adjustment meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the courier news. Notice posted on the Bolton board and 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. Patel. >> Yes. >> Mr. Reio. Yes, >> Mr. Blamp. >> Yes, >> Mr. Haka. >> Mr. Elli, >> yes,
>> Mr. Weissman. >> He's trying to get on. And 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 it stands.
>> One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Mr. Conneal, are there any changes to tonight's agenda? >> Yes, we have quite a few changes. The application of Jorge Mina, 24 Old New Brunswick Road is adjourned until
October 9th. They must notice. Edgar Lopez, 12, Howard Street, adjourned until November 13th. They must notice. MSN Pharmaceuticals, 20 Duke Road, adjourned until October 23rd with no further notice. Venture Net Properties,
425 Hose Lane, adjourned until October 23rd with no further notice. On Switch, 51 New England Avenue, adjourned until December 11th with no further notice. Those are all the changes that I have. >> Thank you, Mr. Canaly. Let's move on to
item number 725-ZV-63V. Barbara Barbara Educhi. Did I >> Sorry, I just came back from Italy, so I was getting a little >> It could be It could be. >> Ma'am, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand?
Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? >> Yes. >> Could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here? I would like to have a variance for my fence. >> You can put your hand down. Thank you.
>> That is not in code. >> Mr. Chairman, you may want to check. >> Yes. Yes. Jonathan, you have some points on this. >> Yeah. There's um a couple other uh points that we want to make about this property. First of all, have you had a chance to read the staff
memorandum dated August 19th? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, so you understand that you're over on building coverage. So, we need to bring your property back into conformance with building coverage. Would you be agreeable to modifying
either the carport or removing one of the sheds? >> No. >> Okay. Why? Why not? I well financially it would not be feasible and I quite frankly don't
understand why I would have to. >> There's a requirement for uh building coverage not to exceed 20% of your lot area. When we were reviewing your property survey to perform the calculations,
it became apparent that your property is over 20% coverage by uh roof structures. So, it's your property crime. The structures have been present for over 30 years
and I would not be in a position to make any of those changes at this time. >> Okay. So, our additional request to move the fence in 12 ft from the property line along Birchwood, would you be
agreeable to that or would you give the same same reason as to no? >> It's same. >> Okay. Um, these are fairly non-negotiable uh in regards to building coverage and with the proximity to the
property line. So, I I I would really encourage you to consider making some of these changes or finding a way that we can make some of these changes. >> Over a little bit. >> Hi, I'm I'm Barbara's daughter. Am I allowed to speak on her behalf? I'm sitting right next to
>> I can I can swear you in, ma'am. What's your name? >> My name is Melissa Mana. >> Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? >> Yes. Go ahead, ma'am. >> Okay. Um, so just we we'd like to know
what exactly what it is that she needs to change or do as 13 ft in from the from from the street seems a bit extreme considering it's been it's been up for 30 years and so have all the other structures on her property. Are you suggesting >> the fact that it's been there for 30
years makes no difference. >> Okay. So, are you suggesting the structures need to be taken down completely or she will have to pay a fee or what's what's the ramifications if if she's not agreeable to removing any of the structures, I guess, is our
question. >> Uh, you'll be receiving uh violations from her code enforcement department. >> Okay, >> ma'am. At this point, at this point, the way we normally lean with our experts, uh, we normally lean towards their judgments. I I don't agree with the
coverage. I think that she's 20.2 and the the ordinance calls for 20. Um so I'm I'm I'm willing to put it forth to the to the board here that we um show the relief for the coverage, but the fence has got to come in and if you don't agree to something tonight,
chances are they're going to I can read the room pretty well and uh you will not get an approval and code enforcement can come out at that point. >> Okay. >> Summones. >> Yeah. Can can I ask you is it 13 feet minimum or is that is that set in stone
or can that be negotiated? >> 12 feet minimum from the property line not from the street. >> You mean from >> if if I put a 4 foot fence
right where the existing six foot fence is, would that be acceptable? As long as it's 50% open as in a picket fence. >> Is that something you could agree upon, >> ma'am?
>> Therefore, you wouldn't have to move. >> Mr. Chairman, one question though. Would she be able to do the 4 foot up to the 12 feet and then once the 12t she could put the six foot? >> There's two different ways to look at that. We need to know for the resolution. >> Thank you, Laura. That was my next
question. I think we need Jonathan's opinion on that. >> Yeah, I I would I would agree with Laura. I think if if they do agree to do a 4 foot 50% solid uh they could uh with the variance at 12 feet from the property line, step
up to a a sixoot panel. >> 12 feet from property line. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um is is there um a time aotment on that that she needs to adhere to? Uh, >> can we put that in some language there, Jim?
>> Yes. Yes. Whatever the board decides. >> What time frame? >> Yeah. What kind of time frame are you looking at, ma'am? >> Couple of months. >> Well, frankly, she's not because we really thought with with the affidavit and and all the signatures that she got over the past two months that this would
clear the problem, right? >> So, we really weren't even thinking about a timeline, quite frankly. and I wasn't thinking I was going to have to make these changes. >> And I I hear that from almost every applicant that comes before us,
unfortunately. I am so sorry you're in this position, but it is what we have to deal with. >> And I I appreciate the cander, but I I do need to ask you, is there a reason why she had to go and get all of 25 signatures for an affidavit if this was going to be um basically declined
anyway? >> To state law, ma'am. the these are the notice requirements set forth in state law. >> Okay. So whether she did or did not get the signatures, this would have this would have been the outcome anyway. >> If you didn't get the signatures, you
would not have a hearing >> okay to the >> I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? I'm sorry. I said, "Are you amiable to what Laura suggested with the 4 foot 50% solid and
then breaking it out to a six foot?" >> Up to you. It's your property, Mom. >> To stay in the position it's currently in. >> No, it's either got to It's either got to be >> We'll keep the fence
from property line to 12 feet in. The fence will stay in the same location. It'll be 4 foot tall, 50% solid. Then after you pass that 12 foot mark, you can step up to that six foot solid fence. >> And they're going to let you keep the
sheds. So if you say no, there's a chance the whole thing could be denied. >> So this is a bar. This is a bargain is what we're doing right now. Okay. >> So let me >> It's a compromise. >> When you say a 4 foot uh fence, that means a slotted fence. So, it's open and
it's four foot tall and it can stay in the same footings the same position. >> Yes. >> Uh, yeah, you can leave the footings in the same position. If it's a 2 inch pick, 2 inch gap. That's what we mean by 50% solid. >> Okay. So, it's a see-through fence and it can't be a solid um cedar, which he
has now, which is six foot. >> Correct. Correct. >> Okay. And the property line does not have to be moved if she will agree to a 4 foot uh 2inch opening gap fence. Uh, an equal an equal opening to the size of the slot. Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. You have to agree to it, Mom, because apparently that that's they didn't stick to what they they told you originally. So, you have no choice. >> If if there's a financial hardship involved, would would put putting this
off until spring of 2026 help you out at all? There's absolutely a financial hardship which is why my mom walked in the neighborhood at 80 years old getting 25 signatures. We thought that this would be >> right. >> No, was explained to you the signatures were for noticing. You had to go in
front. It's the board's decision, not your neighbor's decision. >> But what what were excuse my I my my question >> I've been helping your mother through this for months. What was the what were the signatures for then? uh to agree with what if if she still needs to move
structures. >> They don't have to agree with anything. >> The signatures have nothing to do with agreement. The signatures are to be sure that everyone within 200 f feet of the applicant's property is on notice that this application has been made. It's not
that they agree to it. >> Okay. So, the final decision is made by the zoning board. >> Yes. Yeah. I have seen fences where in vinyl where it almost looks like a louver.
>> Is that is that what you mean by where it's open slotted? >> No. >> Um >> picket fence. >> It has to be picket >> or a chain link. You could do a chain link. >> Do you not want me to speak?
>> You could do either or at time of permitting. because it's going to be a problem if I speak. >> You can do a real case. >> Yeah, by all means. I >> I don't want to take up any more of the court's time. Uh my mother, like I said,
she's >> she walked around the neighborhood to get all of these signatures thinking that she could keep her property, you know, in this in the same shape that it was for many years. And now you're saying so the fence if the fence does come down >> it just needs to be pick it in this in
the sense that it can't be a shadow fence is what I think that's what she was referring to. >> It's got to be actual two inch gaps in between slats is what you're saying. >> If the slats are two inches wide the gaps have to be two inches wide.
>> That's the big sense. Okay. Okay. And that's the only option except to move it 12 feet in from the property line. >> That is correct. >> And keep it at and keep it at the same height. >> Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> That's the
>> Okay. And we can we have until spring to actually have this work done. >> Give you give you until April when the ground is nice and warm and you know maybe you can it'll be a lot easier to put the fence up. >> Okay. And it can be uh it can be uniform with the same fence that she has.
In other words, she's got the cedar she's got the vinyl uh the vinyl cedar color fence that goes around the whole property. She doesn't obviously we don't want to bring down the property value by making it look worse which is going to happen >> with the suggestion. So can we keep we
can keep the same fence if we move it in? >> Yes. >> Okay. There you go. >> All right. So you're agreeable to that then
>> and that's it. >> I mean question not to take up the time. >> All right. That's the that's the fence issue. Are there any other issues? >> I I just wanted to ask >> No, I told I already told you you know I already told you that the coverage is something that I think I'll wave. It's 2
over and it's it's dimminimous in my eyes. So um you just need to make a decision on the fence. on the fence and and one more question. [Music] >> I just have one more question. So, if
she does remedy the fence issue, um why is it that you waved the the sheds as needing to be removed? It I'm not I'm not understanding why one trumps the other. >> They're different issues. In in Sean's opinion, the 0 2% is
dimminimous, meaning it's of uh low significance compared to the impact the fence being too close to the street has on vehicular traffic safety. >> And there's no way I I was under the
impression that the solid 4 foot in the position that it's in now would be okay. That's not okay. The whole thing >> it is okay. That is not okay. >> It's not or it is. >> The 4 foot fence would need to be 50% solid at a minimum. So, as Laura said,
that could be the pick it or the chain link. >> Correct. >> At the 4 foot level. At the 4 foot chain link or pick it, you're not going to have any privacy, Mom. You're losing your entire entire privacy. So, you either have to bump in 12 feet or go with the picket. We understand what you guys are proposing.
Do you want to put this? We could put this off to another meeting if you guys want to take time to discuss it. This is the options. If you don't, if you feel pressure to make a decision like this in the next couple of minutes, I don't want to put that on you. If you want to take >> She certainly doesn't feel comfortable.
Like I said, it's definitely finances are an issue. Um, we have Yeah. Um, yeah. If we can put this off again uh just for >> a short time. Fair enough. >> That's that's probably the the proper decision to make. Let's let's put this
off >> for um Laura, we got what do we look like in November? I mean October. >> October 9th. >> Okay. Is October 9th enough time or >> we have to do this? >> I'd like your sons. I'd like your sons
to maybe sit in on this maybe. I don't know. >> Can I ask the chairman though? Are you gonna ask her to send revised plan? Like on my end, what what are we going to be looking for or doing? >> Like we're going to put it off for a month, but I mean, is it gonna change it? >> That's gonna be Yeah, that's going to be
the same answer then. No. But when does she have to have this fence put up? >> This is not going to happen overnight. I mean, there definitely is financial. >> I told you April April of 2026 is >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> 10 months out. >> All right. Let's do that. We'll forgo
the next meeting then. Yes. Okay. >> Not going to change. Yeah. If it's not going to change, there's no point. Thank you, Laura. And having another meeting. >> Okay. So, do you want to do a vote tonight? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Again, that was a whirlwind there. Where
where she's moving the fence in and keeping it the same. >> Yeah. Four 4 foot 50% open. >> You have to decide what you want to do. >> Property line then up to six feet. >> This is what this is about. Are you moving the fence in 12 feet or are you
going to do a pick it at the same line? >> I'm going to move in existing >> chairman. She can get the variance for the 4 foot and then if she wants to do the 12oot, she could always just move it the 12 feet is the same exact thing, >> right? >> Correct. That's what I want. Yes.
>> All right. Is that good with you, Jonathan? >> Yes. >> Okay. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments about this? >> No. >> No. >> Okay. Hearing none, I'm going to open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application?
>> No. >> No one chairman. >> Okay. Close the public portion. And I'd make a motion to approve this application with the stipulations outlined. Can I get a uh second? >> I have a second. >> Thank you. Call the RO, please. >> Mr. Weissman.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Patel. >> Yes. >> Mr. Reio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Blamp. >> Yes. >> Mr. Daka >> or he was here. Mr. Elli, >> yes. >> And chairman Cahill. >> Yes. >> Your application as amended has been
approved. We will memorialize this in a written document at our next meeting and we'll send that document to you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Have a good night, ladies. >> Let's move on to item number 8, 25-ZB-54. Michael Murray.
Is Mr. Sullivan present? >> Yes, I am. Good evening, everybody. Uh, my name is John Sullivan. I'm an attorney with the offices of Basola and Sullivan, and I'm representing Michael Murray, who is the owner of the property at 25ton Road. That property is fully
improved with the two and a half story building along with the driveway and a parking area that uh can fit six vehicles. This property was subject to a prior zoning board approval back in 1982 and that allowed the mixed use of the
property with uh at the time a chiropractor's office on the first floor and a residential apartment on the second floor with the caveat that the second floor apartment could only be occupied by the proprietor of the first floor office.
The proposal before you tonight is to allow us to convert the use of the property to a two family dwelling with one apartment on the first floor and one apartment on the second floor. Um we do not really propose um many site improvements. However, we have had a
chance to review the staff report and we will agree to um to those conditions that are set forth there. So that would be the only um the exterior improvements to the site. Um Oh, also um if you look at the at the site plan, there were some
sheds there um and we were going to remove those sheds as part of this application. The relief we are requesting is a D1 use variance. Um there are several um bulk standard nonconformities, but as I understand it, they were previously
approved back during the uh I believe the 1982 approval. What we've submitted tonight is the variance plan prepared by Casey and Keller with the date of May 6th of 2025. Uh we also submitted the survey dated
June 20th of 2025, also prepared by Casey and Keller, as well as the architectural plans prepared by Keller Architecture and Design, which are dated May 7th of 2025. Uh we have three witnesses. We'll we'll
try and keep this as brief as possible. Uh we have Jerry Williamson who is our realer, Brian Teller who is our architect and Brian Conway who is our landscape architect and professional planner. So if I may I would begin with Mr. Williamson.
>> Please proceed. >> Mr. Williams, are you present? >> Yes, I am. >> I need to swear you in. 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? Gerald Williamson, 12 Indiana Drive,
Piscatoaway, New Jersey. >> Thanks. You can put your hand down. >> Mr. Williamson, uh, you are a licensed New Jersey realer. Is that correct? >> Yes, it is. >> And how long have you been so licensed? >> Since 1981, I was a, uh, real estate
agent. And in 1987, I became a real estate broker. >> And your license remains in good standing. >> Yes. And can you just briefly describe to the board the uh nature of your practice? >> I do pretty much everything from
residential to vacant land to commercial. Um pretty much >> Mr. Svin, you can move on. >> Thank you. And Mr. Williamson, you're familiar with the uh the site as well as the building on the site. >> Yes.
>> And I understand that uh you listed it for sale. Yes, I listed the property for sale on 49 2025. >> And what did you do in terms of advertising? >> I put it into uh All Jersey, the Garden State MLS.
>> Multiple listing service. >> Multiple listing services. Yes. And I had a sign in front of the property which I got numerous calls on. >> Okay. And I understand you did list it as a mixed use in accordance with that 1982 zoning board approval. Is that
correct? Yes, I did. >> And you said you did get numerous calls on it. >> Many calls. Mostly looking for a residential use. >> Okay. Was any was anybody interested in the the particular use that the um
that's permitted to be used for? >> I did have a few showings from professionals who did look at it, but the feedback was they felt the first floor was too small. And then you mentioned you did have inquiries about use as residential. Was
that as a two family home? >> Yes. Yes. Many people called wanting to know if it was a two family. >> And do you feel that the um the unit size being relatively small? I think around 700 square ft for each floor. Um
did that detract from being able to um sell the property for the permitted use? >> Yes. and and also that the professional would also have to be the one that occupied the apartment. They didn't have the option of, you know, letting somebody else live upstairs. But I just
think from a professional standpoint, it really didn't appeal to many people. The two family had a much more much more of an appeal. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I have for Mr. Williams. >> Any other members of the board have any questions for Mr. Williams?
You can proceed. Mr. S. Thank you. Uh, next would be our architect, Brian Keller. >> Mr. Keller, present. >> I am. >> Could you raise your right hand? >> Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
>> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. Your name and address, please. >> Brian Taylor, 95 WHung Avenue, North Planefield, New Jersey. >> Thank you. >> Uh, Mr. Taylor, would you state your qualifications for the board?
I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey as well as six other states. Um I attended the New Jersey Institute of Technology for my Bachelor of Architecture and I've been in my own practice for 23 years. >> It's Mr. Sullivan his credentials are
perfect. That's fine. >> Thank you. And Mr. Taylor, you're familiar with the site and the application, correct? >> Yes. >> And you prepared the plans that we've submitted to the board? >> Yes. And can you describe to the board the um
the structure as it exists now and what we are proposing? >> So the structure now um essentially this was built u as a single family home. It's a it's a two and a half story woodframe structure uh with a front porch very residential looking. Um
apparently it was converted u at the first floor to be an office. I believe it was a chiropractor's office. It was a small office. Um and the second floor remained as a residential apartment. Um
so that's pretty much uh the was the is the existing use right now. >> And um would you describe the um proposed renovations for the proposed use? >> Sure. So the renovations are exclusively on the first floor and essentially we
are converting that first floor uh office use into an apartment. So we are um adding a full bathroom because there was only a powder room there. Uh we're adding a full kitchen. Uh we're adding two bedrooms, a living room, and uh a
home office. And these are all just interior alterations. We are not proposing any uh exterior alterations. And I will note that, you know, like I said, that the home is a has a very residential, you know, character to it. Was a single family home. Um it has nice
curb appeal. It has a nice front porch and it's in good condition on the exterior. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I have for Mr. Taylor. >> Any other members of the boards have any questions or comments from Mr. Taylor? None. Mr. Sullivan, put on your next
witness. Mr. Chairman, just >> the U statement from the architect was that it's a two-bedroom apartment. If the board approves it, I would make that a condition of approval.
>> Okay. Mr. Sullivan, you agree? >> Uh, yes. Next would be Brian Conway. He is our landscape architect and our professional planner. >> Mr. Conway, are you present?
You're muted. >> Okay. >> Hey, >> everybody hear me? Okay. >> Raise your right hand. >> Yes. >> Do you swear that testimony you're about to give the truth? >> Yes, sir. >> Your name and address, please?
>> Uh, Brian Conway. Professional address, 258 Main Street, Milbour, New Jersey 07041. >> Mr. Conway, would you state your qualifications for the board as both a landscape architect and a professional planner? >> Certainly. Um, I'm a graduate of Ruckers
University, Cook College. I've been licensed as a landscape architect since 1992, licensed as a professional planner since 1993. I've been practicing since then, um, doing all types of different projects. I've done several in Piscataway, certainly before the
planning board. I don't know that I've been before Piscataway before. everything. >> Okay, please proceed. >> Thank you. >> Now, your firm your firm prepared the uh the engineering plans that we submitted to the board. >> Yes, sir.
>> And you're familiar with the site as well as the proposal? >> Correct. >> If you could just start out by um describing the site as it currently exists. >> Certainly. Um can everybody see the screen share? >> Yes.
>> Yes. Okay. The site is a rectangular lot on the east side of Stelton Road between Lake View Avenue and Academy Street. It's a 60 ft wide by about 180 ft deep. It's a 10,691 square foot site which 25 acres, just
about a quarter of an acre. Improved with an existing two-story mixeduse building. The property is wholly located within the BP2 business professional district. The first floor contains an approximate 720t office space. The
second floor contains an existing 700 ft approximately two-bedroom apartment. The site is generally flat with the Fox and Fox apartment buildings to the north and east is their parking lot and there's an office building to the south.
The site um ingress is via the south, a one-way drive, and the site egress is via a one-way drive on the north side of the build. There are six existing parking spaces. Uh it's conforming with all of the bulk requirements of the zone
uh except for lot width and front yard, which there was previous uh variance approval given in the 1982 application. Uh just a a couple statistics to note that I'm going to reference later. The total impervious coverage on the site is 53.8%
and the total pvious or landscape coverage of the site is 46.2%. These are all existing conditions that will remain unchanged by this application. Just going to give a little bit of neighborhood context.
And the plan I'm referencing is the plan that was um submitted. And I'm going to zoom in on the aerial photo on the top left of the drawing. the uh property in question is within the um center uh blue rectangle. The
outer blue rectangle is a 200 foot um distance for the 200t properties. So for neighborhood context surrounding properties within the Stelton Road business district include commercial offices, institutional uses, single family homes, new multifamily, and
existing multif family residential. The township amenities in the area include the Westerard Library, New Market Park, and Columbus Park. Uh for the site history, um according to the multiple listing, the house was built in 1875 and was formerly a one
family residence. In 1982, a variance was granted to create a chiropractor's office on the first floor with a second floor apartment with the condition that the office be used by one professional who must necessarily be the occupant of the apartment. The chiropractor's office
is closed and the building remains vac. The building remains vacant. The variance approved in 1982 is a very specific and niche approval. The office space on the first floor is small at about 726 square ft. Mr. Mary purchased
a property this year and hasn't been unable to find a tenant. I'm zooming back over to the uh the plan itself. The application proposes to leave the building exterior as is and to renovate the interior by converting the first
floor office space into a two-bedroom apartment. The second floor apartment will remain as is. The site will remain unchanged except for the improvements and repairs requested by the Piscatoaway staff report memorandum dated today, September 25th, 2025.
The minimum parking requirement for the two two-bedroom apartments is five parking spaces. There are six existing parking spaces on um on site that shall remain. To reiterate, this is a change of use variance application and proposes no changes to the building exterior ex
exterior, no changes to the site except as requested by the town and minor renovations to the first floor interior. That's the description of the site existing conditions. I'm going to go into the planning testimony now.
What we're seeking is a use variance to change the use of a mixeduse bu building, first floor office and second floor apartment approved by prior variance to a two-unit residential use with a first floor apartment while maintaining the second floor apartment. It's a devariance we're asking for under
the municipal land use law 405D-70 D1. We have to provide positive criter criteria or special reasons and we have to review and discuss the negative criteria and show that the project can be approved without substantial detriment to the public good and will
not substantially impair the intent and purpose intent and purpose of the zone plan and the zoning ordinance for the positive criteria to special reasons. To establish special reasons and meet the positive criteria, the
applicant must show that the proposed project carries out a prop carries out a purpose of the zoning as defined by the municipal land use law. Case law finds that there are sufficient special reasons for the grant of a devariance when a proposed project carries out any
of the 16 purposes of zoning as defined in NJS40 55D-2. The purposes advanced by this project a is to encourage the municipal action to guide appropriate use or development of
all lands in the state in a manner which will promote public health, safety, morals and general welfare. A vacant property has a negative impact. A fully rented utilized building is a better neighbor and promotes general welfare. These two apartments proposed are within
the Stelton Road business district with easil easily walkable access. Um, as mentioned before, other than the minor reservations renovations inside the building, the building will remain remain as is with the exterior
unmodified. The existing site will also remain asis, spare repairs and improvements requested by the town. Considering this, the project carries out several other purposes of the municipal land use law, including C, to provide adequate light, air, and open
space. The site's 46.2% pvious landscape area will remain unchanged under this application. In other words, almost half of the site will remain landscaped and pvious. And then E to promote the establishment
of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities, and regions and preservation of the environment. The preservation of an existing building and site largely intact with a adaptive
reuse that does not require extensive demolition, construction or disturbance will help to preserve the environment. We also have G to provide s sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial
uses and open space, both public and private, according to the respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens. So, we're providing a variety of housing types to meet the needs of the community. The proposed application
makes an additional small two-bedroom unit available to help meet the residential needs of Piscatoaway in the surrounding area. We also have J to promote the conservation of historic sites and districts, open space, energy resources and valuable resources in the
state and to prevent urban urban sprawl and degradation of the environment through the improper use of land. The change of this building built in 188 1875 without changes to the exterior and with only minor site plan changes requested
by the township will commit the continued use of the property without additional impacts to the environment and the community. In my mind, this project advances five purposes of zoning. In addition to advancing these general purposes, Queso
also requires that we show that the site is particularly well suited for the proposed use in order to further promote general welfare. A few caveats. Demonstrating that a site is particularly suitable for use does not require proof that there is no other
potential location for the use within the community. nor does it demand evidence that a permitted use couldn't work on the property. Rather, it's an inquiry into whether the property is particularly suited for the proposed use in the sense that is especially well suited for the use in spite of the fact
that the use is not permitted in the zone. The site is particularly well suited for the project the existing because the existing building can easily accommodate the change of use without any exterior modifications. The site can easily accommodate the use
without modification. Again, the only site plan changes proposed are as being requested by the town. The site is located within the Stelton business district with easy pedestrian access to building businesses and recreation. The existing parking exceeds what's required
and it is likely that the site has been a residential use for 150 years or so. Um, as Sher had um testified to, the site is not in demand for the permitted uses and the the site is particularly
well suited for the proposed use. I'm going to briefly discuss the negative criteria and in order to share the negative criteria, we have to demonstrate that no substantial detriment to the public good and there's no substantial detriment impairment to
the intent or purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance. In so far as no substantial detriment to the public good, there's no detriment here to the character of the neighborhood. impacts are mitigated by there's no changes to the building exterior. There minimal changes to the
site that are requested by the town. There's sufficient on-site parking and the change from an office to a two-bedroom apartment will reduce traffic, albeit it will be a minimal change. While there are always some possible negative impacts, in my opinion, there
are none that are substantial and I believe that the benefits outweigh any detriments. In so far as substantial impairment to the master plan or the zoning ordinance, I spent a lot of time reading through the master plan re-examination report of
2020 um and land use goals. Um one of the land use goals is to ensure the harmonious inter relationships of various land use activities throughout the entire township and with neighboring municipalities. And here we have an existing building in the neighborhood that's been there um for you know
approximately 150 years. Also in the examination report there was discussion of challenges section three and it talked about the ex adaptive reuse of existing sites and buildings compatible with the surrounding land use. Um, I think this is an adaptive uh reuse of a
site and uh given that it's on the in the BP2 zone in the Stelton business district, uh I think it's would be an additional benefit that the residents would be able to walk and support the businesses um along Stelton Road. Additionally, in the master plan
re-examination report number four, assumptions as vacant developable land diminishes in the township, public and private redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts will continue to increase, particularly in the older
sections of the township and on older developed land parcels and buildings. I think that um everything that I've discussed so far um supports that um base. So, in in my mind's eye, I believe that the use proposed is not
inconsistent with the master plan. That concludes my testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions or have any discussion should anybody care to >> Well, just before we do that, um you did have the opportunity to review the staff report dated September 25th of 2025
with the applicant and in particular the recommendations under site impact items number two through six. And it's my understanding that the applicant will agree to each of those conditions. Is that correct? >> Correct. We we will work through all those conditions with the township
officials. >> Okay. And did you need any did you need any clarification on item number four um installation of the optic line? >> We have um been working in Piscataway
and we have worked with this on several other projects. We actually were doing a plan revision uh for a project on Centennial Avenue today. So, I'm I'm sure that we'd be able to coordinate with um the town. I believe Joe Herrera is who we were coordinating with on that revision to their satisfaction.
>> Okay. And then the county planning board did issue a letter of no interest dated June 24th of 2025. Correct. >> Yes. >> And that is all I have for Mr. Conway. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Conway uh take your screen
down please. Any members of the board of how about Jonathan? Jonathan would you like to chime in here and uh again they they agreed to the all everything on site impact. So I covered a lot of stuff but maybe you have another question.
>> Uh the item number five is there an intention to add signage to this property? >> What would be the intent of the signage, Jonathan? uh directional or >> would would arrows would arrows on the on the the ground be sufficient in and out?
>> That's what that's what I thought. You don't have to. I'm I'm just curious if that was being considered. >> I think it would be less cluttered if we were to paint arrows on the driveways for directions as opposed to add signs. >> That works. Okay, that's all I have. >> Any other members of the board have any
questions or comments? >> Mr. Chairman, I have just one comment. I think the >> the it's a repurpose of a building that's been there for 150 years and we've got multif family next to it and an office building on the other side. It
seems to make um I guess I support the testimony that the planner gave. >> Thank you, John. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? hearing none. I'm going to open it to the public and Mr. Sullivan, I'm going to take it to the public now and then
we'll vote. You have anything else you want to add? You done? >> Uh, yeah, I'm done. Thank you. >> Okay, cool. Let's 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'd make a motion to approve this
application. >> I second. >> I'll make motion. >> Please call the RO. >> Mr. Weisman, >> yes. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes. >> Mr. Regio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Blimp. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hidoka. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Ali. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Ko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sullivan will memorialize this at our next meeting and send a copy to you. >> Okay. Thank you very much everyone. Have a good night. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> Thank you. >> Item number 112-ZV-6970V
ACMY. >> Uh thank you Mr. Cahill. Um, members of the uh, board and board professionals, my name is Tim Arch. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey and I'm here tonight representing uh, Acme LLC. Uh,
>> are the owners of, let me just pull up my outline. Owners of the property at 4100 New Brunswick Avenue. Uh, we're here tonight seeking amended preliminary and final minor site plan and a temporary use permit approval uh, for uh, the property which is located in the M5 industrial zone. Uh we're proposing
to use a portion of the site which is currently uh comprised of compacted gravel and is unused as a temporary tractor trailer storage. Uh the proposal is to add 20 12x 55 uh foot spaces delineated along the western side of the site uh with no other changes to the
current building or site operations. Um as I mentioned the property is located in the M5 zone which allows as an accessory use for the principal use uh on the property to have tractor trailer parking. Uh however, the intent is to lease this uh uh this space uh to a
third-party uh tenant that's not operating out of the site. So that's why uh it requires the uh the temporary use permit or uh ultimately a use variance. Um and I mentioned that to highlight uh what your staff report already confirms, which is that this location is really ideal for this purpose. Very well suited
for for having it as it's in the industrial zone. Uh and in fact, the site has consistently had uh tractor trailers parked on it since uh 1970, according to uh historical aerial photos that we were able to uh to look at. Uh so I did mention this is a temporary
six-month uh use permit. Uh the intention is to come back before the board within that six-month period with a full use variance application and site plan application showing a more uh permanent delineated tractor trailer parking plan. Um but uh there's actually a lot of interest uh immediate interest
uh to utilize the space um for tractor trailer parking. Uh so that's why we're coming in for that uh for the temporary use permit. Now um I do want to acknowledge that we have two staff reports. We have uh Mr. Chadwick's report and we also have uh the uh the famous Piscatoaway triparty uh staff
report. Uh we can agree to and answer all the items in the reports. Um I do want to highlight one comment in particular however uh before we move on and that is on the triparty report uh comment two of five and I'll read it verbatim.
The site is well suited for the temporary use of trailer storage. End quote. Uh so I always like to highlight when I see something like that in a staff report. Um I I do only have uh I have one witness uh planned for tonight and that is Mr. Rob Murray from Menllo Engineering. I also have uh Lester Weiss
here who is uh uh the applicant in case there's any specific questions that only he can answer. But I think that we can address um all of the uh of the reports uh with Rob's testimony. So unless there is uh any um questions of me beforehand, um I'm ready to proceed with uh
>> I think you should proceed with Mr. Murray. Thank you. >> All right. >> Mr. Mr. Murray, are you present? >> Yes. >> I need to swear in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth? >> Yes. >> Your name and address, please?
>> Robert Murray, 261 Cleveland Avenue, Highland Park, New Jersey. >> Put your hand down. >> Uh, Mr. Murray, if you can please briefly go through your uh your qualifications so you can be uh accepted as an expert in engineering. >> Yes. I graduated from Stevens in excuse
Stevens Institute of Technology in 2017. I've been a professional engineer for about four years now and I provided testifi testimony in front of numerous boards including Piscavala. >> Think we can proceed. Mr. Arch. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Murray, the floor is
yours. If you can take us away and uh just demonstrate the site for the for the board and what we're proposing. >> Yes. >> Can everyone see my screen? >> Yes. >> Okay.
Um, this is our amended minor site plan exhibit which is a aerial photograph of the site with the very minor improvements colorized. And just to orient this drawing, north is facing up. The property better known as 4100 New
Brunswick A is known as lot 20.03 of block 1701 in the township of Piscatoaway. The site is located to the northeast of the intersection between New Brunswick Avenue and Tyler Place with two accesses
off of New Brunswick A. Overall, the property is approximately 10.99 acres and is located entirely within the F M5 industrial zone. The site is surrounded to the north by industrial use, to the east a site under
construction for residential, to the south beyond the conra industrial and educational uses, and to the west woodlands in the LI2 zone. As the site exists today, it is currently a 96,080
square foot building with warehouse, manufacturing, and office space uses. The site currently has 95 parking spaces and the applicant is not seeking to change anything with parking. The applicant is proposing 20 trailer
spaces behind the building on the west side. These spaces will be 12 by 55 ft. The applicant anticipates that only a few trips will be um will happen a week for trailer storage, third party trailer
storage. and the applicant agrees to evaluate their striping ever uh monthly to decide whether it's necessary to restripe the improvement. There are no changes to the structure, no changes to the parking. The applicant
simply is just seeking a third party uh excuse me, a use variance for the third party trailer storage and a variance for the gravel parking for the trailer storage. Um, and that briefly sums up
the the improvements to the site. >> Uh, thank you, Rob. Uh, I think we've addressed I just want to highlight the the two comments that you made uh as to the frequency of the uh the tractor trailers. You indicated that we only anticipate that they're going to be um uh moved uh possibly just a couple times
per week. Uh this isn't going to be a daily switching of uh of uh the the trailers. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And I believe you also indicated because one of the comments on the reports was um the frequency of restriping if that's necessary. And I I
know we indicated that it's gravel, but uh I think we had spoken about that this is actually a a really a compressed gravel. And so we actually think that the lines are going to hold up uh very well, but we would agree as a condition to uh monitor that on a monthly basis
and restripe as necessary. Correct. >> Correct. Okay. I think the only other comment uh was from Mr. Chadwick's report that we need testimony on and that was uh uh some commentary on what uh type of materials would be within the trailers. Um and I think if I recall when we discussed uh with with ownership
earlier today that that's all that's ultimately going to depend on that third party tenant. Um however, we would be happy to agree to a condition that there would be no hazardous materials of any kind uh stored uh in those uh in those trailers. And we anticipate that what's going to be on site is either going to
be actually empty trailers for the most part, but if they do have items in them, uh those would be uh the common non-p perishable items that would be uh shipped over the road uh that are not hazardous in nature uh and again aren't anything that are going to cause any sort of a nuisance or a uh a problem. Uh
it would just be the normal type of uh of items that uh that get shipped over the road. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> One comment brief. Uh, can you agree? No tanker trucks. >> No tanker trucks as in like oil tanker
trucks or or >> any kind of a tanker truck. >> Uh, I believe we have Mr. Weiss on. I don't think that's going to be an issue. But if I would just ask to confirm that with uh uh with Mr. Weiss, who I believe is uh who is on as well. >> Mr. Weiss, I'll need to swear you in.
Are you present? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. I need to swear you in. Please 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? >> Lester Weiss, 477 Ocean, New York, Long
Branch, >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Weiss, you heard uh uh what Mr. Chadwick indicated that he would ask that there be a condition that no tanker trucks be uh be utilized. Is that something that you would agree with? >> Yes, I would.
>> There you go. No other questions. >> Uh thank you. Uh I don't believe we have any uh any further testimony unless the board or board professionals require any additional testimony. I would like to give a brief summation at this time. Um
and just to indicate um that quite frankly but for the enduser of the parking spaces not being affiliated with the principal use on site this would be a permitted use in the M5 uh zone. So functionally this is precisely what the zone is intended for. Uh so to that end it certainly fits in ideally with
township master plan. Uh and as your professionals have confirmed and they're soon to be framed and placed on my fridge staff report is particularly suited for this property. Uh so because it is in line with the township's intended plan. There's no detriment to the surrounding properties. The location is again I say ideally suited and by
allowing parking on this industrial site it's lessening the need to store these tractor trailers on other properties possibly within the township possibly on sites that are far less suited for this use. Uh so this is an adapted reuse of an underutilized portion of the site and we believe that it certainly meets the
criteria for a temporary use permit uh and look forward to coming back in a few months with a full site plan and use variance application. >> Good. >> Thank you Mr. Arch. Any me members of the board have any questions or comments about this application? >> Uh Rob, if you can stop sharing your screen, please just so we can
>> Yeah, appreciate that, sir. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Any members of the board have any comments or questions? Hearing none, I'm going to open it to the public. Anyone on the public have any comments or questions about this application? >> No. One, chairman. >> Okay. Close the public portion. I'd make
a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? >> I'll second it. roll. >> Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes. >> Mr. Reia, >> yes. >> Mr. Blunt, >> yes. >> Mr. Haka,
>> yes. >> Mr. Elli, >> yes. >> And chairman Cahill. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Arch will memorialize us at our next meeting and send a copy to you. >> Thank you. Uh, have a good evening everybody. >> You too. >> You too. Let's move on to item number
14, adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting of September 18th, 2025. >> Uh, first resolution is a resolution of denial. A vote yes is to deny the application. This is Delton Black. Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Mr. Patel,
>> yes. >> Mr. Origio, >> yes. >> Mr. Blunt, >> yes. >> Mr. Hayda, >> yes. >> Mr. Ali, >> yes. Next is Ronac Patel, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weissman, >> yes.
>> Mr. Patel, >> yes. >> Mr. Origio, >> yes. >> Mr. Blunt, >> yes. >> Mr. Hduka, >> yes. >> Mr. Ali, >> yes. >> Next is Fared Sed, which you voted to approve. Mr. Weissman,
>> yes. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes. >> Mr. Origio, >> yes. >> Mr. Blunt, >> yes. Mr. Haydooka. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ali, >> yes. >> Next is David Loi. Would you vote to
approve? Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes. >> Mr. Oreio, >> yes. >> Mr. Blunt, >> yes. >> Mr. Huga, >> yes. >> Mr. Ali, >> yes. >> Last resolution is Ankit Sha, which you
voted to approve. Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Mr. Patel, >> Mr. Origio, >> yes, >> Mr. Blunt. >> Yes, >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ali, >> yes. >> Those are all the resolutions I have
this evening. >> Okay. Item number 15 is adoption of minutes from the regular meeting on September 18, 2025. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Right. Next is an enderman. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Hey guys, see you in a couple of weeks.
Thanks again for coming out.