Planning board meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News. Notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building. Notice made available to the township Clerk. Notice sent to the courier News in the Star-Ledger. As Buckley. Would you please call the roll Mayor Wahler here. Councilwoman Cahill Here. Miss Corcoran. Here. Miss Saunders.
Here, Reverend Kenny. Here. Mr. Ahammed is not here. Mr. Echevarria here. And Madam Chair here. Mr. Barlow, would you please read the public notice? Certainly, Madam Chair. I'd just like to place on the record we're doing this meeting through an online meeting platform. Specifically, zoom in, keeping with the guidelines that have been disseminated by the Department of Community Affairs. The Planning Board has tried its best to comply with the Open Public Meetings Act and the DCA guidelines. In addition, any applicant has matters will be heard.
This evening has had the log in information for the online meeting platform put forth in their notice. Members of the public who wish to be heard will be afforded an opportunity as if they were in an actual physical space. And we believe we've done our best to comply with the DCA guidelines in the open public meetings. Thank you. Thank you. Our flag is displayed over my right shoulder. Can we all across our hearts and I repeat the Pledge of Allegiance in unison, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands. And one is one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Miss Buckley, the record should reflect Mr. Ahammed is on. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. The professionals can be sworn in. Again, please raise your right hand. Do you swear that The testimony about the girl with truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you.
Thank you. Can I get a motion? Oh. Are there any announcements for changes to our agenda this night? Tonight? Yes, Madam Chair. The only changes we're going to be going a little bit out of order. I know you're. You have a conflict with number 11, which is the consistency review with the master plan for the rezoning of the Roosevelt and Highland Avenue properties. So we're going to move that after the Stuart Steel Protection matter. So we're going to go ten, 12, 11 on your agenda.
So everything will be heard, just not in the order, just so you can chair the entire meeting until the last matter. And then I assume Reverend Kenny will take over for number 11. Okay. Ten and 12 and 11. Okay. So now we are going to make we made note of that a change of our agenda. And we're going to I'm asking for a motion for and duly audited bills.
Do I have a motion? I make those 11, Kenny. I make motion at their duty. audited bills be paid? Do I have a second? Carol Saunders second? Okay. Roll call, please. Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes, Miss Corcoran? Yes, Miss Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kenny. Yes, Mr. Ahammed Yes, Mr. Echevarria? Yes. And Madam Chair? Yes. Item number eight. That says adoption for the resolutions
of to memorialize action taken on June 10th. But there is none move to item number nine adoption of the minutes from regular meeting on June 10th. Madam Chair, Carol Saunders, I'd like to memorialize the main minutes from the regular meeting on June 10th, 2026, and I have a second? Reverand Kenney I’ll roll call Mayor Wahler? Yes, Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Miss Corcoran? Yes. The Saunders? Yes. Reverand Kenny.
Yes, Mr. Ahammed Yes, Echevarria Yes, madam Chair. Yes. Item number ten. Discussion to authorize the 4Site Planning to prepare for area in need of study for a block. 5701 Lots. 11 0.01 and 12 Dawn did And then I just texted too. Yeah. No, I got it. Thank you.
Who's going to do the discussion? Madam Chair, if I may. This is just a authorization to retain for site planning. The area need study was already completed. However, we have been requested to look at an additional property known as 96 Woodland Avenue to see if, in fact, that should also be part of the study. What we have been what they indicated is that they need this additional lot for stormwater management.
So again, it's just routine 4Site planning to undertake testing. So then can we can proceed with the resolution that includes that or do we need to have a question set in session? We I'm sorry, do we have any questions from the board or if the board has any questions? Again, it's really an amendment. They've already done their initial study, but they need to be authorized to look into this 5000 square foot lot and whether it should be added to it.
So so the resolution is going to include that. Yeah. It basically says we've already the board's already adopted a resolution in the past. We're just authorizing them to see if we should add this one section to the previous area needs study. So 4Site will investigate it and issue a report in either next meeting or the meeting after. That will probably be back before the board. Well, with his with his findings, do we need to open it to the public?
You should. You're taking action. Okay. Members of the public, you've heard the explanation for this addition to our former study of of an area in need of that needed to be studied for a need for improvement. If anybody in the public has any questions about this motion or this action, would you please indicate so by waving your hand, no one, Madam Chair.
All right. Close to the public. Do I have a motion from the board approving this, this addition to the area in need of development? Madam Chair, don't forget, and I'll make that question. Do I have a second? Second, Councilwoman Cahill. Thank you. Roll call, please. Mayor Wahler? Yes, Councilwoman Cahill. Yes, Miss Corcoran?
Yes. Ms.. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kenney? Yes, Mr. Ahammed. Yes, Mr. Echevarria? Yes, Madam Chair. Yes, I see. We have a resolution. Yes, we have a resolution here. Miss Saunders. I would like to move that resolution, please. Madam Chair I like to memorialize as there is a resolution for 4Site Planning to amend for 5000 square foot lot.
do we have a second, Madam Chair. I’ll second. Reverend Kenney Thank you. Roll call, please. Mayor Wahler? Yes. Excuse me, Councilwoman Cahill? Yes, Miss Corcoran? Yes, Ms.. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kenney. Yes, Mr. Ahammed? Yes, Mr. Echeverria? Yes. And Madam Chair. yes okay, we'll move on to item number 12 26. PB 08/09V is in Victor Stuart Steel Protection LLC and appearing is Mr.
Daven Persaud. Good evening, Madam Chair. Members of the Board, Daven Persaud from Bob Smith and Associates, licensed Attorney in the state of New Jersey, representing the applicant, Stuart Field Protection LLC, seeking preliminary and final site planning approval with bulk variances for property located at 61 Ethel Road West designated as BLOCK 9201 Lot 44 in the LI-1 Zone.
Stuart Steel is seeking to utilize a portion of the existing industrial building located on the site to operate their galvanic A.S. emboli and distribute the subject property. 61 Ethel Road West is approximately 185,390 square feet, or approximately two point or 4.26 acres, with frontage on Ethel Road West and surrounded by similar or other commercial and industrial uses.
As I mentioned, Stuart Field will be moving into this building as a tenant and they will be occuping approximately 50% of the existing building. The remaining portion of the building is already occupied by a separate, unrelated tenant. I believe it's ready carpet. Stuart Steel is business is mainly as a small portion of manufacturing and warehousing and distribution of electrical components or anodes, which are used for steel protection.
Tonight, we are seeking one bulk variance for our off street parking where 61 spaces are required and 59 spaces are existing. Although there is a minor variance for parking, the applicant will be able to explain why that would be sufficient for its current operations. In Originally, I'd like to say for the record that we did not request his variance, but after discussions with the applicant, there is there is a small manufacturing component which is about 800 square feet, which up the parking count by two, which triggered a of a little variance
for professional testimony. Tonight we have a representative from Stuart Steel, Mr. Justin Fairchild, who is present here, and we have our professional engineer here, Mr. Gregg Allman from Menlo Engineering Associates for staff reports. We do have the Piscataway Township staff report dated June four, 2026. We have the Arthum planning report dated July 2nd, 2026, and we have the Fire Prevention Bureau approval letter dated March 25th, 2026.
And if the board has no further questions of me, I can introduce our first witness, Mr. Justin Fairchild from Stuart Steel. I think the Oak. I have no further questions. You can call your witness. Thank you, Madam Chair. If I can call Mr. Justin Fairchild and have the board swear him in, please. Sure. Mr. Fairchild, can you please raise your right hand and see him? I'm not sure. I'm not seeing.
He's going to be okay. There he is. Do you swear that the testimony about the gate will lead to the nothing but the truth? Yes. Please say and spell your name for the record I’m sorry what was that? Please state and spell your last name for the record. Yeah. Justin Fairchild, F a i r c h i l d Thank you. Okay, Mr. Fairchild, as we discussed, there's a few questions that we will ask you.
And if you can give the board the honest answers to these questions so they can understand your business operations and what you intend to do on the site. So first question is, what is your role at Stuart Steele Protection? Yeah, I'm the director of corporate services. I generally oversee matters related to human resources. Also play a role in certain special projects. I've been assisting with the relocation of our operating facility from Somerset
next door there to Piscataway and also coordinating with yourselves and and Mr. Allman through the application process. Great. And why did you choose Piscataway Township for your new for relocating your business? It's just a bit it's a great location for us. You know, the warehouse itself is ideal, but the location that allows for quick, easy access to interstate highways helps avoid,
you know, excess travel time and interference with residential areas. We've been operating next door there in Somerset since 1987. That property somewhat recently was sold. The new owner decided not to renew our lease. So. So here we are in in Piscataway. You know, but more importantly, our entire New Jersey workforce
resides in and around the Somerset Piscataway. Township's. You know, obviously retention is is of the utmost importance for not only the health of our organization, but the well-being of our employees. Right. And can you describe for the board what Stuart steel Protection does? Yes. Yeah. We manufacture and package sacrificial galvanic anodes.
It's it's a simple assembly consists of five components assemblies conducted with basic hand tools, pliers, wire ties, box cutters. Our operations are limited to assembly preparation, packaging. There's no there's no retail sales. There's no no chemical manufacturing. There's no emissions that that might be inconsistent with,
you know, other light industrial uses. But the process involves material batching, cutting and coiling electrical wire assembly of our components, encapsulation, sealing and final packaging and shipping, including warehouse storage. Okay, great. And just for the board's knowledge and because I had no idea what the sacrificial anode was until I started representing you.
So if you can please explain to the board what that is. Sure. Yeah. So I mean, they're widely utilize to to mitigate corrosion of a buried steel infrastructure. So it's critical, very important for the protection of natural gas pipelines, you know, throughout the Northeast and the U.S., this location really puts us in a prime spot to be able to to service the entire Northeast. You know, we also have operating facilities
in outside of Atlanta and Colorado that help us service other parts of the U.S. But essentially, they're a federal safety compliance requirement for our pipeline operators. Got it. And as I mentioned before, if you can confirm that, correct, that you will be using approximately 50% of the building as it exists? Yes, that's correct. And can you tell the board what your proposed hours of operation are?
Yes. 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.. Okay. And how many employees do you anticipate to be onsite during normal business hours? We currently have eight employees on site that that we could add a couple more employees over the course of maybe the next year or two. But yet currently we have eight employees and you do you do receive shipments via third party carriers, correct? Correct. And how many shipments do you do approximately receive per week
or send out per week? Yeah. Combined, we on average approximately 50 events per week. Okay. I'm sorry, that cut out. Was it 50 or 15? 15. Thank you. Okay. And can you tell the board what the largest vehicle that you anticipate entering the site will be? Yes. 53 foot trailers. Okay. And that's similar to other warehousing distribution businesses.
Correct. As I understand it, yes. Okay. The products that the anodes that you ship out of your facility, can you just give the board a general size of what that what that looks like or the size measurement wise? Yeah, The vast majority, probably 80 to 85%, is about 27 inches in length and about it's about 40lb. when when fully packaged. We do have
a we do sell some smaller, some bigger. But that's that's more rare. It's a rarity. Okay. I don't have any other questions. However, we do want to address the Piscataway staff memorandum dated June four, 2026. We did mention this at the workshop meeting with the township professionals. We can comply with items one, two, three and four.
Is that correct? That's correct. And we've also you've also taken the initiative and removed the containers that were on the property. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. We did mention that we had a an issue with comment number five, which states to mill and repave the surface course of the parking area. We did have some conversations with the township professional staff, and I believe that we've come to an agreement.
Is it correct that we are willing to comply with the township engineer's recommendation of patching certain areas of the asphalt and repairing curbs that are in disrepair and in in accordance with the recommendations by the municipal engineer? Is that correct? That's correct. But, Mr. Persaud if I can just note for the board members, my understanding is your client spoke to Mr. HERERA, the township engineer, and Mr. Clark and the assistant township attorney and
you will your client will mill and repaved and replace the curbing as indicated by the engineering department. And my understanding is, if the application is ruled on favorably, you know, you'll meet with Mr. HERERA as is folks out at the site to identify those locations that they believe need to be repaired. And your client will abide by those recommendations, correct? That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Barlow.
I have no further direct questions for Mr. Fairchild if the board has any direct questions. Members of the board. Do you have any questions of Mr.. And this witness? Okay. So sorry. Just quickly, I apologize. I'm not sure if I heard the hours of operations. Yeah, it's 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.. Okay. Is that like Monday through Friday? Some weekends? Yes, Correct. Monday through Friday.
Occasionally a Saturday. We might have like two employees on an occasional Saturday that would come in with deliveries only be through Monday through Friday? That's correct, yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. That was my only question. I had one question. Mr. Persaud or Mr. Fairchild, I assume that your 59 parking spaces you're proposing and you only have eight employees on site, that you usually have
more than an adequate parking onsite for everyone? That's correct. Okay. And I'd like to open it up to the public now. Members of the public, you've heard testimony of this witness. If anyone has any questions, would you please indicate by waving your hand or letting us know that you have a question? No. Madam Chair. Thank you. Close to the public.
You may call your witness. Thank you, Madam Chair. Our next witness is our professional engineer, Mr. Gregg Oman., from Menlo Engineering Associates if the board can swear him in Mr. Oman. Please raise your right hand. Yeah. Do you swear that the testimony about the gate will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And please state and spell your last name for the record. Sure. Gregory. Oman. Oman. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Sanders. Mr. Oman., if you can, please give the board the benefits
of your credentials and qualifications as a professional engineer. Certainly. I am currently the President and owner of Menlo Engineering Associates. I've been so for, I guess, almost ten years now. I've been employed by Menlo Engineering for over 28 years, a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. Now for 24 years, also licensed in Pennsylvania. All my licenses are in good standing. Thank you for the board can accept Mr. Oman as a professional I have testified in front of this board several times. It's been a little while, but I have.
Okay. You’re acceptable. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Oman., if you can please give the board a breakdown of the existing conditions, the proposed improvements, and then the other site improvements that we are proposing and the intended use for the building. Certainly, I'm going to share my screen. I only have one exhibit and it's just a revised minor site plan that we made some changes. I'm just going to share that remark. That is A-1. Mr. Persaud
and Mr. Oman. Can everyone see the plan? It's a little small, but yes. Okay, perfect. So this plan is entitled Minor Site Plan last revised July 2nd, 2026. So this particular application is for 4.26 acre parcel identified on the township's tax map as block 9201. Lot 44. It falls within the LI-1 zone or the light industrial zone,
and it is a permitted use for what we are proposing tonight. The site is surrounded by typical light industrial type uses. With the exception to the south. There is a multifamily residential development, which is part of the Rivendell Meadows just off to the south of this property. The site is fully developed, contains a two story masonry building on site, has a total square footage of 36,877 square feet. Now, the reason this plan was revised was a little bit different
than what was originally submitted. During our prep calls, we determined two separate items. Number one, there was a mezzanine that was actually located in the building that we were not aware of. The mezzanine is a total of 6848 square feet and it strictly utilized for warehouse storage area. The second area, which I will talk about when I get into the proposal was about the manufacturing, the small manufacturing area that utilized on the site the footprint of the building is 30,000, 29 square feet.
We have two full movement driveways off of Ethel Road West, which allow full circulation around all four sides of the building. We have loading docks located in the rear, along with the dumpster areas that were located at some point just outside of the loading area. Right now, if you go to the site, the dumpsters are kind of haphazardly thrown in some of the parking stalls in some of the loading docks on the sides. We're going to clean that up and create some official dumpster areas and enclosures with fence and gates around it along assembly side.
The site currently today has 60 parking stalls. Parking stalls are nine feet in width by 18 feet in depth. Two of those being ADA compliant. The striping, if you've been out to the site, is extremely faded. There are several trailers and containers that were located over. Many of the parking stalls I've been told that they have been removed. If they haven't been fully, we will make sure they are removed. What we are proposing is very minimal proposed changes for the improvement wise. All exterior, as I mentioned, containers are going to be removed.
We are proposing a small air handler down at the southeast corner of the building. The air handler is four and a half feet wide by 12 feet long, by approximately 52 inches high. It's set off the side property line by 81 feet and off the rear property line by just over 300 feet. It will comply with all state noise standards and reforms. We are going to restripe the parking lot. And the one item that we did notice is that it does have 288 Pakistanis today based on the number of parking stalls was on site today.
It needs three. So we are going to restripe the front parking stalls to provide that additional 88 parking stall that brings the 60 existing parking stalls that exist today down to 59 The small manufacturing area in the building that is being proposed is just under 800 square feet. So when we utilize the township's parking ratio of one for 300 for manufacturing, the one for 2000 for warehouse space and the one 200 for office space,
we show a total parking requirement of 61 parking stalls. 60 exist today, but we're losing this one for the ADA compliance. So we're down to 59 parking stalls. That's a variance request of two parking stalls. As indicated, there's only going to be eight employees, maybe ten at some point. So based on that and bringing the site into ADA compliance, it's my professional opinion that we will have ample parking on site for the board to grant this variance. We will submit for a site plan waiver from Middlesex County Planning Board.
I don't think they're going to have any comments on these minor improvements that we're doing on the site. And then lastly, in terms of the reports, I believe you already went through the staff report from the division of Engineering. The only other memorandum was from Artheon dated June 23rd, 26, and we can comply with everything noted under the comments and recommendations except for items two and five. We would that's not that's not the latest of what we sent one at July 2nd. Oh, okay.
And that was acknowledged earlier. I apologize. I did not receive the July 2nd. So sorry to jump in, but the July 2nd one softened up the language and basically give the board discretion whether or not to provide the information on it. Was it items three and five, Greg two and Yes. two And five. Yeah. If council can possibly share that with you very briefly, what basically I, I just basically said if the board's fine with it, I had no issues, by the way, with it.
Oh, thank you. Apologies, Greg. I thought I had sent this to you, but it looks like I have a draft that was supposed to be going to you. That's okay. I rushed in to get that out before the weekend started, so. But thank you very much for these revised plans. Thank you. And then the only other comment I had was on item six was regarding the NJ EMS site I.D. The tenant reached out to the property owner and the only knowledge he had was that the previous owner had a tenant
who had a research and education tenant on site. So that could possibly be why that was pinging on on on the site I.D. But in terms of anything that we can find now, there's nothing. These improvements are not going to impact anything that that that might have had to deal with and that and that's fine. I put that for informational purposes only. Most of the time it's right to know stuff. And so thank you. Greg. Thank you. Right. And that concludes my testimony.
Okay. Could you take your. Thank you. Mm hmm. Members, did you have any questions of this witness other than those that have been told so far? Actually, I have more of a statement. I don't think they need a variance in. I sent it to Ms.. Corcoran earlier. The way they are calculating their. Their parking, they are. They have line items, right, for each for different line items. And they keep rounding up basically methodology that I've always used
is you take all of the, all of the requirements that you need and then you round up, which is the Piscataway I come up with. They need 59. And again, I'm that's my opinion. If, if, if, if Dawn disagrees with it but it fooled me from the first from the from the first application when he sent when Greg your revised plans hit me on the desk on July 2nd, I relooked at and said, wait a second, I don't think they need a variance at all
because what you're doing is you have to two lines for manufacturing. I think it is. And then you round up for each of them. Basically. I always, you know, take the fractional annum up and then round it and it's 58 point something and it comes up to 59 spaces. I don't think they need a variance and that's what we, I and I appreciate that we, we always play it safe on and that's the way that's the way to go if it's required 2.1 we make it three on the side of caution.
I hear you. Yeah. Yeah. But But in the end of the day, when I always do parking calculations, I take the fractions and everything cumulatively. And then when you come up that result, then you round up cumulatively you're almost, I know, erring on the side of caution in this one, but in this case you're almost cheating yourself because you know the all the uses add up to 58 point something. You round up the 59 and that's what you mean. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And Mr. Persaud are you is this your last witness? Yes, this is my last witness. And in regard to the parking calculation and the variance, I do defer to the board's determination and Ms.. Corcoran's determination on the parking count. But I have no further questions for Mr. Oman. Okay. Members of the board, do you have any other questions that of this witness? Okay. Members of the public, you've heard testimony from this witness. Does anybody in the public have any questions that they want to pose to him?
If so, indicate waving your hand. You could raise your hand. And if you're on the phone, it's star 6 no one Madam Chair Thank you. Close to the public, um, members of the board, what is your pleasure as to this motion, as to this application, I should say, Madam Chair, just before you do that, can I just ask Miss Corcoran one question? I mean, it's a matter of math, and I think the proof's warrant the granting of a variance
if it's required. I don't think there's any harm in it, but I just, again, I don't know what the zoning department's feeling. Listen, everybody's going to take a different look at it. I calculated exactly the same way that Greg did. We had a conversation about it. Okay. Clearly there's not a need for that amount of parking, so I don't see any harm in it. if this board should choose favorably there is no harm in branding? Okay. So I think then, Madam Chair, just to make sure everyone's on the same page,
that if someone is going to make a motion to approve the application, that it include if that member so inclined the variance for parking just to avoid for the applicant, any issues in the future. If someone disagrees with the math that potentially 61 was required in that and a variance for 59 is to be granted if that's the board's pleasure. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's Councilwoman Cahill, and I just wante Mr. Barlow, just clarify, though.
I know Mr. Fairchild said they were in their previous location for many years and really their hand was sort of forced to move locations. But what would happen if this tenant leaves and someone comes in with that grant variance? But they may have more employees coming in? I mean, would they would a new tenant still also need to be granted the same variance that this tenant is granted that the parking.
I'm sorry, I was jumping in. No, no, no. I was going to I was going to say something and then say, what does Ms. Corcoran think? But essentially I'm on that list. And I must say, unless you know that I'm not Tom Barlow, if a new tenant came in and had this same exact breakdown of uses that and only needed 61, then the variance 59 would go up, but the change in use would trigger
the township to look into it, and if it was all manufacturing, there'd be a different calculation of who's all warehouse, there'd be a different calculation. So absent somebody coming in with 800 feet, you know, 800 square feet of manufacturing and everything else being exactly the same, they would put on the proofs just as this client did. Ms. Corcoran What do you think? But instead of it. Thank you. Good answer. Good. And it's brilliant.
Dawn's the boss. No, no, not at all. When it comes to variances in the township of Piscataway, I will defer you make the determination. So I just have an opinion. Well, then I will make the recommendation that we approve this application. 26 0809V With the granting of this variance from 61 needed spots to an approval for the 59, understanding
that the 60th spot was made to be ADA compliant. And what about the patching of the in repair? Oh of course also that the applicant does complete all of the items that the professionals on the professionals report that they have agreed to, you know and yeah, only approvals with their agreement and follow through of those items that they agreed to do
do I have a second? Mr. Echevarria I’ll Second roll call please. Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Mr. Corcoran? Yes. The Saunders. Yes. Reverend Kenny. Yes, Mr. Ahammed Yes.Mr. Echevarria? Yes. And Madam Chair? Yes. And with that, I turn the meeting over to Reverend Kenny. Madam Chair,
I think Mr. Barlow I know it's a to correct if you want to keep me here, I don't care to leave. Brenda could stay on. Carol has to recurse You're. You're. You're thinking school stuff. No, you're thinking school. Just think I got. I got mixed up. I apologize. And some things I didn't need to worry here unnecessarily. Okay. Oh, okay. I'm staying then I come back to our adjournment, correct
you have to come back for adjournment. So this is the last item. This doesn't this doesn't affect our the number of people we have for. No, no, we have a madam to have a m Ms.. Saunders. Frankly, I don't. I don't think you need to come back. The move to adjourn it. I'm. I'm sure the other members can can handle that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'm going to wish this consistency is not for me. Everyone, have a great night.
Be safe out there and go. Knicks in five Ira. Then we're going we're going to return to item number 11, the discussion Consistency Review for rezoning of Black BLOCK ten 10514 Lots 1501 15.10 15.11 15.12 and 15.13 on the Piscataway Township tax map page 105
also known as Roosevelt and Highland Avenue, Madam Chair just briefly, just to remind the board, if there's any members of the public that happened to be on for this, the planning Board's task under the Municipal Land Use Law and Title 40A to review municipal action as it invo the change to the zoning ordinance. And I'm sorry that it sounds like a plane is landing behind me. I don't know what's going on because it involves a change. The zoning ordinance, the planning board is not asked to agree or disagree.
Just is it consistent with the master plan? Since the master plan addresses the need of the township to address the state mandated affordable housing requirements, and this ordinance does that. It appears it would be consistent with the master plan, but the Planning Board is not asked the question. The action of the governing body. And as an aside, it's my understanding that failure on behalf of the council, the township to not adopt the zoning change would open the township up to costly litigation.
Since this is all part of the state mandated affordable housing. With that being said, again, this is to rezone a certain lots and blocks as outlined in order to allow the development of affordable housing there. We don't have any plans yet, to my knowledge. Those will ultimately, if the ordinance is changed, that would come back before the board to review. And you know, as we would normally do with site plan and parking
and traffic circulation and everything else. So again, the council has adopted this on first reading. It's been sent to us. We have to indicate if it's consistent with the master plan. And so advise the governing body, who then has to connect on second reading Dawn I don't know if you have anything you want to add. No, I agree with that. I mean, we were the town was specific. Things were set in which these ordinances had to be adopted.
In this case, we were granted a very small extension. And again, if we don't adopt with the zoning in place, as you just said, we are open to, you know, builder's remedy litigation. So far, so I think it is important to point out that the board will have every opportunity as all the public to comment on the safety and applications when in fact they do come before us. Madam Chair, if I could, Dawn, could you just explain for the public what a builder's remedy would mean?
So basically, if we didn't have the zoning in place, if the you know, first of all, the courts, if they came in, all the zoning could basically eliminate zoning so they could come in and build on any parcel at any density. You know, we had just single family homes could become affordable. So you have to you have to pick sites that are realistic. We have this prospective need of 539 units that we have to provide for.
We have identified 14 sites in this municipality in which we feel affordable units going to be built there realistically, one of which is this. So. And just to be clear again, so that if the town fails to adopt our affordable housing plan as mandated by the state of New Jersey, the builder's remedy then could just go right into effect.
And any developer who's like, for instance, I want to say, although the governor gave a pass, there, was that we we originally supposed to have that 55 and older over at Girling farms many years ago. And when the 55 and older market softened. Governor Christie liked that. But what happened with that site was the lots were still kept as small. The builder was given like basically carte blanche to build the same amount of homes that would have been 55 and older.
Obviously no children or no stress to the school system. But that didn't happen. But they but they did increase the lot size, which would have been normal for that. Is that an example of builders’ remedy? that was not builder’s remedy Something, Piscataway? Hasn't been. We've always been in compliance with our obligations through all of the other rounds one, two and three. We've always been in compliance. Therefore, we've never been faced with the builders remedy
And I think I think what Councilwoman Cahill was trying to lose that. What potentially could happen would happen. Right. Yeah, I think that that was a converted. You gave it an example. What exactly? That wasn't a builder's remedy, but that that could happen again as it happened in Girling, Girling Farm. Exactly. So a lot worse or much worse. Yeah, that was pretty bad. And then, Dawn, just to to be clear, when a builder's remedy
takes effect, that means that essential essentially what we do here on planning board, like in other words, when builders usually come in and I get to have sort of my say on esthetics and things of that nature that's out the door and is that what that means? Or is there still something in place? Well, even like the density, I mean, that's always the big the big thing that we talk about, right? So they can come in and they can pretty much build anything that
you don't have a lot of say you do lose that control. So our standard zoning is out the door. Yes. Yes. And they came in and so they had a 5 arce a 5 acre lot that normally might only accommodate just 20 units. They can go to the court and say, Piscataway is 100 short judge. We can build a nine storey building and put a 25 units per acre and wipe out, make it all affordable, and we fix Piscataway’s problem
for Piscataway and Piscataway would have very little say in anything. And that's what you want to avoid. It's a very real thing. We've seen it happen in Jason v. Municipalities and it has happened throughout the state. People don't think it happens, but it truly does happen. You can either have some control or lose all control. And that's the. So what does this resolution do this resolution is got is the council is attempting to move to change the zoning
for this particular property to allow development that will partially meet the affordable housing obligation, how it's going to look, what it's going to look like and all that. We don't have any plans. It allows a builder, though, with to comply with the ordinance, which will also meet the state mandate. We, Dawn how many units are allotted for this site potentially. What I heard is 50 right now.
It can originally was up to 83. However, I and all that they're looking at this. Yeah because we are able to get additional units elsewhere on those other sites. And I also want to point out to the board, we did this a couple of months ago, I believe it was back in April when we established the age for age five in age six zone. So we had to do the same thing with three other sites in. Now that's because we hadn't received and achieved
our full required quotient of 500 and some 539. But those sites we were able to get those zoning in place. So that's that's only been adopted by council. So that's this is the balance. This is this is yes, this is the balance of our of our allotment that we're supposed to have. We will meet with the 14 sites that we have included in our fourth round plan. We will meet our obligation to
with bonus credits and so forth. Okay. Madam Chair, one question this would add to this will be in our master plan too. Is that correct? It's part of our fourth round housing, right? Right. Okay, great. That's a great question, because that's where the only question the board's being asked is, is this consistent with the master plan? Right. And as you pointed out, it's in the master plan.
So it'd be hard for it to be inconsistent. Right. You know, you're not being asked to say it's a good idea. You're just being asked to say, right, Yeah. Our master, you're the experts in the master plan and that this complies with the master plan. Right. That's all the resolution says. And it's consistent with the master assistant. Okay, Madam. Madam Chair, I'm going to say what I said the last time about this. This stinks. The whole process stinks. I blame the governor.
I blame the legislature, I blame the courts. What they're doing to municipalities around the state with this in this short time frame is terrible. You have two or three judges in the entire state handling almost 400 towns. And the fact they're scrambling, they're acting more like COA judges instead of arbitrators. And and I'm going to take a shot at the planner for the judge. She's terrible.
Her conduct at these meetings was absolutely terrible. I don't know how she got a license in the State of New Jersey. And I blame also Mr. Morse from Erickson property who filed suit against us. And I blame the high density housing advocates that live in our town. Because you know what? At the end of the day is when all these sites get built, not just this one, there's going to be a lot of residents complaining about this traffic because they're not taking a look into the amount of services
that are going to be required by the municipality and things like that. So you'll be hearing more from me about this. This whole process just was really terrible. They got us over a barrel. So to speak. But you know what? We want affordability in this town like any other official does. But the way this process was laid out to not only Piscataway Township, but a lot of other towns in the state was terrible. And the fact that you had at least four other towns in this in this county
that didn't have to build one unit, which means that the remaining towns in this county had to pick up the slack, which is that's my $0.02 now. And I'll agree with the mayor or Madam Chair on that. He's absolutely right. The town is never missed as as Ms. Corcoran mentioned, we've never, ever missed our obligation and we we plan not to again, and especially given the fact that
without adopting and accepting it and the reason why I wanted Miss Corcoran to really talk about what builders remedy is, is because, you know, we it's not uncommon for residents to say why are you mean when they maybe ask the mayor and why are you building this, this and that? Well, we don't build and some areas are zoned for building and and things of that nature, but without even
allowing us to have certain controls, we don't have ultimate controls over certain properties. Right. If it's zoned for something, they're eligible. But you know, what we do on this board, You know where we all come from. We're trying to make this town to, I don't know, still have its heart and soul remain what it is while our population is ever growing and people want to live in this area. I would just say that
we have to abide by the law. But I know the mayor, our attorney, our township attorneys, while although we weren't given a lot of time, as Ms.. Corcoran said, like very little time, and we know that our formula, not only is it that we picked up the towns like the mayors said, picked up some of the slack there, but also that they had included properties that you can't build on, right? So part of township properties, part of that, as the mayor mentioned, some some wetlands, but that didn't matter to I guess it's the planner Mr.
Wahler or Mr. Mayor, that you're talking about. But they didn't take that into consideration. So we're going to meet this obligation. But I know that the mayor, with our township attorneys and maybe, hopefully mayor, the the the U.S. Conference of Mayors might also help support finding some solutions in this area that would be super helpful. And just so the board knows, we do have an appeal to all of this in the appellate division.
So there's an ongoing appeal by the town. So thank you, Mr. Mayor. You said that a lot more efficiently than I did. Okay. So we'll see what happens. What do we do next? We need to open it to the public and say, oh, that's right. I didn't that hasn't been before. Okay. You've heard the discussion that we've had on this issue. And members of the public who wish to make a comment
indicate by waiving or dialing what was that number Mr. Buckley saw six from the phone statistics if you want to call on. The first one is Sayed Ahmed. Mr. Ahmed, step forward and your name and address, please. Would you give us your name and address? Please make your comment before before I do that, I'm just trying to make sure that. Can you guys hear me? I can hear. We can hear you fine. Okay. Thank you very much. Hi. My name is Sayed and I live in 399 Highland Avenue.
I just want to first of all, thank Mr. Mayor and Raj, the township attorney, Mike and and Dawn, who met with us. This matter, I understand it's a state mandated 539 unit this round, and we have dispersed it all around town to the best of our ability. But what we are letting the board know that it's just just drive by over here on a Sunday
and you'll understand what we are trying to say over here. There's parked cars on both side of the street as it is right now. Every Sunday. Okay. There are not only one charge, there are four charges over here. Now, when the school is open, the drop off and pick up time is nightmare. I have presented pictures showing it to the attorney, the mayor, the council board,
the board of Education. We got all of these people made aware of it. Maybe I haven't had a chance to send those pictures over here with this board because of this zoom. And I am in the middle of and I have this phone with me. I'm not sure if I can present it, but just to give you an idea, we have two schools over here next to it four charges over here. Okay. And on top of that, I want to thank, mayor that you have
brought it down from 83 to 50 units, but 50 unit in a in an acreage of 1.7 acre about is still does not fit over here. 50 unit is going to churn probably like close to 100 more cars as it is you cannot park over here and if you put hundred more cars, it's a safety issue. It's it's it's an emergency vehicle pass through. Something happens. It's a gridlock that's going to create, you know, in addition
to all this other parking issues. So what we are requesting as a as the residence and we requested it today and and, you know, hopefully we can find some opportunity elsewhere there. I know that you have tried from 83 to 50, but I'm sure if we sit together and look at it a little bit more under magnifying glass, we will be able to find some more and that will probably mitigate this extra burden on our community elsewhere.
It is 19, 20, 25, 40, but the acreage is like significantly more over here. We're talking about if when we were looking at the map at the mayor's office when we were sitting down, we could easily the other sites on the map, our our site was not even visible and we're trying to fit like 50 units right then there other places are getting like 30, 40. But the the site is massive.
Our site is not massive. So let's work together as what we are requesting and see if there is anywhere else we can fit in and make this somewhat fitting. We're not against affordable housing. We're just saying that we feel that it is a little bit overtaxed on our our close to our our our schools, our neighborhood. And as I showed on that map, if you look at the density of our that site, it has houses all around, whereas the other sites
there were at least two sides which does not have any houses. There are sites which were not surrounded by houses. So this density of high density being built over here is just an overkill. So once again, it's not like we're going after you. It's more like, let's work together, see if we can find out. I know you know, Dawn say that. Yeah. Let's see if we can get a smaller group. Look. Look at it. And if we can squeeze somewhere else. Let's do that. Guys, this is going to just alter our whole livelihood, our life. I'm living over here for 17 years.
There are folks living over here since they were born. We love this neighborhood. We love you guys. The work you're doing. But don't just, you know, do it because the state is mandating. I understand it, but there should be a walk around and see if we can do something better. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Any other people? Andrew Morris Mr. Morris, would you come forward and give us your address,
please? Your name and your address. They're unmuted, Mr. Morris. His hands up on my screen, but I know his hands up and he's not muted. Mr. Morris, would you like to make your comment? Is there anyone else from the public raise your hand? Any other members?
Yes, Mr. Morris, we are. Are you. Are you. Mr. Morris, could you give us your address, please? 410 Highland Avenue, Piscataway. Thank you. Would you proceed? Okay. Hello, everyone. Hi. How are you? Good. How are you? Yeah, I. I agree with Sayed Ahmed. I think he's 100% right on. And I appreciate what he said. I appreciate the mayor. I think we're stuck in a hard place, but we have a couple of questions here.
So does the planning board look at the proposed location and determine whether it is in a in a protected area or if it's in a dangerous zone? Or would it be or would they create a dangerous situation? Does the planning board look at the location of the property. No, it does not, sir. The only thing the planning board does at this step in
the process is say, is the zoning ordinance change consistent with the master plan? That's it. There's one question. It's not much leeway. We're not here to design it, to say if it's we don't even know what it's going to be. We don't know what it's going to look like. We don't know what the parking lot is going to look like, what the colors are going to be, how big the units are. This is just the law says we have to say if it is or is not consistent with the master plan,
because the planning board and land use law is kind of the keeper of the planning of the master plan. And what the master plan says is that the municipality has to comply with the fourth round affordable housing requirements. This ordinance change is allowing that to happen. Yeah, we're not. The planning board members are not involved in the process of picking sites, approving sites, deciding
which sites might ultimately be included or not included. That's just one question. Is it consistent with the master plan? And it obviously is because the master plan says we have to comply with affordable housing and this ordinance change, effectuate that mandate. Right. So thank you for that. I will just add on a little bit just so that it's a public record. So this proposed site there on Highland in Roosevelt on the corner of Ludlow and Deborah Drive
this is that site is one half block from King's School and another half a block from Conackamack School. So and it and it makes it a very dangerous situation for children and families. When asked, Mr. Ahmed said during the school day there are cars and busses all around. And then if you can imagine putting another 50 cars plus right there
and right in front of King School and Conackamack school every day, every day, even after school. When you're at baseball practice or soccer practice, another 50 to 60 to 70 cars are coming through and it's not even about parking. I'll be honest with you. It's about cars and commotion. So I would ask that people think about the safety of our children as they are coming and going.
And I forgot, by the way, this this proposed property is is within the school zone. It's in the school safety zone. So it is. So now we have the school safety zone, which is made for the primary purpose of a school safety zone is to protect children commuting to and from school. But then we're going to put a day, a hazardous situation right in the middle of our own
legislated school safety zone. So it becomes like just chaotic one over one. It just creates it worse in that safety zone for children commuting to school. It's a half a block. So I would say, please work with us so we can come up with alternative solutions. We will love to work with you all to come up with alternative solutions because we love our children more than we love apartment buildings. But we will help out 100%. Thank you all.
Thank you, Mr. Morris. Oh, you're handling backup? Yeah, I'm trying. I. Michael Moye. Yeah. Just for the record, guys, once you speak and you do your spiel, we have to move out to next person. We won't go back and forth to other people. It's not an open forum. Correct. All right, So, Michael, Moye is that is the cell number that's on the screen. I don't know various areas.
Okay. Mr. Moye, can you hear us? Can you hear me? Yep. Yeah. Okay. Dorretta Gray, 318 River Crest. I'm on my husband's computer. Got you. Okay. I want to ask the planning board to really be tough on this development company,
this piece of land. According to the ordinance, the minimum lot area is 75,000 square feet. We don't have 75,000 square feet. That equals 1.72 acres. We only have 1.37. So it's it's extremely tight. Also, the ordinance says that you have to comply with table 4.4 and that comes out for a garden apartment 1.7, I believe it is
parking spaces, 1.7, five spots. And if you look at that piece of land, you see we do not have this this development company is going to have to come up with incredibly creative ways to accommodate all this parking and to fit 50 units in this very small space without being a tall, very visible, high rise apartment building in our area.
It's not going to be easy. And I'm afraid that what's going to happen is all of these rules are going to be changed a little bit to accommodate and I don't want to see that happen. I want to see that the parking situation is really addressed so that we don't have a flood of 100 cars because everybody has two cars these days. And not to forget that at the end of my street, river Crest, we're having townhouses built and those are sixteen units.
Everybody's going to have two cars now. We got another, you know, 34, 36 cars going down there. So I really want everybody to be cognizant of of these difficult days and these rules and not to just change them around to accommodate whatever this developer wants to do. Thank you for your time
and anyone else for the public. You could either raise your hand or if you're on the phone, hit Star six, please. No one else, Madam chairs raising their hand, hearing no other requests to speak. We're going to close it to the public. Thank you all. We have a resolution here board Now
we have the vote on the discussion item first, Madam Chair, and then we could go on to the resolution. Very, very good. We need a motion as to whether or not the ordinance is consistent with the master plan. Okay. Then somewhere someone in the on the board, please like to make the motion. Madam Chair, as Councilwoman Cahill, I will make the motion that this plan matches the township's master plan to meet its affordable fourth round housing obligation.
Thank you. Do I have a second? Madam Chair I'll second that motion Reverand Kenney roll call, please. Mayor Wahler. Yes, Councilwoman Cahill? Yes, Miss Corcoran. Reverend Kenney? Yes, Mr. Ahammed? Yes, Mr. Echevarria? Yes. And Madam Chair? Yes. Now, Madam
Chair, there's a We need to do a resolution so that we can send that back to the township Council. As to the consistency with the master plan, if someone wants to move that resolution, Madam Chair, Reverand Kenney I’ll make that resolution, that it be sent back to that This consistency for rezoning goes back to
for review to I don't know what board goes back to the council. Council Do have a second I’ll second Dawn Corcoran roll call please Mayor Wahler yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes, Miss Corcoran. Reverend Kenny? Yes. Mr. Ahammed? Yes, Mr. Echevarria? Yes. And Madam Chair? Yes, Madam Chair.
If I may I. Add a question for Mr. Barlow. It's becoming more and more apparent over the last year that we've been fielding complaints regarding the traffic patterns over several of our grade schools, notably Conackamack, MLK, Schor School and Eisenhower School. And I know we had a review going back a couple of months where the school district was going to be expanding their operation over fellowship school and didn't take any of our advice and to play.
I think we need to send a strongly worded letter to the superintendent, to the board members from this board and from our PD. They need to do something about these traffic patterns. We don't have the availability to have a police officer out there every time school lets in and lets out, they're going to have to revamp how they're traffic flow patterns are happening in their school district. Several of the schools like Conackamack, and King do have the land to change
the patterns over there to lessen burden on the street right there. And I believe Eisenhower has the Schor school has point, too, because we're getting complaints that folks in the North ran area that that back up to Schor School about making it actually technically illegal drop offs and some of these cul de sacs right there because the parents don't want to go into the traffic flow patterns, but they should be doing so. This is becoming this problem has become more exacerbated over the last year and a half.
And I think it's time that we really need to force the issue at the Board of Education. They need to spend some money, come up and do study with all these sites to how they can better serve the residents safety wise out there when parents are dropping, picking their kids up to make something happen. And what the pictures that couple of a I know Mr. Morris and company others showed me. I know it exists out there, but there's only so much we can do. We can only suggest to the school board what they should be properly doing.
They don't have to listen to us because they're a different agency. They answered to the Department of Education, but it's becoming more and more problematic now in town. So I think we need to. Tom, we need to working with Mr. Gilmer Township attorney Dawn and our professional staff in the PD. We need to send a letter putting the school district on notice. This can't be tolerated, this problem. Mayor, I'll reach out to your office and Raj's, and maybe we'll put something together. Kind of as a the sooner the better.
And it's going to happen. Which schools specifically are having the issues you've outlined? And the residents are obviously, you know. No, we're getting started. We're receiving more and more complaints about it. And quite frankly, I don't blame the residents at all. You know, you just got some parents out there that just don't care about traffic patterns and they're dropping their kids off. Don't listen to directions. So, I mean, short of giving them summonses, everything else, which we don't want to have to do, but,
you know, the onus is really on the school district. It's it's they're creating the problem, so they need to solve it. So. Okay, just to just add to the support of that. And for someone who lives near Eisenhower in Grandview, the traffic patterns and saying it goes from a quick, easy day to multiple issues and has kids who are going to be in those schools as soon as possible. Eisenhower I'd welcome any type of traffic pattern starting back up. Alleviate that. All right. Thanks Phil
that's it. I believe that's all for our agenda today. We just don't want to disappoint Ms.. Saunders. Let's handle this adjournment like professionals set out to accomplish. And I guess I packed up, too. I think we're. I take a motion for an adjournment reminding everybody of our next meetings. I am chair I make a motion at this meeting and be adjourned. Second,
all in favor signify by saying I meeting adjourned.