All righty. Good evening everybody. I would like to call the January 8th, 2026 reorganization meeting for the township of Oldbridge Zoning Board of Adjustment to order. Would everybody please join me in the s salute to the flag to the flag of America to the republic
for all. >> All right, we have a couple new members that we have to swear in first before we can get going. >> Everybody, please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I state your name. Ian >> do solemnly swear or >> reference swear
>> that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of New Jersey >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of New Jersey >> that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the governments established in the United States and in this state
>> that I will bear true to the same government in the United States >> under the authority of the people and that I will faith faithfully Y and partially and justly perform all the duties of my position of member of the Oakidge zoning board of adjust adjustment to the best of my ability. So
help me God. Under the authority of people that I faithfully and justly perform all the duties of my position of a member of the old zoning board of adjustment to the best of my ability. >> Congratulations.
>> Did you all sign them? Okay. >> All right. This meeting is being held in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. Adequate notice of this meeting was published in the official newspaper of the town of Obridge setting forth time, place, and matters to be addressed. Um Moren, would you please give us a roll call? >> Certainly.
>> Mrs. Andrews, >> present. >> Miss Gomez, >> present. >> Mr. Iso, >> here. >> Mr. Scogno >> here. >> Miss Spinelli >> here. >> Miss Testie, >> absent. Mr. Sing
absent. Miss Fernbach >> here. >> Chairman Sullivan >> here. >> We have a qu We have a quorum. Do we have a motion for nomination of a chairperson? >> I'd like to nominate James Sullivan. Chairman. >> Do we have a second accepting that motion?
>> I second that 100%. >> Roll call, please. >> Who's seconded? I'm sorry. Lou, >> thank you. Miss Andrews? >> Yes. >> Miss Gomez? >> Yes. >> Mr. Vizo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes. >> Miss Spanelli, >> yes. >> Miss Fernbach,
>> yes. >> Did I call on you? >> Yes. >> Chairman Sullivan. >> Yes. >> All right. Over to you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, uh, Mr. Varger, for opening the meeting this evening. And board members, thank you for your, uh,
confidence in me to allow me to chair for the next year. Uh, as the vice chairperson, we'll to accept the nomination. And I'd like to, uh, nominate Mr. Lewis. Is there a second? >> Second that. Scogno. Move. Second. Roll call, please. Miss Bchelli.
>> Miss Andrews? >> Yes. >> Miss Gomez? >> Yes. >> Mr. Iso? >> Yes. >> Mr. Scogno? >> Yes. >> Miss Benelli? >> Yes. >> Miss Fernbach? >> Yes. >> Chairman Sullivan? >> Yes. Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Uh, as the board secretary for
nominations, I'm going to uh nominate Moren Shelley. >> Is there a second? Second. >> Second. >> Roll call on yourself. >> Mrs. Andrews. >> Yes. >> Miss Gomez. >> Yes. >> Mr. Iso.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Scogno? >> Yes. >> Miss Spinelli? >> Yes. >> Miss Furbach? >> Yes. >> Chairman Sullivan? >> Yes. >> Uh, congratulations. Uh, but you're already doing this and we thank you for all you do. I I said that at the end of last
year. a lot of technical work behind the scenes that you provide the board with. We appreciate that and and your guidance. So, we look forward to continue working with you in 2026. Board members, as always, we'll uh we have uh outside consultants to confirm uh as to
board attorney nominations. I'd like to uh nominate Dasty McGuck and Mc McNichols, Connors, Anthony, and Buckley the firm. Someone uh >> I second >> move that. >> I move it. Second >> and second. >> Second it.
>> Andrews. >> Andrews. >> Yes. >> I'll give you time to catch up. >> Okay. >> Miss Andrews. >> Yes. >> Miss Gomez. >> Yes. >> Mr. Iso. >> Yes. >> Mr. Scogno. >> Yes. >> Miss. Spinelli. >> Yes. >> Miss Fernbach.
>> Yes. Chairman Sullivan. >> Yes. Uh, as >> very much. >> We look forward to working with you uh and the firm. Mr. Varga, thank you so much for your counsel. Uh as the planning consultants, we normally do two. Uh the first one I would uh ask that to be nominated is Environmental
Resolutions, Inc. >> I uh nominate them. >> Yes. >> Is there a second to that? >> I second. >> Roll call, please. As Environmental Resolutions, Inc. >> Ms. Andrews, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno,
>> yes. >> Miss Spanelli, >> yes. >> Miss Fernbach, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. Uh you're stuck with us again, Mr. Dar. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> We look forward to to your advice as well. Thank you. Uh the second would be Harbor Consultants. Someone want to uh
move that? >> I'll move it. >> I'll second. >> As to harbor consultants, planning consultants. Roll call. >> Mrs. Andrews? >> Yes. >> Miss Gomez? >> Yes. >> Mr. Iso? >> Yes. >> Mr. Scogn? >> Yes. >> Miss Spinelli? >> Yes. >> Miss Fernbach? >> Yes. >> Chairman Sullivan?
>> Yes. >> Uh move on to engineering consultant nominations. Uh there's going to be two. Uh the first one I would recommend is Environmental Resolution Inc. Is there someone like to make that nomination? >> I recommend. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> There's a second. Spinelli.
>> Yes. >> Okay. I'm sorry. I don't know voices yet. >> Mrs. Andrews? >> Yes. >> Miss Gomez? >> Yes. >> Mr. Iso? >> Yes. >> Mr. Scogno? >> Yes. >> Miss Spinelli? >> Yes. >> Miss Furbach? >> Yes. >> Chairman Sullivan? >> Yes. >> Uh the second one I would recommend is
uh CME Associates. I'll move that. >> Is there a second? >> Andrew. >> Mrs. Andrews seconds. >> Okay. Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scognau, >> yes. >> Miss Spinelli, >> yes. >> Miss Furbach, >> yes.
>> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. Uh, as to uh Traffic Consultants uh nomination, uh, first to recommend is Environmental Resolutions, Inc. Someone want to make a motion for that? >> I'll make a motion. >> Vice Chair makes the motion. Is there a second?
>> Andrew second. >> Roll call, please. When you catch >> Mr. Andrews, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes. >> Miss Spanelli, >> yes. >> Miss Fernbach, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. Uh, second one would be CME
Associates Traffic Consultants. >> I move it. >> I second it. >> Roll call when you catch up. >> Mrs. Andrews? >> Yes. >> Miss Gomez? >> Yes. Mr. Izo, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes. >> Mr. Benelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Vernbach,
>> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. Uh, go ahead. >> Okay. Dinder is here now. >> Uh, Mr. Singh is on the DAS. Um, >> so yeah, let me finish with this and then we'll swear him in. Okay. >> Okay.
>> Uh, the last the uh last outside consultant would be forestry consultants nomination. Uh, that would be Chestnut AFS Arbor Arbor or Arborist Forestry Services. That was a hard one to get out. Someone
want to move that? >> I'll move it. >> I'll second it. >> Moved in second. Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogn, >> yes. >> Miss Spinelli, >> yes.
>> Miss Fernbach, >> yes. Chairman Sullivan. >> Yes. It moves us on to adoptions. >> Just a point order as chairman swear in the new member. >> Oh, >> Mr. Sing, would you stand just down here miss near Mr. Varga, please?
>> I state your name. Please repeat after me. I state your name. I >> do solemnly swear or affirmly swear >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> that I will support the United States >> and the Constitution of New Jersey >> that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same >> on the paper >> that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the >> and to the governments established in the United States >> under the government of United States >> and in this state >> and in this state
>> under the authority of the people >> the authority of the people >> and that I will faithfully impartially and justly perform all the duties of my position of member of old bridge zoning board adjustment to the best of my ability. So help me God >> that I will faithfully and justly perform all the duties of my
positional member of the old bridge zoning board of adjustment to the best of my ability. Congratulations. >> We didn't have a microphone on that. If you were watching at home and you couldn't hear in the courtroom, Mr. Singh just took the exact same oath that was given to the other members at the
beginning of the meeting. >> All right. As to uh adoptions, I think we have a recommendation for change. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. For the board, um is a revised 2026 zoning board of adjustment rules and regulations. Uh the
two the two primary changes are one that the meetings are proposed to start at 700 pm as opposed to 7:30m. Secondary that there will be a 3minut time limit imposed during public comment. And third there is going to be
a proposal to eliminate the position of vice secretary and have a sole position as just a singular board secretary which is all that is required by the municipal land use law. So with that, I would invite the board for discussion and a vote to approve the same. >> All right. The first the first one that
you mentioned was changing the time. It's been recommended by the township that we move the time uh back in order to uh not go as late as we have been. Um almost all of you have been sitting here
and I know the last uh meeting in December, the se first meeting in December, we're here I believe4 to 12. So, it's probably not fair to the professionals uh that have to work in the morning. Some of our board members work. Uh and the suggestion was to move
it back another half hour. I'll entertain any discussion if uh anybody would like to make any comments. >> I would like to keep it the way it is >> at 7:30. >> 7:30 to 10:30. >> I second that. I third it. >> Well, hold on. Hold on. We we'll take a
vote, but we're inviting comments right now. >> Well, my comment on it is that we also work and it's challenging when we leave work to get home to prepare dinner, to get our, you know, families situated and
then come here and prepare. Sometimes we get materials that day since we need to get them on the surface. We don't have access unless we take the service to work and that's not doable for many of us at work. So, we're coming home checking our emails last minute for
anything that may come in that same day. And I just feel to be properly prepared, the 7:30 gives me a little bit of wiggle room to accomplish all that so that I'm not rushed to get here and to review before the meeting starts.
>> Okay. Uh, Miss Gomez, you had a comment as well. Yes, I say 7:30 as well. Also, uh we should put a more uh strict time constraint on the public speakings and have a timer on that. That'll also eliminate the excessive time that we had to wait. Uh but I also have obligations
and sometimes I'm here early, sometimes I'm not. But 7:30 is the time that I'm available to be here. >> It's fair. Mr. Singh, anything? >> Yeah, 7:30 to 10:30 be fine. I work late so it work better for me. >> Understood. Uh, Miss Furbeck,
>> 7:30 is fine. >> I prefer 7:30. >> I work as well. >> 7 o'clock is good. 7:30 is good. >> Doesn't matter to you. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Miss Andrew, >> 7:30 is I I feel 7:30 is better. It's
also allowing also, as you see, we do have residents here and many of them do work. So I think it's uh better for most people getting home from work or going getting ready to to come here to the meeting uh is difficult to rush it because of traffic. It may not sound
like much but coming from 20 minutes away or 25 minutes away uh makes up for the time. So I would stay with the 7:30. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you all for your comments. Uh obviously this would not pass much through if we're going to I'm going to let Miss Sant comment. I just want to
let you know that the township probably could change it on their own, but uh I I understand each and every one of yours uh of your comments tonight. >> Uh I would suggest to hold the vote on it only uh because this was something
that came from the administration. Um so I would want to take it back to the administration. Um there are logistic reasons why we were moving. It's not like old bridge is the only exception that is changing the time. Many of the
municipalities start at 6:30 and 7. Um so that we are done in um before it's too late. Most of the professionals live outside Oldbridge. So when a meeting at like at 10 11:45 we have like 45 minutes
to 1 hour drive. Uh but that's not the point. It it was something that came from the administration. I would like to take it back to the administration before we take a vote on it. >> Okay. We'll hold we'll hold off the vote. >> Yes. >> On that >> table >> uh
>> if you want to unless you want can you discussing the other? >> We're going to do the other two. Were they separate? >> They are separate. >> Yeah. So we'll we're going to uh table the time. Uh Mr. Swan's going to take that back to administration and see what the thoughts are on that. The second
item I believe was a threem minute time time limit on speaking. >> Correct. Mr. Chairman. >> Um Mr. Varga, is that common place in most uh areas that you've seen? >> Yes, it's typically between three and four minutes. Um obviously there's discretion through the chair. There's
discretion through the chair to um permit additional public comment um as well as to restrict it provided that the public comment is not be is when it becomes duplic duplicative. Uh but ultimately a threem minute um time
period is consistent. >> I'll accept comments from the board starting down on my left to our newest member. >> I think it's necessary. >> What we have it what what we're trying to do is limit it. >> Um some of the other uh boards here in
the township limit their time. Uh we've we have not done that in the past. We've tried to entertain most of the comments in fairness to the to the uh residents here. Uh but at times it gets cumbersome and and one of the reasons why we were
here till uh 11:30. So what we were going to try to do was limit that. I still have the option to allow someone to speak a little bit longer but the concept would be to put it in writing that it would be three minutes. Okay. Mr. Singh, your comments? >> No. No comments.
>> No comments. Yes, I agree that we should have a time limit as far as three to four minutes. That way each and every public comment can be addressed and heard >> I also agree and I think it will help getting us out of here in a timely manner so that it doesn't run into like
it did with that December meeting. >> Mr. Scognull, >> I think four minutes would be better than three. >> Vice Chair, >> three to four is is adequate for >> Would you be in favor of a time limit? >> Yes. >> Yes. Mrs. Anders, u,
>> I favor the three minutes because you do have the option to allow someone to speak if they're right in the middle of something that's very important. So, I think three minutes should be fine and you have, as I said, the option. So, three minutes is my my ideal time. >> Okay. And and the uh the last we'll speak about now, too, and then we can
vote on probably two of them. Right. >> Well, we will have to table the whole >> Oh, the attire. Okay. >> Correct. The uh the last thing that is for the board's consideration is the elimination is the elimination of the vice chair position. It's not the vice chair. I apologize. The vice secretary position
>> cuz I was looking at you. Yeah. The elimination of the vice secretary position and solely having a board secretary position, which is all that's required by the municipal land use law. >> You're new to the board, but all I explain to you is we used to have a we would appoint a secretary and a vice
secretary. Uh Lou was our uh last one. uh Leyon had been uh the secretary and it requires uh them to come in and sign plans, sign documents as the secretary to the board. Miss Porchelli uh does
this as a routine in full-time employment. Obviously, anybody that we appointed would come in on their own time to try and assist this. Sometimes there's uh documents that need to be done quickly. So maybe that day or the day after and that's not always
available to people uh as ourselves who are volunteers. So that's the reason for this. U Miss Bchelli's already doing it. MLUL municipal land use law doesn't require it to be a member. Uh nor does our rules. So we can have a person who
is a full-time employee do. So that's that's the genesis of why we wanted to do this. >> Uh I'll go. So do you understand? Would you be in favor? >> I'd have to abstain. I'm not 100%. >> That's fine, Mr. Sing. >> Yes, ma'am. >> No comments.
>> No comments. >> Okay, Mr. Finelli. >> Okay. Uh when I was secretary, I felt that I was overseeing what the vice um secretary had and I was trying to assist
her in many ways and over overlooking the reports and things like that. It's true I did sign off on the resolutions and and the plans and things like that, but I was like I was like the catcher if there was a problem. her being that one
and the same. There's no one overseeing it. >> Understand your comments, Mr. >> As a former secretary, I I feel that Mr. Charlie could successfully do that. >> Thank you, Mrs. Andrews. >> I have no problem with doing away with
that position. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh so we can close the comments. We'll wait until the next meeting for a vote on that. Uh Matt, you look like you want to say something? Yes, because I mean I'm a little confused. >> Oh, they want they have no objection to it.
>> No, but I I get it. I heard some comments and um the secretary and the vice secretary. It's not a position where you oversee the vice secretary, me as the administrator. >> Maybe you should read the um format what
secretary indicates. It's to assist the vice secretary. It is on only paperwork and that job I anyway monitor as an administrator. It is becoming a hindrance for us when we have to wait
for signatures sometimes for one or two days when we are waiting to release the plans. >> Was never late. I was there the same day she asked me to come down. Well, that'll we'll get you're going to get back to us from the administration.
We'll be able to vote on that probably by the next meeting. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other comments? I'm going to move on absent any >> motion. We just need a motion to table the adoption. >> No, there's no public on this matter. >> Only on applications.
>> Uh someone want to make a motion to table. >> I will second. >> Who second it? >> Gomez. >> Gomez. Sorry. Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes.
>> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogna, >> yes, the table. >> Miss Spinelli, >> yes. The table. >> Miss Ferbach, >> yes. Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. >> Oh, and Deinder, I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> All right. Item six on the agenda
tonight is minutes. We have one board. It's a December 18th, 2025 meeting. Hopefully everyone has had a chance to review them. Absent any commentary or suggestions for additions or deletions, I'd ask someone for moving for adoption. >> Is there a move?
>> Is there a second? >> I'll second. Roll call, please. As to the minutes. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes. >> Miss Spanelli, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Singh, >> yes.
>> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. Uh we're going to we have resolutions. Uh we have three of them this evening. I'll read them in order. 33-2025Z. Brad Nichols C variance denied. Councelor. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. This is a resolution denying bulk
variance and design waiver relief for property known and designated as block 15562 lot 25 aka 43raton Circle. Uh where a rear yard setback of one inch was proposed, but 10 in 10 feet was required. The board denied the application.
Board members, you've heard the resolution, so we'll move it, please. >> Is there a second? >> Moved in second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes.
>> Miss Spinelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Singh, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. >> 43-2025Z. Uh, Danielle uh Le Feminina, it was a design waiver and C variance. Mr. Varga. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board. This is a bulk This is a resolution approving bulk variance and design waiver relief for property known and designated as block 16003 lot 19 aka 38 Mary Posta Place. The application was for a 12x 15 foot pool house with uh
sideyards variance relief of 3 feet where 10 ft is required. >> Word members, you heard the resolution. So, I'm going to move it. >> Is Gomez Call please. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes.
>> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes. >> Miss Spinelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Singh, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. >> 44-2025Z. Melissa Martin, C variance. Mr. Varga. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. This is a resolution approving both variance and design waiver relief
for property known and designated as block 1080, lot 107.11, aka 107 Pacific Boulevard. Variance requested was a sideyard setback of 3' 3 in where 9 ft was required for a porch. >> Board members, once again, you've heard the resolution, so we want to move for
adoption. >> Movey is second. Moved in second. Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Andrews, Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes. >> Miss Spinelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Singh, >> yes.
>> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. This uh meeting is being televised on CITV15 within here within the township. It's also shown on YouTube live. If you want to refer back to a meeting, you can find it there. I would ask everyone here in the chamber. Uh I'm
sure we all have cell phones, please mute them in deference to the stenographer and those that are going to be testifying this evening. I appreciate that. uh as an introduction for those who may be first timers here all the board me all the people to my left all the way up to me are uh volunteers along
with uh Mrs. Andrews the volunteer members of the zoning board of adjustment man seated to my right your left is our council is Pat Varga uh the two on the end starting with Mr. Dari uh he is a professional engineer and consultant to two of the board and Miss
V Sant who's the planning director here in the township. I'm going to now ask that Mr. Varger our council swears them in. >> All right, we're going to proceed. We have three applications to uh deal with this evening. Uh the first one uh we're
going to call them in order tonight. We'll let the stenographer set up. This is uh 3-2025Z. It's Prime Space Capital LLC. This is uh the R40 zone. It's block 18091, lots, two, three, and 8. Physical
location 12 Pine Street here in Oldbridge. Self- storage facility. Bifrocated uh seeking bifurcated devariance. Applicant is seeking a bifurcated use variant to develop a proposed three-story self-service facility. Uh Dante Alfreyi uh council
for the applicant. Are you ready? Tina, you're good. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Good evening, Mr. Alfair. Happy New Year. >> The button. >> Just the button on top. >> Just press the button >> when it goes green.
>> Let it go. There we go. >> Perfect. You hear me? >> Yes. Thanks. >> Good evening, chairman, members of the board. Dante Alfier on behalf of the applicant. Happy new year and congratulations to everyone who's been appointed and reappointed. Um, as the chairman stated, we're here seeking the board's approval for a bifurcated use
variance application. If the board does act favorably favorably tonight, we'll be proceeding with the site plan application. The site in question is uh 12 Pine Street. It's block 18091, lots 2, three, uh, one, two, three, and
eight. Um, it's Prime Space Capital LLC. Um most of the board members were here at the previous meetings. It looks like there's a few new faces. Um so with that in mind, um I do have all of our professionals available, but I just plan on calling one individual who is going
to run through um the original application and then touch on a lot of the changes and hopefully um we can go to a vote tonight. So without further ado, I'm going to call our professional. >> Mr. Seaw, >> you've been previously sworn sir on this. >> That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
>> Okay. You're still on the road. >> And before you proceed, your your license is current. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Yeah. Would you just tell the people who we are? >> Uh certainly. Josh Seawald from Dynamic Engineering. We're the engineer of record uh for the application before you this evening. >> Thank you. No problem. So we we've been
here a few times. I know uh it's been a few months in and out of the different hearings. So what I wanted to do is just refresh the board um what we're focused on this evening and kind of what transpired over the couple of different hearings that we had. um if you wouldn't mind uh putting up the site plan
rendering. So the first hearing we were here, we were here for 123,000 square foot threetory climate controlled self- storage facility located at 12 Pine Street. After that testimony and listening to the board members concerns, your
professionals, and most importantly the public's comments, um they had concerns about access that was originally on Pine Street. They had concerns about the overall size and location of the building and they had a lot of questions about how the building would operate. So
what we ended up doing in the middle of this application was we eliminated the driveway to Pine Street completely and now we have a 63 ft landscape buffer that separates Pine Street to the first portion of the curbing and the asphalt pavement. Uh because of so much time
between the different hearings, we actually have secured our NJ DOT minor access permit on Route 18. So the DOT has reviewed this application and they have approved the right inrite out that's on route 18. So one of the major improvements that I think we've made over the uh history of this project in
listening to the board members and most importantly the public was they didn't want any commercial traffic on their local residential street. So we moved all of that back onto Route 18. The next thing that we did was we took the overall development and we shrunk it in size. And what we're here for this evening is 114,000 square foot
three-story climate self-control uh self- storage facility. We also changed the architecture in the middle of this. Just to refresh the board's memory, we initially had a more standard prototypical uh self- storage facility. What the architect ended up doing uh was
providing a residential character looking building instead. We're not saying this building looks like the houses down the street, but instead of it looking like a regular commercial facility that you see on Route 18, it has some nice aesthetics and enhancements to that building. Finally, as one of the good recommendations from
your board consultant, the RRI, they were looking at the overall circulation around the building. And at the last hearing that we were, I believe it was in June, Mr. Alfier, they commented they didn't want two-way circulation around this building. So we ended up doing was shrinking the drive aisle around the
building, making it one way and able to provide a five- foot, we'll call it striped loading space around this building. So essentially what we've been doing over the various hearings is getting feedback from you, the board members, your professionals, as well as the public, and trying to incorporate all of it before this evening when
hopefully you vote in favor of the application. Just some other things that we wanted to refresh the board's memory. Um that self storage is a uh very low intense use. This is not a 24-hour facility. The operations that came out on the initial hearing, we just wanted
to refresh that for you. Um, there's no overnight access. All of the loading is inside the building. There's no rollup doors that are on the outside of the facility that you may see at similar uh locations. We only have 11 parking spaces up front. They are between the
building and Route 18. And the reason we only need 11 spaces is because self storage just doesn't generate a lot of traffic. And again to uh repeat a little bit of my testimony, the DOT has accepted our traffic study and our um our access permit and they have received uh that back to us. Uh like I mentioned,
we do have a 63 ft buffer between our first drive aisle and Pine Street. We have another 84 foot buffer between the rear portion heading west to the first residential lot. If you've been to the site recently or looked at some of the existing conditions plan, you'll see that out there today, there's actually a
lot of buildings up right along Pine Street and there's more development closer towards that western residential. Should the board vote favorably, we wanted the board and the public to know that there will be over 50 ft in both areas fully landscape and buffering Pine Street to this development. Lastly, we
wanted to let the board know, of course, we're only here for a use variance, but there was a lot of testimony over the hearings of what's going to come with the site plan package, and we don't want to focus too much time on it. We know your professionals haven't had a chance to review the intimate details, but yes, with this redevelopment, you're going to
get brand new utilities, LED lighting, where today out there has more of the old school uh we'll call it car dealership lights that are facing upward. There will be storm water management on the property that currently there's none today. and that long curb cut that's along Pine Street that just allows more open flow is
completely eliminated and then you have a more formal driveway out on Route 18. So, we wanted to just refresh the board's memory of where we started, how we've took into some of the comments and considerations of the members of the public and the board um and refreshed everybody's memory and we're here for the self- storage facility and that it
is not 24 hours and all activity is inside of the building. >> Yeah. And I wanted to just touch on that. So again, the the self storage itself, you cannot access any of the storage outside. You have to physically go into the site. >> That's correct. There are two doors where you will wheel in your products
and inside of that building. If you're on the first floor, you'll just go throughout the hallways or if you're on the second and third, you will take an internal elevator to go up to those units. >> Thank you, Mr. Sewald. We open to the board. >> I'm going to allow the board to make uh ask the uh applicants witness any
questions at this point. I'll start down to my left. Miss Farbach, do you have any questions? I I don't know that you're familiar with this one, but uh >> Okay. You have any questions for the engineer? >> You have to push the button. >> Yeah, there you go.
>> You said there were some changes made to the building itself. >> Yes. >> Could we see those? >> Yes. I believe uh it's the rendering dated uh January. >> Mark the rendering for um purposes of the hearing as exhibit A4.
>> Believe we have an A4. >> A5. >> A5. >> That's what I meant to say. >> Luckily, I kept notes. I never keep. >> Yes. >> Couldn't find mine. >> Yes. Actually, we that may have already been
marked as A4. >> If it was dated January, >> is it January today? >> January uh 9th, 2024. 2024. So, it was A4. It was marked A4. >> Yes. >> Uh, that's the original. Um, I do have it here too if that makes
So, the the first exhibit um that your secretary had up, you saw it was a lot uh more black, gray, and more uh commercial style lines. This has uh more peaks associated with what you would see on a roof of a residential house. You'll see that there's brick. Uh there's a lot
more window breaks where we really don't need windows. They're kind of fake windows because it's internal units. So providing some level of architectural uh from a residential standpoint. >> Thank you. >> Absolutely. >> Mr. Singh, you have anything?
>> I don't. >> Mr. Gomez, >> you're still keeping the three floors? >> Yes, ma'am. Mrs. Andrew. >> Okay. Dar, you gonna comment? >> I don't have any questions or comments,
Mr. Chairman. >> Okay, counselor. >> Nothing from me, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. Any you going to present? Anybody else? >> No, chairman. We we we rest. >> Okay. And everybody understands this is a bifurcated application only. So, uh, a lot of this really isn't critical at
this particular point. But that's a this rendering, if you will, is is typical of uh the type of build. >> And if if it was if it was approved tonight, that would be a condition that this would be included. >> Okay. Uh absent that, then I'm going to go to a public portion on this. Okay.
>> Thank you, chairman. >> This is uh 3-2025Z. This is Prime Space Capital. Physical location is 12 Pine Street. They're seeking bifurcated use to build a three-story self- storage facility. Uh we will entertain at this time uh
comments or questions of the witness or uh concerning the application. I'll take you one at a time. If you want to raise your hand, I'll recognize you. Do we have a microphone? Uh Jake or TV director will be okay.
Counselor, as far as uh time limit Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's my understanding that it is the board's policy that there is a threeminut time time limit on all public comment subject to the chair's discretion. >> Anybody raise your hand or come forward.
>> Mr. >> Before you begin, I believe you were sworn last time, correct? Could you please >> Well, the the here Yes. for this hearing. Yes, sir. >> And please just state your name and spell your last for the record and provide your address. >> Nina Jacnitz, J O H N O WIT TZ 203 West
Greystone Road, Old Brbridge, New Jersey. Now, I was told the last time this meeting occurred that you were going to have the environmental person here. Is that correct? >> I can answer questions that you have. >> Okay. So, Mr. Sullivan knows that I
spoke to him and he and he said it had to be discussed at this meeting. I have photographs here and you can check them. Time, date, stamping, location of wildlife eggs. They are actually turtle eggs. I don't know what species. I am
not a herpatologist. Um actually I took them to a herpatology meeting and I said, "You know what kind of meeting is turtle eggs they are?" And they said, "No, but they're definitely turtle eggs. They're not bird eggs." I will show that I will provide them as
as part of the uh the the need for your your team um to look at but how do I provide them to you sir? >> You will have to email them to Miss Porchelli. Um they'll be marked as exhibit 01 but you can certainly use your phones. Please show them the counselor first so that you can see them
>> and then >> um >> which counselor >> Mr. Alfier. >> Okay. You're gonna have to pick it up on a microphone if you guys are going to have a conversation. >> Um, these peepers. Okay. So, I just want to
start with this. This is this is just a leaf. Okay. But you're going to look at the map right here. This is this is this is where the map is. You can see Veterans Park, right? Darwin, Pine Street, Suburban Caps. Would you would you agree that you that's where you see
the picture? >> That's what I see on your screen. >> Okay. I appreciate it. And then here is the date this was taken September 9th which is in in the middle of the season where the eggs would be um incubating turtle eggs they take 60 days
or thereabouts maybe a little bit more depending on the temperature and so I took a so so to explain I took a walkabout because I wanted to see if the state had done their due diligence at DP >> Miss Jawish just be guided that you have approximately one minute remaining.
Well, with his but with his purview, it could go longer, sir. Um, here's the second photograph also dated September 8th. I'll just show you September 9th. Sorry, September 9th. September 9th. I'll also show you again.
Um, please, you know, >> yeah, I see this. >> Okay. And to be clear, turtles, whether they're common musk or um the the um oh my god, box turtles, eastern box turtles, are
considered um a species that is protected, okay, in the state of New Jersey. Here's it's But again, between those two species, I wouldn't know the difference, and I can't take them away. That's not It's against the law for me to move them. Um again more of those
photographs same um same area and then of course recon sorry yeah that's what I do rehab of sorry sir um how who do I send them to so I can make sure I send it to the correct person >> secretary
>> the board secretary >> and that would be marked for the record as exhibit 01 sorry Mr. Chairman >> yeah Mr. Jockton, you're saying that the is you feel there's an environmental concern there, right? >> That's correct. That's exact. I I apologize. I I I want to jump to that. I
apologize. >> My concern is just very quickly. Is that Well, you said that there was a very quick DP. I think that the DP kind of says, "Okay, yes, no." Right. That's >> Well, we're not going to get into debate, but I'm When you sit down, I'm going to have him come make a comment to
the board. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you for your comments. >> Bring this over to her. No, please email them. >> Okay. >> Okay. After the meeting, >> Mr. Seolf. >> Certainly. Um I'm going to assume the the member of
the public is concerned that there are wildlife and environmental things that may ne be negatively impacted by our project. One of the benefits of this project is we are redeveloping within the area of existing development. So out to the site today, you've seen that there is a truck accessory place,
hubcats, caps that come over the back. There's also various residential structures that are out there. The property does have wetlands on it and an associated 50- foot buffer associated with those wetlands. The DB has been to the property. They tell us that it's a 50-ft buffer. The applicant, Dynamic
Engineering, we do not decide what that buffer is. The D says this site is going to have a 50-ft buffer. That 50-ft buffer is located on the plans that have been represented before you and are on the plans that are on the screen um on the other exhibit. So, the DP has reviewed the property. they have walked
the site themselves and they've determined that based off of many different environmental features. We're going to put a 50-ft buffer on these wetlands. So, we are not allowed to go into those wetlands. We're not allowed to disturb them. Um, and the development that's presented before you is not even impacting the buffer where we are
actually allowed to grade and discharge storm water management. Right now, everything is staying within the existing limits of development and we are not modifying or touching the D regulated areas >> and the state is firm on that. You cannot go into those. >> We cannot discharge. We we cannot
disturb or modify those wetlands. >> And would they have picked up on something like this or not? >> They say they walk the entire site and we are not allowed to be there. >> We are not allowed to be there with them. So what we do is we go out to the site and we flag where we believe the actual wetlands are. They then send
their own representatives out to either confirm or or disagree with us. But then based off of their own threatened and endangered species, their own habitat study, they dictate is it a zero, 50 or 100 150 foot buffer. So then based off of this area, surrounding environments and what they found in the field and
their own records that go back many years that this site has a 50 foot buffer. >> Did you ever have one an application years that they have found things and told you have to move? >> It has to be more. Absolutely. >> So you've you've seen that but not on this application. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Anyone else here in the audience?
You just spoke. I can't allow you to speak from the audience, Miss Chuck. Don't you know that? >> I I you gave you you got three minutes. What? No, you you got your three minutes, ma'am. What are you going to tell us about? I just asked him. >> Okay.
>> No, no, no, no. You cannot speak from there. If you want to come up, come on. I'll give you another minute. What's What is it do you want to tell us? >> No disrespect. What time of the year were you where is the D inspecting? First thing is what time of year you would not see the eggs until June or
July of that year. That's first. And then second of all, hold on sir, I apologize Mr. Svin. I'm trying to get it under 30 seconds. The second thing is that these are land tortoises. Okay? Both of them are land tortoises. So neither of them would have been seen in the swamp. That's first. Second of all,
as everybody here in Oldbridge knows, everybody on the council know the deis knows, these turtles actually travel quite far between locations to lay their eggs. So, while I do appreciate that the D was there, they didn't walk the site. You actually said that in the last testimony. You said that they kind of re
evaluate the area and then they delineate. That's what I think you they were your exact words were. They delineate the location of the wetlands by your your your purview of your your site your site people. that said it. They're land at tortoises. Okay. So, and I'm not typically going to see those
eggs. It was a pretty much a one in a million that I actually saw those eggs. Just so you folks know, I was pretty shocked myself. >> And you were on the area of where, >> sir? It was on between >> well from how far in from Pine Street?
>> Darwin. It was I have map. >> You're not being picked up on the microphone. >> I I'm sorry. It was between Pine and Darwin. I don't know exactly where because but it's on the map itself. It It literally points to the map. Sir, >> were you on Suburban Cap property?
>> It was >> further back. >> Hold on a minute. Let me pull up the You can >> just from what your thought is, >> I don't know what Suburban Cap property lines are. I don't >> It's the the area that's fenced in where they sell the products that you can put on the back of pickup trucks.
>> Were you behind that? >> Behind that? Yes, sir. >> How far behind it? >> Not that far. Literally. So, those little cute little houses, those cute little houses that are destroyed, right? Like 50 feet away from that. Like to the right towards Route 18. So, towards Route 18. >> I don't know. That might be the wetlands area.
>> It is the wetlands. >> Yes, sir. So, and I appreciate >> Hold on a minute. Hold on a minute. >> I'm going to have to stop this. I cannot let you just continue on in on this. >> I understand. I'm not sure. >> Your question has Your question has been answered by Mr. Seawolf. >> I'm giving you the map. Why don't you take the map, Mrs. Zena? We
>> I asked I just asked you where you were. >> I'm gonna give you >> I don't doubt that there's things in the wetlands. They're not allowed to touch that. >> Okay. I'm giving you the exact location. Can I >> I don't ma'am. You cannot present that that way. You know that. >> No, that's that's exactly the point is the exact location of where these
animals were. >> Okay. You're the council has told you to submit that to Miss Bchelli. >> Okay. I understand. But I but to to your point there was no wetlands there in July and it's all wet there or August with September September when it was
>> the wetlands were delineated. >> We thank you for your comment. >> Thank you sir. >> Okay. >> Anybody else? Ma'am. >> Hi. >> Hi ma'am. I don't think you've been sworn in yet. So please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm tell truth? Nothing but the truth to help you God.
Yes. >> Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> And just let me catch my breath because I get nervous when I post. >> Don't get nervous. We're all friendly here. >> My name is Darothy Chisano and I reside at 27 Darwin Road. >> And can you just please just spell your last name for the court reporter?
>> C H I U S A N O. >> Take it away. >> Okay. So, I am completely against it because I would look at that from my front window in my living room. I did not move to this area three and a half years ago to go to a development that's going to be more industrial. It's
residential. There's a lot of kids in the area. The the whole development is up and coming with new younger people. And to have to sit at the light to make the U-turn and look at that I don't think is a good spot. And there's a million other places that they can build
a self-s storage place. Further down on 18 where it is more industrial, not more residential. There's a church. The kids ride their bikes around it. And this is only opening up a vacant parking lot at night for kids to ride into, to get in trouble, and again for the wetlands.
There's bunnies everywhere. There's so much to look at, and it's a beautiful neighborhood. So, I'm completely against it. >> Before you walk away, could you spell your last name for me? I'm writing it down. >> C Hi. >> Yes. >> I'm sorry, I'm stuttering. C H I U S A N O
>> N O. Thank you very much ma'am for your comments. >> Thank you for your time. >> Anyone else wish to be heard on this matter? Please raise your hand or stand. Seeing not I'm going to close the public portion. Final comment sir. >> Uh thank you chairman. So
>> I would I would warn you that let's see we have one two three four five six two alternates. So we have a seventh voter. We have a brand new member on the end. >> Understood. >> Just want to advise you that. >> Thank you chairman. Um, so over the the
last three meetings, um, you've heard substantial testimony from all of our professionals. Um, we've heard the public comment, we've heard the board's concerns, and we believe that, um, the application presented addressed a lot, if not all of those concerns. Um, and we would request that you act favorably
tonight, and then hopefully come back with a site plan approval. >> Thank you. Uh, there any comments from, uh, board professionals? >> I have nothing, Mr. Chairman. Miss Swan, any none council? Anything?
>> Nothing for me, Mr. Chairman. >> Finally, board members, is there any questions you want answered on this before I assume you're going to call for a vote, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> None. None. Am I right? >> Okay. So, this would be a uh
>> So, Mr. Chairman, for purposes of formatting a motion, this is a motion to approve a bifurcated D1 use variance. Condition of approval would be that in the event that the bifrocated use variance application is approved tonight. Uh the approval will be strictly conditioned on the design of the three-story office build threetory
self-s storage building mirroring the July 2nd 2025 rendering presented tonight. The applicant will have oneway circulation around the uh the property. the applicant will comply with the species species recommendations for the landscape buffer and that the applicant will provide hatching around the
building in accordance with the board's professional engineers recommendations. >> Right. Thank you, councelor. Uh board members, this would be a D1 use. Uh there's all that's all they're asking for to this evening. Should it uh pass, obviously, they would come back for site
plan. Is someone interested in moving it for approval for a D1? Is there someone interested in moving it for denial for a D1? >> Move it denial. >> Is there a second to deny? >> Second. Scogno.
>> Roll call, please. >> So, just for the record, if you vote yes, you're voting in favor of the motion for denial. >> Okay. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. I don't believe a three-story building should be there in what is considered a residential area. Um, this
is a bedroom community and if you start throwing up three-story buildings all around, we might as well call ourselves Old Bridge City. Thank you, >> Miss Gomez. I second Miss Rose and Andrew's comments
and I also feel that it's too big of a building and in that area it should not be there. >> Mr. Iso, >> I uh I vote yes also in a denial. I think that the land is um it's a shame
they're not proving to to to to change that devariance. So I am voting yes, >> Mr. Skaggno. >> I'm voting yes. Inconsistency with the zoning plan, master plan. Thank you, >> Miss Spinelli.
>> I'm voting yes. I think it changes the character of the neighborhood and I don't >> Mr. Singh. Mr. Singh. >> Yes. I also would deny >> Chairman Sullivan. You know, there's a previous application
that we had. We were seeking the use variance on the highway and I pointed out the fact that if you look at the zone map from the uh top of uh the north side of uh 18 at this township line with
East Brunswick coming southbound, there's no commercial usage except at Maple where there's a small usage for I think there's a Wawa and there's something across the street. Everything is residential zone all the way down. Varies in number, but it's all
residential. And I don't think that was by accident. I think the town uh the governance had the opportunity to change zones if they want it, and I don't think they wanted to. So, I think this does alter the uh the zone plan. I don't know
that it's sight suitable either. Uh these people, many of them have lived here most of their lives. uh the lady that just came up I I guess is a recent more recent uh homeowner, but everyone said the same thing and I and I I have
to I have to side with them. I do I I think it not only changes the character which has nothing really to do with with land use denial but uh I don't think it's suitable and certainly I don't think that uh we should uh grant a variance uh against the will of
the governing body. So my my vote is yes to deny. >> Applications denied. Thank you councelor. Thank you chairman. Members of the board. We do appreciate your time. >> We appreciate you and your witnesses as well, Mr. Alfury. Thank you. >> All right. You're Tina. You're done,
right? Yes. >> Okay. Uh >> yes. Amen. You're not gonna need a uh T, right? Yeah. >> Oh, you Yeah. >> Gotcha. I didn't see her. I'm sorry.
>> You want to come out and get set up? >> Could we go about three minute uh recess quickly? Okay. Just in case uh anyone needs to use the restroom, do so now. Excuse me. sit down.
I know. We're returning. >> We're returning from brief recess. Uh we're going to announce the next application again. It's uh 12-205Z. It's T properties. It's zone R uh R15.
It's block 17004 lot 1111 471 Marbor Road. This is for a training facility for electronic vehicle repair. They're seeking major preliminary and final site plan with DVR. Before we do this, I would ask uh that you call the role, please. >> Yep. Uh Mrs. Andrews,
>> present. >> Mrs. Gomez, >> Mr. Iso, >> here. >> Mr. Scogn >> here. >> Miss Spinelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Singh, >> present. >> Miss Fernbach, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> here. >> Mr. Varga, >> present. >> Mr. Darie,
>> present. >> Miss Savant. >> All right. Um, Thomas Garlic representing the applicant, sir. Thank you, chair. Uh members of the board, happy new year to everyone. Um just as a very very brief recap from the last hearing that when we were here
present before you. Um this is an application for 475 Marbor Road here in Oldbridge. It's block 17004, lot 11.11. Um we're seeking major site plan approval uh and a D1 use variance for
this site. The site is an existing commercial property. received a prior Dvarian for a dance studio in the past. Um, my my client, the applicant, is not looking to make any major substantial changes to the property except for a driveway that leads from the existing
parking lot around the back of the building uh and into uh two garage bays that would allow access for the proposed EV vehicles. Uh, as board heard at the last hearing, uh, those EV vehicles are not coming in and out all day. They get provided by the manufacturer who's
looking to train their uh their new service people. They get moved in off hours. They're not going to interfere with any of the parking situation. And then they get left in the uh garage for uh teaching lessons. Um one point I just want to make just from speaking to my
client, I think it's an important point for the board to understand. Uh we went through at the last meeting, you know, the number of students that are are going to be present in the three classes. There's six students uh per class, one instructor per uh per classroom. So, the board understands
because we're going from a dance studio, which I'm sure you can all understand probably has a rotating schedule of classes, this this uh this school or this this facility is just going to have one session a day. So, they bring in those up to 18 students. That's the max.
They're there for the day and that's it. We don't it's not rotating classes or anything like that. they're in basically, you know, for the business day for for those lessons. So, I just want to clarify that for the board before we get started. Um, it's my understanding. I think we were when we were present, I don't remember exactly which of you and I apologize for that,
but we had five members. I think we're at seven members now with an alternate. My understanding is everybody else who wasn't here is already reviewed the record and we're in good shape. So, I hope you all appreciated that quick but not very quick recap. Um, with that, we we have just two uh remaining uh
witnesses for us tonight. We have our uh traffic parking engineer to provide a quick summary on uh the tra the parking situation with the site and then we have our planner uh to provide the testimony based on the relief that we're looking for. So if there's no other further questions, uh we'll we'll just get
started with our two witnesses. >> By all means, >> thank you. Uh so I'd like to call John Ray of McDonald Ray Associates, our uh parking engineer. >> Sir, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, nothing but the truth to help you God? >> I do. >> Please state your name. Spell your last for the record. John Ray Rea.
>> Back to you, counselor. >> Thank you, council. Um, Mr. Ray, you uh prepared the uh parking study. >> Who Mr. Ray is? >> I forgot. I'll do credentials real quick. So, Mr. Ray, would you uh please give the board the benefit of your credentials?
>> Uh, yes. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My field of specialty is traffic engineering. I've testified before this. >> I think I have it pushed down. No, >> it's got to turn green. >> There you go. >> Okay, green. Uh, I've testified before this board on numerous occasions as a
traffic and parking expert. >> Thank you. Mr. Ray has appeared before this board numerous times over the years. We we accept his expertise. Thank you for putting that on the record. And for those watching at home, >> thank you, Mr. Sullivan. >> I apologize for jumping that. Chairman, uh, Mr. Raid, uh, your office and
specifically you prepared the parking study for this uh, for this site which was previously submitted to the board. Is that correct? >> I did. Yes. if you could just provide the board with a summary of uh of what what your study found. >> Okay. I did prepare a report dated June 2nd, 2025. I went out to the site. I
visited the site and as Mr. Garlic has indicated uh it's an existing building, an existing parking lot. Uh there were two previous tenants actually within the building. One was a dance studio, the other was a music uh academy. Uh so there were two previous tenants. There
are 23 parking spaces within the parking lot. So the thing that I wanted to do was just to establish that the traffic impact that would be generated by the EV uh school would be equal to or less than what previously existed on the site and
that was a pretty pretty easy exercise to do. As Mr. Garlic has indicated there will be one session a day. There won't be rotating classes. So there will be a maximum of three classes with six people in each class. That would be 18 people,
three instructors. So under a worst case scenario, we would need 21 parking spaces. We have 23 parking spaces with re So I I believe the parking will be more than adequate. With respect to the traffic impact, uh as Mr. Garlic has indicated we're probably all familiar
with dance studios and with parents dropping off children and sometimes staying on site for an hour or so uh depending upon how long the dance classes last. They can be very busy. Uh uh certainly uh this use will be less
intense than even just the dance studio by itself. Uh, for example, I just did a traffic and parking study for a dance studio in a industrial park in Marboro, not far from here. Uh, a building about
10,000 square feet, a little bit bigger than this building, but there were constantly 40 to 45 parents either parked or dropping off and picking up children. So, this will be less intense than what was previously on the site. We
have adequate barking and that basically summarizes my testimony. >> Thank you. Um I don't have any further questions for the witness. >> Mr. Dari, anything? >> I don't have any questions for the witness. Mr. Chairman >> Swan, >> I don't have any questions. >> I'm sorry. The board members on my left.
This man's a traffic engineer. Do you have any questions for him about the parking on that proposed use? None. >> Mr. Singh, come right up the row here. Midelli, >> my my concern is the test the testing of the vehicle after you repair it. Are you
going to test drive it down Marbor Road up and down? >> So, Mr. Ray did the study for parking and traffic. We I do have the operator who he did testify at the last meeting, but we can answer that question. >> They're not the answer, but I'm more
than happy to call him. >> Just walk up. He's under oath. He he testified. Just walk up and answer that one question for me, sir. >> All right. There's no test drive. >> No, there there'll be no test drives at all. >> State your name. >> Uh Gerald McNe. >> No test driving down Malbor Road. >> No test driving down the road. It's it's they're more for demonstrations to to
pull things off, put things on and calibrate. Um but there'll be no test drives. >> Okay. Thank you. >> On site. >> On site. Exactly. >> Vice chair. >> No questions. >> No, I have none. Sanders. Okay. >> Councelor, >> nothing for me, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you. >> Public at the end. Public's at the end. Correct. Public comments. >> Yes. Okay. >> John, just to type there's >> Thank you, Mr. Ray. >> All right. So, I'd like to call our last witness, John Chadwick, who's our uh professional planner. >> Sir, do you swear affirm, tell the truth, nothing but the truth to help you
God? >> Yes. >> Your name is very last for the record. >> Name is John Chadwick. C H A D W. >> Back to you, counselor. >> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chadwick, would you provide the board uh with the benefit of your credentials as a professional planner? >> Mr. Chadwick, just turn that a little
bit to you. It's directional. >> Thank you. >> Better. >> Um I'm a licensed professional planner and have been for quite some time. I've appeared before this board infrequently actually over the years and have
represented municipalities throughout Middle. >> You're still licensed in this state, correct? >> I am. was that did you have 01 or O2? >> I'm still standing. >> Okay. >> I recognize Mr. Chadwick and then uh I'll acknowledge his expertise and we'll accept him.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Uh Mr. Chadwick, you've had an opportunity to review uh all the application submissions with this application. >> I have. >> Okay. And you've uh as a planner, you've uh you understand the relief that the applicant is requesting before the board? >> I do. Could you please provide the board
uh with in your opinion as a plan or the justification for the relief uh that the that the applicant is requesting? >> Yes, I do. Uh, in preparation, I've done the standard things you'll hear planning consultants. Reviewed the zoning code,
master plan, been to the property, discussed the application with the client to understand exactly what the use is, which now has been explained uh and tried to get some history of of the uh use of the property prior to uh
clearly there's a a commercial building at the site. uh the prior uses were more intense uh would have events where they would overwhelm the property, meaning you have to park up and down the road. This has none of those characteristics.
Um so the commercial buildings there it has the adequate parking is explained by Mr. Ray. The operation of the use is not a 24-hour use. It's a simple use is in a strip between Malro and Route 18
that has commercial community types of uses extending souththeast I guess you would orientation would be um and in my judgment because of the facts the physical facts and the history the site
is particularly suited it can accommodate the proposed use completely. I think it advances a number of purposes of the municipal land use law and you've heard this from planners before. That's a test that you have to provide for a
use variance. The nature of this use advances sustainability and basically a green philosophy meaning you have to have repairs to these EV vehicles or you will achieve nothing.
So, in my judgment, it advances that purpose. I think the use is very appropriate in context with the uh its location, single family homes on the other side of the road. The building is there. It's fairly buffered with
existing trees along the road. And it has no uh I would say neighborhood impacts. There's no air guns going on with this. It's a electronic type of a facility.
Uh the traffic clearly is very low. We're talking about 18 students. Even if a few of them partner up or government cars, you're talking about very minimal traffic. >> So in my judgment, those uh the
appropriate use, the site is wellmaintained. It gives a nice visual uh presence as you go down the roadway. Uh and my conclusion is that the uh the scale of the building, the on-site parking, its
location, all makes it particularly suited to this location. In terms of negative impacts, I think there's really a positive impact. It's a vacant building, uh commercial building, no location. I think it to the advantage of the township to have one a use that is
pretty neutral in terms of any kind of impact. Uh and in my judgment is really positive. There are no negatives. You come to the end of this and you say, you know, is it a good use for the site or is
there big impacts and you should reject it. My my opinion is that for what I've said previous it certainly has a very good fit. It has no substantial impacts and the uh impacts on the zoning plan um
took place when the commercial building was originally developed. This does not further impact zoning plan. >> Thank you. >> I don't have any further questions from Mr. I'm gonna go to our planner, Mr. Swamp.
>> Mr. Chadwick, can you emphasize a little more on the site suitability because um there was a de I'm sorry, site suitability. >> Uh can you just elaborate a little bit more on the site suitability part of it
because there was an ex there was a D1 variance that was granted in the past and in comparison to that you're coming back with another new D. So in terms of site suitability, could you just elaborate a little more
between the two comparisons so that the board understands the other question so that you can continue with your testimony in the R15 zone on Malber Road? Is there a similar type of use or a non-residential use that is existing?
And have you studied that? Well, the the non-residential uses souththeast of this as you go south, I guess, south of Ma Road. I mean, you've got the community center, you got the collision of the auto body place. Uh,
we've got the I guess it's an online supplier business. Uh, what is it called? Rama. So, Rama uh is the name of the business. is an online type of business and you've
got the wellness center. Uh those uses I think generate more impact in terms of activity daytime coming and going than this use. This use going to have uh
students and instructors coming in the morning and leaving. is almost like a regular job site where the site wasn't occupied by the dance studio. Uh you had constant turnover and then you had the
events issue which overwhelmed the site in terms of the amount of parking. So when you compare what this proposal is to the use of the site prior, this use is much more intense, much less intense,
does not have the impacts in terms of noise or the constant traffic or the long hours of operation. So I think in all those respects, it's a much better fit than the prior D1 use varies that was granted. And in comparison to the
other uses as you go along Malber road I think it's also uh in terms of it impacts uh less or less than the others. Yes. >> And would you agree that not just the part uh not just the traffic but in
terms of other negative impacts compared to the previous use you would be eliminating some of them? >> Yes. noise. >> I think I understood your question though. Are there impacts that were
generated from the dance studio studio slashmusic training that were greater than what this use is and clearly there are the occupancy of the site was much greater. the turnover and traffic impact
would would be much greater. Uh in terms of the prior use fitting on the site, it didn't. this use does uh in terms of hours of operation. The
dance studio if I have information correct was not li limited to just a uh Monday through Friday but extended into the weekends as well. This uses a five day a week 8 to
five building. That's it. So in terms of occupancy and activity, I think there's a clear upgrade or much less impacts than prior use. >> And actually, this is a question for Mr. Garlic. If I'm not mistaken, there was
testimony provided that you would work on the frontage along Malber Road to improve the landscaping in that area. Correct. >> Yeah. Well, I think the proposal was to try to maintain the existing buffers along
Malber Road >> and so no uh additional landscaping. >> I think there, if I'm correct, there's a question about shade trees or something like that along the frontage. The only issues we run into is >> there's utility wires there and I think
the only place to plant them would be where the utilities are. So we run into an issue down the road with with that >> unless there's >> so should the board act favorably on the application you agree to work with the forester to go over the landscape plan
along with the professionals right >> to review it correct no issue with that thank you >> Mr. Dari, >> I don't have any question. Mr. Chairman, >> the only thing I I would ask you that uh
there was a comment that was made, I believe, a reference to wetlands being right on the back. Uh and I don't think there's an encroachment, but it was a topic of discussion. Mr. Garlic, I don't know if you want to address that before. >> Sure. So, I think >> so we can put that to rest.
>> Yeah. the the testimony at the last hearing was uh we had we had sent someone out to initi do an initial review of it. Um it seems to be a ditch that was formed by a burm when they put 18 in. So it's something seems to be
something man-made. Um but to the extent it is and we need to work with the D we will. We don't think it's near what we're actually improving on the site. Um, >> yeah. So, >> I know it was brought up and I just want to clear it up before. >> Correct. And I think Miss Miss Totten
did testify. Yeah. To that effect. >> Yeah. So, Dar, >> I I did get a chance to review the mapping and also speak to the applicants uh engineer prior to the the last hearing uh regarding the uh the wetlands and there are wetlands. It's actually uh
not on site and and not uh directly in the area of where the applicants is proposing their disturbance. Uh but we did ask uh the applicants engineer to do a field evaluation to verify the the wetlands is off off the site. >> It's closer to route 18.
>> Yes, it's it's and agree with applicants council. It's actually uh from an empoundment uh that's created by a burm that was that's along the roadway there and the applicant isn't proposing to to actually modify that in that area. >> If there's approval, obviously you're
going to make sure that that matter is is examined and handled. Yes, we would do that as a should the board act favorably, we would do that as as a post approval uh review between my office and the applicants engineer. >> All right. Thank you. Uh board members on my left will come up the line if any
questions of this witness. >> I don't >> No, I actually have one. Um can you put up the site plan? >> Although I don't know which one I'm looking at. I can just tell you maybe you know
>> show me where I highlighted it's it's referencing an emergency spill off >> or what does that have like I looked at both of them before and after >> is high enough is the place for it to
>> okay this is my question the driveway is now going to go there so how does that affect that >> our engineer who was sworn in at the last meeting could could answer that question >> I'm just unclear on it that's all >> just put your and credentials on the record quickly and then please answer that. >> Good afternoon. >> You're previously under.
>> Yes, Lauraai Totten Crest Engineering, the engineer for the project. So, what we're doing because the driveway is going over the spillway is uh taking away some of the dirt, putting a little wall around it to hold it back so it has the same volume in the basin. And then
we're putting a pipe through the wall that will come into an inlet and the water would come up out of the inlet, bubble over as >> That's the bubbler. >> Exactly. So that's acting as the emergency spillway. The water actually goes out to Marbor Road through an
outlet structure down there. This is only an emergency outfall structure. >> Okay. And that's what that end wall is to accommodate that pipe. >> Correct. >> Okay. That that's fine. Thank you. Before I before I go up, Mr. Dari, any you affirm that?
>> Yes, we we actually had had some extensive conversations about that as well, and I've asked for some additional calculations which Miss Totten has agreed to provide again as as a postapproval measure should the board act favorably. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Totten. >> You're welcome. >> Uh coming back up the up the line.
>> Any questions? No, >> councelor. >> Nothing for me, Mr. Chairman. Okay, back to you. >> No further witnesses. Um, I can do a summation or if you want to open the public for whatever order. >> Why don't we go to public? Sure. >> Then I'll come back and I'll let you
close. >> Sounds good. Thank you. >> All right. This is uh two other Wait a minute. Let me put two other items on. Commentary from uh the fire district. Matt Bond Fire District 1 finds the plan satisfactory at this
time. You have copy of that. Obviously, you agree with his commentary? >> I would agree with that. >> Okay. >> But yes, >> uh from Mr. Lvala, from uh the uh conservation officer, you have that memo as well, >> I believe. So,
>> October 15th. >> Obviously, you comply with what his comments are? >> Yes, we can. Yeah, we can comply. They're part of the record obviously, right? Okay. Now, I'll go to the public, but thank
you from commenting on them. 12-2025 Z. This is 475 Marbor Road. This is for uh use variance to uh repurpose a building uh to use for electronic vehicle uh I guess a
classroom in order to teach the mechanics of of that. If I don't if I'm using the right word, I'll get a correction later on. Anyone want to be heard on this matter, please raise your hand or stand. Once again, commentary is limited to three minutes per
anyone. This will be the only uh it's likely this will be the only time for public portion. I see none. I'll close the public portion. Back to you, counselor. Close. >> Thank you, chair, members of the board. Uh just for a brief summation, uh as you've heard tonight and at our prior
hearing, um we think that this is a great repurposing of this existing commercial building. Though we're seeking a D1 use variance, we're not really changing we're not changing the footprint of the building. Uh and any additions we're making are to the rear of the building. So the residential zone that we're in, it's not going to see
those changes. Um, as we've heard from the parking uh from our our parking and traffic engineer as well as our planner, this is going to be a great improvement based on what's already been uh provided with the D1 use variance there in the past, which is the dance studio. We're going to have sufficient parking for the
site. Site's not going to generate a lot of traffic. It's going to be a onein, one out basically uh type of system. And all of the operations are going to be on the interior of the building. Uh students will be inside in classrooms or they'll be moving over to the garage area where they may learn to do uh estimates for repairs or learn how to do
certain repairs on the vehicles that are there. The vehicles are not going to be coming in and out like a normal service uh station or a dealership. These are it's a school essentially. It's a demonstration uh vehicle that's provided by the manufacturer. So, it's very controlled. The public isn't coming in
dropping off vehicles that are going to be repaired. It's not like that at all. Um, and with that, we we would we would hope that the board will entertain an applica. Um, I'm sorry, a vote of approval on the application. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I I I have a question for I guess for both attorneys. Um, should
the board act favorably on this? Could it be changed to a gasoline uh repair an engine repair shop if this uh applicant leaves and there is a grant
there's been a granting of usage for this type of >> for a repair shop meaning like an actual person who's going to open up and repair vehicles >> that would require them to come back right >> or even a school that teach it. >> Yes. So as as a condition would we need
to guard ourselves on that to say this can never be turned into >> correct? >> Sorry sorry sorry the approval would be really tailor made to this specific use. So any other use that wants to come in
has to come back to the board for an approval regardless. The the only thing I'll say is if let's say a different operator came in but operated the same school the D1 use subject to everyone else's comments the D1 use variance would continue with the land but
>> modifications to that use that are different I would I would not disagree >> you agree >> that's correct Mr. Chairman >> thank you >> uh board members any final questions before uh you are going to call for a vote Mr. U we're going to vote take a vote on
this for the U I think it's the D1 and there's some bulks right >> Mr. Chairman, just be specific as well. It's also an application for major preliminary and final major site plan approval with use variance relief. >> Okay. Any final questions the board may have before we call for a vote?
>> None. >> All right. Someone uh interested in moving this for approval for we'll start with D1, right? >> Uh no, it's a single motion. >> Single motion >> because it's a single motion for each variance and preliminary and final major site plan approval. >> Okay. All at once. >> All at once. >> All right. >> I'll move it.
>> Is there a second? Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. For approval, >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogn, >> yes. >> Mr. Spanelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Singh,
>> yes. For approval. >> Chairman Sullivan. >> Yeah, repurposing that building is is a great idea. And then this is a perfect passive, I think, uh, commercial application and and approval. My vote is yes. >> Thank you all for the time. >> Thank you for your presentation. Thank
you, sir. And uh good luck gentlemen. >> Let's hope so. >> Are you on the last one? >> You want a break? >> Can we get a brief? >> All right. I'm gonna allow them to set up for the next one. Uh let's go into recess. Five minutes. It's 9:04.
909. We'll be back. All right, we've come back from uh recess. Miss Portelli, could you give us a roll call, please? Thank you. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> present. >> Miss Gomez, >> present. >> Mr. Iso, >> here. >> Mr. Scogno, >> here. Miss Spinelli
>> here. >> Mr. Singh >> president. >> Miss Fernbach >> present. >> Chairman Sullivan >> here. >> Mr. Darie >> present. >> Mr. Varga >> present. >> Missant >> present. >> Final matter for the evening. 56-204Z. This is Oldbridge Chemicals SD3 zone
block 6303 lots 9 and 11. Physical location old waterworks road warehouse facility chem chemical and alloy products. Major preliminary final site plan with minor subdivision and devariance. Lawrence Calli, applicant proposes minor subdivision, a lot line
adjustment to cure an encroachment between lots 11 and nine. Mr. Cali, >> Mr. Chairman, members, nice to see everybody. Happy New Year. We appreciate you having us this evening. Larry Cali on behalf of the applicant, Old Brbridge Chemicals LLC. Mr. Chair, members, I I don't think we're going to take up too much of your time this evening, folks.
Uh we're down to a single witness for this project. I don't want to belabor the point about the applicant application points. Uh it's a subdivision application. It's a zero net change of lots. There's three lots today. There will be three tomorrow. This is really a jogging of the lot lines. Uh what brings us to this board as opposed to the planning board and we
discussed it at length last meeting and Vina was very helpful with her historical information offered is the lot which is a pre-existing non-conforming use is technically getting larger. um it's enhancing, it's increasing as far as lot area goes, but
there are zero changes to the operations or use or intensification of that lot. There is nothing happening that is different on that lot tomorrow versus today by way of the proposal before the board. Uh but nevertheless, it's nuanced. It brings us before this board for D2 use variance relief. We've got
limited bulk relief as well. The Delta is downward adjusting for the bulk relief. Um so we are actually improving the non-conforming condition of um the the bulk deviation on the site. It's an improvement. Nevertheless, you know, technically it's still a bulk variance.
Uh so we've had testimony from Josh Weary during the first public hearing. He was the scrier of record of the um subdivision plan and site plan before the board. He's our civil engineer of record. Mr. Weirary testified to conclusion and through all cross-examination of the board. It brings us down to our final witness, Mr. Chairman and members, our project
planner, Christine Capone. And I know Christine's a frequent flyer in a township. Um she will take the board through the variances notwithstanding the fact that I described them as sort of technical and nuanced at the last hearing in this one. They're variances nonetheless. So Christine will establish the proofs for that relief that's
requested this evening. Um no further exhibits are likely to be offered this evening, Mr. Chairman and members. So with that, what we'd like to do is is have Miss Kafone sworn in, qualified to the extent needed uh to confirm her license and credentials are still current and in good standing and be off to the races, sir. >> Mr. VGA,
>> please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm and tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I help you God. >> Yes. >> Please state your name. It's very last for the record. >> Good evening, chairman and members of the board. For the record, my name is Christine. That's with a ch or i s t i n e naro caffone. C F O N E. Business
address is 52 Reckless Place, Red Bank, New Jersey. I'm testifying this evening as a licensed professional planner. I've been testifying for about 29 years as such in the state of New Jersey. My licenses are current and valid. I teach planning and zoning courses for the Rucker Center for Government Services.
I've been qualified here in the township as well as hundreds of other um planning and zoning boards throughout the states on well over a thousand occasions. >> We will accept uh your credentials, Miss Capone. Uh as councelor said, you're a frequent flyer here. You're recognized
by members of the board and we uh >> acknowledge your expertise. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. and thank you for doing that for those at home that will understand who you are. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, chairman. >> So, Christine, a few things before we um we cut you loose and you go through your analysis and conclusions as to the
planning proofs. >> You are familiar with the property. Is that right? >> Yes. >> You're familiar with the plans that were filed in connection with the application? >> Yes. >> You're familiar with the zone, um the surrounding area improvements and development? >> Yes. >> The code and the relief requested this evening? >> Yes. Yes.
>> As well as the master plan and then the relative redevelopment plan that applies to this site, although not part of this application. >> Yes, I am. >> So, with that, Christina, if you wouldn't mind giving the board the benefit of your analysis and conclusions that justify the variance relief that brings us here before the board of adjustment this evening.
>> So, yes, confirming that I am familiar with all those controlling documents, including all the application submission documents. I've reviewed those items. Um, the redevelopment plan I have here tonight, I will reference it. um as there are certain things in that redevelopment plan that are recommended with regard to the right of ways that
these uh properties have frontage on. So I'll talk a little bit about that. I do think it's important for the board to understand what this application is not. There are no new uses proposed. There are no enhancements. There are no operational changes. There will be no shovels in the ground resulting from
this application. This is a very technical application. And the reason that this is a D2 variance is it's an expansion of a non-conforming use. That is a difference with a distinction. And your planner, Miss Sant put some critical testimony on the record the
last time we were here back in December on the 4th. She entered three exhibits. Those were B1, B2, and B3. You labeled them as such because they were the board's exhibits. Your planner introduced them. B1 was a 1963 aerial
that showed no development. B2 was a 1969 aerial that showed that the site had been developed with the existing warehouse or the existing development the chemical um products facility. And then B3 was a 1970 zoning map that
showed the area in question was your planner's words described it as entirely zoned as industrial. The reason that that's important and the reason we need a D2 variance is because that testimony that was and those exhibits told a story
that when the zoning was in place, the use was permissible and the law the use was lawful. She went on to indicate that it was just about two years ago that the residences in the area were reszoned out of that industrial area into a
residential zone to avoid the proliferation of applications. So when those residences came in, they would need a D1 variance. If they put so much as a birdhouse or dog house on their property, they would have to come before the board because they were actually non-conforming. So that history is very
important for the board to understand because when the applicant comes before the board to demonstrate that we're an existing non-conforming use, those are critical critical items. So, it was very helpful to understand for the board and for the public and for the applicant the
history of this application and why we are here as a D2 because that informs my testimony as the applicant's planner. So when you're dealing with a D2 expansion of a non-conforming use, the case law is very clear that when you're looking at things like the negative criteria that
it should be looked at with greater liberality because the use is already the neighbors, the public good is accustomed to that use being in the area already. So the area the the use certainly exists and I think B1 and B2 um were certainly dispositive of that.
And as far as the impacts um the impacts of this application, right, it's three lots today. It will be three lots um if the board were to move favorably and approve the application. The reason we are here seeking the D2 is because lot
11.11, which hosts the Old Bridge Minerals facility, which is the non-conforming use, is being increased by 5.74 acres. In section 250-31 of your ordinance, which regulates existing nonconformities, you have a section that
reads expansion of the lot area requires an expansion of a non-conforming use. So, in any other case, I would say in most towns that I would appear in front of, I would say this wouldn't even be before the board because we're making the area that the non-conforming lot
sits on larger. So, it is as was testif as was stated by the applicant's attorney and I believe your board attorney, it's the inverse of the typical raspberry case where the lot is made smaller, so you need to seek an expansion of a non-conforming use. Here,
because of peculiarity in your ordinance in section 250-31, which indicates if the lot is increased, that's why we need the expansion of a non-conforming use. So that is the variance relief together with one bulk variance for an variance for the
landscape area ratio on lot 11.11 that is currently non-conforming at.132 because mathematically that lot is getting bigger that landscape area ratio is going to improve right if we add if we increase the denominator it's going
to get bigger when we do that ratio so we're increasing it by 5.74 we are doing nothing on that site so it is not going going to look any different. There are no improvements. Um, and also when we were here last month, we heard a lot of testimony about why we are doing this.
And I believe Miss Sant told you this subdivision was her suggestion. One of the things that she said when she was giving her testimony to the board was, "I suggested this because I think it's good planning to isolate
the environmentally sensitive areas and not only to isolate the environmentally sensitive areas, but to clean up the encroachment of the accessory structures." So your planner, it's it's not frequently that we have a situation where the board's planner is able to
provide testimony and provide exhibits that show a dispositive history of the legal non-conforming use status and then provide the the institutional knowledge as to why this application or one of the reasons and that it was recommended to be proceeded by the applicant. The other
changes in the area of these lots are resulting um from dedications. Lot 9.11 is going to have a dedication of frontage on Jake Brown Road West and 10.11 will have a dedication to um
Waterworks Road. Now the area that we are dedicating while Mr. Weary is a very talented engineer he was not the the while he is the scrier of the plans he is not the one who came up with those roadway dedications. If you had an opportunity to look at the waterworks
redevelopment plan which was adopted in Oldbridge on June 13th or dated June 13 of 2023. If you go to page 25 of that document, it calls for a specific right-of-way dedication along Jake Brown Road west of 60 foot and then on 30 foot
wide halfway rightway along Old Water Works Road. So the rightaway dedications that are being prescribed in conjunction with this application are absolutely consistent with the redevelopment plan that was adopted in all township for this area. So statutoily we have to
demonstrate to you that this application is not going to have a substantial detriment to the public good or the zone plan. So the applicant the land use law does not ask you to hold this or any other applicant to a standard that there be no detriment but just that the benefits of the grant of the variance
outweigh any detriment and there's no substantial detriment to the zone plan or the public good. So, as far as a D2 expansion of a non-conforming use, it's very difficult to come to the conclusion that there's going to be a negative impact when there's no new uses, no enhancement, no operational changes, or
no shovels in the ground resulting from the application and rather that the applicants, the board's own planner indicated that the subdivision that is being proposed is something that she suggested um years ago in in her capacity as planning for the township.
As far as the landscape area ratio, one of the criteria that the board the board can grant bulk variances or C variances, which that would be under two criteria. You can grant it under the C1 hardship or C2 flexible C. One of the criteria for hardship is lawful pre-existing
structures. because that landscape area ratio is currently non-conforming and actually being improved by this application. I think the board can rely on the C1 section of the statute altogether because we are implementing right-of-way dedications that are specifically prescribed for and called
for in the waterworks road to redevelopment plan which is a fairly new vintage right 2023. This is not an old plan. Um I would say that I find that this application meets its burden of proof with respect to um the positive and negative criteria. I think it
certainly promotes the general welfare by isolating the environmental properties as well as correcting and putting the accessory structures um on one lot and it corrects that as was indicated as good planning by your planner. And I see no substantial
detriment to the zone plan or the public good if the board were to move favorably considering that we are improving the conditions on the site with respect to the landscape area ratio and that again there will be no visible changes if the board moves
favorably on this application. So with that I have nothing further on direct. >> Thank you Christine. Mr. Chairman we have nothing further from kafone. You know as you know it's it's it's a relatively like we've said a few times a nuanced application. and it's limited relief notwithstanding the fact that it is use relief under section 70 of the
MLUL. Um there's really no moving parts to this application. There's nothing proposed by way of development. Um and it's essentially consolidating that which had historically existed on the site both through the recommendation and guidance of township planning throughout
the last several years. It's in comport with the redevelopment plan and we think the proofs are met with that. We make kafone available to any questions that the board members might have at this time as well as your consultants of course. >> Thank you counselor. Thank you, Mr. Kon. >> Thank youelcome. >> Uh, Mr. W, >> I don't have any questions.
>> Mr. Dari, >> I don't have any questions for the planner. >> Okay, I'm going to start on the far end of the day is >> coming up. >> None. >> Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. Uh, how long have the lines been this way? Going back how far?
>> Uh, how long have the lines been this way? Um, I'm going to ask our engineer to answer that. I don't I don't know how long the existing lines have been this. >> You don't know. And why now? Why why why is it so uh important to get done now?
>> Um I guess again to isolate the environmental constraints and to correct the fact that there are accessory structures that are straddling the property lines. It's really just a housekeeping. >> So it's been like this since the '9s. >> I don't know. You don't know that. >> I don't know when those lot lines were put in place. and you're coming before
us now to get it done. >> Again, the redevelopment plan was done in 2023 that recommended those um rightaway withs. So, um I'm not sure what the impetus for the application now is. But I can tell you relatively recent redevelopment plan for the
>> why it's coming up now. That's why >> and the now between 2023 and now this application was filed some time ago. So, this was in a lull during completeness >> about a year ago. Oh, >> a year ago. >> Yeah, about about that. Yes, sir. and before that plans are being drafted. So this was in the works subsequent to
the redevelopment plan being implemented in 2023. >> Anything else Mr. Scott? >> Thank you. >> If we could use the audience as an example, lots nine and 11 and you
have the aisle here. If you were going to move two seats to that side, is that more or less >> I think that that's a wonderful analogy. illustration. >> It's a great illustration. >> All All you did was move two two chairs over. Room is the same. Everything's the
same. >> I mean, excuse me, >> just layman's terms. >> In layman's terms, I think that that's a very good analogy. And the other thing is that you would have to have specific knowledge that this occurred because
today, if you drive by the site today or do you drive by the site next month, if the subdivision is perfected, there will be absolutely no way you will be able to tech detect that this happened. That move as you described it will be imperceptible to the public because you
would not know because nothing will happen as a result of this subdivision. And I think that that's a very important part for the board to understand is that even if you approve this subdivision, the impact of it is imperceptible. Next month from driving by, you would have to
know that this happened to know that those lot lines moved. >> Very good. >> Very good analys. >> I have nothing. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So at this point make mone available I guess to any questions of the public through cross examination. We have nothing further on
a direct that essentially concludes our our case and chief. Mr. Chairman, >> can your engineer tell us how long it's been like that historically or no? >> The gesture I got from Mr. was that he was uncertain. >> Okay. >> It's been a it's been a number of years.
>> Can I can I help? Because I was the one who pulled up the uh AIALs, right? So from the historic areas the encroachment existed since 1979.
Uh in fact yes between 72 and 79 is when the encroachment or the expansion really occurred. Okay. >> Thank you. >> No problem. >> All right. Nothing else. I'm going to go to the public. Okay, we'll open up sir.
>> 56- uh 2024 Zbridge Chemicals physical location near Old Waterworks Road proposing a minor subdivision for a lot line adjustment to cure an encroachment between lots 11 and n councelor once again uh three minutes is uh correct
>> that's correct Mr. Chairman, that is the board's policy. >> Okay. Anyone wish to be recognized? >> Actually, the man right over there, he testified once before last one. He was the first one to raise his hand and he almost fell. You okay? >> Sorry.
>> Uh, we're going to put everybody under oath again even though you were put under oath the last time. Thank you. >> All right. So, please raise your right hand. You swear or affirm, tell the truth nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Sure. Anit Modi. Last name is M O D II. >> And your address?
>> 10 Esther Circle, Old Bridge, New Jersey. >> You said 10 >> and Esther Circle. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, uh, okay. So, yep. Respected chap person, I have a few questions for planner. Uh,
she listed a like, you know, a list of variances along with the ordinance. I was not able to like you know get it like you know all those list of variances. Uh so first question would be are you claiming those based on the hardship planning bene hardships
planning benefits or both under MLUL? >> Uh should I continue asking the question or is she going to provide the response? I have like a bunch of like a four five questions. >> I didn't understand the question. >> So for each variance are they claiming hardship or a planning benefit or both
under MLUL? No, that's not what she said. >> So I and I I apologize because it's >> You explain a C1 and a C2 is what she >> It's always uncomfortable when you have to answer questions with your back to somebody, but I have to either put my back to the board or you put it on the
record. So I need to be facing the board respectfully to the public. So I don't want to feel rude for having my back to you, but I so I apologize for that, but I do need to face the board when I answer questions. So I think I understood the question. And the question was, are you testifying and justifying the variances under the
hardship section of the statute? For the D2, I did not. Um, it's a D2 expansion of a non-conforming use. But for the landscape area ratio, I did because I felt that that falls under the C1 section of the the land use law because specifically in the land use law, lawful
pre-existing conditions on a property are proper justification for a C1. And as this is currently non-conforming at.132 where the requirement is 04 and we're increasing it to 0.152 that in my con my opinion is absolutely consistent with
the C1 because of it's a lawful pre-existing condition. >> Uh okay thank you. So since uh applicant owns the lot lot 9 10 and 11 and is only shifting the internet lot lines without adding a new buildings. Does this lot
reconfiguration create the need for uh this variance? If so, why should self-created condition qualify for the relief? >> So, it's an existing condition. It's an existing condition on the property. >> Uh, again, it's a self-created condition when when you are uh reconfiguring the
lot lines. >> So, again, it's not self-created because it exists today. So, that doesn't make it a self-created condition. That makes it an existing condition. >> Okay. Uh so did the applicant look at uh other ways to configure the lot line that would reduce the number of variance needed and bring the site closer to
complying with the zoning requirement? >> Well, there's only one bulk variance needed. So there's only one bulk variance that we require. The other one is a D2 variance because it's an increase in the lot area. So there's really no other configuration that would avoid that D2.
>> So zoning code required a 100 foot uh setback. So why any physical condition on this property justifying reducing the setback to 20 ft and 18.1 ft instead of meeting required this distance? >> So your board attorney directed last
time that we don't need any variance relief for the setbacks because they're not changing and those are pre-existing nonconformities. So your attorney I watched the video again last night advised that we did not need to seek those variances because they were not being impacted so that we don't need to seek that relief. Miss
>> Capone is correct. Okay. Uh, another question. Uh, ordinance require a 0.4 landscape ratio and the plan provides only 0.15. What prevents the applicant from meeting the required landscaping amount, especially since they own the surrounding lots and not building anything new? How does such a large
reduction meet the benefit outweighs the detriment for a C2 variance? >> The condition is improved over what's existing today and there's no development or improvements proposed in conjunction with this application. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Next,
sir, hold on. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Please state your name and spare your last for the record. >> Articbot, BH A. >> And your address? >> 45 Dalia Lane. >> Take it away.
>> All right. Uh can the board confirm that the application is governed by NJSA 4055D uh including the standards for non-conforming use and uh use variance under 40 55D7D?
>> It is governed under 4055D-7D but it's under subsection 2 and it's controlled under the Coventry Square standards which as Miss Capone testified to is negative criteria is viewed with more liberality and it's still considered a use variance. It does have
>> I thought I was I apologize. >> Can you repeat? >> So I apologize. It is still it is it is being reviewed under the 4055D-70D standard, but it's specifically D2 and more specifically under the Coventry
Square standards for the use variance. Can you explain how increasing the uh land area tied to a non-conforming use does not constitute an expansion or intensification
of that use under New Jersey case law? >> Under New Jersey case law, it's an inverse of the Raspberry decision because what the Raspberry decision says is that if you are taking a lot and making it smaller, then it's considered an intensification. But Obridge has a unique ordinance that creates that
causes this to become an intensification and that is why they are here today seeking the D2 variance because it is technically in an expansion. >> So how are you evaluating whether expanding the footprint of a chemical operation adjacent to an established
residential neighborhood causing substantial determinant to the public good? >> I don't know that there's any expansion of the footprint. There is none. >> I know that there is no expansion of the footprint. There is ab again no shovels in the ground, no new uses, no operational changes, no modification to
the site. There are no site improvements proposed in conjunction with this >> respectfully increasing the lot area associated with a non-conforming use from 10 acres to 15.7 acres is an expansion. >> It is only an expansion because there is a provision in bridge ordinance at
section 2. Courts don't care about paperwork. >> They care about >> So, I would appreciate if you let me finish. >> Answer, please. >> I won't interrupt you when you're asking me questions, and I would expect you not to interrupt me when I'm answering. >> My apologies. >> Thank you. So, as I was saying, it is
not an expansion of a non-conforming use in accordance with the land use law and the Raspberry case. That refers to when you reduce the size of the of a property that a non-conforming use sits on, that that's a D2. There is a peculiar position in Oldbridge's ordinance or a
peculiar section at 25031 that says when the expansion of a lot area over which a use is conducted is an expansion of a non-conforming use. So I would say in most municipalities throughout the state this probably would not be a D2 variance. But here in Oldbridge because
you have a peculiar section of your ordinance we are it's been decided that we need a D2. >> Sir. >> Okay. Are you done? >> Yes, I am. >> Um, so again, explain to me how increasing the lot size from 10 acres to
15.74 acres is not expansion. >> I think that was asked an answer. Mr. Chairman, >> I still don't understand how that's not expansion. >> I appreciate that law would >> that the member of the public >> I'm not done, sir. Sir, >> well, you've asked the question. We've already answered.
>> May May I May I continue, please? >> We're not going to have a debate with them. I would speak to the board. We'll try and get you some answers. >> All right. Um, case law doesn't look at paperwork. It look at functional application. And a functional
application here is an increase of acreage from 10 to 15.74. That's an expansion. >> Yes. And they're within a lot. >> Correct. and they have acknow they've
acknowledged that this is an expansion of the non-conforming use. So your question, how are they saying it's not? They are in fact conceding, they're admitting, they're acknowledging, they're accepting that this is in fact an expansion. That's what they're here
before the board seeking variance relief from, but only with respect to the size of the property because they're jogging lot lines. The testimony is that there's no increase in the actual chemical use. There's no expansion of the building, no expansion of the footprint, just the lot area size. >> We can have that on record that there
will be no increase in the future either. >> That if it does, they have to come back to the board, but that was their testimony. >> Okay. So, under NJSA455D70D2, can the board confirm that expansion or intensification of a non-confirming use is disfavored
and subject to heightened legal standards? I understand you're saying it's not an expansion somehow even though it it is an expansion of a lot area but it's still disfavored >> use variances are always the exception
but is the applicant's burden approved to set forth the appropriate testimony. >> Thank you. >> Thank you sir. Next >> come on up sir come on up. Yep. >> Brothers, please raise your right hand.
You swear affirm, tell truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God. >> Yes. >> Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Rashmi Kant Baar. >> I'm so sorry. You just say a little louder. >> Rashmi Kant Baar. >> I will spell it for you.
>> Just spell your last name. B H A V S A R >> and your address, sir? >> 25 Gazinia Drive bridge. >> Go ahead, sir.
>> All right. This is the first time I'm standing in front of the zoning board, so please be kind with me. Okay. Uh I'm not going to repeat what has been discussed already. So I would
just like to say that I do oppose the expansion of pre-existing non-conforming lot 11 area because of this reason. I don't understand technical lingo. So I will try to make it as simple as I understand.
Current neighborhood conditions have consistently changed. When originally permitted, homes did not exist there. But now there are hundreds of homes and hundreds more are on the way right next
to lot 9, 10 and 11 that is in question. Right. So I respectfully request the board to seriously consider their decision in present day context, not historic convenience.
The board must judge compatibility with today's neighborhood and not the one that no longer exists because there are lot of houses there. So now there is a residents living there and apparently from it was changed from industrial to
residential and all that thing. Apart from that the point is we all live there. We are right next to this area. In the middle of the night when I wake up, I see a white smoke coming out of
behind my woods and I wonder many times what it is. I I assume that it is coming from the chemical factory that is in lot 11 or I don't know but it is right from where these lots are. And I wonder I
mean what will happen? I'm a senior citizen. What about young kids? You know what we are? I don't know the quality of air. My point is we live there. Does that change the picture? When this plan was designed reorganization or whatever,
homes did not exist there. But now we are there. We live there and it is a concern to us. That's all I got to say. Like anybody else? lady in the white sweater.
>> Chairman, while we're waiting for >> sure, go ahead. >> Lady to approach. Um, going back to the the Mr. Bobzar's comment, just a point of order for for you and council since this there was no question there to Miss Kafone. This is both public cross-examination and public comment, I
assume, since it's sworn comment at this point. This is two for one. Correct. Very good. Thank you. >> And would you move over to the microphone, please? It's a directional mic, so >> I know >> I'm going to get yelled at because I probably don't do it. Can you hear me? Please raise your right hand. Do you
swear or affirm, tell truth nothing but the truth? >> Yep. >> Please state your name and spare your last for the record. >> Joanne sites s either way. >> I have a question because I look over here. I've been coming to the different
meetings. The lot 11 is a a super fun site. The part that is in lot nine that they want you want to add over to lot 11 is also
still a a super fun site. So that my impression is that you want to clear lot nine to make it for the which is the biggest property to make that clean to
be able to not have to clean up that little 5 acre spot there before you can do anything with lot nine. I just want to know is this part of the is this part of
why you want to have this lot line whether or not you see it or you don't see it. Why are you even here to to even consider doing this? I mean there's a reason and you're what you're giving us
is not the truth. You're also looking at this this uh side here of Jake Brown Road on the side that would eventually go over to Waterworks Road all the way down to Route Nine.
The traffic would be astronomical. It's terrible now with the with what's going on. Oldbridge is a residential community. It's not part of like Monroe is. Um I'm
a realtor and I travel around and I see whole 522. You have warehouses and warehouses and trucks. We are not an industrial town. We are residential.
That is what has always been for Oldbridge. I've been here since 1970. And when Route 9 was one lane each way, I've seen it being grown, which is fine.
However, it's not a industrial. It's a residential community. We have some professional things, but not what we're looking at for three, four, fivetory buildings. We're looking at it's a residential
community. the gentleman before when I was just seeing in the back where Schumister Road was being able to uh just be um uh the road starting to come around. I nearly
died of shock because of all the woods that are being destroyed since then. all these houses and they cost a fortune and they're bringing uh tax revenue in
warehousing isn't my my answer to my question is why bother with this fake line if you want >> line >> I know I'm being you Your time has expired. We appreciate
your comments, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We do without the applause. >> This isn't a game show. Next, gentlemen, all the way in the back. >> All right, sir. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the
truth, nothing but the truth to help you God? >> Yes, I do. >> Please state your name and swear your last for the record. >> I'm Hari Somasantan. H A R I Saskant. S O M A S K A N T H A N >> and your address >> 10 Wbridge.
>> Take it away. >> Okay. Very good. >> Go ahead, sir. >> Um happy new year for everyone >> and to you as well. >> Um so a couple of questions. Um, can the board explain the original planning rationale for placing residential
neighborhood next to SD3 zoning which allows special development and industrial use and that's the whole reason why we are here and I'm trying to understand why all the things are happening. >> I'm not sure how to answer that other
than we the planning board probably gave the approval not the zoning board. planning board works on on matters that are permissible. The zoning board works on ones that are not. That apparently, if we missed the earlier topic and the last meeting, the property has been
there in operation since ' 69. That's 1969 63 60. Safe to say it's predates 1970. >> Okay. why a developer bought that land and was approved. You're asking the
wrong people. I don't know. I can't answer that. I don't think the attorney or or any anyone here could answer that. Any of the professionals. I don't know. >> Okay. And and who would we actually go and ask the question? Is that a
different different forum that we should go and ask the same question? Well, I don't I mean, I guess if you want to go to the planning board and ask why they allowed that build there, I I can't answer that. And I don't know when it was when it was done. I'm sure that there's records of it, but >> had nothing to do with the zoning board.
>> Okay. Um I and I and know that my second question is about >> um when the lot 11, which is actually a nonconforming, is expanding with an additional 5.74 acres.
Um, now the the 5.74 acres is a conforming zone. Now it's becoming a nonconforming zone. Is that correct? >> I don't think that's exactly how it goes. >> No, the zoning is not being changed. There's been no request to change the
zoning. This board doesn't even have the power to change the zoning. Only the governing body can change the zoning. >> I'm sorry. Are you saying that the 5.74 was a nonconforming land >> zoning? No, there's no change of zoning in conjunction with this application.
The 5.74 acres is being added to lot 11.11. So that lot which hosts the Old Bridge Minerals facility, which is a non-conforming use, is getting larger. That's the variance relief. There's no zone change on the property. >> Okay. So, which means that 5.74 cannot
have any non-conforming use. Is that correct? I'm I'm a lay man trying to understand. And so if you can be patient and explain it. >> I I am trying to explain it to you. So the 5.74 acres that's being added to lot
11.11 becomes part of a lot that hosts a non-conforming use. The Oldbridge Minerals facility is a non-conforming use that sits on 11.11 because 11.11 is getting bigger. That's the nonconformity. So that lot is
increasing. The lot is increasing. So the intensity of the application is technically going down because the lot that it sits on is getting bigger, which as we've been saying all along is the inverse of raspberry. The reason you need a devariance under raspberry, when you make the lot smaller, you're
presumptively intensifying the use. Here you're doing the opposite. You're increasing. Think about it this way. If you had a residential property and it were 10 acres and you had a 100 units on there, the density would be 10 units to the acre. If you added property to it
and you added 5.74 acres, your density is not going to go up. Your density is going to go down. So, it's going to look like a less intense property. And that's why in Raspberry when you now the inverse of that, if it were 10 100 units
on 10 acres and we took away an acre and now it were a 100 units on nine acres, the density is going to go up. And that's why you need a D2 under Raspberry because that's an intensification of a non-conforming use. So if you put the parallel for density, it helps you make
the argument because the density would technically be going down. Sort of like the lot area, the landscape area ratio, right? It's going and be improving because we're making the lot bigger. So in most other situations, that would not be a D2 variance because you're really
not intensifying the nonconformity because you're making the lot bigger. And in this case now, if we were adding to that old bridge minerals facility and we were in increasing that building, if we were doing something to it, if we were adding a portico share on it, or we doing something to it, that would be a
D2 variance because you were technically expanding the use. The only reason we're here for a D2 is because you have a technicality in your code in that says when the lot area gets bigger. So, we're not changing the zoning of that 5.74 acres. We're just increasing the size of
lot 11.11, which is the host lot of the Oldbridge Mineral Facility, which is a pre-existing non-conforming use. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you, sir. >> Anybody else? Uh, lady in the uh orange letter.
>> Copper >> rust. >> Rust. Okay. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? >> I do. >> Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Sure. Deborah Kalammonico. C O L A M O N IC O.
>> And your address? >> 10 Titan Place in Old Bridge. >> Take it away. >> So, first of all, I've been a resident of Old Bridge my whole entire life. My parents moved back here in 1958. So, I've been here for 64 years, and I've seen many, many changes. Some are good,
some are bad. As far as the Jake Brown Road, that was the Nike missile base. So, we know that land is contaminated. There were missiles in there. There were there were um nuclear missiles in there, which we were very surprised to find out. So, I
don't understand why we want to build on that over there because that ground is contaminated. We know it's contaminated. We were told by that when we were in high school, we used to have bonfires on the Nike base. And you said it best. We're not going to be old bridge. We're going to be old Bridge City if we
continue to go down this route. I thought that was the greatest thing I've heard all night. And these people here, they bought those houses. That guy said it best. They bought these houses and now you're going to contaminate. You're going to put a building in there. What are you going to put in these buildings? Is it going to be chemicals?
You're doing the road, but what are you going to do with that stuff? >> There's no building proposed in conjunction with this application >> right now. >> But what about the future? >> The board can only consider what's in front of it right now. They can't, >> right? But if they agree to this right now, then that's going to be future,
>> right? So, >> just to be clear for if they Excuse me. No clapping. >> Hi. >> No, it's this is a quasi judicial board. We have to keep it a level of decorum and we're trying to keep a record. So, the applicant is only here seeking a lot line adjustment. If they want to expand
the footprint of that chemical use, they have to come back to the board and they have to reissue notices to everybody within 200 feet. So, if they choose or they want to add a new building for that chemical use, they're right back here for an additional approval. This doesn't give them the permission to do that.
Only thing that they're before the board seeking permission to do is to change that imaginary line for the lot line to add 5.74 acres to lot 11.11. >> But what do they gain by doing that? That's what these people want to know. >> This board is not permitted to consider
that because that's not before the board at this time. So there's the MLUL and the interpretive case law is very strict that the board can only consider the application before it and that's what we have. >> Well, as being probably the oldest resident here as I can see living here
in Oldbridge, maybe you too. I just feel that you guys should really take it into consideration and deny what they want to do for the sake of all these people here that are coming to you begging for help. >> Excuse me. >> Once again, not a game show. Stop with
the applause. >> Who's next? >> Go ahead, man. Hold on. >> Nancy Zen. >> Before we begin, I just got to swear you. Do you swear or affirm and tell truth? Nothing but the truth. So, I hope you got it. >> I do. >> Please state your name and bear your last for the record.
>> Nancy Zeno Zen O. >> And your address? >> 279 Catrell Road. >> Thank you. Take it away. Uh when when I came to one meeting to find out that we were getting uh warehouses on off of Catro, I was told
that it wasn't going to affect where I live. And it has. So my bed rattles when a truck comes over cuz I'm right on the corner here. So when the truck comes over, my bed rattles. And I notice since these warehouses been put up, the
traffic on control is nonstop. My bed is constantly rattling because of the truck movement. And I just feel like I moved here five years ago for more country life and we're losing it here in Old Bridge. The bank being built down the
street, the new warehouses. It it it's starting to feel like it's not the residential area that I bought into five years ago. And I just like the woman said and that's why we're applauding her is that
it is true. You accept this, you give them a half a line, whatever the line is, then it starts to get built and now it's more and more. And I think that the board should investigate why the planning department even allowed the builder to build there.
>> Ma'am, the board attorney has already instructed everyone here what our powers are, what our powers are not. You've heard from the witnesses. We have no right to examine anything other than what is presented to us to make a
decision. You may have that problem at your home since there was a build. That unfortunately has nothing to do with why they're sitting here. They're sitting here because they're gonna take a lot like this size and
they're gonna instead of the line being here and here, they're going to move that line over here and that line over here. That's it. Nothing else changes. >> Okay. So, >> and that's what's before this board and that's all we can do. >> So, moving forward, we come to what meetings to see what they're going to
build. I think the council meeting is probably if you have an issue about that. >> The council makes those decisions, not this board. We're volunteer citizens just like you who are sitting on this board. >> We live in various parts of this
community. We have to by law in order to sit on this. We can only focus on what's presented to us. And I appreciate your commentary and I may feel for you, but that's not what I have to make a decision on. I have to make a decision on the law of what's presented to me and
so does everyone else here and we've taken an oath and if you were here earlier you would watch everyone have taken that sworn oath. >> I was >> so I I appreciate your comment but that's where the board's mindset has to go. >> All right. Thank you. >> Council meeting you all sit on that.
>> No no we're we're not we're not elected officials. >> It's a different >> we are volunteers. >> Thank you. >> That's it. council meeting I believe is on the second Tuesday. So you can look that up as well >> on the website. Thank you. And I would ask everybody try and keep your comments
focused on what we're here for tonight. I know things are not uh pleasant for you in your minds, but that this what is going to happen before us has nothing to do with this other issues that you're talking about. So, please try and limit
them to what we uh what we're focused on and what we have in front of us. You already spoke, sir. I'm going to get somebody else, gentlemen over there. And then you'll be next. The lady in the blue sweater. Okay. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, nothing
but the truth? >> God. >> Yes, I do. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Hershit G. Last name is G A R G. >> G H R G >> G A R G. >> The first name was what, sir?
>> Harsh. H A R S H I T. >> Just your address. >> 13 impatience code Oldbridge. >> Take it away. >> Well, uh we have been talking about lotine movements. So I'm not going to talk about them. So probably like one thing I want to actually bring to this
forum because last time when I was here there was another variation or probably like uh another thing that was being presented that was like easement access to like uh waterworks road and Jake Brown road. So I think that is something
that we haven't talked about today. So if we are saying we are just moving those lot lines the purpose is not to do anything. Why are we actually request why are they actually requesting the easement access to those roads? That's the question actually
>> in short because they have the right under municipal land use law >> and that is cannot be our focus >> and if the this board doesn't act whether it acts in favor or against it has to take a position their remedy is
going to be at the superior court located in New Brunswick and I can assure you they'll rush there immediately and there'll granted this by a judge because this is a lot line change. That's it.
>> Yeah. The only I >> I and again whatever you may think and I don't I can't tell the future either. All I'm getting asked to do with other members of this board is decide whether the lot line whether a D2 variance can
be granted for their application. >> I get your point. The only request I have to this board is don't neglect all these pointers like when I'm saying like okay the easement access or like lot >> that's not before this board sir I again we have to focus on what has been
presented to us. >> All right >> they didn't ask that >> but they were they presented that in the last meeting. >> So Mr. chairman. He's the the gentleman from the public is referring to >> the gent I'm sorry, the gentleman from
the public is referring to on the proposed um subdivision plan, the applicant went ahead and identified where the proposed easement location is, but they don't they're not required to do that. Um that easement, it's their property. If they want to have an easement on it, they could just go and do it. Just showing that to the board
and to the public is more educational if anything, but it doesn't the board can't say no, you can't have an easement there. The board can't say yes, you can have an easement there. It's their property much like you can go in your property and you can have a playground on it if you want or you can have two TVs in your kitchen if you want. They could do that and they can have an
easement. So it's not like the board is conscientious of your concern and your consideration but it's their property. They can have an ement on it. So the board is I just want to be clear. So it's that's why it's not before the board because it's their property. >> I get your point. Probably just last
statement to close my comments. What I want to say is I do understand that this board cannot actually stop them from being making that change or like showing that okay what is easement and what is not but probably the purpose is different. You are make you are making
certain changes to the lot lines. You are now proposing or you not proposing you are showing that you are actually making changes to the easement. You are proposing you are saying that there are going to be new easement areas which will be accessing the roads. So which
means that there is going to be something that's going to be coming up in the future and that is something that we should not neglect. >> Again I don't want to say that okay I don't have a question but it's just one request to this board that okay consider that point as well
>> but I just told you we can't >> thank you. >> Thank you ma'am. >> Eric please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, nothing but the truth? I help you God. >> I do. I'm I'm tall. Yes. >> Please just state your name and spell
your last for the record. >> Sierra Ozone. C I A R A O Z O N E. I'm a home owner of 31 Gazania Drive, Old Bridge, New Jersey. >> Take it away. >> Thank you. So, just a quick clarifying question, just one. Um, if the area in
zone 9, the 5.74 acre is non-conforming, how is adding to lot 11 that's also non-conforming reduce the intensification? Just need clarification on that >> because you're increasing the lot area. So, the the parallel that I made to the
density was that if you had a 100 units >> on 10 acres, that would be or that would be if you took the lot area away, your density would go up. if you added lot area to it, your density, which is a governor of intensity, would go down.
So, presumptively when you add land area to a a property, you in my opinion as a planner and consistent with um my understanding of of of how land use intensity is measured, that would really be a technical reduction in in density,
right? Or intensity. So, that's why I use the density comparison. So that is why when you add the 5.74 acres, in my opinion, you're not intensifying that non-conforming use even though we need a technical, it's been said many times, repeated by your planner, your your
attorney, our attorney, this is a very technical D2 variance. >> Okay. And they're they're both non-conforming. Okay. Just confirming that. Perfect. >> Only lot 11.11 is non-conforming. >> Okay. So, I'm a homeowner at the Oaks of
Glenwood. A lot of us here are. Um, we're not here to be repetitive. We're not here to waste your time. The problem is we're here because we love our community and we understand it's an invisible line that you're moving. We understand that no dirt will
be moved. Nothing's going to build as per this application. We all have common sense in this room. We're all professionals. We know what's to come. I'm not going to further discuss that, but we just want to share I want to share on behalf of everyone. We didn't choose to live next to this operation.
We were told that this operation was non-use. Um that the area, our land was our land, that nothing was going to be changed in it, even an invisible line. And a lot of us just moved in within a year or two ago. So just put yourselves
in our shoes when a slight minor change for a bigger plan to come is upon us. This is why we are reacting and responding this way. And we don't want the developer to choose profits over people. And whether the zone is
going to affect us negatively or positively, we know you guys can't predict that. We can't predict that. But we just know this is step one of many. And we're asking the board to stand with the residents who now live here, right? We weren't here in the 60s because any
our homes didn't exist. And to deny any actions that enlarge and outdated industrial use at the expense of hundreds of current families. And we thank you for your time, consideration, and for showing us decency, respect, and morale during this time. >> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. anybody on this side. Come on up, sir. >> Sir, please raise your hand. You swear affirm, tell the truth, and nothing about the truth. I hope you got it. >> I do. Please >> state your name is very last for the record. >> So, my name is Pedra Maral. last name A M A R A L
and I live in 23 Dalia Lane Oldbridge >> and take it away. >> Sure. So, uh I'm a software engineer engineer of course I don't understand all all this terminology. I just want to again some my question is more about lot 9, right?
So there's this 5.7 acres that are going to move from lot 9 to lot 11. But today if this application well today that the application is not yet approved is the lot lot nine a non-conforming use or it
is a conforming use. Okay. >> So the the non-conforming use is on lot point lot 11.11. So that's the non-conforming use. Lot 9 is not a non-conforming use. >> So those 5.7 acres, what h how are they
called? Uh is there a name for for those contaminated 5.7 acres? >> Is there a name for those 5.74 acres? Yes. >> No, I don't I don't think so. I don't I don't know that I understand that question. Is a name for them? Are they conform are they conforming today? Is that your question?
>> Yes. Um, so they're not they're part of a non-conforming use. They're part of the old bridge minerals facility. So that 5.74 acres will go to lot 11.11. It's an existing non-conforming use.
>> Sure. But today are uh does that 5.7 acres they don't make lot nine a non-conforming use? um they don't they make the the non-conforming use on the property is the old bridge minerals. So anywhere
that old bridge minerals is sitting is part of the nonconformity. So that's the nonconformity. So any lot that is encumbered by the old bridge minerals facility would be part of the nonconformity because that is where the nonconformity comes in.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh but a question to the board. Uh if this gets approved, um will it make things easier to build uh big sides in lot 9 this adjustment or it's the same? I mean
could that be a reason of of the change being proposed to the board to make it easier to build on lot nine >> to make it easier to build on route nine? >> Lot lot nine. >> Lot nine. Okay. This subdivision doesn't make it any easier or more difficult to build. The
applicant, anybody who wants to build on lot 9 would have to come forth with a site plan application and demonstrate conformity with respect to use or non-conformity with respect to use as well as the bulk criteria. So I don't think that this application has any
impact on facilitating making it easier or impeding the development. It's been very clear that the genesis for this application was to isolate the environmental contamination as well as clean up and make the accessory structures associated with um with the
building on a proper housekeeping and make that housekeeping on the lot lines there. Your own planner here in Oldbridge testified at our last hearing on December 4th that this subdivision was her recommendation because >> her recommendation because it
>> I'll wait her recommendation because it is good planning to isolate those environmentally constrained properties as well as to have the accessory structures not violative of of the um or have them on the on the same property that they're on. So, it cleans up the
accessory structures and it isolates the environmental property. So, that was testified to at length by our applicant by by our application team. Your planner indicated that she was the one who recommended this subdivision occur. So,
I don't think that it should be looked at that this subdivision makes it easier or harder to develop property. It cleans up the conditions as far as the lot lines and the lots governing this property and that is the genesis for this application. That is what we
stated. Our attorney stated it and it's been stated by your professional that that's good planning and I would agree that it is good planning to do that and that was the genesis of this application. >> Okay. Thank you. So for the record, we're saying that there's no benefit uh
on uh of this application on any future uh on lot 9, right? >> I don't think anybody said that >> every application has to stand on its own merits. So this application is not linked to another application. The planning or zoning board will have to
evaluate every single application that h comes before it on its own merits. So what might happen in another application? What has happened on a prior application shouldn't have any rational nexus to the applications that are pending before the board. You have to take each one of them based on the
specific fact pattern associated with that application. So this application should have no material impact on any other application. Nor should any other application impact this one. So if there's something that happened on Catrol Road or somewhere else that is
completely independent of this. It is very inappropriate to judge an application based on applications that have been or may be filed in my opinion as a professional planner. >> Okay, no further question. >> Thank you. Anybody else? Gentlemen all the way in
the back. Blue Jack. >> Sir, please raise your right hand. You swear, affirm, tell the truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. Please state your names very last for the record. >> Uh Atul Mytory. It's M A H E S W A R I >> and your address? >> 47 Dalia Lane, Old Bridge, New Jersey.
>> Take it away. >> Um so I want I have like two two questions. First one was to go back to one of the earlier questions that one member of the board had asked the applicant at the time of the uh uh at the time of uh their presentation. the why now since this has been the case
for like half a century why that adjustment's happening right now this uh you know lot line adjustment I wasn't very clear with the explanation that was provided earlier >> I don't know that there was one >> why now is not any burden of proof that
the applicant has to consider right the timing of an application is not there's no factor there's no burden of pro proof related to the timing of an application as I said the redevelopment plan governing this area was dated June 13 of 2023. So there's been recent action by
the governing body adopting plans for this area. So I don't I I can't speak to why now this was filed. I can only speak to the criteria, the statutory criteria which have no bearing on timing. >> To dub off Miss Capone's testimony, I would profit that from a legal
perspective. It's it's an arguably irrelevant inquiry. Mr. Chairman, >> I heard you. to double off of Miscapone's testimony, I would profer to the board that from a legal perspective, it is an irrelevant inquiry.
>> Okay. And then uh my second question uh I heard a couple of times u uh the applicant mention that uh this helps clean up the operations just the slot line adjustment. So a how does it clean up the operation? Because for me trying
to better understand uh why this is being you know proposed in the first place to me it would appear that it would make it easier for more um you know for operations to expand going forward in in a separate lot and just
keep all the um non-confirming use to one particular lot. So it would appear that it makes it easier to build going forward as opposed to cleaning up the operations. And so the cleaning up the operations piece if if that can be please uh explained in more detail. Thank you. >> So the operations aren't being impacted. I've said that multiple times that there
are no changes to the operation. What it does is it isolates the environmental the environmentally sensitive properties and it isolates the accessory structures onto the structure with the main lot. That's what it does. So it's a housekeeping cleanup. It's not an operational impact. I will say it again.
There are no operational changes. There are no expansion of hours. There are no increase in building area. There is nothing being changed with respect to the use, the enhancement, the operational changes, no shovels in the ground. So it is really a clean up of
the um the accessory structures having them be on the same property with the principal structure and a isolating of the environmentally contained or environmentally constrained portions of the site which again your planner suggested at the last testimony. She is
the one who suggested that this subdivision occur and take place because it is good planning. >> Uh, two points to make on that and I understand some of it might not be under board's consideration but I'll still make them. A, the concern I would have is that this probably further delays the cleanup of the super fund site because
it gets isolated to one propert one property or one zone. >> Can't consider that that's >> I know I understand. Uh, >> federal government. >> What's that? >> That's governed by the federal government. This board can't consider that. >> Okay. And it also makes it easier to build in the adjacent uh you know uh
lots where you know this problem doesn't exist. So that's something maybe I don't know if you can or cannot consider but I would request you to look into that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Who else? >> Three minutes. >> Nobody else has their hand up.
What's that? >> You spoke already, sir. >> All right, ma'am. Please raise your right hand. Do you >> I've already tested everybody. Do you swear or affirm and tell the truth nothing but the truth? >> Yes, sir. >> Please state your name. Let's be your last for the record. >> Nina Jocknotes. Could you do me a favor
and speak into the microphone because I know we keep screaming this at you. No disrespect and I know it's hard to remember. >> State your name, spell your last for the record, and please place your address, please. >> J O C H N O WIT TZ, 203 West Greystone Road, Old Bridge, New Jersey. >> Take it away.
>> Um, since this is just a a a theoretical movement of the line, how much money is the planning uh organization getting paid for this move the line? >> That's out of order. >> Respect, ma'am. That's out of line. >> Come on. Are you kidding me? Well, and I I >> How would you like it to How would you like to be sitting here and and you say
that I say that to you? >> You can ask me those questions. I'll be happy to answer it. Right now, I don't make any money except for unemployment, but that that's uh that's fine because I just got retired. >> I'm going to ask you to step away from the microphone. >> Can I Can I >> I'm going to Please >> I'll ask another question unrelated to
this. >> You're done. You're done. >> Why would you ask >> Move away from the microphone? >> Why would you ask an unrelated question? >> Can I ask unrelated questions, sir? Please go take a seat, >> Mr. Sullivan. >> No, you show no respect to this board
>> making a comment like that. Please take please take a seat. >> Lady over there, you haven't spoken. >> You swear or affirm, tell the truth, and nothing but the truth. I help you God. >> I do. >> Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Bina Powar. B H A V S A R and
>> I'm so sorry I just didn't get your last name. One more time. >> B as in boy. H A V as in Victor. S A R. >> Take it. And your address, please. >> 25 Gazinia Drive. >> Take it away. >> I just have one question. The 5.7 acre land that is being moved. I is that a
part of super fun site? >> It is. It is included in super fund site. >> No, >> it's not being moved. Is it contaminated? The 5.7 >> There's a difference between contaminated and super fun site.
>> Okay. Is it contaminated then? >> I can't speak to that because I haven't done any testing on that property. But the super fund site, >> it is not part of the >> is actually lot um >> 10 >> 10 >> only and not these 5.7 acre that are being moved. >> That is not part of the super fun site.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's the only question. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else before I close out the public portion? Go ahead, sir. Come on up. We're going to make this the last witness here tonight. Slowly approaching 10:30.
>> Sir, please raise your right hand. >> Yeah. >> Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, nothing but the truth to help you God? >> Yes. >> Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Wenata D. V E N K A T A Wata first name D A R A I
leave at 41 Dalia. >> Take it away. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yes sir. >> Okay. So good evening everyone and um I want to respond briefly to the point just made that board may only consider the application before it and that
application involves only a lot line change. I agree to that and board must decide only what is before it but what is before the board tonight is D2 variance to expand the lot area of a
non-conforming chemical use and that carries legal and environmental consequences the board is required to evaluate so as I heard like the applicant already acknowledged that lot 11.11 is
increasing by approximately 5.74 4 acres from 10 acres to 15.4 4 okay they also acknowledge that if I heard correctly old world bids ordinance section 250.31 defines an increase in the lot area over
which is use conducted as an expansion of non-conforming use which is why D2 relief is required so under NJS section 4055D also expansion of non-conforming use are disfavored and subject to
heightened scrutiny even if known New building is proposed today. The board must evaluate whether the expanding the legal footprint of a chemical use causes the substantional substantial determin to the public good or impairs the zone
plan. Uh yeah impairs the zone plan uh around the comm under the current residential conditions. as you know like there are already 260 regions that already came up and another 1500 uh hostesses that are coming uh which is already approved. So I also want to
place environmental concern clearly on the record. It has been acknowledged that around there are 30 groundwater wells owned by the city of Pamboy that were capped due to contamination associated with this area while capped those wells remain part of a long-term
contamination management and monitoring framework. And the board has not shown like whether any capped monitoring wells fall within or near the expanded boundaries of lot level. How access for future monitoring is preserved after the lot line change.
Whether consolidating the contaminated land into large non-conforming lot could affect long-term oversight of or enforcement. So environmental res uh remediation does not remove the zoning responsibility. So before approving a
subdivision that expands the land area of non-conforming chemical use, the board must ensure that existing contamination controls and monitoring infrastructure is not compromised by the changes in this lot configurations. So lot area is not imagined in the eyes of
the law. So uh they define where non-conforming use is permitted and how environmental responses is assigned and how future applications are evaluated. So for all these reasons I respectfully ask both to apply the heightened D2 standard carefully along with whatever
it is planned in the upcoming applications and to make clear findings on record explaining why expanding the non-conforming chemical ad why why it is required okay in the area which is now for the already contaminated is it really um not avoid any substantial
determination or is it doing any public good so I I request board to really look into it. That's from our end. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. We're getting a few minutes away from 10:30. I'm going to close the
public portion at this time. Back to you, Mr. Cali. >> That's all we have, Mr. Chairman. Um, you know, at this time, we think the board has everything they need to deliberate. We have no further Thank you. We have no further witnesses. Um the board has heard our application
in Toto this point through Mr. Weary and Miss Capone's testimony supporting the relief of the subdivision as well as the D2 and ancillary bulk C relief that are required. You know we understand there's been a lot of questions from the public and comments. Um to that point I will just note and I'm sure the board um
might have been keeping minutes as well. The public has spoken for about twice as long as the applicant has and that's considering we've had two expert witness qualified and testified with exhibits to date about 60 minutes from our end versus a hundred on the public. I don't know how much more we can do. Um our
case has concluded. I will just sum it up and I think Miss Kafone said it best. You know, this is an isolation of the contaminated portion of the site and it's an attempt to remedy the issue of the lot overage of the non-permitted accessory use to bring it back home onto the lot of the pre-existing non-conforming use. This is pursuant to
a town recommendation codified in the redevelopment plan as well. There is no nefarious magic to the applicant's request here. It's a lot line adjustment. There's no development proposed. There's no new structures proposed. There's no new uses proposed. And there is no expansion of the existing uses proposed. And this is
overall consistent with the code and redevelopment plan. But for the nuanced relief, which is the inverse of the seminal raspberry case, which says that you are intensifying the use of a pre-existing non-conformity by way of a lot area reduction, this is the opposite of that. This is the lot area expansion.
Nevertheless, it brings us here pursuant to a local code regulation for D2 relief. Mscapone has testified to the support and justifications for that relief thoroughly and to conclusion as well as the ancillary bulk relief. The board understands the nuances of the lot line adjustment. Again, it's an invisible lot reconfiguration. The
easements are a private matter. I won't even reference them again. I know the board understands that very well. At this time, we would ask the board to uh consider deliberating the matter before you. >> Thank you, Mr. Kelly. >> Thank you, sir. >> Board members, any comments before uh you are going to call for a vote, I assume.
>> Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. And again, we appreciate your time throughout. We know it's been a long process for for a relatively straightforward application. So, thank you again >> and we appreciate the applicant listening and taking the time to hear all the all the absolutely all the surrounding homeowners and and >> and answering as well. >> Absolutely.
>> Uh I'm going to start on my left for any commentary coming down the line. >> No, none >> Well, the only thing I would say is this. I was I was uh here obviously for all of this and there was two words mentioned at the first application
and they were primmaaccia and that's exactly what this application is. They haven't changed anything. They're not going to change anything. They're changing a lot line which in your own home you wouldn't know where the lot line is unless you looked at
your survey and you wouldn't know if there's going to be a change in lot line here. I wish I could help you more with your angst over the operation there, but the operation there has been there since the 60s, and that really can't be part of
the board's determination. All we can do is rule on whether they should be granted this lot line applica uh lot line jog. the application is going to move the lines and that's it because it triggers a D2 which is an opposite of
an expansion in this sense it really uh goes it stands alone it is primmaacia in my opinion we'll see how the board votes I wish I could help you more but that's all that's in front of us as far as the L which triggers also uh the bulk
variance increases rather than decreases also invisible and as Miss Capone put on the record and tried to explain uh usage and if you own so much of a lot and you put so many properties on it but you expanded it density changes changes for
the better not for the not for the worse in this case nothing is changing there nothing no one is in front of this board to ask this uh ask uh that has been asked for anything to change on the property as
far as the use. All they want to do is change the lot line and that's really all this comes down to and that's the only thing that the board can actually make a determination on. Having said all that, I get I closed the public portion. You may not be happy with that. I'm
sorry. But I did close the public portion. The board is now going to take a vote. I don't know how the vote's going to go. We'll stick around and we'll see. Councelor D2. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. for the board is an application for major preliminary final site plan approval with minor
subdivision and D2 use variance relief. >> One vote. >> One vote. >> Anyone in favor of uh approving the D2? >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Andrews.
>> I'm voting yes to move an invisible lot line and nothing more. Thank you, >> Mrs. Gomez. Yes, I vote and I vote on the application at hand for a movement of a line only. Mr. Iso,
>> I also vote yes and I also considered everybody in the audience for the last two meetings and I don't see any harm coming to you from this at this time. >> Excuse me. There's a motion on the table. >> That's what we have. We have here a line
and my vote is yes. >> Mr. Scognagno, >> yes. >> Miss Banelli, >> yes. Mr. Singh, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. >> Applications approved. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Kelly. Thank you and your team. >> Thank you, sir. Thank you, board members. We appreciate your time and
again, happy new year, folks. >> Thank you. >> Enjoy your evening and weekend. >> Thank you very much, Esa. >> How's your hands? >> Oh my god. >> I'm actually Uh there's no further business before the board. When is our next meeting, Moren?
>> Uh January 22nd. >> January 22nd. >> C night. >> Nice and easy. >> Busy. >> No. >> No. Okay. >> I'm not going. >> Anything else from the township? Uh Vina, any comments? No. >> Board members, someone want to call for
an adjournment? >> Ajourn. >> All in favor? Any opposed? >> We stand adjourned.