Speaker 2     01:03:22    What'd you explain to the board, what you like to do here?  
Speaker 10    01:03:25    I need to do is X replace the existing front steps that have deteriorated it's wood structure. We want to replace it with a new wood structure. Prior to that, I believe there was cinderblock or a brick that degraded and was originally placed with this wood structure that is now in disrepair.  
Speaker 2     01:03:45    Are you proposing any sides or ruins this new porch?  
Speaker 1     01:03:48    No  
Speaker 8     01:04:00    Chairman. Chaill Looking. I think we can expedite this real quickly, looking over it and re find impact there. There's nothing to be done. Am I right Henry? I'm like just reading And I would say we go right to the public and get a vote on,  
Speaker 1     01:04:24    Okay. One of the phone before she never any questions regarding this application,  
Speaker 2     01:04:34    Please see anybody that was hurt.  
Speaker 0     01:04:36    No, I do not  
Speaker 1     01:04:38    Hearing no one unopposed portion of post.  
Speaker 2     01:04:45    Well we'd know we need a motion and a second.  
Speaker 8     01:04:49    I make the motion to approve  
Speaker 1     01:04:51    And I'll second. The motion made by Mr. Cario by Mr. Whiteman.  
Speaker 0     01:04:59    Hello? Mr. Cahill, Mr. Taylor, Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Weisman, Mr. Zimmerman and Chairman.  
Speaker 2     01:05:11    Yes. Mr. Bozar, your application's been approved. We will memorialize it in a written document at next meeting. You don't need to be present for that. We will mail a copy to you. Great. Thank you very much for your time.  
Speaker 4     01:05:23    But next time you gen nine, number 12, Dan and Sarah Jackson,  
Speaker 2     01:05:32    Or the Jackson's present?  
Speaker 4     01:05:36    Yes.  
Speaker 2     01:05:40    Or the Jackson's present? Yes. Okay. Could you, are you both going to be testifying? Yes. Could you each raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth so help you God? Yes. One at a time. Could you give us your name and address please?  
Speaker 12    01:05:58    Sarah Jackson, three 70 avenue, New Jersey and Jackson restudy avenue, Piscataway New Jersey.  
Speaker 2     01:06:06    Thank you. Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?  
Speaker 12    01:06:09    Yes. We are just looking to put a shed in about our bathtub. There's a foundation where there was a shed shortly before we purchased the property. So we're essentially just looking to construct a shed, roughly the same dimensions. We've got a site in back and forth today that says we should use an eight foot setback. If we're going for the 11 foot height, we don't have any problem with that. We just wanna have a shed so we can store our snowblower and mom overs and all that stuff.  
Speaker 2     01:06:38    Well, one of the variances you're looking for is a height variance for the shed. Is there a reason to be that tall?  
Speaker 12    01:06:45    We'd like to have some space of overhead to store extra lumber and stuff like that for projects that we do around the house.  
Speaker 2     01:06:52    And is that not accomplishable with the height limit? The Piscataway hash  
Speaker 12    01:06:59    With nine feet? Yeah, it's a little tight. You know, we like the  two by sixes. I have a bunch of extra lumber from projects that we've done.  
Speaker 4     01:07:13    Mr. Chairman. I have a question, Mr. Kale and read the, the height in our ordinance is nine feet, nine feet. So if you're going to put a structure that's 11 minutes a year, eight or higher. And I think the setback should be proportionally increase that we have in our accessory structures are allowed to go up to, I believe, 18 feet height in the zone, but they also require a setback of eight feet to do so. So you to be willing to set back the shed further from the side property line, that may be a compromised, you know, you match the accessory structure setback or somewhere in between. I think the two feet would be additional two foot. I would be acceptable. So perhaps a six foot setback from the side property line. And then you can, I don't see an issue with it then at that point, because you're being a bit further away from the side property.  
Speaker 12    01:08:11    Yeah. Thanks. We appreciate the compromise. We're happy with that.  
Speaker 4     01:08:16    Yeah. So we're really relocated to six, six foot side yard setback, which it's not a variance, but they'll redo that. And then I think we can issue the, the height bearings shit.  
Speaker 8     01:08:29    Awesome. Thank you, Henry.  
Speaker 1     01:08:32    Very  
Speaker 8     01:08:32    Good chairman. I would open this in a public Maui.  
Speaker 1     01:08:36    You were in the public portion. You have any questions or climates designing this application  
Speaker 2     01:08:44    Is Buckley. Do you see any member of the public, which has to be heard. No, sir.  
Speaker 1     01:08:49    And hearing none of the public portion is closed.  
Speaker 8     01:08:58    I think the African has agreed to compromise with the recommendations from Mr. Hinterstein. I would make a motion to approve this application.  
Speaker 1     01:09:09    I'll second, Mr. KL, Steve Weisman all second   Mr. .  
Speaker 0     01:09:19    Yeah. Mr. . Mr. O'Reggio. Yes. Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Zimmerman and Chairman Blake.  
Speaker 2     01:09:30    Yes. Your application has been approved as amended, memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting. You don't need to be present for that. We will mail that back. Okay. Thank you. Just to clarify, once we have the paper in hand, we will then reapply for our permit again. Correct. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you gentlemen, for your time.  
Speaker 1     01:09:48    Good luck. Next time in agenda item 13, Anton free here,  
Speaker 5     01:09:57    Video  
Speaker 2     01:09:59    And Mr. Frazier, could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony. You're about to give it to be the truth, so help you God. Yes. Your name and address please.  
Speaker 5     01:10:10    Anton our Frazier for a one for hillside app.  
Speaker 2     01:10:14    Can you explain to them what you do here?  
Speaker 5     01:10:18    We would like to put a six foot privacy fence and we're on no corner property. And we would like to put a privacy since 10 feet back from Kent street.  
Speaker 2     01:10:36    Did you have any other review report this matter?  
Speaker 5     01:10:44    Yes.  
Speaker 2     01:10:45    Dan, can you address his comment in paragraph one?  
Speaker 5     01:10:50    Okay. Do you mind repeating it? Cause we don't actually have the document with us.  
Speaker 2     01:10:54    Okay, Mr. Hinterstein could you go over what you requested in your report? So I don't have to paraphrase for you.  
Speaker 4     01:11:00    Yeah, basically I it's made a recommendation that as we've heard in some previous applications tonight that six foot solid fence that runs the ETF proposal one 10th street right away in line. And then you move a minimum of 10 feet back from that right of in line so that it doesn't encroach on the front yard site corridor Kent street, which is, well, if you install it right on the right of way. So there's some adjacent homes and Kent street, the right of way line is also your product line. So that's 10 feet off of the curb line. And then you would have to be another 10 feet behind that. So the fence should be 20 feet from the curb, 10 feet from the property.  
Speaker 5     01:11:46    Okay. So 20 feet from the curb and 10 people. So 10 feet from the curb and then 10 feet from the property line,  
Speaker 4     01:11:53    Right? I was saying that the property line is 10 feet from the curb. That's where the property is. And still the sense should be 10 feet from the property line, which becomes 20 feet from the curb line though, basically about eight feet further in than what you showed on your survey.  
Speaker 5     01:12:13    Okay.  
Speaker 4     01:12:14    So gives you a pretty substantial amount of space to use in your yard.  
Speaker 5     01:12:20    So what does that give? That gives 15 feet on the side of the house. 15 feet from the side where camp is no  
Speaker 4     01:12:29    25 feet from your house instead of 35 feet.  
Speaker 5     01:12:35    Oh, 25 feet from the house,  
Speaker 4     01:12:37    The 25 feet from the house, which is still substantial amount. Okay.  
Speaker 5     01:12:41    Yeah. That's not bad. Okay. Okay.  
Speaker 4     01:12:45    All right.  
Speaker 5     01:12:47    We're good with that.  
Speaker 4     01:12:51    So I'll put it to the post,  
Speaker 1     01:12:54    Probably this time. Anyone in the public portion, you have any comments,  
Speaker 4     01:13:00    You see anybody that  
Speaker 0     01:13:01    Wishes to be heard? No, I do not.  
Speaker 1     01:13:05    Where she is close to the border.  
Speaker 8     01:13:11    I meant the chairman. This is Shawn Kaggle. I was the applicant willing to move the fence 20 feet from the curb. I would like to make, like, make a motion to approve this application. Okay.  
Speaker 1     01:13:23     by Steve license.  
Speaker 0     01:13:31    Mr. K, Mr. Taylor, Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Weissman, Mr. Zimmerman and Alan Chairman Blake,  
Speaker 4     01:13:46    Raise your applications and approved as amended. We will memorialize it in a written document in our next meeting. You don't need to mail that document to you. You'll need that to get your permits.  
Speaker 5     01:13:57    Thank  
Speaker 1     01:13:59    You. We, I remember 15 now. Alexander Bell bell here, Mr.  
Speaker 2     01:14:11    You  
Speaker 4     01:14:11    Present am. Can you see me?  
Speaker 2     01:14:15    I see your name now. I see you.  
Speaker 4     01:14:18    Okay. Mr. Bell with me, make sure he's out there.  
Speaker 7     01:14:27    Here. Yeah. He's muted.  
Speaker 4     01:14:30    He needs to unmute. Let me call him to unmute  
Speaker 7     01:14:34    My there now.  
Speaker 2     01:14:35    Okay. Let Mr. Bell,  
Speaker 4     01:14:39    Mr. Bell and I should have Mr. Valid Tuto.  
Speaker 7     01:14:44    Angela was on earlier, but I do not see him now.  
Speaker 4     01:14:55    Let me grow my phone back.  
Speaker 2     01:15:30    And Ms. Candiotti are you set up and ready to go? Yes, I am. You're so formal. Okay. So horses ready to proceed with going?  
Speaker 4     01:15:41    Yeah, we're ready to go. You'll love. Okay. Developed to those. A lot of men, I can tell you the last time you saw him do it. He did the, she had a picture of a poster you're live and in person. Yeah, you did. You just had a, he said a picture that Mr. Trudeau's logging in momentarily, ladies and gentlemen.  
Speaker 7     01:16:08    So  
Speaker 2     01:16:10    Mr. Morris, if you'd like to get started, I imagine you have my opening comments.  
Speaker 4     01:16:14    I do. Thank you very much. My name is Kevin Morris or from slave in Morrison. I'm be appearing on behalf of the applicant Alexander Bell properties block 61 0 2 lots 3.02, commonly known as 3 23, 26 Randolphville road to refresh the board's recollection. We were back before you, on October 24th, 2019 with Mr. Bell. He was the contract purchaser of the subject property at the time. And we received site plan use in bulk bearings, approvals from you that evening to continue to use some of the existing single family residence that was located at the property, but also to add an additional use that of an outdoor storage yard for our landscaping and snow plowing and quick equipment and materials or Mr. Bell's a snowplow and landscaping business. Since that approval, I can tell you Mr. Bell closed title and we are now, or he is now the owner of the subject property. And we're back before you this evening seeking amended site plan approval, who really is actually what we think is a superior plan for the property, with the construction of the new building. Now, Mr. Kinneally had previously submitted our affidavits of publication and mailing directly in Buckley. I just wanted to make sure that they were received in order so that we had that you can see the same.  
Speaker 2     01:17:36    I reviewed them this afternoon. They were proper form and we have jurisdiction to proceed.  
Speaker 4     01:17:40    Thanks so much. Right? So I have two witnesses, Mr. Bell, the applicant, Angela , who will be testifying as our professional engineer. And I would first call Mr. Bell if he could be sworn please,  
Speaker 2     01:17:53    Mr. Bell, could you raise your right hand? Yes. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth so help you God. Yes. Your name and address please.  
Speaker 4     01:18:03    44 north Riverwalk drive Palm coast, Florida.  
Speaker 4     01:18:11    It's the bell you are now the owner of the subject property. Is that correct? Yes. Right now you testified before this board back on October 24th, last year when you were on contract to purchase property, correct? Yes. And I'd like to refresh the board's recollection, but generally speaking, you're prepared to comply with all the representations that you made back before the board at the last hearing. Is that right? Yes. Okay. Now you're a principal of a business called four seasons landscaping snowplowing. Now I understand you've been in operation since 1989, correct? Correct. And it is predominantly a snowplowing business, but it also has a landscaping company, correct? Yes. Okay. Now you reside in Florida, but you spend a lot of time in New Jersey to attend to your businesses, correct? Yes. Okay. And since closing on the property, I understand you conducted some substantial cosmetic renovations to the interior, the single family residence to make it suitable for you to stay in as testified last time, sorted your winter residents, because you spend a lot of time in New Jersey during the snowplow season, correct?  
Speaker 4     01:19:19    Yes. Right now, again, to refresh the board's recollection, you testified you have about 25 vehicles and photo, but what you seem to prove for the storage yard area, correct? Yes. Right. Those vehicles haven't changed in fleet, have they? No. Right. So it was my recollection pickup trucks with trailers, a skid-steer too many loaders, two backhoes and too many dump trucks, correct? Correct. Okay. Now the hours of operation for a pickup or moving the vehicles you had testified last time is between 7:00 AM in the morning, excuse me. And five 30 in the PM. Is that still accurate? And will that be okay now you also testified the last time that during the snowfall season, however, there is pickup as needed and vehicle to be picked up 24 hours during the day, depending on the storm and so forth. Is that still accurate? Yes, it is. Okay.  
Speaker 4     01:20:20    You also testified the last time that would be important to have a landscaping component that you would not be dumping piles of gravel or piles of sand and piles of bone mulch on the outdoor storage yard property. Is that correct? Yes. It is. Again, any materials that you would store in connection with the landscaping component would be either palletized or in storage containers covered or storage bins covered. There would be no loose materials. Is that still correct? Yes, he is. Now what you're prepared now as the owner of the property to make a stance, additional expense, you're namely that seeking to amend the approval. So you instruct the new building at the property. Is that right? Correct. Now that new building actually would reduce the area of outdoor storage that was previously approved by the board. Is that correct? Yes. And I stand it's your intention to construct the building because from a standpoint of your vehicles, storing them inside and out of the weather, that would be better than having an outside, is that correct?  
Speaker 4     01:21:29    Correct. Okay. Now you have 25 vehicles, as we said in the fleet, is that right? Yes. Okay. One of the comments in the reports we've received is that based upon the new configuration and storage area, the gravel area outside the vehicle stories that you agree that no more than 18 vehicles could be located in that new reconfigured, outdoor storage area. And you're prepared to comply with that. Correct? Right now you can sit most of the vehicles at this point, actually inside. And that's the intent, is that correct? Yes, it is. Okay. But at some point it should business grows. You understand, you're never going to be able to put more than 18 outside, plus of course, whatever you put inside, you understand that? Correct. And you'd be prepared to comply with that as a condition. Is that right? Yes. Yep. Now, in addition to the storage area, which is on the first floor of this proposed building, you're also proposing a loft, right.  
Speaker 4     01:22:30    Mix, not really a loss that mezzanine on the second floor, that's going to have 600 square feet of an office area and 400 square feet of its storage area. Is that correct? Yes, it is. Now you talked about vehicle pickup exchange hours, but office hours will be a little bit different. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. I understand that they would be nine to five Monday through Friday for you please. One in three administrative staff in that office area. Would that be correct? Yes. Although you, I do understand that again, when there's a storm and there's snow events going on, you could have a staff member in that office area really 24 hours to help dispatch and otherwise administrative duties during snowplowing. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Now that would be for the proposed office area. You're also proposing a 400 square foot storage Erik, correct?  
Speaker 4     01:23:27    Yes. Now it's my understanding that the storage areas for smaller associated items, hand tools, small equipment, landscaping pools are the type of equipment that tends to grow legs and move off the site. If you can't lock it into storage area, is that correct? Yes, it is. Okay. And you would also use that for business records and for all, you know, office supplies as well because you can lock that area. Is that correct? Correct. Now, one thing through added burdens that we didn't show on the plan, but it's important. I understand on the first floor of the building, it would be your intention to have a single unisex restroom, toilet, and a sink only are for use by your employees and personnel. Is that correct? Yes.  
Speaker 4     01:24:16    All right, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of Mr. Bell at this time. He will remain throughout the entire proceedings in some something come up unless there's questions. Now I would have Mr. Valentino continue to give you the nuts and bolts and the application and go through the professional reports. No, could you raise your right hand? You re you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, so help you God. I believe that he always appeared as a professional planner before this board and previous applications. Yes he's. He testified on October 24th of last year was accepted as an expert. Both are professionally here in planner and testified to both capacities prior application. He's obviously appeared before this board in many other applications in both capacities. So it asks that you accept them as are an expert in both of those capacities without going through his credentials.  
Speaker 4     01:25:14    He's testified before this point, except for the two answers. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. , Mr. Valentino, you testified for this applicant on the prior site plan approval back in October last year. Is that right? Yeah. Okay. As both as engineering planner and we're back again this evening with an amended site plan request, is that correct? Okay. So again, we'd be seeking new Springs approval with certain bulk variances to really amend what we consider to be a superior plan now, before the board, is that right? They can you describe the proposed changes from the prior site plan and what this applicant is proposing season with the, the new  
Speaker 9     01:26:04    Amendment here we indicated earlier, we are proposing a 3,500 square foot structure that will house is building, excuse me, is a majority of his equipment and also a mezzanine of a thousand square feet. And as you indicated, 600 square feet for purposes of his office space and 400 to be used as storage space for his landscaping and snowplowing business. We're also adding additional parking spaces along the westerly side of the property, as well as a stoned area that is situated behind the proposal that,  
Speaker 4     01:26:50    Okay. Now, would you consider from an engineering standpoint, this plan to be an enhancement to the fire site plan approval?  
Speaker 9     01:27:03    Most definitely we're making improvements in terms of, as I said, the additional Osprey parking, the fact that we are housing, a majority of the equipment using the applicant business and by virtue of agreeing to the board professionals, we'll be adding significant landscaping along the parking lot. So as the screen, both the parking as well as the building, and we're also in the gray part of the board professional, shifting the parking lot and the building over five feet to provide more of a buffer to the adjoining property, to the left as well, not then create any additional ball bearing and we'll ask sufficient side yard kept back.  
Speaker 4     01:27:50    All right, now that we have a building, can you describe the proposed lighting for that building?  
Speaker 9     01:27:56    Yeah, it's providing more showing it to life. One on the building, one on the side. And one of the questions in this ankle stains report is the height and they'll both be 12 feet and that we will be able to make the modifications pretty much requested in his report. And I believe also that there's catalyst, which is primarily for purposes of testimony regarding the training and discussion that was already handled by Mr. Bell at boy.  
Speaker 4     01:28:29    Right. Then describe the proposed drainage for this site. As a result of these improvements,  
Speaker 9     01:28:37    The drainage has not changed at subject property, does Rene and your home, my directions from the south, the drawer  Fitz Randolph road. And the fact that we're primarily doing on phone, we're not greatly increasing the impervious coverage, which is not going to substantially create additional brain.  
Speaker 4     01:29:08    So just to sum it up, we'll we will list proposed amended plan, create any negative drainage impact on adjacent or neighboring properties.  
Speaker 9     01:29:19    And definitely we will bring any that there will be no additional runoff that does not flow off the property. Now that we'll add to it based on what our proposed important.  
Speaker 4     01:29:33    So right now we have the opportunity to review it. Mr. Bell, the two memorandum that were issued by the board for Pressman's correct?  
Speaker 9     01:29:40    I did. And it was a couple of vitamins in Mr.  report dated July 14th. One is I believe we're one in human we're pretty much. One is in fact fingered, which a little provide additional testimony outside storage. It was already discussed by Mr. Bell. We are not proposing to eliminate any of the treaties on Longo, reared or side yard. I know in regard to this, that April is for within three days along the front of the property, that we will upgrade to revise our plan and show them in the event day. I think the three inches in diameter, number four, we will show what the term already it is on the driveway coming in. I believe that was a request by Mr. Chadwick. And finally, I didn't hear Mr. Bell. We do not propose any sides whatsoever on the properties.  
Speaker 4     01:30:44    And can you just confirm that Mr. Bell for us, we didn't propose sign the last time on the first approval. That's not changing. You're not looking like that. If I let anybody know what's going on over there. And so there'll be no signage that you invented in school as a result of this amended plan, is that correct? Yes, it is. Okay. Very well. Then I would next direct your attention, Mr.  to the divisions of engineering, planning, and development report. That's dated August 10th. We've had the opportunity to go through all those items with Mr. Bell as well. Is that right?  
Speaker 9     01:31:17    Okay. With  
Speaker 4     01:31:18    Regards to my  
Speaker 9     01:31:19    Pilot, all the requests may in the report should receive the benefit of the approval hole, making it a condition of Provo Biden or including the fact that we are number five, bringing too often additions in a previous approval pointed to use Marion slash my plan will be made part of this application. I left, modified, finished on the construction of the new building.  
Speaker 4     01:31:48    All right. Well, I just want to direct your attention for clarification. I believe we addressed item one through testimony already, but item three, the height of the building. Can you clarify that please? We showed that the bathroom height of the building will be 20 feet. Okay. And then I'd like to talk about item 13. There's a question. Will the gates still be chain link is originally approved,  
Speaker 9     01:32:17    Right? Again, what had happened or what transpired since our last, the full number one? I didn't hear any earlier cast party by Mr. Bell. It was the contract purchaser now owns the property, but he was able to secure a permit for a fence. And while I wanted to approve them, the original application has changed lanes and he received the building permit and modified it to construct it as a six foot high wooden board on board fence.  
Speaker 4     01:32:48    And I'm from an aesthetic standpoint, that's really a more expensive than, and that's upgrade from saying like, is that correct?  
Speaker 9     01:32:55    Yeah, unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the PVC fence is a left maintenance, but not quite the aesthetic that you will, the wooden board on board that Mr. Bell install.  
Speaker 4     01:33:12    And what about the gates? Are they still proposing?  
Speaker 9     01:33:16    When I, again, due to the traffic, the equipment, and now we would like to go with a chain link fence, which we believe would be more durable. And we understand that for purposes of privacy, the township is not really enamored with flat, if they will not accept flat. And we would like the offer to put the fabric that they now have behind it. So people can just drive up and looked at it and just see what we have in our backyard. We don't,  
Speaker 4     01:33:53    I don't have an issue with PBC slack. Okay. As long as they're black. Okay. We would Drive to a better recommendation. And then with regard to the Middlesex county planning board, I know that's already in, I've been transmitted to the municipality. So from an engineering standpoint, it's valid to them. Do you see any negative impacts on adjacent or neighboring properties that you brought to this proposed development?  
Speaker 9     01:34:19    No, sir. No negative impacts that if anything, a positive by virtual of shifting the parking lot, they give them a more of a bumper and add the additional praise along the Wesley proper non metal bumper parking lot. And the opposed building.  
Speaker 4     01:34:38    Thank you. Unless they're running engineering or technical questions, Mr. Valitude all. I will ask him to switch gears and produce some planning testimony for your consideration. Yeah. Mr. Mr. Morris, I have one question for the engineer was about, can you just confirm that the impervious coverage between the building and the proposed pavement driveways in total will be less than 10,000 square feet?  
Speaker 9     01:35:14    Well, we've got 3,500 for the building and had a little muffin at  and yeah, we'll, we'll be under the 10,000 tipping point for the DP. Okay.  
Speaker 4     01:35:31    Thank you, Mr. Val, today, I'm asking you to now put your planner hat on, as you did on the last application. I understand you've had the opportunity to review the proposed amended site plan from a planning perspective. Is that right?  
Speaker 9     01:35:48    So  
Speaker 4     01:35:48    I'd ask you to, again, we're seeking your Springs approval once again, and certain bald variances, I gather your testimony is substantially similar role, the reasons that you expressed at the last hearing direct,  
Speaker 9     01:36:04    Correct, but by virtue of the fence being installed, as well as the fact that we are making the improvements in terms of parking. But the answer to your question is yes, similar, but we're now doing improved, I guess.  
Speaker 4     01:36:21    Okay. So again, please detail your analysis for the board. Any opinions that you've reached  
Speaker 9     01:36:26    Again, Jessica place it under right here. The property is all in the subject. Property is located in the B P one or BPI zone. And presently contains the thing of family residence, which was approved as part of the original application and Wilson genu, part of what we're proposing to saving the applicant previously appeared before this board over 24, 2019, where we received five plans, views, and bulk variance approval for the property. And they continue to use the single family residence and to have a storage yard for his landscaping slash snowplowing business. Or as you indicated earlier and throw Mr. Bellis testimony 25 vehicles and material, the apple state is now requesting to amend those approvals to continue to cover him a portable views of the property as a four said, and for the proposed construction of a total 4,500 square foot building at the property where earth floors, 3,500 square feet to be used for regular and material storage.  
Speaker 9     01:37:38    And as you indicated earlier, bathroom restroom and a mezzanine that'll contain a total of 1000 feet. 600 of wet will be used for an office purpose, their belts business, and for honorable use or storage of his landscaping and snowplowing business. When we appeared, as I indicated early on before the board in 2019 overall, Mr. Bell was the contract purchaser of the property since that time. And he moved forward and closing the property. And now if there is before you as the owner of the property, the proposed plan represents in my opinion, a significant investment into this property, and then even better than the current approved plan as now, he'll be storing primarily the storage in new building, which eliminate some of the previously approved outdoor storage space while adding a small office area and has eliminated delineated, excuse me, parking area. As I testified as the applicant's engineer and later the fryers on him for the hearing on this matter.  
Speaker 9     01:38:47    And my planning analysis for this application is predominantly, as you had asked me earlier, it's the same and consistent what I had testified to that prior here, continually as I, I don't see you pausing me under the positive criteria or special reason that being those with, we believed that the application will comply with Colin 40 calling 55 day dash two. We offer that there are, or of the factions that we believe would be advanced letter a to encourage the municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all land in the state in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, see to provide adequate air light and open space G to provide sufficient space in appropriate location where a variety of agricultural residential, recreational commercial and industrial uses and open space are both public and private, according to their respective environmental requirements and up to meet the needs of all New Jersey, citizen and letter M to encourage the coordination of the various public and private years in that activity, shaping land, developing with a view of lessening, the ports of punch development, and to the more efficient use of NEF in terms of the particular suitability of the sites, the subject property continues as it was testified and accepted by the board and in the first application, particularly suited for the proposed amendments to the best thing approved site plan, where the applicant is now further improving the site by adding a new building, lineated parking, as well as additional significant landscaping, which to me is an enhanced way to utilize the property by now having the outdoor storage area reduce and change it to being partially located within the new building in terms of enhanced quality approved for patient.  
Speaker 9     01:41:05    In my opinion is not inconsistent with the township master plan and zoning ordinance, as far as the bulk Barrington, as I testified back in October, I submit that to both variances requests are really subsumed. The biting spouting requested my cat. The youth families has a higher standard of proof. However, there is ample benefits under a municipal land use law and a bulk balances. Well, in my opinion, the bulk drownings has requested by the applicant five visible under the C two or flappable fee analysis. As this application meets the bright up number one relates to a specific piece of property. Property is oversized for the modest single family residence and early situated on him yet underutilized for the commercial use permitted into his gum. It is located in a fairly secluded section of the township as such. It is really in my opinion, a perfect fit for the storage of vehicles and equipment, but now because they are, excuse me, are no throttling uses that would be adversely impacted by the proposed you number two, that the purposes of their municipal land use law would be advanced by deviation from the zoning ordinance requirement.  
Speaker 9     01:42:31    And that was what I had earlier testified to in terms of an improper criteria, number three, that the various can be granted without burying says, excuse me, can be granted without substantial detriment to the public. Good. And as I testified earlier, and my opinion has not changed. I see no that based on the current, the middle and number four, that the benefits of the deviations would substantially outweigh any detriment. And again, I see no dad from him only positive benefit though, that they benefit would substantially outweigh the comparison. And then number five, that the variance is, will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the township zoning plan and zoning ordinance. And again, we're reading that. I attempt to five now, just for good measure. My opinion, I believe the board had also taken the consideration at the bulk variances requested by the applicant are probably under, also one or undue hardship provision at this application, meet the criteria and follow them some, one particular and exceptional practical difficulty, exceptional and undo alarm. Burlington is property it's up there it's property. Again, continues to be substantially undersized for the requirements of the zone, which is why I expect off until the prior approval has only been used or a single family residence. Number two, the barriers in my opinion can be granted without substantial detriment to the public. And number three different varying will not stand see impaired the intent and purpose of the township don't plan and building ordinance, and is for these reasons. As I previously testified under my seat going out,  
Speaker 1     01:44:25    Does that conclude your testimony, Mr. ? Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. I have no further questions of Mr. Valley too, at this time, for questions from the board or as professionals, any other witnesses? No, those are my two witnesses. Chairman, you have any questions or comments regarding this application? You have any questions regarding this application, Ms. Buckley, do you see any member of the public that  
Speaker 0     01:45:04    Wishes to be heard? No, I do not.  
Speaker 1     01:45:11    Ms. Buckley.  
Speaker 0     01:45:12    Sorry. I do not. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     01:45:15    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a motion to approve the application. Steve Weisman. I will second that motion by Mr. Weissman. Please call the roll. Mr. it's going to be subdued. I'm sorry, go ahead. I'm sorry. This will be subject to the compliancy you offered with Andrew's report of mine. Yes, it was absolutely.  
Speaker 0     01:46:09    Mr. Tillery.  
Speaker 1     01:46:11    Yes. Mr. O'Reggio.  
Speaker 0     01:46:13    Yes. Mr. Weissman. Yes. Mr. Zimmerman. And to remember like,  
Speaker 1     01:46:18    Yeah, Mr. Morris memorialize it at our next meeting. Alright. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your time, everyone stay safe out there. Thank you for your time and courtesy that always leaving everyone.  
Speaker 2     01:46:51    The long goodbye. I miss   July 9th, 21st resolution I have is Jimmy Patel. This was an application for an addition, which he voted to approve one second, Mr. Cahill. Yeah. Mr. Weitzman. Yes. Ms. Tillery. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio. Yes. Zimmerman. Yes. Yes. Next step location is James Rogers application for addition, which you voted to approve Mr. Cahill. Yeah. Did you tell her yes. Yes. The Weissman? Yes. Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. German Blake. You guys next is Ramesh Hari Krishnan application for an addition, which you voted to approve Mr. Kao. Yes. Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio. Yes. The Weissman. Yes. It's deserved German. Ext is an application by Evelyn Kushi.  this was an application for offense in an easement, which you voted to approve Mr. Cahill. Yeah. Mr. Tillery. Yes. Go Reggio. Yes. Was the Weitzman? Yes. Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. Chairman. Yes. Next is the Titan group. This was an application for an addition to an existing family home that you voted to approve, but no. Yeah. Mr. . Yes. O'Reggio yes. Weissman. Yes. Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. Yes. Final resolution for this evening is N Y S M S a a Verizon. This was an app application for an exemption for site plan. Mr. . Yeah. Mr. Tollerene. Yes. O'Reggio. Yes. The Weissman as Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. German boy. Yes. Those are all the resolutions I have this evening. Mr. Chairman.   
Speaker 2     01:49:14    all in favor. Aye. Aye. I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. See Wiseman.  I'll second Robin. Thank you all in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. Five  I packed the pack Henry for a testimony. Can I?  
Speaker 1     01:49:47    No problem. Capital let's throw capitals.  alright. Alright. Can I hit everything  
Speaker 7     01:50:08    Meaning for all the way down? . 


	

Minutes for Piscataway Zoning meeting on August 13 2020