Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on January 29 2026

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

Download transcript Download audio
Jan 29 2026 · Zoning
0:00
–:––

Meeting Sections
  • 00:00:01 — Meeting Opening & Roll Call
  • 00:00:48 — Pledge of Allegiance
  • 00:01:09 — Agenda Changes & Postponements
  • 00:01:57 — Case Hearing: 25-ZB-880B — France Canton 25-ZB-880B
  • 00:05:06 — Case Hearing: 25-ZB-90B — Sigma Construction, Inc. 25-ZB-90B
  • 00:36:04 — Case Hearing: 25-ZB-D02B — Edward Nugent (900 Washington Avenue) 25-ZB-D02B
  • 00:40:22 — Adoption of Resolutions
  • 00:41:28 — Adjournment
Meeting Opening & Roll Call AI  00:00:01 – 00:00:40
Chairman called the meeting to order, confirmed adequate notice was provided through multiple channels, and conducted roll call.
Speaker 0The zoning.
Speaker 1Okay. Thank you. 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 of the municipal building notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the Coer News and Star Ledger. Will the clerk please call the role
Speaker 0Mr. Patel? Mr. Regio? Yes. Is Mr. Blanc?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Mitterando? Here. Here. Mr. Ali? Here. And Chairman Weisman Here.
Speaker 1Mr. Kinneally, are there any changes to tonight's agenda?
Speaker 2There are. Do you wanna do the salute to the flag first? Mr. Chairman?
Pledge of Allegiance AI  00:00:48 – 00:01:09
Board members stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Speaker 1Yes, we should. How'd I skip it? There we go. Will everyone please stand for the salute to the flag?
Speaker 2I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for widget stands, one Nation, nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Agenda Changes & Postponements AI  00:01:09 – 00:01:57
Five cases were adjourned to later dates: Alvin Ru (Lakeview Ave), Kades (Joanna Court), and MSN Pharmaceuticals (Duke Road) to February 12th; NDK Realty (South Washington Ave) and Sony (item 10) to February 26th, all with no further notice.
Speaker 1Thank you. Now, are there any changes to tonight's agenda?
Speaker 2Yes, we have several changes. The, a application of Alvin Ru on Lakeview Avenue is going to be adjourned until February 12th with no further notice. The Kades application Joanna court will be adjourned until February 12th with no further notice. MSN pharmaceuticals on Duke Road will be adjourned until February 26th with no further notice. And NDK Realty on South Washington Avenue will be adjourned until February 26th with no further notice. Those are all the changes I have this evening.
Speaker 0Mr. Kinneally number 10, Sony got postponed again until 2 26. 26. No further notice.
Speaker 2Thank you. I missed that one. Thank
Speaker 0You. There's many
Speaker 1There. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 0You.
Case Hearing: 25-ZB-880B — France Canton 25-ZB-880B AI  00:01:57 – 00:05:06
Applicant sought a variance to retain an existing fence located on an easement. The applicant agreed to sign a memorandum of restriction accepting responsibility for fence maintenance and removal if required by the township. The application was approved unanimously.
Speaker 1Okay, moving forward then we don't jump to item number 7 25 dash ZB eight 80 B France. Canton.
Speaker 2Is France Canton present?
Speaker 3Yes. Good evening everyone. This is,
Speaker 2I 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.
Speaker 2Thank you. Explain to the board why you're here, please.
Speaker 3Okay. Good evening everyone. I'm here submitting a variance application to request to have my current fence state on top of the easement. Prior to owning the house, prior to buying the house, the fence was, was there as is and, and with no inspection. At that time, I was told there was no inspection done in the area, but recently my next door neighbor put up a fence and inspector realized the easement where the fence for my neighbor is sitting on the easement. So, so myself and my other neighbors, we are part of that issue. So in order for me to keep the fence, I need to, I, I, I was told to submit a variance application to go to assure that, you know, I want to keep the fence as is. And, and I was told if the township needs to do any sort of repair, and it's my responsibility and I agree to, to do so if the, if the defense needs to be removed.
Speaker 2And you would also agree to sign a, a memorandum of restriction that says that it would be your responsibility to remove and replace defense if necessary?
Speaker 3Yes.
Speaker 2Okay. Mr. Chairman, that's a, that's all I have for the witness.
Speaker 1Thank you. Jonathan, do you have any additions?
Speaker 4I have nothing to add. Excuse me. I have nothing to add. Thank you.
Speaker 1Okay. Take care of your cold. Doesn't sound good. Alright. It's getting
Speaker 0Better.
Speaker 1Anyone on the board have any questions or concerns, comments about this request? Hearing none, I'd like to open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, concerns, or comments they'd like to make about this request?
Speaker 0Anyone in the public? If you're on an iPad, you could hit raise your hand or if you're on a phone, star six. No one chairman.
Speaker 1Thank you. I'll close the public portion and I'd like to make a motion to approve this request. Can I get a second? I'll second. Thank you. Will the secretary please take the role?
Speaker 0Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Lan? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ley?
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 0And Chairman Weisman? Yes.
Speaker 1Your
Speaker 2Application's been approved. We'll memorialize this in a written document at our next meeting and we'll send that document to you. Good luck.
Speaker 3Thank you very much. Thank you all.
Speaker 1Thank you, Franz. Have a good night.
Speaker 3Okay. Good night. All
Case Hearing: 25-ZB-90B — Sigma Construction, Inc. 25-ZB-90B AI  00:05:06 – 00:36:04
Applicant proposed demolishing a 1950s ranch home at 49 Charles Terrace and constructing a new two-story, 3,396 sq ft home, requiring variances for building coverage (22.5% vs. 20% permitted) and lot area deficiency. Architect William Cohen and planner Brian Sdel testified; the applicant agreed to address setback and other requested modifications. Neighbor John Watkins opposed, citing the enlarged footprint, unique two-car garage, and basement inconsistent with neighborhood character. Board members remained concerned about the 21.77% building coverage even after removing the existing shed. The case was continued to February 12, 2026 with no further notice to allow plan revisions addressing the coverage issue.
Speaker 1Moving on. Item number 9 25 dash ZB dash 90 B Sigma Construction, Inc. Good,
Speaker 7Good evening. I, I'm James Mitchell on behalf of the applicant.
Speaker 2Good evening
Speaker 7DB with Hambro, Mitchell, Dayton, New Jersey, and I'm representing the applicant, Sigma Construction. If you don't mind, I have a brief introduction.
Speaker 2Go
Speaker 1Ahead. Cool.
Speaker 7Okay. The applicant is a builder that will be constructing a new home for the family that owns the existing home on the subject property. The applicant plans to redevelop the existing 9,375 square foot lot at 49 Charles Terrace in the R nine 10 Zone. Tonight we're seeking approval of bulk variances for a variety of existing conditions, including lot area, which is again nine three 9,375, where 10,000 is required lot width, 75 feet or a hundred is required rear yard for the accessory structure, which is a shed of seven and a half feet, where eight feet is required and lot frontage of 75 feet where a hundred feet is required. We're also seeking approval of building coverage at 22.5%, where 20% is permitted, and any other necessary relief to permit the construction of the proposed single family home. I note that your professional reviews and the plans as submitted will also require front yard setback, side yard relief as to the air conditioner unit proposed and relief from the installation of fiber optic conduit. Since we received the professional's review letter, the applicant's examined the plans in light of those comments. And if the board feels the application would be improved by the changes, would be willing to modify the plans to remove the front yard setback, the non-conformity as to the air conditioner, and to provide the installation of the fire optic conduit to remove the need for that relief.
Speaker 7So tonight we plan to present the applicant's architect and our professional planner. Billy, our architect, will explain the details of our proposal and Mr. Seidel, Brian, our planner, will address the planning impacts. Does the board customarily swear everybody at once or each as they testify
Speaker 2Now? We'll take 'em one at a time.
Speaker 7Okay. And Billy, Mr. Cohen, are you available?
Speaker 8Believe
Speaker 2He's, who's your first witness?
Speaker 7Our architect William Cohen.
Speaker 2Is William Cohen
Speaker 8Presents. He's, he's on, hold on one
Speaker 0Second. Oh, he did? He didn't use the link. He came on as an, as an attendee. So hold on a second.
Speaker 7Oh, thank you.
Speaker 0All right. He should be coming on now.
Speaker 7Okay. I think he might be William's iPhone.
Speaker 0Yeah, that's what I'm assuming. If they don't use the specific link, they come in. I don't know. It's them. I have to want the bit, I'm sorry.
Speaker 7Gotcha. No, I appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 2Is William Cohen present?
Speaker 9I am. I'm, I'm here. Okay.
Speaker 2I mean, to swear you in, could you raise your right hand? Sure. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 9I do.
Speaker 2Your name and address, please.
Speaker 9Sure. It's William J. Cohen, a i a. My address is 55 12 Merrick Road, Massapequa, New York, 1 1 7 5 8. Thank
Speaker 2You.
Speaker 7Okay. And Mr. Cohen, have you previously testified in boards of this type?
Speaker 9I have for about 34 years now.
Speaker 7Okay. And have you been accepted as an expert in architecture at that time?
Speaker 9Yes sir.
Speaker 7And can you review your credentials and experience briefly for the board?
Speaker 9Sure. I am a registered architect in the state of New Jersey, as well as seven others and carb certified. I have been in business for since 2002. Been in the profession since two thou, I'm sorry. I've been in the profession since 1994. I have a You're fine, you're fine. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I wanna make sure I'm qualified.
Speaker 7I believe the, the board accepts you,
Speaker 9Makes my, makes my mother proud. Okay. Very good. Well, I appreciate you folks allowing us to present tonight. Thank you very much.
Speaker 7Thank you. Would you like, would you be able to give us a summary of the proposed project here and would you like me to share any exhibits for you?
Speaker 9Sure. If you don't mind just sharing the, even the front rendering just to give the folks an idea of what we're trying to accomplish here.
Speaker 7Okay. Lemme do that. I'm,
Speaker 2Were these submitted as part of the application pro
Speaker 7Package? Unfortunately the rendering was not the drawings, which are the other exhibit we have for him was.
Speaker 2Okay. So the, the first one you put up, we're gonna have to mark
Speaker 7Yes. And we can provide an electronic copy of it for the record as well. Thank
Speaker 2You.
Speaker 9Very good.
Speaker 7Try it this way here and one second.
Speaker 9Nope, that's not it. Nope,
Speaker 7I know. We're gonna plan front elevation. There we're,
Speaker 9There you go.
Speaker 2Okay. So this will be a one with today's date.
Speaker 7Okay. All right, go ahead.
Speaker 9Very good. As our attorney James has previously explained, we are representing the homeowners for 49 Charles Terrace in Pisca, New Jersey. It's an existing one story ranch that was built in the 1950s. It's block 85 0 9, lot number six. We're proposing to knock down the existing structure, which is dated and outlived its usefulness. We're proposing a new two story home. It's gonna have a square footage gross of 33 96 square feet with a basement. It's a center hall colonial. It has 465 square feet designated as a two car garage for off street parking and is classified as a four bed, three bath home. It's the R 10 district. The R 10 district, as you folks know, is, requires a 100 by 100 lot with a square footage of 10,000 square feet, square feet. This lot is an existing non-conforming lot as it's 125 by 75, which gives us 9,375 square feet, which presents some initial challenges for us. The height requirement is 35 feet, we're proposing 31 foot one and half to the ridge. The front setback is required at 35 feet. We're proposing for the moment 32.9 per hour. Drawings side requirements are 10 foot each. On each side were at 10.1 feet and 10.3 proposed. So compliant there. Rear requirements 25 feet proposing 52.2 in the rear. Building coverage in this zone based upon a lot that is 10,000 square feet, which this is not, we're required 20%, we're currently at 22.5% is what was proposed.
Speaker 9That all being said, first of all, I will say that our client, in review with them, we have no issue as far as the front setback. If we do wanna slide the, the house back 2.1 feet, we certainly have no issue with that to comply with the front setback requirement.
Speaker 7And Bill, just not to I interrupt, sorry to Sure. No, sure. Just one. The reason that they, the client selected the setback, is that the same setback as the existing house? The
Speaker 9That is a very good point, yes. We put the front, we put actually put the house back in the exact same location. So that was the reason why we came up with the, that proposed setback on the front. Thank you. Yes.
Speaker 7But we'd be happy to slide it back into compliance since we're doing a tear down. Correct?
Speaker 9Absolutely. That that is has no detrimental value to either the client or to the community. Absolutely.
Speaker 7Okay. Sorry, go
Speaker 9Ahead. As far as the, no, absolutely. Thank you. That'll being said. We, we, I did mention that the site requires a 20% building coverage and we're at 22.5. We got some initial comments back pointing that out to us. And I will say that there is an existing shed in the back of the property that shed occupies 0.73% of the property, which brings us down to 21.77. And in discussions with our client, we absolutely can remove that shed. So that level of increase can certainly be deducted by that 0.73%. So we wanted to bring that to the board's attention as well. There were some additional comments. First of all, as far as requesting fiber optic conduits on the front of the property for future, we certainly have no issue with that whatsoever. And except that as a condition, there was also a notation that our air conditioning unit has to be 10 feet from the property line and properly screened with strawberry or fencing.
Speaker 9As of right now, we're proposing it to be a a a half a foot. Less than that. We certainly can comply with that and move it over another half a foot and make sure that it's properly screened. So another item that we have no issue to comply with, as we mentioned already dwelling height was an issue that was brought up, but certainly we're almost four feet lower than the requirement. Aside from that, as I mentioned, we, you know, we have certain challenges with the existing lot because it is non-conforming. There are other homes in the community, specifically across the street. There are two other homes that have similar bulk massing, I should say, without getting into specifics that show that the homes in this community, that they're in context with the other houses in the community. The other homes have expanded as well. And we feel that the, or I should say as the architect of record, that the design that we came up would certainly be beneficial to the neighborhood in terms of the aesthetic. Other than that, I feel that the fact that we were able to address probably 90% of the board's issues based on this testimony, we feel that the only open issue then just being the percentage of the lot that's occupied, which I believe is negligible. And we're hoping that the board upon hearing further testimony from our team would be amenable to allowing that to stay in place. We have worked very, very carefully with our homeowner to design this house over the last six months and we're hoping that it will stay intact based upon your decision.
Speaker 7Okay. And would you like me just to put up the, your plans to show the site plan? Sure,
Speaker 9Absolutely. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 7This is from the first sheet of the submitted plans, I believe.
Speaker 9Yes. So site plan is on our drawing. A one I believe it is showing, as our attorney expressed and reminded me that yes, the house was placed in context with the existing location of the house that is to be removed. And again, we have no issue pushing it back to 2.1 feet in order to comply with the zoning code, which will have no bearing on the overall project since the rear backyard setback is at 52.2 to lose two feet would have no bearing on anybody. So we're totally fine with that. And again, the side setbacks are totally in conformance with the 10 foot rule.
Speaker 7Okay. And just the, the shed is shown on this that we'd be willing to
Speaker 9The shed is shown, yes. The shed is on the drawings. We actually, between you and I, we did not pay much attention to the shed, but now that we understand that there is a lot coverage issue, of course we have no problem removing, removing the shed as part of the demolition project.
Speaker 7Okay. Alright. I don't think I have other questions for you at this time, so, okay. I don't know if the board wishes to ask questions at this point or if you want us to complete with our second witness first.
Speaker 1Well, Jonathan, do you have any direct questions here?
Speaker 4I just have, excuse me, I, I have some comments. No questions. So why, why don't we wait till after the next Okay.
Speaker 1Testimony. Okay. Mr. Mitchell, you could swear in your second. Okay.
Speaker 9Witness
Speaker 7And Brian side. You present?
Speaker 10I am, yes.
Speaker 2And could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 10Truth? I do. Thank
Speaker 2You. Your name and address please?
Speaker 10Sure. Brian Sdel address is 21 0 3 East High Street, hots Town, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 7Thank you. Thank you. Brian, you want to review your credentials and experience for the board?
Speaker 10Very briefly. New Jersey professional planner. It's been a few years, but I have been sworn and qualified in Piscataway previously.
Speaker 1That's fine then. Thank you. Thank you. I'm good to go.
Speaker 7Thanks Brian. Can you review the application for us from a planning point of view?
Speaker 10Sure. I think the architect good did a good job of, of describing the property. A couple things that I'd just like to add to that. The existing home is a one story ranch home, which he did mention there's no garage associated with that. So with the proposed application, there will be the addition of the two car garage in the, into the residential dwelling and describing the conditions of the property. Other than the home itself, the backyard contains a lot of impervious area. There's a above ground swimming pool, a patio, and a large area around the pool that's debatably impervious. It's basically a large gravel area that covers a majority of that backyard. The applicant has requested a number of variances that have been identified. I think you can lump a majority of these variances into the existing conditions. The lot area, the lot width, the front yard setback, the lot frontage and the rear yard setback for accessory structures are all based on existing conditions.
Speaker 10Now it's been represented here, the applicant is willing to withdraw some of those variances here. The discussion of removing the shed would eliminate the rear yard setback. For the accessory structure, there's an agreement to shift the building back, so we're not using the existing non-conforming front yard setback. We would comply with the current requirements. The new variances that are being requested with the proposal were the maximum building coverage, the setback for the exterior air conditioning unit and the installation of fiber optic conduit. You again, you heard through the application here, the agreement to relocate the air conditioning unit and install the fiber optic conduit. So the only remaining variances is really related to the existing conditions and the proposed building cover. When we look at the building cover and those requirements, I think the deviation of the bulk regulations related to the existing conditions are warranted.
Speaker 10Under the C one hardship criteria, the deviation of the building cover would be warranted under the C two flexible criteria as the benefits would outweigh any detriments. And to get to that analysis, when I, when I looked at the lot area and the regulations on a permitted lot area of 10,000 square feet and a 20% permitted building cover, that would be a building coverage of 2000 square feet, what was proposed with the application and now the concession to remove the shed from the property. We are basically 42 square feet over the building coverage requirements that would be permitted with a permitted 10,000 square foot lot size. So, and I think the important thing to note is also is the impact on the impervious cover. With this renovation, the patio is going to be removed, the above ground pool is going to be removed and the large stone area is going to be removed.
Speaker 10Comparing the existing conditions. The proposed impervious cover with this application is 40%. It will be slightly less since we're removing the pool. But when we look at the existing conditions, the existing conditions are at least 46%. And if you include in the large gravel area, the impervious coverage is closer to 65%. So overall this is going to be a substantial improvement. While we're slightly increasing the building area, we're dramatically reducing the impervious cover in the project. Overall, the property overall for the positive criteria, the proposed dwelling is with, I'm sorry, with a 35 foot height is specifically permitted in the underlying zoning district. The redevelopment lot will add a two car garage to the property and reduce the overall impervious coverage. Variance will advance the purpose of zoning, particularly purposes A, to guide the appropriate use of land, prevent urban swap J, preventing urban sprawl with the redevelopment of an existing lot.
Speaker 10And m by lessening the cost of development, encouraging the efficient use of land. From my perspective, no real detriment or impact to the zone plan. The zoning ordinance represents a minor deviation of the standard and the building coverage. The application does comply with all the building setbacks from the side property lines from the front property line through this concession and it dramatically exceeds the rear yard setback. 25 foot setback is required. The proposed setback is going to be approximately 50 feet now that we're sliding the building back a little bit further. So we do comply with all of the yard setback regulations. So in my opinion, I believe the application, it really represents a di minimis variance in terms of that building coverage. I believe that the variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good will not impair the zoning plan, zoning ordinance and, and the approval of the variances warranted for the application.
Speaker 7Thank you. Brian. I don't have any questions for you at this time, but obviously we'd be open to board comments or questions or public
Speaker 1Thank you. That's the end of the witnesses, correct?
Speaker 7Correct. Okay. We do have other people available if there were to be questions from the board that, you know, we need to pull someone else in for, but that's our affirmative case.
Speaker 1Excellent. Alright, Jonathan,
Speaker 4Thank you. Thank you. Apologies for being so hoarse with respect to the, I'll, I'll start with the architectural. I, I do appreciate the applicant being amenable to some of these variances, taking them away and I I, I hear you with 90% are being addressed, but I think the, the 10% that remain are, are gonna be some real sticking points. I I measure 31 feet on that section, on sheet a eight. So 31 feet, one and a half inches I think is out, out of line with the character of the neighborhood. And to, to touch on the, the planning testimony in that vein, I think it does meet the negative criteria just because this is a self-created hardship, you know, so I I I don't necessarily agree with that. I don't agree with that argument. It, it, it's, it's a little, it's a little oversized for the neighborhood and I understand that there might be others in the view shed with a similar bulk massing, but each application needs to be on its own merit here. And 21.77% is just too, too high of a square footage for a lot coverage.
Speaker 7And if I may, just a question to make sure I'm understanding the Yeah, comment. Your first comment, you're talking about the height of the structure, which is conforming, correct?
Speaker 4It's conforming to the zone. It's out of character with the neighborhood.
Speaker 7Okay, but it's not a legal relief. You're, you're talking about the overall impact of the project, but the correct is, is legally permitted. Okay. Correct. So the, the relief that you're talking about then, that we're, that you're questioning is the lot coverage relief? Correct. Building coverage, I'm sorry, building cover
Speaker 4The, from the list of the variances that were supplied? Yes. That's the, that's the one that, that's the one I'm challenging. Yes. I
Speaker 7Just, just, if we have to go back and talk to our client, I need to be able to, you know, clearly explain to them what the, you know, if we continue tonight in, in order to address that. That that's the only reason I, I
Speaker 4I, I do think, I do think though, if you were able to work with your client to reduce the coverage down to 20%, close to 20% and still at that 31 foot height, I think it still might not be the right, the right fit for the neighborhood.
Speaker 7Yeah. Okay. That's, that's useful input. Thank you.
Speaker 1Now Mr. Mitchell, do you want us to proceed? We have a, a very tight number of members yet tonight,
Speaker 7Right? Yeah, no,
Speaker 1We're, go ahead.
Speaker 7As I understand it, I'll, and I'll take your attorney's input as well. We only have both variance relief, so we would only require a majority, not a super majority for this relief.
Speaker 2That is correct. And we, we have five members not seven tonight. Right.
Speaker 7So we would need three.
Speaker 2Yes. Okay.
Speaker 7I, I think if I would be happy to hear discussion, et cetera. If you don't mind, you know, if there's continuing issues with the, the building coverage, you know, just to explain what our concern with the building coverage is. This is not being, it's not a spec house. It's being built for people who've been involved in the design process and addressing the building coverage basically means changing the architectural design that they've kind of bought into over time. And so it's not something we can do on the fly o over a day or so. We'd have to talk to 'em about reconceptualizing things. And so if it, it is a genuine concern, we'd probably then from a, you know, a significant number of members, we would want to take some time and to the next meeting and, and look at what we can do in terms of redesigning the layout. Anything we'd have to change the interior architecture of the, of the property in order to come into conformance.
Speaker 2And, and Mr. Chairman, we also should open it to the public in case any members of the public that are here tonight want to give an opinion.
Speaker 1Okay? Sure. Any, first, anyone on the board have any questions, concerns, or comments on this request? Hearing none, I'd like to open this to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, concerns, or comments at this time?
Speaker 0At this time, you can unmute yourself and you can raise your hand and I can call you in order. Okay. There we go. Andrew?
Speaker 11Yes. Hello, my name is Andrew Ardi. I'm a graduate planning student.
Speaker 2Okay, hold on. I, hold on. 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 11Yes.
Speaker 2And your address please?
Speaker 11I'm at Livingston Apartments. A
Speaker 2Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 11I think that overall the board should be willing to approve the proposed design with the variances. I think that the architect did a good job at coming close to the requirements and they're doing, making their best effort to be reasonable here.
Speaker 2Thank you. Do you have any other comments?
Speaker 11Not at this time. No.
Speaker 2Thank you. Laura, do we have any other members of the public who wish to be heard?
Speaker 0Yes, we have John.
Speaker 12Yeah, John Watkins. We live 51 Charles Harris. I'm the neighbor.
Speaker 2Okay. 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?
Speaker 12Yes.
Speaker 2And I'm sorry, could you give me your address again please?
Speaker 1251 Charles Terrace.
Speaker 2Thank you. Go ahead sir.
Speaker 12Okay. The issue I have is currently on the, what will be the garage side. On all the houses, there is a 20 foot distance from the house to the property line. In this case, they're taking that from the 20 foot, roughly down to 10 foot. So they're approaching closer to the property line than all the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. Secondly, there's a two car garage. There are no two car garages in the neighborhood. They're all single car garages on the houses that have them. Thirdly,
Speaker 12That this, you know, as far as the coverage of the house to the permeable land, while they may be removing the patio, they're covering it with the house. So, so therefore, you know, you're losing that there and the house, compared to most of the houses in the neighborhood, it's just a big mansion. They're, you know, 'cause they're going out back additional 10 to 12 feet. So it's just outta place. Plus none of the houses in the neighborhood have basements. So they're essentially building a whole brand new house in the neighborhood of older homes. The houses that went up basically just went, added the second floor and they kept part of the walls there so it wasn't a new house. So they're greatly extending the footprint of the house.
Speaker 2Thank you Mr. Watkins. Do you have any other, other comments or is that it?
Speaker 12Not it.
Speaker 2Okay. Thank you Laura. Anyone else?
Speaker 0Anyone else? You can hit unmute yourselves and raise your hand. There's several others on, but they're all muted.
Speaker 2Does anybody else wish to be heard on this application?
Speaker 0Here we go. Sam, unmute. You have to unmute yourself, Sam, and the hand is down.
Speaker 2If anyone in the public wishes to be heard on this application for questions or comments, now is the time. Please put up your hand or indicate that you wish to speak.
Speaker 0Okay. She's back or he's back. Sam Pangborn.
Speaker 2Sam Pangborn. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0Yeah, your hand is raised. You have to, it says they're unmuted. I don't know.
Speaker 2Sam Pangborn, can you hear me?
Speaker 0Oh yeah, I know, I know they wanna talk 'cause they were emailing me today, but it's on their end. I don't know if they don't have
Speaker 2Sam Pangborn.
Speaker 0Oh, it says connecting to audio now.
Speaker 2Okay,
Speaker 0Sam, you could do that.
Speaker 2Sam Pangborn, are you connected?
Speaker 0I mean, Mr. Kinneally, they do have to come back at the next meeting also. So maybe this person could speak to the public at the next meeting if
Speaker 2They can't figure out Mr. Mr. Mitchell that this person who's trying to connect now contacted the zoning office today and indicated that they wish to be heard and we told them they had to come to the meeting tonight. Right? They are attempting to participate, but they're not successful. In light of the issues with the building coverage and possibly discussing this with your client, I would recommend that we continue this matter to another date so that you can take a look at it with your client, perhaps come back with a revised plan and give the public an opportunity to come back and speak
Speaker 7That's agreeable to the applicant.
Speaker 2Laura, what kind of date do we have?
Speaker 0We could do February 12th if you'd have enough time. Mr. Mitchell?
Speaker 7Yeah, I would think I, I think as long you know, it's really gonna be on our architect if we're revising the plans, but time-wise from my side, yeah, we're fine. Okay.
Speaker 2So Mr. Chairman, with your permission, we'll announce a new date tonight and if the applicant or his professionals has difficulty complying with that, just let us know and we'll announce at that meeting February 12th that it's gonna be carried with no further notice. So anybody here on the Sigma Construction case for this evening on Charles Terrace? It is going to be carried to February 12th, 2026 with no further notice by the applicant. The only notice you're receiving is my announcement here tonight, so the matter will be carried. There will be no more testimony tonight. It will be heard February 12th. Thank you.
Speaker 1Yeah, that works a suggestion. Mr. Mitchell? Yes. That you, you can, you work with Jonathan Maery, you know, so that we get, we guys are on the same page and we come to the meeting and
Speaker 7We can Yeah, we'd be happy to reach out to him
Speaker 1As well. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 7Will do. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1Have a good night. You
Speaker 15Too. Take care.
Case Hearing: 25-ZB-D02B — Edward Nugent (900 Washington Avenue) 25-ZB-D02B AI  00:36:04 – 00:40:22
Property owner sought variances to legalize existing non-conforming conditions including lot area deficiency, rear yard setback, pillars encroaching into municipal right of way, and fence material exceeding solid material requirements. The board required removal of pillars from the right of way and reduction of the front-facing fence to 50% open material. The application was approved unanimously with these conditions.
Speaker 1Okay, moving forward. The next item, item 1125 D is VB dash oh two B. Ed.
Speaker 2Is Ed Nugent present?
Speaker 15I'm here.
Speaker 2I need to swear you in. Sir, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 15Yes, sir.
Speaker 2Okay. Your name and address, please?
Speaker 15Edward Nugent. 3 1 7 over Brook Road, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Speaker 2Thank you. Mr. Nugent, could you explain to the board why you're here?
Speaker 15Yes. Good evening everyone. My name is Ed Nugent. I'm appearing on behalf of the property owner for the application of variances at 900 Washington Avenue. This is an application for bulk variances to retain existing conditions. No new construction changes or expansion are proposed. The relief relates to an existing lot area deficiency, an existing rear yard setback, existing pillars encroaching into the municipal right of way, and a portion of an existing fence that exceeds the solid material requirement. These conditions have existed for many years and the purpose of this application is to bring the property into zoning compliance.
Speaker 2And Mr. NuGen, what is your connection with the applicant?
Speaker 15Just a, a friend.
Speaker 2Okay. And you are authorized by the homeowner to act on their behalf this evening? Yes.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Nugent, have you had a chance to see the staff report dated January 8th, 2026?
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 2Can you comply with those? Can the homeowner comply with those items?
Speaker 15I, I, I'm sorry. This, this is my first time in front of, are, are you talking about the variances required?
Speaker 2No. The staff reviewed this application and issued a memo dated January 8th, 2026. Mr. Rahi, perhaps you can weigh in on the, the points raised in that memo.
Speaker 4Certainly what we're, what we're saying in the staff report is the pillars in the right of way need to be removed.
Speaker 15Okay.
Speaker 4For, for starters, we also recognize that the, the shed location is now compliant. And as well as if this application is approved, you need to get all applicable permits for the addition and for the fence.
Speaker 15Understood.
Speaker 4And that portion of that portion of fence needs to be reduced to 50% open.
Speaker 15Okay.
Speaker 4In the where, where it's in the front yard set back off of Summer's Ave. Okay. So that's, that's, that's the staff's recommendations.
Speaker 15Okay.
Speaker 2Is all of that acceptable?
Speaker 15That's acceptable? Yes.
Speaker 1Okay. Very good. That's all I have. Thank you Jonathan. Anyone on the board have any questions, comments, or concerns about this request? Hearing none, I'd like to open this to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, concerns, or comments on this request? Hearing none, I'd like to close the public's abortion and I would make a recommendation to, to grant this request with the, the Ed Nugent's agreement on all the, all the conditions laid out in the staff report. Can I get a second? I'll second. Thank you. Will the secretary please hold the role?
Speaker 0Mr. Regio?
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Blo?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali?
Speaker 2Yes.
Speaker 0And Chairman Weisman? Yes.
Speaker 2The application's been approved with the condition that you comply with that report that we just discussed? We'll memorialize it in a written document in our next meeting and send it to the homeowner. Thank.
Speaker 15Good luck. Thank you very much everyone.
Speaker 1Thank Have a good night.
Speaker 2You too.
Adoption of Resolutions AI  00:40:22 – 00:41:28
The board adopted four resolutions from the January 15, 2026 meeting approving applications for Tesia Daily Butler, Scott Ulrich, Shereen Wheeler, and Bali Krishna Pada. The board also adopted the January meeting minutes.
Speaker 1Thanks. Moving on to item number 14, adopt of resolution from the regular meeting on January 15th, 2026.
Speaker 2First resolution is Tesia Daily Butler, which you voted to approve. Just gimme a minute. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman Weisman?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Second. Scott Ulrich, which you voted to approve. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman Weisman? Yes. Next is Shereen Wheeler, grant, which you voted to approve. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman Weisman? Yes. Finally, Bali Krishna Pada, which you voted to approve. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman Weisman.
Adjournment AI  00:41:28 – 00:41:55
The meeting was adjourned. The next scheduled meeting is February 12, 2026 at 7:00 PM.
Speaker 1Item 15. Adoption of minutes from January. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any nay? Hearing none. It passes. Adjournment. Although I think a motion for an adjourn. Adjournment. Any nays? It passes. Thank you. Next scheduled meeting is February 12th, 2026 at 7:00 PM Everyone have a good night.
Speaker 2You too. Good.