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 Bolton board of the municipal building. Notice made available to the township clerk. Notice sent to the Curry News in the Star Ledger. Will the clerk please call the role? >> Mr. Weissman
>> here. >> Mr. Tiller >> here. >> Mr. Patel. >> Mr. Reio's here. Mr. Blunt >> here. >> Mr. Haka >> here. >> Mr. Morando >> here. >> Mr. Elli >> here.
>> And Chairman Cahill >> here. Will everyone please stand to a salute to the flag. >> I pledge allegiance of the United States of America >> and to the republic for it stands for it stands. >> One nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all. >> Mr. Mr. Connealy, are there any changes to tonight's agenda? >> Yes, we have two changes tonight. Anyone here on MSN Pharmaceuticals on Duke Road, that will be adjourned until December 11th with no further notice by the applicant. On NDK Realy South
Washington Avenue, that is being adjourned until November 13th with no further notice by the applicant. Those are all the changes I have. >> Thank you, sir. Let's go to item number six. 25-ZB-43V Tilic Sony. >> Uh, good evening, Mr. Cahill. Um, board
members, board professionals. My name is Tim Arch. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey, and I'm here representing uh Mr. Sony. Um, this is an application for 321 Hamilton Boulevard. Um, I believe that uh Mr. Sony was in front of your uh board uh previously
representing himself on this application uh and that he provided uh provided testimony. Um and my understanding is that uh uh uh the board had some concerns with um specifically one of the variances that was being requested. So, ju just to remind the board, this is a
application for a addition um to an existing single family home uh in the R seven uh R7.5 uh zone. Uh the purpose of this uh of this home edition is because Mr. Sony is getting older. His son and his son's wife and two children intend to move
into his home to help care for him. Uh and obviously, it's important for Mr. Sony to still maintain his independence and privacy, and they don't want to be uh obviously on top of each other all the time. Um, uh, Mr. Sony's son, uh, who I believe is here tonight, uh, and who I believe is the one that testified
earlier, he works from home, uh, which is very convenient for caring for his father, but also obviously requires adequ adequate work space as well. Uh, so the variance at issue that the township staff was concerned about, as I understand it, is the request for lot coverage. Uh, the original plans that
were submitted proposed a 23.9% lot coverage. Uh and admittedly that's a significant departure from the permitted 20%. Uh so in response to the board's suggestion, my client went back to his architect uh and we resubmitted uh revised plans with a proposed coverage
of 22% uh which I think represents a substantial reduction. Uh but even with that reduction, I understand that your board professionals requested the coverage be reduced more and I certainly respect your opinion uh uh Jonathan's opinions and the other professionals opinions. Uh but one of the things that I also respect so much about this board
and I've seen it more times uh than I can count is a is a willingness to come to a reasonable compromise. Um so briefly I would like to see if I can convince the board that 22% is acceptable. Uh I'm also going to show my hand a little bit and let you know that I've I've my client has worked really
hard with the architect uh and we're willing to compromise uh and we think that we can reduce it even further to 21.5%. Uh so if you're not willing to allow the reduced 22% I think 21.5 is a reasonable compromise. Um but I have three points
that I want to make briefly. Uh and hopefully after I make those points you'll see things our way. Um and so with that said uh I am going to share my screen and I will certainly be brief.
Uh does everybody see that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh so this is the left side elevation uh architectural of the uh of the 22% uh revised plans. Uh the point that I want to make is so this is the left side which means that the front of
the uh the building the front of the house that's facing the street is to the right. And as you can see, that's all the existing uh home and uh all of the addition would be in the back, the rear of the home. Uh and actually the roof line sits underneath the peak of the
existing home. Uh and the reason that I wanted to highlight that is because uh quite frankly from the front of the house, you're not going to see any difference. Uh it's still going to look exactly the same from Hamilton Boulevard. Uh all the uh new massing is going to be in the rear of the home. Uh and so quite frankly uh it's it's not
going to create any additional uh uh you know bulk or mass that you can see from the uh from the street. So it's actually going to look uh exactly the same. I also want to show you uh a Google image which I will mark as exhibit uh A1. Uh
and this is just a Google image of the home as it is now. Um, we marked out the 25- ft rear yard setback uh and gave a rough estimation of what that uh is going to look like uh what the addition is going to look like in terms of where the home is now. Again, as you can see
off of Hamilton Boulevard, uh you certainly won't be able to see uh the addition, but I also want to highlight if you look at the home that's directly to the right uh that has 311 right there. um it's really in line with the other sort of massing uh of the home and
the additional outcroppings of that home. But if you look to the house that's also right here to the left 323 um this one is actually a little bit uh sticks out a little bit farther into the rear yard uh than what we're proposing. Uh so certainly it's consistent with that coverage. And then if you look at
this big boy over here at 335 uh this is uh quite a bit larger than uh what we are proposing with our coverage. So, uh, the reason I'm showing that is just by by way of, uh, explaining that obviously the homes that are right there, uh, uh, the size of this house is going to be
consistent, uh, with the surrounding neighborhood. Um, and then finally, and I know this, uh, and I understand this and my client understands that each property is unique, and so, you know, what the board has done in the past on one property certainly doesn't set any sort of a precedent uh, for what it's going to go in the future. But I do want
to just note um I did compile a few resolutions from this board uh over the last uh uh year or two. Uh and I just want to point out uh we have one here I believe. Uh we have one here. Oh, sorry that's not the first one. Let me go all the way up to the top. There's quite a
few. I'll go I'll go quick. Uh so we have one here. I believe this is a typo. the mask uh 30% uh I think that's supposed to be 20% but uh this home was 26.83 building coverage that was granted. The next resolution is indicating 24% building coverage.
There's another one that's 22.7% building coverage. Uh there's one here 23.4% building coverage. Uh uh one here that is 31.9 which quite frankly that's we're not asking for that. That's too much. Uh so we would not ask for 31.9.
Um, one here 22.9% building coverage. Uh, again another 24.7% building coverage. >> I think we get your point, sir. >> So again, I I understand each one is different and that's that doesn't mean >> Absolutely. But yes, but the board has
granted these in the past. And so, um, we just we asked that we we've really made steps to try to do, you know, in the spirit of what the board asked us to do to come back and compromise and and I think 22% is a fair compromise. Um, but
as I said before, if we have to go down to 21.5, my client is willing to do that as well. So, um, thank you and and and I I appreciate the the time to to make our case. Thank you, Tim. Uh, Jonathan, just for clarity for the board, could you touch on some of the the uh specs that
we have on this the >> Sure. Uh, one of the one of the reasons that uh is leading to the staff's opinion just we have the floor plans that's been shared with the board. There's a family room on the ground
floor, family room on the the second floor. Uh, the home office is quite large. There's also a large exercise room. So, it's our opinion that some of these could be reduced in size uh and uh potentially more
savings from the building coverage can be gained there. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um you know, we're in the interest of compromise. I kind of understand where you're coming from, Tim. I I was comfortable with 20.5 to give you for
your overall percentage. Um I I I think 21 might be okay if that's good with you. I can I can read the table and I can read the uh the board and I think 21 would be uh acceptable this evening. Um I would have to ask I believe my client
is on. Take your time. >> That's uh Mr. Sony if you can if you can unmute. Um you've heard the board's position. Uh, it sounds like they would be willing to compromise at 21 >> 21 maybe 21.5. Did I hear that, Mr.? No,
just >> I'm sorry. I heard I thought I heard a.5 in there. >> Um, perhaps you can rework it a little bit to uh to reduce it down to the 21%. Is that something that you would be comfortable with? >> Sure. >> Uh, or
>> I'm sorry, what was that, Mr. Sony? >> Yes. Yes, sir. Sure. >> Okay. >> Thank you. We we would be agreeable to compromise at the 21%. Mr. Kale. >> Okay. Um do we need to put this off to a new do need to have new drawings submitted or anything? Jim,
>> uh Jonathan to see whether or not he thinks he can uh do it after the resolution or whether >> I'd like to see the drawings first if that's possible. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So Laura, we're gonna have to put this off. I guess >> you're muted, girl.
>> I know. I was trying to get the button higher today. Um, if you want to. I mean, November 13th is the next meeting. >> Is that okay, Tim? >> Yeah. Can I uh can I just make one request that if uh once we show the drawings, if Jonathan is satisfied with that, uh would it be okay if we if we
did not appear at that uh if we get the okay from from Mr. Misrahi. I just don't want to charge my client again for an appearance for uh uh if it is just something that is that the board >> that's acceptable to me. If that's the Jim, is that cool?
>> Yeah, as long as you talk to Mr. Ms. Rahi ahead of time and make sure that there are no issues because if there are issues, you're going to be here to address, >> right? It would be condition on his on on Mr. M. Rahi being satisfied with the plans and and of course, >> thank you. I appreciate that.
>> Okay. Any other members have any questions about this application or comments? Hearing none, I'm going to open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions about this application? No one chairman. >> Okay. I'd make a motion to approve this application. >> I I thought you were adjourning it.
>> I'm sorry. We're going to adjourn it to November 13th. I apologize. I like >> So any anybody here on the Sony application, it's going to be adjourned until November 13, 2025 with no further notice by the applicant. >> Almost got me, Tim.
>> It's It's there. You can't take >> There's two There's two more apps. You might might be able to get me in the next couple minutes, though. >> All right. >> Okay. Let's move on to item number seven, 25-ZB-73V, 605 Fairview Avenue Properties.
>> Yes. Uh, good evening, uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, board professionals, Lawrence Saxs on behalf of the applicant, 605 Fair View Avenue Properties. Uh, it's block 1405, lot 10.01, located in your R 7.5 zone. Uh
the applicant is before you tonight seeking some bulk variance relief to construct a second story addition in a covered front porch. Uh we noticed for three variances. Two of them I believe will be eliminated based upon recommendations from your staff. Uh and
so really the only variance that we're going to be seeking is the front yard setback. 25 ft required. Uh we're looking at 15 feet for the porch and 8.5 ft for the front steps. Uh the variance for encroachment into a municipal right of way will actually be eliminated
because one of the recommendations from your staff is to remove the fence and we will do that. And also the variance for uh driveways being paved with a hard surface. Uh we're going to pave the first 20 ft of the existing stone
driveway at as per the recommendation. So to eliminate that variance, Mr. Chairman. So it's really just the one variance. I have uh really one witness here this evening. I have Mr. Kermit Hughes who is the architect who can just very briefly explain what's being
proposed and also the principal of the LLC, Mr. Dwayne Eddings is here if anyone has any questions. So, if we can get Mr. Hughes and Mr. Eddings unmuted uh and get Mr. Hughes sworn in, we'll we'll go forward. >> Mr. Hughes, are you your president? >> I am.
>> Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? >> Yes. your name and address, please. >> Kermit Hughes, 185 Myrtle Street, Somerset, New Jersey. >> Thank you. >> All right, Mr. Hughes, if you could just
briefly give the board some of your uh educational and professional background to be qualified as an architect. >> Okay. I am a graduate of the University of Florida uh where I see received a master's degree in architecture and I am licensed in New Jersey,
registered architect. I'm also registered architect in Florida. >> Thank you, Mr. Hughes. Proceed, Mr. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hughes, just briefly, if you can describe what's being proposed here in terms of this expansion. >> Okay. So, uh is it possible to to share our
screen? >> Please do. >> Let's see. Uh can we can we see the screen? Uh >> yes, we can. >> Blue. Okay. All right. So, I I put in color the the actual building uh
locations. This is the main portion of the house. And this is a a garage that's up there. And then this is the porch that's uh sitting um a little bit closer than it needs to be. Um and then the
steps that are here. The fence that he mentioned um it's over here. And I'll give you a a look at that building exist. This is the existing building
and this is the existing uh porch and the idea is the to add to this a second floor. Uh everything's sitting on top of existing footprint. So no change in footprint for the pro process. And
then on this existing porch, we want to bring up a couple of columns and and add a roof over that porch. I'll show you an elevation what that wants to look like. >> And Mr. Connealy, I believe this was
provided with the submission. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, yeah. Yeah. So, here's here's the the porch. Here's the addition. And then the the roof that will go on top of that uh that second floor that's being added.
We'll go to floor plan. That second floor that's being added. Um we'll come up these existing stairs. This is existing first floor. We'll come up the existing stairs to the to the right there'll be a bathroom and a
bedroom and down to the the master or primary bedroom and then it has a bath and a walk-in closet and a bedroom. So there will be three added to the second floor and then the ground floor existing
there was already a bedroom there. >> All right. So, we'll have a we'll have a total of four bedrooms uh with obviously a uh a very nice renovation to uh uh an existing dilapidated structure. Uh so really the only variance then that we're
seeking then uh is not necessarily for the second floor addition. It's for the front porch which is encroaching into the uh front yard setback. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> All right. And one of the comments uh in the staff report dated October 16th,
2025 uh is uh in site impact talks about uh the proposed sideyard air conditioner shall be fully screened from the street and neighboring properties with a fence andor landscaping and we will agree to do that. >> Yes, we will.
>> All right. Um All right. And then uh the covered the second point the covered porch shall create an encroachment into the front yard setback of 15 ft. Uh there's a request for us to discuss the need for the covered front and rear porch. I'm assuming the need for the
covered porch is to protect uh anyone from the elements as they're getting into the house. And secondly, it would provide obviously a sitting area outside as well. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Um Okay. And Mr. Chairman, I think I've already mentioned the existing fence. Uh, comment three was the
existing fence to be re relocated out of the township right ofway. We will do that. And the last comment was that request to uh pave the first uh 20 ft of the existing stone driveway and we'll agree to do that. And by doing that, we'll eliminate those other two
variances. So, the only variance then that we're seeking is for the front yard setback. Um, Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything further. Certainly. Uh if there's any questions, we can entertain those. >> Uh Jonathan, did you want to elaborate at all?
>> Yes, thank you. The only thing I want to add uh for the record is the required setback for this is 25 ft. So, this is going to be a 15. They're requesting a 15 foot uh setback where 25 is required.
>> Got it. Okay. less less if you include the steps. >> Right. Right. >> Is there any wiggle on that, >> Mr. Sax? >> I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I didn't hear you. >> Is there is there any wiggle room on that?
>> Well, I don't think so because uh we want to obviously uh we obviously want to get the the second floor in there and that's obviously going to sit on top of the covered porch. I mean, as you can see now, the house is really, you know, almost a knockdown. Um, but you know, we're trying to save the actual
footprint itself. So, >> understood. Understood. Uh, any other members of the board have any questions or comments? >> Hearing none, we're going to open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application? >> No one chairman.
>> Okay. Close the public portion. And I would make a motion to approve this application as is. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Call the RO. >> Mr. Weissman. >> Yes. Mr. Tillery, >> yes. >> Mr. Reio, >> yes. >> Mr. Blount, >> yes.
>> Mr. Haka, >> yes. >> Mr. Minando, >> yes. >> Mr. Ali, >> yes. >> And Chairman Cahill, >> yes. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. >> Otherwise, this is our next meeting. >> Thank you, Mr. Connealy. Good seeing you. >> Take care. >> Have a good night, gentlemen. >> You, too. Thank you.
>> Okay, let's move on to item number 82-ZB-72V and Nor Academy Incorporated. >> Uh, thank you. Good evening again board members, board professionals. Tim Arch, attorney license of the state of New Jersey here representing uh Anne Noir. Uh also present tonight is Shame Malik
who is the uh uh who is the director of the uh of the Anor Academy. Um you may recall we've uh we've been in front of the board with Anne Noir a couple different times. If you do recall over at the 399 Hose Lane property uh is where they're currently um uh in the
process of trying to construct their uh their new school space. Uh in the interim, we were in front of your board asking for uh a temporary uh use to allow that school to take place at 1000 uh Hose Lane, which is the uh the Muslim Center of Middle Sex County. Uh and you
uh you graciously did grant us that uh ability to use uh that um last year for uh last year's school year. Um the construction is still not done. Uh there has been unfortunately uh delays uh and a lot of that has to do with uh there
being multiple entities involved on that property both the property owner the and nor academy there's another uh use that's there as well and all of them are uh essentially mixed uh together there were two applications there at the same time and there was a lot of I think confusion caused by that on the part of
I'm not saying at the part of the township I'm saying I think at the part of the uh the ownership entities uh and uh and my clients Um, in any event, they are they are pressing forward uh to get that done, but in the meantime, uh they they need to operate at the uh at the
Thousand Hose Lane property um uh for uh for the time being. Um this is you did grant this last year. My understanding is that there there were no complaints or issues uh with them operating out of the campus. Uh we did have testimony at the time about how it would work in
terms of pickup and drop off and uh and circulation and all those would still be in effect. Uh so essentially what we're asking for uh tonight is just a reaffirmation of that temporary uh use uh uh to to for this year so that we can
have that six months to uh try to uh get 399 uh up and running. Um and uh and so as I said, Mr. Malik is here. He can answer any questions that the board may have, but it's essentially a reaffirmation of the uh of the application that we were in in
>> Understood. Understood. Um, Mr. Connealy, is there a uh precedent on the record that we can't do it? We can approve it this time, but then after that, it's got to be finalized. >> The temporary use permit permits two
sixmonth temporary uses. This would be the second one. The ordinance does not permit a third. >> Okay, we recognize that. We understand that. >> Thank Thank you for the clarification. Appreciate it, Mr. Kaylin. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Hearing none, I'm going to open it to
the public. Laura, anybody in the public have any comments or questions about this? >> No, chairman. >> Okay. Close the public portion. I I grant them another six months. Uh, can I get a second? >> I'll second it. >> Please call the role. >> Mr. Weisman, >> yes.
>> Mr. Tiller. >> Mr. Reio, >> here. >> Mr. Blunt? Yes, >> Mr. Haka. >> Yes, >> Mr. Morando. >> Yes, >> Mr. Elli. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Cahill. >> Yes. >> We'll memorialize this at our next
meeting and send it to you. >> Thank you. Let's move on to item number 10. 24 >> 24-ZB-6970V Venture Net Properties LLC. >> Uh, good evening members of the board, board professionals. My name is Tim March. have an attorney license in the
state of New Jersey. Uh I'm here representing uh Ventureet. Uh uh likewise, we've been in front of this board uh for uh I believe two temporary uses uh before on that property in order to start uh doing some interior fitouts.
Uh that was a little while ago. We are not here for any extension of temporary uses. This is the this is the actual site plan. So, we're asking for preliminary and final uh site plan approval to construct uh what will become eventually the uh the
headquarters of uh my client's uh company uh which is uh let me just pull up my notes here. Uh which is a a company called Home by Nature Corp. Uh, and that's a building materials company that specializes in furniture, flooring, wood doors, lighting related home
improvement products. And it focuses on wholesale and professional trade customers like contractors, interior designers, and builders. Uh, and it uh it's all imported uh materials. Um, so we're asking for a use variance and a
couple other bulk variances tonight in order to change the campus at 425 Hose Lane into a uh office/showroom uh slarehouse uh all for this uh this company. Um I will be honest with you, it is not going
to be built uh probably anytime soon. And the reason being is that as I said, this is a uh this is an import company and they import a lot of their stuff from China. And so when they originally put this plan together and we put all those plans together and and this is their goal for the site, everything was
going fine and then tariffs. Uh so the tariffs are are a huge um uh concern for my client. Uh and so I'm just being upfront that uh if you were to grant this, it's probably going to be uh unfortunately three years uh before
things uh settle down a little bit and uh and this can be uh and this can be utilized the way that they want it to be. But we want to get the approvals. We want to get the we want to present it to you so that uh when when and if the tariff situation does subside, uh they're ready to to go and start their
uh and start their business there. Um so uh and by way of saying that you may actually see us come back before you for uh intermediate uh intermediate temporary uses uh if there are other uses in businesses that we can uh that can sort of help get us through that
tariff issue. Um but tonight is the full sight plan for the uh for the ultimate usage of 425 hose lane. Um so we do have a couple witnesses uh tonight. I have uh Rob Murray from Menllo Engineering. Um, I have who else is on? Where'd he go?
Uh, I have Jim Kyle. He's our planner. Uh, I have um, uh, James Chen. He's our architect. And I think I have, yes, Jay Troutman on, who is our, uh, uh, is our traffic engineer. Um, so unless there's, uh, initial questions of me, we can start with, uh, Mr. Rob Murray.
>> Please seat. >> Mr. Murray, are you present? Uh, >> he is. I see him there. Mr. Murray, can you hear me? >> You muted. >> Uh, I don't think he's muted. >> He's not muted.
>> I'm sorry. They switch mics. Can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> Yes, we can. 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? >> I do. >> Thank you. Your name and address, please. >> Robert Murray. R O B E R T M U R R A Y
261 Cleveland Avenue, Highland Park Ex. >> Thank you. >> Uh Mr. Murray, if you can if you can please just go over your uh your qualifications and your lensure so the board can accept you as an expert in engineering. >> Yes, I graduated Stevens Institute of Technology in 2017 with a bachelor's in
civil engineering. I've been a professional engineer for four years now and I provided numerous testimony uh throughout New Jersey including Piscatoaway. >> Thank you, Mr. Murray. Please proceed. Tim, >> thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Rob, if you can just take us through the site and uh if you can
highlight some of the areas where we are asking for uh for variance relief. >> Okay. Can you see my screen? >> Yes. >> Yes. This is our uh existing conditions exhibit um which is an aerial photograph of the
sites and it surrounding. And uh just to orientate my drawings tonight, both of my drawings will be pointing north will be pointing up. >> And we can mark this as A1 uh as an exhibit. >> A1. >> Thank you. Um the site better known as
425 Hose Lane is designated as lot 3.03 3 of block 603 in the township of of Piscata. The property is located to the east of Hose Lane, approximately 600 ft north of Sydney Road.
Access is also provided off of Hose Lane. Overall, the property is approximately 12.8 acres and is located entirely within the BP1 zone. The site is surrounded to the north by commercial and educational uses, to the
east by recreational uses, and to the south and west by commercial uses. As it exists today, the site is currently a 59,866qt office building with 627 parking spaces
on all sides of the building. The site also includes a small shed on the northeast side of the site. Now, if I can present our overall plan exhibit and uh if the board wouldn't mind, I would like to mark this as
exhibit A2. >> Um, this is a colorized rendering of our site improvements with an aerial background. The applicant is seeking to demolish a portion of the existing parking area to
construct a 46,249 square foot building addition on the east side of the site. This will be used for product assembly, shipping, and receiving and the addition will be connected to the existing building through a uh
building overpass. The site includes circulation around the the proposed building with a minimum of 24 foot 24 foot wide two-way uh drive aisles on all sides except for the east
side which is a 20 foot wide oneway um on the east side of the building. This is enough to provide safe and adequate circulation. The site parking includes 390 uh physical spaces with 16 E credits for
a total parking count of 406 spaces where 4 413 is required. These spaces will be 9 by8. The building will also have four dock positions on the east side of the the building.
Um these will be 14 by 46 ft where 12 by 50 is required. So a waiver is being requested. On the north side of the of the building there will be six uh truck truck source truck parking spaces that will be 12 by
46. and the site will utilize uh existing on-site utility to uh bring utilities to the to the proposed building. Site improvements also include lighting
and landscape. This landscape includes 35 deciduous trees, 61 evergreen trees, 69 shrubs, 320 ground cover. All this meeting the uh requirements of the ordinance.
Lighting include lighting includes two polemounted lights that are 25 foot high, 14 wall-mounted LED fixtures ranging from 16 to 26 ft high. Uh this provides a minimum of.3 foot
candles and an average of.7 foot candles in the parking areas which provides safe and adequate lighting meeting the township standards. The site is considered a major development because it deserves more than an acre. Uh we accomplish all storm water
management requirements by a reduction in imperous pavement and motor motor motorized surface. Um and this meets all the NJP storm water management requirements. Variants in in existing non-conformities include uh
accessory building rear yard uh existing non-conformity. Um the setback is 14 ft where 15 is required. Waivers include two-way aisle width of 24T. 24T is where 24T is
proposed where 25 foot is required. Uh the loading length is 46 feet long where 50 is required. Bulk variants include rear yard setback where 55 ft is proposed where 80 is required and a
parking variance where 40 46 spaces are provided where 413 is required and lastly a use variance as pre previously stated by Tim. Uh I've read the board's professional letters. Um, we have no problem with uh
with satisfying these comments with the exception of comment five of the uh township of Piscatoaway engineering and and planning. Uh, comment number five, we we respectfully ask that the uh the applicant only be required to repair uh
the damaged asphalt and curbing and not mill and overlay the entire site and repair all site curbing. And that concludes my testimony. >> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Murray is available for questions.
>> Yes. Uh, Jonathan, you want to touch base on some issues here with the site impact? >> Uh, sure. I from my site visits out there, I I think if we were to just repair the asphalt in pieces, it's it's going to look like a patchwork. You're
putting in a significant investment by uh proposing this assembly building warehouse structure. Uh so it in in our opinion it makes the most sense to mill the entire surface course for the site
to make sure that it's uh safe and uh cohesive. >> Uh if I could if I can make a suggestion since we don't know if this is we don't know when this is actually going to occur. It's quite possible that the stat that the condition it's not going to get
better. It may it may deteriorate by the time we actually do this. It may certainly be necessary that that full mill and paving be done. Uh I would just ask and we've done this in other applications that if we could have it indicate that if the professionals are willing to do a site visit at the time
that we are proposing to to do the construction. Uh and if there are any areas where maybe there could be some cost savings uh that they would suggest that. But if they feel that a full mill and repave and curb uh replacement is necessary, we we would do that in the courts or the uh professionals
discretion. Okay, Jim, would we want to handle that through a developers agreement or condition that I >> I can certainly include that as a condition of approval. >> Okay. And maybe we can >> Mr. Correct. We have done that in other applications.
>> Correct. And to be honest, like I said, uh it's not going to get better on its own. It's it would only get potentially worse on its own. So, uh I imagine that it probably will need a full mill and repave at at a certain point, but >> just Okay. Um, Rob, can you can you
speak on the fiber optic conduit at all? >> Um, I'm not aware of any uh existing fiber optic. Uh, >> we're we're requesting it be installed along uh hose lane. Comment six on our report. >> Yes, we will we will agree to that. Uh I
I do believe Rob indicated that the only thing that we had any issues with was was number five. uh we will agree to the uh uh to everything else in the uh uh I believe the 22 comments in the triparty uh staff report letter. Uh one thing one
thing that I will note and uh and uh several of those comments have to do with uh current uh uh site uh conditions in terms of uh things outside uh uh things under tarps. Um, I can certainly report that uh I believe 99% of all of
the uh issues that the township has pointed out have been abated and have been cleaned up. The only thing that is still remaining on site is a little bit of scaffolding uh which will hopefully be gone within the next uh week or two. Uh so uh I know I know the board when
they look at those comments they think uh they think the worst but we do want to indicate that that it's actively being improved upon uh and we anticipate that it will be fully done to the township satisfaction within a week or two. >> Okay. >> And I'll I'll agree I also took a trip out to the site. It's it's a uh there's
been an improvement with the site condition. >> Okay. Um I'll I'll hold any comments for later professionals. Okay. Any other comments for me on the board? >> Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions. Sure, >> John.
>> The outside lighting, you're proposing 25 foot high poles, >> correct? >> Are there any other poles on site? >> Uh, I believe there are. Are they 25 ft
high? >> Without without I I don't have any uh information on the height of these poles. >> Can we agree that they won't be any the new ones won't be any higher than the old ones? Because I've been to the site. I don't think they're 25 ft high.
>> But I didn't get a ladder. I would measure them. So I stay off ladders now. I was I was gonna say I think there was some some bad blood there between you and Mr. Chap. >> Um we could certainly work with the board professionals to to um provide
adequate lighting without uh without exceeding um >> without being a detriment to the existing lighting. Um >> but we just don't go they're no higher than the existing. The other item, do you know whether or not your client
needs them on all night long? >> Oh, will he leave them all night? Um, >> uh, I I think I can ask answer that, Rob. Uh, we will, we do know some anticipated hours of operation. Uh, there will be no overnight hours of
operation and so I think, uh, uh, as far as I think only the, uh, the necessary lights for security purposes would need to be on overnight. >> That's fine. Thank you, John. Any other members of the board have any questions? >> Just one other thing. The landscaping, John, you already looked looked that
over. >> Yeah, it's going to be it's going to be a good improvement, especially with the screening from the uh the recreational element adjacent. So, >> pretty not that great right now. Okay. >> Y >> one of the things we are agreeing to in that staff report is to work with the uh
with Jonathan to, you know, make sure that the that the landscaping is acceptable. No other questions, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, any other comments remaining on the board for Mr. Murray? >> Okay. Put on your next expert, Mr. Arsh.
>> Okay. Uh, next I'll go to uh Mr. Jay Troutman, who is our, uh, traffic expert. >> Mr. President, >> I'm here. >> Okay. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Your name and address, please? Uh
Jay Troutman, Mcdana and Ray Associates, 105 Elm Street, Westfield, New Jersey. >> Thank you. >> Uh Jay, if you don't mind, if you can please uh put your qualifications and lensures on the record. >> I believe Troutman has appeared as a traffic engineer before this board on
prior occasions. >> Yeah, but you don't know what to get in between. >> You can proceed, Mr. Arsh. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh so Jay, uh if you can, you've analyzed the site. If you can please just uh go through your uh your expert analysis. Yes. Uh from a traffic impact standpoint, uh we're
repurposing an existing site that previously operated as office space. This actually results in a reduced traffic impact due to the change to warehouse and showroom space for a lot of the site. Um it's about a 100 trip decrease on a weekday morning peak hour,
about 90 trips on a weekday afternoon peak hour. Um, in my review of the of this particular tenants's operation, um, I would think that their their operation is going to be even lower than what the IT would predict. Again, another
favorable uh, traffic matter. Um, two existing driveways on Hose Lane. Those driveways have adequate uh, design geometry, site distance, and capacity uh, for the site generated traffic movements. Uh the on-site traffic
pattern is adequate for the site generated vehicles to safely access parking spaces and loading areas and the uh on-site parking supply is also adequate uh for the proposed tenant. >> Uh Jay, real quick, um I know that we
had asked our client to provide some uh anticipated truck and vehicle activity. Uh if I can just get your confirmation that uh that I believe our client indicated approximately three to five commercial truck trips uh a day uh for about maybe 20 to 25 weekly uh trips. Is
that uh is that what you recall? >> Yes. >> And is that and and I believe you uh answered already, but that's significantly lower than the uh the IT estimates. >> Yes, that's that's lower than a generic IT warehouse. And I believe they also indicated that the majority of their
trips will be box trucks uh and cargo vans, but there'll be the occasional 40 foot container truck. >> Right. That's correct. >> And again, that's a that's a lower expected impact than uh what the what the IT sort of generics uh would would
anticipate. Correct. >> Yes. >> I have no further questions for for Mr. Troutman. >> Any other members of the board have any questions, Mr. Troutman? Hearing none, let's move on to your next expert, sir. Mr. Arch.
>> Okay. Our next expert is uh Mr. James Chen. He's our architect. >> Mr. Chen, are you present? >> Yes. >> Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? >> Yes, I do.
>> Your name and address, please? >> My name is uh Wu Chen. People call me James. 22 Millstone Road, Princeton Junction, New Jersey. And I'm the principal of JWC, architect engineer.
>> Uh, Mr. Chen, I believe you've been accepted as an architect in front of this board before. Uh, I would ask if the board wants to know any more of your credentials or if they can or if they will accept you as a >> No, let's just proceed this morning. Thanks. >> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chen, if you can please just uh uh go through your architectural testimony and I'm going to
ask you a couple questions uh more about the operation because I know that you've uh discussed that with our client. >> Okay. Can I share a screen of the the floor plan? >> Please do. >> Can you see the plan? >> Not yet.
>> There we go. >> Oh, there we go. Okay, >> there it is. >> Okay. The proposed building it's a onestory uh right angle shape structure with 40 ft 42 feet by 34 for the structure
bay is a pretty regular. Um when we first initiate this layout, we are very sensitive to the surrounding how this presumed bulky warehouse going to be
impact from the street level. What we have decided is to make the building lens to be aligned up with existing building. So from the street there's no it's pretty much no exposure.
We also set up the building uh the 30 feet as as what the manufacturing and the packaging the building height and no higher than the existing building.
And we also treated this building facade as very compatible to the existing office building. So it doesn't looks like a pl a building addition out of place.
Uh we uh try to use the similar building color the panel to make the the outside look as uniform as possible. So it looks like a grow together. Um
we have no changes on the traffic inbound and outbound. Let me go to the actual layout. It's a one big open space with two side of bathroom and the utility
and the building had connection the entrance to the existing office building. Well, it's necessary to move some product in and out. Other than that, it's just a one big open space. It will be um
um steel structure with a metal deck roof. Um we have a four loading portion here. This is this is exterior elevation. As you can
see, we try to make it looks compatible to the existing office building which on this side and there is a big canopy separated the both building but make some protection for the people going
inside outside to this between these two building. Um I'm open for any question you have. Uh, thank you. Uh, James, if I can just ask real quick uh because I know that you uh confirmed uh with uh with our client uh any of the representations
that I made about the nature of the business uh about what it is that uh they do and the and the um they intend to do uh was I was I accurate in my representations? >> Absolutely. Yeah. The I I do want to point out the company
Home by Nature, the signature philosophy of that uh of the product is a green building. They're very environmentally uh conscious and all the all the product they represent is it's a it's a high
environmental standard and it's all pre-manufactured it in oversea and shipped here to be assembled and to be displayed and then and and sell it to the professional.
Okay. >> And uh what I indicated about the showroom was that it's not going to be for general retail use. Is that correct? It's going to be for uh appointments of uh contractors or uh wholesale uh purchasers. Is that correct? >> That is correct. Yes, sir.
>> Okay. And I think that uh uh just to touch upon the hours of operation because I did mention that before. My understanding is that the office will be Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:30. The showroom is Monday through Saturday 9:30 to 6:00 and that's by appointment for trade customers. And then the
warehouse is Monday through Saturday 8 to 5:00. Is that correct? >> That is correct. Yes, sir. >> Okay. And that there's no need for overnight operations and no Sunday activities except for if there's limited maintenance that needs to be done during off hours. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Uh
>> just sorry just >> Yeah, you have set impact questions. >> Yeah. what what what can be said about the the noise generation if we're going to be having this business open on Saturday so close to that recreation element. Um just curious what what we
anticipate on that front. >> I I will say in my professional opinion it will be minimal uh because the product is not going to be really banging cutting here. They're just they
it's like a furniture pieces that they're putting that together. There's no actual cutting and constructing over there. >> So, it's pre-fabricated components that are then being assembled but are not
being you know there's no >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> Thanks, John. >> Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Okay. >> I have just I have just one quick question. I didn't see any outdoor u
dumpster areas on the plan. >> Is all the waste going to be held inside the building? >> Uh there was um there was existing shed on the corner. Let me show this plan again.
>> I believe if I remember correctly, I believe there is an existing dumpster on site. We would we would certainly screen uh screen that appropriately per ordinance. Uh >> I would think the nature of this business there will be a lot of material that's going to have to be dealt with.
>> Yeah. >> Let me let me share this for you. Mr. Okay. Uh this is this area in the corner >> right >> there's existing
um sh storage storage shade and also >> what's in it now? >> Um I do not know. I didn't get the it was locked it some shade was locked it. I didn't get a chance to see what they
have inside secretly. >> I mean, I would think there's going to be considerable packing material based on shipping it from overseas here. Uh I just
>> I mean we we could we could basically assign some place inside this new building as a you know recycling section or figure out what the needs are going to
be. I think that little shed in the back is it might have been adequate for the office uses but I don't think it's adequate. >> Yeah. Looks looks a little small. We we can certainly agree that we will that that we can designate area inside
internal uh trash storage uh or if uh if uh if any revisions need to be made on the site plan to indicate a uh trash area. Well, we would also we would appropriately screen them as well as long as they don't trigger any variance.
Uh would it be possible to indicate in there that if we do need any outdoor uh it would be reviewed by the professionals and as long as appropriately screened and doesn't trigger >> any I'd be very comfortable with having an indoor space and if you need to change that sometime in the future then
you can deal with that. >> I think I think that would be fine then we would we would agree to uh maintain that inside uh and if that is not feasible we'll come back to the board. We just don't want this stuff piled up over the corner someplace.
>> Oh, understood. >> Thanks, John. Any other members have any question? >> All right, Tim, put on your last expert. >> Uh, last expert is Mr. Jim Kyle. He's our planner. >> Mr. Kyle, are you present? >> Yes, I'm here. >> Could you raise your right hand? Do you
swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? >> I do. >> Your name and address, please? >> Sure. James, last name is Kyle. K Y L E. It's two East Broad Street in Hopewell, New Jersey. I believe Mr. Kyle has appeared before this board as a professional planner in the past.
>> Thank you, Mr. Connealy. You can proceed, Mr. Arch. >> Thank you. Uh Jim, if you can please just uh give the board a bit of your professional opinion. >> Sure. So, um just to let the board know what I did in preparation, I've visited the site. I've reviewed all the plans and the application that was submitted. I've reviewed the township master plan
and ordinance as well as the uh memos from the board's professionals. also visited the site as well. Um I'll kind of dispense with the background on the site setting since Mr. Murray already covered that and we'll jump right in. So um we do require D1 use variance here.
There is an office component to this use. However, the wholesale aspect, the showroom and the uh shipping and receiving and assembly is not permitted in the BP1 business professional office district. So we do need a D1 variance for that. As Mr. Murray covered. There's also a rear
yard setback uh for the new structure. 80 ft is required and 55 is what's proposed. Uh there's a bulk variance for the existing accessory structure, the shed that we were just speaking about. 15 ft is required and 14 ft exists. And
then we also need the variance for parking. Um so let's talk about the D1 variance on the use first. So we're required to demonstrate both the positive and negative. on the positive. I believe the public welfare is promoted because the site's particularly suited to the use. Uh we have an existing large
office building. It's in a non-residential zone. It's vacant. Uh can readily be repurposed for the applicant's intended use. Just converting portions of the office space into the showroom space. Um works well for them. We also have a mature site
with good screening to surrounding properties. Uh including and probably most importantly screening to the park directly to our east. So, the new building that's proposed at the rear is about 30 feet um 34 feet with the power pit. So, it's not going to be visible
from hose lane as Mr. um Chen pointed out. And then we have mature screening along the back line with the park. There's a pretty good line of white pines there. I was happy to see when I was out there that they haven't done what white pines typically do and lose branches on the bottom. They're pretty
full and dense. And then we're also supplementing that with some additional plings on the north end of that. As Mr. Arch indicated, we've agreed, as Mr. Chadwick pointed out in his memo, there might be some holes that we need to fill and we'll certainly work with professional staff to make sure that's achieved. Um, the resulting appearance
here is much like we the surrounding sites. So, many of them have multiple buildings, so it's not really going to result in something that's inconsistent with the area visually. Um, we also have a good separation of grade from the park
down to where the new building will be situated. There's about a six or seven foot difference there. So, combined with the fact um as Mr. Chen said, this building is low lower than the existing office building. Uh, we think it makes a good site for this addition and then for
this use as well. Um, really based on Mr. Chapman's traffic testimony, this is going to be a significant reduction in traffic versus a straight office use. We have adequate access and it's a good regional location uh for a use like this. So, I think the site is suitable.
It also promotes purposes of the MLU well. Uh notably, purpose A to promote the general welfare. So, granted, the relief in this case allows the applicant to repurpose this vacant site and ensure that it remains productive. Um generally as we all know the office market in
Middle Sex County has continued to suffer postcoid. Uh data recently published by collers and when I say collars not the engineering firm the um real estate arm shows that there's currently about a 20% vacancy rate still
in the south I287 submarket. Overall New Jersey sits just under 25%. So, uh, here this is it's a great idea to repurpose this building. And what it does is not only make this useful, but it also helps
the overall vacancy situation um in the market. So, it it makes other straight office buildings that could be released more attractive and and helps on that front. So an approval in this situation as we've described the use
tonight. I believe looking at uses that exist around the site and those that are permitted in the zone that this use is compatible. So while there is a storage component here, this is not a warehouse and distribution use. Uh as you heard the truck traffic that we're expecting here is between 20 and 25 a week. So uh
certainly less impactful than some of the typical warehouse and distribution uses that we see uh in the region. And then also purpose G to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses based on the site suitability testimony provided. I think this can be considered an
appropriate location for this use. We also have to demonstrate the negative criteria. The first part of that is that there's no substantial impact to adjacent properties. Uh as Mr. Chopman noted and in his traffic report, the use proposed will generate significantly less traffic than just a straight office
use. uh even with the additional floor area that we have proposed um we have a maximum here of about 25 employees across all aspects of this use. So that's um significantly less than has been on the site previously. So we don't expect there to be a
significant amount of traffic as Mr. Troutman hinted to. The aspects of this actual use are much less than what the it would suggest uh in the data that Mr. Troutman pulled together. Um, as I said, the site, despite the
assembly use and and the the small warehouse proposed, it's not going to generate a significant number of truck trips in any given week, maximum about 25. That's mostly going to be box trucks and cargo vans, and we'll have the occasional uh container from overseas as components are brought to the site, but
that that doesn't represent a significant number of trips. There's really no residential uses of budding the site. um the new building will be adequately screened from the park and again we're willing to supplement that as suggested by staff and then the height of the building and that grade
differential really means that it's not going to dwarf um surrounding properties or buildings. So overall I think uh there's not a substantial negative impact to adjacent properties. Second part of the negative criteria, we have to show that there's no substantial impairment to the intent purpose of the
zone plan. And we have to meet the Medici enhanced proof, which is that the grain of the relief is not inconsistent with the master plan and that we can reconcile the fact that this is not a permitted use here in this zone. So, the purposes of the ordinance in section 212
mirrors the purposes of the MLUL. And as I noted, it's my opinion that purposes A and G are promoted here. Uh while there's no purpose statements for individual zones in the ordinance, uh we do have a 2005 master plan and then the the 2020 uh re-examination report.
Couple of notable goals um from the 2005 master plan to ensure the harmonious inter relationships of the various land use activities throughout the entire township and with neighboring municipalities and to provide for the continued expansion of the economic and tax base of the township. There's also a
notable uh thing in the 2020 re-examination report. It was more of a challenge that was identified and it was uh adaptive reuse of existing sites and buildings compatible with surrounding land use. Really, when you think about it, that's what we're doing here. Um
this is a relatively low impact use. It's a good way to repurpose this building and this site uh that has been vacant. And uh we'll meet that goal of of really adaptively reusing this. This is more of an issue now than ever with you know the office vacancies that we see in the market in the state. So this
is a great way to repurpose this site and building. So based on uh the purposes the goals and objectives the grant of the relief here is not inconsistent with the intent purpose of the zoning plan and the zoning ordinance. Uh there are goals that are directly on point with the current
application and and others that are present are not substantially impacted by this proposal. So on the Medici enhanced proof again uh not inconsistent with the zone plan and zoning ordinance and there are adequate support in the goals and objectives uh for providing
adaptive reuse of this site. As far as reconciliation, I think uh the board can find that you know that the site is suitable for the use. um the change circumstances of the office market in the county and the state uh really
demands that we find adaptive reuse for buildings like this that have gone vacant and this is a good way to do that. So I I believe that's the best way that we can reconcile the grant of relief in this case. >> Moving on to the bulk variance relief for the rear yard setback. Um on the
positive I think this promotes the general welfare because it really enables the adaptive reuse of this campus. Uh the rear is really the only location where this uh storage and assembly building could be put. Um so given the existing improvements and the
new building is really integral to the overall use of the site. Um the building also propos excuse me replaces a significant amount of motor vehicle surface on the site as Mr. Murray had said. uh we're reducing impervious coverage, but that reduction in motor
vehicle surface is important from a storm water quality perspective because we're getting rid of surfaces that vehicles will drive over, replacing it with a roof that the D considers to be clean runoff. So that's a benefit here in the pavement reduction.
On the negative, as I noted, the overall height of the building with the parapit is 34 feet. We have that grade difference from the park. That's really probably the most sensitive receptor uh to this proposal. And we also have that existing vegetation along the rear that we're going to supplement which should
do a very good job of screening this uh from the adjacent park. This uh relief also won't substantially impair the intent of the standard. Um while it's not expressed in the master plan or the ordinance, setbacks are generally geared towards providing
adequate light, air, and open space on the property as well as for those adjacent. I think here um given the combination of the change in elevation and the existing screening means that we will not substantially impair that intent on the accessory structure setback.
Again, this is a shed that is existing. Our assumption is there was either a permit or a site part of a site plan approval granted. So, this is an existing structure uh that maybe was just built one foot too close to the property line. So, at this point, the shed's well integrated within the site.
It's situated on a a pretty substantial concrete pad. Um so it would be particularly difficult to relocate this to a conforming condition. We're really talking about a departure of one foot. Um on the negative criteria, again, it
it's a very small structure. The only impact point is really to the park and we are proposing some additional screening in the back there. There's also a fenced area. There's additional vegetation that's present on the park side of the fence. So overall it should be well screened. I don't think it'll be
a substantial impact to the park. Uh and again the intent of these standards is making sure that we're providing adequate separation and I think given the screening that we have um and that we're also installing that intent will not be substantially impaired.
Last one was the parking variance. Um I think this promotes purpose a of the MLUL the general welfare. um based on the employees that the number of employees that I noted that we're going to have at the site uh we really don't have a substantial parking
demand. So here I think the elimination of parking as I talked about the paved surfaces that has environmental benefits. Um so that's that's really the benefit of the grant of this relief. It's not going to substantially impact adjacent properties. the the real issue
with a parking reduction is generally people seeking parking on other sites and then walking back to this site. We have more than adequate parking on the site and that really is going to be unlikely given uh that we have hundreds of parking spaces and we're going to have le you know less than 30 employees
at the site. There will be you know as we talked about people visiting the site for the showroom but that's not expected to be a significant uh demand for parking. Then as far as the intent of the standard, obviously the intent is to make sure that we have adequate parking on the site based on the characteristics
of the use. Uh we have more parking than than we would probably ever need, even though we do require relief for it. So I don't think that intent will be substantially impaired. Mr. Chairman, that's all I had in the way of direct. I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have. >> Sure.
>> Jonathan, did you want to jump in at all? >> I don't have any comments at this time. I know we're likely going to need a new set of drawings and potentially a a developers agreement. So, um I'm going to hold my comments until we get the revise back.
>> Gotcha. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? >> Hearing none. Mr. Arch, you want to summize? >> Uh well, this board knows it's generally my policy not to not to give a summation after good planning testimony. So, uh I will I will leave Mr. Kyle's uh I think
very good justifications as the last thing the board hears. Fair enough. Uh, any members of the board have any questions or comments for this? Hearing none, I'm going to close the I'm going to open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments?
>> Laura? >> No. One, chairman. >> Okay. Uh, Mr. Arch, I'm not prepared to vote on this tonight. I'd like to afford the rest of the board members and myself an opportunity to go out to the site. So, I would ask that we could put this off for uh, I would say, what do you got, Laura?
Next month. 13. >> Yes. November 13th. >> Yes. Is that acceptable to you and your client? >> Uh yes. As I said, I I we believe that we are 99% uh complete of cleaning up the site and that should be done well before the next meeting and uh and I
would certainly want the board to to see that we are true to our word and that everything is uh is brought up to uh to the township's liking. Um and it occurs to me that I believe I'm going to be here on November 13th anyway for NDK. So, um, if I could just ask, I do we
need all of our professionals to be present on that day for any additional testimony. >> Mr. Connealy, >> uh, it's up to the applicant. If you do not wish to bring your professionals, uh, you run the risk that questions may occur from the board members based on their site visit, but that's, uh, a
calculated risk that you take. >> Understood. >> Okay. And I I believe that you will generate some goodwill with the board if that cleanup is complete by the time of the November 13th meeting. >> Absolutely. Understood.
>> Good. Thank you. And I would urge uh bo the board members to uh at your convenes get out to that site 425 lane and take a look at the progress that they're making and get back to me with some feedback. It'd be great. Um anyone here on the venture net properties it is going to be
carried to November 13th with no further notice by the applicant. >> Thank you. Good evening. >> Thank you everyone. >> Good evening. >> Let's move on to item number 12. Adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting of October 9th 2025. >> First resolution is Heather Fam which
you voted to approve. Mr. Patel, Mr. Origio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Blunt. Yes, >> Mr. Hookah. >> Yes, >> Mr. Mando. >> Yes, >> Mr. Ali. >> Yes, >> Chairman Cahill. >> Yes.
>> Uh, next is Antuinet Rouse. This was a withdrawal. I will need a motion and a second on that before we call the role. >> I make a motion to uh accept the >> Thank you. >> Mr. Weissman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tillery.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Oreio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Blunt. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hooka. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mirando. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ali. >> Yes. >> Chairman Cahill. >> Yes. >> Next is Lyanna Commandis, which you
voted to approve. Mr. Origia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Blunt. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hooka. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mirando. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ali. >> Yes. >> Chairman Cahill. >> Yes.
Next is Yahara Gonzalez, which you voted to approve. Mr. Patel. >> Mr. Origio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Blunt. >> Yes. >> Mr. Heduka. >> Yes. >> Mr. Minando. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ali.
>> Yes. >> Chairman Cahill. >> Yes. >> Final resolution is Jorge Mina which you voted to approve. Mr. Origia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Blunt. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hooka. Yes, >> Mr. Mirando.
>> Yes, >> Mr. Ali. >> Yes, >> Chairman Cahill. >> Yes, >> that's all that I have for this evening. >> Thank you. Item number 13, adoption of minutes from the regular meeting of October 9th, 2025. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Item number 14, adjournment. All in
favor say I. >> I. >> Okay, guys. Once again, thank you for your volunteering and we'll see you in a couple of weeks. >> Happy Halloween everyone. >> Happy Halloween.