Please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News. Notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building. Notice made available to the township clerk. Notice sent to the Courier News and Star Ledger. Will the
clerk please call the role? >> Mr. Patel. Mr. Reio. Yes, >> Mr. Blount. >> Yes, >> Mr. Metando >> here. >> Mr. Ali >> here. >> And Chairman Weissman
>> here. Mr. Connealy, are there any changes to tonight's agenda? >> There are. Do you want to do the salute to the flag first, Mr. Chairman? >> Yes, we should. How do I skip it? There we go. Will everyone please stand for the salute to the flag?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. For all. >> Thank you.
>> Now, are there any changes to tonight's agenda? >> Yes, we have several changes. The application of Alvin Rue on Lake View Avenue is going to be adjourned until February 12th with no further notice. The Kadis application Joanna Court will
be adjourned until February 12th with no further notice. MSN Pharmaceuticals on Duke Road will be adjourned until February 26th with no further notice. And NDK Realy on South Washington Avenue will be adjourned until February 26th
with no further notice. Those are all the changes I have this evening. >> Uh Mr. Connealy number 10 Sony got postponed again till 22626. No further notice. >> Thank you. I missed that one. >> Thank you. There's many. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, moving forward then we going to jump to item number seven 25- DB-880B. Uh France Canton is France Canton present. >> Yes. Good evening everyone. This is France.
>> I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? >> Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth? Yes. >> Thank you. Uh explain to the board why you're here, please. >> Okay. Good evening, everyone. Uh I'm here submitting a a variance uh
application to request to have my current fence uh stay on top of the easement. Um prior to owning the prior to buying the house, uh the fence was was there >> as is and um and with no inspection at
the time. I was told there was no inspection done in the area. But recently my next door neighbor uh put up a fence and inspector realized the easement where the fence for my neighbor is sitting on the easement. So So myself
and my other neighbors we are part of that issue. So uh in order for me to uh keep the fence, I need to I I was told to submit a variance application to go to assure that you know I want to keep
the fence as is and and I was told if the township needs to uh do any sort of um repair and it's my responsibility and I agree to to do so if the if the fence needs to be removed >> and you would also agree to sign a a memorandum of restriction that says that
Uh, it would be your responsibility to remove and replace the fence if necessary. >> Yes, >> Mr. Chairman. That's that's all I have for the witness. >> Thank you. Jonathan, you have any addition? >> I have nothing to Excuse me. I have nothing to add. Thank you.
>> Okay. Take care of your call. Doesn't sound good. All right. Um, >> anyone on the uh board have any questions or concerns, comments about this request? Hearing none, I'd like to open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, concerns, or comments they'd
like to make about this request? Anyone in the public? If you're on an iPad, you could hit raise your hand or if you're on a phone, star six. No one chairman. >> Thank you. I'll close the public portion. And I'd like to make a motion
to approve this request. Can I get a second? >> I'll second. Thank you. Uh, will the secretary please take the role? >> Mr. Reio, >> yes. >> Mr. Blamp, >> yes. >> Mr. Morando, >> yes.
>> Mr. Ali, >> yes. >> And Chairman Wisman? >> Yes. >> Your application's been approved. We'll memorialize this in a written document at our next meeting and we'll send that document to you. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. Thank you all. >> Thank you, France. Have a good night.
>> Okay. Good night, all. Moving on. Item number nine, 25- Z VB-90B Sigma Constructing. Good. Good evening.
I'm James Mitchell on behalf of the applicant. >> Good evening. uh with Hamro Mitchell Dayton, New Jersey and uh I'm representing the applicant Sigma Construction. Uh if you don't mind, I have a brief introduction. >> Go ahead.
>> Okay. Uh the applicant is a builder that will be constructing a new home for the family that owns the existing home on the subject property. The applicant plans to redevelop the existing 9,375 square foot lot at 49 Charles Terrace in
the R9 10 zone. Tonight, we're seeking approval of bulk variances for a variety of existing conditions, including lot area, which is again 93 9,375 where 10,000 is required. Lot width 75 ft or 100 is required. rear yard for the
accessory structure which is a shed of seven and a half feet where eight feet is required and lot frontage of 75 feet where 100 feet is required. We're also seeking approval of building coverage at 22.5% where 20% is permitted and any other necessary relief to permit the
construction of the proposed single family home. I note that your professional reviews and the plans as submitted will also require front yard setback sideyard relief as to the air conditioner unit proposed and relief from the installation of fiber optic conduit. Since we received the
professionals review letter, the applicants examined the plans in light of those comments and if the board feels the application would be improved by the changes would be willing to modify the plans to remove the front yard setback, the non-conformity as to the air conditioner and to provide the installation of the fiber optic conduit
uh to remove the need for that relief. So tonight, uh, we plan to present the applicant's architect and our professional planner. Uh, Billy, our architect, will explain the details of our proposal and Mr. Cidell, uh, Brian,
our planner, will address the planning impacts. Does the board customarily uh, swear everybody at once or each as they testify? >> Yeah, we'll take them one at a time. >> Okay. And, uh, Billy, uh, Mr. Cohen, are you available?
Who's your first witness? >> Our architect, uh, William Cohen. >> Is William Cohen present? >> He's on. Hold on one second. >> Well, he did he didn't use the link. He came on as an as an attendee. So, hold on a second.
>> Oh, thank you. >> All right. He should be coming on now. Okay. >> I think he might be William's iPhone. >> Yeah, that's what I'm assuming. If they don't use the specific link they come in, I don't know. It's them. Might have to let them. I'm sorry. >> Gosh, you know, I appreciate it. Thank
you. >> Is William Cohen present? >> I am. I am. I am here. >> Okay. I mean to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? >> Sure. >> You swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? >> I do. >> Your name and address, please? >> Sure. It's William J. Cohen, AIA. My
address is 5512 Merrick Road, Massapqua, New York 11758. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And uh Mr. Conn, have you uh previously testified in boards of this type? >> I have for about 34 years now.
>> Okay. And have you been accepted as an expert in architecture at that time? >> Yes, sir. >> And can you review your credentials and experience briefly for the board? >> Sure. I am a registered architect in the state of New Jersey as well as seven
others and carb certified. I have been in business for since 2002. Been in the profession since 2000 I'm sorry. I've been in the profession since 1994. I have a >> You're fine. You're fine. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. That makes call. >> I believe the the board accepts you.
>> Makes my makes my mother proud. >> Okay. >> Very good. Well, I appreciate you folks allowing us to present tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh would you like would you be able to give us a summary of the proposed uh project here and would you like me to share any exhibits for you?
>> Sure. If you don't mind just sharing the uh even the front rendering just to give the folks an idea of what we're trying to accomplish here. >> Okay. Do that. >> Were these submitted as part of the application pro package? >> Unfortunat the rendering was not. The drawings which are the other exhibit we
have for him was. >> Okay. So the the first one you put up we're gonna have to mark. >> Yes. And we can provide an electronic copy of it for the record as well. >> Thank you. >> Very good. >> Try it this way. >> Second.
>> Nope. That's not it. >> We're going to front elevation. There we are. >> There you go. >> Okay. So, this will be A1 with today's date. Okay. All right, go ahead.
>> Very good. As our uh attorney James has previously explained, we are representing the homeowners for 49 Charles Terrace in Piscato, New Jersey. It's an existing one-story ranch that was built in the 1950s. It's a block 8509, lot number six. Uh we're proposing
to knock down the existing structure, which is dated and outlived its usefulness. Uh we're proposing a new twostory home. It's going to have a square footage gross of 3396 square feet with a basement. It's a center hall colonial. It has 465 square ft that
isated as a two-car garage for off- streetet parking. Um and is classified as a four bed, three bath home. Um it's the R10 district. Uh the R10 district as you folks know is requires a 100 by 100 lot with a square footage of 10,000
square feet. This lot is an existing non-conforming lot as it's 125x75 which gives us 9,375 square ft um which presents some initial challenges for us. The height
requirement is 35 ft. We're proposing 31T one and a half to the ridge. The front setback is required at 35 ft. We're proposing for the moment 32.9 per our drawings. Side requirements at 10
foot each on each side. We're at 10.1 ft and 10.3 proposed. So compliant there. Rear requirements 25 ft proposing 52.2 in the rear. Um building coverage in this zone based upon a lot that is
10,000 square feet um which this is not. were required 20%. We're currently at 22.5% is what was proposed. Um, that all being said, first of all, I will say that our client and in review
with them, we have no issue as far as the front setback. If we do want to slide the the house back 2.1 ft, uh, we certainly have no issue with that to comply with the front setback requirement. And Billy just not to inter I'm sorry to throw the reason that they
the client selected this setback is that the same setback as the existing house the >> that is a very good point. Yes, we put the front we put actually put the house back in the exact same location. So that was the reason why we came up with the um that proposed set back on the front. >> But we'd be happy to slide it back into
compliance since we're doing a tear down. Correct. >> Absolutely. That that is has no um detrimental value to either the client or to the community. Absolutely. Okay. Sorry. >> As far as the No, absolutely. Thank you. Um, that all being so I did mention that the
site requires a 20% building coverage and we're at 22.5. Um, we got some initial comments back pointing that out to us. And I will say that there is an existing shed in the back of the property. Uh, that shed
occupies 73% of the property. Uh, which brings us down to 21.77. And in discussions with our client, we absolutely can remove that shed. So that uh level of increase can certainly be deducted by that 73%. So we wanted to
bring that to the board's attention as well. Um there were some additional comments. First of all, as far as requesting fiber optic conduits on the front of the property for future, we certainly have no issue with that whatsoever and accept that as a condition. Uh um it was also a notation
that our air conditioning unit has to be 10 ft from the property line and properly screened with um shrubbery or fencing. Uh as of right now, we're proposing it to be a a half a foot less than that. We certainly can comply with that and move it over another half a
foot and make sure that it is properly screened. So another item that we have no issue to comply with. Um, as we mentioned already, dwelling height was an issue that was brought up, but certainly we're almost 4T lower than the requirement. Um, aside from that,
as I mentioned, we, you know, we have certain challenges with the existing lot because it it is non-conforming. Um, there are other homes in the community, specifically across the street, there are two other homes that have similar bulk massing, I should say, without
getting into specifics that show that um the homes in this community um that uh they're in context with the other houses in the community, the other homes have expanded as well. And we feel that the or I should say as the architect of record that the design that we came up
would certainly be beneficial to the neighborhood in terms of the aesthetic. Um other than that um I feel that the fact that we were able to address uh probably 90% of the board's issues um based on
this testimony. We feel that the only open issue then just being the uh percentage of the lot that's occupied which I believe is negligible and we're hoping that the board upon hearing further testimony from our team will be amendable to allowing that to uh stay in
place. Uh we have worked very very carefully with our homeowner to design this house over the last six months and we're hoping that it will stay intact based upon your decision. >> Okay. And would you like me just to put up the your plans to show the site? Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> This is from the first sheet of the submitted plans, I believe. >> Yes. So, the site plan is on our drawing uh A1, I believe. Uh it is showing as our attorney expressed and reminded me that yes, the house was placed in context with the existing location of
the house that is to be removed. Um, and again, we have no issue pushing it back to 2.1 feet in order to comply with the zoning code, which will have no bearing on the overall project since the rear uh
backyard setback um is at 52.2. To lose two feet would have no bearing on anybody. So, we're totally fine with that. And again, the side setbacks are totally in conformance with the 10-ft rule. >> Okay. and just that the uh shed is shown
on this that we'd be willing to >> the shed is shown yes the shed is on the drawings we actually between you and I we did not pay much attention to the shed but now that we understand that there is a lot coverage issue of course we have no problem removing removing the shed as part of the demolition project
>> okay I don't think I have other questions for you at this time uh so >> I don't know if the board wishes to ask questions at this or if you want us to complete with our second witness first.
>> Well, >> Jonathan, do you have any direct questions here? >> I just have um Excuse me. I I have some comments. No questions. So, why why don't we wait till after? >> Okay, Mr. Mitchell, you could swear in your second.
>> And Brian Sidel, you present? >> I am. Yes. >> 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? >> Sure. Brian Cidell. Address is 213
East High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Brian. You want to review your credentials and experience for the board? >> Uh, very briefly, New Jersey professional planner. Uh, it's been a few years, but I have been sworn and qualified in Piscataway previously.
>> That's fine then. Thank you. Thank you. >> Good to go. >> Thanks. Brian, can you review the application for us from a planning point of view? >> Sure. I think the architect good did a good job of of describing the property. Um, a couple things that um just like to
add to that. Uh the existing home is a one-story ranch home, which he did mention. Uh there's no garage associated with that. So, with the proposed application, there will be the addition of the twocar garage in the into the residential dwelling.
Um, and uh, describing the conditions of the property, other than the home itself, the backyard uh, contains a lot of imperous area. Uh, there's a above ground swimming pool, a patio, and a large area around the pool that's uh,
debatably uh, impervious. It's basically a large gravel area that covers a majority of that backyard. The applicant has requested a number of variances that have been identified. I think you can lump a majority of these
variances into the existing conditions. Uh the lot area, the lot width, the front yard setback, the lot frontage, and the rear yard setback for accessory structures are all based on existing conditions. Uh now it's been represented
here. the applicant is willing to withdraw some of those variances here. Uh the discussion of removing the shed would eliminate the rear yard setback for the accessory structure. Uh there's an agreement to shift the building back so we're not using the existing
nonconforming front yard setback. We would comply with the current requirements. Uh the new variances that are being requested with the proposal were uh the maximum building coverage, the setback
for the exterior air conditioning unit and the installation of fiber optic conduit. You again you heard through the application here uh the agreement to relocate the air conditioning unit and install the fiber optic conduit. So the
only remaining variances is really related to the existing conditions and the proposed building cover. Uh when we look at the building cover and those requirements, I think the deviation of the bulk regulations related to the existing conditions are warranted under
the C1 hardship criteria. Uh the deviation of the building cover would be warranted under the C2 flexible criteria as the benefits would outweigh any detriments. Um, and to get to that analysis, when I when I looked at the lot area and the regulations on a
permitted lot area of 10,000 square feet and a 20% permitted building cover, that would be a building coverage of 2,000 square feet. uh what was proposed with the application and now the concession
to remove the shed from the property. Uh we are basically 42 square feet over the building coverage requirements that would be permitted with a uh permitted 10,000 square foot lot size.
So, and I think the important thing to note is also is the impact on the impervious cover. Uh, with this renovation, the patio is going to be removed, the above ground pool is going to be removed and the large stone area
is going to be removed. Comparing the existing conditions, the proposed imperous cover with this application is uh 40%. It will be slightly less since we're removing the pool. But when we look at the existing conditions, uh the
existing conditions are at least 46% and if you include in the large gravel area, the impervious coverage is closer to 65%. So overall, this is going to be a substantial improvement while we're slightly increasing the building area. We're dramatically reducing the
impervious cover in the project overall, the property overall. Uh for the positive criteria, the proposed dwelling is uh with I'm sorry, with a 35- foot height is specifically permitted in the underlying zoning
district. The redevelopment lot will add a twocar garage to the property and reduce the overall impervious coverage. Variance will advance the purpose of zoning, particularly purposes a to guide the appropriate use of the land. uh prevent urban swap uh J preventing urban
sprawl with the redevelopment of an existing lot and M by lessening the cost of development encouraging the efficient use of land. Uh from my perspective, no real detriment or impact to the zone plan, the zoning ordinance. Uh
represents a minor deviation of the standard and the building coverage. Uh the application does comply with all the building setbacks from the side property lines from the front property line through this concession and it dramatically exceeds the rear yard
setback. Uh 25 ft setback is required. Uh the proposed setback is going to be approximately 50 ft now that we're sliding the building back a little bit further. So we do comply with all of the yard setback regulations.
So in my opinion, I believe the application really represents a dimminimous variance in terms of that building coverage. Uh I believe that the variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good will not impair the zoning plan zoning
ordinance and and the approval of the variances warranted for the application. >> Thank you, Brian. Um, I don't have any questions for you at this time, but obviously be open to board comments or questions or public.
>> Thank you. That's the end of the witnesses. Correct. >> Correct. >> We do have other people available if there were to be questions from the board that, you know, we need to pull someone else in for, but that's our affirmative case. >> Excellent. All right, Jonathan. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Apologies for being so horse. Um, with respect to the I I'll start with the architectural. Um, I I do appreciate uh the applicant being immunable to some of these variances, taking them away, and I I I
hear you with 90% are being addressed, but I think the the 10% that remain are are going to be some real sticking points. Um, I I measured 31 feet on that section on sheet A8. So 31 feet one and a half inches I think is out of line
with the character of the neighborhood. And uh to to touch on the the planning testimony in that vein, I think it does meet the negative criteria. Uh just because this is a self-created hardship, you know. So I I I don't
necessarily agree with that. Uh I don't agree with that argument. Uh it's it's a little it's a little oversized for the neighborhood. And I understand that there might be others in the viewshed with a similar bulk massing, but each application needs to be on its own merit
here. And um 21.77% is just too too high of a square footage for lot coverage. >> And if I may, just a question to make sure I'm understanding the the comment. Your first comment, you're talking about the height of the structure, which is
conforming, correct? >> It's conforming to the zone. It's out of character with the neighborhood. >> Okay. But it's not a legal relief. You're you're talking about the overall impact of the project, >> but the is is legally permitted. Okay.
So, the the relief that you're talking about then that we're that you're questioning is the lot coverage uh relief. Correct. Building coverage. I'm sorry. Building cover >> the from the list of the variances that were supplied. Yes. That's the that's
the one that I'm Yes. I just just if we have to go back and talk to our client, I need to be able to, you know, clearly explain to them what the, you know, if we continue tonight in order to address that. That's the only reason. >> I I I do think I do think though if you were able to work with your client to
reduce the coverage uh down to 20% close or to 20% uh and still at that 31T height, I think it still might not be the right the right fit for the neighborhood. And yeah. Okay. That's that's useful
input. Thank you. >> Now, Mr. Mitchell, do you want us to proceed? We have a a very tight number of members here tonight. >> Right. Yeah. Although >> Go ahead.
>> As I understand it, and I'll take your attorney's input as well. Uh we only have both variance relief. So we would only require a majority, not a super majority for this relief. >> That is correct. And we we have five members, not seven tonight. >> Right. So we would need three.
>> Yes. >> Okay. I think if I would be happy to hear discussion, etc. If you don't mind, you know, if there's continuing issues with the the building coverage, uh you know, just to explain what our concern with the building coverage is, this is not being it's not a spec house. is
being built for people who've been involved in the design process and addressing the building coverage basically means changing the architectural design that they've kind of bought into over time. And so it's not something we can do on the fly uh over a day or so. We'd have to talk to
them about reconceptualizing things. And uh so if it is a genuine concern, we'd probably then from a you know significant number of members, we would want to take some time and to the next meeting and and look at what we can do in terms of uh redesigning the layout. I
mean think we'd have to change the interior architecture of the of the property in order to come into conformance. And Mr. Chairman, we also should open it to the public in case any members of the public that are here tonight want to give an opinion. >> Okay. Sure. Any first, anyone on the
board have any questions, concerns, or comments on this request? Hearing none, I'd like to open this to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, concerns, or comments at this time? >> At this time, you can unmute yourself and you can raise your hand and I could
call you in order. >> Okay, there we go. Andrew. >> Yes. Hello. My name is Andrew Zupardi. I'm a graduate planning student. Okay, hold on. I hold on. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're
about to give should be the truth? >> Yes. >> And your address, please. >> I'm at Livingston Apartments A. >> Thank you. Go ahead. Uh, I think that overall the board should be
willing to approve the proposed design with the variances. I think that the architect did a good job at coming close to the requirements and they're doing making their best effort to be reasonable here.
>> Thank you. Yeah. Do you have any other comments? >> Not at this time. No. >> Thank you. Uh Laura, do we have any other members of the public who wish to be heard? >> Yes, we have John. >> Uh yeah. I John Watkins. Uh you live 51
Charles Harris. I'm the neighbor. >> Okay. 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. And >> I'm sorry. Could you give me your address again, please? Uh >> 51 Charles Terrace. >> Thank you.
Go ahead sir. >> Okay. The issue I have is currently on the what will be the garage side on all the houses there is a 20 foot uh distance from the house to the property
line. In this case they're taking that from the 20 foot roughly down to 10 foot. So, they're approaching closer to the property line than all the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. Secondly, there's a twocar garage. There are no
twocar garages in the neighborhood. They're all single car garages on the houses that have them. Uh thirdly, um that you know as far as the coverage of
the house to the permeable land, while they may be removing the patio, they're covering it uh with the house. So So therefore, you know, you're losing that there. And the house compared to most of the houses in the neighborhood, um it's just
a big um mansion. They're, you know, because they're going out back additional 10 12 feet. Uh so it's just out of place. Plus, none of the houses in the neighborhood have basements, so they're essentially building a whole
brand new house in the neighborhood of older homes. the houses that went up basically just went added a second floor and they kept part of the walls there so it wasn't a new house. So they're greatly extending the
footprint of the house. Thank you. Mr. Watkins, do you have any other other comments or is that it? >> That's it. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Laura. Anyone else? Anyone else? You can hit unmute yourselves and raise your hand. There's several others on, but
they're all muted. >> Does anybody else wish to be heard on this application? >> There we go. Sam, unmute. You have to unmute yourself, Sam. And the hand is down.
If anyone in the public wishes to be heard on this application for questions or comments, now is the time. Please put up your hand or indicate that you wish to speak. >> Okay, she's back or he's back. Sam Pangborn.
>> Sam Pangborn, can you hear me? Your hand is raised. You have to It says they're unmuted. I don't know. Sam Pangborn, can you hear me? >> Oh, yeah. I know. I know they want to talk cuz they were emailing me today,
but it's on their end. I don't know if they don't have >> Sam Pangborn. Oh, it says connecting to audio now. >> Okay, >> Sam, >> you could do that. Sam Pangorn, are you connected?
I mean, Mr. Connealy, they do have to come back at the next meeting also. So, maybe this person could speak to the public at the next meeting if they can. >> M Mr. Mitchell, um that this person who's trying to connect now contacted the zoning office today and indicated
that they wish to be heard and we told them they had to come to the meeting tonight, >> right? um they are attempting to participate but they're not successful. In light of the issues with the building coverage and possibly discussing this with your client, I would recommend that we
continue this matter to another date so that you can take a look at it with your client, perhaps come back with a revised plan and give the public an opportunity to come back and speak. >> That's agreeable to the applicant. >> Uh Laura, what kind of date do we have? >> Uh we could do February 12th. You'd have
enough time, Mr. Mitchell? Yeah, I would think I think as long you know it's really going to be on our architect uh if we're revising the plans, but timewise from my side, yeah, we're fine. >> Okay. >> So, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, we'll announce a new date tonight. And
if the applicant uh or his professionals has difficulty complying with that, just let us know and we'll announce at that meeting February 12th, it's going to be carried with no further notice. So, anybody here on the Sigma construction case for this evening on Charles
Terrace, it is going to be carried to February 12th, 2026 with no further notice by the applicant. The only notice you're receiving is my announcement here tonight. So, the matter will be carried. There will be no more testimony tonight. It will be heard February 12th.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah, that works. Um, a suggestion, Mr. Mitchell. >> Yes. That you can you work with uh Jonathan Mazerie. Mhm. >> You know, so that we you guys are on the same page when we come to the meeting and we >> Yeah, we'd be happy to reach out to him
as well. >> Thank you. >> We'll do. Thank you so much. >> Have a good night. >> You too. Take care. >> Okay, moving forward. Next item. Item 11 25 ZB- O2B. Ed Nent.
>> Is Ed Nent present? >> I'm here. >> I need to swear you in, sir. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Your name and address, please. >> Uh Edward Nent, 317 Overbrook Road, Piscatoaway, New Jersey.
>> Thank you, Mr. Nent. Could you explain to the board why you're here? >> Yes. Uh uh good evening everyone. Uh my name is Ed Nent. I'm appearing on behalf of the property owner for the application of variances at 900 Washington Avenue. This is an application for bulk variances to retain
retain existing conditions. No new construction changes or expansion are proposed. The relief relates to an existing lot area deficiency, an existing rear yard setback, existing pillars encroaching into the municipal
right of way, and a portion of an existing fence that exceeds the solid material requirement. These conditions have existed for many years, and the purpose of this application is to bring the property into zoning compliance. >> And Mr. Nan, what is your uh connection
with the applicant? >> Uh just a a friend. >> Okay. And you're authorized by the homeowner to act on their behalf this evening? >> Yes. Yes. >> Mr. Nan, have you had a chance to see the staff report dated January 8th,
2026? >> Yes. >> Uh can you comply with those? Can the homeowner comply with those items? >> Uh I I'm sorry. This this is my first time in front of Are you talking about the variances required?
>> Um, no. The staff reviewed this application and issued a memo dated January 8th, 2026. U Mr. Ms. Rahi, perhaps you can weigh in on the the points raised in that memo. >> Certainly. Um, what we're what we're
saying in the staff report is the pillars in the rightway need to be removed. Okay, >> for for starters, um we also recognize that the the shed location
uh is now compliant and as well as if this application is approved, you need to get all applicable permits for the addition and for the fence. >> Understood. And that portion of uh that portion of fence needs to be
uh reduced to 50% open. >> Okay. >> In the where where it's in the front yard set back off of summers a Okay. So that's that's that's the staff's recommendations. >> Okay.
>> Is all that acceptable? >> That's acceptable. Yes. That's all I have. >> Thank you, Jonathan. Uh, anyone on the board have any questions, comments, or concerns about this request? Hearing none, I'd like to open this to
the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, concerns, or comments on this request? Hearing none, I'd like to close the public portion. And I would make a recommendation to to grant this request with the uh with Ed Nent's um agreement
on all the all the uh conditions laid out in the staff report. Can I get a second? >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Uh will the secretary please call the role?
>> Mr. Reia, >> yes. >> Mr. Blamp, >> yes. Mr. Minorando. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ali, >> yes. >> And Chairman Weissman, >> yes. >> The application's been approved with the condition that you comply with that report that we just discussed. We'll
memorialize it in a written document in our next meeting and send it to the homeowner. >> Thank you very much, everyone. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> You too. >> Thanks. Moving on to item number 14. adoption resolution from the regular
meeting on January 15th, 2026. >> First resolution is Tesia Daily Butler, which you voted to approve. Um, just give me a minute. Uh, Mr. Oreio, >> yes. >> Mr. Blunt,
>> yes. >> Mr. Mirando, >> yes. >> Mr. Ali, >> yes. >> Chairman Weissman, >> yes. >> Second, Scott Olrich, which you voted to approve. Mr. Mr. Orio, >> yes. >> Mr. Blunt, >> yes. >> Mr. Mirando, >> yes. >> Mr. Ali, >> yes.
>> Chairman Weissman, >> yes. >> Next is Shireen Wheeler Grant, which you voted to approve. Mr. Origio, >> yes. >> Mr. Blunt, >> yes. >> Mr. Mirando, >> yes. >> Mr. Ali, >> yes. >> Chairman Weissman, >> yes. >> Finally, Bali Krishna Padata, which you
voted to approve. Mr. Oreio, >> yes. >> Mr. Blunt, >> yes. >> Mr. Mirando, >> yes. >> Mr. Yes. Chairman Weissman. >> Item 15, adoption of minutes from the regular meeting January 15th, 2026. All
those in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> hearing none. It passes. Ajournment. All the I think I make a motion for adjournment. Any nays? >> It passes. Thank you.
Schedule meeting is February 12th, 2026 at 7 p.m. >> Everyone have a good night. >> You too. >> You have a good night. >> Have a good night everyone. >> Thanks for coming everyone. Peace out.