WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=LXPrTXpHO1k

Part: 1

1
00:00:06.306 --> 00:00:37.637
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

2
00:00:37.637 --> 00:01:08.168
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.

3
00:01:08.168 --> 00:01:43.570
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.

4
00:01:43.670 --> 00:02:14.100
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

5
00:02:14.100 --> 00:02:45.231
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.

6
00:02:45.231 --> 00:03:17.330
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.

7
00:03:17.330 --> 00:03:49.662
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

8
00:03:49.729 --> 00:04:21.728
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

9
00:04:21.728 --> 00:04:52.925
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.

10
00:04:53.026 --> 00:05:24.090
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.

11
00:05:24.190 --> 00:05:54.921
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?

12
00:05:54.921 --> 00:06:28.020
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

13
00:06:28.121 --> 00:06:58.584
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.

14
00:06:58.584 --> 00:07:31.050
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.

15
00:07:31.284 --> 00:08:04.016
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.

16
00:08:04.083 --> 00:08:36.449
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

17
00:08:36.549 --> 00:09:07.280
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.

18
00:09:07.346 --> 00:09:37.610
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.

19
00:09:37.610 --> 00:10:11.077
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

20
00:10:11.077 --> 00:10:44.377
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

21
00:10:44.410 --> 00:11:17.076
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.

22
00:11:17.176 --> 00:11:50.176
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.

23
00:11:50.342 --> 00:12:21.574
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

24
00:12:21.674 --> 00:12:52.004
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.

25
00:12:52.004 --> 00:13:25.838
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

26
00:13:25.838 --> 00:13:58.370
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.

27
00:13:58.437 --> 00:14:31.904
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.

28
00:14:31.971 --> 00:15:03.302
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

29
00:15:03.302 --> 00:15:36.502
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

30
00:15:36.502 --> 00:16:09.134
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.

31
00:16:09.201 --> 00:16:43.035
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.

32
00:16:43.102 --> 00:17:14.867
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,

33
00:17:14.867 --> 00:17:46.665
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.

34
00:17:46.698 --> 00:18:19.932
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

35
00:18:20.099 --> 00:18:51.563
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

36
00:18:51.630 --> 00:19:22.394
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.

37
00:19:22.461 --> 00:19:53.225
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.

38
00:19:53.225 --> 00:20:24.289
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

39
00:20:24.289 --> 00:20:57.589
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

40
00:20:57.656 --> 00:21:29.588
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.

41
00:21:29.688 --> 00:22:00.218
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

42
00:22:00.218 --> 00:22:32.884
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.

43
00:22:32.951 --> 00:22:40.392
So I was a long one. See? In two weeks. Thanks. I'll go. Let's go Knicks. Good Night.