meeting of June 5th, 2025. In accordance with the open public meetings act 1975, chapter 231, adequate notice of this regular meeting of the zoning board of the township of Franklin has been provided. Board members,
applicants, professionals, and members of the public, please speak directly into the microphones so our recording secretary can properly process minutes. Applicants and professionals, please fill out the sheet on the table when you've completed your
testimony. Can we call the roll, please? Okay. Cheryl Bethia, Robert Shepard, Faras Khan, and Kunalakia as to be excused. Richard Proanic here. Basim Verdas here. Alan Rich here, Gary Rosenthal here, Michael Dardy here,
Shependu Singh here, and Chairman Thomas here. Uh, minutes regular meeting April 17th, uh, BO A417. I'll move a second. 2025.
But see, you can't vote. Oh, I can't. Okay. So, it's Gary was the first. If somebody else could please second it, I'll second. Who said that? Rich Brookanic. I very rarely hear your voice. Rich Brookanic. Yes. Alan Rich. Yes. Gary
Rosenthal. Yes. Michael Dy. Yes. And Chairman Thomas. Yes. Uh regular meeting 58 2025. I'll move. I'll second. Richard Brokanic. Yes. Bassine Verdas.
Yes. Alan Rich. Yes. Gary Rosenol. Yes. Michael Dorton, yes. And Chairman Thomas, yes. Uh, we can move on down to the hearing section at this point. Uh, Vanjit, Sing, and Rainda. Is this
mic on? Coward, ZBA 241 site plan with use variance and C variance in which the applicant is proposing to convert the existing repaired garage into a convenience store. 339 Elizabeth have Somerset block
493.01 lot one in the R10 zone. This is going to be carried to June 20 June 19th uh 2025 with it says further notification needed. We need to add anything else to
that. Okay. The next application 655 M IZ LLC ZBA 2420 preliminary and final major site plan with C variances in which the applicant's proposing construction of a
30,917 square foot addition to the existing building at 655 Howard Avenue Somerset block 528.04 4 lots 161.03 162
163.01 and a B I zone. This is carried to September 4th, 2025 with no further notification needed. And the first one has no further notification needed. That's a typo. It is no further notification. Okay. So,
it's on the record. Thank you. Uh the first one that we will hear Muhammad But this is a variance in which the application is requesting to install 40 ft sign at 3059 Route 27 Somerset block
34.01 lot 32.03 in the NB zone. Yes, I think we need to just swear you in, sir. If you can raise your right hand. Do do you make sure your mic is on? If it's red, it's not on. Make sure it's green. Thank you. Do you swear or
affirm the testimony you're about to give before this board is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. If you can just repeat your name and spell your last name for the record. Sure. First name is Muhammad. M O H A M M A D. Last name is Boot B U T. Thank you.
Okay. uh you want to give us an overview of what's what this is about? So I'm requesting a variance uh for having a sign in front of the building because
uh according to the the law because there is no door in the front of the building. I cannot have a sign on top but the door is on the side. The reason the door is not there is because of the the utility is there in front and this
is the side of the building which is facing the street. So the visibility is only from that side. Uh I have a picture if I like me to show it to you. And Mr. Chairman, in the TRC memo, there was uh the exhibit showing the proposed
sign on the first page if the board happens to have that on their screen. We'll just mark this as exhibit A1, please. Okay. Mr. B, you have to sit back down. Any conversation you have has to be on the
record. So, I'll just explain um to the board the nature again, just to clarify a little bit what Mr. Noot just stated. Uh the way our ordinance works is uh typically you're allowed to have um one sign for a for for retail. uh you're
allowed to have a second sign if you're uh you either have a you know like a side entrance or a rear entrance. Uh in fact, some of the the stores in this uh small shopping center have a sign in the back, you know, facing the parking lot
and they have a sign facing the street because the way that that build the building is laid out, they happen to have an entrance on both the the street side and the parking lot side. this site um you know or this tenant space I should say he only had his particular
tenant space only has doors facing the rear parking lot. So the way our ordinance is written since he he's he would like to have a sign on the building facing Route 27. Technic technically under our ordinance it's not permitted because you can only have that second sign if it's
on a second customer entrance. So that that's just to give you the full clarification. Thank you. And then also the also the size is a variance. Well, I think yeah, actually m
I'm not doing I'm not doing the sign where it's still going to be 30. I'm not doing the 40. Yeah. So we So it's under the under the code that's under the code. It's only the one variance then. Okay. Yeah. Sorry, I didn't clarify that cuz I think when he was here last week kind of
off the record he was saying that but now on the record you're proposing 30 square feet. So you're not asking for assigned area variance? No. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, that's that's the question I had because he didn't advertise for that variance. So I assumed he was not pursuing it. I think the TRC report
still says 40 square feet. So because that's but that's what that's what he originally applied for. So now again he's amended his application to eliminate that variance. Is there anything that you'd like to add? Uh, no. It's just the for the
visibility of the business. If I don't have a sign there, nobody would know there's a there's a business there. Any other board questions? Sorry. Can you just uh how come that space doesn't have the the front entrance facing 27? I missed
that. So, the the way that the site's laid out uh the the the building is up on the, you know, closer to the street. The parking lot's in the rear of the site. So, I think most of the stores have their uh customer entrances on the
rear, you know, to the parking lot and a few of the other tenant spaces, I think the the parking lot, I mean, sorry, the sidewalk must wrap around and they happen to have customer entrances also facing 27. So, because they have that second customer entrance, they're
allowed to have that second sign. This particular tenant space doesn't have that. um just doesn't have that second customer entrance. So you I guess and the intent of the ordinance is that you don't so you don't have a sign on every single side of the building. You have to be on a corner, you can have one on
each, you know, each entrance. Sometimes you have them, you know, in the front and the back. You can have them over each. That's the way our ordinance is written. I I have to add uh we had this situation with the shopping center on
Pier Street where the rear of the stores is actually on fronting on Pier Street and the entrance to the stores are on the inside toward the shopping center. And
every every store in that section of the shopping center has been permitted to put a sign on the outside wall which is actually the rear of the building but it faces Pier Street. So I
think this seems to be a similar kind of situation. I think it's similar. I think it's a little different in that and I remember that application. I think on that application actually none of those tenant spaces even had a rear um you
know a rear entrance. Yeah, they don't have any address. And and I think the the facade of that building, it kind of looks like the rear of the building here, the way just the way this building is laid out, it looks like the front. And you also have a few of the other tenant spaces have signs, you know, so
you know, to to the left of his tenant space, you have, you know, two or three of the other tenants, I think it's two of the of the other tenants have signs over their space. And then this this one wouldn't. And I and the reason I say that is uh you know in my opinion it wouldn't look really too out of place
because again you already have that pattern of these other tenant spaces having a sign. Okay. Any any comments, questions? No, that's it. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have any other comments. So, I think he explained pretty much what my
re uh the reason for having the sign there in the front uh towards the street is. Okay, then we'll open to the public. Is there anyone here who would like to make a statement or ask a question about this
application? Then we'll close. Do does anybody feel they need any more information? If not, uh I'll entertain a motion. Make a motion though.
I'd like to make a motion we approve u uh ZBA 2500 111 uh for a 30foot sign. I'll second Richard Proanic. Yes. Busim Verdas. Yes.
Alan Rich. Yes. Gary Rosenthal. Yes. Michael Dy. Yes. Shapendo Singh. Yes. and Chairman Thomas. Yes. Say that right. Okay. Good luck with Thank you. Thank you. Anya James ZBA
2500 10 C variance in which the applicant seeks a variance from the impervious surface limitation of 25% for the placement of an ingground pool in the backyard at 22 Patton Drive Somerset block
366 lot 16 in the R20 zone. If you can just raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give before this board is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Can you just repeat your name and spell your last name for the record, please? Anya
James. Last name is J A M- S. Thank you. Okay. Would you explain, give us an overview what you're asking for? So today I'm asking for um a C variance to allow the construction of an inground
pool in my backyard. Um currently um I'm over the in previous coverage I'm at 25% without the pool and including the pool I'll be at 28. Okay. Is there anything you have other uh I'm looking at
the map and see if there is any structure or anything you could eliminate maybe some impervious coverage. Um so currently there's a shed that I purchased from Home Depot. Um it's not
fixed fixed to the property. If that's what needs to go, then I'm willing to remove it. It's in the far left corner. Is there concrete underneath of it? No,
it's just a skid that I put on top just to keep it level. You you have a concrete pad that leads from the house to the proposed pool. Um yes, that's the concrete pad that was there when I purchased nothing that I
It's existing. It's existing. Yes. Is there any way it could be made conveniently smaller so it functions but maybe? Um, so in conversation with the pool company, um, they're going to chop up
most of it, uh, in the construction part of it and then some of it will be gone and that will be the outskirt of the the pool. Well, I guess the only it may not amount to 3% anyway, but I guess the
only other question would be is there any thought to making the pool slightly smaller? Um, we that's an option. Um so what the what one thing um just to
clarify um is uh the way again with the way our ordinance works the the pool the water surface doesn't count towards the impervious. What does count is the concrete basically sidewalk apron around it. Mhm. Um, so I mean if a pool was
made smaller, the sidewalk around it would be a little bit less, but you're not going to make that much of a difference in that percentage by making the pool smaller. Just just covering all the bases. Yeah. No, I'm just making sure you have all
the information, all the information. Mr. Chairman, you have any other uh feedback from the DRC we should have on the record? Well, you know, and it's this is not directed at uh Miss James by any stretch, but
just a um I guess I'll say a a warning, which is we've had a problem lately with pool companies where an applicant will come in and what they're proposing here is the pool and I guess a three-foot to three-foot apron around it. And the pool
company basically says, "Oh, let's build this big concrete patio around it, too." and that puts them over the impervious. You've had a few applications over the last few years, I can tell you of the two or three you've had, we've had to work with other people
to modify their patio. So, I'll just say if the board if the board ends up approving this variance Mhm. before the construction department issues a certificate of of um uh uh completion, you're going to have to get an asbuilt
survey, meaning your survey company's going to come out and survey it. And if there's a bigger patio from what's No, I'm just saying. Just letting you know if the pool company tries to sell you on that, you need to tell them this is if the board approves it, you're limited to this because then
you're going to come back to the board. And I'm not sure so the I'm not so sure the board's going to be too happy to see you again. So just letting you know and I also took the opportunity to just let the board know that this is an one of the issues that we're dealing with. The other thing that would affect you
too is that there you're you're over the limit. So there's a should it be approved, there's absolutely basically nothing else you can put in the yard, right? Mhm. Have to make sure people also understand
that too. You know, it's it it's full this summer and another bigger larger shed. The next time there's no room for any no imperous surface room for anything else.
Any other any questions? No. Okay. Open to the public. Is there anyone out there who would like to ask a question or make a statement? Doesn't seem to be. So, we'll No other comments. We'll entertain a motion.
Okay. I'd like to make a motion to approve uh ZBA. Do I have the Yeah. Hold on a minute. Do I have the right one here? Yeah. ZBA 2500 010.
um with uh the condition that the PV shed PVC shed be taken down. And did we make that a petition? I'll second. Did Well, I'm not done yet. I'm
not done yet. Let's hold off a second. Did Did we make it a We just talked about it, didn't we? We talked about it. I don't think we made it a condition. Okay. So strike that. Uh we'll just approve the application as is.
I'll second. I'll second. You could make a petition if you want. That's what you're looking to do. Yeah. So, you know, the person who makes the motion second, then you can deliberate and then and then you can have Okay. vote on that. Okay. So, that motion
motion's been made, seconded. So, now we can deliberate. Do we want to have her take the shed or not? If it doesn't have a concrete pad underneath, I don't personally I don't see the reason to have her remove it,
but how big is the shed? [Music] I don't want to give a It's It's really small. I have rakes um just summer stuff that's in there. I brought it from Home Depot for about $500. It's not big at
all. The only question is, you know, how much difference it makes. I I don't I it I mean, just from the scale, looking at the plan, I mean, it looks like I'd say it's easily less than 10 by 10. Mhm. Just just looking at the scale on that
plan, I mean, it it could be smaller than that. It says the shed and pavers are 94 square ft, so it's less than 10 by 10. My opinion is it's a shed. You need someplace to put your your net and everything for the pool. I'm cool with
it. I'm just saying. I'd just be happy that there's an understanding at this point considering the size of it. There's really nothing else that goes on on the property.
Okay. So, my motion stands and seconded. Okay. Brian, I can they've deliberated, so I can go ahead and use Allan first and Gary second to leave everything the way it is and accept the pool. Correct? Nothing else needs to be voted on. Okay. Uh, Richard Panic, yes. Verdas, yes.
Alan Rich, yes. Gary Rosenthal, yes. Michael Dy, yes. Shend Singh, yes. And Chairman Thomas, yes. Okay. Capital 1784, Capital Holdings. Oh, thank you everyone. We appreciate
it. ZBA 21009 remand of application from the court D1 use variance preliminary and final major site plan with VC variances in which the applicant is seeking approval for construction of
125,000 335T self storage facility at 1613 Route 27 Somerset block 85 lots 58 59.02 2 in the GB zone. Uh we have been instructed
uh by the judge to provide backing for our more uh backing for our original resolution approving this application which has been done.
Everyone has copies of it. Uh there is no hearing, no discussion or anything. Uh if there are no questions or any comments,
uh we will entertain a motion on the new resolution that was sent to you. Uh you don't even need to say anything on this because all of the uh support, all the
details, and all of the backing is in the new resolution. Uh this is hopefully what the judge was asking for. So uh again, if there are no questions or discussion,
we just need a a motion. Okay, I'll make a motion that we approve the new Capital Holdings uh LLC ZBA 21009 um for approval. I'll second that. Okay. Okay. Richard
Proanic. Yes. Alan Rich. Yes. Gary Rosenthal. Yes. Chairman Thomas. Yes. Now, uh just for clarification,
uh this resolution goes back to the judge. Correct. Yep. And we've done everything we've been asked to do. So, our part of it is over with. It's an approved from our point of view. It's a resolution approving a
project with sufficient support. Now, if there's no if there are no other questions or anything, then we'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. I'll second.
All in favor? I opposed. Meeting adjourned.