Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on July 9 2020

Transcript generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Use the audio player to verify any passage.

Download transcript Download audio
Jul 9 2020 · Zoning
0:00
–:––

Meeting Sections
  • 00:00:05 — Case Conclusion: Rogers (Approved) Rogers
  • 00:01:02 — Case 7: Rajneesh/Krishnan - Residential Addition with Variances 7
  • 00:17:36 — Case 8: Major Yanni - Six-Foot Privacy Fence on Easement 8
  • 00:22:03 — Case 11: Titan Group LLC - Second-Floor Addition (1718 West Third Street) 11
  • 00:38:09 — Case 12: Verizon - Wireless Antenna Co-location on Water Tower 12
  • 00:49:21 — Memorialization of Prior Resolutions
  • 00:51:10 — Adjournment and Next Meeting
Case Conclusion: Rogers (Approved) Rogers AI  00:00:05 – 00:00:45
Public portion closed on the Rogers application. Board voted unanimously to approve the application; applicant notified that board will memorialize decision and mail copy for building permit.
Speaker 1Hearing none. The public portion is closed.
Speaker 2Mr. Chairman, I'd make a motion to approve this application. If you're showing
Speaker 3This is Steve Weisman. I'd second that
Speaker 1Made by Mrs. J hill by Mr. Weissman, please call the roll
Speaker 4The Cato, Mr. T Mr. Taylor, he's getting on now. Hold on Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Weissman, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. <inaudible> and Chairman
Speaker 3Mr. Rogers, your application has been approved. The board will memorialize it in a written document. And our next meeting, you do not need to be there either in person or in zoom for that we would mail a copy to you and you'll need a copy of that to get your building permit. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you.
Case 7: Rajneesh/Krishnan - Residential Addition with Variances 7 AI  00:01:02 – 00:17:28
Application for three variances on a residential property (front yard setback overhang encroachment and other relief). Contractor Stephen Beller and architect Ronald Kezmarsky testified. Board required deed restriction to maintain single-family use and reserved right to inspect premises. Application approved unanimously with conditions.
Speaker 1The luck on the next on the agenda tonight, the number seven Rajneesh, Ari Krishnan, Mr. <inaudible>,
Speaker 2If not, I
Speaker 1Think
Speaker 2I'm the deputy director. Who did the variant,
Speaker 3Are you going to testify for the applicant this evening, sir? Yes.
Speaker 2As opposed to having a hard time getting in. So I guess I will. Okay.
Speaker 3And we'll, we'll at least start with you raise your right hand. Mr. the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth. So help you God, Def I didn't mean an address.
Speaker 2My name is Stephen S T E P H, full of B E L L a address five Robert circle, south Amboy, New Jersey, 0 8 8 7 9. And I'm with garden state contract.
Speaker 3And are you authorized by the applicant to testify on their behalf?
Speaker 2Yes, I am
Speaker 3Basically explain to the board what relief you're seeking.
Speaker 2We have seeking three variances. We're going to be doing at a level over in house where the setback or the five feet fire. We only have 32. We also have two other tire size, the size lot, and also their guide on the property, which falls in.
Speaker 3All right. If your testimony is that there's a 35 foot front yard setback requirement, and we're showing them 30 points each this thing, right? And you're proposing 28.2, four feet front yards with the overhead, with the
Speaker 2Overhang. Yes.
Speaker 3They can explain to the board why the overhang is needed.
Speaker 2That, that, that up, that was the best way that he can maximize the up. There's a layout.
Speaker 3And I understand that the applicant would like to maximize, and the architect would like to maximize the upstairs layout. However, we need some planning justifications for that encroachment into the front yard. Setback existing is already encroaching by four feet and you're going another two feet, two and a half feet.
Speaker 2Right. And then, yeah, that's the way they were. That's the way that the architect designed again, he was supposed to be on, but I can't get on. So
Speaker 5I think there's a more important issue here in Henry's report. Pointed out the second floor, qualified as a dwell on you, along with the first floor. I think without the architect here, I don't think we go any further because as I'm looking at this floor plan on the first floor and I got a full drilling unit on a second
Speaker 2<inaudible> the dwelling is off. There's only one kitchen downstairs, Mr. Harry Christian mother, elder. He lives there. They're doing the at a level to get more space. And then they put a stairs down to the back for access to the backyard from upstairs. I believe it was brought up in one of the reports that, that a board would want in the resolution that they have the right to go inside the premises within 24 or 48 hours notice. And no problem,
Speaker 3Mr. Bullock, I,
Speaker 5Are you you're the contractor? Correct? Okay. The plan Joe's he proposed sitting area, as it appears to show sink and other utilities, right? That's me. That is not going to be a kitchen
Speaker 2Now.
Speaker 3And we will do restrict respect to Mr. Bullet. He is the contractor. I believe that the board probably needs to hear from both the applicant himself and the architect to address the issues raised by me and by Mr. Chapman.
Speaker 2Yeah, the architect will be in, in a couple of minutes.
Speaker 6He's trying to get into, he was having a problem.
Speaker 2What about the owner of the property? I will text him. He was supposed to be in you then now. Okay. He's yeah, the architect is going down.
Speaker 3Bullet. Can we have the architect's name?
Speaker 2Yes. It's Ronald last name is Kevin Murphy. K a C M a R S K Y.
Speaker 3Can you hear us?
Speaker 6And he's just waiting for,
Speaker 2Yeah, he's just waiting for the meeting. Goes to let him in.
Speaker 3Can you let whoever's waiting in Ms. Kezmarsky can you hear us
Speaker 6All right,
Speaker 3Mr. Ken's. Mark. Can you hear us? Okay, Laura, do you see a Ronald Kezmarsky eight?
Speaker 4I see Ronald's iPhone. Yes. Right? And it's not muted.
Speaker 3Can you hear us?
Speaker 7I hear him.
Speaker 3And you
Speaker 4See him. It says connecting to audio. Now he didn't have his audio
Speaker 3On. Okay.
Speaker 4Connecting to audio. He should be on now.
Speaker 2I'm not hearing anything on the phone
Speaker 3As Marcy.
Speaker 4He's doing something
Speaker 2On <inaudible>
Speaker 4He's on. He doesn't realize Chairman can the record show that Mr. Tillery has joined the meeting prior to us starting this one.
Speaker 3You hear us? Mr. Bullock, do you have Mr. <inaudible>
Speaker 2You were going to be connected with audio in a second. That's him right there.
Speaker 3The <inaudible> yes. You can hear us. Yes. Okay. I'm the board attorney. I would like to swear you in. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth so help you God, I do. Okay. If you scroll down to the bottom, you should see an icon that shows video with a red line through it. If you click on that, we should be able to speed.
Speaker 5Okay?
Speaker 3Okay. I think I can see you now, Mr. An architect. Yes. Are you licensed in the state of New Jersey? And have you testified before boards of adjustment or planning boards in the past? Yes.
Speaker 2Many in the state.
Speaker 3He, Mr. Chairman, I believe we can accept Mr. <inaudible> testimony as an architect.
Speaker 5Okay. I'm satisfied with that.
Speaker 3Okay. Mr. Chadwick, could you pull your questions to Mr. <inaudible>
Speaker 5The, I mean, this is the house is obviously ended family, correct? Correct. The second floor plan where Joe's proposed sitting area <inaudible> area to that appears to be a kitchen.
Speaker 2It's a wet bar area, adjacent to a sitting area in the new edition area, on the second floor
Speaker 5With kind of powers. You're going to plan to have this
Speaker 2It's you're just going to have standard duplex outlet. I'm saying. And then as you can see in Jason's sitting area,
Speaker 5So the, the elderly parents now live on the first floor with the oh, so correct. Errands are gonna stay in the first floor. And the owners, I guess, are going to move to the second floor and then go downstairs to use the kitchen on the first floor, correct? Correct. Okay. Any questions from the board,
Speaker 3Mr. Jeremy, I have one other shoe to go over with Mr. Kezmarsky hid the current house violates the front yard, setback and plan has an overhang on the second floor. It further encroaches by another approximately two feet. Can you, can you give the board the justification for that?
Speaker 2Okay. So, Okay. So that's the layout for the second floor, Which is over the existing first floor, but the design is with a extended roof overhang. So it's, it actually comes out a little further than, than the existing, but it's consistent. What's what in the neighborhood. And it's, you know, a modest overhang just to add character.
Speaker 1I mean the Republic, the public 14, have any questions or comments regarding this application? Roughly? We, you see the hands.
Speaker 7No, sir.
Speaker 1No. I mean,
Speaker 5I've got a question for Jim, the recommendation of Henry to have a deed restricted and have the ability to verify that it's being used as a single family on who can authorize that as a condition.
Speaker 3Well, if Mr. Bulla is speaking on behalf of the owner and he's authorized to speak on their behalf, I believe he has agreed to that. Yeah.
Speaker 2Mr. and said that he would have no problem. If they put it in the motion. Now, the town has the right to get a 24 hour, 48 hour notice to come in. And he said they can come in and, and anytime.
Speaker 3And if the board so chooses, I could include that condition in any resolution of approval for industry, for the code enforcement department.
Speaker 5Do we need any document to support that position?
Speaker 3I believe we do. If the board acts in the affirmative on this application and we prepare a resolution that's adopted by the, by the board, if the applicant then decides they're not in favor of that, they would have to challenge the action of the board. And the action of the board is presumed to be valid
Speaker 1From the board.
Speaker 2Are we not here? We'll come the home.
Speaker 3It does not appear that the home was present.
Speaker 2Okay. And we've already offered it to the public with the testimony from the two
Speaker 3Individuals, Mr. Bullock, I haven't, you heard from them, did you expect the homeowner in this evening?
Speaker 2He was going to try to get on, but I guess he did. And I did in that.
Speaker 3So it's up to the board here. If you want to go ahead and vote on this and impose conditions you can do. So if you would rather wait for the applicant to be present at a meeting in the future to state that he agrees to these conditions, that's the board's choice.
Speaker 2I lift the chairman. I believe that the contractor is acting on behalf of the owner and his statements about the deed restrictions are, are enough for me, for us to vote on this tonight. If we have opened it to the public after the engineer, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application with the deed restriction mentioned in Henry's site. In fact,
Speaker 1It was all set in that very good thing. He made a motion to approve this application. Weissman <inaudible> please call the roll.
Speaker 4Mr. Kao, Mr. <inaudible>. Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Weissman. Yes. And Chairman. Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Bulletin, Mr. Kosmorsky, the application's been approved based upon the testimony and representations that you have both given. I, I recommend that you review this with your client because of any problem with the condition of the deed restriction. He probably needs to contact us sooner rather than later.
Speaker 2Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 1Next on the agenda we have number nine.
Speaker 3I know we have a Murray number eight
Case 8: Major Yanni - Six-Foot Privacy Fence on Easement 8 AI  00:17:36 – 00:21:31
Applicant seeking approval for six-foot privacy fence at 420 Brentwood Drive, Piscataway, located along an easement. Board discussed shed encroachment and easement access rights; applicant acknowledged township's right to access and remove fence if needed. Application approved unanimously.
Speaker 1Everlyn police. Sorry. If I
Speaker 3Could present Ma'am I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth so help you, God has a name and address please.
Speaker 8Who's on Ganni four 20 Brentwood drive, Piscataway, New Jersey, 0 8, 5, 4
Speaker 3Major Kushi on Yani. Could you explain to the board what you'd like to
Speaker 8Do here? Yes. I would like to install a six foot privacy fence
Speaker 3Along an easement. And, and you understand that the reason that you're here is because it's over an Ethan. Yes. And do you understand also that if the township ever needs access to that Eastman, you would be responsible for the cost of removing and replacing the fence? Yeah, I understand. And you're okay with that. Yes. Any other issues on this application
Speaker 5Is the shed already there?
Speaker 8The large shed, we removed that shed and put a smaller shed there because that shed was too big. So we have a smaller shed, I think at the seven by seven, by seven by seven, a smaller shed that other one was like a 10 by 14 or 10 by 10 or something like that. So there is a smaller shed there.
Speaker 5The survey that you submitted to the eye, it looks like it's the smallest shit. There's seven by den or whatever it is. It's kind of catty. It's Gaddy gone into the bathroom,
Speaker 8Right? That the survey that we provided showed the oldest shed. It's a larger set that we have now.
Speaker 5Where's the new one that
Speaker 8It's, it's in the same area, but it's smaller.
Speaker 5Okay. So you have the same issue with,
Speaker 8I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
Speaker 5There was some guy she had inside. I doubt that destroy it, but you know, that would have to have,
Speaker 8I'm sorry, can you repeat that question? There was some noise.
Speaker 5The shed word it shown on the survey encroaches on the easement. It wasn't Mr. Kinneally. He said with the dad, you bet they'd come in and basically destroy the fence and audited to do their work. You would have to replace it at your own cost. Same thing, encouraged. Ruby's shit. I understand. Okay.
Speaker 3If the board has no further questions that may be appropriate throughout the public,
Speaker 1This time, anyone in the public portion has any questions and comments regarding the <inaudible>
Speaker 9No, sir.
Speaker 1No further questions. We'll we're up to the board,
Speaker 2Mr. <inaudible>. It's showing Kaggle with the applicant, knowing the ramifications of building on an easement and she's
Speaker 1Okay with it. I'd make a recommendation to approve this application. The bison I'll second that thank you. The motion made by mixing pale. Sit here and by Mr. Weitzman, please call the roll.
Speaker 4Mr. Cahill. Yes. Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Weissman, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Patel and Chairman blanked.
Speaker 1Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3Your application has been approved. We'll memorialize it, your written document at our next meeting. You don't need to be present either in-person or in zoom. We will mail a copy of that document to you, but you'll need a copy of that document to get your building.
Speaker 1Okay. Thank you very much, everyone. <inaudible> for this evening. That's something that we'll take that next. Now. Item number 11, the Titan group, LLC, on behalf of the Titan group.
Case 11: Titan Group LLC - Second-Floor Addition (1718 West Third Street) 11 AI  00:22:03 – 00:37:59
Application by Titan Group LLC to add second floor to single-family home at 1718 West Third Street. Two variances requested: front yard setback (25 ft required, 22.95 ft proposed) and building coverage (20% max, 20.5% proposed). Architect Joseph Krawieck and owner Dwayne Hooks testified; neighbors have similar two-story homes on block. Application approved unanimously.
Speaker 10Good evening. This is attorney Janet Selter, Rosen law, third son, Dwight day and Newark. I'm here on behalf of the Titan group.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 10Would the chairman, please ask the people in the screaming room to stop the thank you. This is, this project is involves building a second floor. So a single family residence. The plan is to remove the first floor bedrooms and build three bedrooms and two bathrooms upstairs in the same footprint. The application is for diminimous variances to build the master bedroom, to contemporary standards and to add some architectural interests to the front of the house. They are inside two new variants. In other words, two variances are requested, which, oh, I'm not preexisting. One is the front yard setback, which where 25 feet is required. And the proposed is 22 point 95 feet, or let's call that 23 feet. And the second is the building coverage issue where the maximum is 20%. And the variance requested is 20.5%. The preexisting issues for which we are requesting variances basically are caused by the structure being cited or center on a very deep lot, but it is situated closer to one. So I, or the other, and I could go through the wall, but they were in the application. I have two witnesses, the architect for the project and the managing member of the property are present. So if the clerk would please swear the witnesses or the Chairman, I will swear
Speaker 11The witness. Please call your
Speaker 10First witness. Hey Joe, <inaudible> Joseph, correct? The architect place.
Speaker 11Yes. Hi, I'm Joe Joseph. <inaudible>. My address is five Crescent drive, Thomas river, New Jersey. Would you raise your right hand? Swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth so help you God. Yes, I do. Could you spell your last name please? K R a w I E C, like Charlie and I Z C like Charlie.
Speaker 10Okay. Thank you. Mr. you are an architect licensed in the state of New Jersey? Yes, I am. And have you ever qualified as an expert witness in your field?
Speaker 11Yes, I have. I've a period for zoning hearings in front of Bridgewater, south Plainfield, Clifton long, long hill, probably a few others that I can really remember. I also appeared before Piscataway construction board of appeals in a case several years ago. <inaudible>
Speaker 10Can we conclude, so I, I, and how long have you been in practice?
Speaker 11Oh, I think, I think I got a license in 1987. Right.
Speaker 10I was the chairman. I submit that this witnesses qualified to give expert testimony before this board. Thank you. All right. You're familiar with the project at 1718 west third street in Piscataway. Are you not? Of course. And did you prepare the plans which were submitted with this application? Yes, I did. All right. Would you briefly describe it? Sure.
Speaker 11The existing houses, basically Cape style, probably more like a ranch style because there is no access to the upper floor. The attic area currently there's the first floor has a relatively small kitchen, a combination living room, dining room area, and two bedrooms and a relatively small bath. Our project is to extend this, to make it more usable by people in our day and age, too, that would allow us to enlarge the, the joint combined room. They shared a room in the first four, so to fit the entire width of the house and the front half really, we left one bedroom there, which may be used as an office, opened up the kitchen, even more open look up on the second floor. We have three bedrooms, a shared bath in a master bath.
Speaker 10It will remain a one family. Correct? That
Speaker 11Is correct.
Speaker 10Would you please describe the requested variances and as you did, why you believe they're necessary and desirable?
Speaker 11Sure. Does that include the ones that are pre-existing or not?
Speaker 10You can, I think the board wants to hear you address them.
Speaker 3Well, let me just ask you a question. Are the surrounding properties developed with houses?
Speaker 11Absolutely. Yes.
Speaker 3And are they on oversized lots that would have land available for this applicant to purchase? No, not
Speaker 11Really. No.
Speaker 3So there's no adjacent land available for purchase?
Speaker 11Not to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Horseman, you have some information
Speaker 3I'll ask the next witness, but at this point you believe to address the existing variant.
Speaker 11I am not aware of the available in I'm sorry. You asked the question.
Speaker 3Yeah. It all you need to address is the new variants. It's not the existing,
Speaker 11The new variances is okay. There's two. We, in order to create reasonably sized, the room rooms in the second floor, we have provided for cancer. We really, to foot can lever both front and back to give us some additional width. Okay. And that has two consequences consequences. One is that it pushes us very slightly over the allowable coverage instead of being 20%, which point 0.5%. Okay. And as I explained to Ms. Silverware earlier, if the board has a real problem with that, I could take an inch out of the, out of the, one of the calibers, which, you know, seems silly, but I could do that. Okay. The can leave on the front of the house was necessitated by the fact that without it, one of the two bedrooms becomes seven feet, eight inches wide. And you know, from this day and age where we got to walk around and not touch anybody than six feet, we know that seven foot eight is not a whole lot. Doesn't really become a useful or honestly usable bedroom in sliding the structure around, in some contorted way with the butter, everything up. So those are the reasons behind that you can't be behind the two various items that are new.
Speaker 10Okay. And the cancel lever extent only extends for part of the front of the house. Is that correct?
Speaker 11Yes. The second floor addition does not extend over the entire house. It does not extend over the garage, which is on the building that from the street of right side, this has the advantage of not requiring a variance for that, that side yard setback, which was six feet and six point something feet. I don't remember. So our, our, our second floor addition as well within setback requirement on that side.
Speaker 10Okay. So, and in your opinion, will there be positive effects on the neighborhood is static. If the variances that we request are granted,
Speaker 11There was no architect that I know that would say that their work was going to create some re something really, really ugly. So I'm going in on that list. Okay. I think it be an improvement for sure. It said, you know, this is not cleaning the Taj from all. We're creating a nice looking home that's appropriate for the neighborhood and fits in, in, in, and upgrades. And it would really
Speaker 10All right. So I don't have any other questions to ask the view. I don't know if anyone on the board, has
Speaker 3Anyone on the board have any questions or comments regarding this application? Public? We went in the public board chairman. I believe that they have another witness.
Speaker 5Just one question, Mr. Chairman, they're showing a covered walkway in the front. That's open, right? It's just on.
Speaker 11Yeah, exactly. Correct. There's there's two, two columns. If you would, over the front corners of the existing porch amount or the landing at the front steps. Okay. Just to provide a little bit of a cover. It does a couple of things provide some cover when you're standing there knocking on the door, ringing the doorbell. And number two gives a little something to the exterior appearance of the house as well,
Speaker 5But it's not enclosed
Speaker 11At all. That is absolutely correct.
Speaker 10Thank you. Thank you. All right. If there's nothing else from the architect, I would call the managing member of the property owner. Dwayne hooks.
Speaker 3Could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, so help you God. That's going to do whatever your name and address please.
Speaker 12Oh, this 1 7 1 8 west third street, Piscataway New Jersey 0 8 8.
Speaker 3Thank you. Could you spell your last name please? H O
Speaker 12O K
Speaker 3S. Thank you.
Speaker 10If I may, Mr. Hugs, what is your connection with the applicant, LLC? The Titan group LSA
Speaker 12Managing member and the owner of the property.
Speaker 10And you presently gave an address, which is on the same street. Are you across the street at 1715 west third street,
Speaker 121718
Speaker 10Western street, 1718. And the subject property is 17. 15. Okay. How long have you lived on the street?
Speaker 12It seems
Speaker 102001. And you own the home. Okay. You heard the architect described the project. Are there other Ryan sec two-story houses on your block. Okay. And in connection with this application, I asked that you take photographs and we submitted them to the board. I asked if the board members had an opportunity to look at them.
Speaker 3Yeah. The photographs were submitted to the board. We will mark them. It would, I haven't mastered this project yet. So I would ask that you submit paper copies to the board so that we can mark them and put them in the file. Okay.
Speaker 10I have done, I also have, in my attempt to that, my arms are in zoom process. I have the photographs on my screen. And if pat ball, I would share that, but I don't know.
Speaker 3I think the board members have all had an opportunity to review them because they were distributed to board members. So perhaps if the board members have questions about them, they can ask. But otherwise they have seen them already.
Speaker 10All right. Thank you. Well, all right. The point of all right, well, I'll ask the witness to tell us, you know, there, in that there are photographs of several second story homes on the block. It's not, it's not, it's a process of developments on the block, I guess we would say what, but you also included a photograph of the property at academy street. Do you, would you tell us why you included that? Why you wanted that to be in front of the board?
Speaker 12Okay. The property was a small ranch home and then they added the second floor.
Speaker 10Okay. And that, and it also had said, cancel it, cancel, leave in the front as well
Speaker 12As slightly with the front porch that has. Right.
Speaker 10All right. And, and since you live on the block of the proposed project, in your view is in line with the character of the neighborhood. Okay. And it is in the same footprint as a presently existing structure there, right? Yes. Okay. And, okay, well, I don't have any other questions of the witness. Does anyone on the board wish to ask them anything?
Speaker 1Okay. Any board members have any questions for this individual now hearing none or open up to public? We went in the public fortunate. You have any questions or comments regarding this application,
Speaker 5Mr. Chairman, just before the public speaks, you might want to ask him if the exterior that he house is going to have all the uniform siding after structured
Speaker 11Current plan is that the brick on the lower level will remain. And the candidly receptions on the second floor. So the entire second floor would be vinyl and
Speaker 5Brick is, is
Speaker 1Attractive. And it'd
Speaker 5Be a shame to lose it. I think I'm not asking you to do that. How about the sides in the rear? They going to be the same color and material. All of the vinyl, the same polisher, the, the old, the old exterior of the existing and new will be this thing existing in newly existing as a plan. So the new will be vinyl sides or what the whole house is. Brent. The whole line is brick. Oh, are you going to keep all the brick on the first floor? Yeah. It'd be a shame to lose it. I'm not asking you to do that. Yeah. All right. I have no other questions.
Speaker 1All right. Thank you. Right.
Speaker 10And Dustin, some, I would just, I would submit that these are proposed variances that will enhance the neighborhood is statically upgrading to a more modern, a nicer residence. And it's in keeping with several other two story, single families on the block and the next block, the application for diminimous variances. And there'll be no harm to the neighborhood or any negative effects on the public if it's approved.
Speaker 1Okay. Mr. Chairman, I think there was a motion and a second to open it to the public, but I'm not sure we actually did so. So I think we do we have anyone in the public 14 minutes. Any questions or comments? No one Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a motion to approve this application to approve <inaudible> <inaudible> by Mr. Weitzman please. Mr. Cahill. Yes, yes. Yes. Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Patel. Yes. Chairman. Yes. The application's been approved. We've all memorialize that at our next meeting. We will mail a copy to you. Thank you.
Speaker 10Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for, and thank you for the
Case 12: Verizon - Wireless Antenna Co-location on Water Tower 12 AI  00:38:09 – 00:49:21
Verizon application to place three antennas on existing water tower at 1711 South Second Street (Block 201, Lot 2.02) under federal Section 64.09a eligible facilities request (no substantial dimensional change). Engineer Gary Lucas testified; application subject to RF/structural compliance documentation. Board approved as exemption from site plan requirement.
Speaker 1Thank you. Thanks. We have item number 12, three, <inaudible> free food business. As he drives and wireless evening mindset to sell on the attorney for Verizon tonight, I have Gary Lucas. Who's our engineer and Chris mill tissues and a site apparitions specialist.
Speaker 3Could I just interrupt you for a minute? The board recalls that you have handled a number of these applications. Recently, this is an application for an exemption from site plan requirement. Basically, if the applicant demonstrates to you that they have complied with medals at you and the state statute, which in summary variances necessary, all the variances were previously, granted are not making it substantially larger or substantially taller, and they will be exempt from site plan. I discussed this with Mr. Purcell this afternoon. He understands the board is familiar with this. And with that, Mr. Purcell, go ahead.
Speaker 13Sure. I think Mr. Kinneally did an excellent job. Just giving an overview of what this is. So this is an appeal of the zoning permit, denial and a request for an in-vitro for rotation that zoning permit should issue for Verizon's application to co-located wireless antennas onto an existing base station under applicable in federal law. And here the base station is a water tower and existing water power in the township. I certainly appreciate the board's time and attention to the matter the applicant Ryden is licensed by the FCC is a wireless service provider and is looking to add additional antennas onto that water tower existing at block 2 0 1 lock 2.02 of the 10th of tax map, commonly known is 1711 south second street. The ZBA originally approved the wireless facility. Co-located founded this pattern in 2001 18 T. There were subsequent approvals for Verizon in 2015 by this board.
Speaker 13And in June of last year, 2019, the board approved identical interpretation for sprint for the same rationale that the applicant is, is proposing so fairly as Mr. Kelly said, the board is very familiar with this just as a housekeeping matter. The heading on the agenda is not fracked. Applicant is proposing to place three antennas onto the existing water tower. Two will be located on existing mounts. One by one will be located on a new mountain. One existing in 10 is also being repositioned. There was a revised addendum that was submitted to the township and a revised plans, and the agenda doesn't reflect those subsequent submissions. So again, just a housekeeping matter. Now getting into the meat potatoes of the law, just to just again, to follow up on what Mr. Kinneally said at the federal law here is section 64 0 9 a of the middle class tax relief and job creation act 2012 and applicable federal regulations.
Speaker 13And that the law provides that a qualification such as what is being proposed here are considered to be eligible facility requests. And when such, or when such request doesn't substantially change the physical dimensions of the facility that they're being located on, like the in pen is I'm a water tower here, set application not be denied and must be approved. That's the federal law component. In fact, the FCC decision more rules in June, which clarify that when an applicant makes a request under 64.98, the only information that you were fired a little government really is whether or not this facility fits into the bounds of an eligible facilities request under 64 0 9 8 in regards to state law. There's also a state law component to all this New Jersey polyp patient law provides that site plan approval is not a fire for a wireless facility publication where the support structure was previously granted all necessary approvals that's number one, two, the height isn't increased by 10%. And the width is an increase in three that the proposed qualification applies with prior approvals and required conditions. So here the applicant proposal, likewise meets the requirements, the New Jersey location law. I'll just also say just the word that's the structural analysis and SCC radio frequency standard compliance applicant is happy to provide these reports, informing the co-location structural integrity and our compliance with applicable EMF health and safety standards. And we'll just request that the board wants that that is that it's imposed as a condition of the approval.
Speaker 3Let me just jump in for a moment. Many board members may require or remember that other applicants, other carriers have submitted those documents with their application. I discussed this with Mr. Purcell today because they did not, they fully intend to comply. In fact, they probably do comply already. They just haven't submitted documentation. So from the board attorney standpoint, I have no objection to a resolution of approval, assuming that they satisfy you on the other grounds. It requires the submission of the RF report and the structural analysis that we usually get an advanced
Speaker 13We're happy to do that. The reason it wasn't provided is simply there was a tiny factor and also, you know, should we speak in on under the federal laws? You know, that might be surplus to requirements, but clearly brides and understands the board's interest and will provide that, not an issue. So I just have one expert witness to call Lucas, Mr. Lucas Carr. And
Speaker 3Do you swear the testimony you're about the industry, the truth to help you guy? Yes,
Speaker 13I did.
Speaker 3Can you, can we see you in any way?
Speaker 13He's right there. Okay. I, I,
Speaker 3He's not on my screen, but
Speaker 13Okay. I see him on my screen,
Speaker 3Mr. Lucas, can you give us your qualifications
Speaker 13Please? Sure. I'm a fresh engineer licensed in the state of New Jersey. I have approximately 15 years of engineering experience testified in front of many boards. I've been doing it for a long time. So the bachelor of science from Drexel university in architectural engineering, I believe that Mr. Lucas is a qualified engineer and I'm satisfied with
Speaker 14Before you, before you start your testimony, Mr. Lucas, this is Alison the court reporter. I can hear you fine, but your audio, I'm not sure if it's on my end or your end, it's cutting in and out just very slightly. So you can just talk a little slower, just so if there's any glitch, I can still pick up what you're saying.
Speaker 13No problem better.
Speaker 14I really appreciate it. I'm sorry for no
Speaker 13Problem.
Speaker 14That's okay. Everyone can go ahead. I'm sorry.
Speaker 13All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Lucas, are you familiar with section 64 0 9 a the middle tax middle-class tax relief and job creation act of 2012 and the applicable FCC regulations. Yes. Have you reviewed review of the various approvals related to wire's facilities on this site? Yes I have. Is this project and eligible facilities requests that is not some substantial change pursuant to the SCC laws. Yes. Does applicants per proposal violate any condition of a previous approval related to the site now? Thank you, Chairman. That's all. I have really just that by the Tempest of the record, the fact that this is a clearly false within the gambit on section six and section 64.98. So I, you know, respectfully asked the board to approve applicants request to direct the zoning officer to issue permits. Again, the federal water fires that yourself is applicant's proposed. Collocations are an eligible facilities request, and the dimension is the existing water tower as defined by section 64, 9, 8, and applicable federal regulations are not substantially changed. And additionally, the new and additionally, the New Jersey call it also provides that this application is not subject to site plan approval. So again, I would just ask the board or the relief requested
Speaker 3Mr. Chairman. I would recommend that you check with Mr. Chadwick to see if he has any comments in this application.
Speaker 13Any comments at all, Mr. Chadrick, whoever report for myself. The
Speaker 5Seven. Yeah. I reviewed the application and I, I used gree with Mr. Parcels summary statements that does conform to standards that are in site plan exemption. And the application is complete and is very, very thoroughly in the bag.
Speaker 1Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else on the board has any questions with this witness testimony? We've heard Anyone in the public fortune have any questions, comments, hearing none. The public portion is closed down the floor. Any comments
Speaker 2I am, and this is Sean keg. I'd like to make a motion to approve this application and give the Appleton and the relief you think.
Speaker 1And amongst may to improve this application by this, you can't have
Speaker 3Second up
Speaker 1By Mr. Weitzman. Please call the roll.
Speaker 4Mr. K hill, Mr. <inaudible>. Mr. O'Reggio. Mr. Weissman. Yes. Mr. Zimmerman.
Speaker 3Yes. Yes. Mr. Purcell, we will memorialize this at our next meeting. You don't need to be present virtually or in person and we will mail a copy to you.
Memorialization of Prior Resolutions AI  00:49:21 – 00:51:10
Board read and voted on memorialized written resolutions from prior meeting (June 25, 2020): items including Gottesman (sign), American Express (interpretation/site plan), Sandra Carabello (non-conforming use), 135 Fleming Street (storage), and John & Jones Bolts Stand (non-conforming use/variances). All approved.
Speaker 1Hey, good luck. Yeah. I remember a 13 Gottesman and resolution media, June 25th, 2020.
Speaker 3And unfortunately one was an application for a sign, which is Mr. Bagel. Yeah. Mr. O'Reggio. Yes, the Weissman. Yes, it was just Mr. Patel. Yeah. Cameron boy. Yes. Next is American express. This was an application for the interpretation and a site plan approval. Which you voted to approve Mr. Cahill. Yeah. O'Reggio yes. Weitzman. Yes. Zimmerman. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Cameron Boyce. Yes. Next to Sandra Carabello. This was an application for non-conforming use. Which you voted to recognize Mr. Cahill. Yes. His daughter Reggio S Weisman. Yes. Zimmerman. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Yes. The next is 1 35 Fleming street. This was an application or a it storage space with a number of conditions. Mr. PEO? Yeah. The store Reggio. Yes. Right? Yes. Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. There were blush. Yes. Last is John and Jones bolts stand. This was an application of the non-conforming use and a youth triplets. Would you voted to, if they help you? That's the O'Reggio yes. Weissman. Yes. Which is Zimmerman. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. There were blush. Yes. Those are all the resolutions that I have for this evening.
Adjournment and Next Meeting AI  00:51:10 – 00:52:16
Board adopted minutes from regular meeting of June 25, 2020. Next scheduled meeting announced for August 3rd. Meeting adjourned.
Speaker 1<inaudible> regular medium.
Speaker 2Mr. Chairman. This is Sean. Kay. I'd like to make a motion to adopt the minutes from the regular meeting of June 25th, 2020,
Speaker 1Once in a second. All in favor. Aye. Number 15, emotion with urine. I make a muffin. You gentlemen see bison affect <inaudible>
Speaker 2It's been over the finish line. Once again, gentlemen and ladies
Speaker 1They're scheduled meeting is August 3rd. This is where you can drink
Speaker 4Your coffee. It's going to be a long night.
Speaker 2Everybody. You think
Speaker 1You can just send me
Speaker 4Senior yet? Go to the bottom. You see the little camera hit the camera.
Speaker 1I didn't know.
Minutes for Piscataway Zoning meeting on July 9 2020