WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=gq0E8wWrNyY

Part: 1

1
00:00:07.307 --> 00:00:37.837
Adjustment t meeting will please come
 to order. Adequate
notice of this meeting was provided. Notice published in the Courier News. Notice posted on the bulletin board
Municipal building. Notice to the clerk. Notice sent to the Courier News
and the Star-Ledger. Will the Clerk, Please call the roll. Mr. Weisman. He's not here yet. Mr. Tillery, He's here. Oh, Mr. Weisman is here. You made it. All right, Mr. Weisman Mr. Tillery. Mr. Patel, you're Mr. O'Reggio.

2
00:00:38.004 --> 00:01:11.237
You're Mr. Blount here. Mr. Mitterando. I know. Bill's Here. He is. Yeah, I'm know he's here. Mr. Ali here. And Chairman Cahill here. Will everyone please
stand for the salute to the flag and pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands? One nation under God and God
with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Kinneally,
are there any changes to tonight's agenda?

3
00:01:11.371 --> 00:01:43.436
Yes, we have one change to the agenda. NDK Realty on South Washington
Avenue will not be heard tonight. It will be carried August 13th
with no further notice by the applicant. Got it. Thank you so much. Let's proceed to item number 6 26 dash ZB Dash 28 V That's Yelloji-Rao Mirajkar Sorry about that. I butchered your name this is a Yelloji-Rao Mirajkar

4
00:01:43.436 --> 00:02:14.767
Thank you. I need to swear you in, sir. Could you raise your right hand? Yes. Do you swear the testimony
you're about to give should be the truth. True? Yes. Okay. Could you explain to the board
why you're here? Okay, so we're interested in placing the storage shed in our backyard, and there is already existing base, and this is out of zoning expectation. And therefore, I'm requesting

5
00:02:14.834 --> 00:02:49.002
allowing the zoning to have the shed built
and the existing block form, which is about 13
plus feet, 164 inches square, and it is about a half
a foot away from that fence. But in the back as well, under the 
right hand side when you stand in front of the house
and that is the reason why I am here. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mizrahi,
could you jump in here and see? We can do. Yes. So this single family residential home is

6
00:02:49.068 --> 00:03:21.734
has an existing nonconformity
for lot with and lot frontage. The question I had for you Mr. Mirajkar is the shed that you're proposing is it required to be on a concrete base
or is it you for it to be on some other sort
of foundation or are you. Yes. So sorry. Any respond to that question? Yes, please. So the base is already there pretty well.

7
00:03:21.834 --> 00:03:53.032
And it is a concrete base. And as you know,
anything modifications to the concrete means it has to be completely removed
and repaired with something like the audio symbol can be. Thank you, Laura You are. I will take to repeat. Looks like
I did not come through with my wife. Thank you, Mr. Mirajkar Yes. What I was going to tell is the existing is a concrete base, and especially in a city
like Piscataway with you

8
00:03:53.032 --> 00:04:28.268
in just a couple of days ago, there was,
a wind storm And we don't want to take any chance
in the future for safety of anybody, including not only our family,
but also any of their family. So I fear for the main point of view that why not use the existing base so that you can anchor the storage
 shed as a thing as it is required? And that is the reason why we would like
to use the existing platform. Okay. I understand. I'm not sure if the existing concrete
patio being there is enough of a

9
00:04:28.334 --> 00:05:00.400
could be considered a hardship for why the shed needs to be located
so close to the property line. So that's that. That's where I'm at, Mr. Chairman. Okay, sir. When the concrete platform
was originally put down, it's it's in an it's an illegal spot. It's non-conforming. It has to be Jonathan married
since it was the property one the it's a flush concrete pad
so technically there's no zoning requirement for the concrete pad.

10
00:05:00.400 --> 00:05:31.130
But once you put the structure on it, that's
when the setbacks apply in the situation. Right? So he can marry. He could keep the concrete pad where it is
and expand it. Or if the shed needs to be on a concrete
foundation, a new one could be poured. That's yeah. Okay, Mr. Mirajkar. But you understand we're saying you could pour a concrete slab
and have it conforming. Yeah, I understand that one.

11
00:05:31.130 --> 00:06:03.396
I wish I knew this particular aspect
of the concrete slab as well as the zoning related exemption,
that which is required. Now, I have my neighbor's house where I see that the shed, it is so close to the fence. So that is the rezoning. Probably we were not appropriately guided
when the concrete slab was placed. So because a lot of thing has gone through in the court

12
00:06:03.463 --> 00:06:35.094
as an exceptional case
 if you can approve, that will be a wonderful thing. And I am of the opinion
that when we are trying to place the shed and we want to put it in a way that it does not impact
any future damages, and at the same time
as he explained that he may understanding if you want to extend a concrete slab
dissipating again, I don't know how it is going to be
long term because the two concrete slabs

13
00:06:35.094 --> 00:07:06.125
coming together,
I don't know how it is going to be and it may be a little chance
from my thinking. And therefore I suggest a request that we could be alone and exemption could be granted
so that we can place the shed anyway keeps fashion. It's difficult to do that
because we set precedent at that point. If someone comes back and says, Well,
we lost Mr. Mirajkar, replace his shed

14
00:07:06.125 --> 00:07:37.690
or put a new shed on the old slab, we don't have a foot to stand on in terms of setting a precedent,
I feel for your situation. I understand it'd be more convenient
to have the slab utilized, but you're coming for us
to put a new shed up and it's got to be in a conforming location. Is that accurate? Johnson Would you say? Yes. Okay. So distinctive. Julius, do ask a question of

15
00:07:37.757 --> 00:08:10.056
that. Yeah. So many houses are 161 and my neighbor sees 159 and there and the shed, as he explained, it is not in the conformed zone. So I have to understand, Mr. Mirajkar that your neighbors
isn’t before us tonight asking for relief from your neighbor to have has an existing shed. And while it's located in
a non-conforming spot, if it's existing,

16
00:08:10.122 --> 00:08:41.020
we're going to let it stay there. We're not going to make them
tear it down and bring it over. But if their shed ever was to suffer
any damage and they came before us to put a new shed up, we'd make them do
the same thing that I'm asking you to do. And that's put the concrete slab
in a conforming location. I understand. It's inconvenient. I can appreciate that. But you don't show a hardship to have
the shed built there because you have. You have a preexisting slab of concrete. That's not a hardship marble.

17
00:08:41.020 --> 00:09:14.854
I see. So you want to think it over? We can carry this to another
meeting if you'd like. You can meet
with Jonathan or call them on the phone and we could find a different location
for the shed. And it's a big shed to most sheds of ten
by ten that we we see on this board. So a 13
by 13 is a little bit bigger than normal. And I'm sorry that indicated I'm sorry go this shed what we are talking about 12 by and it's not 13 by 13
I'm sorry I got the wrong paperwork.

18
00:09:14.854 --> 00:09:47.753
So 13 by 13 on my paperwork
you got a 13 by 11. My bad, No, no it is 10 by 12 sir, believe that the slab of area, maybe 13 plus feet, but the actual shed that we are planning
is 12 feet by 10 ft. Okay, Again, I have no problem with the size
of the shed all it is bigger than normal. But that's not the point. The point is where you want to put
the shed. It'd be it's more convenient for you
because you have a slab already there.

19
00:09:47.820 --> 00:10:20.119
It's less convenient for the township
because it's in. You're replacing an object. And what was put
up illegally the first time. So maybe let me have this question
right now. If if we reduce the size instead of 12 feet by ten feet, if we place ten feet by ten feet, would that be okay? It looks good. It's in the same location, right?

20
00:10:20.119 --> 00:10:50.983
I only want to put a small
shed up in the same location. I the only thing is,
instead of putting the center of the slab, you will come closer to the farther. I guess giving as much space
as becomes available. If a simple calculation is 13 plus minus ten, these are about five
plus feet will be on one side. Another. Is 13 plus minus 10 Jon,  Jonathon if it was a ten foot by ten, a ten by 12.

21
00:10:51.050 --> 00:11:21.947
And he puts it on that slab. How far, how many feet would it be
off the property line? Do you know what our threshold is? 100 square feet for one,
it jumps up to another category. So if he did the ten by ten,
he would be able to have it be closer to the property line
without a variance. Sorry, ten by 12 is eight feet setback and then 100 square feet
or less as the three feet, got you. So you'd go with the smaller shed in order
to keep it on that slabs? Mr..

22
00:11:22.048 --> 00:11:53.679
Mirajkar Yes, that is that is a lot. That would be wonderful. Okay. Any other members of the board
have any questions or comments hearing none? I'm going to open it to the public.
Anyone in the public or should have any comments
or questions for this application. You can either speak by raising your hand
or if you're on the phone star. Six No. One Chairman. Okay. I would make a motion to approve this application
with the smaller shed on the slab. Can I get a second. I’ll second

23
00:11:53.746 --> 00:12:24.810
call roll, Thank you very much. Appreciate your. Well, we have to vote. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Weisman. Yes, Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio is. Mr. BLOUNT Yes, sir. Mr. Mitterando he’s there okay? Mr. ALI Yes. And Chairman Cahill. Yes. Your application, as amended,
has been approved.

24
00:12:24.810 --> 00:12:58.244
We will memorialize this
in a written document at our next meeting. You don't need to be present for that. We'll mail that document to you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Good luck. Thank you. Item number 7 26, dash ZB Dash 23V, the New Cingular Wireless. Good evening. For the record,
my name is Christopher Quinn. Quinn attorney with the firm Pinellas
Halpert here. There you have the New Cingular Wireless P which everyone knows is AT&T. This property, it's 300 South Randolph
Hill Road, BLOCK

25
00:12:58.410 --> 00:13:28.774
4503 Lot 1.05 AT&T has an existing set of antennas at the top
of the monopole in this property. This is another one of those
interpretation applications we're doing for a modification. I was here on about four
or five of them in the past year or two. That I think
is the last one of AT&T modifications here for this particular type of work
they're doing. They are effectively upgrading
all their sites around the entire country to help them
kind of be able to switch it up. They can keep moving forward

26
00:13:28.841 --> 00:14:03.809
for this one. What's happening
is there's nine antennas there. They're replacing and repositioning some
of the antennas that are on this pole. So effectively, it's going from 9 to 6, I'm sorry, from 12 to 9, and nothing will be higher than
what's there now. There's some boxes on the back
of the antennas called Radiohead's. They're replacing 12 with 12. And on the ground
there is an existing building and inside the building
they're taking some of the equipment out, replace with other stuff
within the building. So I was going to say, Mr. Quinn, we've dealt with a bunch of these
over the last couple of years, so I think

27
00:14:03.809 --> 00:14:34.373
Mr. Kinnealy has a series, maybe five, 
four or five questions that he can ask you And I think we can expedite this and get
a, you know, taken care of perfectly. In fact,
that was all we were doing anyway. So the perfect timing questions,
because Mr. Quinn already hit three of them. Okay, perfect. The equipment cabinets
not getting any larger, correct? No change whatsoever. You're not going any higher, Correct. No increase
for creating any new variances. No new variances. Then, Mr. Chairman,
I believe this meets the criteria for an exemption
from site planning application.

28
00:14:34.473 --> 00:15:06.672
Gotcha. Understood. Any other member of the board
of any questions or comments hearing nothing and open to the public
anyone on the post portion of any questions
or comments for this application. No. One Chairman make a motion
to approve this application, please. Can I get a second I’ll second, can I get a roll call?, pleas Mr. Weisman. Yeah. Mr. TILLERY Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount Yes. Mr. Mitterando . Yes. there he is

29
00:15:06.672 --> 00:15:38.170
Mr. Ali Yes. And Chairman Cahill. Yes. Mr. Quinn. We'll memorialize this in a resolution
at our next meeting. Sure. Can I just add,
you know, the meeting with. Yeah, So August 13th going. Thank you so much. Having to thank you. One suggestion. can everybody hear me. Yes. Yes, sure. The the resolution Jim should contain 
It complies with all prior conditions. It will contain that provision. Okay. Thank you, John. Thank you. There was a bunch of.

30
00:15:38.170 --> 00:16:11.236
good night Sir, moving on to item number
8 26 dash ZB Dash 23 V Karen Johnson getting is Johnson present. I see you ma’am but I don’t hear you Good evening and I need to swear you in
could you raise your right hand do you swear the testimony
you're about to give should be a truth. I do. Your name and address, please. Karen Johnson, 519 Pleasant Avenue, Piscataway, New Jersey.

31
00:16:11.236 --> 00:16:44.870
This property is 500. Pleasant. Avenue. Thank you. Could you explain to the board
why you're here? Yes. I purchased 500 Pleasant Ave to move in. I'm relocating, and it's very small. Very, very small, older house. And I did initially look into expanding, but because it's a corner lot,
I didn't have that option. And the garage doesn't meet the specs. And I was planning on expanding
you know, some driveway space. So I'm here to request
that I get exemption

32
00:16:44.937 --> 00:17:17.069
to allow the garage
to be used for living space so I can have more space. Living space. Understood ma’am Thank you, Jonathan, for
you will elaborate on this. Yes. So the subject property has a lot of existing
non-conformity is everything from lot area like coverage with setbacks etc.. The current garage is currently eight feet by ten feet,
I believe, and that does not meet

33
00:17:17.069 --> 00:17:47.666
the requirements
for an enclosed parking space per code. So the staff's opinion. We feel comfortable with the enclosed
parking space being converted to livable area
on the condition that additional off street parking be provided by the
by the applicant which Ms. Johnson indicated she was interested in. And that's okay, Ms. Johnson. That's fine. Yeah. Great. Any other members of the board
of any questions or comments?

34
00:17:47.800 --> 00:18:22.034
Could I ask Mr. Mizrahi to define the off street parking
that would be required? Yes, I think you our requirement. It would be adequate space for two cars
to be parked completely within the private property
and not in the right away. You're okay with that, ma'am? I am, perfect. Now, does anybody have any questions
or comments on the board hearing? None. When I opened it to the public,
anyone on the public portion of any questions
or comments for this application?

35
00:18:22.101 --> 00:18:53.765
No. One Chairman Okay. Close the public portion? And I'd make a motion to approve this
application can I get a second I’ll second roll call. Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. Mr. TILLERY Yes. Mr. Patel Yes. Mr. O’REGGIO Yes. Mr. BLOUNT Yes. Mr. Mitterando Yes. Mr. Ali Yes. And Chairman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Johnson
Your application has been approved. Memorialize this in a written document
at our next meeting and we'll send that document to you.

36
00:18:53.765 --> 00:19:25.130
Thank you. And thank you.
Good evening, gentlemen. Meeting item number 9 26 Dash ZB Dash 15 v Harold Israel Is Mr. Israel present? Yes, I'm present. Good evening. You were sworn in at the latest hearing. You remain sworn in to tell the truth. Yes, I do. Okay. No, I understand
you did meet with the board and Ms. Dawn Corcoran as well. You met with Jonath And how did that turn out?

37
00:19:25.230 --> 00:19:56.061
We had a we had a great conversation. We had a good time together. Okay. So are you compromising
and going to move the fence into the nine feet
that we mentioned, the four foot solid? I'm not I'm unable to do that
because then you also create a safety issue
because based on the space in the back, I think I explained, you know,
we heard your testimony the first time. Right. Right. I think I explained that. And also and then moving it,
there's a tree in the way. And I think Jonathan also mentioned that.

38
00:19:56.061 --> 00:20:27.559
So it creates a lot
of difficulties in expenses. So there's not a possibility to actually move it nine feet or or two feet or six feet. Oh, All right. But also spoke about the ordinance of when the fence was installed, which was under the ordinance of we spoke about the site triangle.

39
00:20:27.626 --> 00:21:00.559
The new ordinance was voted on in in January 2026 and the 12.5. And that's what we're talking about now. But the fence was installed back in 2020,
which that ordinance was just about the site triangle, which I think
I explained to when I met with Jonathan. We spoke about that a little bit. Yeah. Yeah. Jonathan do you have anything to add? Yes. So if the fence needs to stay
where it is a

40
00:21:00.626 --> 00:21:32.124
we could offer
keeping the fence where it is and swapping it out for a four foot
height, keeping completely solid and we could even leave it right on the property line
where the existing fence is now. And that's something you can't do, Harold. I mean, I like that idea, but the only problem is,
is, is the height, because we I'm trying to prevent anybody
from getting inside a house. And then, you know, because of
the example, I also create a safety issue.

41
00:21:32.224 --> 00:22:06.124
So the only thing is if he goes four feet, if I can add the two feet open on top, which is 50% I could add the 50%
keep it at six feet. But I do two feet on top of the four feet
to make it six feet where the two feet will be open,
open, open space, 50% open. That's okay. We still count that as a six foot fence,
even with the lattice portion on top. We've we've had applications
like that in the past. So that's still considered a six foot
fence if it's four solid into the lattice.

42
00:22:06.191 --> 00:22:38.023
Right. Because when you look at the fence,
like we discussed last time, the the fence is used as a side side fence. It's not a front yard fence. Only the front yard fence
has to be backed by 25 feet or 12.5. So this is a side
we talk about the side seat. It's not the side could be of the six
because the front yard is the street that's facing the front of the house
and he's facing he's facing a hard place that reaches out right
as I was when we went over that.

43
00:22:38.023 --> 00:23:11.123
So, yeah,
because it's it's the frontage on Richard. So we consider that a front yard
even though it's in use as what what we can use as a side yard
but it's considered a front yard. No, I'm saying
I'm talking about based on the prior ordinance
when I installed it back in 2020. Yeah. The ordinance change in January
2026 was concerning front yard setbacks and it didn't speak to the site
triangles correctly. It didn't, and that's what I'm saying. But when I installed the fence was back
in 2020, the only thing that was in back

44
00:23:11.123 --> 00:23:43.321
from back in 1975
when the ordinance was put in place. No. The only thing that that the only requirement
was for you to be within the site triangle because you don't like any view
from vehicles from seeing each other. So that I'm so far in and you know, the invalid that ordinance when I installed the fence
back in 2020, So back in 2026, the rule was changed after I was given a letter

45
00:23:43.388 --> 00:24:14.085
and then you got, you know,
you guys voted to change the rules to 25, but the 25 feet
had nothing to do with fencing. In fact, I have the documentation
in front of me right now, so I don't know if anybody else has that information. Are you referring to the township code? Yes, I'm referring to the township code. I can if you want to. In reference, I'll give you
the code number and would like that. Well, I think the offer is going to stay

46
00:24:14.085 --> 00:24:45.617
at four feet solid on the property line
or you move it in ten feet. That's that's what we're suggesting. Those are two options, right? These do not feel the property
line with the six foot solid. Yeah. Say that again on Jonathan, I did not hear either a six foot height, 100%
solid fence, nine feet from the property line
along Richards Ave. or a four foot high. 100% solid fence zero for a setback
on the property line with Richards Ave. I can't do four feet but I can do this.

47
00:24:45.617 --> 00:25:19.484
I could do the four feet I can't do the four feet But I request at least a year
for me to raise some money. So I could do that work
because I don't have any money. It's a financial situation for me
and also a safety issue. That's why it's at six feet. I drive around in multiple houses. I have exactly what I'm talking about. I will I will have the open two feet
on top of the four feet . I will do that sacrifice
and I will request time, financial time for me to raise that money
for me to be able to do it.

48
00:25:19.551 --> 00:25:53.618
But at the end of the day,
everybody in the neighborhood I drive to every corner houses
the exact same thing. They have four feet
with two feet open, open space on top. If, if, if, if everyone is going to run
under the same rule, then that that that's that you know, that
that's that's going to be a fair thing. What I’m requesting and asking for if I can still have my six feet
because I need the six feet for my for my for the safetyness,
it took me

49
00:25:53.685 --> 00:26:26.084
17 years before I put up this fence
because I couldn't afford a fence around my house. 17 two So what I'm saying is
it took me 17 years because of safety, because 2020
nobody knew what was going to happen and I made the sacrifice
to put a fence on my house, to set to to, to to make sure my, my, my family's safe. I had an in-ground for put in
make sure I keep animals out, I keep little kids out to make sure
nobody joining, you know, goes inside a pool four feet doesn't
provide that type of security. So 48 inches is

50
00:26:26.084 --> 00:26:57.349
the requirement for a pool code
fence in New Jersey. So we have an option for a four foot
fence, which meets pool code requirements
as well as an option for a six foot fence. If you have an interest in either
one of these options, we can move we can move forward
with one of them tonight. And so that, again, I know
you said what is required in New Jersey, four feet is the minimum height for a pool
code, fence pool compliant fence. Right. So what you're saying
is the minimum height. So what is the maximum? The maximum would be dictated by by the maximum for safety standard.

51
00:26:57.349 --> 00:27:31.216
There is no maximum With all due respect,
I would like to review the information that you're providing right now,
because only I have a chance to look at that
because I don't know. I can I can talk about that. All right. Those are the options that we have
at this point. Determine if the board
wants to move forward on this. The applicant has the burden of proof
to provide planning testimony to support the variance
that's requested. There is no planning testimony
that's been provided that constitutes evidence
to support a variance in this application.

52
00:27:31.282 --> 00:28:03.248
The financial expense to the applicant
is not a basis for a variance. So if the board moves forward
on this tonight, as the board attorney, I would have to recommend that the board
deny this application. Thank you, Mr.. Kinneally. And other, does the board have Any questions or comments and I will
I will request to contact a lawyer. I would request to contact a lawyer. And then because I don't know
the laws in the rules and you guys are all professionals,
so I request time to get a lawyer to represent you

53
00:28:03.314 --> 00:28:35.180
and no questions
from board and open it to the public. Anyone on the public
have any comments or questions? No. One Chairman Okay. Closed the public portion and I'd make
a motion to deny this application. can I get a second I’ll second. Thank you, call the roll. Please, Mr. Weisman. But yes, I. I vote yes for the Mr. Cahill's proposal.

54
00:28:35.180 --> 00:29:06.845
The denial. Yes, the motion is to deny. So yes on the Mr. Tillery. Yes, Mr. Patel. Yes, Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Yes, sir. Mr.  Mitterando Yes. Mr.Ali. Yes. And Chairman Cahill. Yes, Mr. Israel, your application has been denied. We will memorialize this in a written document at our next meeting,
and we'll send that document to you. So I would like to,
to be informed of the next step, because I did request before the vote
to have a lawyer to represent me,

55
00:29:06.845 --> 00:29:37.909
and I was denied that the next step
is for you to receive the resolution. The resolution will be passed in August. On August 13th. It'll take a day or two to mail
that to you. I certainly encourage you
to take that resolution and meet with an attorney to see what you have,
what alternatives you have. Right. But I did request before the vote to have
you have a lawyer to represent you, Mr. Israel, when you file. I was denied representation

56
00:29:38.109 --> 00:30:09.674
doing my own application. The board has to grant or deny it
within a certain period of time. I do understand that. But what expires on August 10th? I was not I was not I was not told
when he was going to expire. I was not provided that information. And I did request representation
before you guys voted and I was denied the resolution. Okay. That's our finding, sir,
have a good night everyone. Have a good evening. Let's move on to item
number 10 26 Dash ZB Dash 34 V

57
00:30:09.908 --> 00:30:40.638
Dream House New Jersey LLC. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Evan Pickus. I'm an attorney from Spotswood,
New Jersey. On behalf of the applicant Dream Homes,
New Jersey LLC. This is an application
that we're putting forward to get a variance to permit
the construction of a single family home on block 1502, Lot 29, which is nine
Woodrow Avenue located in the R-7.5 zone

58
00:30:40.705 --> 00:31:13.271
to put all that into English, there's a lot located at Woodrow,
9 Woodrow Avenue. The proposed construction is for a single family
home on a lot that requires 7500 square feet. This lot is 7499 square feet. So we're short one square foot. So we need a variance to get permission to
to construct a home. I do have witnesses with me tonight
who testifies on how much test

59
00:31:13.271 --> 00:31:45.770
and test testimony they give
is certainly at the board's discretion. I would start with our engineer
who's Bill Scott PE from Enshore Plan. And if you would be kind enough
to swear him in, he can explain briefly the the plan and the requirements
to have you raise your right hand. Do you swear that that testimony
you shall give shall be the truth? Yes, I do. Your name and address, please. William Scott SCOTT , 8146 Somerville Road,
Bedminster, New Jersey.

60
00:31:45.870 --> 00:32:20.605
And before you begin your testimony, Mr. Pickus, have you had an opportunity
to review the staff report in this matter? I have, and I've had the opportunity
to discuss it with both my client and Mr. Scott. And do you want to address it individually or can you agree to it? Well, I think we would
we would certainly agree to to comply with all requirements that would be necessary to the to get a, you know, a building permit. There are the one requirement
with regard to the soil borings.

61
00:32:20.705 --> 00:32:52.403
We will certainly do it if it's necessary. I know Mr. Scott wanted to have a conversation
with the engineer at some point as to whether the the the water flow studies that we've already
done would be sufficient. But if not, we certainly agree. In the interest of expediting this. Jonathan, did you want to address
some of the side effects if if the applicant agrees
to comply with the site report, the staff report, rather. I think we

62
00:32:52.403 --> 00:33:24.168
the board could move forward with the vote
this evening and Mr. Scott could confer with Joe Herrera about those reports
that have been previously done. Whether that will satisfy
what Joe's looking for and the revised plans. If this application is viewed favorably, the revised plans could be addressed
at the next stage of the process. So we could include a condition
that if those plans that Mr. Scott discusses with the township engineer
satisfy him

63
00:33:24.369 --> 00:33:56.034
that requirement could be waived. Yes, I was specific for the seasonal high water table. Correct. Mr. Scott. Yes, that's right. Okay. Well, Jim,
is there any mandatory testimony that we need to put on the record
or can we take a vote? This is a de minimis variance
within 7500 square feet is required. They have 7499, right. missing one foot. That's that's right. Let's vote on this.

64
00:33:56.034 --> 00:34:30.201
That's silliness. Alright So the public any other members
of the board of any questions or comments hearing them? I'm
going to open it to the public. And will the public
have any questions or comments? No one chairman, close the public portion
make a motion to approve this application on a second,
please call room. Mr. WEISMAN. Yes, Mr. Tillery. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. O’REGGIO Yes. Yes. You Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Yes.

65
00:34:30.301 --> 00:35:03.401
Mr. Pickus will memorialize this in August
and send a copy to you. Mr. Kinneally. Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Board. Mr. Chairman,
thank you for your time tonight. Great evening, everyone. Mr. Kinneally, good to see you. Nice job, Mr. WEIGERT. Thank you as always. To fan club. Item number 12 Adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting
of June 25th, 2026. First resolution of Stacy Lombardi,
which you voted to approve. Mr. WEISMAN. Yes. Mr. TILLERY. Yes. Mr. Patel.

66
00:35:03.568 --> 00:35:35.266
Yes. Mr. O’ Reggio asked Mr. Blount. Yes, Mr. Mitterando Yes. Mr. Ali. Yes, Chairman Cahill. Yes. Next is  Stephen Gonzalez
Which you voted to approve? Mr. Weisman. Yes. Mr. TILLERY. Yes. Mr. Patel. Yes. Mr. O’Reggio. Yes. Mr. Blount. Yes. Mr. Mitterando Yes. Mr. Ali. Yes. Chairman Cahill. Yes. Those are all the resolutions
I have this evening. Good. Item number 13 Adoption minutes from
the regular meeting of June 25th, 2026.

67
00:35:35.500 --> 00:35:52.483
All in favor. Say, I, I item number 14 Adjournment. All in favor. Say I once again thank you for giving us
you volunteer and see in August. And thank you everybody for showing up. And thank you everyone.