Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on September 14 2023
Transcript generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Use the audio player to verify any passage.
Sep 14 2023 · Zoning
0:00
–:––
Speaker 0Got it. The zoning board of adjustment meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Coer News notice posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building notice made available to the Township clerk notice sent to the Coer News and the star ledger. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Speaker 1Mr. Weisman?
Speaker 0Here.
Speaker 1Mr. Patel?
Speaker 0Here. Here.
Speaker 1Mr. Reggio?
Speaker 0Here.
Speaker 1Here. Mr. Blo, Mr. Ali and Chairman Cahill
Speaker 0Here. Here will everyone please stand for the I pledge Allegiance, the flag, the United States of America and two, the Republic stands. One Nation under God individual would justice Mr. Kinneally, are there any changes to tonight's agenda? Yes, there are quite a few changes. Anybody here on the Santiago application on Birchwood Drive that is adjourned until October 12th with no further notice by the applicant? Anyone here on the Rivera application on Oxford Street that is adjourned until September 28th with no further notice by the applicant? Anyone here on the Bradshaw application on Quincy Street that is adjourned until October 26th with no further notice? And finally, anyone here on N B A D one on Parker on Park Avenue that is adjourned until October 26th with no further notice? So the only notice you're receiving on those applications is my announcement here tonight. Thank you, Mr. Kinneally. Let's move on to item number 5 23 dash ZB dash 75 v. Alita Gutierrez?
Speaker 3Yes. This she? Yes, I am. Emily Gutierrez.
Speaker 0Okay, Ms. Gutierrez, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth?
Speaker 3Yes, I do.
Speaker 0Thank you. Your address, please?
Speaker 367 Anita Drive, Skyway, New Jersey.
Speaker 0Thank you. Could you explain to the board why you're here?
Speaker 3Well, we're applying for a fence in our property. And I understand this is a variance application because it's the easement is gonna be affected.
Speaker 0And you understand that access to the easement is ever necessary. You would be responsible for removing that fence and shed at your own cost.
Speaker 3Yes. I have some questions on that. What are examples of repairs or maintenance or anything?
Speaker 0There's generally not maintenance involved, it's just whether or not something in the easement breaks and they need to get to dig it up and fix it.
Speaker 3What, what would be examples of, you know, that they have to, to repair? Or
Speaker 0Henry, do we know what kind of easement this is?
Speaker 5I believe it's a utility easement. Not a hundred percent sure, to be honest with you.
Speaker 0So, Ms. Gutierrez, if it's a utility easement, that means there may be underground wires running, and if one of those wires were to break, they might have to dig up the gland to fix that. It's very unlikely. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
Speaker 3Can I ask another question? Sure. When was the last time that it was repaired or fixed or
Speaker 0We don't have that information?
Speaker 4No, we don't know that.
Speaker 5I don't believe ever. But again, it's not information that the board has. Most likely it's an easement for either storm water management pipes or sewer versus, you know, any other utility. So again, the, the chances that something goes wrong is probably slim, but it's always a possibility. And if you wanna place those items in the easement, you have to be aware that you know any, if we do need to access those easements, all costs would be your, your responsibility to remove and replace those items.
Speaker 3Okay. How, how much notice do I have to do? You have to let me know how long before
Speaker 0The Township would let you know and give you notice.
Speaker 3Okay.
Speaker 4Okay. Any other members of the board have any questions about this application? Hearing none, I'd like to open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application?
Speaker 1No. One Chairman.
Speaker 4Thank you. Ms. Buckley, close the public portion and I'd make a motion to approve this application.
Speaker 1I the second
Speaker 4Call the rule, please.
Speaker 1Mr. Weisman? Yes. Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Yes. Mr. Regio?
Speaker 4Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1Did Mr. Blo show up Mr. Ali? Yes. Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Yes.
Speaker 4Yes,
Speaker 0Ms. Gutierrez, your application has been approved. We will memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting. You don't need to be present for that. We'll mail that document to you.
Speaker 3Okay? So I have to wait for that document before I can start, right? Yes. Okay. Do I have to apply again or is there any, anything that I need to do after this for the fencing? The, the contractor? Do, do they have to apply you?
Speaker 5You would have, you, you would've to reapply for a zoning permit. I imagine you applied at one time and it was denied because you needed the variance. So you'll have to reapply for a zoning permit for the fence in, in order to put the fence up. Okay. Is the shed the shed's existing? Correct? Yeah. Yeah. So you, you would need the zoning permit for the, the new fence that you're proposing to put in.
Speaker 4Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Good luck. Let's move on to item number 6 23 dash ZB dash 77 V. Catherine Rizzi. Thank you too. Thank you, ma'am. Have a good night.
Speaker 6Hello.
Speaker 4Hi, Catherine.
Speaker 0Hi. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Yes. Your name and address, please? Katherine?
Speaker 6EY 13 Debra Drive. Piscataway.
Speaker 0Thank you. Could you explain what you'd like to do here?
Speaker 6We are seeking a variance to put a shed in our backyard.
Speaker 4Okay. Mr. Hinterstein, do you have any comments on this? You're muted in. I
Speaker 5Believe the comments on this one are the same as this previous application. We just heard that. I, I believe the shed is actually, this shed is a little bit, this one's a little bit different. It's nine feet is allowed and I think this shed's 10.67 feet. We just double check.
Speaker 6Yes, it's a little bit tall and we have an undersized lot by a little bit.
Speaker 5Yeah, the undersized lot is an in correctable item. It was developed like that. I don't have any issues. There's no coverage variances required for this application. That's really more just the fact that the lot was developed in that matter. So I, I just believe that the height variance being requested is di minimis. At best, it's, it's about a foot over, so I don't see any issues with this application.
Speaker 4Okay. Catherine, you're okay with the, the language there about the easement?
Speaker 0There's no easement here.
Speaker 4Oh, I'm sorry. What was I reading? I apologize. Alright. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Hearing none. I'm gonna close it and, and I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any que questions or comments about this application?
Speaker 1No. One Chairman. Thank
Speaker 4You, Ms. Buckley. I'm gonna close the public portion and make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? I'll second it. Please call the roll.
Speaker 1Mr. Weisman? Yes. Yes. Mr. Patel Kalpesh. Unmute. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Regio?
Speaker 4Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Ellie? Yes.
Speaker 5Yes.
Speaker 1And Chairman? Cahill? Yes.
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 0Ms. Zi, you have been granted your variance. You realize it in a written document at our next meeting and sent that document to you. You'll need that to get your permits.
Speaker 6Thank you.
Speaker 4Thank you. May I
Speaker 6Exit the zoom call?
Speaker 4Yes, please.
Speaker 0You're all done. Good
Speaker 6Evening.
Speaker 4Let's move on to, to item number 8 23 dash ZB dash 47 V Leanna
Speaker 7Kez. Yep.
Speaker 4Sorry about that. That's
Speaker 7Okay.
Speaker 0I, ma'am, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth?
Speaker 7Yes.
Speaker 0Your name and address please?
Speaker 7Name is Leanna Commanders. The address of the proposed law is 2 31 Highland Ave. Oh,
Speaker 0Thank you. And could you explain to the board what you would like to do here? Yep.
Speaker 7We're seeking a variance to build a small home on an undersized lot. I'm looking for a small home from me and my son. My dad is a contractor. We found this vacant lot through living locally. My family all lives in Piscataway, and my son goes to Piscataway school. So we thought this lot would be perfect to build a small home on after Jonathan completed proposed plan. So we have a proposed plan that we completed after Jonathan. The surveyor completed the survey, showed the area on the lot where I could build. I asked my dad and the architect, Paul, to design something that would fit in with the neighborhood and on the lot. They helped show where the survey, on the survey where the house would be placed. I also noted where the driveway, sidewalk and the utility lines are anticipated to be placed. Told Jonathan to put the red lines on the survey so the board could see my proposal. If the application is approved, I'll make sure that construction plans are submitted to the construction department for approval.
Speaker 8Jim, just by way of background, technically speaking, Leanne is represented by counsel, and I do have a professional planner here to testify as to the sea variances. And also I have the surveyor and the, the designer here to answer any questions. If the board has any,
Speaker 4I'd like to have Mr. Hinterstein address the, the application, if we could, his comments?
Speaker 5Yeah. And this applicant's been before us. Previously at that time, the, the, the, the plans that were submitted were a little bit, you know, a little bit intense for the lot. I think the, the applicant took the plants, went back and sort of gave it a, a, a, you know, another go at it and revised the plants. We reviewed those revised plans and, and they, they've made a great effort to get them a little bit less intense. I think they brought the roof line down a little bit, or maybe that was the one thing that I wasn't a hundred percent addressed. But they did address a lot of the concerns that we had, I believe on the first submission of the plans. I believe that the, the comments that we may now, we're just trying to bring the roof line down to about 28 feet, just confirming that that would be possible. And that, again, as, as the applicant had stated that they would bring in construction plans that show all the required items for a single family home. And they were outlined in the, in the staff report. But at, at this time, I, I would definitely like to hear the, the planner's testimony just to justify the, the variances what's on the record.
Speaker 8Okay. Thank you so much. I have Glenn Patterson here, professional planner, if you wanna swear him in.
Speaker 0Mr. Patterson, could you raise your right hand?
Speaker 9Yes. Where
Speaker 0The testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 9Yes.
Speaker 10So,
Speaker 8Glenn, can you just very briefly give the board the benefit of your educational background and professional experience?
Speaker 9Sure. I have a bachelor's degree from American University and a master's in city and regional planning from Rutgers State University. I'm a professional planner in the state of New Jersey, member of the American Institute of Certified Planners that have testified in front of various boards in the area, including Highland Park Meltdown. Mr.
Speaker 4Patterson, I'm, I'm happy with your, your credentials. Okay. Very well. Thank
Speaker 9You. Thank
Speaker 8You. Thank you so much. So Glenn, why don't you just tell the board what the basis is supporting the, the C variances, which as noted by Mr. Hinterstein, consists now of the lot area lot width and lot frontage. And then just by way of, of clarification, and if you would pre prefer that Mr. Rodak testify as to what the garage measurements from the inea inside are, in fact, 12 feet by 20 feet, which do meet the ordinance requirements. There is a step located within the 12 by 20 foot area. However, under your ordinance, it does note that as far as I can, I can tell that does not interfere with the vehicle and therefore would not technically be a variance. But I would defer obviously to Mr. Hinterstein and the board's preference and Mr. Patterson's testimony. So, I'm sorry with that, please go ahead client if you don't mind. Okay,
Speaker 9Sure. The property is an isolated vacant 50 by 100 lot. In the R 10 zone, a single family three bedroom house with two parking spaces is proposed. This is a permitted use and the parking requirement is met. This Westlake has just reviewed the, the variances that are being requested, lot size, lot width, lot frontage, and possibly the parking space stall dimensions. The proposal meets all of the Township standards for setbacks, height, and coverage. This demonstrates that the proposal addresses all of the traditional concerns regarding zoning, such as providing adequate light air and open space. Regarding the lot dimension variances, I'll cover them all together. Since they're all related. The title report that the board has as part of the application package found that this 50 by 100 lot has been on the tax maps since 1922. This predates zoning and it's a legal non-conforming lot.
Speaker 9The lots on the block face alternate between 50 and a hundred lots and 100 by 100 lots. The patterns repeated on the adjoining block, fronting on Park Avenue. This evidence is that the original layout of the lots in the neighborhood included these 50 by 100 lots. Now the basis for granting a variance for an undersized lot comes from the Dalal Meyer v Lacy case, which set forth a four-part test for analyzing development on an isolated undersized lot. The first part of that test was whether an effort was made to bring the lots into conformance, and the answer is, is yes. The adjoining lots are previously developed on 100 by 100 lots and non-available for acquisition or merger. The staff report notes that a partial subdivision of the adjoining lots cannot be done without creating undersized conditions on the adjoining lots. The subject lot was listed publicly for sale for about four years. Google Street View photography, which I viewed showed that a for sale sign was on the lot dating back to 2018. Again, in 2021, Google did another street view pass by and the for sale sign was still there at the, at that time, the for sale signs were on the property. As recently as this past spring, when the applicant became the contract person, purchaser, the adjoining property owners did not offer to purchase the, the lot to remove the, the non-conformity through merger.
Speaker 9The second part of the test is have plans been submitted that describe the project's appearance and compliance with building codes. Again, the answer is yes, the board has the plans and they demonstrate that the proposal is for permitted use that is modest in scope and in character with the other development in the neighborhood. The structure will meet all the applicable building codes. The third part of the test is does the proposal attempt to comply with other standards of the zoning ordinance? Again, the answer is yes. All the yard setbacks, building coverages and height meet the standards set by the Township. The use is permitted. And finally, the fourth part of the test is does the proposal satisfy the traditional criteria of zoning? Again, the answer is yes. The proposal does not violate any traditional zoning purpose such as light air and open space. The municipal land use law sets forth the purposes of zoning and purpose.
Speaker 9C is to provide adequate light, air and open space. The Township has adopted this verbatim as a purpose in its zoning ordinance, and the Township has then set standards in the R 10 zone to provide adequate light air and open space by creating setback coverage and height standards. The project meets or exceeds all of these standards while the setbacks are met, while the building codes are met and the use is permitted, the lot variance can be granted on a C one hardship basis. The lot, the adjoining lots are previously developed. The subject lot was publicly listed for sale. The adjoining owners did not offer to purchase the lot to remove the non-conformity. Through merger, the applicant cannot make the lot, lot compliant with the area and with requirements. This makes the lot development impractical without variance relief. I just wanna clarify as to whether the, the garage parking space dimension is a, a variance or whether we have complied with that as the space is 12 by 20.
Speaker 5Can you confirm, Glen, that I, it appears on the plan that there was one step is, or maybe maybe Paul can answer that if there,
Speaker 9There is one step in there, but as Ms. Westlake was saying, when we read the the ordinance, it said if it impeded the parking of the
Speaker 5Vehicle, and I, and I agree that won't impede that if it's just one step. I just wanted to confirm that that's the plan again, because there really isn't any engineering plans. You know, even two steps I don't feel really will impede that. Yeah. But depending on, again, we don't have garage floor elevations, first floor elevations. I, I think as long as two steps are maintained in the garage, I agree. I don't think a variance is required and I don't, I don't think there's any issue. There won't be any impedance to that, to that overall garage dimension.
Speaker 9Yeah. Perhaps Mr. Rodick could opine on that.
Speaker 11Yes.
Speaker 5We, you might wanna swear in and yeah. Yes.
Speaker 0Yeah. Mr. Rhode. Okay. Can you raise your right hand? Swear the testimony you read to give should be the truth?
Speaker 11Yes.
Speaker 0Your name and address please?
Speaker 11Paul Eck, four Henrietta Street, east Brunswick, New Jersey.
Speaker 0Thank you.
Speaker 8Paul, can you just clarify that for the board that you are the, in fact the drafter of these plans and Correct. And then speak to Mr. Henderson's question?
Speaker 11Yes.
Speaker 8Okay. Thank you. And you, you will be the person involved in developing the construction plans?
Speaker 11Correct.
Speaker 8Okay. So you're, is it fair to say you're confident that it will be limited to one to two steps from the, so
Speaker 11The garage, so two things with the garage, there will be two steps in the garage and also we, we intentionally move the garage door over, we offset it from the center to the right, if you look at the plan, so that the steps are on the left. So it allows even more room if you pull the car in with even two steps. There's more space there to allow for easy clearance to get in and up and down those steps and still access in and out of the car and a 12 foot wide garage.
Speaker 8Okay. Great. Thank you.
Speaker 4Any other members of the board have any questions?
Speaker 9As gonna put, I, I can also do an analysis to say the project supports us on a C two, flexible C analysis. Also, if the board rich wishes to, to hear that or if you wanna move on.
Speaker 4I, I think we can move on. I, okay. Speaking on behalf of the board, I think we've heard a testimony at this point. Any other applicant,
Speaker 0Mr. Chairman, the, a applicant does need to address Henry's comments about the building height?
Speaker 4Oh, I thought that that was addressed. I'm sorry that
Speaker 5Was not
Speaker 8Okay. Then if you wouldn't mind, Paul, could you speak to that issue of the request by the board to reduce the
Speaker 11Height ceiling? Yes. So we ceiling correct Or roof, sorry, I apologize.
Speaker 8Sure, no worries.
Speaker 11So yeah, so we maintain the, the building is still, the overall height from grade to ridge is still shown at 30 foot four inches. First floor is nine foot, second floor is eight foot. That allows us to have an attic space, clear attic space of about eight and a half feet, which we felt for storage space, it's a non inhabitable space for storage only would allow for better storage up there. If we drop it down to 28, it brings that attic space down to six foot, six gives us a less clearance area. Also, I felt it was better proportionately, elevation wise, with the roof being at an eight on 12 pitch instead of a six on 12. It gives a much better street appearance of the house. So that's why we kept it at the 30 foot four inches knowing that the allowable was 35. We're still below the allowable, but not at the 28.
Speaker 8Also, correct me if I'm wrong, and perhaps Leanna can also speak to this since, since your father is the guy that's gonna be building the house for you, it's my understanding that the hope was to also incorporate the heating unit for the second floor up there. And that if the, if the height of the attic is reduced, that will create significant issues with respect to placing the furnace, the heating furnace for the second floor in the attic part. Is that accurate, Leanna? Yes,
Speaker 5That's correct.
Speaker 8Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 5My, my only concern is, again, I, again, this is a undersized lot. It's half the size. So you gotta understand the ordinances created for a lot that's intended to be 10,000 square feet. So although you comply with the ordinances, the fact that this, there's a lot that's half the size. There were some concerns about the height due to the fact that the lot is smaller, that there's also some modest homes adjacent to this property. So I, I believe the, the height issue was again, one of light air and open space that's been brought up by Mr. Patterson's testimony. But I think it's the township's feeling is that that will help with the light air and open space and help to not overpower the adjacent properties or the home, the modest homes on the adjacent properties for that reason. 'cause it's, it's a, it's a tight lot sandwiched between two conforming lots with modest homes on it.
Speaker 5So I understand that the preference may be to put the heating unit in the attic. It probably still can at six and a half feet. I don't, I don't see why it wouldn't be able to, everything would remain the same other than the, the really, the, the pitch of the roof aesthetically I agree, would probably be a little bit more attractive at a, at a steeper pitch. But I'll leave it up to the board. I know in the past there's been concerns about homes being put in on oversized lots and, and an effort made to, to keep that height, you know, at a, at a range where it's, it's not over overbearing on the adjacent properties. So again, I don't know if this house is going to have a basement, if it's a slab. So, you know, there may be some other options with the, with the, the furnace or the, the, the utilities. But I still think even at six and a half feet you have adequate space to put a, a unit in there. You just may not be able to, you know, I mean eight feet, you know, would be quite, quite a height you could stand in that you might have to crouch a little bit in some areas of the attic. But I, I think it's still a functioning attic at, at that 28 foot height, you know, and that six to 12 isn't an unreasonable roof pitch.
Speaker 4Thank you Henry. Ms. Westlake, I think this might be the line in the sand. I mean, if you wanna speak to your client for a minute about, I think we, I I can read the temperature of the board and we probably have to hold hard with this 28 feet.
Speaker 8No, I greatly appreciate that opportunity and my client has indicated that if it's absolutely a necessity and it would result in a denial in the absence of the reduction in the height, they will agree to that. It's, it, you know, it's not their preference and their concern is understood is, is, I mean, in the event that someone comes and buys the two adjacent lots and builds a 35 foot house, then they're gonna be overwhelmed. So hopefully the board,
Speaker 4There's so many scenarios that can possibly come up though. We, I can appreciate that point, but that's a scenario that we can't address tonight. Tonight
Speaker 5And what we, what we might be able to do instead of holding that. I think Mr. Rodick, you said the height right now is proposed at 30 feet, 30 foot, 30 foot four inches. I mean, we, we could just say it'll come down two feet, 28 4 or or less than 29. And if that, that helps a little bit. You know, I don't know. I mean you're, we're talking about roof pictures, so everything sort of works in sort of more whole numbers, I think. But you know, maybe you can get it. I think it's, as long as it's under 29, we could, we could compromise to that number. Okay. And then I'll let you guys work that out. You know,
Speaker 8I think we can probably work that out. Presumably that would be something that could be worked out at the construction plan level
Speaker 5As
Speaker 8A condition plan based on a resolution conditioned upon, you know, less 29 feet or less type of thing.
Speaker 5Okay. And just, just finally, Jim, I had a question for Mr. Kinneally. Jim, I understand the testimony was this property has been for sale and, and nobody's purchased it, but is it still, I think, required that they actually specifically write a letter to each adjoining property owner and show that, that they did, you know, put this out there to the adjacent homeowners? You know, perhaps they didn't know the property was on sale. Perhaps it was just on Zillow and they didn't know, maybe there wasn't a sign. I, I don't know, but I don't know if what the law, you know, is on that. There were, there were signs satisfactory the testimony that's been provided or letters were provided regarding that.
Speaker 0Ordinarily when you're looking to sell or buy a piece of adjoining property letters are sent to the adjoining neighbors. In this case where they were, they, they could not do that because it would make a non-conforming lot. So in this case, they had to offer to sell the property to the adjoining neighbor and by marketing it on the open market, placing signs on the property and not receiving a response from either adjoining neighbor, I think they've done what the law required. Okay.
Speaker 5Sounds good.
Speaker 4Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you, Henry. Thank you. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments about the testimony that has been given? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it up to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application?
Speaker 1No. One Chairman. Okay.
Speaker 4I'd make a motion to approve this application with the comments that Henry mentioned about the less than 29 feet. Can I get a second? I have
Speaker 1A second.
Speaker 4Call the roll please.
Speaker 1Mr. Weisman? Yes.
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Patel? Yes. Yes. Mr. Regio?
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 1Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Yes.
Speaker 0Ms. Westlake, we will memorialize this at our next meeting and send a copy to you.
Speaker 8Perfect. Thank you all so much for your time. Thank you.
Speaker 4Thank, thank you.
Speaker 8Have a great day.
Speaker 5Have
Speaker 0A good night. Good
Speaker 4Night. Move on. Move on to item number 9 23 dash ZB 50 v Amir Matawa.
Speaker 0Is Amir Matawa here? Yes, I'm here, sir, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 12Yes.
Speaker 0Can I have your name and address please?
Speaker 12Name is Amir Valla. The address is 5 2 6 6 Foster Street at Pisca, New Jersey.
Speaker 0Thank you. Can you explain to the board what you're doing here?
Speaker 12I'm trying to add, finish the porch at the back of the property, and I'm at the variance board to grant relief because my lot size is about 9,700 square feet versus the 10,000 square feet required by the Township.
Speaker 4Mr. Stein, would you be able to shed some light on this? Oh, there's, I'm sorry, I'm reading over the documentation now. You're muted. You're
Speaker 1Muted.
Speaker 5All right. Gimme a sec there.
Speaker 4Okay. You're, you're good.
Speaker 5I just wanna pull up that report here. And I believe this is again, you know, existing condition. I looked at this and I really don't think there's any issues with the, the addition remaining as it was previously constructed. I think really this stems from a slightly undersized lot. So there's, there's no, no issues with this application.
Speaker 4Great. Any other members of the board of any questions for this applicant or any comments? Hearing now? I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application?
Speaker 1No. One Chairman
Speaker 4Okay. Close the public portion and I'll make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? I'll second for the rule, please.
Speaker 1Mr. Weisman? Yes. Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Yes.
Speaker 4Mr.
Speaker 0Awa, you've been granted an approval by the board. We'll memorialize this in a written document at our next meeting and mail that document to you.
Speaker 12Thank you.
Speaker 4Thank you, sir. Have a good night.
Speaker 12Good night. Bye-bye.
Speaker 4Let's move on to item number 10 23 dash CB dash 79 V. Jay Sai
Speaker 0Is Jay Ss present?
Speaker 13Rachel Sy is here. I'm his wife. Hi. And owner over the proper swear.
Speaker 0Could you raise your right hand? Yes. You swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 13Yes.
Speaker 0Your name and address please?
Speaker 13Rachel Sy. 24 Martin Lane, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Speaker 0Thank you. Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?
Speaker 13We're looking to build a fence and we want variance so that we can use the full extent of our property because there's a storm sewer easement on it.
Speaker 0And you understand that if access to that easement is ever required, you would be responsible for the removal and replacement of the fence? Yes. Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Good. Any other members of the board have any questions for this applicant? Comments? Nothing. Okay. I'm gonna open the public portion. Anyone on the public have any comments or questions about this application?
Speaker 1No. One Chairman. Okay.
Speaker 0Hearing none. I'm gonna close the public portion and I'd make a
Speaker 1Motion. Wait, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Somebody just raised their hand. They just took it down. Okay. Forget it.
Speaker 0I'll still make that motion to approve the application. Can I get a second? I second. Thanks. Please hold the roll.
Speaker 1Mr. Weisman? Yes.
Speaker 0Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Patel? Yes. Yes. Mr. Regio?
Speaker 0Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Ellie? Yes. Yes. And Chairman kale?
Speaker 0Yes. Ms. Sa, you've been granted an approval. We'll memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting and send that document to you.
Speaker 1Thank you so much.
Speaker 0Have a good evening, ma'am.
Speaker 1Thank you. Have a good night.
Speaker 0Let's go on to item number 1223 dash zb dash. Is it 82 V Moaz Ali? There Mr. Ali, present?
Speaker 14Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Ali, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 14Yes, I do.
Speaker 0Your name and address for the record, please.
Speaker 14Okay. My name was Ali. The address 61 Chicago Avenue, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Speaker 0Thank you. Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here? Okay.
Speaker 14I, I put the house with the, with the four foot fence. So I tried to replace with another fence, six foot, but I didn't know I, I need a permit. So I went to turn to apply for a permit. Denied a permit. 'cause this is a two, I'm too close to the Baltimore Avenue, so I need to do variance for this.
Speaker 0Mr. Chairman, you may wanna check with Mr. Henderson. Yeah. Henry, could you please go over your site impact?
Speaker 5Yeah, I mean, basically there's one comment here and the fact is that, again, this fence was, it was previously a 50% solid four foot high fence. It complied with the ordinance. It was located on the property line, which is not a problem. The problem is, is that the resident went and changed the fence to a non-conforming solid six foot high fence. As you know, we don't allow that. So at that point, they would've applied for the permit, or if they would've reached out, we would've told 'em that they needed a variance. We would've told them basically what's in our report. That at a minimum, you know, you gotta put that fence approximately, you know, halfway of what that front yard setback is. It is a corner property and we, we usually work with the residents and try to give them about half or a little bit less than half into that front yard setback with the solid fence of that size.
Speaker 5But they just replaced it again without the permit. So again, in, in, in the spirit of trying to be cooperative, I'm not saying that it has to be moved out of the front yard setback completely, but I think at a minimum it should be moved one section back so that, that section of fence along, I believe it's Baltimore, is 15.5 feet from the right of way line, which is one section back from where it is now. I believe he wa he wants it where it is now, which is 7.5 feet. My recommendation is remove one section from the side, move that, or from the ends, move the fence in eight feet and, and then you have your 15 and a half foot setback, which is still less than half of what we normally would require, or less than half of what the requirement is for a front yard setback. So I think it's a pretty good compromise and consideration of everything was done without permits and without variances.
Speaker 4Thank you. Henry.
Speaker 14I have a question.
Speaker 4Sure. Yes, sir.
Speaker 14Do I p do I able to do for food fence solid and the, the, the, the two foot mesh total, six foot fence, four foot, four foot solid and two inch two foot mesh?
Speaker 5No, it's still a six foot fence. And I would have the same concern. The problem is, you, you're still putting a fence that's less than 50% solid of six foot height. Okay. Pretty, pretty close to that front yard setback and sort of impedes that site corridor of the roadway. So, you know, if you told me you were gonna do, you know, maybe a four foot solid fence period. But if you want a six foot fence, regardless of the type of fence, I don't think it hurts to put a, a top one foot of the fence being, you know, mesh or lattice. But my recommendation would be the same, that it should be moved to the 15.5% setback, which is eight feet further back than where it is now.
Speaker 14Okay.
Speaker 4Anybody's, anyone else on the board have any questions or comments? Mr. Ali? So you're, you're agreeing with the, the moving of the fence, correct? Yeah,
Speaker 14I gotta move the fence once.
Speaker 4Okay. Just wanted to get that out of the way with no other members having any comments. Let's open it to the public. Is there anyone in the public that has any questions or comments about this application?
Speaker 14I'm
Speaker 1Sorry. No one Chairman,
Speaker 4No one.
Speaker 14I have, I have one more question. Sorry.
Speaker 4Sure. Mr. Ali, please.
Speaker 14Okay. So what is my next step now? So I need to apply for permit or I should remove the fence then apply for the permit or
Speaker 0You should wait until you get the resolution that we're going to send you. Once you get that, you can go apply for your permit. Thanks
Speaker 4So much. Okay. No one in the public, Laura,
Speaker 1Correct?
Speaker 4That is correct. Okay. Close the public portion and I'd make a motion to approve this application.
Speaker 15I'll second
Speaker 4Please call a roll.
Speaker 1Mr. Weisman? Yes. Yes. Mr. Patel?
Speaker 15Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Regio?
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 1Yes. Mr. Ali and Chairman Cahill? Yes.
Speaker 0We will memorialize the document at our next meeting and send that to you. Once you get that, go down and apply for your permit.
Speaker 4Thank you Ms. Doley. I think we're done, guys'. Right? What am I up to?
Speaker 0We have resolutions
Speaker 415. Adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting of August 10th, 2023.
Speaker 0First resolution is Andrea Cal. This was a order to approve Mr. Patel,
Speaker 1We can't hear you, Jim.
Speaker 0Mr. Patel?
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Duka? One minute. Lost my page. Mr. Reia? Yes. Ali? Yes. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Daniel Piper, would you voted to approve Weisman?
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Patel?
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Ali? Yes. Next is Caroline Dorm. Would you voted to approve Weisman? Yes. Patel?
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Ali? Yes. Next is G and a property development, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Tell
Speaker 15Yes. Mr.
Speaker 0Ali? Yes. Next is Dennis Duran, which you voted to approve. A de dur voted to approve. Mr. Weisman. Yes. Patel?
Speaker 15Yes. Mr.
Speaker 0Ali? Yes. Is T-Mobile Northeast would you voted to approve Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Finally, Sanders? Yes. Approve Weisman? Yes.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Ali? Yes. Those are all the resolutions I have this evening.
Speaker 4Okay, let's go. Item number 16, adoption of minutes on the regular meeting of August 10th, 2023. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Can I get a motion to, to adjourn? So many favor, say aye. Aye. Once again, we're stumbling across the finish line, but thank you all for giving me your time this evening. Giving time.
Speaker 1Okay. Next meeting. September 28th.
Speaker 4Awesome. Month off.
Speaker 1I hope, I hope more of you show up.
Speaker 4Okay. Mom, mom.
Speaker 1But thank you. Thank you all for coming. I appreciate it.
Speaker 4Thank you. Have a good night. Good night everybody.
Speaker 1Have a good night. Good
Speaker 4Night. Good night everyone.
Speaker 1Good night Roy.