Is it cold? Go ahead. You ready? Welcome to tonight's meeting of the zoning board of adjustment of the township of union which is being held pursuant to the open public meeting law C231 laws of New Jersey dated 1975.
Notice of this meeting was post was advertised in the local source the newspaper of record and notice has been posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building adjacent to the municipal clerk's office. Roll call. Mr. Wy. Yes, Miss Martins is
not here. Mr. Ben Devegan is absent. Miss Scott here. Mr. Johnson here. Mr. McNeel is absent. Mr. Graves here. Uh Miss Ricketts here. Mr. Champion here. And we have uh a planning board member
who had to sit in tonight. Uh Mr. Frame here. There being a quorum present, this meeting is now declared open. Mr. Mr. Mongusu, at this time are there any communications? Uh, at this point, Mr. Chairman, no, there's no communications. Hearing none, we'll proceed with
tonight's meeting. Our first order of business will be uh the adoption of a resolution for calendar number 3456, Nicole Drakeford. Location is 2428 Terrell Road, block 3901, lot 10. Applicant wishes to install an
ingground swimming pool with in insufficient setbacks. Uh board members, you've all had a chance to read the resolution at this time. Are there any board members that would like to come forward and make changes, modifications, or comment on the resolution as it has
been written? Colorized rendering. Hearing none, may I have a motion and a second to adopt the resolution? Mr. Chairman, I move that this board adopt the resolution as written and as accurately memorialized in the previous findings of this board. Second a motion.
Roll call. M Scott, yes. Mr. Johnson, yes. Mr. Graves, yes. Mr. Champy, yes. Our next order of business again is the adoption of a resolution for calendar
number 3453, 809 Valley Street LLC, block 4801, lot 20.02. Applicant wishes to construct a one-story storage garage. Again, I'll ask the board members at this time. Are
there any board members that would like to come forward and comment and make modifications or com or changes to the resolution as it has been written? Hearing none, may I have a motion and a second to adopt the resolution? Mr. Chairman, I move that this board
adopt the resolution as written and accurately memorializing the previous findings of this board. Second a motion. Roll call. Mr. Wy. Yes, Mr. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Graves. Yes, Mr. Champion. Yes. Our next order of business
is calendar number 3447 Liberty Assets LLC, located at 1044 Willen Avenue, block 309, lot 11. Applicant wishes to subdivide and construct two new single family dwellings and one new two family
dwelling. and it's uh carried for continued hearing from previous meetings. Mr. Pansula, as you know, I'd like to recuse myself from this case. Yes, this is a carryover from the first session. Mr. uh Champy
did recuse himself due to a familiarity with some of the objectors. So, he's uh stepping down. Mr. Wy is the vice chair. Uh we note for the record Melody Scott and also the planning board member that weren't here at the initial did and can did certify that they reviewed the tape
on this matter. So they are eligible. What is it for? This is the only business. I need I'll get it to you. Henry, you going to shift to the middle?
Gary, you got to leave the devils. Okay, Mr. Gashion, I think we can continue as the council for the applicant. Good evening. Just give me 30 seconds to talk to my client. I see there's six voting members. I just want to clarify that issue with my client if I might.
Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to my client. We're ready to proceed. I just would ask that if at the end of the case I defer the summation to another meeting where I could have seven
members. I would appreciate it. I'm not saying I will, but just if we can finish the case tonight and I want to defer the vote until another meeting where seven members would be present, I would like that option. Well, so not for the record. Let's see how it goes as we're here. Well, let's
You're going to proceed tonight. I'm ready to proceed. We We expected a seventh member. They dropped out at the last minute, which is why we had the planning board substitute member to make sure we had a compliment. I see your effort and we learned about 7:22 that it didn't happen. So, well, I appreciate that. I'm going to proceed then, Mr.
Chairman. Fine. Mr. Chairman, members, council's name is Robert Gion. The firm is Gassion Palakco. You know that I was here last time. I represent the applicant this matter Liberty Assets LLC. My client is the contract purchaser
of 1104 Woodland A. We filed an application seeking preliminary and final major subdivision approval in order to demolish the existing structure on the property and subdivide into three parcels. The case was commenced on May 28th and
you heard from George Castelins's the realtor for Liberty Assets, Adnik the site engineer and Ali Keshi the architect. An application for this lot was denied previously. The potential issue of Ray Judicott was addressed at the last
hearing and resolved. In order to develop as proposed, we need a D1 use variance for the two family because only one families are permitted and a D5 variance. There are also C variances for
insufficient square footage and insufficient width. The witnesses I will present tonight are Mr. Castelins to just review a couple of changes made pursuant to board requests and then I
will call on the engineer Adnan Khan to discuss the additional changes that were requested and I may call on Negl engineering for traffic and for sure I will call Tom Ricky as my planning
consultant. I'd like to call our first witness Mr. Castins. Uh for the record, I did mark A6, the revised site plan that was submitted through Mr. Gion's office with provisions through June 11th. Uh A7 is the stormwater management report that
was submitted as well. And A8 are the architectural plans that were revised through June 6th, 2025. So we're through A8 for exhibits into the record. Can I ask the witness to swear or affirm? You were previously sworn, right? You Yes, sir. for tonight's meeting. Swear or affirm
that the testimony you provide this evening is the truth and the whole truth. Yes, sir. And for the record, just state and spell your name if you would again with your affiliation. It's uh Jorge Castalins, uh J O R G- C A S A L I Ns. Um real estate broker representing the seller and the buyer
for the property and I'm the chairman of my zoning board acting as a consultant uh for land use here. Mr. Cast, did you testify at the first hearing with regard to this application? Yes, sir, I did. And were you familiar with the requested changes by both board members and interested citizens? Yes, sir. And as a
result of those requests, did were there certain changes made to the architectural plans presented and were revised plans submitted to the board? Yes, sir. I'll go. And will you tell us what those changes are? The architectural changes. Yes, sir. Uh, thank you, chairperson, and members of
the board. uh the changes that were made as we've made a couple modifications to this application to try to listen to the concerns of the residents as well as the board. Um the first one uh actually came from your zoning officer who made a note about the garage size not being compliant and we don't want to seek any waiverss if possible. So the garage was
amended to be in compliance with the current code. The second change that was made was that the attic was uh partially finished and served as essentially another story which was not allowed. We've gotten rid of that and now it conforms to your code. And the access to
the attic is by it's a drop down stair. It's essentially a storage like you would see in any regular unfinished attic, not not uh what we had previously. Um the other change that was made is and the engineer is going to go into it. It was in regards to the setback just so that we can have all the conformity around. We try to make the
application as clean as possible for this board and the neighbors. I have no further questions of this witness. Mr. Again, he testified previously. This was as changes only. Board members have any questions uh
regarding this witness? Are there anybody in the public that would like to qu question this witness as regards to his testimony? Hello, I'm Brian Cave, CAVE, 1070 Woodland Avenue.
Uh, just I want it to be on the record. Do you guys own this property yet? No, we are the contract buyers. Okay. And so if it doesn't go through, the sale falls through. Correct. That again. Well, he he did start the testimony last
time, so I think we can allow a little leeway to the public to ask some follow-up questions of the owner representative. Uh, that's not necessarily true. We're not sure how tonight goes and the buyer has the right to purchase or not.
Okay. Thank you. Are there any are there any other members of the public that would like to question this witness as regards to his testimony? Michael Zacharia 1064 Loud Avenue. Um whether this is relevant or not, what
was the what's the purchase price? objection. It's really not relevant to the land use aspect of the case. It would be relevant. Yeah. You you can later tonight you'll have the opportunity to make general comments about anything you
want and you can offer any other me members of the public that would like to uh question this witness as to his testimony. I don't recall if name please. Name and address. Um Ellen Lieberman um 1085
Lowden Avenue. I don't recall you saying how many cars can be per driveway. Uh yes. So that was one of the changes from last time. Originally each unit had four cars in the driveway and plus one in the garage. Um however, hearing the
feedback from the neighbors and the feedback from the board to get rid of that front yard setback, we've set it back to the right setback. Uh now it has two cars in the driveway and one in the garage, which is all exceeding the parking minimum that's required by the ordinance. Okay. Thank And were there
changes to the number of bedrooms? I don't recall you saying. Uh no, no changes to that. Yeah. Okay. So, can I ask it's four bedrooms in the two families and three bedrooms in the proposed single families? Um, so you have uh the second floor. This is what
the floor plan. Let me try to make it a little bigger. Uh here. So, this is the floor plan for the uh single families which would be on the louden side. You have one, two, three, and four. Uh and that's all on the second floor like a traditional colonial style home. Um and then for the two family, I'll scroll up
to those. So, this would be the floor plan. Um, it's one, two, and three. Three bedrooms on the second level of the home. And this will be what the first floor looks like of each unit. So, it's three bedrooms each unit on the two family and four bedrooms very conforming to the neighborhood. Three or
fourbedroom homes. Okay. Are there any um rooms that would be considered a study, a playroom that have a closet? There's a mud room coming from the garage, but that's very small. It wouldn't really be a study. We actually um got rid of, I believe, the size to make the garage accommodate the proper
size. Um let me look at the floor plan for the single families. One more time, there's um a study in the front. Um again, kind of small just because it's where the garage enters into the home. Um I'll tell you what the size of that.
8 ft by seven. So very small study, just like a home office kind of thing. Does it have a closet? No, it does not. No. Is there any other space in the basement or on any of the floors that are maybe 8 by7 or bigger that have a closet other
than your designated bedrooms? No, there are not. There's uh there's formal bedrooms. Everything else is what it's uh set out to be and nothing that would accommodate what you're seeking like an additional bonus. No. Okay. Thank you. No problem. Thank you.
Are there any other members of the public that would like to question this witness as to test as to the testimony he's given? I'm sorry, Mike Zachary again. Um, you mentioned conformity. You've made the drawing in
conformity with the neighborhood. Do you have any drawings? if you could speak into the microphone. You uh you mentioned conformity. The homes are in conformity with the with the homes in the neighborhood. Are there any drawings you have which show the other homes in the neighborhood? Uh when
I mentioned conformity, I meant to the code that the Union Township has. So essentially everything that the code has, we are conforming as much as possible with the exception of the uh 40 foot where most of them are 50 and the total square footage. As far as the I guess the aesthetics, they these would
be colonial style homes. Um, we do have a render. Um, so this is what you're, you know, when you see, uh, single families being constructed. Um, essentially it's a nicer finish on the siding. It's like a hardy plank siding. Um, traditional colonial style where you
have the bedrooms upstairs with a pitched roof. Um, and they're A-frame homes, which is essentially what most uh, single family homes uh, being built look like nowadays. So, in other words, there's no drawings which shows it in conformity with the neighborhood. No, when I said conformity, I mean conforming to the
ordinance. So the here we're talking about variances. If we vary from the uh town code, we conform as much as possible to the code. That's what I was stating for conformity. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Good evening. Uh Chris Baker, 640 Fairfield Way uh Union. Um just one
question. How many bedrooms does the existing property have? I'm sorry. How many How many bedrooms does the existing propert and your address for the record? Oh, I'm sorry. Chris Baker, 640 Fairfield Way. So, the uh currently the first floor
unit um has it's actually like three stories in the first floor. It's it's a little weird the design because it's an old house that's been retrofitted. I believe that unit has four bedrooms. Two on the first floor, two on the second floor, rear. The second unit has
three bedrooms and the third unit has two bedrooms. So, four, three, seven, two, nine bedrooms in total, sir. Okay. To the best of my recollection, that is. Thank you. Thank you. that would like to question this. Thank you. Let me call my next witness.
That's okay. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Khan, can I ask the witness to swear or affirm that the testimony he's going to provide this evening is the truth and the whole truth? I do. And you testified previously, correct? And just for the record, can you just state and spell your name? Adman Khan. A D N K Han.
Mr. Khan, as was indicated, you were present at the last hearing on May 28th. Correct. Uh, that is correct. And at that hearing, you heard comments from the board and interested citizens that led to changes in the plans. That is correct. Can you please review with the
board and the interested citizen what changes were made? Sure. Okay. These are the plans that were submitted as part of the revised uh uh revised package uh after the last meeting and uh based on the comments we
received uh in the last meeting uh one of the variants that we were seeking is the rear yard variance for the lots. So what we did here is and again if you recall we were having a tandem parking space arrangement for each house in the
front. So what we did is like we pulled the houses to the front towards the street uh 25 ft from the property line which meets the setback requirement and that shortens each house by two parking spaces. So before each house was getting
five parking spaces now each house will have three parking spaces. So we eliminated the tandem parking spaces from the driveways. However, like the requirement for the number of bedrooms and the number of units we have the per the ordinance, the required parking is
nine spaces. We are proposing 12 parking spaces. So we are still three parking spaces over than what's required by the ordinance. Uh doing that what happened is like it eliminated the rear yard setback for each of the houses
and now we are fully confirming with the rear yard setback of 25 ft. Uh let me just so that variance if you look at it like each house is 25 ft from the proposed uh lot lines and we are complying with the rear yard variance.
Also while we were updating these plans uh we went ahead and looked at the review comments from Kier's engineering and we addressed some of those changes for some of those comments. So these plans reflect Kier's engineers engineering comments including an
installation of a dry well system for the house that was originally not proposed uh with a dry well system. So now all three houses will have their own storm water management systems. uh and uh we comply with the almost I would say
90% of the comments from the engineers report. The other 10% comments are mostly housekeeping that the applicant has to comply either during construction or after construction or obtaining the permits. Is it accurate that college probably didn't get a chance to review
your latest plans and still reflects an improper amount of parking spaces on their report? That is correct. again they just probably didn't get a chance to see the latest plans. Can you tell can you tell the board again just so they understand and the interested
citizen how many space do we have and what was there before and how collers just inadvertently carried the old yeah like again on our sheet uh C-1 we have a parking analysis and as you can see like three spaces are required uh for uh each
unit uh threebedroom units uh the total requirement is uh for four units is nine spaces and we are proposing 12 spaces Before uh these changes there were 18 spaces proposed. So after eliminating six spaces we still are over three
spaces than required by the ordinance and inadvertently collage carried more than the 12. Yeah they are they are I think in their letter they state 15. I thought that's what I read. Yeah but uh that is a probably a typo on their end. I have no further questions. This
witness board members have any questions. Mr. Khan, good evening. Hi. The uh dry well that you are proposing system would that handle a storm like supertorm Sandy or Katrina? How well
would that fair? Uh probably not. Uh the driveral system is designed based on the city uh or the town requirements. So whatever the requirements is which is for a 100redy year or a particular depth of a storm. So the design for that depth
as per the ordinance. So per strong sandy is one I would say probably now it's not one in a lifetime type kind thing but uh no matter how big a stormwater system you design I don't think so you can design something that can handle uh sandy like strong. Mr.
Khan is 1044 Woodland Avenue is that in a flood zone? No. No. Could you explain to me because I don't know what is the D5 variance? We have a planner who will explain that.
And what is the height of the building now? Uh the existing image what you're proposing now. Okay. I can go over that. All right. So building height uh building height it's 32 ft and two
stories are allowed for one lot is 32.6 and 2 and a half story. Uh the other lot is 29.87 uh twotory and uh the third is uh 29.89 89 that conforms the code. Uh no
actually we are seeking variance for some of them. Yeah. Is there is the is there a need for NFD? I think I think I'd have to have the architect. I don't think Oh, sorry. My
bad. My bad. Yes. Yes. Sorry. My bad. I was looking at existing. So the existing is non-conforming. It's 32.6 and uh 32.6 6 and 32 is required. Uh for the proposed we are the first house is 29.87 second is 29.89
and the third is 30.19. So all are under uh 32 ft. So they are compliant. Yes. The existing house on the side is slightly out of comp. We have nothing to do with that. Okay. So my other questions are for the planner. If you
are talking about the D5 Yes. plan. All right. And then we know about this has to be 13. Does this have to have a sprinkle system in the house? I I don't know the answer to that. I don't know the answer. I
think the architect obviously if it's required, we will comply. Thanks. Any other board members that would like to question this witness? Members of the public question. David Armino, 1032 Woodland Avenue.
Would you please go over the parking arrangements? How you said there were three over the uh minimum, how would you state those parking spaces?
Okay. Uh based on the ordinance for three-bedroom units, you need two spaces. Okay. per unit. Oh, sorry. Yeah. For three-bedroom, you need two spaces and we have two three-bedroom units. So,
that translates to uh six spaces. Actually, three-bedroom units require two spaces and uh we have two units. So, that translates to four spaces. Fourbedroom unit requires two and a half space. And
we have two fourbedroom units. So, that reflects to five spaces. So, if you add four + 5, that's nine. Nine is required per the ordinance for this kind of development. I I thank you for that answer, but can you tell me how the cars
would be parked? Sure. So I'm just going to take an example for one house uh or let's say the duplex. So basically what we have is we have 18 feet wide driveway
and 25 ft length of the pavement before you get to the house because the house has to set at 25 ft which is a front yard setback requirement. So in this 18 by 25 ft you can easily park two parking spaces two two uh cars. In addition to
that, we have a garage uh 22 feet wide garage and that will accommodate one car. 22 feet wide. 22 feet wide. And that's the requirement by the ordinance and that was something that was discussed in the last meeting.
Before we had a smaller garage, but uh we were told like the minimum requirement is 22 ft. So now we are proposing uh 22 feet uh uh actually 22 feet depth. I think I think that's I'm glad you corrected that. No, and thank you very much. So 22 feet is the depth.
So anyway, a car and what is the width of that garage? Uh I would say it's probably around 8 ft 8 9 ft, but the architect probably can give you the exact dimension. So basically one car will park in the garage and two outside. And again there will not be tandem, they
will be basically parallel to each other. So three cars per house and on the other like three house each house. So if we have four four houses so 3 * 4 is 12. So we are proposing 12
spaces whereas we need nine. Okay. Thank you. I'll wait for my comments later. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to question this uh witness on testimony he's given? Good evening everyone. Arie Delgado,
1084 Louden Avenue. Arie Delgado, 1084 Lowden Avenue. So, just make sure I get this straight. The lot is 40. You're going to have 5 foot setbacks on either side. That makes it 30. You're going to have 18 ft of parking. So, you're going
to see the house 12 feet is all we're going to see from the street. Uh, can you repeat that? Okay. The lot is 40, right? 5 foot setbacks on either side, right? 18 ft for parking for the parking space, right? That leaves 12 ft for us to see. You barely going to be
able to see that house in the street. Uh, the parking is not separate. It is the garages attached to the house. So, but there going to be two cars parked in front of the house, right? So if I'm standing in front of the house looking at it, I'm going to see 12 ft of the actual house itself. Yeah. Is there any typical arrangement for any single family or two family houses? Not in our
neighborhood. But thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to question this witness on testimony he's given? Being none, council, we have any other witnesses? I just think I have to call the pick up
again. also to clarify a couple. Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. Let me close this. Okay. Ask the witness to swear or affirm that the testimony you provide this evening is the truth and the whole truth. Yes, sir. And you were here and previously sworn as well as a witness
and qualified as an architect. Yes, sir. Okay. Just for the for the record, just state and spell your name. Ali Koreshi. A L I qui. Mr. Chris, you have to speak up a little bit more. Okay. Just a couple of
questions. One, the height of the structure. The architect obviously is not completely familiar with what are the height structure. So, uh, it's 30'4 in for 30 feet 4 in. All three houses comply
with the height. So, they're less than 32 feet. And then the other question that seemed to be a little bit open, the width of the driver, the driver the width of the driver 16t wide by 16t wide
by 25 ft deep. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Does anybody on the board have questions uh for this witness? Yes, sir. Are you can you answer what a D5 variance is? Is that No. Okay. Next.
All right. So, 30 feet 4 in. Can I ask him that? Sure. Is that code compliant? 30T 4 in. Is that compliant? Code compliant. Yes, it is. It is. Yeah. All All structures. All three structures. Yep. On this proposal, sir.
the new structure, how far would it be from the existing structures? I guess 1048 woodland or or 1040 woodland. How how far would they be away from those new structures? How far would they be away from the existing structures?
Um, well, the existing structure is going to be demolished. No, no, sir. Yes, sir. Excuse me, Mr. Gashion. Can you can you talk into your mic? It's Anthony behind you. I'm sorry.
I said, can I call the engineer up to answer that last question about the adjacent property? Uh, heard Mr. Fra's question. Please respond. Yeah, one correction. Uh, the driveway width is 18 ft, not 16 ft. So, I just want to confirm that. Say that
again, please. Louder. Driveway width is 18 ft wide and 25 ft deep. Okay. So, that's just a correction I want to make. As far as the adjacent houses, uh I mean we are meeting the setback for each house, the setback required from the property line. So we are meeting all those requirements for the new houses.
As far as the exact distance from house to house, we don't have that measurement. Uh we didn't survey the adjacent houses. So we don't know the exact distance from the new house to the existing nextdoor house. But we are completely compliance with the sideyard requirements of the municipality. Is
that correct? That's what I'm getting. Yes. Yeah, we are complying. There's no variance. Okay. Thank you, sir. Sure. Any other board members have questions for this witness? Yes, I do have a question. So, you all have changed the parking to
let's say three cars. One can park inside the garage. Many people use their garage for storage for example, right? So if the car is now parked outside, will we have an issue of hangover with another vehicle if they are parked one
in front of the other? Will we have that issue? Um I don't understand. Is there enough room to park? Why don't Mr. Khan seems to have understood the question? I call the engineer back up. Uh no, we we eliminated that too. If you remember,
there was a tandem parking before. So that was the uh uh concern raised last time but now the depth is 25 ft and average car is about 16 16 1/2 ft long. So we have ample space behind the cars that uh it's not there not going to be
any overhang beyond the property line and what if they have let's say a vehicle that's bigger a truck of some sort even even SUVs like suburban is 16 and 1/2 ft. So that's why the engineering standard for parking space is 9 by 18. So that accommodates all
these uh big I mean the but this is much larger than 19. That is correct. It is 9 by 25. Okay. I think the question though fairly is if someone doesn't use the garage that's allocated for parking and you have a tandem situation from the
property owner, would the second vehicle in tandem if they decide to pull behind a car that's in the driveway extend out into the and block the sidewalk? It would. Yes, I believe that was the the context of the question. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Yeah, that would be the case. Are there any other board members that would
like to question this witness? Are there anyone in the public that would like to question this witness on testimony he's given? Good evening. Um, Kevin Bettoner, K E V I N B E T A N C U R T H. I live in 1036
Woodland Avenue. I'm right next to the property they're trying to fix or remodel. Uh the main concern in our street with the parkings and stuff like that, we still have an issue in front of my house. I don't have parking outside the
street cuz there's a fire hydrant right in front of my house. So as soon as they built that those two parkings, the first meeting that we I'm sorry, let me go back. The first meeting that we had here, we all gave our thoughts and we're saying with three parkings wasn't
enough. Then in the second one, they added to five. Now they deducted to three again. Like they made a difference. We're back at square zero. So the problem that I have with that is that they say they they built the garage. Like we said before, nobody's
going to tell anybody here how we're going to use our garage. If you look at the house, they don't have storage. Almost everybody in their house is using this garage, but the storage. So all those cars are going to be outside in the street. we can only park in one side
and that will avenue with a permit. So that's a big big concern. Uh by my house being right next to it now in the backyard I'm seeing in the plans that there's two windows. This is two floor almost none of the houses are like two
floors on that street. area was like a one and you know there's no windows on the side of uh for the the backyard and right in my house it's going to overpass my house I would say half of my yard and there's going to be
two windows right in front of me you know the reason I came to union and I lived in Elizabeth was because I like the neighborhood you know I I knew but now I'm concerned about a house being all on top of me you know that's that's
a big concern that I have. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to question this witness? Ellen Lieberman again. 1085 Lowden Avenue. Um
Kevin is correct. Even on Louden Avenue, one side of all of our houses have no windows. So, um we don't we don't see into each other's homes. Is that the case on these or do both sides have
windows? Both sides of the houses? Well, uh we comply with the setbacks. We complied with number of stories. That wasn't my question. Are there windows on both sides of the house? Yes. Okay. Is there any ordinance that says
that there shouldn't be to that? No, there is not. Okay. They would have to be code compliant otherwise they'd be asking for a variance tonight. So I don't think that aspect is regulated otherwise there'd be a okay a notice in in that would be required. So it was just
customary to the township of union that privacy was protected by building houses that way. Yeah. I mean that's typical even for additions when you try to be a good neighbor in your construction. Uh trying not to line up the windows with your neighbor etc. It's it's tricky at
times for sure. Point made. Thank you. There any other members of the public that would like to question this witness on testimony he's given? None. You have any other witness, counselor? Seeing none, I'd like to recall Mr. Castle as he has listened to
the questions and has a recommendation. Ali, we're done with the architect and we're done with the engineering. Uh yeah. So to the members that had those questions, uh the the house on uh Woodland, maybe I could show it here. Uh those have bigger setbacks on the
sideyards because u the house doesn't go as far. So you can see here it's actually 13 ft of setback from our property line. Let me try to zoom in if you can see it. So this is the adjoined dwelling next door. This is 13 ft where 5T is required. Um and we're willing on
the second floor those bedrooms that you talked about, Mr. Kevin Bethqu. Yeah, those two bedrooms on the second floor bedroom. We have bedrooms in the that face the backyard so we can eliminate those bedrooms that face the adjoining properties. Eliminate the bedroom. Eliminate the bedroom windows. The bedroom windows. That's correct. So if
you look at the uh two family, so this is the one that's on Woodland Avenue on the second floor. You these are the two windows that you're referring to right here. So we are able to eliminate these two and these two. And we will still conform with building requirements because we can have egress windows on
the rear facing the backyard of these own properties. So that would eliminate your privacy concern. And on top of that, these are 13 feet from each property line. So they're they're further set back than than the five foot requirement. Okay. Um, I think that was
it. Are there any board members that would like to question this witness on this testimony he's given? Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. No. So, can you go back to that other diagram that you just had up regarding the windows?
Yes. So, you pointed out for the where it says bedroom too, you can get rid of those windows, right? How about towards the front area where it says the master bedroom where there's windows on the side, will you be getting rid of those as well? Those would not line up with the uh neighbors backyard. Um, and the
privacy concern was regarding the backyard. So, these would um and if I go back to the floor, you can see um the engineers. This is the adjacent dwelling. This is where that is. Those two back windows are back here. So those would be the ones that would be eliminated for
privacy reasons. Any other board members would like to question this as witness? Yes. I don't know if you have the answer for this for NFPA 13R. Um are you the person or not? Yeah, I believe New Jersey code requires it for three families and up, but whatever
the building requirements are, we will conform with. Well, I know that Captain Guzman requested that and I'm just wondering where that would be with regards to the planning. Where does that tank go? Got it. Uh, Mr. Magus, I can answer that question as as far as the
uniform construction code. Um, if it's three stories or more of three, it's does not three families. If it's three stories or more, uh, sprinkler system is required. Uh I think that came about in the very first blueprint when there was
three stories and I questioned it. Okay. Uh that's an ask from the fire department. So it doesn't have to be not by code. It's only two stories. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other board members that would like to question this witness?
Being none. Are there anybody any uh members of the public that would like to question this witness? And then council, you have any other witnesses? I do. I I think there's been some discussion about D5. I want to call Mr. Ricky. M. Thank you, sir.
I also have a traffic expert, but there really doesn't seem to be any traffic questions. I think the planning questions are the ones that are relevant. Good evening. Could I ask the witness to swear or affirm that the testimony you provide this evening is the truth and the whole truth? Yes. And for the
record, could you state and spell your name with your affiliation? Sure. My name is Thomas Reichi. Last name is spelled R I CCI. I'm a planner at Stonefield Engineering Design. Our business address is 92 Park A in Rutherford, New Jersey. You indicated that you're a planner. Are you a
licensed planner state of New Jersey? Yes, I am. And for how long have you been uh in that field? I've been in the field for approximately eight years. I've been licensed for approximately four. You've been testifying before planning boards and zoning boards on a regular basis over 100. And you've been
accepted as an expert in the field of planning on each and every occasion. Yes, I have. Mr. Chairman, I assume we accept we accept this contentious. Mr. Ricky, would you please review the existing site circumstances? Yeah, I'd be happy to. Uh, and in doing so, I just
want to share um an aerial exhibit that we prepared because I think it'll help orient the board. So, I'm going to eject this. I don't Doesn't look like there's a spot here. You know what? I'll remove the mouse. Hold on.
Just one moment. This is a new exhibit. We'll do A9 for the record. If it's a planner exhibit, Ariel So for the record, this is going to be marked as A9. This is an aerial exhibit that was prepared by Stonefield Engineering Design and this document is
dated May 28th, 2025. Please continue with your description at existing site. Yeah, I'd be happy to. So, we can see the subject site. It's outlined here in the middle of the page in magenta. This existing property, it's
a single tax lot. That is 16,000 square feet in area. Uh, one of the things that we noticed when looking at this aerial is that this property is by far the largest lot on the block. Notably, it's also what we call a through lot, meaning
that it extends um to two streets, both on Lowden to the top of the page and then Woodland Avenue on the bottom of the page. Uh on top of that, it's also wider than the prevailing lot size in the area. Uh the prevailing lot size, it
varies in the area. I acknowledge that. Um but most of the lots are in that 50 to 54 55 feet wide range. So, um, 50 by 100, that's most of what we see out
here, the majority. This one is 80 feet wide by 200 feet deep. So, a little bit wider and twice as long, um, the the surrounding lots. Um, on the property right now, there's an existing three family dwelling. Um, it's pretty
centrally located on that property. And then to the rear of the property towards Louden, which is also the front, um there's a small parking area and a detached garage that's being used for the three family dwelling. Now, can you review the proposal? Sure. Uh just to
remind the board, the applicant proposes to subdivide this lot, create three um new lots and build two single family dwellings on both on 4,000 foot lots which will front on Lowden and then on Woodland one 8,000 foot lot which will
have the duplex. Can you give us a project overview? Yeah, so we're in front of the board tonight seeking a D1 use variance. um two family dwellings are not permitted in the RA residential zone. So for this
type of variance, the appropriate test that we apply to D1 use variances is what we call the Medici standard. And what the Medici standard requires us to show is that the site is particularly suited for the proposed use and that the
project meets at least one or more purposes of the municipal land use law. So as I move towards the discussion on the variances, particularly the site suitability test, I want to focus again
on the lot characteristics. Um there's a lot of unique characteristics at play here for this lot that I think distinguish it from all the other lots in the zone. First and foremost, as I mentioned, it's oversized. 16,000 square ft currently where the
majority of the lots are about 50 by 100 so 5,000 square ft. So it's a um you know some are slightly wider 5500 square ft that was about 75% of the lots that I looked at is in that 5,000 foot range. Um so this is much bigger than the
prevailing size in the area. Um secondly as I mentioned it's currently a through lot meaning it fronts on two streets. Um, this configuration is very odd. It's very atypical for a single family residential property to have um, access
on two different streets because you essentially have two fronts and you would be looking at either the rear of the building or in this case in the existing condition the detached garage. And then lastly, as I mentioned, it's it's developed right now with a three
family dwelling um, which is a use that I'll just mention is also not permitted in the zone. Um, and that structure is located right in the middle of the property. So, when you actually look at the development pattern, it's the one that's um different than everybody else.
It's the disruptor of the development pattern because it has these large um yard areas both um in the back of the building and in the front of the building because it's centrally located. Um, so in my opinion, by redeveloping
the lot with the proposed structures in the proposed locations, in my planning opinion, I think brings the property, although we we acknowledge we have some variances, it brings it closer into conformance with both the zoning ordinance and with the character of the
neighborhood because we're proposing buildings that are lining up with the rest of the existing building lines going down both of these streets. Um so in my opinion uh once again I think it's a unique lot but because of those
reasons is why I think that we meet the threshold for the D1 use variance and it meets the particular suitability test for um the D1 use variance. Any master plan issues you think come into play here? Yes, I do. Um
so the master plan was developed uh relatively recently. It was de it was adopted on March 25th, 2021. And in the land use goals section, as with most master plans, it talks a lot
about housing and what the future of housing should look like. Now the first goal of that plan, and I'll I'll read it into the record. It says, "Maintain the character as of existing residential neighborhoods while providing opportunities for housing types that
meet the interests and needs of all ages and all abilities." And then it goes on to say, recognize the recognize the viability of and the need for alternatives to
detached single family homes, two family dwellings and other housing configurations in existing neighborhoods and as part of redevelopment should be continued where this will not undermine other objectives.
So, the way that I see it is that the the housing um goals in the land use plan calls for mixing up the diversity of housing and it specifically mentions two
family dwellings where appropriate where it doesn't mind under objectives and I think we do that here. I think we propose a two family on a large lot in a really really you know we have a unique scenario here and I don't think that it
undermines the goals the it's it's vague on undermining the other objectives but I imagine the other objectives are preserving the character of the RA zone I don't think we go against those because if you remember when we look at the bulk requirements
that control the building placement the building size, the building height. We comply with all of those things and we overcomply in some areas. Um, we comply for the single family lots, we comply with lot depth, we comply with
the front yard setback, we comply with the sideyard setback, we comply with rear yard, building height, building coverage, impervious coverage, and we overcomply with the parking. Now with the duplex, we comply with the lot area,
lot width, lot depth, front, side, and rear yard setbacks, building height, building coverage, impervious coverage, and parking. So I think that is a good litmus test, if you will, when determining if the site can hold the
use. And I think we've built or proposed a plan that balances the two objectives. I think it greatly respects the zoning ordinance and I think it also tries to achieve that master plan goal which is promoting a variety of housing types as
long as you can fit it on the lot which we've shown we've demonstrated that we have. Mr. Fran asked a question before about D5. Is there a D5 density variance involved here? Yeah, D5 is a density variance. There is no density variance involved with this application as the RA
district does not have a density standard. Thank you. We're we're held to the more the stricter the more stringent D1 use variance test. And as as to the D1, are there special reasons that you feel
apply to this applicant? You've done a great job, but are there also special reasons? Yes, I think purpose A, which is promoting the general welfare. um that is, you know, the fundamental purpose of the municipal land use law. And I think we're doing that by promoting these variety of housing
options and fulfilling that master plan goal in a way that's not disruptive to the rest of the neighborhood. And I think purpose I, which is promoting a desirable visual environment and good civic design, uh we're proposing um beautiful new homes of high quality that
I think fit in better because they're placed better on the block than what's currently existing. So I think purpose A and I think purpose I are both advanced. Now you listed a very long list of bulk requirements that were met. Are there any bulk variances that still are
needed? Yes. Minimum lot size and that there's a variance uh for each of the single family lots and then the minimum lot width also both for the two single family lots. And would you review the reasons for the
granting of the bulk variances? Yeah, I mean I I think they're so tied to my um discussion on the use variance and the existing conditions on the lot. Um but just to reiterate, we have this oversized lot. Um we're subdividing lot
the lot. Although it's not perfectly in conformance, we acknowledge that. We recognize that. In my opinion, I think it it is closer to the character of what you see out here in the placement of the homes while still trying to achieve that master plan goal and while still
protecting the RA zone. So, I think with regard to the C variants, we have this um they can be granted under what we call the C2 benefits versus detriments test where the benefits of the project must substantially outweigh the detriments. And I think we have the benefit of compliance with the bulk and
building requirements um achieving that master plan goal and doing in a way doing it in a way that doesn't substantially impact the neighborhood. So I think that balancing test there's always going to be impacts. I think that balancing test though is met because the positives and the conformance with the rest of the bulk substantially outweighs
the negative impacts. Can you review the negative criteria? That was pretty much everything that I just mentioned. I can, but it's going to be I I so for the record. Yeah. Yeah. I'd be happy I'd be happy to read it in the
record. So, the I don't the variances um can't be granted unless we demonstrate a two-prong test. Um and the test is that uh the variances can't be granted without um substantial detriment to the public good and substantial detriment to the zone plan. And as I mentioned, I
think when we're looking at the public good piece, we're compliant with we're able to um hold the parking, we're able to comply with the setbacks, we're able to stay under the coverage, we're stay able to stay under the height. So, I think all of those things in tandem protect the public good. And then with regards to the master plan, I don't
think we go against it. I think we are we're actually aligning with those housing goals in the master plan. So, I think the the negative criteria has also been satisfied. Last question. Sure. Give us your conclusion. It's like I mentioned, I'm we we acknowledge
that there's always that we have a use variance here, but I think there's two main items at play. There's the zoning ordinance requirements and then there's the master plan goals. And I think what we're doing here is is balancing the two
without disrupting what the zone plan intends to protect for the residential character. I understand that there has been discussion on um you know a new building that's going to potentially be closer to existing homes, but this building complies. The buildings they're
all within the building envelope. could be, you know, the duplex could have been a very large single family and it's still within that building envelope with regards to setbacks, height, it's under the amount of coverage, it's under the amount of pvious. So, I think when looking at it from that perspective, we
really have to grapple with the use here, which is adding an extra family on the block. That's that's really it is is really adding an extra family because the massing and the building and the impervious is not being increased over what the zoning allows. It's the extra
family. And what the master plan says is introduce a variety of housing options. And I see this in a lot of master plans because housing is unaffordable and is very very tough. So you introduce things like duplexes and it gives people another option. So I think that's a
positive thing that advances the general welfare of New Jersey citizens, which is what the municipal land use law um fundamentally tries to achieve. I have no further question. Mr. Appreciate it. The board members have any questions for this witness?
Sir, first of all, you do very nice work to have to say. Thank you. My question to you, sir, you have a two family and then the other side you want a variance. How come you just didn't have
two two families? Out of curiosity. I can't speak on behalf of why the proposal is in the configuration that it is because yeah, I I do recognize why it wasn't either duplexes or just single family. Um to to be honest, I wasn't in
involved in the early stages of planning this project and I only have what I have to review, you know, at at this current moment. Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. Mr. Richie, this is Rob Pansul, the board attorney. I just want to since you're the planner and you offered some legal ease uh you realize that the
master plan is but a roadmap for the ultimate passage of zoning ordinances in the township. Correct. That is correct. It doesn't govern and in fact in this instance the RA zone does not permit the two family use. Correct. Correct. That's why we're here for the D1. That's
correct. Would you also agree that if it was a two lot subdivision instead of a three I think as the board member was suggesting there that the lot area that would then become conforming the lot area would yeah for all the lots so two instead of three so two lots yeah
they would so this is a self-imposed hardship of creating more lots with bulk variances tied into the D1 there's really two aspects to this correct yeah that's correct is you yeah if we did two lots the lots would conform. They'd actually be greater than conforming,
right? But, you know, but it's greater now. It would be, but but you you highlighted the standard in the neighborhood as 50 to 55, if I heard you correctly, as a norm. We have two lots now being proposed here at 40, which is
deficient to what ex not only is the standard, but deficient to what exists in the neighborhood. That's correct. Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clarify on those issues since they were legal in nature. Any other board members would like to question this and say witness. Hi, good evening.
I'm Melanie Scott. You did a very good job. But however, you did say at the end that it was adding an extra family, but based on the proposal, I think you guys are adding several extra families. Can you correct me if I'm wrong with that? So, yeah, I could clarify that.
So, we have four units that are being proposed in this configuration and there's a three-unit uh building that exists now. So there's three units now. If this were to be um approved and constructed, it would go to four units. And that's essentially the crux of the
Dvarian is because one of them is in a duplex configuration. So it's adding the delta is one unit on the block. Is that Yeah, I guess I go back to what the attorney also said. So then why three separate structures? I think because the
way I'm hearing the community is that they're feeling like it would be aesthetically unpleasing because you have all of this new traffic coming in. So you I mean you talk about the amount of cars, the amount of people. So I would just, you know, that's when when
because I mean you said it so casually like we only just added one family but it just seems like so much more than one family even though it's a three family house and you're adding one additional but you're adding one additional family and appears to now you know one one two
family and two single families with a whole lot more traffic and a lot just the density seems to be a little much. Now I respectfully have to disagree because we have a resident we're adding one unit and residential
uses typically and I I am not a licensed traffic engineer. I don't want to speak as a licensed traffic engineer. No, we don't have to. I'm not I'm just asking the question. In my planning opinion, the traffic increase would be dimminimous. probably
not measurable because you're adding a single unit and you're having, you know, if you have a couple cars on that lot, you're adding one or two trips out and probably a couple back in on a daily basis. Once again, that is in my planning opinion, not my traffic,
professional engineering opinion, but I just don't see this being a a large um impactor of of traffic, just one extra house or one extra unit. Any other board members would like that
would like to question this witness? Any other board members? There any members of the public that would like to question this witness? David Armenio, 1032 Woodland Avenue. uh you use the word I think over 20 times
that I counted and the word opinion about five times and I I grant you that you are an expert you gave your credentials I understand that uh and since you brought up traffic uh on the street I remember a traffic
consultant and traffic expert who came before this board and said that the Vermela project would add no significant traffic to Mars Avenue. Uh so I object. You can object. Yes, it does. He brought up the traffic.
No, he was answering the question, but he he talked about it would not increase the traffic on the street. So I am I think I could say answer him. Are you arguing with me? Let them say that you object.
Any objections? noted. I mean, you can phrase your question uh sir to the witness on testimony he provided. Okay. Thank you. Uh you didn't to go back to the original statement you made about the original house that's on the property now. Uh
that was built way before there were any codes in Union. That house is extremely old. There was no code and it was the first house on the street. One more time. I'm going toject obviously I'll stop. Right.
The the time now is to ask questions. You will have to ask a question. You'll have the ability to comment on those particulars were not testified by the witness. You can phrase the question. I'm leading up to the question.
But he talked about the size of the lot and the place of that structure on the lot. Correct. And it was put there. question. Again, I object. You could phrase the question. Go ahead. Phrase the question in a way he can
answer based on testimony he provided. Does the do the new structures uh obviously they meet the code except for the variances that you seek whereas the older house did not. Correct.
The older house is a also a non-permitted use. So it does not meet the use standards of the district with regards to and why doesn't it meet the standards? Most likely because it could predate the
standards. I'm not sure. Okay. Thank you. It does. Any other members of the public like to question uh testimony? I'm Brian Cave 1070 Woodland Avenue. Did you go and walk this neighborhood in
person? I did twice. Okay. Did you go at night time and try to park? I went at probably the first time 5:30 p.m. and the second time was today before this
hearing probably around 6:30. So before people get home from work. Um, from the loaden side of the property, you're looking at the property from loaden. What is the lot size of the property to the right? Let me check. I have it. If you want to
make it faster, it's 80 by 100. To the right of that property, what is the lot size? Let me give the witness a chance to answer a question. 80 by 100. And then to the lot to the right of that one,
55 by 100. And to the right of that one, 55 by 100. And to the right of that one, 60 by 100. And to the right of that one, 50 by 100. And to the right of that one, 85.39
by 100. All right. So would you say that an 80 foot wide lot is conforming if we just leave it as an 80 foot wide lot instead of 240 foot wide lots? 80 foot is conforming because yes, it meets the minimum requirement. Right. And
that's much more going with the neighborhood. Correct. Incorrect. My testimony was that we looked at the lot widths and the lot areas of all of the lots on both sides of the block. And what we found was that
75% of them fall within the 5,000 to 5800 square foot range. And I know that we're under that, but my argument was that even though our lot is 80 ft wide and 60,000 square feet in area, it's still the outlier on the prevailing lot
size when looking at all of the all the lots in this neighborhood. And for the record, that's Louden. Bring the microphone with you so we can that's houses on both sides of Loudenav and the houses that front on Woodland.
But to the right of it, a majority or at least half are 80 feet wide or no that's or larger than 50 feet wide. So let me answer the first part. Half are not 80 feet wide. Um not including
our lot in the lots that I just previously mentioned that we looked at. Only four are 80 feet wide out of the 52. All right. So let me rephrase the question. How many of the lots to the right of your lot are larger than 50 ft
wide? Three. No. He's answered your question. I'm both wrong. Right. You'll have the opportunity to supply information contrary to his testimony. So well then let me ask again to the first property to the right is what? How
wide is that? So the right I guess the right We're on loaden or on woodland. Loaden to the right. Loaden to the right. 80 ft and to that. Next to that 80 ft and next to that 55 ft next to that 55 and next to
that 60 ft next to that 50t next to that 85.39 ft. So out of those how many are wider than 50 feet? Four. Five. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to question this
witness, Kevin Betener, uh 1036 Willlet Avenue. Uh just when you said that it was just an extra family in each block, we already have a big big parking problem in our street because the colleges, the universities in front of us. So, we
already don't have parking and for that extra family, it's not just to say, "Oh, it's another extra family." So, I felt it, you know. Thank you. No, it's okay. I just grab my notes.
Ellen Lieberman, 1085 Louden Avenue. So Brian pointed out or um I think Dave pointed out in your opinion. So do you have any facts to support that the additional
cars that will be there will not impact the neighborhood? No. What we do is we try and follow the code. The code gives us our parameters on which we should look to design to and
towns and municipalities adopt codes in order to protect residents in order to serve the general welfare. So what we do is we look at the code and we quantify how many parking spaces are going to be required and we try and meet that
requirement and in this case exceed it. Can I can I tell you that parking will not be impacted? I I can't say how many cars someone would have, but this is a compliant application with regards to parking and
it's over compliant. It's over compliant. Are you aware that the town's own master plan says that approximately 85% of union residents commute?
I was not aware of that. Okay. So that would add into the number of commuters and and I do have to comment that the existing house does not have families in the house.
There is one person that lives on the top floor, one person that lives in the middle floor and one person that lives on the lower floor. So essentially you're increasing the number of people
and the number of cars by well over well over 55% according to what would be normal. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public like would like to question this
question the witness on his testimony? Mike Zachary at 1064 Lowden Avenue. Uh, two quick questions. Um, how many variances are needed for the current design? We have one Dvariance and we have four C variance C variances
and that's for three different lots. Uh, you mentioned the possible the possibility if there was one home on Lowden and one home on Woodland, how many of those variances would be needed then? Depends how they designed it. If the lot
is 80 by 100 and wouldn't also be 80 by 100 the lot areas and the lot be needed. Sorry. Would those variances be needed? No. Lot area variances or lot with variances would not be needed. So it would be more compliant than what's
there now? It would proposed it would comply with the zoning ordinance. Thank you. Oh, second question. Sure. Um the drawing that you have up there, are there any drawings that you would have that show the three homes that are proposed? Because that's the only drawing we could see of the homes. I
haven't seen any yet. Do you have a drawing that you could show the board of the site plan or of the architectural plans of the home? Yeah, the two homes and whatever that duplex is with all the homes next to it.
Unfortunately, that wasn't a drawing that we prepared. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to question this witness on testimony he's given? Do you have any other witness? Counselor Scott, if you'd like to have a traffic
expert, if you think that's relevant, I certainly would. I don't. I think it's a dimminimous situation, but if you think that's relevant, I'll call him up. No, I do not. I said no, I do not. Okay. Thank you. Then I have nothing. I would like obviously after the interested citizens
talk the opportunity to sum up asking a question. You have a question? The lawyer's asking you a question. The lawyer is asking you a question. You asked me a question. No, the board the board Henry the the public is allowed to offer comments. That's Mr.
Gastion. You have no more witnesses tonight. Correct. No more witnesses except I have a traffic engine. The traffic engineer here in case anybody wants such traffic engineer is here noted for the record. Uh Miss Scott had a particular question relevant to overflow and impact. Some of the public
had some comments but you're going to rest on the dimminimous factor and the testimony of the uh I certainly can call the question. The question is how many traffic movements will come from one house? I think that's inconsequential, but I can call a traffic expert to testify. No. And I I understand you and
I don't make the record. I agree. What exists and we heard a lot of commentary and we've been here more than one night. The legally existing three family house is one aspect of this and then the four units that are proposed tonight is what the board is considering. The planner summarized that. So that's what the
board has to deliberate on. Ultimately the standards require two. They're proposing four and what exists is three. So that that's I was to call a traffic expert then just for that one issue. I would since it came up, you know, we can hear what he has to say about it.
Can I ask the witness to swear or affirm that the testimony you provide this evening is the truth and the whole truth? I do. And for the record, could you state and spell your name with your affiliation? August Matarazzo. M A T A R A Z O Neglia Group
and it's traffic engineering. Correct. Correct. Miss Matzo, your business address and your occupation. 34 Park A, Lynhurst, New Jersey. You licensed engineer at the state of New Jersey. Yes. And have you testified previously in front of boards
as the municipal consultant engineer on a regular basis? Yes. Mr. Chairman, I accepted. Mr. Matarazzo, you heard the questions with regard to intensity of traffic. Can you please review the issue of the
number of traffic movements that would come from one of these units on a daily basis? Expected number based on records certainly. So for a typical single family home the during a peak hour the
number of expected vehicle trips this would be the uh vehicles entering and exiting the property. the during a peak hour the number of trips would be ranging from two to three during a peak hour. So that would be morning uh
evening, midday, Saturday 2 to three for any one of these. And when you say peak hour, you're talking about probably a two-hour stretch from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and 400 p.m. till 6 p.m. Is that what the peak hour is? Correct. Thank you. I have no further questions of this witness. Any board members have
questions? They want to address this witness on Sure. Sir, with this proposed application, what do you see how much of an increase in traffic will be from an
increase? Well, it's an existing three family. Um, I know that in terms of occupancy, it's on the lower end of occupancy. If we were to take it at its full occupancy, existing trips would be somewhere of
nine trips in and out. We're increasing it to proposed of four units. So that would be an increase of an additional three trips in grand total of things. Are you under the scope of uh parking as
well? Do you do that as well? You analyze that? Yes. Okay. Is there an increase in parking? There would be an increase in the parking supply. Uh currently existing, they have a twocar garage and then the
um and in the parking driveway that is off Louden, they have space for three cars. Um proposed they would have enough capacity for to meet the zoning ordinance which
would be for 12 spaces. So, but do you think it's going to increase parking on Woodland and Louden? They would have enough capacity per ordinance. So, you're saying they wouldn't have to use they wouldn't have to. Statistically speaking, statistically speaking, they wouldn't have to touch the on street
parking. Thank you, sir. Any other board members that would like to question this witness? Yes. Um, it's probably hypothetical, but can you guarantee that the people won't be parking on the street so the people that are in the garage can get out and make
keep their cars on the street? Uh, are you asking that uh would that be if people parking on the street be blocking the driveway? No. You got people parking in the garage, correct? If they use the garage and then someone's behind him in the driveway.
Correct. Mhm. So, how's that person in the garage going to get out without that car being moved and probably parked on the street, which would increase parking on the street? So, typically um typically what would happen is the
residents of the home would coordinate amongst themselves the shifting of cars. The shifting of cars. If someone say is parked in the garage, they need to leave for work, but whoever's parked in the garage or parked in the driveway typically uh doesn't need to leave for
work or school at that time. They would pull out person in the garage p uh leaves for work or school and then they would pull back into the driveway. Hopefully. Oh, just for the record, my client would certainly, if this were
approved, agree to a condition that the garages could not be used for storage. That would be a violation if they were so that they would always avail be available for vehicles. Thank you. I just have a concern. I know
you might say that, but I know a lot of property owners will use that as storage rather than a car because just common sense. I I got too much furniture. I'm going to put my furniture or whatever in my garage. And I would be concerned that
that would be the thing that might occur in these new homes that are built. people are going to automatically put furniture, bikes, whatever in that garage rather than, you know, utilizing it as a car. Mr. Mr. Graves, if it were made a condition of any approval, should
there be an approval, that would result in a potential municipal violation for a code violation cited by the zoning officer, construction office, if they violated. So, yes, has it happened in history? Sure. people. There are people
that don't use their garages to park, but this has an excess of parking of three spaces and we're willing to make it a condition. So, I think we'd pretty much be forcing people to park on site and we wouldn't have a problem. Obviously, I don't look into the future.
Well, I appreciate that the applicant is offering it as a condition, but I'll just add legally that's a very tricky, if not close to impossible enforcement mechanism for a uh code enforcement official to determine whether or not a single family
property owner is using its garage to park vehicles as compared to storage. I disagree the as a practical matter. Either way, the board needs to deliberate on the fact of impact to the neighborhood and
we've heard testimony from the traffic engineer about what that might mean. I that's what we need to do. The condition is offered. It's noted for the record, but I just think as a practical matter, they offered a condition to assure that
the property owner would use the garages for parking vehicles as opposed to storage. And I just said it my legal opinion is that as a practical matter enforcement will become very difficult. That is as the construction official.
Yes. I that would be very tough to I understand to but if you wanted to I I don't Yeah. I don't know how I could but more than you could. Are there any other members of the board
that would like to com uh question this witness? Are there any members of the public that would like to question this witness on his testimony? Good evening, Kathy Armeno, 1032 Woodland. Hi, Mr. Matarazzo. How are
you? I'm good. Good. You used a term I didn't know. Uh pulling in and out during peak hours, right? I think that was it. Yes. Okay. Our neighbors who live in a small house just like ours, three bedrooms, have five vehicles, what
is their peak pulling in and out rate or number? What would theirs be? Would there be a single family home? Oh, yes. It's a single family home. So, five cars. So, for them, typical uh trip generation would still be two to three
trips uh per peak hour. So, that's 10, right? You're saying 10 to 15? No, it would be two to three. Uh regardless of how many vehicles they have stored. Oh, no. No, not stored. Used. They use five vehicles, right? They have
five vehicles parked, but the amount of vehicles uh that would be leaving their property uh or entering their property would be two to three. So, Okay. Okay. I just wanted a little bit more explanation what that meant. Sure. So a
a vehicle trip is uh is when a car enters or exits a property. So say coming here for example, a trip would be pulling into a parking lot or leaving the parking lot. So for a single family home, it would be any car pulling into a
driveway or leaving a driveway regardless of how many cars are parked in the lot itself. Oh, okay. So, you're saying just twice a day you go in and out and that's it, right? Based off of I was industry standard. I was just curious. I guess you stay home a lot,
huh? No, I I I commute every day. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to question this witness on testimony he has given? And uh council, you have any other
witnesses? No other witnesses. Again, I'd like an opportunity to sum up after the objectors are heard. And now's the time for the public comment. So, if the public can come up, uh we'll again, even if you've been up
before, state your name and address. And I'm going to ask you to swear or affirm that any testimony you provide this evening is the truth and the whole truth. I swear. And for the record, once again, just your name, Brian Cave, 1070 Woodland Avenue. Thank you. And then I
have a USB to have a presentation. You have something you want to mark? You have an exhibit? Yeah. Okay. Did you have a copy for Mr. Gion as well? I do. All right. Before I get started, um I would like everyone to stand who I'm
speaking on behalf of tonight, please. How many roughly do we have? Do we want So for the record, see, I'm we cut it together to consolidate. So you don't have a bunch of people coming up here to speak. No, I appreciate that. And we just for the record, as the board attorney, I know we've had several sessions where the public has been here
and we we've guided them accordingly. So this is this is a good way to proceed, actually. Right. So can everybody except for the four families that live right next to the property sit down? So, those of you who have houses right next to the property, raise your hand so
they know you're part of that. Back there, that there, and Kevin. Yes. All right. So, those are the four families that are affected by this the most because they live right next to the property. Overall, I would say there's at least 20. I mean, I was trying to do a quick
count. Would that Mr. Gone? Uh, did the We did send in a petition that was signed by a lot of the neighbors. Yeah, the petition gets tricky. We we did acknowledge that it came into the building department. As I said at the last meeting, Mr. Gion has the right and the applicant has the
right to question people, but we can generalize because there are a number of people here tonight that there was at least 20 that stood up in in conjunction with the testimony you're going to offer here. So, that that's a wise way to proceed. I think that's appropriate. And we'll note your presentation. You said
you had hard copies of that you were given. Yeah, I have it. I'll mark that 01 for the record just so it's part of our record. Yeah, if I can get a copy of that. Thanks. So, this neighborhood about I moved here nine years ago, but majority of these
people have been here like 30 years and more uh or 40 years and more. You know, I know people from this 60 years, you know, been in this neighborhood. So, it's a tight-knit neighborhood. Uh our mission is to maintain our neighborhood's distinct character and
vibrant community. Uh we will work to ensure that any development respects our shared values and protects the qualities that make our neighborhood a special place to live for future generations. Um our concerns, we had three concerns, but one of them is mute point now that
they moved the property to the 25 foot line, but uh two family home area zoned and a single family home, we are not happy about that. We just don't think it's right for the neighborhood. Uh and the 40 foot by 100 foot size lots, we do
not think is good for the neighborhood. As I said earlier, there are other lots that are larger than the 50 foot in the neighborhood. So, it's kind of consistent from 50 feet up to 80 feet.
And then if you pass this variance and let it be, you're setting a precedent for future buyers for the other four 80 by 100 lots currently on Loaden Avenue. what's to stop anybody else from coming to say, "Hey, we want to tear down this
house and build divide it into two 40 foot lots, you know, or I want to, you know, tear it down and build two family hand homes on these 80 foot lots." You're setting a precedent by doing this. And I do know
in the Putin Mana neighborhood, they tried to do this and you guys stopped it. Um, the other thing I would like to note is this property was never put on the market for others to have an opportunity to maybe have ideas of what to do with
the property. I did include in this thing so you can look at it later, but the lot sizes and one thing we wanted to talk about is the green belt behind our houses. All of us are backyard users. We grill,
we hang out, we have parties in our backyard. We are very fun neighborhood. We are adding this in. So when you were asking about a aerial view, I kind of created my own version. And this is not to scale, but it kind of gives you the idea
of how these backyards still now because the 25 foot setback, even though it's compliant, is not conforming with what most of the houses are. Most of our houses are like at the 30, 40 foot off of the property line. We all have nicesized backyards. So, by
adding this, you're adding these people in the yards next to it are going to be looking at a two-story structure from their backyard. Now, Our solution and what we would be open to is two 80 foot 100 lots with single family
homes. That's one driveway on each. You know, that could be a fourc car driveway because they have more space. Now, we want to state that variances should only be granted in cases of genuine hardship unique to the property, not for the convenience or increased profit of a
developer. The variance would be only when there's no other option for the lot, and there are other options, but the property has never been put on the market for others to present. What's to not say someone is willing to buy it and renovate the
farmhouse and make it a single family or renov I don't know if they tore it down. I don't think they can rebuild the three family because it's no longer code. So, if someone tears it down, it has to be a single family home. This is our proposal. You know, we would rather just see 280 foot lots with two
single family homes. And we feel that that fits in with the neighborhood and it would just, you know, whoever moves in going to join our community and be able to party with us in our backyards. So, thank you.
Any board members have question of the of the witness, Mr. Gion? Any questions of the witness or should we ask for another public comment? No. Thank you. And and he did represent the interest of all of you. So that's noted for the
record. So let's not try to be repetitive. You you have the right to comment. Of course, uh just come up the same way. Yep. That other mic if you would. Well, he might have to talk.
Can I ask if you can swear or affirm that any testimony you provide this evening is the truth and the whole truth? It is. And for the record, one more time, if you could just state and spell your name. Ellen Lieberman, 1085 Lowden
Avenue. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you for acknowledging that you received the petition which um gave a number of points of objection to the way that this is being proposed and the variances that are being sought. Um, can
I ask has the planning board seen the petition and our objections? No, it's it's something that came in through to the board of professionals. The reason that it can't be circulated to the board is because the people who signed the petition need to be here to
have the opportunity for question and answer. It is acknowledged though and the numbers I know it was at least double from the people who were here present this evening. So, there are a number of bodies that executed it, but the turnout is still good, and I've noted it for the record as the board
attorney. Okay. Thank you. Um, if you could summarize it, certainly. That's that's what we need you to do. That'd be great. Um, I counted 56 houses between Woodland and Lowden. 54 of those houses, and I'm not counting
people because there's many more people in a house, and they also signed, but representing each house, 54 of them signed in objection to this development. And as you know, some of them are here today. You got to go into the mic.
Thank you for your objection. We object to what you're planning. It's noted. It's noted for the record. Uh, Miss Lieberman. So, you you have done your due diligence in terms of authenticating what it is you're commenting on.
Oh, it's okay. I don't want to I don't want to take more time. Um, so as Brian said, my understanding of the New Jersey code, and I know that you're consistent with the New Jersey code, is that request for relief
is actually kind of inconsistent with your own master plan, and I can cite in the master plan the parts that I believe are inconsistent, but in general, um, the master plan was established to ensure orderly development and protect
community interests. And as Brian said, varant should only be granted in cases of genuine hardship unique to the property, not for the convenience or increased profit of the developers. There is a part in your master plan that talks about union is
already developed enough um so that further development would not be necessarily warranted. That's my paraphrasing, but I could pull it up in the master plan if you'd like me to actually quote it. Would you like me to do that? No. Okay. Um because I know you're all familiar with your master
plan. As it was also noted, there are four other 80 foot wide properties on Lowden Avenue. One which is I think for sale now. Who knows who's going to buy it? Um it will, as Brian mentioned, set an
unfavorable precedent. Um you're aware of the code on which is why they're seeking the variance on duplexes and two families. So, I'm not I'm trying not to repeat what we
put into the objections. Repeat what's already been said. Um, we do feel it's going to be a strain on the local infrastructure. The increased number of households resulting from the pro proposed subdivision and variances will place an
undue burden on existing already subpar infrastructure. Not your fault. But the infrastructure was built a long time ago. We just had an outage of electricity because it couldn't the grid couldn't handle the hot days and the number of
appliances being used. So now we're going to add four more to that on the properties. Um water and sewer systems. I understand that there was a storm water runoff
storm whatever water was investigated. Um, but I also noted that the assessment was done on 6 in of total rainfall
with 3.2 per hour. Um, I'm sorry. The assess I'm sorry. Um the assessment was done over only 2 hours and we often have rainfall for more than 2 hours sometimes for days as we know.
Um there's additional runoff from snow which we know will happen. Um, so I'm not sure that the assessment that was done actually mimics what reality is. Um, if
they only looked at it for two hours in a day. Um, we know that rainfall is often more than three and a half inches. Um, schools, we're talking about strain and overcrowded classrooms. Washington
School, um, Kowami, the high school, we're going to add four families, which will translate to children. Um, it's unlikely that someone who is single is going to move in. And, um,
as Dave mentioned, um, roads and traffic, we have Kane University there already. We do have permit only parking. That doesn't mean that it's abided by. And there are a number of rental houses that have more than
three cars, four cars, five cars, um, and visitors. So, I think that needs to be considered as well. Um I won't go into the negative environmental impacts of imperous ground
um affecting you know climate change and other things. But it is noted in the township master plan that there should be no further harm due to environmental changes and global warming.
So, we do think that environmental impacts are at play here. As Brian mentioned, the loss of green space and trees, um, noise and light pollution, altering the character of our neighborhood,
we do have a distinct character with certain lot sizes, architectural styles. Um, we understand that the future is now, but not necessarily to the detriment of our community.
Um, I don't have any proof on reduced property values, but a lot that is a smaller size, I don't believe, in my opinion, will have as much value as a property that is a larger size. And when
they do comparables, it's not going to be appropriate. I have a mother daughter. There is no other mother daughter in the neighborhood. So my comps come up as much lower. They're going to look at four h well at least
two houses that are comparable and it's going to affect our property values. And of course there's the safety concerns which is noted in your master plan that for people that are pedestrians, elderly, children, we do
have a number of children, increase number of cars and it will be more than three cars. Um, I did the calculation. If we assume one car per bedroom and two cars for the master bedroom, which is a
reasonable assumption because whether they're driving now or will be driving in a few years, one car per person is not unreasonable. We're going to be increasing up to 18 cars that will likely be moving out of their driveways more than twice a day.
um five of them may be moving out at the same time to go to school to go to work and coming home at varied times. So we see that the increase of the number of vehicles that would be parking would be unreasonable for the neighborhood and
would create further congestion that is already affecting our streets particularly wooden woodland avenue where you can only park on one side of the street. Um, so that's in essence um what in some
what our objections are. I'm sure there's other folks that have some other objections, but I think those are the most salient that um we would really not like to see the variances approved and rather redevelopment in a way that does
conform and I know this is approximately the fourth time we've been back with the developers and the architects having the opportunity to revise. Um this is the first time that they've actually come back with a revision that is substantial
enough. Um twice they came back with those that there was no revision. So you know I'm glad that they made some changes but um further development in union to the detriment of the community I would
like to have considered. There any other members of the public that would like to comment? I just have one quick David Armino 1032 Woodland Avenue. David, can I just ask you to swear or affirm to the extent you're offering testimony the truth to the whole truth? Yes. Thank
you. Uh I just have a question. Will will the developer have to come back with a revised plan because he indicated that he was going to get rid of the two uh side windows? Would we have to go through this whole thing again with the
reision? It's not a substantial change that impacted variances. It was something they offered as an accommodation based on a public comment. So, I don't think it's substantial enough to require you to have to come back to see or even have the the township comment on that. That's all I
needed to know. Thank you. Yeah. Other members would like to comment. Can I ask you to swear or affirm that any testimony you're going to offer this evening is the truth and the whole truth? It is. And for the record, just state and spell your name. Uh yes, Chris Baker. Um it's been a long evening. I
still live at 640 Fairfield Way uh in Union. Um just to be clear, I don't live in this community. Um I live in the Putnham Mana community. Uh and I'm sure as the board is aware, we recently were faced with a very similar situation uh
where a developer purchased a property in our community with the intention of making a quick and healthy profit. Uh he planned to demolish a four-bedroom home and replace it with two new build five-bedroom properties which would potentially have doubled the occupancy
of the space that the original property was originally intended uh to support. Um as I think we've all heard tonight and I think we can all relate to the fact that more bedrooms equal more cars. Maybe not initially, but as families
grow and um adults reach driving age, cars tend to follow the number of bedrooms. And in our particular case, prior to the developer being able to get approval, um he treated us to um a foreshadowing of what it would be like
to experience that increase of uh vehicles because he rented the property to eight college students while he was awaiting um planning approval. Um, so this wasn't a theoretical concern that we had. We actually got to experience it. And I can attest to the fact that
the congestion, the additional parking, the coming and going at all times of the day and night in our case uh was a very real uh threat and concern uh to the safety and the health of our community. Um I would urge the members of the
planning board to take this factor into consideration uh and you know, before granting variances to cram more houses into a space that it wasn't originally designed for or for the for what zoning requirements
currently permit. Um, make that consideration in terms of, you know, that concern. It's a very real concern. We've experienced it in another part of the community in union. I think all of the people that have spoken here tonight have very eloquently raised that concern. Um and I think irrespective of
the clear impact that what is being proposed will have on the quality of life I think granting such a variance would significantly elevate the risks to the health and safety of the residents of the township of union.
Thank you. Can I ask the witness to swear or affirm that any testimony you provide would be the truth and the whole truth? Yes. And for the record, if you could state and spell your name. Eric Wrath. E R I K E R A T H 1055 Lowden Avenue and I also own
1077 Louden Avenue. I'm gonna apologize in advance. I'm not a good public speaker, so just be a little patient with me. Can you just read it into the mic? Sure. I've lived on Louden Avenue my entire life, all 49 years. I grew up just a few
doors down on 1077 Louden Avenue. And eventually, my wife Tracy and I bought our home at 1055 because we've always loved the look, feel, and community of this neighborhood. It's home in every sense of the word to us. After my father passed, my brother and I took over
ownership of our family's house at 1077. So now we have deep ties to two homes on this street and to the neighborhood itself. With that said, I can honestly tell you if these two large proposed homes had existed back when we were looking to buy, I would not have bought my current
house. They're not only significantly larger than the homes around them, but they're being proposed on lots that are just too small for their size. The scale simply doesn't fit with the character of Lowden Avenue. It's not just about the look, though that's a big issue. It's also about
privacy. I measured my home last week and these new homes would extend roughly 20 ft further back than the back of my house. That's a huge difference. When my family is outside on our deck and patio, instead of enjoying our space and privacy, we'll be staring at the side of
a large house. And with how close they'll be, those new neighbors would now easily be able to see into our entire backyard. That's a major concern for me and many of my neighbors. And let's be honest, I don't think anyone here would be okay with that in their own backyard.
We've been here before. The same subdivision proposal came up back in 2007, and our community came together and successfully opposed it. It's honestly hard to believe that we're here again fighting the same battle. I'm urging you not to approve the variances for these oversized homes on
these undersized lots. They're not just out of place. They threaten the character of our neighborhood, the privacy of our surrounding homes, and the very reason so many of us chose to live here in the first place. This is more than just a zoning issue. It's about preserving a community. If you
were in our shoes living where we live, I believe you wouldn't approve of this either. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would love to comment on this here? application. Can I ask the witness for any testimony you swear affirms the
truth and whole truth? Yes. And for the record, just state and spell your name. Uh Mike Zacharia. Michael Zachary. M I C H A L Z A CC C A R I A 1064 Lowden Avenue. Thank you. I just want to reiterate quickly. Um I bought my house
April 2001 right before 911. Um, this, like Eric said, this is the second time we're going through this. 2007 was the first time. It's a nightmare that just keeps coming back. I don't know why. That's number one. Um, Lowden Avenue, they proposed two homes then on Louden.
Guess what? The two homes are there again. We don't know why. They just can't build one. If they built two homes, we wouldn't be here tonight. Nobody would be here tonight. It's very simple. Um, number two, the backyard view. We talked about windows. No windows. It doesn't really matter. These
two homes, I mean, every home on on Louden and Woodland are perfect rectangles. These two homes are inverted. That's why in the backyards as Eric and the homes that are directly next to them, you have this 20 25 foot home sitting there right in their backyard. Whether there's windows or
not, it's irrelevant. It's not conforming. Um, number three, again, there's no drawings for site suitability. We saw drawings tonight. One home is built on a golf course. It looks like there's no homes next to it. Another
home seems to be floating in the sky. So, there's no homes that you can see. These homes are not seen with the homes next to them. We believe that if you did, you would see the problem that everybody here is talking about. Um, number four, we didn't talk about it, but
my wife brought it up, too. Um, on Lon Avenue, these homes have four bedrooms and four bathrooms. Four bathrooms are great. We're just worried that these are going to be college kids on Lowden Avenue. Each bedroom has its own
bathroom. That's not characteristic of the block. To me, that's dorm city and that's what we're concerned about. We have some homes that are rented out. Sometimes it gets a little loud, but that's not something that's in I wish I had four bedroom I mean four bathrooms. We have
two. We're lucky to have that with two girls and a son. Um, last thing is uh um again I have the the board resolution in 2007. I'm not going to bore you and read it. It's turned down for the same reasons that are here tonight. Uh if you
didn't read it, I hope you do because it's it's basically identical. Thank you. the other four uh members of the community would like to come up to make comment on this application. Can I ask you to swear or affirm that any testimony you might offer is the
truth and the whole truth? Yes. And for the record, just state and spell your name. Absolutely. Christian Deanni, 1044 Woodland Avenue. And what was the last name? I'm sorry. Deanni D E V A N E Y 1044 Woodland Avenue and if you want
also 1051 loaded. Thank you. This is uh very difficult to speak. This is my hometown and will always be my hometown. My parents bought this house back in
1971. I was born in 1972. Lived in the house my whole life. I love the neighborhood. All these people are my neighbors. Unfortunately, it is a time
I have to say goodbye to the house because it's over 135 years old. Everything is falling apart. I put when my mom passed away, I bought the house. I loved it so much. But here's the thing. I put so much
money into it. People contacting me, messages, oh, we want to buy your house. We want to buy your house. I kind of refused at one time because I want what's best for the neighborhood. The thing is,
I spoke to the realtor, George, and I said, I want the best thing for the neighborhood. I saw the plants and I love it. It is beautiful. The homes are beautiful. The neighbors may not agree with it. They
don't live in my house right now. Again, it's a 135 year old house. People talk about parking. I'm not renting out. I have one tenant right now. And if he had a wife and kids, there was
no driveway. He'll be parking on the street. If I had a second floor, the third floor apartment, that's two bedrooms. Now you're looking at two more cars. What they're proposing
is very well. It's It's good. It's understandable because you're going to have cars in the driveway. You're not going to have cars out on the street. Um, again, the house is falling apart
and I love the neighborhood. I love the backyard. But you know what? It's time to go because the house is falling apart. If I had to renovate it, it would be over $600,000 just to renovate that
house. If you build two new houses, I don't even know what the market is to build a new house right now. It could be $500, $600,000, maybe more. These guys are doing a great job. I
commend them very well and I understand what the neighbors are going through. Again, I lived here my whole life. It would be 53 years, but this is the best thing for the neighborhood. I can guarantee you nothing's going to go wrong with these
new houses coming up. And ladies and gentlemen of the board, I just want to let you know again, the house is falling apart. Sheetrocks are coming down. When the wind blows, the whole house shakes,
wires are everywhere. It's just not livable anymore. Um, something has to be done. And again, I approve these guys because again, people have come up to me and said, "We
want to buy your house. I want to know what you they're trying to do in my neighborhood." I had to turn a lot down, a lot of people down. And I said, "All right, George, please show me what the the buyers will like to do." He showed
it to me. I said, "I love it." So, please Again, this is the best thing for the neighborhood. The neighbors don't live in my house. I do.
It's falling apart, guys. It's falling apart. What would you do if your homes fell apart? That's my question. What would anybody do if your houses are falling apart? And we also talk about parking.
There's five cars in driveways. Before the um maybe eight years ago, my my son's mom moved in and she said, "Wow, there weren't any cars. Now everybody
has five cars. I just want to ask how many people in each house drives four cars?" I mean, if you have four kids, four people living in a house and there's five cars. You have four cars in a driveway blocking a sidewalk.
You have these other uh houses on Woodland Avenue, which is a small driveway and they're up on the lawn and also blocking the driveway. I mean, blocking the sidewalk. what they
proposed of a wider driveway for the cars to fit in. You have two cars. They're not gonna block the the uh sidewalk. Do I make myself clear on that? I mean, again, it it's very emotional, but again, I
love the neighborhood. I would not do anything wrong to the neighborhood. This is the best thing for the neighborhood right now are these homes that they proposed to the board. And I want to say thank you very much. I love Union. This
is my hometown. And my son said, "Dad," and he's eight years old. He said, "Dad, no matter where we go, Union will always be our town." And we love it. And I thank you all very much. And thank you neighbors. Thank you.
Any other members that would like to comment? Can I ask the witness to swear or affirm that any testimony you provide this evening is the truth and the whole truth into the microphone too. If you could just state and spell your name. Anita
Ericson, 1041 Loud and A. Thank you. Excuse me. I get very nervous. My house was the first house built on Louden Avenue. My parents broke ground for that house the day I
was born. My family has owned that house all these years. I know that house that is broken down. And I knew the families that lived there. I understand his plight. I do. But we
all have our own burdens in the homes. My concern for my neighborhood is shared with everyone in this room. The distance between the homes, the shortening of the
lot size, the sizes of the homes. I do believe that would impact my neighborhood that I have lived most of my life. And yes, while I was married, I did move away with my family. And in my elder years, I've returned home to the
home that I grew up in. And I would like to see that neighborhood stay the way it was now. As I've watched it grow and grow, that part of town has grown immensely from farm fields
to a small college from Newark to a full university, a train station, condos, storage units, and many, many more families in that neighborhood. We now have a lot of children in our neighborhood. There was a time when we
didn't have a lot of children. My concern is the children. They run into the streets. You're Yes, you're adding more cars. I understand it. It goes with the homes. But my concern is the children that are there now. The children from the condo, they come to to
get the bus in the morning, those cars going up and down the street. There are risks involved. Adding more cars. We do have a problem now. So, I do wish that you would consider as all my other neighbors do to turn this down. Thank
you. Any other members of the community that would like to come up to comment on this application? You want to sum up? I would like to sum up, but I'd like to break it up because I'd like to call Gileiam Oratti the
major owner of the entity who's buying. I just want to make a couple of comments. I understand the concern of all the citizens. But first, there they talk about parking. There is no parking variance. In addition, we have more parking than
required. Three more than required. Second, talk about an oversized house. The house is completely compliant. There's no sideyard violations. None whatsoever. Talk about a bathroom with a bedroom.
Isn't that the ideal today? So, I just don't see some of the things being talked about. I understand their concerns. Talk about a 2007 case. It was decided that is not Ray Judicotta. It's a completely different case at this
time. So, the existing house is falling apart. It's a three family. It's non-compliant. It needs to be demolished and replaced with something new and beautiful. Talking about school children. We're
talking about one extra unit. We're not talking about a multifamily dwelling. One extra unit. We're not adding If we add a school child, it's one school child. So talking about distance between homes again we're completely compliant.
So I have a regular summation. I just want to point out the concerns of the citizens. They have their concerns but they're they're not grounded in fact as to what is wrong with this application. There's nothing wrong with the application on all the issues they
talked about. So I would like to give Mr. Argotti a chance to say a couple of words in response to the neighbors. Please. You have to be sworn in. Can I ask the witness to swear or affirm that the testimony you provide this evening is the truth and the whole truth? Yes. Um, and for the record, could you state
and spell your name with your affiliation? Sure. Gier Margote. I am the buyer for uh, Grace Home. Can you spell your name, please? Sure. A I G U I L L E R M O Last name Argote. A R G O T.
Thank you. Well, uh, to the neighbors and to the board members, thank you for your time. Um, you know, I do this for a living, the development. Um, and we put a lot of thought, we put a lot of effort in everything that I touch. I own and
manage a lot of property and I'm very proud of it. I own properties in Lynon in in Union. My mom lives in Union. I used to own 1096 Woolen Avenue which I held for a lot of years. And um, and I'm very proud of the town. I'm very proud
of the street. Trust me, we had changed the plans already four times to make sure our neighbors the neighbors are happy uh with the design. We added parking. We added backyard. We uh
changed the exterior of the homes. Uh we review all of their comments. This is not a a one week uh type of transformation. This has take months of uh improvement with the engineers, planning, uh architects and all of that.
I really put the best effort to uh on this street and regardless what your decision is today, I will just give you my word that I will do the best I can to comply with their demands. If uh they ask for privacy, we already okay to move
few of the windows to make them happy. Um but regardless, I'm in real estate and I love I'm very proud of the product we make. I don't like to build buildings. I like to build residential real estate because my son 17 years old
in couple of years he's going to graduate. He's going to look for a home. And I will not wanted to see him go into an apartment building to live. I want him to be in one of those residents. Yes, I understand the the house is a little smaller than the neighbors, but
it's not a drastic disturbance to the neighborhood. We analyze it. I went to the professionals. We are 95% compliance with all the items in the in the list. Uh so I just ask you, you know, put in
the balance all the effort that we have put into this application to make sure it fits the neighborhood, make sure that they are happy. But I cannot make it perfect. Nothing is perfect. But I I'm working I will work with you guys to
make sure we get to the best possible of of what we're trying to achieve. That's all my compromises today. Regardless your decision is today, I thank you for your time. We tried our best. This was not an easy job to come up with the design that we put. But we have faith
that the the town see this as a progress and see a house that is uh 135 years old being renovated and put new homes for the new generation. I know you have doubts about the climate change, but we do our best with the
materials. You know, we tried our best to to to put quality product, and that's my compromise to you guys. I understand your position, too. I live in a home. I'm in Yuni County. My mom lives in town. My family lives in town. So, thank
you for your time. Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I could just do a regular summation at this point. Any members of the public have questions of the testimony? Yes, you can come up and ask questions since he offered testimony.
Ellen Lieberman, 1085 Lowden Avenue. Um, I've lived in Union my entire life. First on, if I might, I thought this was going to be an opportunity to question Mr. Argot. Yes, it is. It is. He's got
to come up and answer questions. Move lived in Union my entire life. One side of Union, Franklin School. Moved in 1979. I was 16 years old to Louden Avenue. I know that house 1096.
Can you say again your relationship to that house? I I owned it. Uh I don't own it now. I sold it. I it was uh bought in in distress in foreclosure. I bought it. I uh updated it and I had it rented for
many years. Really? How many years? I don't recall. Oh, because I live right around the corner about six houses from there. You bought it from uh an East Asian family. Well, not from them, but from the bank
because it did go into foreclosure. There was a note on their door. They had to leave. You renovated it, never lived there. It's not irrelevant because he swore that it was the truth. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
And the truth is that he bought it and as soon as it was renovated, it was sold to the person who now rents it. So to say that you rented it for many years is an untruth. And I want to point that out. Not true. I own. All right. Well, that you made the question of him. You
can offer further comments since he opened at a later time. He right now just questions of the testimony he provided. Okay. The question was his relationship to it and right and he disagreed. So you can elaborate. You'll be given an opportunity to comment again
since the record reopened. Is there anyone else who would like to questions? Uh, Brander Espanel, 1100 Louden Avenue. Uh, how long have you lived in Union? Do you live in Union now? I don't. My mom lives in Union and my family lives. You
don't live in Union? I don't. And you want a project just like this one right next to you? I wouldn't. Absolutely. Oh, yeah. Sure. Absolutely. I would love to have a project like this. Absolutely. How long have you been in business in real estate? 22 years. Again, I object. Okay. He testified to a certain thing to
go across his history. I don't think it applies. He did offer testimony though as the owner. So, I think some leeway for the public say that I've been in real estate all my life as well. I have flipped a good number of houses and this
project is disrespectful to the entire neighborhood. The flips I do will conform to the neighborhood. Two one family houses, one in Woodland, the other one in Lowden. Call it a day. You made your money. We're here to make money. I don't I don't blame you for
being a uh a real estate developer. I've been there, too. I still do it. I think in the form of a question, though, because it's getting late. Have you considered the the option that you've heard tonight for a conforming subdivision? One family homes, one in
each street. Okay. I I apologize, but most of my properties I I don't buy properties. I fix them. I resell them. Most I owned over 101 properties in Union County and I'm very proud of them.
Some in Union. I I renovate them. I keep them in good standards. I don't get tickets. I am a good operator and I'm very proud of the product that we built. So, I disagree. I'm going to take this properties, fix it and resell it. I'm
going to keep the two family the ones the ones in the back I'm going to resell because they're single family house. And the reason why I do this is to give opportunity to also other buyers that are they are needing of houses. So you're trying to put me as a as a
flipper which I'm not. What about us? We bought we invested. We want to protect our investment. The the two family some of us is the biggest. We're going astray of of question and answer on the testimony. The question as I narrowed it down is did you consider developing a
two lot subdivision with conforming single family homes to invest that kind of money into this site? I I it cannot I will lose money if I decide to do two single families on each side.
It's not economical physical. So another developer will will do it then. So you could walk always walk away from the deal if it's not going to make you money. That's all. Or the property can gets drawn down. It can be rented to college kids. It will be a difficult
site. That's why we put a lot of thought into this. Thank you. Arie Delgado, 1084 Loud Avenue. I swear my commentary is great. You said, were you going to question or testimony? Question. Okay. You said that you doing the best for the neighborhood by putting
three family homes, doubling the the amount of bedrooms that are currently on the property from 7 to 14. And you're saying you're doing the best for the neighborhood. Is that your question? Different from what was testified as to the number of bedrooms that are there. That's
the seven or 14 that I thought it was nine that was testified. sets about a seven if I remember correctly. Again, my recollection. Do you say doing the best for the neighbor? Correct. My recollection. The best for the neighborhood. You would love to live in that development. Correct. Okay. Why
not? I did I did not I did not said that, but go ahead. What's your question? That's that's what I understood. What What is your question? Is you you won't consider two one family homes economically is not physible. So, it's greed. The reason we all been wasting three four Wednesdays over the last
three months is nothing but greed. This whole thing is just greediness on the sellers's part. Right. This is commenter. Is there anyone else in the community that would like to comment on this application? Yes, you can public comment because the
record was reopened reopened as to the witness testimony. public comment. Yes. If anybody else is going to question the witness, are we done questioning? Yeah. But if if everybody if there's no more questions of the witness, we can have more public comment. Again, I
object to public comment unless it has to do with the additional statement made by the witness. Yeah, you could address the testimony that reopened. I agree with that for the public comment. I'm doing public comment here. Public comment based on the owner's representation after the record had closed and was reopened. Yeah. Now that
I know that he was the person that bought 1096 Woodland and fixed it up very cheaply and sold it to someone else who's having a lot of problems with that house. Now, this was a flip and now that I know that this we've all
complained about the person who bought the house from foreclosure, did a shoddy job, and now the new owner has so many problems with that house with the poor workmanship. Ellen Lieberman, 1085 Laden Avenue. I know it's late. I know you all want to go home, but I go to facts.
It was not years. If there was testimony, truth, only truth, it was absolutely no more than a year that that house was from foreclosure to fix up to sold. So, I'm not sure that everything
you're hearing tonight is accurate. Um, I bought the property in 2017, June. No, this is public comment now. Mr. Gion wants to put you back on and Reese will wear you in. That's the way it goes. And um Yeah, we all live there
and all of us can tell you from the time that the sheriff put the note on the door to development starting and it being sold, we're not talking years and he never lived there. Mike Zachary again, 1064 L. One quick, very quick comment. I promise. Um,
somebody here said something very smart earlier today. I don't know who it was. Maybe they can um about um there are some homes that have the same uh footage um 80 ft. The fear is that if you vote on this and approve it, we have a um
this neighborhood is two blocks from the Union train station. They're building the new tunnels under the river right now. Union Station is supposed to be Midtown Direct with the Raritan line. The fear is, and somebody here said it, if you allow this, developers going to
come in, buy a home, and we're going to be here for a third time. So, take that in strong consideration. Thank you. Anyone else from the community that would like to come up and comment? I'm going to give a standard summation
at this point. Obviously, one approval by this board as you well very know or know know very well doesn't set a precedent for anything. So, if you give an approval on this 80 foot lot doesn't mean you're obligated to give an approval on any other 80 foot lot. And
there's a lot of discussion about 80 foot lots. I think don't hold me to it. There are 54 lots in the neighborhood. Three besides this one are 80 foot lots. So the 80 foot lot is unique in this area.
An application to demolish a multifamily a multifamily three family which is in very poor condition and erect two new ones and a new two. That in my opinion is a benefit to the neighborhood. You're getting rid of a discordant use, three
families, a discordant use that's in poor condition and replacing with three new homes. You're existing, you're eliminating the existing nonconformity. The lot is being subdivided is the
largest or equal to the largest in the neighborhood. It's the only through lot. The proposal is consistent with the neighborhood because it doesn't violate in any way the sideyard or the setbacks.
It has more parking than required. And in fact, we came in with an application had more than double the parking requirement, but because of concerns about the yard, we eliminated that and still came in with more spaces than
required. This is a D1 and certainly the benefits outweigh any detriment and the special reasons were made clear by the applicant. The master plan considerations, the planner was very
excellent in his testimony and made that clear. You're taking an unattractive home and putting in a new set of properties. Again repeating largely compliant with
what is required the drainage there was discussion by an objector with regard to the drain. The drainage will be compliant. It has to be discussion with regard to number of children. We're talking about one additional unit. How many more children
would come from one additional move uh unit? Talk about traffic movements. During the prime time 7 to nine or 4 to 6, there were two additional traffic movements at most.
Inconsequential, not noticeable. There was discussion about environment, climate change. This kind of project will have zero effect on environment and climate change. There was discussion about property value.
Nobody's qualified to testify that property value is going to go up or down. I would personally speculate it'll go up if you're removing a a very poor condition three unit building. There was a safety concern. There's nothing unsafe
about this. There's sufficient parking, sufficient backup area, plenty of room. So, it is not an unsafe circumstance. I think what we're proposing is a complete benefit to the neighborhood,
more than adequate parking, all compliant with sideyards and setbacks, has one unit more, and eliminating a discordant three family old building in very poor condition that's sitting there
as an anthma to the neighborhood. And I thank the board for all the time and consideration they've given to this application. Thank you. This time I believe that we can compress this application. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, after
hearing testimony from the public, thank you all for coming out a third time. Um, and looking at the application, my vote is going to be no. Mr. Well, you got to explain what you're
doing. I'm not voting yet. Explain what you're going to do. How you feel about it? You're listening to the public. I understand their concerns.
I believe that the uh possible new owner is a a good person and at this time Oh, yes. That's all I have to say.
Mr. You're good. They're going to do a formal vote. are deliberating right now. Mr. Chairman, um I don't believe that the benefits outweigh the negative imparts on this application and I don't
believe it's the neighborhood's problem because the home got dilapidated. Um they're saying it's only one more unit, but from what I understand, there's only two or three people living in that home. So, it's really not just one more unit. It's
a lot more people. So, I'm going to vote no on this application. Mr. Graves, after hearing the concerns from the public, I feel the negative outweigh the positive. Therefore, I'll be voting no.
Scott, I have to agree with my colleagues. I also just want to commend the community because you guys did an excellent job of coming together to protect your community. Um, I also think that the negative impacts definitely outweigh the
positive impacts. The traffic that we went back and forth with, I don't think was necessarily about traffic. I think it was about cars being parked in the neighborhood and people being able to come home from work or go out to shop and be able to come back to a parking spot versus having to ride around and
look and you know just being a nuisance for just getting a parking spot. Um, so I definitely think that was and I and I just, you know, to have you come back out twice and possibly a third time again, you know, kudos to you guys because you don't get a lot of people
that can galvanize the neighborhood and come out to a community. So, you should definitely be proud of yourselves. I will also be voting no. Yes. And as for my for myself, I agree with my colleagues.
I'm going to vote no as well. May I have a motion to deny the application? Just for the record, too. If you're going to make a motion to deny, a vote would be yes to deny. So, if you're going to follow to follow this right protocol.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the board deny the variance applicable to this application. That council be directed to prepare a resolution consistent with the board's decision. Second. So, a yes vote will be to deny. Roll call. Miss Scott.
Say it one more time. Yes. Vote will be to deny. The motion is to deny. Yes. Mr. Johnson? Yes. Mr. Graves? Yes. Miss Rickettts? Yes. Mr. Frame? Yes. Mr. Wy? Yes. July 16th, the resolution of the board
denying the application will be part of the board's record. Mr. Wait, Mr. Chairman, there being no further business coming before the board this evening, I move that we adjourn. Second. All in favor? All in favor? I I favor I
I