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.
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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..
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.