Should be good. Township of Edison zoning board of adjustment special meeting of May 20th, 2025 is now in session. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975 has been provided by the annual notice published in the Home News and Tribune on December
13, 2024 has been posted in the main lobby of the municipal complex on December 18th, 2024. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America stands nationice.
He's got to sit down. He's got to sit down. He's got to sit down. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Mr. Carly, Mr. Begnel, here. Miss Shaw, here. Uh, Mr. Chabra here, Mr. Cerrito here,
Mr. Schneider here, Vice Cheryl Gorman here, and Chairman Kumba here. Thank you. Uh, Madam Secretary, minutes for consideration. Minutes of May 13th, 2025 for approval. What's the board's pleasure? Motion to approve. Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman,
second by Mr. Schneider. Roll call, please. Mr. Certo, yes in the motion. Mr. Chabra, yes to the motion. Mr. Schneider, yes to the motion. Vice Chair Gorman. Yes to the motion. And Chairman Kumba, yes on the motion. Thank you. Okay. Um, Madam Secretary, first
resolution for approval. Adoption. Uh, Z23 2022. Mayor Conderal for approval. What's the board's pleasure? Motion to approve. Second the motion. Motion made by Vice Chairman of Gorman. Second by Mr. Schneider. Roll call, please. Uh, Mr. Certo, yes on the motion. Mr.
Chabra, yes to the motion. Mr. Schneider, yes to the motion. And Vice Chair Gorman, yes to the motion. Thank you. Next resolution, uh, Ultim, uh, Z3 2025 Ultimate Collision for approval. What's the board's pleasure? Motion to approve.
Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman, second by Mr. Schneider. Roll call, please. Mr. Cerrito, yes on the motion. Mr. Chabra, yes to the motion. Mr. Schneider, yes to the motion. Vice Chair Gorman, yes to the motion. And Chairman Gumba, yes on the motion. Final resolution for approval. Z6, 2025. John
Daniel for approval. What's the board's pleasure? Motion to approve. Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman. Seconded by Mr. Schneider. Roll call, please. Mr. Chabra. Yes to the motion. Mr. Schneider. Yes to the motion. Vice Chair Gorman. Yes. And Chairman Kumba. Yes. Thank you. Okay. We have two
announcements this evening. KZ324 Sachin Patel at 167 Morris Avenue is being carried to June 17, 2025 with no renotice required. Uh if you're here for this case Z30 Z32 2024 Sachin Patel
at 167 Morris Avenue it will not be heard this evening. It will be heard on June 17 2025 with a meeting beginning at 7 p.m. here in council chambers. Case Z5 2025 Abashock Bardwatch at 8 Fielding Place
will not be heard this evening. It will be carried to June 17th 2025 with no renotice required. If you're here for this case, Z5 2025 Abashock Bardwage at 8 Fielding Place. It will not be heard this evening. It'll be heard on June 17,
2025 with a meeting at 7 p.m. here in council chambers. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is a special meeting of the Township of Edison Zoning Board of Adjustment. The board is composed of Edison Township residents appointed by municipal council who volunteer their time and service to the board. mismissible land use law requires a
member successfully complete a land use training course administered by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. This board also holds in-house training conducted by our board professionals. The zoning board abides by the provision of mispful land use law in addition to our board's bylaws. The zoning board is a quasi judicial land
use board which differs from the township planning board. Under the misp land use law, board members are required to be impartial and are not allowed to discuss any case prior to being considered at a hearing. All applicants will have the opportunity to present their case before the board along with the opportunity for board members and
board professionals to question the applicant and their witnesses. The conclusion of the applicant's presentation of their case case will open to the public. Residents within 200 ft of subject property will be heard followed by residents from outside of 200 ft. All residents will be sworn in. They'll provide their name and address
and they'll be given six minutes to comment on the application being considerate without the opportunity for rebuttal. Residents may ask questions of the applicant, the applicants professionals, and board professionals. The board requests that these questions are asked prior to any
commentary being made on the application. Once a commentary begins, the resident's timer will begin. The applicant will be allowed for the opportunity of cross-examination of their witnesses. Under the law, the chair is allowed to stop any commentary which is repetitive or an attempt to filibuster the board. Further, the chair
is allowed to stop any commentary that is irrelevant to the case or prohibited from the board's consideration. Once public portion is closed, all public comments are ended unless new testimony is presented by the applicant. Following the closure of the public portion, the applicant will have the right of summation on their application.
Following summation, the case will go to the board for decision. This procedure has been followed by the board and is similar to the procedures followed by boards of adjustment statewide. Muse law requires the board to engage in a balancing act. is not required to strictly apply township ordinances,
zoning plan, or master plan. As a board of adjustment, variances are granted when appropriately necessary following all legal considerations. As been the case with prior boards, this board will see where we are at. We are still in session around 10:30 p.m. I ask that all applicants, professionals, and residents show respect to each other and be civil
throughout all proceedings. I ask that you withhold applause, booing, or interrupting anyone while they are speaking. The chair will not tolerate any outbursts by applicants, professionals, or the public. Further, since most cases are being recorded by a court reporter, I ask the speakers do not speak over one another. Madam
Secretary, first case on the agenda, please. Case number Z10 2025, Rita Meta at 14 out of bounds. Applicant is seeking bulk and use variances to construct an addition to the first and second floor along with a twocar garage to the existing single family dwelling.
The following standards have not been met. Max F required is 15% proposed is 23.21%. Max lot building coverage required is 10% proposed is 12%. Max lot coverage required as 25% proposed is
38.57%. Affected properties located in the RAA zone designated as block number 415 lot number 63 on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order. Good evening, Mr. SH. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Bernard Shy,
Comry, Camry, and Shire on behalf of the applicant. Uh, this matter, uh, my clients, the owners of a single family home, uh, which has two addresses, interestingly enough, uh, 14 out of bounds and 1641 Woodland Avenue, uh, in
the RAA zone, lot 63, block 415. Uh my clients uh have a single family home where they live on the premises. Uh proposals construct an addition to expand the bedroom and kitchen uh and a twocar
garage. Uh the variances are lot coverage by building uh 10% is allowed, 12% is proposed, lot coverage for all impervious, 25% is permitted,
38.5 is proposed. Maximum F uh 15% is permitted. Uh we're seeking 23.2%. However, the existing is 20.84%. So the increase is a little over
2%. Uh I have with me uh Mrs. Meta uh to testify along with the architect Mark Marciel and Paul Fletcher, our planner. Unless there are any preliminary questions, I'm ready to proceed. Board event questions. Mr. SH seeing none you may
proceed call Rita Meta please if you would just pull the microphone close to you raise your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth I hope you got I do and state your full name for the record it's Rita Meta.
Good evening. Good evening. Um I Miss Meta, uh you and your husband uh own and reside at the property in question. Yes, I do. And it's a single family home. That's correct. And how long have you lived there? Since 99. All
right. And you're seeking to uh put an addition on the home to expand the bedroom and the kitchen and uh have a twocar garage. Correct. That's correct. And what's the reason for this? Um we've lived here since 99 and raised
our family there. So about six months ago, my son, who has recently moved here, um decided that they want to move in with us. We were not expecting that. We were actually expecting that, you know, we
would sell this house and move into a retirement community. But since they have decided to come in, move in with us and start a family, we're looking to extend their bedroom and make them comfortable.
I have no other questions of Mrs. Meta. Does the board have any questions for Mrs. Meta? See, thank you very much. Thank you. Call Mark Marciel. Oh, would you raise your right hand? Would you solemnly Would you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you God?
Yes, I do. And state your full name for the record, please. Mark Marciel. M A R C as in cat I L L E. Mr. Marciel, you have appeared before us prior, but it's been a while. So, if you could please provide the board the benefit of the summary of your background and qualifications, please. Thank you. I'm a
licensed architect uh in New Jersey since 2004. I received my bachelors of architecture from the New Jersey Institute of Technology and and it's a long time ago now. The date has escaped me, but I am
licensed. I'm insured and my license is currently uh active. Okay, we'll accept you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Mr. Marciel, uh you were retained uh by the applicants to uh prepare uh the architectural plans for this project. Yes, sir. All right. Could
you briefly describe the existing house? Uh existing house, a single two-story single family home with uh a finished basement. Um there's a an elevated pool in the in the backyard, an existing guney pool. Uh you know, there's
property slopes from the front to the back. So the basement is a walkout basement in the back. Uh but it's not considered a story. It's mostly below grade, right? And could you describe uh what the proposal is for this project? So the
proposal as mentioned was to uh slightly expand the kitchen to create sort of a service kitchen uh expand one of the bedroom suites to make it comfortable for uh her son and his wife who are moving in uh and to add a additional two-car garage. So we decided to design
the addition behind the house so as not to increase the overall apparent volume of the house from the front of the street. Uh so if you look at this this elevation rendering on the top of the drawing the shaded pink area is the addition as viewed directly from the
back elevation which is again behind the volume of the front of the house. And if you look at the right side elevation on the bottom of the drawing the shaded pink area is the addition as viewed from the right side. So you can see a chunk of it is sort of below the grade line uh
which you know compromises the two-car garage. above the two-car garage there. Well, in this existing space where we're showing this pink area where the addition is, there's an existing deck there. So, that deck's going to be removed and replaced with the addition on the garage and the garage will serve
as sort of a connector to get to that ele existing elevated pool uh in the back of the property. Uh on the floor plans, this is page A2 of the submitted documents. The drawing on the left is the foundation plan. So the this large
pink area is again all at at basement level. The addition on the first floor level is this shaded pink area and essentially is again is that service kitchen expansion. This sort of brown area is the space above the above the garage at
basement level which you know allows us to connect to this existing elevated pool deck. And then the second floor portion of the addition is indicated by that pink area. Again it's a you know a small area. It's completely behind the volume of the house and the renderings sort of
show that as well. Right now the uh present uh uh the uh lot coverage uh by the building uh is going to go to 12%. Is that correct? Yes. And uh the permitted is 10%. So,
it's only going to be 2% over uh the requirements. Correct. That's correct. Uh the lot coverage by all impervious uh is going to go to 38.5%. Uh what is the present coverage?
I don't have that on my plans. That's on I think Paul's plans, the existing coverage. Okay. And we're proposing 38.5%. Yes. Uh the maximum permitted uh floor area
ratio is 15%. Uh the existing is 20.84%. Correct. Yes. And we're proposing uh 23.2%. So we're we're going up uh slightly over 2%. Correct. That's
correct. All right. Uh will uh will any of this cause uh a a problem uh with the uh building being overly visible or detract from the appearance of the of the neighborhood. No, as I mentioned,
the volume of the addition is behind the existing house. Uh I think it could be noted that uh the two-car garage edition while technically counts towards the floor area ratio, it's at the basement level. So basements don't count towards F in the
calculation. Um, but because the letter of the law requires a garage to count, we've included it. So, we'd be a percent about a percent lower if we didn't have to include that basement level garage. Right. Uh, I have no other questions of the architect.
Does the board have any questions for Mr. Marcio? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. Yes. On the proposed addition, do is there going to be a kitchen and is there going to be a basement in the proposed edition? There is. Yes. Any kitchens or There's no kitchen. No kitchen proposed in the
basement. No. And um is there going to be a sleeping area? There's no sleeping area proposed in the basement. Is there outside entrance? There is an outside entrance. Well, through the garage. So, the garage addition is at basement level and then through that
uh garage. You come in, you can come through the garage through the overhead doors or through a man door. Through the garage, you can get into an entryway which takes you into the basement, then up the main staircase. On the property in the back, what's in the back of the What's the adjoining
property behind it? The golf course. Yeah, the golf course. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Marcio? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Thank you. Call Paul Fletcher.
[Music] [Music] Mr. Fletcher is being offered as a licensed professional planner of the state of New Jersey. Mr. Fletcher, would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I hope you got it. Yes, I do. And state your full name for the record. Yes. Paul
J. Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher, if you could please provide the board with a summary of your background and qualifications. Yes. I'm a graduate from University of Toronto 1971. Uh with a bachelor of applied science. Uh I uh obtained my
planner license in uh I believe around 19 89. Uh uh I have a firm I'm principal of Fletcher Engineering Inc. which offers engineering and land serving
services and planning services. Your planning license is current and good standing. Yes, it is. We'll accept. You may proceed. Thank you. Mr. Fletcher, you've been uh retained by the applicants uh to provide planning testimony regarding this project. Correct. That is correct. And you are
familiar with the property as it presently exists? Yes, I am. You've also uh familiarized yourself with the proposed project. Yes. All right. Could you please uh from the standpoint of your uh experience and education as a
planner uh advise why uh the variances and questions should be granted? Certainly. Uh subject property as was previously mentioned is in the RAA zone. Uh has a minimum lot area of 40,000
square feet. Uh existing lot area is 42,560 ft. So we're well above the minimum lot size. Uh all the other bulk requirements for the the lot are conforming. There are three variances
being proposed. Uh firstly for lot coverage by building uh 10% is allowed in the zone. Uh currently uh it's at 10.7% and we're proposing with the increase to go to
12%. Excuse me. Uh there is a variance requested for maximum lot coverage all impervious 25% is allowed in the zone. Uh currently it's approximately
uh 34% 34 and a2 uh we're proposing 38 and a2. Uh lastly, there's the maximum floor area ratio uh where uh 0.15 is allowed. We're
proposing 0.23 uh where 0.21 is existing. Now the uh request for a F variance is classified as a D4 variance. It's not a true use variance in that a single
family dwelling is clearly a permitted use in the zone. So uh we don't have to show that the site is particularly well suited for the use because it's already a permitted use. Um the court decisions
have have of have uh indicated that the uh the board's focus on this type of a D4 variance uh should be on whether the site will accommodate any problems associated with the proposed permitted use but with a larger floor area than
permitted by ordinance. So the question is uh does this larger floor area pose any problems? Uh as testimony is provided uh the addition to the house is to the rear. Uh the uh neighbor to the
rear is the Planefield Golf Club. Uh so it's not going to be apparent to uh uh from the street uh that um this house has changed in volume or mass. Um uh we're meeting the
required uh setbacks to the property lines. Um so frankly I I don't see any uh problems being created by this proposed variance.
Uh as to the negative criteria, it has to be granted without any substantial detriment to the public good. Uh and I see no detriment by adding this uh addition to the single
family house. I see no uh detriment to the public good. uh and I don't see that uh that this would substantially impair uh the intent and purpose of the zone plan of the zoning ordinance. The and I would point out
that previous variances hadn't been granted for this dwelling to be constructed as it is now. Uh the um request for the uh bulk variances for
uh lot coverage uh and uh impervious coverage uh essentially are subsumed by the uh the D4 variance. However, I think the C2 criteria uh can be used uh to to
justify the granting uh whereby the uh benefits outweigh any detriments. Uh I see no significant detriment to the public good or to the zone plan by granting these variances. uh frankly they're
uh dimminimous increases over the existing uh conditions and I see no substantial detriment to the uh zone plan or the master plan by granting these two two variances for bulk
standards and I think the um the granting of the variance will allow the home to be uh more functional for the the family that lives there. Uh I think that's a a positive reason.
I have no other questions of Mr. Fletcher. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Fletcher? Mr. Chair, Mr. Cher. Um Mr. Fletcher, um what is you said the current existing uh imperous area is 34%. Is that correct?
Um existing total impervious. Yeah, I believe it's about 34 to 34 and a half. And what's the driving factor in the current site improvements? Um, what are the current site improvements that cause this high number? Okay, the current site improvements,
uh, there's a circular drive. Uh, there's a uh a sports court at the back of the uh property. Uh there's a large patio area around uh uh the elevated pool. Uh there
is a very large house constructed on the home on the on the property. Uh and this increase is we're extending the driveway so that it can go uh down and uh allow
the garage the two garages being constructed at the rear. uh that that driveway area is being increased uh to allow access to the new garages. And what is that current area right now? Is it impervious? Is it grass? Is it asphalt? It's a combination. There's
some grass. There's uh retaining walls and some walkways. Okay. So, that would be demolished and in place would be that addition to that house. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Fletcher? Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman. Mr.
Fletcher. This proposed addition will meet the characteristics of the neighborhood. Absolutely. Thank you. Mr. Fletcher, did you do any analysis of the neighborhood to see if there are any similar um FPS?
I did not. Okay. Uh Mr. Shy, a question for you. So, Mr. Fletcher had referenced um three of the existing um situations which would have required variances. Did you actually did you
happen to obtain a resolution of prior approval? I'm sorry. Did you There were three variances that associated with the current dwelling. Did you happen to obtain a uh resolution of prior approval? No, sir. I did not see those,
but uh I assume obviously they were granted at some point. I would hope so. That is something that I would like to see. Any other questions, Mr. Fletcher? Okay, seeing none. Thank you. That's the applicant's case, Mr. Chairman. Okay.
All right. So, we will now go. So, we'll go to the public. Um, anyone within 200 feet of subject site want to be heard? If you're within 200 feet of subject site, you received a notice via certified mail. My name is Dr. Hold on. Pull the
microphone closer to you. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth? Nothing but the truth. I hope you got Yes, too. State your full name. Provide your address. Okay. Amarjit. First name. I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. Okay. Last
name is Si. S A I N I. First name is A M A R. J like James. I T like Tom. You may proceed, ma'am. And your address? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Apologies. Your address, please. My
address is 12 out of bounds and 10 out of bounds. We have two houses. Mas are my next door neighbors. We've known them. We've been in our property for last 20 years. I know Ma's house in and out. She's shown us her plans and I
don't see any problem with it and I have no problem with it. They had other next door neighbors here too and we have talked to each other and they don't have any problems. Well, you can't testify for other people. Sorry. Right. Thank you. Okay. Is that all you
like to say? You have anything else to add? No, that's okay. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard? Hello sir, raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth? Nothing but the truth. So help you God. Yes, I do. State your full
name. Provide your address. My first name is Manahar. Last name is WK W A D K E. My address is 1645 Woodland Avenue. Uh office Edison, New Jersey. Can you spell your first name for me? Okay. M A
N O H A R. Thank you. May proceed sir. Thank you. Okay. Uh I live in of course out of bound association. We have a little association uh is filled with doctors Dr. Sharma, Dr. Sini and Sini and now Dr. Ma. And before the year is
over, we are going to have two highly qualified physicians. Uh the doctors will be moving in. Uh I've been their neighbor for more than 25 we are more than 25 years. Uh I think I support wholeheartedly whatever they want to
undertake and I had no objection whatsoever. Okay. Thank you. Anything else you you like to add sir? I'm fine. Thank you. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. Anyone else within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard? Anyone outside 200 feet wanting
to be heard? Seeing none, can I get a motion to close the public portion? Motion to close public portion. Second that motion. Motion made by Vice Chairman of Gorman, second by Mr. Schneider. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Nay. Public portion is now closed. Mr. Sher, um, if
you have any summation, and then also just to remind you, we only have five uh, voting members. I'm aware of that. Uh I I just want to say very briefly uh the increases proposed are minimal within two 2 and
a2%. Uh the uh all the setbacks comply. The addition is to the rear which faces a golf course so you can't really see it uh from the front of the house. and uh
all the setbacks are complied with. Uh the final uh item I wanted to mention is that uh the two neighbors that uh live in the immediate area and next door uh are fine
with the application and the improvement uh will add something nice to the neighborhood. Okay. Thank you. I'll go to the board, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman, Mr. Fletcher, Fletcher testified that there was prior approvals. I believe we should
have those prior approvals before us before we do a vote. I have no objection to the board uh obtaining the uh prior approvals. I assume they're in the records somewhere
from I guess at least 20 years ago. Sorry. The applicant would have to put in an Oprah request and we can definitely pull and look in the archives for you. Sure. Okay. So, if you could do that. Um, absolutely. So, then I believe we could just put you on for for vote
only. Um, and I'm I'm going to make a suggestion, but I I'm going to leave up to the secretary so I don't get yelled at. Uh, Madam Secretary, June 17th for vote only. for vote only. Yes. Okay. All right. Does that work for you and your I have
your I have no problem. I think I believe I'm here anyway on June 17th. So, okay. Uh that's a good thing. If uh uh if I may uh if uh we could have the transcript reviewed by additional board members so we have a full board to vote.
I believe that would be the applicant would be entitled to that. That's a great idea and uh we have no objection to that. Okay. Great. Thank you. So, anyone here present and any or anyone listening at home, uh this case will be continued to uh June 17, 2025 with a
meeting beginning at 7 p.m. here in council chambers. Thank you so much, Mr. Sher, and have a good evening. Nice to see you all. Thank you. Madam Secretary, next case on the agenda, please. Case number Z12, 2025, Sukwinder
Singh at 46 Foyer Street. Applicant is seeking minor subdivision along with bulk and use variances to construct two new single family dwellings. The following standards have not been met for both lots sought. Max F required is 44% proposed is 55%. Max lot building
coverage required is 23% proposed is 28.8%. Front setback required is 25 ft. Proposed is 19 ft. Lot width required as 75 ft. Proposed is 50 ft. Affected property is located in the RB zone designated as block number 294, lot
number 11.01 on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order. Good evening, Miss Trip. Uh, good evening. Um, as uh we were made aware, there's just five board members this evening. What we'd like to do, uh, we had been discussing adjourning, but
we've been advised that the next available meeting is for a full hearing is in July. So, what we'd like to do is request that we present the case this evening, not have a vote, carry it for vote only, and I'd provide the transcripts between now and then, and uh
if additional board members uh were available to review the transcripts, we could have a full complement of the board. We have no objection to that. And yeah, so we'll proceed on that basis and that way we can get the testimony in and be carried to a meeting for a vote only.
Great. Thank you. Thank you. [Music] So, um, for the record, Steven Trip from the firm of Wance Goldman and Spitzer. On behalf of the applicant, uh, this is property located at 46 Foyer Street.
It's within the RB zone. We've got uh a 10,000 square foot lot which is oversized for the zone. The proposal is a two lot subdivision for two 5,000 square foot lots. Demolish the existing
dwelling and build a new single family dwelling on each lot. Um as was indicated when the matter was introduced by the secretary, we need variances for lot with lot area. uh front yard setback, which as you'll hear is only to
the covered porch. The main structure is 25 ft in compliant, but we're seeking uh relief for the porch uh percentage of lot coverage and floor area ratio, and that's why we're before this board because it's a D4 variance and we need
to uh only this board can grant relief. Um what I'd like to do is start with uh John Dupont who is going to be testifying this evening as a professional engineer and professional planner. Uh Mr. Dupont uh is familiar
with the project um as um and and will testify in both capacities. Okay. M Go ahead. I'm sorry. We're we're hopping all over each other. I'm sorry. It's okay. Mr. Dupont, raise your right hand. Do you saw me swear from the whole truth? nothing but the truth to help you. I do. And state your full name for
the record. John P. Dupant. Mr. Dupont, if you could please provide the board with a sum of your background qualifications um and we'll take care of both uh licenses at one time. Sure. So, I am uh I have a bachelor's in civil engineering from University of Hartford. I am licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey as well as a
certified missile engineer. I am also a professional planner in the state of New Jersey. Both licenses are current. Uh I've been before this board as both planner and engineer and I've served as the burough carter planning and zoning board engineer for the past 28 years. Okay, we'll accept you. Thank you very
much. Thank you. Thank you. So um Mr. Dupant, can you uh describe just uh your role in the project uh your familiarity with the plans and uh the surrounding neighborhood? Right. So I didn't prepare these plans, but I was retained to
review and testify as a professional engineer and professional planner for this project. And in that capacity, you're fully familiar with everything on the plans, correct? That is correct. And you have reviewed the reports issued by the board's professionals. I have. And you
attended the TRC as well? I did. Thank you. Um, briefly, uh, describe the property, what what exists now, the site conditions, uh, for for the benefit of the board and the public. So, as you've heard, it's a
10,000 foot lot currently containing a 2 and a half story uh frame dwelling. Also has a detached garage and a covered porch which is approximately 8 foot from the front property line. Um the main residence currently is about 14.6 ft from the front property
line. Uh and both um both are non-conforming because the front yard setback is 25 ft. So both the porch and the front actual main building are both non-conforming. The property is in the RB zone. Um lot sizes in that zone are 75 ft width and 7500 square
foot areas. And as we will explain in detail, a majority of the lots in the neighborhood are smaller than that. So what the applicant is proposing is to create two 5,000 foot lots each 50 by 100. Demolish all existing
improvements. proposed two single family homes. Each house will contain a total of 2754 square ft and have a front covered porch and a garage. So, there are several variances that we're going to request tonight. The
minimum lot area 7,500 ft in the lot required. We are proposing 5,000 ft. The minimum lot width 75 ft required and we're proposing 50 ft. The minimum front yard setback is 25 ft.
We are proposing 25 to the main building. However, 19 ft to the covered porch. So that's a variance. And the maximum percent of building coverage, 23% permitted. We're proposing
28.8%. And finally, we have a floor air ratio where the maximum permitted is 44. We're proposing 55. So, if I could just shift to engineering first. You have your site plans in front
of you. From an engineering standpoint, it's pretty basic. It's a lot with one home on it. We demolish everything on the site. We propose two brand new homes, driveways, garages. Very typical. The total increase in
impervious for the site is only 639 ft total. So, it's a dimminous increase in runoff. We're not proposing any on-site detention. With respect to utilities, we'll utilize the existing water and sanitary sewer laterals for one home and
we'll construct a new water and sanitary sew through letter for the other. We have uh received the DNR review letter dated April 3rd as well as a big nail planning letter letter dated March uh 19th. We can comply with both letters in in full. However, there is
one item I want to bring to the board's attention. In the DNR letter, there is comment 3.1, and Mr. Char uh Mr. Carly talks about the applicants proposing two four bedroomedroom dwellings uh which require two and a
half spaces each. We are currently proposing two spaces each, a garage and a driveway. Now, we can widen the driveway if the board would like. We've chose not to. uh we think the design with two spaces is adequate and an increase in width would
also increase our impervious coverage. So we initially and we designed it as only a single car garage and single car driveway. If the board has strong feelings, we could certainly widen out the driveway. And um the RSIS requirement uh are you aware that it
specifically permits uh a board or any approving entity from allowing a lesser number of spaces than required? uh if it's warranted under the circumstances. Yes, I am. And you find that the uh based on uh the desire to keep the
impervious coverage what it's proposed and the fact that we're talking about half a space that it's warranted in this case. Yeah, in this case I I think two spaces was required is is what's needed and I would I would say the two spaces is the proper design.
Mr. Dupont, since you brought up Mr. Carly's report. Kim, let's just jump in there. Mr. Carly, thank you, Mr. Chair. As uh Mr. Dupont testified, he's referring to our April uh 3, 2025 letter uh review report. And
uh as uh Mr. Dupont offered uh those outstanding items from our letter he would address uh should the board uh act upon this this application uh favorably uh relative to parking. The residential
site improvement standards for a fourbedroom dwelling does peg parking at two and a half spaces per uh uh res uh dwelling for a four bedroomedroom dwelling. Uh RSIS
generally the language in there is a little bit vague but it also says uh you should round down. Uh it's just generally my observation that there were more more cars than less in 2025. I think Mr. Dupont uh testified
relative uh to uh his opinion in terms of the adequacy of parking. That's a board decision uh whether you feel that the two spaces are adequate or not. Uh everything else in our report uh touches upon the site layout as Mr.
Dupont testified. It's pretty straightforward. You have uh a piece of property. The existing dwelling would be removed and then you'd have essentially a a building lot with two rectangular dwelling units placed upon it. The
grading is regular. The arrangements parallel perpendicular. There's uh not an awful lot for me to report to the board as an engineer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Crowley. Uh Mr. We know
would it make would it make sense for us to address the variances before the planner talks about his report? Mr. Pill, you have an objection. Um I have no objection. Um the site plan requests. I asked for an addition uh a second rendering which
I received this evening and I looked at it and it's fine. Okay. And then uh he just has to provide his letters for buffering and whatever u testimony for the variance. Is that okay? Thank you.
Mr. B, you may proceed. Thank you. Um so Mr. Dupont, um what I'd like you to first do is to address the uh the bulk variances um pursuant to uh the MLUL flexible C criteria. Um, and can you
just uh briefly touch on what that criteria uh requires? We certainly will. So again, using the flexible C criteria, we're going to balance the positive and negative criteria. Uh, we're going to show you what purposes of the MLU are advanced by the
deviation uh, and from the zoning ordinance and the benefits will substantially outweigh any detriment. The first bulk variance to talk about is the lot width and lot area requirements. Um the we have looked at the area the
lots within 200 feet and 300 feet of the property. 67% of lots within 200 feet have u a non-conforming lot with and lot area requirements similar to ours. And do you have an exhibit that shows that? We
do pass out to the board. Yes. Wait for a second. Okay. This was not a part of the submission, right? So, this is A1. Exhibit A1. This is A1. Yes. Correct.
So, the exhibit you're looking at will show um That's okay. I got I got that's all right. Will show the lot width and lot areas uh within 200 and 300 ft. The blue
property is our property and the orange lots show all the non-conforming lots that don't meet the 75 by 100 requirement. So you'll see it's 67% within 200 ft. It's 74 within
300 ft. It's all but four lots on our block do not conform. Um the lots surrounding us are basically 50 by 100. There's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven on our block that
are 50 by 100. So, um that being said, there are um the 50 by 100 proposed by us is more consistent with the neighborhood. It's certainly within character. Um the immediate neighborhood, there's
only five lots out of 14 that meet the standard with an area or a greater. By creating two 5,000 foot lots with 50 by 100 dimensions is a better planning alternative than retaining a lot that is inconsistent with the majority of the neighborhood. So we're
proposing something very much in character the neighborhood. The purposes of the MLUL that are advanced by this uh purpose A, we're um proposing appropriate use and development of lands. Purpose G, we're providing
sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses, including residential. I see there's no detriment to creating two lots as proposed because they will in no way affect the character of the neighborhood due to their consistency with the majority of the lots. As such, the benefits of the
deviation substantially outweigh the detriments. So, do you see any you don't see any detriments to uh none to creating these two lots based on for lot area and lot width? Correct. That is correct. Um I'd like you to move on. We'll cover the um negative criteria all
at once at the end. Is that correct? That's correct. So, let's move on to the positive criteria for the front yard setback. So front yard setback a fully conforming 25 foot front yard setback is provided to the main structure. We are pro providing only 19T
to the covered porch. So that does require a variance. We feel that the porch provides a little architectural interest instead of just a flat front boring house. It has a little character to it. So we feel it's a benefit. Uh since the porch is only 9 foot wide, it doesn't constitute a
significant encroachment in the front yard and does not adversely impact light, air, and open space. Purposes of the mu advanced by that. We think it promotes a desirable desirable visual environment through creative design and by adding a portion of front
of the house. It's a better planning alternative than simply having uninterrupted front facade. Also provides some shelter entering the dwelling. So I think it's just a benefit. It's an architecture benefit. I'm not an architect, but it's a benefit. It's going to look better. It's going to be more consistent again with
the neighborhood and it could be removed and then the house would comply. Correct. It certainly could. But you feel it's a better planning to to add it uh to the front facade. I do. And um in terms of any detriments, do you see any detriments? I see no detriments to that.
Um moving on to lock coverage by building. Can you address that? So lock coverage by building a variance uh to permit 28.8% building coverage provides a better alternative than compliance. It
it permits a little larger home that's more appropriate for a growing family. Um it's certainly not an oversized house. That's not what's happening. We're not building McMansions on these lots. It's a little larger home. I think it's very consistent with current standards and a growing family. Um
purpose is again advanced by MLU. Purpose A, we think it's an appropriate use in development of lands. Purpose G is provides sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses including residential. And I see no detriments. The total impurbished coverage of the
site including all improvements complies with the 40% maximum. The proposed residences are appropriately sized and can easily fit into the proposed lots. as such the benefits of the deviation will substantially outweigh any detriments. And you earlier testified
that even with adding these two structures and the related improvements, the increase overall increase in impervious coverage over what's there now is approximately 600 square feet. That's correct. And that's not significant. It's diminish. And did that
factor into your uh uh analysis of the appropriateness of the lot coverage that's proposed? Yes, it did. Thank you. Now I'd like you to address the F variance. Okay. So variance as you know D4 floor ratio. The criteria is to
demonstrate that the site will accommodate the problems associated with the proposed use with larger floor error than permitted by ordinance. So we're not focusing on the use here. Is that correct? That is correct. Because the use is permitted by ordinance. Use is permitted and we're focusing solely on
the um increase in F and what effects it may have. That's right. That's right. So here both proposed lots can accommodate an F of 0.55. We comply with all the setbacks with the exception of that front porch as previously
discussed. The additional floor area uh ratio will allow a more appropriate sized house. And again, it's important to know that the lot can can support the additional F. We're not asking for side earth setbacks. We're not asking for reard setbacks. we're not overbuilding
this home, making too large and fitting on a small lot. If it wasn't for the porch itself, which is we think a better architectural design, um there'd be no setback violations. So again, I see no uh
detriment whatsoever by the increased F. We're going to meet the character neighborhood and it's an appropriately sized house. Now, in terms of the negative criteria, which um again in looking at the whether there are detriments uh in each one, you kind of covered it already, but I'd like
you to address it. Um we're required to show no substantial detriment to the public good and no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning. Is that correct? That is correct. And did you uh address can you address that criteria?
Well, as discussed, the lot area and lot width are substantially consistent with the majority of the properties or neighborhood and are more consistent with the immediate area than the existing oversized lot. The front yard setback allows architectural interest. There's no adverse impacts to that
porch. The building coverage allows for appropriate size homes. Uh it meets the rear and side setbacks. The only deviation is that porch. We also meet the total impurbished coverage requirements. As far as the F is noted, the lots will accommodate any problems
associated with the increase in flare ratio. The variances taken together permit appropriate size of residential development consistent with the immediate neighborhood. And as a result, do you find that there there was any substantial detriment to the public good or any substantial detriment to the
impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance? I see no detriment whatsoever. Thank you. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Dupont with regard to engineering or planning testimony? Mr. Chairman, vice chairman, you
testified there's five out of out of 14. Is that on Foyer Street that are uh conforming to the current uh width of the property? He said five out of 14. I count 13 on Foyer Street. There is within 200 feet only five within a
radius and that's on that exhibit. There's four on foyer and one on heran. I'm sorry. So I was looking at I was looking at foyer and Harrian. There's a larger there's a church lot down below as well. You'll see within
200 ft. No, it's Foyer and what's the other street? So, it's Harrian and Foyer, both sides or is within that 200 foot radius that are that are not conforming. You're saying that sorry, they're conforming. Is that what you're saying? Conforming?
No, I'm in your testimony. You said five of 14 comply. Comply. And I'm just asking what street is that? Foyer Street. I don't know. Yes, it's Foyer on Foyer within 200 feet of our property and one's on Harrian. And then the church property. Yes, that's foyer as well.
Yes. So, you're saying five or 14 on Foyer Street? That was your testimony. I'm just asking. It's five within 14 within 200 feet of our property. Okay. Which is on talking John, you were talking about the block we're on that's surrounded by
Riverview, right, Harrian, Fox, and Foyer. That's where you talked about five of 14. And actually it's so it's for clarity on our block between Riverview and Fox Harrigon and Foyer there are one two three four if you
include our current lot five lots conforming total and nine that don't and nine that do not. So on this exhibit A1 that used that we're calling A1. Those numbers aren't on here that you
submitted and and here's another item. I'm looking at this right and then I got to turn it around or rip it in half because you got your map and then you got the information. So I'm not sure how to read this. I'm sorry. Can Can you amend this to on what your testimony is?
I could I will go back to saying exactly this. within 200 feet of our property, 67% of those lots within that 200 foot radius on that map are not conforming. Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions for Mr. Dupont? Mr. Dupont, did you do an analysis of the floor area ratio uh comparison within 200 feet? We did. Within 200 feet, we see no floor air
ratio exceeding on our block. Yes. Within 200 ft. What do you What do you Mr. Trip, can you bring the bring the microphone closer so we can hear you? And why would you think that would be? Older homes. Um, and and again, we didn't we
used Google Earth too at that moment, so we didn't we didn't survey these these dwellings. So, it's a little bit of an estimate as well. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Dupont? Okay. Thank you very much. Chairman, I have a question. Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. Just making sure I'm
reading this right. Mr. Dupont, so 67% are non-conforming, 33% conforming. the immediate neighbors on Foyer Street. There seems to be four properties in a row that are conforming.
Correct. And including ours. Yes. We're the middle of that. Yep. Yes. So the immediate neighborhood Well, the immediate neighbors are conforming. Both adjoining properties certainly are. Every property behind us adjacent is not. But yes, you're right. The left and
right side of our property is currently conforming. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Dupont? We mean at this time. Thank you very much, Mr. Dupont. M trip. Uh, that's all I have at this point. Okay.
All right. So, we will um proceed and go out to the public. Yep. So, with anyone anyone within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard, if you're within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard, you received a notice via certified mail. Sir, raise your right hand. Do you
solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you God? I do. And state your full name providing your address. Thomas Freck, 19 Street. I am behind the structure they're talking about. Um, I have one
question. My neighbor here did not have a chance to at least see the plan, so she doesn't even know what the house looks like. Is there a possibility she can look at the plans now while I'm asking questions? We have We have no objection. You can do that, ma'am. You could approach. So,
thank you, Mr. Carly. surprised. Okay. I have um several questions. I live I have lived in that neighborhood for 45 years. So if you need any clarification what this gentleman was talking about on Foyer Street, there's
two sides of the street. the side that he's proposing to build on has four houses that are in conformance with it. The one house he's working with is a double lot. Not a double lot, but it's one lot. That's actually two lots. So, that's one side of it. On the other side
of the street, there's one two houses and then there's a church cy building, a church lot, and a little church. So that's the neighborhood that we're talking about, the immediate neighborhood. On the other side, where I am on Harrian Street, we're pretty much
50 by 100 on lot sizes. So we're pretty much back to back. Um what he's proposing is nothing. It will be an improvement to neighborhood. It's nothing bigger. It's not a monstrosity to neighborhood. So it
it should fit in. But I do have some questions about it. Um the first thing I have is you're talking about um you want to get a uh variance from 25 ft to 19 ft for the
covered porch, but there also has to be a set of stairs that are going to extend out beyond that porch. So how long are those steps going to be? Are they going to be six foots? and I were talking about the house the
the beginning of the structure of the stairs are going to be 13 from the end of the street. Is that a legitimate question or no? Well, I would tell you that the we know we know the the covered portion will be 19 ft because that's what has a roof on it and that's what counts for front yard
setback. How close the stairs extend forward, I do not know that. I know that the current house is is 8 feet. So, it won't be as close to the current house, but I don't know how how exactly far it is. I don't Yeah, the architectural plan shows four steps, but I don't know if
that's accurate. I don't think that's accurate. One, two, three, four. It's got to be five, I think. Um, so when you're asking for an avarariance, aren't you looking at uh from where the the pro the the structure
ends to the sidewalk as opposed to um and that's what I'm asking for. Like how is the house going to look ex be exactly the way it is now, which is like 8 feet away from the street? No, it's not going to be set back uh 25 or 19
feet and then the steps come. Sir, let me see if I can if I could turn to one of our experts, Mr. Ayat. Yes. Uh, we take the set back from the end of the porch, not the stairs. We don't ever take it to the stairs. They could get out four stairs or I think he's going to
be four or five stairs at this point. Uh, but we always take it back to the end of the porch. That's where we measure from, not the stairs. And if I could offer one one maybe more clarity, the existing home right now, the existing main structure of the home
is 14.9 ft from the property line, not the sidewalk, from the property line. The proposed home will be 25 ft from the property line. Then the porch will come forward, but the main structure is back 10 ft from where the current one is today. Also looking at the existing
conditions and demolition plan, the porch itself is um what eight or nine uh It's uh I think it's 8.9 ft is the 8.9 ft and then there's a step in front of it. There is. So it's much closer than than
what what will be done if we have the porch. Is that correct? That's correct. We are pushing the house back a little bit. So the house is going back like from 14 25 ft and then the porch will be six. The porch coming forward the porch will be six. The house will be back set back
25. Then we deduct six feet for the porch by the be 6 by 25 the porch a full porch. No, it's it comes up to 19. So six 6 by 10. We have to put the garage in there. I know that. It's
not Mr. Mr. Carly. Yeah, Mr. Sure. Just the uh to cut to the quick the covered wood porch that the board sees on sheet one of two uh that's approximately 8 foot off of the front property line.
That's the existing. That's the existing. Yes. Thank you for uh reminding me what I said, Mr. Trip. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. And uh the uh if the board uh moves its attention to sheet number two uh they
would see that the setback of the proposed covered porch is about 19 ft. Uh all that is to say that Mr. Dupant's testimony that uh the proposed dwellings would be about 10
feet beyond where the existing dwelling is where set back an additional 10 ft is accurate. Sir, I'm sorry. I'm going to need you to be on microphone. It's okay. So the garage is going to be on one side and then the porch would be on the
other. So it would be a full porch for whatever is allowed, right? That's not taking being occupied by the driveway. It's even smaller than that. There's landscaping on the side. It's a smaller porch than that. So it's just a
small porch. It's like a landing porch. It's not a full porch. Short answer is yes. Yeah, shorter. It's a shorter porch. Looks it scales to to about 10 ft. So it's 10 ft and the door is about
three. So it's about five feet. So it's a little porch, but that will ex So it won't extend to the end end of the It will not house. Correct. Does that look right? That's what's shown on the proposed landscape and utility plan which is
shown on sheet 202 of the site improvement plan which is what I personally would like to see a full porch because that's what a lot of the structures in the area are. If you're putting that I mean you're going to build something if you're going to extend a little bit more then you're allowing the ports to be a little bit
more uniform I would think than that. That's not my issue. But I'm just making a recommendation to actually just extend the porch and just have it a full porch. Why cut cut a couple of feet off it? Because then it looks
like it doesn't look like it's uniform. That's my opinion. Okay. I'll leave it up to you to decide what you want to do. Um all right. I have a question in regard to
um drainage coming off the house. Um drainage coming off the house. Is it going to be underground drainage that the drain pipes go underground and then out to the street or will they just go right on the property? Splash box
right to the property right to the grass. So it's a splash box onto the property. Yes. Okay. Fencing. Is there any proposal uh for fencing surrounding the properties? Both properties? No.
Landscaping. What do we have for landscaping? Yes, there's landscaping consistent with the township requirements and there's foundation plings as well. Okay. Um All right. The setback you you were proposing that the uh what do you call
that? the backyard's distance to the end of the property is going to be maintained at 25 ft. Is that it's going to meet the code? Yes, it's going to meet. So, okay. So, that's not an issue. Um, position of the house. I didn't get a chance to really I saw the plans, but you know, you can only spend so much
time looking at them. The position of the house, where is it going? Where's the logistics of it? Is it in the center of the property? Would it be off to the left or off to the right or how how are the two houses going to be situated?
They both again we talked about the front yard setback at extent and we talked about the rear yard setback. So that's adaptive. You know that right? And then we meet the sideyards in the between the two new homes meet the setbacks and to the outside it's additional. So it's setback
plus additional couple feet. I didn't understand what word you said. When you lay the house down at 50 by 100 is it in the middle of the property 50 by 100 or is it off to the left or off to the right? It is not in the middle. Okay. As we said, the from the inside between the
two new homes, they're required to be at least six feet between the home and the property line on each side. They're each six feet. On the outside, they're required to be six feet. They're going to be 12 foot on both sides. So, it's a little bit the the setback in between the two new homes is the minimum and the
outside is expanded. Okay. So, there'll be 12 feet between the two houses when I'm looking at the structure. Yes. Okay. And then the driveways. Uh I forgot where the garages going to be. They're going to be on the left and the right side of the houses. You're going to be on the right side looking at both right
sides of the Both on the right side. They'll be both on the right side. Yes. Okay. Um uh my Okay. My only question is you're going to put two houses in there. You're not going to put any kind of fencing. I don't like that. I'm going to
tell you that right now. I think there should be some kind of fencing. That's not a Sarah, it's not a it's not a question. You were giving your commentary. Oh, none of Just I just want to clarify, right? So, I just making a commentary. That's fine. Please go ahead. Okay. So, I I would suggest that you put up
fencing in there and I I would probably put up a PCV fencing to give a little bit privacy to it because you're putting up two big structures. You're not putting any division between the house on the right. The house on the left has a garage that separates it from the main
structure on Riverview Avenue. Um, but I I I think you should consider something like that. Um, my other question is when you look at the renderings, how much do the renderings change when the house is being built as
far as the appearance? And I'll give you one question. Like the garage doors that are shown are very, very nice. They seem to be like top of the line. But is that what I'm going to expect to see when the house is built or are we going to start uh you know cutting costs and and
putting in just flat panel garage doors? The applicant has uh advised me to represent to the board that the plans will comply with the renderings that were shown. So to whatever garage doors are shown would be garage doors that would be built. He'd be willing to
stipulate to that. And also the applicant has advised me to uh indicate that a fence uh fence can be provided if the board would like fencing decorative fencing a PVC fencing that you'd have no objection to including that in a in a plan. Thank you very much. And there is
some fencing behind the property too existing already. So you may not have to put a whole fence in the back. You'd have to discuss it with the owners. Okay. Sir, I think Mr. Chairman, is he looking for a fence along his property line or between the two new houses? Because between the two
new houses, I think that's going to be too close. He needs to set back. So I I don't see a violation. The whole the at the ends of the properties the property the house on the right has no fence right now. It's not required. That's why there's no fence.
There's no fence required this evening either. If you're looking for a fence between your property and theirs, I can understand that. But but boxing in these two houses, I don't I don't see the need for that. say, "Well, well, I I didn't think about that, but that would look like pretty close." But I would say at least the fencing should be put up on
the right side of the right the right side of that. Yeah. Only I I would suggest to the board only the rear property line. If you want to put a fence, I don't think it's required, but I would put it up along the rear property line. I wouldn't put it anywhere else. These lots are very small. So, basically, the applicant would agree to whatever if the board
wants to impose a fencing condition, whatever the board feels is appropriate, we would be willing to do. Okay. I think that's something that the board would take under advisement. We appreciate it. Okay. So, if there's any issues with the renderings that I'm looking at now, if I look at the house after it's built and it's not the same, can I go can I put a
complaint in? What can what do I do at that point? If things change, which they're not supposed to according to codes and everything, right? What happens if it changes? What What do I do as a neighbor? Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. Um, he cannot build two houses that look alike. That's why we insist on
the the building plans. If he deviates from the building plans, um I would think he'd have to come back to the board. Okay. So, Miss Michelle, in case you unless you disagree with me, no matter what, this board would maintain
jurisdiction property and I would make it a condition of approval that the the facade be identical to the plans that were submitted to the board and then that's locked into the resolution as well. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Yes. It will be an improve I personally I think it's an improvement to neighborhood so I
don't have an addition um my neighbor Sue sorry so she can she can approach you so so you're good sir I'm good thank you very much we appreciate it thank you anyone else within 200 feet of subject site ma'am please approach and you're going to ask you're going to
ask what you want the relief and what state your name ma'am would you ma'am would you raise Sir, if you could please, sir. Sir, you please have us. Ma'am, would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you God? Yes. Okay. Please state
your full name and provide your address. Susan Dunham, 33 Riverview Avenue. Edison. I've lived in my house for 58 years. Edison is my home. I love the
neighborhood. It's a good place. Now, I'm going to ask a question, and it's probably stupid, but I I don't understand the letter that I got. It says it's requesting relief on any variances. I hate to be
the stupid person, but does that mean as they go along, you can just change things and they're asking for like cart blanch of relief? I'm sorry. Not a problem, man. That's not a problem. So, here this is this is what we're going to do. We're going to put either Mr. Trip or Miss Miss Shaw's law degree to
practice and one of them is going to answer this question. So, I'm going to sit back and we're going to let we're going to let them let them work their ESQs. Okay. The notice, ma'am, the notice is only advising you that the applicant requires variances from the requirements of the township ordinances.
So if the board were to look favorably upon the application, the resolution would indicate what the conditions are and these are the only variances that would be granted. If the applicant requires additional variances or modifications or changes, the board
retains its jurisdiction and they would have to come back to the board to address those variances. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And I will use my law degree by agreeing with uh the board attorney. Sorry. Thank you. No, that's No. Thank you so much for coming out. Thank you so
much for asking the question. And now you're ready to go to law school. Okay. Anyone else within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard? Anyone outside of 200 feet subject site wanting to be heard? Seeing none, can I get a motion
to close the public? Mr. Chair. Oh, can I ask a question to the applicant? Uh, sure. U Mr. Mr. Deont, I see that there is uh the roof leaders as you mentioned. Wait, actually actually Mr. Ch, let me just close the public portion. Um, so can I get a motion to close the public
portion? Motion to close public portion. Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman, second by Mr. Chabber. All in favor signify by saying I. I nay. The eyes have it. Public portion is now closed. Mr. Chabber, you have the floor. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Dupont, I see that there's roof leaders are directed to
splash blocks. Um, is there any um plans for the owners to put some kind of drainage system in the ground? Um, my only concern is this. Again, you're putting two brand new prop two brand new buildings here. Lots of impervious um 45 by 32 feet of buildings that are being
propped in these areas and it's looking like that splash leader, that roof leader is almost 12t away from the neighbor's property and I'm afraid it's going to flood his garage and his yard. Okay. So, as we as we talked about earlier, because so much impervious
exists today, building demoing the entire site and building two new homes and two new driveways, there's only 639 square ft of increased impervious. That's dimminimous that you're not even going to see any change at all. So, today it's splash blocks and roof
leaders today. And there's a large uh garage in the back and asphalt driveway in the back that's going to become lawn. The splash blocks two roof leaders to splash blocks in four different directions will dissipate the water over the site which is encouraged by the state right with groundwater recharge
and trying to get the water back into the soils. So and the drainage pattern too. Right now the property slopes to the rear. We're going to maintain that but we're going to eliminate some of the asphalt and roof in the back of the property. So there's going to be no increase in runoff. There's going to be
no change in drainage pattern. And no, I believe there would be no need for a property owner to put any kind of drainage in there. So I would argue um otherwise because a 45x32 piece of patio is different than a 45x 32 roof. A 40 five a building has
four points and it's four concentrated loads of runoff going off. If it's a patio again as you mentioned before it sheds in all the different directions equally as per the pitch and such. So in this situation that whole buildings large buildings runoff is
going in a concentrated load into one corner for each of the four corners rather than the patio. So for that reasoning again I would favor look upon if the builder was considerate enough to put drainage pipes alongside the neighbor's property. Um it looks like they have a masonary garage right next
to 2 feet away from that boundary line. Um, the last thing I want to hear from the from the neighbor complaints that the water is going into their garage, the runoff from a patio, an impervious service, whether it be a roof or or an driveway is exactly the same.
You're right about sheow across it. I understand that. But look at the size of this driveway and that large garage. That large garage is on the line and that's currently just coming down splash, you know, roof leaders and off the off the pitch. I get your point that you're concerned about adjoining
properties. I think by breaking up into four degrees, I don't think you're going to have any kind of a a concern there. It is broken up into four. And quite frankly, that's the way it's encouraged to do um with the state regulations, storm regulations. They want you to detach runoff from roofs and patios into
lawn areas and recharge your groundwater. That's what they're encouraging. Correct. And there's, you know, having drainage pipe that's has holes and stuff. you can put that stuff that's again is also recharging into the grass. Um I completely get that point. Um second question is the stairs
to the basement. Um I see that there's masonary stairs going into the basement. Um what are the purpose of that? I'm sorry on the site plan or the architectural plan site plan. I'll look at the site plans. Oh yeah. Okay. Just access to just access to the
basement for the Okay. Um, are they having any intentions of using as an apartment? Absolutely not. Okay. Um, is it something in the area? I mean, I haven't seen It's not very familiar in Edison having stairs to the basement. Um, would
the applicant consider removing them? The applicant advised me that they wanted an extra a different an additional um way to get into the basement from the backyard. But if the board is concerned about that, he would agree to eliminate those stairs if that's a concern.
Okay. Yeah. I mean, I personally um unless the board thinks otherwise, I personally don't think there's a need for those stairs in the back. Um given that the the variances that are being requested um and the condition of the neighborhood, the way the neighborhood structured, I don't think so it fits in
um any purpose or use there. That's it. Thank you. Again, again, that's something that we would we would agree to do as a condition of any board decision. Okay. Since there was new uh testimony provided as a result of um Mr. Travis's question, we're going to reopen to the
public. Um, so but is it only be with regarding to the new testimony that was just presented? Um, so we're open. So first to 200 feet and within 200 feet a subject say wanted to be heard. Sir, and this is with regard to the new testimony that was just presented. You just
mentioned about the stairs. So can I talk about the stairs? So just hold on. The stairs in the back. Sorry. Hold on. Just state your name for the record again. Thomas Freck. And you're still under oath? Yes. I just had a question about the stairs. It's good to have an
outside entrance to your cellar always in case you have to replace your furnace or a washing machine or whatever the case may be. I also see that when you put a set of stairs like I just saw there, first thing comes to my mind is this going to be a two family house under a one family
rule because there's a full basement down. It is a full bathroom downstairs. So my question is similar to what you're alluding to over there or maybe not alluding to but is this this is going to be a one single family house not a two
family house. Correct. The application request is for a single family home. It is not for a two family home. It will remain as such if it is so approved. Okay. All right. So I have issues. I
have I can go back if I happen to see two families living in the house. I can go back to the city and say why are there two families in the house? Is that my option? The only use that's permitted is a single family. That's what we're seeking. If anyone in the future ever
tries to use it for a use that's not permitted, it would be a zoning violation. And we have Mr. Ayat uh sitting up with the board who can explain what that would entail. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Thank you, sir. Anyone else within 200 feet of subject site
want to be heard? Anyone outside of 200 feet? Seeing none, can I get a motion to close public portion? Motion to close public portion. Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman. Seconded by Mr. Schneider. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Those nay. The eyes have it. Public portion is now closed. Mr.
Trip, would you like to give summation tonight or do you want to hold off until uh we carry us for a vote? Um, it probably makes sense to wait because we'll have the you'll have the full board there presumably who's read the transcripts. So, I would do a summation at that point. So, it's less
for them to have to read. That's fine. Um, I would be I promise you I would be I will be brief. Okay. All right. Madam Secretary, carry them to June 17th for a vote. Are you going to June 17th for a vote on? Uh, we can do that. Okay. All right. So, for anyone here present,
for anyone listening at home, this case will be uh will resume on June 17th, 2025 with a meeting beginning at 700 p.m. here in council chamber. Um if you received the notice, you will not receive another notice. This will serve
as your notice. Uh and thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. So, the board will take a fivem minute recess to stretch our legs and allow the court reporter to uh rest her hands. What happens? Return to session. Madam Secretary, next
case on the agenda, please. Case number Z27 2024 1970 Edison LLC at 1970 Lincoln Highway. Applicant is seeking preliminary and final site plan approval along with use in bulk variances to construct a second story addition to the existing office.
Standards have not been met in accordance with the master plan. Max F permitted is 0.25. Proposed is 48. Combined sideyard required is 30. Proposed is 23.18. Max lot coverage required is 75%
proposed is 90%. Minimum sideyard required is 15 proposed is 8.69 ft. Affected property is located in the GB zone designated as block number 1131 lot number 30.01 on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order.
Good evening, Mr. Saxs. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Lawrence Saxs on behalf of the applicant. Uh the applicant is uh 1970 Edison LLC uh which is the property owner uh block 1131 lot 30.01. Uh Mr.
Chairman, members of the board, we're here this evening for preliminary and final major site plan approval um to construct an addition to an existing medical arts building. Uh that addition consists of a second story addition and also uh a first and second story
addition to the uh to the rear of the property. uh we do require some bulk variances most of which are pre-existing nonconformities based upon uh the configuration of the site and the existing structure that's there uh which is a onestory medical arts building. Uh
we also require uh a D4 uh floor area ratio variance uh which is technically a use variance. Uh the use is permitted in the zone but uh we will obviously provide our proofs uh with respect to the uh D4. Uh the property is located in
your uh GB uh zone. Uh it's approximately 185 acres. Um I'm sure many of you are familiar with this site. Uh to be kind, it's a site that requires a lot of TLC. It's uh a fairly uh
deteriorated and dilapidated uh commercial building that was utilized as a medical arts building. Uh the applicant plans on doing major renovation to it. Uh the facade is is obviously going to be a uh a major improvement to what you see right now on
Route 27. Um also the parking lot is really a non-elineated parking lot. So part of this proposal will be to delineate the parking stalls. Uh we do not require any parking variants and we're also going to comply uh with the installation of EV charging stations uh
pursuant to local and and state law. Um Mr. Chairman, I have two witnesses. My first witness is Mr. Saril Mansor who is actually uh his family owns the property and will also be the operator of the property. Uh so this will be owner
occupied uh property and and owner occupied business and I want him to just briefly talk about uh his business. He'll talk about the hours of operation, number of employees uh etc. Uh my second witness will be uh Mr. John Dupont who I know this board is familiar with because
you saw him about 10 minutes ago. Uh and he will provide testimony as to engineering and also planning. Uh so Mr. Chairman without further ado if we can have Mr. answer sworn in and I'll ask him just a few brief questions. Mr. Mensory, raise your right hand. Do you
saw me swear or affirm to tell the whole truth? Nothing but the truth. I hope you got. Yes, I do. And state your full name for the record. Uh, my full name is Sergil Mensory. S A R J I L. Uh, last name Mensuri. M A N S U R I. All right. Mr. Menuring, if you could
describe to the board uh the nature of your business, what's the name of your business and what what type of business are you going to be are you engaged in and will be so at this particular property? Uh so the company name is actually Dodge Company. We are a uh
wholesale jewelry company um for beads and semi-precious stones. Um what we do is we essentially sell to uh directly to jewelry designers and other um business owners. Uh we do not sell to the public. We do not sell as a retail value.
Similarly um like I in comparison and I'm not please let me know if I'm not allowed to do this but uh if you guys are familiar with Oak Tree Road with um who are open to the public who sell out finished jewelry uh that is not our business. We would essentially uh hope
that the um Oak tree road business owners would be our customers. So we are only appointment only. We are focused on wholesaling jewelry directly to those businesses. Okay. And uh your intention is to utilize this building for your uh back office operations. That is correct.
Yes. And also you plan on having a small display room as well. Yes. All right. So there's no retail no retail activity will occur at this site. No. And all all uh anyone who's coming to that showroom will be by appointment only. That is correct. And it'll be one at a time, I
assume. Yes. Yes. Obviously, you want to devote your attention to that customer. All right. The hours of operation uh you've indicated to me are going to be 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. That's correct. Uh you're not going to be open uh obviously for uh uh
for customers on Saturday or Sunday, although I assume you may use your office those days. All right. And in terms of employees, what's the maximum number of employees that you'll have? So, in including family members, we have uh six individuals um who essentially
help out with the business. Um but uh due to um but we are essentially working on as a part-time shift schedule. So, we have no more than three people at a time at the store. Okay. And uh deliveries uh
how do they occur? Uh through UPS, FedEx, and things of that nature. Okay. There's no tractor trailers, no large wheelbase vehicles on the site. No. No. All right. And in terms of refuse, um I know what's proposed is uh I guess a small uh refuse uh container. Uh you'll
put your recycling in there and also trash. Yes. Okay. And that will be picked up by a carter. Yes. All right. And that will occur during off hours. Yes. All right. And um I'm assuming you don't generate a lot of trash and recycling. Am I correct? No. Okay. All
right. All right. And in terms of any other tenants, uh, this will be solely occupied by your business. There are no other tenants proposed at this site, correct? It's solely for the, um, family business. Okay. Now, the first floor, I know the board has the benefit of seeing some architectural plans. Uh, the
existing basement obviously is going to be renovated, but the basement is just going to be for storage. Uh, utility. Yes. Utility. Utilities. Okay. Uh the first floor was proposed is a conference room, a sitting area and a display area. Uh that display area is really a modest
size display area. It's approximately 974 square ft. Yes. Okay. You'll have some display cases, I assume. Yes, exactly. All right. And the second floor uh is comprised of approximately 1668 square feet. That will be an open office area. Yes, that's correct. That's where
your three to four employees will be working. Correct. Okay. Um Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions of this particular witness. Certainly is available for any board questions. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Mensuri? Mr. Chairman, vice chairman, where are
you operating your business right now? Uh, so currently our our history is interesting. We were in New York City at one point and then COVID happened. We then moved our operations to our home. Any other questions, Mr. Manuri?
Mor, and I was just, this may be on the plans, but I'm just hoping there's some safe security for um Yes, we we need to um we need to keep essentially like a giant logs and safe so we can essentially keep all of our merchandise
in um and then additionally with security cameras and and a locked door like our more a reinforced door. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Mensory? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Chairman, my
next and final witness will be Mr. John Dupont. Come back. Thank you guys. [Music] Do you swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth? So, I hope you got I do. State your name for the record. John P. Dupont.
And Mr. Mr. Dupont, you were previously accepted earlier this evening. Nothing has changed in the last hour. That is true. Oh, that's a good thing. Okay, you may proceed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, so Mr. Dupont, I know we have a handout, so maybe I can pass
that out. Yep. All right. Um, and we'll mark this as A1. And I think maybe for this application I'll go over to the plans. Keep these in check. So for the record um this handout A1
consists of three pages. That's correct. Okay. Uh, Mr. Dupont, uh, why don't you briefly describe, uh, the exhibit A1 and I'm sure that will segue into what's being proposed here. Okay. We took a couple aerials. Well, we had to use Google Earth and we took a couple
aerials. So, the first sheet on A1 shows the U property marked in red. That's just an aerial view of it. The second sheet shows from Route 27, the front of the building to kind of give you an idea of the size and condition. And then
there's also one Google shot um down a block. So you see next three or four properties. You can get a feel for the neighborhood. Um and there is a fourth one, I'm sorry. It's just a tax map. We'll talk about that in a bit. But currently the existing site is
1970 Lincoln Highway. It's block uh 1131 lot 30.01. The site is currently 8,045 square ft located right route 27. Site has one uh has a one-story frame building on it that was formerly used as a dental
office. It's been vacant for two or three years now. The entire front of the property is paved as well as the sides. The rear of the property is grass and quite frankly it's a little overgrown at this point. Uh the building is in poor condition is
in need of re rehabilitation. So the applicant is looking to do and I'll just look at sheet three or four in the site plan. The existing structure will stay same footprint on the existing structure. They're going to propose a second level. So that make that twotory
to the rear. There's going to be a two-story addition to the rear of the property. The total building with both additions will become 3,825 ft. The building entirely will be used for the applicant's office as you heard for his business.
The site plan shows 10 parking spaces. Currently, the entire front of the property is paved as we said. So, some park spaces are up front. We have a driveway to the rear and more parking spaces in the back. There's 10 spaces. There's several EVs, three of them. So,
the total count for this property is 13 spaces. 13 spaces required by code, 13 spaces proposed. So from we'll start with engineering first. The increase in impervious on this application is 3,700
ft. We provide drainage calcs that show a minimum increase. We weren't proposing any on-site detention. However, we were trying to get the roof leaders directed towards the front of the property through 27. So we're trying to direct them forward. The rear of the property
currently, if you're staring at the property, the right side is the new McDonald's that's built. The rear of the property, the grass currently runs towards the McDonald's. And we're going to keep that same pattern um running towards McDonald's, but we're not proposing any tension or drainage in the
back. Roof less forward, and we hope that um satisfies that concern. The parking layout pretty effective. A couple spaces up front, five spaces up front, uh, five in the back. Uh, there is one that Mr. McNell
brought out that we'll talk in a little bit. Space label space number one that we could talk about. It's it's towards the end of the drive aisle. Uh, there's proposed lighting. There's shields on the lighting so there's no spillage behind our property.
Obviously, we're on Route 27, but directly behind the property is residential houses. It's a residential neighborhood in a different zone. So we shielded the lighting so there's no lighting spillage. We provide the landscaping as required with your tree counts. We provided some additional shielding and
landscaping along the side of the building alongside the parking just to soften it. And this project requires the following variances. So there's several existing non-conformings. Lot area in this zone requirement is 10,000 ft. The current
lot is 8,045 ft. The lot width is required 100 ft. Currently it's 60 ft wide. The side setback single 15 ft required 8.69 ft existing and
proposed. Both sides combined 30 ft required 2346 uh existing and proposed. on our bulk schedule on the sheet on the cover sheet we showed a a tiny difference on the
sideyard setback and the both um the combined setbacks it's not changing we're using the exact width of the building now the same setbacks and just extend the building straight back so there'll be no change um so we're going to show is existing non-conformings there is two new
variances required lot coverage 75% maximum we're proposing 90%. And you've heard the F requesting. F in this zone is 0.25. We're requesting 0.48. So that being said, we have I
think I'm going to come back over to the other table and get the review letters. Uh we have received a letter from DNR dated April 7th. Yeah, let me uh let me go over this with you, Mr. uh Mr. Dupont. Um so the ju
just so just to summarize in terms of the variances that are being require being requested, um the lot area, lot width, sideyard, and combined sideyard are all pre-existing nonconformities based upon the size of the lot. Uh the two new variances are lot coverage and F. And I know we're going to get into
planning testimony in a second. Uh but since you've covered your I guess a description from an engineering standpoint um one question in paragraph uh 2.2 uh now a traffic report was provided by Mcdana and Ray Associates.
Is that correct? That is correct. All right. That that report was dated February 21st, 2025. And would you concur with the conclusion in that report uh that there are no significant traffic, parking or circulation issues uh raised with this project? I would
concur with that. There's such a limited amount of trips, seven in the morning peak, 8 in the PM peak. Um you know, very small building, very low peaks, and I agree there's going to be no impact whatsoever. All right. And in terms of the parking, uh you heard the testimony of Mr. Mansuri who basically said his
maximum number of employees are six. The maximum number of customers that would be there at any given time is one. So we have at at a peak time or at peak demand seven uh parking spaces that may be utilized and we do have 10. Is that correct? We do. All right. So we don't
have any parking issues. Uh I know that was raised in Mr. Carly's report. I just wanted you to touch on that. Uh the rest of the uh comments in terms of pedestrian and vehicular movement uh we can comply with all of those. Is that correct? We can. All right. Um just for
the record, Mr. Chairman, uh in two uh paragraph 2.7, uh Mr. Carly has requested that we uh provide a cross access easement with our neighbor. Uh that has been agreed upon with the neighbor. Uh I've already prepared that easement and certainly that can be a
condition of approval that if the board acts favorably, we'll make sure that that is executed and recorded. And I think that's an excellent suggestion by Mr. Carly. Um all right. In terms of parking, I think we covered parking. Um, paragraph 3.2, uh, any security measures
for the parking area. I know Mr. Mansuri talked about internal security, uh, but I'm sure he'll have cameras, uh, also on the exterior as well, uh, because he does have some valuable merchandise there. Um, let's see what else. Uh, in terms of
loading, paragraph 3.4, do you see the need for any additional separate loading space here based on Mr. Mansur's testimony? I do not. Okay. Uh, in terms of lighting and landscaping, I think we can comply with all of Mr. Carly's comments. I know Mr. Bigell has a few
comments which we'll go over in a second. Um, storm water management. Uh, I think we can comply again with any of those technical concerns of Mr. Carly. U, Mr. Dupont, I think there was a a mistake made on the architect's
plans specifying a seepage pit. Is that correct? Yeah, the architect's plan did show a seepage pit at one point and that that's certainly an option. We thought with the soils in the area, it might be better to bring the roof leaders forward, get the water to route 27 and just make sure there's no adverse runoff to the adjoining property. Okay. Uh,
paragraph six deals with sanitary waste disposal, water supply, other utilities, and again, I believe we can comply with all of that. Is that correct? That's correct. All right. Um in terms of uh fire suppression uh I don't think any is required in this application but
certainly uh Mr. Dupont the the uh applicant will comply with fire extinguisher smoke whatever is required marshal okay uh solid waste paragraph 7 we can comply with all of that uh did we show the location of that shed that Mr.
uh Mansuri testified to if not we can I think we have to add it we'll we'll add that to the plans and also uh Mr. Chairman members of the board any any refuge that's carded off site uh will occur during off hours since since we are obviously going to be the owner and
operator of this site we can control that. Uh so we'll make sure that that doesn't occur during business hours. Um, let's see. Number eight, environmental. We can comply with all of that. And miscellaneous, we can comply with all of that. Uh, I know we're
asking for a waiver on a fiscal impact statement. I'll defer to Mr. Carly on that. I don't think we're going to be impacting the municipality in any negative way with this project. Um, all right. So, I think, uh, that covers engineering. So, let's segue. Hang on a
second. Hang on a second. Hang on a second. I'm steering the ship here, not you. Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Mr. Carly. I uh I'll agree with Mr. Saxs. Uh he did a uh he and Mr. Dupont did a comprehensive
job uh covering my report. Uh and I uh relative fiscal impact statement that's uh presented by the ordinance. I would expect that Mr. Mansuri will be paying property taxes and the facility will not
be contributing school children. So uh if uh planner Dupont would with that I think that would suffice as a fiscal impact report. I would concur. And that's about it. Mr. Cumber, thank you
Mr. C. Thank you. Now you have the Sorry about that, Mr. You get you get one per night. You're good. Okay. Thank you. All right. So with that said and with the chair's permission now we can get into planning. So if you can cover uh both the bulk variances and also the uh uh
the uh floor area ratio variance that we require. I certainly will. Okay. So you've heard it before existing non-conforming. Just to review it lot area lot width. No changes proposed sideyard setback and combined sideyard setback both existing
non-conformings. The two new variances you have in front of you tonight, you have lot coverage maximum allowable 75% we're proposing 90 and the floor area ratio maximum allowable
0.25% we are proposing 0.48. So I will address the new variances using the flexible seed criteria. I am going to go right to the new variances. the allowable 75. We are proposing 90, but we're able to provide
adequate on-site parking. So, with an office space building, we expanded it and we wanted to make sure that we were able to properly park it. We didn't want to have a building too large that we couldn't service. So, we thought it was more important to increase the impervious and provide adequate parking.
We were able to do that. Uh, we did not adversely impact the drainage. We did provide landscaping and lighting and security. Um the adjoining properties on Route 27 are all very similar there. A lot of those houses I mean a lot of those buildings right in that section are old
homes that were converted to offices, real estate lawyer and they all have a similar design. The entire fronts are paved. They parked some in the front and then they paved the back. And if you look at the photographs we sent you, that's why we gave you a couple photographs aerials. Um we're doing very
similar design. Seems to be effective. And we thought again the importance of parking was was critical. Um and then the floor air ratio. So as the D4 as you know criteria is to demonstrate that the site can
accommodate the problems associated with the proposed larger floor air ratio that was permitted by ordinance. Um the focus isn't a use because that's permitted but rather deviation in the floor area ratio. Here the lot can accommodate the
0.48 48. Uh, we have not further intensified the setbacks. Not the sideyards, not the front, not the rear. We didn't further intensify. We're able to create enough on-site parking for the use as previously discussed. And we also comply with the height. So, we are
maintaining all the light, air, and open space. This is exactly what the intensity of the site and floor ratio is all about that we kept all the light, air, and open space. We're not overbuilding this building, you know, compromising side setbacks, compromising
reo setbacks. We're meeting all that. There's a we did an exhibit two and I think you have that one as well. We took a quick look at the adjoining properties. Uh where did mine go? Oh, I think I have it. Uh I don't.
There's three properties right next to us. Here it is. And we thought it was interesting to kind of take a look because it's directly behind us is the residential zone. So that that's really a different animal, but we had the fourth sheet of that staple set you had
shows the tax maps. And we looked at the four properties next to us. Now block um sorry, lot 31 is that new McDonald's. It's not it's a different animal. So we I didn't look at that one, but ours is 48. It's highlighted in yellow in that on that
tax map. The floor ratio is 048. The one right next door is 39. The one next door to that is30. So it's it's kind of the same thing. These are a little older buildings and quite frankly they need some renovation as well. But in that time frame, that's kind of what they
built. Um ours is was a smaller one right now. As we expand it, building gets a little bigger. But as we accommodate the on-site improvements to make the office space work, our floor ratio goes up. But this isn't a residential. This is a commercial unit on Route 27 that is going to be now
consistent and probably quite frankly probably going to be the leader in this area of renovations. You're going to see more here. This is just the first applicant doing it, but it's going to improve it. You look at that site now, it it needs needs help. The building is in rundown condition and it's on a main
roadway. So, we think the floor with the lock the lot can meet that floor ratio requirements. um the demand I think we balanced it between the impervious and the parking and the size of that building to get something that really works and is
effective. Um as you can see you know see exhibit we're going to match that neighborhood beating characteristics. Now there's purposes of the mul that will be advanced by this application and I could I read them to you briefly. I'm not going to worry with them. But you know,
purpose A is to develop lands uh in a manner to promote health uh general uh safety and welfare. Clearly that's it. C to promote adequate light air and open space. Again, we're doing all that. E to ensure establishment of
appropriate densities and concentrations uh in neighborhoods and communities. I think we're really doing that as we meet the character. and I to promote a visual a desirable visual environment. We're taking an old dilapidated building. It's going to be a nice new office space.
It's not going to be too intense or it's not a gas station. It's not a convenience store. This is a our client owns this for his wholesale jeweler family business. It's a perfect location. It's good access for him and we're going to make the area look a lot
better. As far as negative criteria, I see no substantial detriment or to the public good or to the uh impairment of zone plan or the intent of the zoning ordinance. Um the lock coverage allows us for a more uh
effective size building. We park it properly. We don't over um extend all the setbacks. The F is noted will accommodate any problems. The lock can accommodate any problems with respect to the F. when you look at the variances together, it's an appropriate design. It's consistent with the neighborhood. I
think it's a great balancing act. And that's my testimony. Just just a couple questions, Mr. Dupont, and thank you for the concise testimony. And uh I do want to go over Mr. McNell's report in a second, but um so I guess if I can summarize your testimony, uh the bulk
variances that we're seeking uh can uh can be granted under a C2 flexible C2 analysis. That's correct. And that would be where the benefits uh would outweigh any detriments and more importantly promoting sound planning. That's accurate. Yes. All right. Um and in
terms of the D4 uh floor area ratio variance, uh again, it's not a strict use variance where we have to do the Medici balancing test. uh under Coventry Square. We just have to uh obviously demonstrate to the board uh that the
site can accommodate this use and we are providing obviously enough parking which is really the critical issue in any commercial site. Is that correct? That's correct. We don't require a parking variance. Uh we're also providing EV parking spaces uh which brings this
property uh more into the uh 21st century. Is that correct? That is correct. All right. Um, and obviously the previous use was as a medical arts building. If we were to utilize this as a medical arts building with the parking requirements in under today's standards, we'd probably have to provide more
parking. Is that correct? We certainly would. Okay. Um All right. So, in terms of Mr. uh Big Nell's report, um, which is dated May 13, 2025, um, you've covered all of the variances.
I I hope. And I I'm sure Mr. Big Nell will tell us if we didn't. Uh, we're complying with the EV credit. We're complying with the lighting. Uh, in terms of landscaping, I know that there's a comment that he wants us to provide an additional deciduous tree on site. We can do that. Yes. All right.
Uh, and also he's indicated he'd like to see some additional plantings along the front property line. Uh, that may be problematic. Can you indicate to the board why? Yes. Currently today, the entire front of the property is paved. It's like a a large driveway. So all
depressed curb you drive by the entire front. So it's all currently asphalt and we're we're contending to keep the that same thing just repave it. But just to keep it all asphalt. All right. Um Mr. Chairman and and and Mr. Big Nell's comment. If there's any place else on site where we can provide some
landscaping, we're certainly willing to do it, but I think we'd probably lose some parking. But Well, I I just have a couple of questions real quick. Please, Mr. Right now, the curb cut is like pretty much the entire front of the property. It is. Have you gone to DOT and talked to them about curb cuts?
Our our traffic engineer has looked at the the uh state requirements. He thinks we'll get a letter of no interest, but he does not he says we should not alter that driveway in any way. Yeah. I don't want to do that to you because because I was thinking if you angled some of that parking, you'd have like a one way in and and then a one way out and then have
the access to the back and you you'd gain a couple of feet in the front. But if he can't do it, I understand. Right. Okay. Yeah. Um All right. Just a couple more things in Mr. Bignell's report. Um wants to ensure that we will comply with the uh uh lighting foot candles at the
residential property lines and and that will certainly occur. Is that correct? Correct. All right. And I think we've spoken about the refues and we'll show that detail. Where you going to put That's another question. Where are you going to put it? Because on the architectural plan you show like a shed. Yeah. And that normally doesn't We don't
normally approve that, but I don't think they're going to create a lot of garbage. But in the future, like if you ever sold the building or something of that nature, where you kind of putting that shed and how are they going to get access to it? That's my guess. Is it going to be a shed or we going to do an enclosure? Well, we if we have room, we can do an enclosure. I know the the the
architect showed the shed. U it would probably be a very small refuge container with, you know, obviously a similar sized enclosure. You know, we'll be a I guess we can show that on the plan, Mr. Dupont. We will certainly show it on everybody's plan. you know, it could be maybe you put it where you have that one space sticking out on the in
the driveway going in because you won't need a full length space or you can eliminate that. The other thing too is I don't think you're going to have any kind of noxious smells or anything coming from your your dumpster. Eliminate. No, we don't. We have unless he has gold samples that he throws in the dumpster. That's But um the one
thing I may have missed on my report, I was looking the fencing in the back. Is that going to be a new fence across the back of that property line? Because we aren't creating a buffer. It's an existing condition. Yeah. Um, Mr. McNell, the the applicant has indicated that if the board and plus if the board is interested in seeing a
fence back there, we'll put a new fence back. Yeah. Uh, because like I said, you're increasing the impervious cover, too. I don't have any problem because the on the McDonald side, it seems like you're paved to your property line, but they're not. So, they got all those trees and things in there. They're not going to touch those because that was just all redone. So, that's exactly
right. Yeah. Yeah. So, that's a good thing. Um, you're not gonna do any dig. You're gonna do digging, but I pipeline buffering. You're gonna have to at least provide the letters. We've had an explosion down the road there, and we won't see any more of that. You know, we'll do that. That's for your own protection. That's all. Yes. And then,
um, we talked about this, the shielding the lights in the back, so it's zero signage. You got those two signs that are u in the front of the property. Are they they kind of like they're kind of really odd places. Is there any way of you I know you want to use the
existing the existing signs, but that's Well, let me ask it a different way. Do they interfere much at all with the flow of traffic on site? Last they provide me a some kind of narrative on the flow. I I pulled in there tonight and I I know the sign you're talking about. Yeah.
Doesn't it obstruct our driveway? How about the neighbor? There's no problem with the neighbor. No. because it's all paved around. People kind of go left and right of it. All right. Um and then last um I'd also ask for a cross access agreement uh with the neighbor just so because you everybody
shares everything up there and I want to reinvent the wheel but he's doing a real nice job with the facade of the building. So that's a that's a real plus. Yeah. And we we'll provide that Mr. Bigell. We have already prepared it and it's just a question of having it executed if the board acts favorably.
Hang the one tree. Thank you, son. The one tree. Mr. Carly, [Music] thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, going back to what Mr. McNell was talking about with the sign. I don't think that it obstructs vision. It's
a a sign that's elevated. It's on uh two posts and uh motor vehicle or drivers can see between the posts but semicolon. It's on an a raised bed which has
u bricks or pavers that's in the state right of way. And so in my report I say you're going to need an occupancy permit. In your uh traffic uh consultant's report he uh advises that he's going to get a letter of no
interest for the access permit uh which is entirely feasible. Seven trips per hour is dimminimous, but you really are going, you the property owner, going to have to really think hard about your
love for that brick paver area uh in terms of asking for permission from the state. That's between you and the state, Mr. Sachs. Uh because you're going to need their permit. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Carly. Okay. All right. So, does the board have
any questions for Mr. Dupont with regard to engineering testimony and planning testimony? Mr. Dupont, I have a planning question. Um, in in comparison to some of the sites within 200 ft um within that zone um your F,
are you in line? Yes. So, that's that's that one exhibit I that you have. So, we looked at the route 27 lots right next to us. That's the fourth sheet of that packet. And I think we're right in line with those. We're a little bigger than the older homes or the older buildings.
Mr. Chairman, I I have a three sheet packet. Yeah, I think it's I think it's only three sheets. Oh, don't I give you this one? I'm sorry. My bad. Well, we only have one copy of all these fancy color copies included. You got that that one that that that That's the important one.
Yeah. No, seriously. And you keep reference in here. It's it's a pretty good document. Yeah. So I I think uh Mr. Dupan, I think your testimony was is that obviously the the properties to the north and south of us are all exceeding the 0.25 FA. They
are. So I'll tell you I'll tell you what we're going to do. So um our secretary is going to make copies of it. So we'll take uh just two minute recess till she comes back, makes copies, attributes to the board. Um and uh we'll be good to go. All right. Thank you.
that We're ready. All right. The board returned to session. Uh so in the uh during the break uh the madam secretary made copies for the board of what is now going to become be marked as A2 the elusive page
four. Sorry Mr. Dupont. You may proceed. Well, that is so that's that's a copy of your tax map. I I highlighted our lot and showed the 0.48 F. Looking at the map to the left, lot 31 is the new McDonald's. I felt it
wasn't really apples to apples, so I did not look at that. But the next three properties are just the way ours is today. It's an older home. It looks like that was converted to an office or a real estate. So they're 39, 3, and 0.2.
So very similar kind of properties. Um and I think they'll be coming to you soon to renovate them too. They need renovations as well. Yeah. And you know, Mr. Dupont, let's go back to A1, which I think was the three sheet uh exhibit. Uh
and if I look at um for instance, the photograph uh on A2, excuse me, on the second page, it shows our building is a one-story building. Uh now the one next to us uh is one story with with a two a
second story edition, but is it your testimony that if you had a second story edition on that an entire second story edition, you'd probably be at a similar F as what we're Yes, absolutely. Okay. Absolutely. Um All right. And and it's your professional opinion. You believe
that um this site can certainly accommodate uh the F which really is being triggered as a result of the second story edition for the most part. That's correct. I do think it could handle it for sure. Okay. Uh Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions of uh Okay. Does the board
have any further questions? Mr. Dupont? Seeing none. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Saxs. Um well, Mr. Chairman, I know you only have five members here this evening. Um, I don't know if you want to open up to the public, but I have no objection to that. If you have no objection, we'll open up to the public
and then we'll then if it's if it's okay with you, we can then carry for a vote only for another night. Okay, great. All right, so we'll now go out to the public. Anyone within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard, you're within 200 feet, you received a notice via certified mail. Seeing none, anyone outside of 200
feet want to be heard? Seeing none, can I get a motion to close public portion? Motion to close the public portion. Second. Motion made by Mr. Schneider, second by Vice Chairman Gorman. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Nay. The eyes have it. Portion is now closed. Mr. S, you
want to give your summation tonight or you want to hold off until you get carried? I think I'll uh follow Mr. Trip's uh uh suggestion and do that at the next hearing. Okay. All right. Which which I think would be the 17th. June 17. Let's check that out. Yes. June
17th. Okay. All right. So, and that works for you. It works for your applicant. works for your professionals. Well, unless Mr. Carly and myself have to be in North Brunswick uh together that night. Uh but no, I'll make I'll make it my point. I know Mr. Carly would choose Edison over North Brunswick any day of the week. All right, Mr. Carly.
North Brunswick is a one-horse town. I can make a comment about horses and this we're going to we're going to keep We we also haven't had a meeting in a few months, so I'm hoping that the trend will continue. It's another thing. We're efficient around here. Okay. All right. So for anyone here present, for anyone listening at home, uh we will uh
this case will be carried until June 17th, 2025 for summation and vote. If you received the notice, uh you will not receive another notice. This will serve as your notice. This case will resume on June 17, 2025 with a meeting beginning
at 7 p.m. here in council chambers. Thank you very much, Sax. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the Have a good evening. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Any further business come before the board this evening? That'll be all this evening. All right. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? Motion to
adjurnn. Second. Motion made by vice chairman. No. Motion made by Schneider. Second by Vice Chairman Gorman. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Nay. The eyes have it. We're stands adjourn. Thank you everyone.