Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on April 28 2022
Transcript generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Use the audio player to verify any passage.
Apr 28 2022 · Zoning
0:00
–:––
Meeting Sections
- 00:00:02 — Meeting Opening, Roll Call, and Pledge of Allegiance
- 00:00:58 — Agenda Adjustments and Postponements
- 00:01:21 — Case 2017-V: Michael Dacey - Porch Replacement 2017-V
- 00:16:07 — Case 22-ZB-07-V: Jason Dolphin - Shed and Addition 22-ZB-07-V
- 00:23:48 — Case 22-JB-16-B: Heather Bailey - House Addition 22-JB-16-B
- 00:27:54 — Case 22-ZV-003-V: Craig and Denise Newton - Three-Family Dwelling Nonconforming Use Certification 22-ZV-003-V
- 01:02:14 — Case 22-ZB-20-V: George Casalin/Maxim Real Estate - Fire-Damaged Three-Family Dwelling Reconstruction 22-ZB-20-V
- 01:32:30 — Case 22-ZB-12-V: John Lori/L Landscaping - Commercial Landscaping Use Variance 22-ZB-12-V
- 02:07:20 — Case 21-43-V: Sub Romanian - Accessory Structure Repair 21-43-V
- 02:17:16 — Adoption of Resolutions
- 02:19:02 — Approval of Minutes and Adjournment
Meeting Opening, Roll Call, and Pledge of Allegiance
AI
00:00:02 – 00:00:58
Board called to order with proper notice announced. Roll call taken with all members present. Pledge of Allegiance recited.
Speaker 1Zon board of adjustment meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the cur news notice, published and posted on the Bolton board of the municipal building notice made available to the Township clerk notice sent to the carrier news in the star ledger with the clerk. Please call roll.
Speaker 2Mr. Weisman here. Mr. Patel. Kalpesh Mr. Dacey
Speaker 1Here.
Speaker 2Mr. Dacey. Mr. Mitterando here. Chairman Cahill
Speaker 1Here, please. Will everyone stand for a salute to the flag,
Speaker 3To the flag of the United States of America Republic, which stands individual justice,
Agenda Adjustments and Postponements
AI
00:00:58 – 00:01:21
DF Osborn Construction application adjourned from tonight to May 26, 2022, with no further notice required.
Speaker 1Any other, any changes to the agenda?
Speaker 3Yes, there are the application of DF Osborn. Construction has requested adjourn from tonight until May 26th. The matter will not be heard tonight, there is no further notice required by the applicant since they noticed for tonight. So DF Osborne construction, one twenty eight Centennial avenue is adjourned.
Case 2017-V: Michael Dacey - Porch Replacement
2017-V
AI
00:01:21 – 00:12:36
Applicant sought approval to replace existing porch with new porch and landing. Existing setback was 14'9" (25' required). Engineer and board recommended reducing landing size; applicant agreed to compromise reducing landing and maintaining 12'9" setback. Application approved unanimously as amended.
Speaker 1Okay. Let's move on to 2017. V Michael
Speaker 3Is Mr. Dacey present.
Speaker 4Yes I am.
Speaker 3Mr. Could you raise hand? You swear the testimony?
Speaker 4Yes, I do.
Speaker 3Could you explain the, what you'd
Speaker 4I'd like to my existing porch is in need of repair. So I'd like to replace the existing porch with a new porch, with a landing on it.
Speaker 3And you were here two weeks ago and we adjourned this because you didn't have the opportunity to talk to Mr. Henderson. Is that right?
Speaker 4Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 3And have you had a chance to talk to Mr. Henderson?
Speaker 4No, I haven't.
Speaker 3Mr. Henderson, could you weigh in here?
Speaker 5Yeah, I've looked at this application and the problem here is, is a lot of the homes on this area on church street are substandard. As far as the front yard set, this particular case, the existing steps, I believe are 14 feet, nine inches from the front yard setback. So I understand that he wants to put a landing in and he also wants to redo the steps, but I believe you'd be able to turn the steps to the side, still have a landing and not exacerbate the existing variance condition and, and make it worse. That's that's my concern. I mean, after, after the proposal, we're looking at 11 feet, nine inches when 25 feet is what's required. I know Mr. Dudas has provided some pictures of some homes across the street, but every single home on this side of church street basically has the same conditions, steps that go right up to the house or to a, to a covered porch, but nothing with the landing on his side of the tree. Also, I don't know what the case is on the homes across the street. I do see landings, but again, I don't have mentions for each one of the homes have landings across the way they could be. You know, a little bit first setbacks could be a little greater, obviously without knowing what the dimensions are, but this particular case, I, I just don't know if it makes sense to exacerbate that variance. There's the possibility of turning the step to come out to one side or the other and, and keeping it where it is now. Mr.
Speaker 3Dacey based, based upon what Mr. Hinterstein is, is commented. Do you have any response to,
Speaker 4Yes, I do, sir. First of all, there's 10 residences on my street that have masonary front porches with landings. There's at least four of 'em on my side of the street. There's also five residences with open front porch, which for all practical purposes, that's the same as the landing. You, you exit your door, you have a landing before you, before you proceed down the stairs. So that, so that would be 62% of the residences are like that. The remain remaining red that have steps without landing, including my residents, total mine that equates to 37%. So there's twice as many houses on my street, technically with, well, with landings, with front porches, with landings on them, Mr.
Speaker 3Dacey. You've said that they have front porches with landings on them, but you have, haven't given us the setbacks.
Speaker 4How can I get the setbacks? I would gladly come in and look at the tax mats, but, but the, the tax is still closed under the guise of health issues. You know, it's impossible to look at tax mat. If you can't go in and look at
Speaker 6Mr. Dacey Chadwick side.
Speaker 4Well, can I address that?
Speaker 6Yes, that's what I'm asking.
Speaker 4Okay. Well, being, being in construction for over 30 years, one of the basic premises is that you, you don't increase the scope of a project if it's not needed. And to turn the steps to the side, to go to my driveway, you're, you're adding a layer of, I have to construct a new, a new walkway, additional steps need to, to get constructed, to get to the level of my driveway. Demolition of the existing walkway to the front walk would have to take place repair to landscaping. After the project would have to take place and to, to move the porch in that direction. My water service comes in on that side and it's never any good to do construction around a water line. If it's not needed,
Speaker 6He explained the reason why he doesn't wanna do it.
Speaker 4Excuse me.
Speaker 6You've explained the reasons
Speaker 1Why he doesn't wanna do it right.
Speaker 4Well, it, it isn't feasible when I can just construct the porch. All what I would have to do is cut the cut existing walkway and not add all those layers to a construction project.
Speaker 3Just because it is easier for you does not give the board the evidence it needs to grant the variance. There are certain legal ramifications that you need to provide
Speaker 4Such as I thought, I, I, I thought I've given you J I've just given you, you know, four or five good reasons why it's not feasible to turn the porch. There's also,
Speaker 3You've given, you've given us reason why it's not feasible for you. In your opinion, you haven't given us legal grounds for a variance.
Speaker 4It's hard for me to give legal grounds. I'm not a lawyer
Speaker 1Understood, sir. If this was something that we required to get this application approved, would you consider it,
Speaker 4Consider what sir?
Speaker 1Turning the steps to the side, the, the mentioning those five things you said you didn't wanna do. If we said you, you have to do to it, is that, is that something you could come up to and, and do to get this application approved? I, I told you two weeks ago, we, 99.9% of the time we followed the direction of our Township engineer. And this is what he's recommending. We wanna help you out. We don't wanna deny the application.
Speaker 4I just think, I just think it would add such a cost to the project.
Speaker 5Mr. Dacey I'd to just add something you you're saying, it's gonna add all these costs in the project, but you just turn the steps, one side to the other, and then just put a walk to the bottom step around to the front and play into the existing walk that's to the front. It doesn't sound like you're looking to add a walk your driveway anyway, since your walk is, is going out to the front, it doesn't go out to your driveway. So I don't know how you're accessing your driveway now, but I guess across your lawn. But if, if you're not concerned with the it into the driveway, all you would do is turn the steps to the side. It doesn't have to be right up against the house. You could have the, the landing be actually a little bit wider now because you could bring it all the way to where that existing stair into the stairs is. You'd probably be able to do a five foot landing versus three foot landing, and then put your three or four foot wide steps off to the side, and then just build a small walk from the bottom of the step, tying into the front, the front walk.
Speaker 4I understand what, what you mean, but it wouldn't tie into the existing front walk. I would've to construct a new walk,
Speaker 5A small one to tie into the front walk.
Speaker 4I understand what you're saying.
Speaker 5I know. And then you would have also a more substantial perhaps landing. So in that sense, it may, may benefit the size of the landing that you would have. Is there any way you could reduce the size of the landing so that perhaps it's only like a larger step, like two feet and yes,
Speaker 4I could. I could most certainly do that.
Speaker 5I think that's a good compromise. I think if you could reduce the, the landing, another, another foot, you have at least a place to stand a little bit more comfortably at the door. And then the step back would be closer to 12, nine inches.
Speaker 4Yes, I could most certainly do that.
Speaker 5I think, I think that would be a good compromise instead of laboring. This
Speaker 4I do. I do also, sir.
Speaker 1Okay. Mr. Duda. So it seems like we've come to a compromise. I'm gonna open it to, oh, any other members of the board have any questions? None. I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public portion of any questions for this application or comment for comment? You almost got me, Jim.
Speaker 2No, one's raising their hand.
Speaker 1Okay. Mr. Dacey. I'm gonna make a recomme recommendation to approve this application with the compromise mentioned Henry and will work out the particulars, but I make a motion to prove this application.
Speaker 2Mr. Weisman.
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Dacey. Roy you're on mute.
Speaker 1Roy muteable. Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Dacey. Mr. Dacey. Not yet. Mr. Patel. Yep. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. And Chairman Cahill.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 3Your application's been approved as amended. We'll memorialize this in a written document in our next meeting. You don't need to be present for that. We'll mail that document to you.
Speaker 4Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the compromise.
Speaker 3Thank you.
Speaker 1Thank you. Mr. Dacey. Have a great night. Thank
Speaker 4You.
Speaker 3We call the next application. I know at least one board member has joined the board during that hearing. So could we check and see who's here? Because I know we have experiences later in the evening.
Speaker 2Well, right now we have five. Mr. And Mr. He was coming home from work. He's signing on as soon as possible. He was just getting off to 87.
Speaker 3Okay. So, and anybody that's here on the use variances. We expect six has not logged on yet.
Speaker 2Yep. Here he comes now actually. Right. Mr. Dacey on.
Speaker 3Okay. We now have six members.
Speaker 2Thank
Speaker 1You. Can I?
Speaker 3More than six.
Speaker 1Okay. Let's move on to I number 6 21 43 V. Submarine
Speaker 3Is Mr. Dacey present.
Speaker 2Where is
Speaker 3Mr. Superman? Are you present? Do you see him?
Speaker 2No.
Speaker 3Have you seen him at all?
Speaker 2No. We have two pages. I don't see.
Speaker 3Okay.
Speaker 2Maybe let's go to number seven.
Speaker 1I'll skip and circle back. Let's proceed to item number 7, 2 22 V. Jason. Mr.
Speaker 3Dacey. Are you present
Speaker 2Muted? Mr.
Speaker 3Dacey. I think you're muted.
Speaker 2Perfect.
Speaker 3Mr. Dacey. Are you present?
Speaker 0Mr.
Speaker 3Dacey.
Speaker 2Yeah. He's not muted. I don't know if his speaker's not working. Mr.
Speaker 1Dacey. Can you hear us? Yeah. Call an issue with his phone.
Speaker 2Yeah, he's gonna call it in now.
Speaker 1Okay. Why don't we give him a second and not to number eight.
Speaker 3Okay.
Speaker 1Are we looking at Mr. Dacey?
Speaker 2Yeah. He's dialing
Speaker 8Jason dolphin joined the meeting.
Speaker 3Mr. Dolphin, are you present?
Speaker 8Can you
Speaker 3Hear me? Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 2Yes, we can hear you now. Can
Speaker 3You hear me? Yes.
Speaker 8Yes, yes I can. It happens.
Speaker 3We, we all have technical difficulties from time to time.
Case 22-ZB-07-V: Jason Dolphin - Shed and Addition
22-ZB-07-V
AI
00:16:07 – 00:23:37
Applicant sought approval for 8'x14' shed with setbacks of 2' and 5' (8' required). Engineer recommended rotating shed and setting back 5' from both sides to maximize yard space. Applicant agreed to compromise. Application approved unanimously as amended.
Speaker 8Roughly.
Speaker 3I need, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony. You're about to give, to be the truth. Put your hand down us your name and address and explain to the board what you'd like
Speaker 820 Bridgeway.
Speaker 9Yeah. Hi. I'm in a board meeting. Can I call you backing hour?
Speaker 8Yep. So I there's two aspects of the, of the project. One is building a shed in the backyard eight by 14 shed. And then the other aspect is a, a, an addition to the house where we're building up a level.
Speaker 3And Mr. Chairman, it appears that most of these variances are preexisting due to the slightly undersized nature of the, the lock. Perhaps you could go right to Mr. Henderson to see if he has issues.
Speaker 1Yeah. Henry, can we go with the site impact with this particular application?
Speaker 5Yeah. This application's not that complicated. Really. The only issue was is that the location of your shed doesn't comply with the setback requirements and accessory structure. So those requirements are eight feet from each property line. So you had two and five. Is there a reason why you can't meet the back requirements for the, for the shuttle location?
Speaker 8Yes. Unfortunately, if I went eight feet in, it'd be in the middle of my, of my lawn, which, which wouldn't be ideal for the, you know, the kids playing back there. So I don't have anyone who lives behind me. It's, it's just the park and sent out all locations to my neighbors. And I don't believe they have an issue, especially Tony to the, I guess you're facing the house to the right of me. I don't believe would have an issue. So I, I opted for that.
Speaker 5I understand that you wanted close to the edge as possible, so you can maximize your yard space, but you still have a substantial yard here that, you know, a few more feet to comply with the ordinance. I, I don't really see why you wouldn't be able to comply other than the fact that that's the location that you, you, you want, you know, to maximize your yard. And I understand that, but I don't think that's efficient planning criteria to justify it. Do you think about spinning the shed so that the doors face more of the yard versus the house this way? I mean, to be honest with you, the five feet's not what's bothering me. It's the two feet. I think if you could get both setbacks to five feet, I think that would be an acceptable will compromise. So an additional three feet along the back, and again, you need to show some criteria or prove some, you know, criteria of how hardship and this particular case, why you wouldn't be able to put that in that lo appropriate location as per the ordinance. I just don't see it. I think if you spin it around your shed's 14 by eight, although you're moving it away, three more feet, I mean, you might be able to spin it in this way. You'll gain some, some space that way in the yard, but I mean, you still have, you know, if anybody looks at the survey, I think it gets see that there's a substantial amount of space. You remove pool from your property. Correct?
Speaker 8I did. The pool has been removed, but it, and it'd be easier if you were to stand in the backyard. If, if I measured out eight feet, it, it would just look really awkward. It would look like the shed was it's eight by 14. So it would look like it was sitting in, in a rather weird in the backyard. Again, I'm just trying to maximize the amount of space as much as possible.
Speaker 1And Mr. Dacey. Do you understand Mr. He's suggestion that you turned the shed and set it back five feet from the rear and five feet from the side, which would give you more room in your backyard?
Speaker 8I do. I guess my, my response would be is, is it more so because of the impact, the neighbors, because there's no one who lives behind me, it's, it's a park, there's no resident.
Speaker 1It isn't about the neighbors. It's, it's a matter of setting precedent. Several. If, if we did it in this particular case, you know, your other neighbors could turn around and go, well, you know, he had it set at eight instead of what Henry's suggesting. So I honestly think that if you did make this compromise, we could, we could look favorably upon this application tonight right now.
Speaker 8So just one more comment. And, and if I have to make the compromise, then, you know, so be it, I guess the, the part of this process was communicating. What was that? Okay. Part of the process was communicating to my neighbors. What, and I guess if, if they didn't have an issue with it, I'm just trying to understand why it would be an issue here. And I, I hear what you're saying about setting private, well,
Speaker 1Your immediate, your immediate neighbors might not have an issue with it, but you still live in a neighborhood of more than two or three people or two or three homes. And we, we, we normally don't like to set up, not normally we don't set precedents with situations like this. And I think Henry's trying to compromise a little bit by suggesting that you do turn the shed, as opposed for laying out the way it is in your application. And, and like I said, you, you make this compromise and we work together. I that you'll walk outta here with a approval tonight.
Speaker 8So I'll, I'll make the compromise again. I just, it's not, I hear what you're saying about two or three people, but it's 200 feet that I have to mail the, the notifications out. So it's, it's everyone within my current vicinity, but I, I understand what you're saying. And if, if
Speaker 1We look at all the residents in town and not just the particular ones that aren't specific block and whatnot, so we have, we have a, a bigger responsibility that we have to abide to. So I, I apologize. I'd love to give every resident what they want, but we have guidelines and rules in the town that we have to abide by, in order for there to be, you know, not chaos, so to speak. But yeah, if you could do that, I, I would open it. Well, anyone else on the board have any questions for Mr. Dacey hearing? None. I will open it to the public. Anyone have any questions or comments about this application? Laura?
Speaker 2None Chairman
Speaker 1None. Okay. Close the public portion. And I would make an approve a, a motion to approve this application with the compromise that Henry Mr. Dacey will to make on the shed Proposed. Yeah. Did I hear a second?
Speaker 10Yes. Kalpesh
Speaker 1Laura, take the roll,
Speaker 2Mr. Weisman.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Patel. Yes. Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Dacey. Mr. Mitterando Phil. Yes. Thank you. The Chairman Cahill.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Din, your application as amended has been approved, we will memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting. You do not need to be present for that. We will mail that document to you and you'll need that for your permit.
Speaker 8Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1Thank you, sir. Let's move on. Item number 8 22, JB 16, 16, B Heather Bailey.
Case 22-JB-16-B: Heather Bailey - House Addition
22-JB-16-B
AI
00:23:48 – 00:27:46
Applicant submitted revised site plan for house addition with staircase added to side of existing porch. Revised plan incorporates engineer recommendations without exacerbating existing front yard setback variance. Engineer testified revised plan is acceptable. Application approved unanimously as amended.
Speaker 3Ms. Bailey, are you press?
Speaker 11Yes. Just trying to get my
Speaker 12Three, three. You just mute
Speaker 11That's okay.
Speaker 1There you go.
Speaker 11Hello.
Speaker 3I believe you were sworn in at the last hearing.
Speaker 11Yes.
Speaker 3You remain sworn in to tell the truth.
Speaker 11Yes.
Speaker 3Your name and address please.
Speaker 11Heather Bailey 23 nether wood avenue.
Speaker 3Thank you. Since the engineering, have you submitted a revised plan?
Speaker 11Yeah, well, we, we showed it to Henry Hinterstein.
Speaker 3Yes. And, and you submitted the board, but it was recently,
Speaker 11Yes.
Speaker 3Okay. Henry, can you comment on the revised plan that was submitted by the applicant?
Speaker 5Yes, I can. The, the applicant called me, I think, or I called them back immediately after I came back from vacation and they were very willing to work with Township and coming up with the revised plan, they, they did submit a revised plan. They took a lot of the recommendations that I had made hard when, when creating this revised plan and they come up with a much better plan. And I think that revised plan that they submitted to us, I think it was after the 10 days was something that I think the Cahn could act favorably. I'm not sure if everybody has a copy of that plan.
Speaker 3I, I believe it was emailed to everybody today.
Speaker 1Okay. Yeah. I've got it, Laura.
Speaker 5Yeah. So I don't know if we wanna mark that as an exhibit.
Speaker 3Yeah. Let's mark a one please.
Speaker 5And then work for the file. And I think we could, we could look at that favor. My, my recommendation would be to look upon it favorably as amended.
Speaker 3Is there a date on that revised plan, Henry? Excuse me. Is there a date on that revised plan?
Speaker 5There is it's. Well, the date that I have is on here is 4 21, 2022 plans prepared by architecture plus.
Speaker 3And does that affect the front yard setback?
Speaker 5It does not have the front yard setback, but the front yard setback is not changing. So with the bid is a, they move the, a couple feet back. So then it steps back. They added a staircase to the side of the existing porch. The existing porch is pretty much in the scene location and no new porch has been added. So its not exacerbate what's there now.
Speaker 3So the existing house is violating the front yard setback, but the, but the addition is set further so that it does not affect the front. Your correct. Thank you Mr. Chairman. That's all I have.
Speaker 1Okay. Any other questions or comments about this application from the Lord hearing? None. I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public portion have any questions or comments about this application?
Speaker 2No one Chairman.
Speaker 1Okay. Close the public portion. I make a approve this application On a second. Thank you. Can I get a roll
Speaker 2Mr. Dacey Smith. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. And Chairman Cahill. Yes.
Speaker 3Your application on your amended application has been approved. It will be memorialized a written document at our next meeting. You don't need to be present for that. We will mail a copy of that document to you, but you'll need that for your permit.
Speaker 1Awesome.
Speaker 2Okay,
Speaker 1Luck guys.
Speaker 2Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1Let's go to number 10 22 ZV dash zero three V Craig and Denise Newton.
Case 22-ZV-003-V: Craig and Denise Newton - Three-Family Dwelling Nonconforming Use Certification
22-ZV-003-V
AI
00:27:54 – 01:02:05
Applicants sought certification of preexisting nonconforming use for three-family home in R10 single-family zone, with evidence of three-family use since 1960 and three long-term tenants since 2004-2015. Board approved two-family nonconforming use certificate with condition requiring developer's agreement for phased cessation of third unit after current tenants vacate.
Speaker 13Hello members of the board and board professionals. My name is Tim arch. I'm a licensed attorney licensed in state of New Jersey and I'm here representing Craig and Denise Newton, who are the homeowners on this application? This is 2 37 park avenue and we are requesting tonight either a certification of preexisting nonconforming use or in the alternative of use variance to continue a multifamily specifically a three family home on the property. My, a little bit of mandatory housekeeping at would ask Mr. Kinneally if we have proper jurisdiction in front of the board.
Speaker 3Yes. The notice was proper and you, the board has jurisdiction to procedures.
Speaker 13Thank you. And just for the record, I have, I believe three memos or three staff reports. One from Mr. Chadwick dated February 21st, 2022, one from Mr. Hinterstein dated February 16th, 2022 and a DPW memo dated 2 16 22. I believe those are the only current memos. If that's by my understanding
Speaker 3That
Speaker 13We have witness, I have witnesses. The witness is Craig Newton. Who's the homeowner. And the second is going to be Ms. Allison Kain, who is our professional planner. Before I get into the testimony, I do wanna go over a couple of the steps that we have taken in looking into the property and looking into the use we've provided tax evaluate based on our records as far back as we can see, it appears that the home was constructed sometime in the either twenties or thirties based on tax records that we could see. We provided a tax evaluation that goes back to 1954. That clearly shows that there was a multi-family use. We'll get a little more into that because there's some, some potential discrepancies on that. As, as compared to a 19, I believe 74 tax evaluation that clear really shows it used as a three family use in 1974, we did do deed searches back all the way to the forties.
Speaker 13One in particular from 1960, I'm I'm gonna be showing to you cuz I think that has some pertinent information in it. We also did some newspaper archival searches and interesting between about 1950 and the 1990s. We were able to find, I believe it was 17 distinct surnames associated with the property connected to the property in some way. And either that's through birth announcements, death announcements or police blo listings, not too many of those thankfully, but 17 different surnames associated with the property. The property did not change hands that many times. So obviously that is a, is a, I think a fairly clear indication that, that there was rental continuously done at that property over that time period. But I know everybody loves it when the attorney talks a lot. So with that any further do I will ask Mr. Newton if he can be, if he would come forward to be sworn in
Speaker 3Mr. Newton, are you present?
Speaker 1Yes I am. Sir.
Speaker 3Could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 3Could I have your and address please?
Speaker 1My name is Craig Newton. I live at 47 Kings highway in long valley, New Jersey. I am. I'm sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 3Is all yours, Mr. Arch.
Speaker 13Thank you. So Mr. Newton, you are the owner of, of 2 37 park avenue along with your wife. Is that correct?
Speaker 1That is correct.
Speaker 13And you've owned this property since 1976. Am I correct with that
Speaker 1Is correct.
Speaker 13Okay. And when you purchased the property, it was, there were three distinct departments or three distinct units in that property. Is that correct? You there Mr. Dacey?
Speaker 1Yes sir. It is correct. Yes.
Speaker 13And in the time since you've owned that you haven't made any structural changes to the property, you haven't added any units or taken away any units it's the same as you've had it since the, since 1974, correct?
Speaker 1That's correct.
Speaker 13Okay. And just so everybody is aware, this is one unit on, I guess the first floor and then the second floor is broken into two separate units. Is that correct?
Speaker 1That is correct.
Speaker 13And each of these have separate utilities, each of these have separate bathroom and kitchen facilities?
Speaker 1Yes, sir.
Speaker 13Okay. And it's currently all three of those units are currently rented. Is that correct?
Speaker 1Yes, sir.
Speaker 13Okay. And can you tell us how long have those units been rented each, each individual unit? If you have that information?
Speaker 1I do. The unit downstairs has been rented to the same party since 2004. The unit upstairs the center unit upstairs has been rented to the same party since 2010. And the unit on the right side of the upstairs section has been rented to the same party 10 since 2015.
Speaker 13Okay. Obviously, if, if this house is no longer allowed to be used as a three family, at least one of those tenants is gonna have to be, is gonna have to find some new place to live. Is that correct?
Speaker 1That is correct, sir.
Speaker 13Okay. So let's address some of the reports. I wanna first direct your attention to Mr. Chadwick's report. That's dated on February 21st, 2022. Mr. Chadwick, first indication is he indicates that the 1956 tax reevaluation that we provided is legible. And I agree with Mr. Chadwick to a, to a degree and we'll get back into that a little bit more. He indicates that the 1972 tax reevaluation shows the structure as a three family dwelling. And I think we certainly agree with that. And the inspection notice confirms Township classification as a three family D dwelling and that we've provided NJ DCA certificates of inspection, sewing, filing, and existence of a three family dwelling. So I think we can agree with everything in Mr. Chadwick's report, moving on to Mr. Dacey. Can
Speaker 6I interrupt a second? The last paragraph you do that?
Speaker 13Yes. That if, if, if it is granted that there is a preexisting nonconforming status, we will be Mr. Dacey. Would you agree that we'd be happy to supply the most recent inspection reports? And if there are any violations, those will be remediated within 60 days of board's approval.
Speaker 1Of course.
Speaker 13Thank you. Moving on to Mr. Hinterstein report, Mr. Hinterstein indicates that the 1956 tax reevaluation clearly shows that the property was assessed as a two family home. So I do want to, if I can share my screen, bring up the 1956 tax evaluation. Can everybody see that? Yes, I can. Okay. And I have it zoomed in and I'll zoom it out a little bit because I do agree with Mr. With Mr. Chadwick that I think that overall it is, it is rather hard to discern anything on the, on the, on the evaluat, on the tax evaluation sheet, but I'm gonna zoom in to where it indicates occupancy, because I think this is addressing Mr. Stein's comment and, and Mr. New, you can see there where it says occupancy and printed on this form. It indicates one family. And then beneath that, it indicates two family. You see that?
Speaker 1I, I see that.
Speaker 13Okay. And there's some sort of, of notation, which quite frankly, I, I don't know what that notation is or what that word is, cuz that's quite frankly hard to read. I don't know if you have any, if you have any guess as to what that says, but no. Okay. And then next to it appears to be a check mark of some sort. So it seems clear that it's not a one that it's not a one family, but you'll also note Mr. Dacey. You don't see anywhere on here where it indicates three family, correct? On the form.
Speaker 1No, I do not. Okay.
Speaker 13I'm gonna move now. And this was already provided to the board, so I don't believe we have to mark this for anything. No,
Speaker 3It's part of the application package. I believe
Speaker 13This I'm moving on to this. I, I don't believe, I don't know if this was provided or not. I'm not positive. This is the 1960 deed that is associated with it. If it hasn't been provided, I would mark this as, as
Speaker 3Yeah. If we're not certain, if it's been marked, let's have it as marked as a one's.
Speaker 13Okay. I will then a one is the 1960 deed that pertains to the property and, and actually this was provided to me by you. Is that correct? Mr. Newton?
Speaker 1That is correct.
Speaker 13Okay. And if you could see that,
Speaker 3Do you have a date on that deed other than 1960?
Speaker 13Yes. Sorry. Down here. September 20th, 1960. I believe when it was executed. So Mr. Newton, this, this part that I'm highlighting right here, which indicates that the premises are occupied as follows and it says vacant one apartment and then two apartments occupied. Do you see that there?
Speaker 1I do.
Speaker 13Okay. And just for the record, you didn't write that in there and that's not my handwriting, right?
Speaker 1No,
Speaker 13No. That came that's that's part of the recorded deed, correct?
Speaker 1That is correct. I, I received that as is.
Speaker 13Okay. So it's safe to say that at the, at the very least in 1960, we can, we can show that there, or we can see quite clearly that there are three apartment units in that, in that building, correct?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 13Okay. Moving on to Mr. Hinterstein second comment. He indicates the size of the property is half of what's allowed in the, in the single family zone, let alone for a three family home. I'm gonna move to an aerial view of, of your property. I'm gonna mark this as a two, if I may. Mr. Kinneally. Yeah. So this is just a still image from a Google map search. And this is, this is the aerial view of your property, correct? Mr. Newton.
Speaker 1That is correct.
Speaker 13Okay. And you have a 50 by 100 lot, which is a, which is a relatively small lot, relatively speaking to lots of theca correct?
Speaker 1Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 13And now, and, and so the one neighbor on the side where my cursor is, their home is over here on this side. So they have a developed lot right next to you. And the homeowner in the back has developed a lot basically right up against your property. But the homeowner on the, on what I'm gonna say is the right side, looking at this here actually has some undeveloped property on this side that abuts your lot. Is that correct?
Speaker 1That is correct.
Speaker 13Okay. And as part of our application, we sent a, a letter to that property owner inquiring as to whether or not they would sell a portion of their property in order to make our lot larger and, and more accommodating for a three family use. Is that correct?
Speaker 1That is correct.
Speaker 13Okay. And actually you personally went and spoke to the homeowner and asked them if they would be willing to, to enter negotiations to sell that portion. And I believe they said that they were adamant that they did not want to sell any portion of their property because they had plans to at some point in the future develop it. Is that correct?
Speaker 1They had plans to expand, I believe the existing home and needed the space, according to what they said to me. Yes.
Speaker 13Okay. So we are limited. We can't make any more land and we've made all, all efforts to try to acquire any available land on all on, on any side of this property. And unfortunately there just isn't any available land to expand. Is that correct?
Speaker 1That is correct.
Speaker 13Okay. So Mr. Hinterstein third comment indicates that the, the RS, I requires six parking spaces and he indicates that there's a single driveway along here that can accommodate to three, to, to four vehicles if you squeeze them in here on this single driveway. And this is the area that he's talking about, correct?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 13Okay. Now the whole back of this property is also paved and you can act and can actually accommodate a car parking here in the back from where that driveway is. Is that correct?
Speaker 1It could accommodate more than one car back
Speaker 13There. Okay. Yes. And, and so actually six, six cars, or actually more than six cars would able, would be able to be comfortably accommodate on the site by using the back area here as parking, if somebody so desired.
Speaker 1That is correct.
Speaker 13Okay. So in fact, we can exceed that RS. I S standard for those six cars based on, on the pavement that we have already on the property. And the last report is the D P w report, which just indicates that if not already charged at the, at the, the current rate, under the sewers and wastewater ordinance, that, that we will agree to adhere to the Township ordinance for the sewage and wastewater charging grain. We have no issue with that. Correct. Mr. Newton,
Speaker 1It's already being charged as a three.
Speaker 13Okay.
Speaker 1I check the
Speaker 13Excellent. So safe to say that it's fairly clear that, or, or at least it's clear that at the very least from before the fifties, it was used as a multi-family home, whether two or three family, we know at the very least a multi-family, but that we can say that with confidence, that, that from the 1960 onward it's been consistently used as a three family home with long term tenants.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 13Okay. I have no more questions for Mr. Newton and I'll. Thank you, Mr. Arch. Thank you.
Speaker 1Anybody on the board have any questions for this witness?
Speaker 13I'll stop sharing my screen. Now, if appreciate that. Unless anybody wants me to
Speaker 1Keep sharing it. I, I have a question, Steve Weisman. I have a question. Sure. Steve it's in reference to the, the parking. That is our primary I'm firefighter from home Marshall. I, I drive for frequently and I've during snowstorms, particularly there are cars parked on the street because this seems to be a problem with getting enough cars down that driveway. So I I'd like to know more about how this, I understand if you take the square feet, you put that many cars in it, but I does. So I'd like to hear more justification for that. Thank you, Steve.
Speaker 13So I'll leave up to you, Mr. Newton, if you can indicate,
Speaker 1Okay. The residents there have told me there's absolutely been an issue with, with the parking. They basically take care of the driveway. They clear without an issue. I've had these tenants for a long time. We have a very good rapport with one another. Their rents are below market and they're, you know, I've had them for a long time. They're almost like I, I, one tenant I've I've had there for since 2004. I mean, she raised her children there and we still have a very good relationship. In fact, I believe she's, she's waiting to speak during the public session, but they've, they've never had an issue. And again, there is street parking, if necessary, if, if they have a guest or whatever. And I believe most of the street parking is taken up by the single family residence across the street. So, you know, they have more residents in their unit than I have in mine.
Speaker 1Again, my, my S not normal parking it's, I'm driving a fire truck coming down park avenue. It's a primary entrance in exit out of the neighborhood, down to road or up to hose lane. And, and it snowstorm driving a big apparatus. It's you gotta be extremely careful. They don't, they're not built for off road. And it would be a lot easier to navigate if there are no, no cars parked along the sidewalk curbs specifically, just for one second. Let me comment on that. I was a property manager for 45 years. I ran properties from 1200 units to three units all through the state. And if we had on street parking, if it was one side owner, which this is, there was never an issue. I mean, unless the department of public works didn't plow properly. And normally if there was an issue with a vehicle in the way, we just took chain to it and get it outta there, it was very simple.
Speaker 13And if I could just, if I could just add
Speaker 1If you, or an emergency,
Speaker 13If I could just add to that again, the RS I standard is to be able to park six vehicles on, on site and with the combination of the driveway and the paved area in the back, there is more than enough room for six vehicles, which is, which is more than what the RS I S standard requires. And in addition to that, as Mr. Newton stated only there is no parking on, on the one side of park avenue, which should alleviate any sort of issues with large trucks having to come down that roadway. I can't comment on other individuals that park on, on that roadway. I obviously that can't speak for, for other residences in that area if they park along there. But if anybody's parked on the, on the side, that does not allow any parking, I would imagine that the, that the Township would be quick to ticket and tow those vehicles so that there isn't an issue.
Speaker 1Mr. Arch, could you put that Google maps photo back up Now, if I'm the black, I don't know if that's a van or a sedan, but the one closest to park Ave. That's right by the curb.
Speaker 13This,
Speaker 1If I'm the last car in at night, and there are four cars parked in the back on the asphalt, I'm upstairs sleeping. Cause I, I worked all night. Do the, do the attendance share keys? How does my car get moved in order for someone to get and pull that out? Pull my car out. Cause no, one's getting outta that backyard. If that driveway's blocked like that.
Speaker 13Well, I agree circulation circulation is something that has to be worked out with the, the tenants, but as, as someone who's, you know, rented for multiple, multiple years throughout college and out and afterwards with multiple roommates and tenants, it's, it's an issue that is common that you have to, you have to jockey vehicles, you have to move vehicles again. If there was room on the site to allow for greater circulation around the other side, we, we made inquiries as to that. We tried to purchase property next door in order to, to further expand that to, to, to alleviate any sort of issue so that there was no doubt that the vehicles could be parked there and circulate well, but it's impossible to do so. And, and it's, it's not a hardship that we created. It's one that we are, are trying to, that we tried to alleviate and it's, unfortunately, it's impossible to do so, but we do have the, the adequate parking field to accommodate and, and it's, it's behold on the residents to have to move the cars in and out appropriately or figure out when people are gonna go to work when people are coming back from work and, and to figure that the same way that anybody would have to in any sort of single driveway scenario with roommates.
Speaker 1I just, I just think human human nature dictates that if one time I got blocked in by one of my other, one of the other tenants, I, I wouldn't park in the back anymore. I'd park on the street. That's all. That's just my opinion. Any other questions or comments from anybody else on the board hearing none open it to the public gym or should I wait till
Speaker 3You probably should go to the next witness?
Speaker 1Okay. Mr. Archer, next witness.
Speaker 13Thank you. Our next witness. I'll stop sharing the screen. One second. Appreciate it. Our next witness is Ms. Allison Kain, who is our professional planner.
Speaker 3Miss Kain. Are you present?
Speaker 14Yes, I am.
Speaker 3Could you reach your right hand? The testimony? You're about be the truth.
Speaker 14Yes, I do
Speaker 3Your name and address please.
Speaker 14Alison Kain. My business address is 14 Tilton drive, ocean Township, New Jersey, a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I'm certified.
Speaker 3Let stop Mayor you there. I believe Ms. Kain has been accepted as a professional planner before on numerous occasions. And as long as have not changed,
Speaker 14They're still valid.
Speaker 13Thank you, Ms. Kain, if you can please provide us with the, with your expertise as it applies to this site.
Speaker 14Sure. The applicant is requesting a certificate for a preexisting nonconforming use or structure for the existing brief family dwelling. That's located on the site, the alternative, the applicant requests, the D one use variants to legitimize the longstanding use of the site as a three family dwelling. The property that we're looking at is 2 37 park avenue. It contains a three family dwelling it's located in the R 10 district, which does not permit multifamily dwellings. So looking first at the, the history and through the lens of the, the certificate of the preexisting nonconforming use, we did an Oprah request for zoning and approved little history and, and we're not able to find anything. I reviewed the tax records and the aerials, the tax record provides a construction date of 1923 and shows the structure as existing as a three family unit. I did go through historic aerials that go back to the thirties and it looks like this home was built sometime between 1947 and in 1953.
Speaker 14So it's not present on the 1947 aerial. There's almost nothing on the block then. And in 1953, it's one of four homes that's on this block. So I'm not sure the tax records construction date is fully accurate. And we looked at the other records. They have the 1940 census, which was inconclusive the 56 property card that identifies this as a two family, but it has a note next to that. That's not decipherable. It's an unusual notation to have on a card like this. And it's important to note that three family is not an option listed on this card. While two family is, then we have the 1960 property deed, which identifies this as a, having three units in it. The 1974 property card identifies this as a three family use. And there's some certificates of inspection issued by the NJ bureau of housing inspection that identify this as a three family.
Speaker 14And those were issued in 2012, in 2018. So the applicant has provided evidence that the use of structure as multifamily home commencing before 1956, when it's noted on the property card as a two family, what's not clear is if the interpretation of this notation is accurate, as the added note is unusual, and there's no three family designation available on that card. And there's no evidence that that site was ever converted from a two you family to a three family. So the board would be justified certainly in finding that a two family use predates the ordinance, but the board could also decide that the three family use predates the ordinance as there's no evidence of any conversion having done on this property. So it's possible that the number of units was not correctly noted on that 1956 property card. Been looking through this as a use variance, should the board determine that they are not willing to issue the certificate for the three family?
Speaker 14Use the applicant requests, the use variants to legitimize the use. The positive reasons concept here is advanced due to the site being particularly suited to the use. The subject site is unusual and that it's with a three family dwelling has been continually used as such for at least 62 years. We go by that 1960 deed, which identifies us as a three family dwelling. The structure is suited for use as a three family dwelling. It has three kitchens, separate living spaces and separate utilities. And the site can provide the six parking spaces required by RS I S on existing paved areas of the property. It's my opinion that there's no substantial detriment to the granting of the requested use variance. The three family home has occupied the site for, for a very long time without issue. The structure is still visually in character with the area, and there's no change to the property that would result in the, from the granting of this use variants. And this proposed variants would not substantially impair the intendant purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance. The use has been present on the site for decades. There's no alter and it is easily. One of the homes on this block, making it unique for the area.
Speaker 13Thank you, Ms. Kain, if any of the members of the board have questions, I would
Speaker 1Sure anyone on the board have any questions for this witness hearing? None.
Speaker 6I, I just, just have one question. Sure. John Allison, did you have a chance to go in this building?
Speaker 14No, I did not.
Speaker 1Okay. Thank you, John. Mr. Dacey. Anything else?
Speaker 13I will indicate that just for the record that I believe photographs of the home floor plans of the home and photo of the interior of all the units were provided to the, to the board so that everybody has those. So just in response to Mr. Chadwick comment, the, the
Speaker 3Mr. Chadwick's comment, his Cahn, his question was not, your planner had been in the house
Speaker 13Just well, as my response to Mr. Chadwick question, those photos have been provided to the board
Speaker 1And
Speaker 14I haven't been in the house. I've seen the photos
Speaker 3And they were part of the application package.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 6Okay. I have not seen the interior photos. That's why I asked the question mean, got some age on it. We wanna make sure if we created preexisting non-conforming that it's
Speaker 13Well, as, as we indicated before, Mr. Chadwick, we certainly would agree that if a approval is granted, that we would provide up to date inspections and that we would remediate any, any violations that the inspections bring about.
Speaker 6Why don't we take this one step further? Do the board, did the Township housing inspectors go through
Speaker 13Mr. Newton? Do you have any objection with that? Not
Speaker 1At all, but we we've gone through a, a series of property inspections by your Township inspectors. The last one was a, an inspection for CFO of all apartment. That was, I think in 2019. And of course the CFO was not granted cause of the variance discrepancy, but yeah, there there's no problem. Absolutely no problem at all with inspectors coming in, I inspecting and we will remediate any issues.
Speaker 0Okay.
Speaker 1Anyone else on the board have any questions, Mr. Arch? I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone on the public portion, have any questions, comments about this application?
Speaker 15I would like to make a comment.
Speaker 3Sure. Ma could I have your name and address please?
Speaker 15My name is Maria Perez. The address is 2 37 park avenue.
Speaker 3Okay. You have your hand up. I'm gonna swear you in. Do you put your hand up, please? Do you swear the testimony you're about to?
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 3Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 15I would like to touch upon a comment that Mr. Weisman said regarding the parking. So everybody understands there are three units. There are multiple vehicles. We do always communicate with each other in terms of parking during snowstorms, where we have to get all the vehicles off the street. There's never been a problem. We know each other's schedules during those times, obviously during the day people are in and out. So I do want to clarify that the parking situation is not a problem.
Speaker 3Thank you.
Speaker 1Thank you. Ma'am anyone else in the public portion? Miss Buckley?
Speaker 3No one Chairman.
Speaker 1No. All right. Public portions closed. Anyone have any comments before I give my comments? All right, well, I'll start off. I don't believe the applicant has met the burden of proof to show the certificate of non-conforming use to 1953. I don't have a problem approving it for a two family dwelling, but I, I just don't see enough out there to justify saying it's a three and I'm not gonna think that a bookkeeper back years ago made a mistake and forgot to write three family or, or three apartments when the paperwork is circled for the two. So what do I, Jim, what do I deny the application, but,
Speaker 3But you could deny the application for the use variance and the nonconforming use for the three family and grant a nonconforming use certificate two.
Speaker 1That's what I wanna do.
Speaker 13May, may I make a, can I make one suggestion or one comment before it goes to a vote?
Speaker 3It hasn't been seconded yet. Mr. Arch, go ahead.
Speaker 13Thank you. Because we are dealing with the circumstance where we do have long term tenants that are, that are obviously living in, in that, in those three units. If the board were client to, to grant approval of a two family, obviously that's going to cause at one of the individuals or one of the tenants to have to be, to have to move and have to, I would ask just a, I think it would be reasonable to, since it seems to work well with the tenants that are there currently, and there have been no issues with these current tenants, is it possible to grant the two family moving forward, but as a condition allow the three family use for just these tenants that are currently there. And when one of those tenants leaves that, that it then be converted to a two family use, just so that we don't have to disturb the, the, the tenants that are there now that clearly it's working for everybody, that's there.
Speaker 3Mr. Mr. Chairman, I would not advise that you grant that what I would advise is that you grant a reasonable time. If the board acts favorably on a two family use, then grant a reasonable time for the three family use to cease.
Speaker 13And can that be negotiated by way of a developer's agreement? If a post-approval, if just to work out the details of cuz I, I, I don't think tonight we'll be able to parse through all the details of what that will entail, cuz there's going to have to be potentially potentially an eviction, potentially reconstruction, remodeling, all sorts of things. So could have done by way a developer's
Speaker 3Agreement and, and in light of the current landlord tenant situation in New Jersey, I think that that's a reasonable request by the applicant. So if the board act in the affirmative on the two family nonconforming use certificate, I will include a condition that we enter into a developer's agreement as to the timing of the cessation of the third unit.
Speaker 1Okay. Well, my recommendation's still out there.
Speaker 13May I just ask Mr. Newton if that's acceptable to him before we go to a vote as well?
Speaker 1Yes. Okay. Take that. Thank you. Mr. Dacey. Can I get a second? Yes. You voice for a second. Thanks Steve. Paul.
Speaker 2Mr. Weisman.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Patel.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Mitterando. Yes. And Chairman Cahill.
Speaker 1Yes. Mr.
Speaker 3Dacey will Alize this in two weeks, there will be a condition to enter into a developer's agreement and we'll negotiate that.
Speaker 13Thank you. Thank you. Members of the board. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1Have a good night. Let's move on to item number 1122 ZB 20 V. Maxim real estate
Case 22-ZB-20-V: George Casalin/Maxim Real Estate - Fire-Damaged Three-Family Dwelling Reconstruction
22-ZB-20-V
AI
01:02:14 – 01:31:31
Applicant sought variance to rebuild three-family dwelling after 2020 fire damage, with preexisting nonconforming use certified in 1995 as existing since prior to 1937. Deteriorated structure required demolition and modern reconstruction maintaining original footprint and configuration. Application approved unanimously with parking and landscaping conditions.
Speaker 3Is Mr. Herman present.
Speaker 16I'm here on behalf of Mr. Herman. We work for the same law firm. I was supposed to be on DF Osborne and he's in RO Rochelle park tonight. We'll take you your name please. Thank you, Michael Bonner with the firm of JBA WGA, et cetera, offices in union, New Jersey. Thank you behalf for the good evening, everyone. Excuse me. We we're here on behalf of,
Speaker 16Excuse me, maximum real estate, LLC. I have three witnesses tonight, the managing member of the applicant and represe of the architect's office and a professional planner. What we're here for tonight is to continue a preexisting nonconforming use that was recognized by the zoning board in 1995, as existing, since prior to 1937, it is in, in a single family zone, but it is a significantly oversized lot. The house suffered fire damage to one of the apartments. The applicant who's here and will explain the process better than I can went in obtained, building permits. As he worked his way through the renovation and, and repair, he realized the, that the existing construction being so old was inferior and it was rotted wood and things like that. And he ended up demolishing essentially the entire structure and continued with this rebuild until someone I think from the building department came by and said he needed to put in an application because the demolition had exceeded 50%.
Speaker 16So we're here tonight for the simple reason of getting a used variance so that he can continue rebuilding the preexisting non and conforming structure and use. He is not intensifying in any way will be the exact same square footage existing on the existing foundation. He's rebuilding from the existing foundation up and without, and no sea variances are required and he meets the RSI is parking standards for the site. Having said all of that, I would like to introduce George Cains, who is the principal of the applicant. And rather than walk him through questions, he will, you know, present his story as a narrative. And then we'll move on to the architect who will explain the plans.
Speaker 1Good. Sounds good.
Speaker 17Good evening. Chairman Cahill members of the board. My name is George cast. I am the owner of max real estate, LLC. I purchased this problem.
Speaker 3Hey, Mr. Kalin, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand please? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 17Yes.
Speaker 3Your address please.
Speaker 17My name is George Kaling's address is 1 22 bender avenue, Roosevelt park, New Jersey.
Speaker 3Could you spell your last name?
Speaker 17C a S a L I N.
Speaker 3Thank you.
Speaker 17I should know better. So my name is George. I am a real estate agent by profession. I went to school in Rutgers university and lived in Piscataway for a while. So I bought a property in Piscataway cause I'm very familiar with it and tended to purchase it and rent it out on or about April of 2020, the property suffered a fire damaged the top right unit. So the way that the house is built is there's three, three units. The left side of the house is a two story unit. And the right side of the house is one story unit. Each floor, the top right unit had a fire that burnt the entire unit. And also so the exterior right wall that extended down to the right side bottom. So I put in plants and permits to the construction department to replace all the damaged wood from the fire.
Speaker 17And I began to do so everything was approved and, and began to do so as we started opening the walls of the other parts of the house, the, we started noticing the construction materials and, and spacing. For example, the studs were not 16 inches off center as required by current code, they're up to 42 inches. In some places, the structure was very unsafe to be rebuilt on top of. So as we began to kind of fix everything up, we noticed more and more and fire damage. And that's what led to the structure being rebuilt. So IM seeking humbly in front of you, of the board, a continuation or preexisting nonconforming use the resolution from this zoning board establishing the nonconformity states. That it's been a three families since going back to even 1930, so almost a hundred years. And I believe the proof that I have to provide here is that I won't, that it will be a benefit to the, to the neighborhood, which I am intending to do by modifying the landscape, beautifying the siding and do everything nice and safe importantly, and then I am requiring no other variances or, or waivers from the board.
Speaker 16Thank you, George. So it it's fair to say, as, as you were doing your reconstruction of the partially damaged structure, you realize the inferior nature of the construction work, which was possibly as old as a hundred years old. And in order to rebuild code and build a much safer modern structure decided to proceed to abolish the structure. Correct?
Speaker 17Correct. And, and I, I, I never received a stop work order. I've always been in communication with the construction department and the zoning officer throughout the process. I introduced myself. I'm, I'm the Chairman of my zoning board in my town. So I always know to come into town and speak to people before I start working. So I introduced myself and as I was going along, I notified them when I updated my plans. And that's when Dawn and, and Joe pretty much told me like, Hey, this is gonna require a, a variance. And that's why I'm here tonight.
Speaker 16Thank you. Before, before we go on or, or open him up to your questioning, I will recognize that we received three reports. The department, the director of public works, Mr. Chadwick, and the division of engineering and planning by Mr. Hinterstein largely there's, there's nothing for Mr. Dacey deal with. And either of those, except that you'll agree that each unit, according to director of public works, that he'll pay the sort of use fee before proceeding and the wastewater and the waste and comply with the wastewater ordinance under Mr. Henderson's report, several items were raised about whether he would plant three trees, repair the curb sidewalk and retaining wall reconfigure the parking area. He he'll agree to do that, but the architect will explain what the plans are there and add some foundation plantings and repair the dilapidated fence. Are you okay with making all of those changes to the existing plan?
Speaker 17Absolutely.
Speaker 16Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further for Mr. Kalin.
Speaker 1Thank you. Does any other other board members have any questions for Mr. Kalin?
Speaker 5Just one, Mr. Chairman, please. You also agree to revise the architectural plans to show the canopies and the appropriate setbacks, correct? Yes.
Speaker 16The architect will cover that.
Speaker 5Okay.
Speaker 1Anyone else have any questions? Mr. Dacey, please proceed.
Speaker 16Thank you. Thank you, George. My next witness is Tom Doris from Netta architects, Tom. Or are you
Speaker 3Mr. Do, are you present? Yes, sir. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give truth.
Speaker 18I do
Speaker 3Your name and address please.
Speaker 18Thomas Doris, last name D O R E S. Address of the firm is 10 84, route 22 west mountain sign, New Jersey.
Speaker 3Thank you,
Speaker 16Tom. Why don't you explain the plans as they were designed and submitted and then discuss the comments of Mr. Hinterstein in his report
Speaker 3Before you do that, Mr. Doris, could you qualify him as an
Speaker 16Expert? Oh, I apologize, Tom, would you explain your qualifications and assure the board that your license is license is in, is current and in effect?
Speaker 18Sure, sure. I have have a bachelor of architecture from the New Jersey Institute of technology graduated in 2010. I also have a master of science and infrastructure planning also from N J I T. And I have my architect's license in the state of New Jersey. And it is current.
Speaker 16And you test
Speaker 3That can be accepted as an ex expert in agriculture. Excuse me, agriculture too. I guess Mr. Dacey, please proceed.
Speaker 16Okay. So on the topic of, of Tom, let's talk about the plan things in the treatment now, nevermind.
Speaker 18Sure, sure. I'll I'll share my screen.
Speaker 16Thank you.
Speaker 18Okay. So before we jump into the floor plans, we can go over the site plan. So what we're showing is the existing footprint of the house. We stayed within those constraints and on the site plan, we're showing the existing site improvements as they were previously, we have not made any alterations to those. So in terms of parking, R S I S requires two spaces per unit. So with three units, we are required to have six parking spaces. So within the constraints of the existing concrete and asphalt driveway sections of the property we have here laid out six different nine by 18 foot parking stalls. They don't necessarily have to be outlined the way they are in, in the drawing. These are more for diagrammatic purposes just to show the boundary of where the, the automobiles can fit. So in this plan, we haven't made any modifications to the driveway or the walkways, but in receiving comments from the engineers report, we did per repair an exhibit
Speaker 16For tonight. I'm sorry, sorry to interrupt. Before you, before you move on to discussing the potential rearrangement of the parking. Sure. Would you confirm that the square footage of the plans for the reconstruction are identical to the prior plans?
Speaker 18Sure. We, we stayed within the, the existing constraints of the existing foundation and the square footage of the units and the overall structure have not increased.
Speaker 16Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 18Sure. So in reviewing the engineer's report, we developed an exhibit for tonight to discuss some potential. Let's get them.
Speaker 3Yeah. Yeah. Let's mark that as a one with today's date and you'll have to submit a paper copy of that to the zoning board.
Speaker 18Sure. So we showed several different parking scenarios based on some comments we received, the comments had some concern over vehicular circulation and clearances for turning radius. So we showed sort of two different alternates on the left side of the site, the existing asphalt driveway. We extended it here in this drawing only a few feet. I believe it's three to four feet. So that way it can accommodate two vehicles in a tandem formation. In this scenario, the, the two cars would belong to a single unit. So the tenants within the same dwelling would have to coordinate on, you know, parking schedule and who parks first and who parks second. But in addition to that, either ultimately, or in addition to that, we are also shown on the right side of the property, an extension off of the back of the existing asphalt driveway that can accommodate three additional parking stalls. So within this option, if this were the only option to be explored, we can fit three parking spaces here at the top. And also three over to the left to clear up this existing large portion for turning space and vehicle circulation. That way there are no conflicts with one tenant to the next
Speaker 16And, and there's sample space for cars to turn in and out and pull in frontways and pull out front.
Speaker 18Correct? Correct. So this, this scenario would allow for backing out, without conflicting with other vehicles. It would also allow for a vehicle to perform a K turn to fully rotate and exit the driveway moving forward rather than in reverse.
Speaker 3And all of these proposals do not involve stacking of vehicles for several different units,
Speaker 18Correct? Correct. The only stacking would come with the, a single unit.
Speaker 3Thank you.
Speaker 16No problem. The, if, if the three additional spaces were added that are, are, are lighter green and outlined in lighter red, the space within the two turnaround area that would be eliminated. Correct?
Speaker 18Correct.
Speaker 16Right.
Speaker 17And, and if I may just add, these would be designated spots. So each individual unit would have their own spaces
Speaker 16And with the extra spaces, there would be room for guests as well.
Speaker 18Yes.
Speaker 16Okay. Thanks, Tom. Please go on
Speaker 18A couple other site items. These sort of maroon squares are, are representing the entry port. It goes to the units. Again, we are not expanding the footprint or expanding the number of entry ways into the dwelling or any of the dwellings. We just wanted to show them here because they weren't previously shown on our submission. So again, for the three units facing William street, we have the three porticos, which can be wood frame with a wood frame roof over it to protect against the elements. One of the units also has a secondary entryway on the side of the structure, which we show here, all of these across the front and the side are going to be four by eight stoops. And then in the rear, we're showing a, a all landing area for access to the basement. Again, something that was not shown on our submission
Speaker 16And Tom, they, they meet the setbacks, correct. And, and don't require variance, right?
Speaker 18Correct. They do not require variance here. You can see the line of the 25 foot front yard setback. And our three Portos are not encroaching on that. And also the eight foot side yard setback. The side Portico is also not encroaching on that. Lastly, in terms of site, we are showing some site lighting diagrammatically with the small yellow rectangles. Those are intended to be wall mounted, light fixtures that will be motion censored, and the, they are being installed with the intention of giving illumination to the parking spaces for the tenants.
Speaker 16And I think the only comment remaining that we haven't addressed is number five regarding the grading plan. Will you be adding that to your plans?
Speaker 18Yes, we can add that.
Speaker 16Thank you. I have no further questions for Mr. Doris.
Speaker 1Does any other member of the board have any questions for this witness?
Speaker 5One question Mr. Dacey, please. I don't see any issues with lighting. The what kinda light is that just a simple motion center?
Speaker 18Yes. We haven't picked out a specific brand or manufacturer or style yet.
Speaker 5My only concern would be is that that light sort of faces directly the side of the, I'm sure there's a house adjacent that property, if there's a way to perhaps direct it more to the corner of the house, so that it's directed more sort of along the length of the driveway versus directly across the driveway. And that may cause a little bit of a nuisance to the neighbor. If you can direct line of sight. Yes.
Speaker 18We will make sure to orient the lighting down and to the front regarding the, that light on the left side of the house.
Speaker 16Did you have something you wanted to add?
Speaker 17Yeah. I mean, we, we are placing these in response. I have no problem placing them wherever the board seems fit. And of course every everything will be done to make sure it minimizes any potential impact to any neighbors.
Speaker 16But, but of course we want to make sure that we have a well lit parking area for safety sake. For sure.
Speaker 3Mr. Hinterstein do you have an opinion on the parking proposal?
Speaker 5Well, I like the fact that the additional parking and the way it's provided on the, on the exhibit definitely allows for, for your circulation, without the possibility of conflict between tenants. And it does provide, I believe some guest spaces, I would be more in favor of sort of this type of, of layout versus the, the original. My only concern is the two spaces on the, the left may still have to be increased a little bit more. I mean, your, your box, which represents the, the, the vehicle it's still over hanging in the sidewalk. So that could be a little bit of a concern. We we'd like to keep that, you know, approximately 36 feet, you have 37, 10. So, I mean, it's close. We need to keep a little bit of space probably in between the car. So we just may need to nudge that and other foot or two, just to make sure that we don't have vehicles, overhang sidewalk,
Speaker 16Just to be clear, what we're looking for is 36 feet beyond the sidewalk.
Speaker 5Is that at least? Yeah.
Speaker 16OK.
Speaker 6Suggestion. Maybe you should extend that sidewalk directly to the spaces as well.
Speaker 16Well, you, you, you see the, the Portico and the side of the house, the two spaces are, are for that unit itself. So there'll be direct entry from the side to the side, from the side, from the parking. So you're gonna
Speaker 6Put a little sidewalk there then.
Speaker 16I don't know that that was planned. I mean, people can walk on grass, right? If
Speaker 17I may, if I may, I can also extend it further. So I, it meets that side door that way it gives us the extra space. So we don't block the sidewalk and it provides a walkway into the unit.
Speaker 16Take the you're. So you're saying, take the driveway all the way to where the sure. That side door is okay. That
Speaker 17If that piece concerns no problem.
Speaker 5Yeah. Okay. Could always flare the driveway that it sort of matches up with the, with Theto.
Speaker 16Okay. Anything else? Thank you, Henry.
Speaker 1Any other members have any questions hearing? None. Mr. Dacey. You can move on.
Speaker 16Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Tom. Next witness is Paul Ricky, our professional planner.
Speaker 3I do. Mr. Ricky present? Yes. Mr. Ricky.
Speaker 5Yes,
Speaker 3But you raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth.
Speaker 5I do
Speaker 3Your name and address please.
Speaker 5It's Paul Ricky, R I C C7 seven Monmouth avenue, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.
Speaker 3Have you appeared before the zoning board of Piscataway before
Speaker 5I have over the years? Not too often, but I have, I, I can give my credentials if it's sure. Please. I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I've been licensed since year 2000. I'm also a member of the American Institute Institute of certified planners. I have a master's degree in city and regional planning, which I received from Rutgers Rutgers university in 1997, currently a municipal planning consultant in five communities. I, I test regularly in front of boards. Mr.
Speaker 1Chairman, Mr. Rick, Mr. Ricky can be exception as an expert planner. Acceptable. Thank you, please proceed.
Speaker 5Sure. May I just go through my testimony for Michael?
Speaker 16Yes. Do it as a narrative. That's fine.
Speaker 5Sure. I reviewed Mr. Chadwick and, and the other staff reports. The applicant here is, is requesting the use BARR for the application you, you heard from the applicant from a planning standpoint. I, I think this is an application that is something that traditionally a board would not hear you heard from the applicant, how he initially filed for permits to rebuild the, I see a little haze of my screen there to, to rebuild the structure after there was fire after fire. And it was at that time, it was, it was clear that that less than 50% of the, of the building, it appeared to be destroyed, permits were issued. And this is almost well not an official criteria, a kind of like a, a good Dean gone bad. To some extent you heard from the applicant, he saw how the rafters were over spanned. And he was an individual that wanted to provide good, clean, safe housing as part of the rebuild, rather than just slapping the building together, keeping it up in a manner that would, would get around zoning controls and the like, and, and I don't think that would be the, the best solution for the community while we're here for the use fire.
Speaker 5I think it's a better outcome for, for the community as a, as a whole. I, I do believe as a planner, that this is an opportunity to, to replace much needed residential housing on a lot that has historically contained such housing. I think everyone recognizes today outside of the planning community and engineers, that there is a significant housing shortage in New Jersey in the nation. As a whole, I've seen reports is up to two, 3 million units workflow throughout the country today. And also here, I see this as an opportunity to create workforce housing. When most of the new housing that we're seeing is luxury or affordable housing or a combination of the two, if such housing was lost, this just creates a further need for Piscataway in the region to replace such housing. And again, we heard from the architect here, the applicant is looking to replace the building in kind, he's not speaking to enlarge the building or the use greater than what historically existed.
Speaker 5And from a particular suitability standpoint, in this context, I, I did visit the site. I looked at zoning for the area as the board is aware, this site is in your R seven point a five zone. It historically is a single family residential zone that allows development on, on lots that are 7,500 square feet and greater having widths of, of 75 feet and depth of 75 feet. But hitting that 7,500 square feet minimum, again, we know the, that a three family home has existed on the property for 85 years. We've heard from the attorney regarding this board has issued that certificate of non nonconforming in 1995. The site itself is 2.72 times larger than the minimum lot size for the district. So the site is able to accommodate a, a larger residential building. No bulk lounges are required. If you look at the, the, the building coverage chart, there's zone allows for a building coverage of 20% and that's, and that's an indication of, you know, it's a lock, its larger that building coverage is commensurate with a lot.
Speaker 5So a larger lot tradit way. We have a lot larger building as a result of that here, the building percentage is, is just 7% where 20% is is permitted. So I see that building is being comparably small when evaluating it in comparison to lot size. And I know, and again, I think it's clear if or not for fire that, that this, this use would be here for some time. There was no intent to ever abandon this use. And finally, I know as a result of this process, residents would have access to, to high quality new housing. As a result of the new building. I did look at your, your 2005 master plan in your 2020 reexamination report. This application would advance the following goal to preserve the character and quality of the existing residential neighborhoods while providing the opportunity for redevelopment and preservation re desirable and possible for these reasons.
Speaker 5This applic supports two, a minimum of two purposes of municipal law purpose. A because the app, the site is particularly well suited for the use. It promotes the general welfare purpose G to provide sufficient space in an appropriate location. This is purpose G to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens. And that's for, for residential uses in this context regarding the negative criteria that the variances, the Varis can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public. Good, without a substantial impairment to your zone plan, again, not to be repetitive, but the use has been in existence for 85 years. Any potential negative impacts to the public good, the surrounding property owners have largely been absorbed over time. No new negative impacts are anticipated and re regarding your zone plan. I, I noted that through this size of the lot of 20,407 square feet, it's 2093 square feet shy of, of meeting taking that 75,000 or 75 square feet, times three, to meet the anticipated population densely for this area.
Speaker 5So in this regard, it's my opinion that allowing the reconstruction of the home would not result in a substantial departure from the planned density and concentration of people for the area as well. And lastly, I would just say that here, I think we have a very unusual change circumstance affecting this piece of prop and that, and even today, since COVID liked that we have a significant new demand for, for housing that that hasn't existed in, in years past and all these reasons combined, I believe make this application a good application and, and one on that, I hope the work and support.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 16Thank you. Thank you, Paul. I have no questions for Mr.
Speaker 1Ricky, any other members of the board have any questions for this witness hearing none Mr. Dacey. Anything else
Speaker 16I can sum up for you, which is very short reiterating things that were said to night good as stated this nonconforming use was certified by the board has been in existence for at least 85 years. There's no intent by the applicant to circumvent the ordinance. You work with your building inspectors and building department throughout the process. He's re rebuilding safer model apartments, and he has done his best to address all comments by the, in the staff reports. Great. Thank
Speaker 1You. Thank you. No other questions from this board about this application or any comments hearing none. I'm gonna move to the public portion. Anyone in the public have any or questions about this application? Ms. Buckley?
Speaker 2No one
Speaker 1Chairman. No, one's there. Okay. Close the public. I'd make a motion to approve this application. Steve Weisman. I approve
Speaker 5I second it,
Speaker 1Thank you, Mr. Weisman, the
Speaker 2Mr. Weisman
Speaker 3Motion, a one alternate parking proposal that was supported by Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 1That would be part of the language. Yes.
Speaker 3Thank you.
Speaker 1Thank you. Please continue to roll
Speaker 2Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 13Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Mitterando.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2And Chairman Cahill.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 3Your applic we'll meeting resolution.
Speaker 17You Chairman,
Speaker 1Gentlemen, let's move on to item number 1221 dash V3 slash 34 V L landscaping
Case 22-ZB-12-V: John Lori/L Landscaping - Commercial Landscaping Use Variance
22-ZB-12-V
AI
01:32:30 – 02:07:11
Owner sought variance for existing 40+ year landscaping business including employee storage and 8-vehicle fleet on residential property, with no bulk material stockpiling or hazardous materials. Applicant agreed to remove multiple structures and install screening fence with 20 trees. Application approved unanimously with conditions limiting vehicles to 12, prohibiting retail/hazardous materials, and requiring enhanced buffer landscaping.
Speaker 13Evening. Hello. Can you hear me?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 13Oh, evening members. The board. My name is Tim March. Again, I'm still on attorney license in the state of New Jersey, and I'm here representing L landscaping. We are asking for a use variance to continue a landscaping business on the property as long as well as several variances. The majority of which are existing variant with regards to the property to go through them quickly lot with there's a 94.17 foot lot with existing 23.2 front yard setback, existing 2.2 front side yard setback existing. There is an accessory structure located partially over the property line, which is a chicken coop. We are actually proposing to remove that. So we are not requesting that variance as well as at the top, there is a metal storage container that was originally called out as a variance that will be removed as well. So that variance will not be requested. There is a wall walk, a partially located within the right of way, which is existing, a 94.14 lot foot, lot frontage that is existing. And then there are several accessory buildings with that have variances pertaining to it, which are all listed there on the, on the tonight. Since we're the last application I'm gonna hopefully not, not go too long, but we have three witnesses tonight. We have Mr. John Lori, who is the owner of the property. We have Mr. Greg Oman, who is our engineer, and we have Colleen McGirk, who is our professional planner by obviously the general housekeeping. I would ask Mr. Kenel if we have jurisdiction in front of the board.
Speaker 3Yes. The, the notice was done quite some time ago. It's been carried numerous times with announcements made that no further notice was required.
Speaker 13Thank you. I also have two reports that I'm working off of tonight. The first is Mr. Henderson's report dated April 28th, 2022. And the other is Mr. Chadwick's report dated April 1st, 2022. If I may, before I call Mr. Dacey, if I can just briefly address those at least as to the usage of the property. I know Mr. Dacey will be, I'm addressing more of the, the layout of the property. This is a Mr. Dacey has owned. The has been here in Piscataway for, for more than 40 years on the property. The landscaping business that is there, I believe has been around since the eighties, as Mr. Chadwick indicates in his report. He, the review of the aerial photograph shows that it's approximately the same Condit. He doesn't see any stockpiling of landscaping materials. And partly you you'll come to find out that when you say a landscaping business, it may not be what you're thinking of in terms of, we're not talking about stockpiling, large piles of material.
Speaker 13We're not talking about stump grinding to create or produce any mulch or quarrying of raw ox to produce any, any gravel. We're not talking about any retail sales. There's no anticipation that any members of the public are gonna be coming onto the property for, for purposes of, of, of hiring or, or looking at materials. And there's no hazardous materials kept there. In fact, Mr. Dacey subcontracts out any work that has to do with chemicals or pesticides from his landscaping business. So it's really, when we're talking about running a landscaping business out of the, of the property, it's really, we're talking about storing some materials there, some equipment trucks and, and the, and the other light machinery and, and tools of the trade for landscaping. It's not a big operation. Like you might imagine this isn't a, you know, a garden center or, or a large landscaping area. So right.
Speaker 1Come on, Tim. Speed it up a little bit.
Speaker 13Okay. I'll speed it up a little
Speaker 1Bit. It's like the life story of the landscaping industry.
Speaker 13Well, you were so mean to me on my last one. I figured I
Speaker 1I'm gonna be meaner if this doesn't goly.
Speaker 13So in terms of employees, there are six employees, plus Mr. Dacey. I believe five of those employees are his relative who live either on the property or close by to the property. There are at maximum eight trucks or vehicles that are on the property at any given time. In addition to that, there are no set hours of operation in terms of, you know, again, reach sales sales, or anything along those lines, people will come there, pick up a, a, a truck or the, or the item and go out to whatever site that they are using in terms of
Speaker 3Mr. Arch. I think the board needs this information via testimony rather than representations from its attorney.
Speaker 13I, I understand that it was my intention to ask Mr. Dacey. One simple question of is everything that I said accurate. And would he reflect that in his testimony? But if you, like, I could certainly swear him in and have him state that.
Speaker 3Well, I think with the, with respect to certain items, like hours of operation, et cetera, I think we need that testimony
Speaker 13Certainly. Well, then I will ask Mr. Dacey if he can be sworn in and, and we can take his testimony at this time.
Speaker 3Mr. Dacey. Are you present? Yes. Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 20Yes. Can you hear me?
Speaker 3Yes, I can. Now I need to swear you in raise your right hand.
Speaker 20Okay.
Speaker 3Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 20Yes.
Speaker 3Your name and address please.
Speaker 20John Gloria, 2 78 road.
Speaker 3Thank you.
Speaker 13Mr. Dacey in terms of what my present, my long-winded presentation is everything that I said accurate.
Speaker 20Perfect. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 13And in terms of employees, is it true? You have six employees?
Speaker 20Yes. I five, five of them employees are they're all my kids.
Speaker 13Okay. And do, do some of them actually live on the, on the premises or live
Speaker 20A couple of 'em do yes. Okay. Two, two of them have moved out, but you know, that's it.
Speaker 13Okay. And in terms of the, the machinery that we're talking about, you have, I believe you told me two small skid loaders and one bucket loader, and that's the extent of the, what I'll call machinery equipment that you have there?
Speaker 20Yes. And the rest trucks.
Speaker 13Okay. And those trucks you said at any, is it fair to say that at any, at the most peak time where you would have the most number of vehicles on the property, would it, would you say about eight is a, is a fair estimate?
Speaker 20Yes.
Speaker 13Okay. And you're not proposing just to, to address Mr. Henderson's you're not proposing any bulk materials to be stored on site, correct?
Speaker 20No, not at all.
Speaker 13Okay. And you don't store any chemicals or any pesticides on site, correct?
Speaker 20Nope. Nope. I never did. Never will.
Speaker 13Okay. In terms of working on that machinery, you don't conduct any repairs of that machinery on site, do you?
Speaker 20No. I, well, we do maybe an oil change maintenance,
Speaker 13So maintenance, regular maintenance of the vehicles, similar to what any, any normal vehicle,
Speaker 20Mainly oil change and maybe grease them.
Speaker 13Okay. Anything beyond that, you would, you would take that out to another site to, to do repairs on that, correct?
Speaker 20Yes.
Speaker 13Okay. So in, in regards to the condition of the site, you've actually made a lot of effort since this application was filed to, to address or to clean up the site. Is that correct?
Speaker 20Yes, I have.
Speaker 13Okay. And part of that is the removing a, a kind of a dilapidated fence that was there already, correct?
Speaker 20I, yes, I did. Okay.
Speaker 13And at your intended to replace that with a solid six foot fence?
Speaker 20Yes.
Speaker 13Okay. And in terms of a lot of the accessory buildings, I don't wanna step on Mr. Omar's testimony, but you've, you've removed those or you plan to remove a good portion of those, is that correct?
Speaker 20Yes. They, I, like you said, I don't wanna step on it cause you know, he, I think that's his department.
Speaker 13Okay.
Speaker 20I could tell, I could tell you what I removed.
Speaker 13Well, I don't, again, I'll leave that to Mr. Oman's testimony in terms of, is there anything else that you want to let the board know in terms of the operation, the landscaping operation on the site? Or do you think that about covers it?
Speaker 20No, that's about it. It it's actually cut down from what it used to be excellent
Speaker 13In the interest of time. I'm gonna, I'm gonna ask leave Mr. Dacey board.
Speaker 20Okay.
Speaker 5Chairman Mr. Henderson and see if any questions for Mr. Dacey. Yeah. I just have a couple questions. You, you talked about briefly. I think your, your Mr. Dacey talks briefly about hours. You said there's no hours though, but what, what time do your employees go out in the morning?
Speaker 20Usually around seven.
Speaker 5Okay. And return four, five something in that. Yeah.
Speaker 20Yeah. It depends. You know how landscaping landscaping. Sometimes you work a little later or if we're going further, you get up a little earlier and head out a little earlier, but otherwise it's pretty standard.
Speaker 5Is
Speaker 13It, is it fair to say Mr. Dacey? You're not doing much landscaping in the dark.
Speaker 20Yeah. Yes. You're right. No, we don't. We don't
Speaker 5Do snow operate. You have snow operations as well?
Speaker 20Yes.
Speaker 5Okay. During the winter you may go out any type of hour, correct?
Speaker 20Yeah, but that's only with the truck. So all, all the machines are and stuff were parked on site, you know, on wherever I'm working. And you know, as far as trucks, my trucks are all Okay. They're still quiet. You know, I don't have much hot rod stuff or anything here anymore. Like I used to.
Speaker 5Okay. And as far as the type of vehicles that you're gonna store in the yard and machinery, what, what pickup trucks? Dump trucks. Backhoes.
Speaker 20No bigger than like a I'm sure you're aware, like a 4,500 Dodge. That's probably the biggest, I have no more tenon trucks. Like I used to have none of that's. Okay. You know, I just, it's better just to hire now and Do it that way.
Speaker 1Henry,
Speaker 20Nothing bigger.
Speaker 1That's it? Henry? Yeah. Okay. Anyone else on the board of any questions hearing none. Mr. Arch, please proceed.
Speaker 13My next witness would be Mr. Greg Oman. I would ask him to be sworn in please.
Speaker 3Mr. O Omar, are you present
Speaker 6Right here?
Speaker 3Could you raise your right hand?
Speaker 6Yes.
Speaker 3You swear the testimony to give you to the truth?
Speaker 6Yes, I do
Speaker 3Your name and address please.
Speaker 6Sure. Gregory Oman, O a N. Address 2 61 Cleveland avenue, Highland park, New Jersey. 8, 9, 4.
Speaker 3Thank you.
Speaker 13And I believe Mr. Dacey. You've been in front of this board on multiple occasions.
Speaker 6I have several occasions. It's been about a year or two since I have been in front of this board.
Speaker 13Yours,
Speaker 1Please proceed. Mr. Dacey. That's fine.
Speaker 13Sorry. I was gonna say, and your credentials have not degraded since the last time you've been on, correct?
Speaker 6They have not.
Speaker 1He's been for me a couple of times, so he's he's acceptable. Thank you.
Speaker 6Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 13Mr. Dacey. I'm gonna turn the, the floor over to you. If you can please tell us about the site.
Speaker 6Certainly I'm going to share my screen now. Can everyone see the air?
Speaker 3Yes, we can.
Speaker 6Perfect. So I have two pre-marked exhibits. The first one entitled a marked as a one with today's date. It's entitled existing conditions, exhibits scenario, photo showing the current property. What is on the property, the surrounding properties and the property boundary. This is a one acre parcel identified by the Township tax map as block 2101 lot 10.01 also known as 2 78 Stilton road site falls within the R 20 zone residential district in which a commercial operation is not permitted within zone. Therefore we are requesting a from the board tonight. The site is bound by Stilton road to the east single family homes to the north and to the south and multifamily development off to the west that fronts out onto old new Brunswick road, prop properties, approximately 330 feet from the signaled intersection of, of old new Brunswick road and Elton road. So I just fully developed I'll zoom in a little it's fully developed.
Speaker 6It has a one and a half story, single family home set off of the right of way. Approximately 23.2 feet directly behind a home is above ground pool with a surrounding deck. And then there's approximately 11 accessory structures along the southerly and northernly property line there's sidewalk along the entire frontage along Stilton road and a single movement, full movement driveway at the Northern end of the building that permits access in and out of the site. My second exhibit, which is marked as a two, again with tonight's date and title site plan, exhibit shows, what is being proposed by the applicant for this particular application, in which we're gonna start with the removal of six of those 11 structures, three of them along the northerly property line, including a shed, a metal container and a chicken coop, and then three additional along the Suly property line, including a car port car parts actually, and a shed in total, we're removing 1,595 square feet of accessory buildings that exist on site today.
Speaker 3So Mr. Roman you're, you're, you're projecting to remove nine of 11,
Speaker 6Not all 11 we're we're proposing to remove six of those,
Speaker 3Six of 11, thank you.
Speaker 6Existing wooden fence that exists along the southerly property line in pretty rough shape is going to be totally removed along with an existing berm. That's kind of crept over the property line is going to be removed as well. We are proposing a six foot high wooden solid fence starting on the southerly side of the property, roughly in the middle of where the pool is located. We're gonna work towards the west towards the rear of the property all the way to the rear property line across the entire rear property line. And then heading back towards Stilton road until that fence hits the 40 foot front yard setback. That's where it's going to end again, that's a six foot high solid wooden fence. We are going to eliminate the retaining wall. That's located within the right of way. We're gonna pull that back and reconstruct it outside of the right of way.
Speaker 6So this way it falls on the applicant's property. And as I mentioned, we're gonna eliminate that Southwestern leaf berm. That's kind of creeping over the property line. The applicant is proposing 20 AR variety trees, all located in the, in the Western end of the property in the rear of the property. They're going to be approximately planted at seven to eight foot in height. Mature widths usually get up to about 15 feet with a 30 foot kind of life height of these. And then we're gonna plant a few about 35 feet along each of the sub of the side yard properties, property lines heading towards Stilton road. In my review of the property, the pavement on site is in very good condition. The rear most portion of the property is stone gravel. Very well. Compacted had no problems driving my I truck over it. I saw several vehicles parked within those areas without any issues on site, we've already obtained our Middlesex county letter of no interest for the property and because we're really not doing any other disturbance, I don't see any other agency approvals that are required for this particular application.
Speaker 6I've had the opportunity to discuss with the applicant and review the two review letters. The first being the April 1st, 2022 memo from John Chadwick and saw that there was really no site plan issues that I needed to comment on. I'd believe the testimony that John was looking for was addressed by the applicant. And then the April 28th, 2022 division of engineering and planning development memorandum. We can comply with all recommendations made within that memorandum with the exception of two in discussing with the applicant. Number 10 regarding adding curbing and pavement in my review. Again, the pavement is in great condition. I saw no issues with the parking on site. My fear always, when you have an existing site that's completed in adding curbing, you basically then are changing grading and you create drainage issues. You then have to fill it up areas at least six inches for the high to the curb. This operation's been in existence for many years, decades, even, and it's been functioning well. I saw no issues and in my professional opinion, I don't believe it's necessary. The other item was number eight in terms of the additional landscaping that is being requested alongside property lines, the applicant would like to maintain the landscape and that's being proposed in front of the board on this exhibit tonight. Other than that, that, that basically summarizes my testimony for this.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 13Any other, no further questions for Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 1Thank you. Mr. Dacey. Any members of the board of any questions for Mr. Oman hearing none. Mr. Arch, please proceed.
Speaker 13Our next witness would be Ms. Colleen. McGirk our professional planner. Mr.
Speaker 3Dacey. Are you?
Speaker 21Yes. Good evening.
Speaker 3Good evening. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that testimony have the right hand? You swear testimony? You're give the truth.
Speaker 21I do
Speaker 3Your and address please.
Speaker 21Colleen mcg 20 Westwood drive. Bayville.
Speaker 3Could you spell your last name please?
Speaker 21M C G U K.
Speaker 3Thank you,
Speaker 13Ms. Mcg, have you testified in front of the, the board before
Speaker 21I have.
Speaker 13Okay. And your credentials have not changed if, if anything they've gotten better since then, correct?
Speaker 21Correct.
Speaker 1Good. You can proceed. Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 13Ms. McGirk. I'm gonna turn the floor over to you.
Speaker 21Thank you. In prepar, in preparation for this testimony, I have reviewed the land development ordinance, the 2005 master plan and the 2020 re-exam the application and plans reviewed aerials on historic aerials.com and did an onsite inspection. The subject property known as block 2101 lot 10.01 contains 43,376 square feet and is located within the R 20 residential zone. The lot contains 11 accessory structures, a one and a half story dwelling and above ground. Cool. The applicant is proposing to continue the existing landscaping business. The area is a mix of residential town homes, single family dwellings and commercial businesses directly north across Delton road is a farmer's market and dwelling, which also contains a gravel parking lot, no curbing and trucks and farm equipment. The applicant is proposing a total of 20 green giant Aite, 12 along the rear property line and four along each side of the property with a planting height of seven to eight feet and a mature height of 30 feet with a width of 15.
Speaker 21Once the plantings have matured, they will provide a substantial buffer in that area. A D one use variance is required for this existing business, as well as several bulk variances. The site is particularly suited for the, it has been located at the site for decades. As previous testimony has attempted to, without adversely impacting the surrounding neighborhood. This property has changed very little over the years, but the area around the property has become more developed. This is a low intense commercial use accessory to the existing single family dwelling. There is a mix of residential and commercial properties on Staton road, including a large town home development known as Avalon, a chase bank, summit medical group, and Dwight Eisenhower elementary school and a new multi-story residential development to the west of the property. The lot is also particularly suited for this type of use since it is long and narrow. And the majority of the structures are hidden from street view. And the residential dwelling is what is mainly seen from the roadway. The main issue is the appearance of the property, which the applicant is mitigating by proposing a total of 20 evergreen trees and a new six foot fence.
Speaker 21The applicant is also proposing to remove 1,595 or feet of accessory structures, which includes the bird coop that extends beyond the property line and five other structures. The existing fence that is in disrepair is being replaced with a six foot vinyl fence along the rear and size of the property. The existing landscaping wall within the right of way is also being removed. The 2005 master plan and the two 20 re exam show the property in the R 20 zone with no recommended changes in order to justify the variances requested bulk variants relief can be granted based upon C1 and C2 analysis. The C1 analysis deals with hardships relating to the property. The physical aspects of the site, the C2 is a weighing test to the benefits outweigh the detriments. The proposed bulk relief can be granted based on C2 analysis. Since the proposed variances advance the purposes of the Moul and the benefits of granting those variances outweigh any detriment that may result the following, both variances are required.
Speaker 21Minimum lot width is 94 point 17 feet. Whereas 100 is required. This is an existing condition. The businesses operate at this property for decades. And the lot size that is lacking is the slightly undersized lot does not pose any substantial detriment to the purpose of the zone plan. The existing front yard setback for the dwelling is 23.2 feet. Whereas 40 is required. This is also an existing condition and the location of the home has no negative impacts because existing side yard setback for the dwelling is 2.2 feet. Whereas 15 feet is required. The dwelling was constructed in 24 and is therefore preexisting nonconforming use the existing side yard setback does not create any negative impacts required side yard setback for all of the accessory structures is eight feet. Whereas the existing setbacks vary the applicant is proposing to remove six accessory structures, thereby substantially reducing the variances, the applicant of requesting variances for the frame shed and carport on the Northern side of the property where the existing setback is 3.1 4.85 feet, 3.1 feet, 4.8, five feet for the counter outdoor kitchen.
Speaker 21And also for the existing frame shed, which is 1.6 feet from the Southern property line and the existing frame garage toward the near, toward the rear of the property along the Northern property line, a paved parking lot is required and also curbing and striping for employee parking and the landscape constructing vehicles in order to prevent contamination. Whereas the majority of the lot is gravel. The lot has been functioning well with this type of use for decades or more. The lot in his current condition is similar to the surrounding uses in particular, the agricultural business farm stand located directly across Dalton. So it fits in with the existing character of the neighborhood. Since it has been part of the neighborhood for decades, the Township has also called out a variance for the parking area and outdoor storage within residential zone. This variance should be subsumed as the use variance is granted.
Speaker 21The existing impacts of the parking area are being mitigated by the proposed six foot vinyl fence, which will replace the existing wooden fence, which is in disrepair. And prior testimony has stated that no outdoor storage of landscaping materials will be occurring. This use in both variants application advances, several purposes of the lul. I promise I'm wrapping up purpose a to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in a, in the state in a matter, which will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. We know that the proper is located in the R 20 zoning district and contains a single family dwelling with an accessory landscape business use. The existing use is consistent with the surrounding area. No changes are proposed to the site and no expansion of the current use and an improvement of 20 evergreen trees purpose G to provide sufficient space and for a variety of agriculture, residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial uses and open space, both public and private, according to the respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens.
Speaker 21This area contains a mix of residential and commercial. And this business provides services to the local residents purpose M to encourage coordination of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping land development with a view of lessening, the cost of such development into the more efficient use of land. I believe the Township should approve this application and allow it to continue in its presence use. But with the proposed improvements while eliminating multiple variances, the only negative impact is visual. There are no operations, retail or production on site, only storage of equipment, and the fence will provide sufficient mitigation of any visual impacts in a day to the landscaping proposed. It is my professional opinion that the granting of the use Varis and the both variances will not result in substantial detriment to the public. Good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the master plan for the zone plan. This an existing business, the building size and low intensity of the use will remain the same. The benefits of this business will outweigh any of the detriments. Thank you.
Speaker 3Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe Mr. Henderson has some comments he would like to make perfect.
Speaker 5Mr. Chairman looking at this since it's a use variance case, and since Mr. Dacey may not, not own this property forever, and it may be sold. I think that the B to consider some conditions upon the use variance so that if the property is sold, we don't all a sudden have a, a landscaper here who's doing, you know, substantially more work then maybe Mr. Dacey is right now. I appreciate the fact that his business isn't that intense right now, but once you offer, or once you grant this use experience, it doesn't, you know, prohibit another landscape or from purchasing this property. And, you know, maybe running a little bit wild here. So, I mean, he talked about the number of vehicles that are stored there, perhaps, you know, bump it up a little bit, but, you know, put a limit on the number of vehicles, perhaps 10, perhaps the type of vehicles are no greater than like a 10 Cahn truck, which I think Mr. Dacey said he doesn't have even any those anymore, perhaps prohibit heavy machine from being stored on the site.
Speaker 3Could you, could you just say that again,
Speaker 5Event heavy machinery from being kept on the site, excavators, things of that nature, small machinery, backhoes, many excavators would be okay. I, I think no, no repairs allowed on site, strictly maintenance of machinery and vehicles, you know, that's sort of customary for, for those vehicles. I, I definitely think that the offering should be a little bit more standard to the ones being Provo provided than single row of our variety. I think that's a start, but again, I think in any commercial area versus a residential area, I believe the ordinance requires a 50 foot buffer. So, you know, to put a single row of our varieties, I, I, we need to, you know, I, I could live with a single row perhaps of our variety along the sides of the property. It's narrowness, perhaps just in the area where the majority of the equipment will be stored.
Speaker 5And I'd be more than happy to work with the applicants engineer on, on, on that. And then perhaps doubling up the, the, from along the rear rear lot line against the, the multifamily again, full residential surrounding this property. I'm sure it'll be developed even to more INED at some point. And we have this landscape use smack in the middle of all that it's residential. So again, I think those things will help prevent, you know, your entity that may come in after any proper. So I agree. And, and I think that would hopefully give the, the adjacent residence of comfort.
Speaker 1I agree. Mr. Dacey. Do you agree to those comments?
Speaker 0Mr.
Speaker 6Dacey. Mr. Dacey. If you've heard what Mr. Hinterstein said, do you agree to those conditions to limit? Let, let me speak before you ask him that question, cause I'm gonna offer a couple others. You said there's no retail sales that should be included. You said, said there's no hazardous materials being stored. That should be added, said, no bulk material would be stored. That should be The trucks. You increased it from eight to 10 Henry.
Speaker 5I mean, I I'm willing to work with them. It's a decent size property.
Speaker 6Yeah.
Speaker 512. I'm happy with, but you know,
Speaker 1Size of the truck
Speaker 5Becomes a point where, you know, we, we wanna put some limit in case it old and then a bigger out that comes in and tries.
Speaker 6Yeah. Well that, that's why I think if you do retail prohibit that the only thing they didn't comment on. And I can't remember from field Cahn, you ever sign out there?
Speaker 13I don't believe that. No, there's no signage and Mr. Dacey. There's no proposal to put any signage. Cause quite frankly, don't
Speaker 6I would include that if the board approves it.
Speaker 20Yes.
Speaker 6Okay. Cause
Speaker 20The Bushs are no problem. You know what I mean? In the back.
Speaker 13So Mr. Dacey. If I may, if I can ask, if you heard all the comments of Mr. Hinterstein and you've heard the comments of Mr. Chadwick, do you agree to those condition? And in addition, do you agree to work with Mr. Hinterstein in terms of maybe modifying the plantings a bit and work out some sort of negotiation as to what yeah.
Speaker 20He, he wants more bushes in the back, right? Henry A. Little
Speaker 5Bit like a double row of buffering in the back and maybe a single row that extends a little bit further down the sides. That's all.
Speaker 20Yeah. That that's no problem at all. You know, Actually I had no idea, you know, how many was gonna go in there, you know? Okay.
Speaker 5Figured after one condition, as a landscaper, you wouldn't have a problem with
Speaker 20No, you, me and you have worked together before we know the landscaping business
Speaker 1And you got it. Any other members of the board have any questions for this application or comments hearing none. I'm gonna open up to the public. Anyone in the public portion have any comments or questions about this application? Buckley?
Speaker 2No one is raising their hand Chairman.
Speaker 1Okay. Hearing none. I'm gonna close the public portion and I'm gonna make a motion to approve this with the amendments and the language that Henry and Ms. John Chadwick, just put in at the end there.
Speaker 6Oh second.
Speaker 1Thank you. Okay. To roll the call. Roll. Sorry.
Speaker 2Agriculture. Mr. Weisman.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Patel.
Speaker 6Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Dacey.
Speaker 20Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Mitterando. Yes. And Chairman Cahill.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 6Mr.
Speaker 3Dacey your applications to approve.
Speaker 13Thank you so much. I was gonna quote the, the definition from Websters of landscaping, but cut me off too quickly. So I'll just say
Speaker 1Have a good night. Mr. Dacey. Thank,
Speaker 6Thank you everyone. Have a good night.
Speaker 1Right? We have to circle back to item number 6 21 dash 43 V sub Romanian,
Case 21-43-V: Sub Romanian - Accessory Structure Repair
21-43-V
AI
02:07:20 – 02:17:09
Applicant sought variance to repair deteriorating accessory structure without providing evidence of preexisting nonconforming status (pre-1953). Applicant appeared before board multiple times over two years without submitting professional planner testimony. Board determined applicant failed to meet burden of proof; neighbor testified structure is a safety and fire hazard. Application DENIED without prejudice.
Speaker 2Sub
Speaker 1Sub is
Speaker 3Mr. Sub Romanian present Again? Is Mr. Sub Romanian present?
Speaker 6Yes, sir. I'm here
Speaker 2Showed up.
Speaker 3Okay. Okay. Are you ready to proceed, Sir? Are you ready to proceed, Mr. So Romanian, are you ready to put your case on?
Speaker 6Yes sir. I am.
Speaker 3Okay. You were previously sworn in, in this application, is that correct?
Speaker 6Yes.
Speaker 3You remained sworn in to tell the truth, please go ahead.
Speaker 6Okay. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, we want to basically this, we applied for Arians to repair and the existing accessory structure with no changes in there. And this is a legal structure that was there when we purchased the property 30 years ago,
Speaker 3It is Mr. Silverman. It is not a legal structure. That is why you're here.
Speaker 6It, we have deed that we sent over and I think I sent to Laura and I have the deed. It,
Speaker 3It, it does not matter what the deed says if the deed is not from prior to 1953.
Speaker 6OK. The One thing I can say on that is that the type of the structure that's there, that basically based on the construction, that's there, this type of construction. And also I have evaluation that shows that this structures been there since 1953. And I sent that the evaluation, which I got from upper request and that I sent to Ms. Buckley, and that the Bullard should have that
Speaker 3The, the documents that you have submitted do not support that. The two accessory structures have been there since prior to 1953.
Speaker 6If you look at the evaluation, that's there from, there are two evaluations that there, one from 1974, that's there. If you look in the let see, if you can bring that up, I think the board should have that. The evaluation that was sent
Speaker 3Evaluation from 1973 does not help your case. You need to supply something from prior to 1953,
Speaker 6There's there's one other valuation, right. To have from that's there. And that also includes this structure that's there. And the one of the 1974, that shows that this structure has been there for more than 20 years.
Speaker 3Sir, you have not provided proof that this is a, these are preexisting non-conforming structures. Do you have any additional evidence to offer to the board?
Speaker 6I don't have any of the additional evidence except that the type of the structure that's there, it's a balloon structure. And that type of construction's not been there in the scatter. I mean, from like mid fifties. And that's one things that shows that this structure has been there before, prior to 1950,
Speaker 3Right? Mr. Chairman, this applicant is not requi applied for a nonconforming use certificate. He applied for variances. Mr. Superman, do you have any other witnesses?
Speaker 6No, I don't have any other witnesses. Okay.
Speaker 3Do you have a professional planner witness?
Speaker 6No, I can get one, but I don't have one
Speaker 3Weisman. You've been before the board, at least four times before you've been given an opportunity to a amend your application for a nonconforming use. You have not done. So you keep claiming it's a nonconforming use, but you haven't applied for a nonconforming use. You've applied for variances yet. You haven't supplied any evidence to the board through a professional witness, like a planner to justify the variances, your seat. Do you have any other evidence to offer to the board?
Speaker 6Except the ones from the opera request? I don't have any other and the deed that's there that shows that it was legally transferred over to me
Speaker 3Besides, and you you've previously supplied that to the board, is that correct?
Speaker 6Yeah, I did supply that to the board.
Speaker 3Do you have any other evidence to offer to the board other than what you've already submitted?
Speaker 6No, I don't.
Speaker 0Okay.
Speaker 3Mr. Chairman, this applicant has certain legal requirements. He has not met them. I have to advise the board that the board should deny this application
Speaker 6Ill request. Before you do that, sir, I'll request to gimme one more chance. Let me bring a professional planner to, you know, go through this and
Speaker 1The board three times you were in front. I missed one of your hearings here, but we've asked you three times to bring back professional and each time you've come back just by yourself with the two documents that you submitted the first time you were in front of this board there at this point, you're, it's been going on for over a year, two years almost. And it, frankly, you're wasting the zoning board's time. And, and the, the, the Township efforts here, I'm gonna, I'm gonna ask the, the members of the board to deny this application without prejudice and
Speaker 3That's, and, and technically Mr. Chairman, we should open it to the public because they have been here all of these times.
Speaker 1Okay. Anyone in the public portion have any comments to give on this application?
Speaker 2Yeah, Uzman Azi. Mr.
Speaker 3Dacey. Are you present?
Speaker 22Yes, I am.
Speaker 3Could you raise your right hand?
Speaker 22Yes, I do
Speaker 3Testimony you the truth.
Speaker 22Yes, I do.
Speaker 3Thank you. Your name and address please?
Speaker 22Yes. My address is 10 Wal court, Piscataway and zip code eight eight.
Speaker 3Thank you. Could we have your comments please?
Speaker 22Sure. Thank you so much for this opportunity. I think we just, our property is located right next to this structure, and I think we moved into this property in the February of 2020. And I think as the Chairman I pointed out it's been going on for the past two years. I think our major concern has been the, you know, the current, you know, the share of this structure because, you know, even the, the walls and the roof is completely demolished. You know, they're sort of falling off. We can't really go into our backyard because we are scared because something can always, you know, fall down. So I would really appreciate for the board to sort of, you know, decide on this structure either it's gonna stay, then it should be prepared, you know, as soon as possible because it is a hazard for at least two or three properties that are, you know, basically sharing this, the backyards with this property. So that is, has been our major concern. The other issue I wanna bring to the board is that, you know, we've seen a lot of vouchers and I don't know, like different kind of animals that are sort OFID within the structure. You know? I mean, so this is certainly, you know, a hazard for at least the neighbors, the image of neighbors who, you know, living in a closed vicinity to the structure. So we really appreciate the board to sort of take, you know, the step to sort of address this issue. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1Thank you. Mr. Dacey, Laura. Anyone else?
Speaker 2No one Chairman.
Speaker 1Okay. Close the public portion. My suggestion is still out there. I vote to deny this applicant without I have a question. Steve, do we, by denying this, does that mean that the tructure must be removed?
Speaker 3If, if the board denies it, that the Township can take enforcement issues, whatever that entails, if they detail, if they figure that the board or that the structure is not repairable, they can issue a demolition requirement. That's not up to the board, essentially. The, the has not provided proofs to the board, sufficient to grant variances. That's the end of it. Then it becomes the Township issue.
Speaker 1Thank you for the clarification. I did a walkthrough of the area and I would agree with Mr. Dacey. This is not just an I saw it's a danger to the community. Absolutely well, and a fire hazard. So I, I would like to second the motion that we thank you, Mr. Weisman. You're welcome. Ms. Buckley, please call
Speaker 2Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. Reio. Yes. Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. And Chairman Cahill.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 3Mr. Dacey. Your application has been denied. We will Alize this in a written document in our next meeting and send a copy to you.
Speaker 1Let's move on to item number 13, the adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting of April 14th, 2022.
Adoption of Resolutions
AI
02:17:16 – 02:19:00
Board adopted resolutions memorializing prior approvals from April 14, 2022 meeting: Vincent Sango, Tolosa Sarah, and Kumar N.A. applications approved; one application withdrawal approved.
Speaker 3The first resolution is Vincent Sango. This application was approved. Mr. Weisman,
Speaker 1You muted Steve? Sorry. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio
Speaker 2I think we're losing a
Speaker 3Mr. Mitterando. Yes. Chairman Kago.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 3Next resolution is told to Sarah. This application was approved. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio. Yes. Mr. Mitterando.
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 3Karen Cahill. Yes. Next resolution is Kumar. NA, this application was approved. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio. Yes. Mr. Mitterando.
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 3Chairman Cahill. Yes. The last resolution is a resolution with, for that's an application. They notified us that they wanted to withdraw. So I will need a motion. And a second on that. And of those,
Speaker 1I make a motion All in favor.
Speaker 3We still need a voice on or
Speaker 1Role call Laura. Did you hear me? I, I, I made the offer.
Speaker 2You made the offer. Okay. So we have Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Dacey. Yes. Mr. Mitterando. Yes. And Chairman Cato. Yes.
Speaker 3Those are all the resolutions that I have.
Approval of Minutes and Adjournment
AI
02:19:02 – 02:19:15
Board approved minutes from regular meeting of April 14, 2022. Motion to adjourn passed unanimously.
Speaker 1Thank you. I'm number 14 at the option of the minutes from the regular meeting of April 14, 20, 22. All in favor, say aye.
Speaker 2Aye.
Speaker 1Okay. And I make a motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All right, ladies and gentlemen, once again, thank you for coming out this evening. It was a long one tonight, bud. It, the Township appreciates it. Thanks again, everyone be safe. Good.