Thank you. Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting Will, please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News. Notice posted on a bulletin board Municipal building Notice made available to the township clerk. Notice sent to the Courier News and the Star-Ledger. Will the clerk please call the roll? Mr. Weisman here, Mr. Tillery. Jeff's here. I see him. he’s muted, here Thank you, Mr. Patel. Here, Mr. O'Reggio
Here, Mr. Blount. Mr. Mitterando Mr. Ali is out. Chairman Cahill here. Will everyone please Stand for a salute to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Kinneally are there any changes to tonight's agenda? There are no changes that I'm aware of.
Okay, let's proceed. Going to start with 26 dash ZB dash 22 V Christopher George is Christopher George present. Is Christopher George present. He's here. He's trying to unmute you guys. Yes, Present. Mr. George, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Yes.
Thank you. You put your hand down and explain to the board why you're here. Please. I'm here and I applied for a variance. I have an existing pool that was put in about 20 years ago on our property, and we're in the process of selling the property. And I found out a that this pool was installed without permits. And I let the authorities know on that Joe Hoff
I did write a letter to Joe and explained the situation. But the the pool is about 34 inches too close to the property line, so I needed that ten feet. It has to be away from the rear of the property line, but it's about seven foot two. Jonathan can we clear up this a little bit Yes, certainly.
So just to clarify, Mr. George, the pool was installed 20 years ago, you were the owner at that time? I was not. You were not. Okay. And can you tell us the condition of the existing shed that's located too close to the property line? Yeah. The shed is on the property line that was installed in about 2022. Yeah, it was. It's. It's set right up to the property line in a fenced in backyard. Good condition needs to be repaired, replaced.
What's your opinion of. Oh, no, it's. It's in great shape. It's pretty new. It was brand new. It's one of those lifetime vinyl sheds. It's on a wooden platform, and it's. It's. It's in good shape. Okay. I think, Mr. Cahill, if we could get some sort of agreement with the buyer of the home of that, if the pool needs to be replaced, it needs to be relocated in a conforming location
as well as the shed. okay I think that's reasonable. That's all our comments. Mr. Kinneally, can we make that part of the approval? Yes, we can include that as a condition of the approval. Okay. Any of the board members have any questions or comments hearing none, I'm going to open up to the public. Anyone on the public have any comments or questions about the subject? No. one chairman Okay. I closed the public portion. I'd make a motion to approve this application
with the restrictions that Jonathan mentioned. Can I get a second? I'll second, roll call Mr. Weisman. Yes, Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes, Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. And Chairman Cahill. Yes, Mr. George, Your application has been approved. Will memorialize this in a written document at our next meeting. You don't need to be present for that. Will mail that document to you.
Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Have a good night. Item number 7 26 Dash ZB Dash 15 V Harold Israel Present. Good evening, sir. Good evening. It's been a couple of weeks. I understand you didn't have the opportunity to converse with Jonathan about some alternative plans for the fence. We had the opportunity to exchange emails. Okay. And in the next two weeks, if I was.
If I was to put this off for another vote in two weeks, would you have an opportunity to talk to him during business hours? I did propose a date that I be available, which is the 19th, but the 19th was before tonight. Okay. I think are we off on the Juneteenth. Jonathan. Yes. Yeah. So that's not going to work out for you either. Right. Well, it is. What about at any time after that?
The 19th. Probably June 29th. What day of the week is that? That's a monday. Jonathan, you have to check your schedule. Maybe you could convert. Yeah, I got it in front of me right now. I'm just checking. 29th Monday, the 29th. I'm available all day. Okay, let's do that then. Let's make a plan for you two to get together and
talk and explain the options that we have at this point. And then we'll settle it for how many meetings are in. July. Laura? Last one. And what date is that? Length, I believe. Okay. So we could by July 9th. Yeah. And he's good. He's good on time. He would be an extension. So we could do July 9th. Perfect. Okay, So, Mr. Israel, you've again set up an appointment with Jonathan for the 29th. Try and iron it out. And then on July 9th will convene again and vote to see what's going on. No further notice.
Anyone here on the Israel application is being carried to July 9th with no further notice by the applicant. And the only notice you're receiving is this announcement here tonight. Okay. Hopefully we can get this resolved. Thank you, Mr. Israel. Have a good evening. I thank you take care of a good night. Let's move on to item number 8 26 dash ZB dash 08 V Amritpreet Kaur,are you present? Yes. Good evening, Tim. Arch attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey here representing the applicant.
Filling in for David. David Persaud, who actually had his first child a couple of weeks ago. So tell him congratulations I will it actually said its first word. You know it was getting a guess. It's a lawyer joke, approval. Oh, yeah. Yeah. That's a curse word on this board. It's an omen. I know. So, anyway, I'm here for Let me get my script up. I am here for 41 Chicago Boulevard. BLOCK 3003, Lot 17. This is an application that's gone through several iterations with your staff.
We're proposing a single family house on an undersized lot. We've made a couple of different submissions, and with working with the staff, we were able to sort of dial back the size of the home and we've been able to eliminate all variances, all bulk variances as they relate to the home. The only variances that we are seeking are those that are created by the undersized lot and so that is lot frontage with and lot area. Those are existing. There's really nothing we can do to make the lot larger. The surrounding lots are all fully developed
and they're actually slightly non-conforming on either side. So if we were to propose to take a portion of that, it would only exacerbate a nonconformity to the to the left or to the right of ours. And so short of that, there's really nothing that we can do to make the lot larger. So what we are proposing is a fully conforming single family home and despite the smaller lot size, we've designed it to fit all the bulk standards and setbacks, including height. We do have the following reports A DPW report dated 4/17/26.
We totally agree with the DPW report and then we have a tri party staff report that was last revised on June 2nd, 2026. It consisted of four points. We agree with all of those with the exception of number three. However, subsequent to the report being issued, I did have an opportunity to speak to Mr. Herrera, to Don and to Jonathan. And actually my understanding is that point three is now going to be eliminated. That was a prohibition on having a basement.
I was able to provide some additional reports, soil bore water, table testing, and my understanding is that the township staff does agree that a basement would be appropriate now for this for this spot. So I believe that that comment is removed. There was also another comment that I had an opportunity to speak with who I'm going to call the newly appointed borough architect, Mr. Clarke. And as to the as to the height of the of the home. And we are agreeing, given the fact that this is an undersized lot
and we don't want to have the home be too overbearing, we're going to limit the maximum height to 25, even though we can go up to 35 within the zone. So we're going to do that as as a as sort of a recognition that it is an undersized lot and we don't want any additional massing or appearance. So with that said, I do have one witness tonight, unless there's any preliminary questions for me. I do have one witness tonight, and that's Mr. Mike Bignell. He is both an engineer and a planner, although we probably are going to have
too much engineering testimony, we'll probably just focus on the planning. But he's available for to be sworn in. Good evening, board members. Evening. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that testimony about to give should be the truth? I do, yes. Name and address, please. Mike Bignell. I work at Daystar doing the engineering company address is 31 Clyde Road, Somerset, New Jersey. Would you like my home address as well or no, that's fine. okay I am a licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey.
Both of my licenses are active and in good standing. I'm also a certified municipal engineer and I graduated from Rutgers School of Engineering in 2013. Mr. Arch, please proceed. Okay. Mr. Bignell. Just to confirm everything I said in my introduction, you agree that was correct? Correct, Yes, everything was correct. Okay. So the only known Conformity is really related to the existing lot. Having it be undersized, which affects the width, the frontage in the overall area, correct? That is correct. There are no variances requested for any setback, relief or anything like that.
Okay. And so I'm essentially going to let you go and focus on essentially what the planning justifications are for for what we're proposing today. Awesome. All right. So as the board is aware, the property is located within the R 10 zone where a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 100 feet and a minimum lot frontage of 100 feet are required. The subject property is an existing lot containing approximately 6,533.87 square feet of lot area
with approximately 50 feet of lot frontage and 50 feet of lot width. As a result ,variance relief is required for the lot area, lot width and lot frontage. As Mr. Arch just said, I think it's important to recognize that these are deficiencies that aren't being created by the applicant. There were longstanding conditions inherent to the property itself and the applicant did not subdivide the lot or otherwise create these non-conformity. The applicant is proposing a single family detached dwelling, which is a permitted principal use within the R ten zone as Mr.
Arch and I mentioned before, despite the substantial dimensional deficiencies associated with the lot itself, the applicant has been able to design a home that complies with all of the remaining bulk requirements of the ordinance, as well as limiting the height to be more in line with the surrounding houses in the neighborhood. But the only Yes, so the only variances that the board need to grant are related to the existing lot characteristics themselves. In my professional opinion, the positive criteria can be satisfied
pursuant to both a C1 hardship analysis and alternatively under a C 2 flexible C variance analysis. Under the C 1 analysis, the hardship arises from the physical characteristics of the property. The lot contains only approximately 65% of the required lot area and only 50% of the required lot width and frontage. These are extraordinary physical conditions unique to the property that were not created by the applicant. Strict application of the ordinance would create practical difficulties in developing the property for the very residential use contemplated by the zoning district.
The hardship, therefore stems from the existing law configuration and not from any action by the applicant. Alternatively, I believe that positive criteria can also be satisfied under a C2 analysis. The proposal advances several purposes of the municipal land use municipal land land use loss excuse me, by promoting the appropriate use of land encouraging development consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood and allowing an existing residential lot to be put to productive use with a permitted single family dwelling. I reviewed the surrounding neighborhood and the township tax maps.
Based upon that review, I observed, there are several nearby properties along Chicago Avenue that appear to possess lot areas and lot widths that are smaller than those currently required by the ordinance. There are at least two other lots that are deficient in lot area and at least three other lots that are deficient in lot width. And that's all within the same block Alongside the property side of Chicago Ave While I'm not completed a complete zoning analysis of every property in the area, the review demonstrates that the subject property is not an isolated anomaly, but rather reflects an established
residential development pattern within this portion of the township. Accordingly, approval of the requested variances would not introduce a new development pattern or alter the character of the neighborhood. Turning to the negative criteria, it's my opinion that the requested variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. The proposed use is a single family detached residence, which is exactly the type of development contemplated within the R 10 zone. The dwelling has been designed to comply with the applicable setback requirements, height requirements and other bulk regulations. As a result, I don't anticipate any substantial adverse impacts
relating to light air, open space, privacy, traffic, public services, drainage or neighborhood character. It's my opinion that the requested variances can be granted without substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. The board is not being asked permit a prohibited use. Rather, we are requesting the board allow us to construct a permitted single family residential use on an existing undersized lot. The proposed development remains consistent with the residential planning objectives of the R 10 zone and the township Master Plan.
The requested relief simply recognizes the reality that the lot, the existing lot is undersized and pre-dates the current zoning standards. Based upon all of that, my professional opinion that the positive and negative criteria have been satisfied and that the requested lot area lot width and lot frontage variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Accordingly, I recommend that the board approve the application. That's all I got. Thank you guys very much.
Well, let me see if anybody on the board has any questions for you. Mr. Bicknell, before we let you go. No problem, Jonathan. Anything you want from on top of this. I don't have any questions. I think staff has a few conditions they'd like to apply. Should a should this be granted this evening? Okay. I know that we spoke previously with staff. We are proposing a seepage pit that the roof leaders and some pumps will connect to. So there shouldn't be any drainage concerns on that. But if we are very happy to work with the town,
if they want something different or something changed, we're very happy to work with them and makes make sure they're satisfied. Thank you, sir. Tim, you have anything to add? Just that I'm sure that will agree with whatever the conditions are. Mr. Misrahi is going to indicate if he wants to just put those on the record, I can just quickly indicate that whether there's any issues with any of those. Okay. No other members of the board have any questions. I'm going to open it to the public. I do. I do. Steve Weisman. Go ahead. Steve.
The expert just now said that there are other houses that have also been built on undersized lots. I'm curious this is a 35% differential. Are the other ones that you mentioned also in that range? They weren't quite as substantial, but they were undersized compared to the zoning standards of 10,000 square feet, 100 feet, 100 feet. There are some I don't have the tax map directly in front of you right now, but I believe there were in some
there was one in the 75 range for a lot frontage. So it varies. are you good Steve I understand the answer. Jonathan, are you familiar with that area? How does this compare with the other smaller lots? I would say the proposed changes and the comment on the reduced height would make a structure of 25 feet
in line with the other height of the buildings in that area. There is a lot of Cape Cods, ranches. When I structures it is exactly like what Mr. Bicknell said. It is a definitely a very small lot for the zone. Mr. Weisman The case law on undersized lots is the applicant has to try and obtain land to make it a conforming lot. In this case, there is no adjacent land available because the other blocks are developed.
So that creates a hardship for the applicant and the hardship merits variance relief regardless of the size of lot. I understand thank you Steve You know the question here. Okay. Any other members of the board not hearing none? No, I'm going to I'm not going to open it up to the public. No. One. Mr. Chairman. Okay.
close the public portion and I would make a motion, before you to do that. I believe that. Jonathan, you've got to outline to the council and. Yes, I'm sorry about that. Thank you. I just want to make sure there will be no discharge of the sump pump or the roof leaders into the right of way. 100% of side drainage will be managed through the seepage pit. Yes, I can confirm the seepage pit proposed in the rear yard and all of the roof leaders and some pumps will be tied directly into that. So there's there'll be no discharging
to the right of way or into any of the storm sewer. Great. If if we move if the board moves forward tonight, we would like a revised set of architectural’s confirming that height of 25 feet, as well as an opportunity for staff to review the design and agree to that. A note. A note on the plan along the lines of the staff report item four with the broken sidewalks and curbs. Yes, we would agree to that as well, that that was
one of the things we did not take issue with. We will replace all broken curb and sidewalk. That's that's everything I. Thank you, Jonathan, for adding that to the record. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the application with those caveats. Can I get a second? Okay. Mr. Tillery. Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio Yes. And Chairman Cahill. Yes.
Mr. Arch, we will memorialize this our next meeting and send a copy to you. Thank you very much, everybody. Have a wonderful evening. You too, sir. Thank you very much. I appreciate you being here. And I hope everyone has a great night. Take care. Item number nine, Adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting of May 28, 2026. First resolution is Angeline Mapa, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio, Yes. Mr. Mitterando
Chairman Cahill. Yes. Next is Christopher Eodice which you voted to approve. Mr. WEISMAN. Yes. Mr. TILLERY Yes. Mr. PATEL. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio Yes. Mr. Mitterando Chairman Cahill. Yes. Those are all the resolutions for the new item Number ten adoption of the minutes from the regular meeting of May 28th, 2026. All in favor, say I II. item number 11 adjournment all in favor. Say I, good night everybody.
So I was a long one. See? In two weeks. Thanks. I'll go. Let's go Knicks. Good Night.