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 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 >> here. >> Miss Martins >> here. >> Mr. Brenten is absent. Miss Scott
>> here. >> Mr. McNeel is absent. Miss Little >> here. >> Mr. Graves >> here. >> Miss Rickettts is absent. Mr. Champion >> here. There being a quorum present, this meeting is now declared open. At this time, I'll entertain a motion for the
approval of the minutes from our April the 8th meeting. >> Mr. Chairman, I move that the meeting meeting minutes of April 8th, 2026 be approved as written and dispensed with their reading. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> Opposed? So moved. At this time, are there any communications? >> Uh, there are no communications, Mr. Chairman. >> Hearing none. We have one case this evening. Calendar
number 3472, Mario and Andrea Ferrer. Location is 635 Southmaster Parkway, block 2710, lot 3. It's for a pre-existing non-conforming two family in a single family zone. And
this is a continued hearing from a previous meeting. Counselor. >> Hi, good evening. Trevor Enler from Javaft on behalf of the applicant. Um, thank you very much for your time tonight. And um, just to quickly summarize, we had been on previously on
the March 18th meeting. Um, and at that point, we had presented architectural drawings. We had had our architect up and then gone through all the uh, questions, but there were some confusions on the plans and some questions about how things were going to look. So, we have resubmitted uh,
revised plans to you. Uh earlier today, our office had sent a letter to uh the board just sort of outlining the changes that were uh put in between the March 18th
meeting and the the plans you have in front of you now. Um so, Mr. Pensol, if we want to make the letter A3. >> Yeah. I know A3 will be the revised plans uh that we were submitted. Six sheets uh as council referenced those were submitted a couple weeks ago. They
were circulated. Um the summary letter came in today. I think it's a nice uh road map for the board because it does capture what I'll call conditions because that was the purpose of the adjournment and it gives a summary which I imagine we'll hear testimony tonight from the planner kind of tying
everything together. So, uh, it did fulfill what the board had expected in terms of revisions. Uh, the commitment, as you see in the in the points, there's about one, two, three, four, five, six, seven different bullet points that were offered kind of summarizing mostly the basement, but there was some impervious
coverage issues. So, we'll mark that A4 just for identification purposes. I know you're not going to testify obviously about it, but it's a nice summary, so we can pick up from there. >> Okay. Um, yeah. So um just we have all of the plans and I can uh run through
them with you as well. The revised plans everything in the bubble that's been bubble outlined is the changes. So it's the uh changes to the zoning table because there was uh some inconsistencies between what we had presented last time what was actually
existing. So we have So as we had previously mentioned there's uh impervious coverage and we are over currently it was previously at 66.7% and now is at 73.1%
or the proposed is for 73.1% and that includes the changes that were listed. did on the letter, which is removing the gravel area in the front, planting new grass there, shrinking the
um patio covered area in the back lot and replacing that with grass as well, and removing some of the uh pavers and sidewalk area. So, it brings us to that total of 73.1,
right? Yeah. 73.1%. Um the other changes are in majority are in the basement. Uh scroll down where we had that's the
second floor. We're showing that the kitchenet that is currently existing in the house is being removed and it's cut and capped on the plumbing like you guys had asked for last time. Um and then also altering the
window in the basement to make sure that is below the standards of an egress window and removing any walls to sort of remove any livable space in the the basement area. Um so that
that's all of the the changes. Um, if you want, we can I can bring up my architect and he can walk you through more specifically if there's any specific questions about the the changes that have been made. Um, but that >> I think he testified to that. I think the purpose from the board and I think
uh one of the board members even specified they just wanted to see the revisions ahead of time kind of commit you to them. We've noted it as a condition, the lack of living space in the basement. So, I think you probably can move on. >> Okay. >> Unless anybody board members have specific questions about any of the Any board members that would like to
question the testimony you just heard? Any members of the public like to question the testimony? Hearing none. Do you have a witness or? >> Uh yeah, we do. I would like to bring up Jennifer Barnett. She is our uh planner. >> Can I ask the witness to swear or affirm
that the testimony you provide this evening is the truth and the whole truth? >> Uh yes. And for the record, could you state and spell your name with your affiliation? >> Uh, Jennifer Barnett. Uh, B A R N T. I'm a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey.
>> Thank you. >> Um, Miss Barnett, you just mentioned that you're a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. Can you walk the board through um your qualifications? >> Um, I've been uh a licensed planner for about three months. Um, but I my
background is in engineering, so I've done a bit of planning testimony. I am also a licensed engineer. >> We'll accept our credentials. >> Thank you. Um, Miss Barnett, can you just walk the board back through the um the variances that are being requested
as part of this application, then provide the justifications? >> Sure. Um, so this is uh 635 Selfmaster Parkway. It's block uh 2710 lot 3. It's located in the RA zone which
um the only permitted use well single family is um a permitted use in the RA zone. We're a two family dwelling. It's an existing nonconformity and it's going to remain a two family dwelling. Um but because we're expanding upon it, we need
D2 use variance. Um there's also several existing nonconformities that require um C variance relief. Uh so the existing nonconformities that will remained unchanged are the lot area um uh we have
our lot area is 3,865 ft where 5,000 ft is required. Um lot width our lot width is 40.57 feet where 50 feet required. Our lot depth is 95.26 feet where 100 feet is
required. Our minimum front yard setback is 13.9 feet. Um that's existing 25 ft is required. Our sideyard setback is 3.07 ft on the left side where 5T is required. The right side is conforming.
Um the accessory building in the back the uh garage um that has a setback a sideyard setback of 0.25 ft where three feet is required and our uh accessory building rear yard
setback is 1.85 ft where three feet is required and our existing lot coverage is uh 60 60 66.7% where uh 60% is allowed. Um
so we are seeking uh approval for a D2 variance which is an ex uh expansion of a non-conforming use. Um because we're keeping it the same and we're just building up. We're not increasing building coverage. Uh there
isn't a lot of construction that's going to have to happen. Um I'm sorry. Do you want me to go into the proof? >> Yeah. Yeah, you can go right into it. Unless unless there's any questions from the board at this time, but we can go right into it.
>> Um so we are seeking D2 use variance approval. >> Um this this application uh I'm going I'm going to do the D variance relief first and then I'll move into the C variance. Um so
for this application uh promotes the general welfare which promotes the uh the the planning within the state. So these improvements are designed to make the existing two family home function better. Um the bedroom count for each
unit is not changing. So the intensity of the overall structure is not going to be increased. The master plan of uh Union Township promotes uh smart growth, which they define as taking advantage of compact building design. We're not
increasing the size of the building. That's going to stay the same. Um it also creates a range of uh housing opportunities and choices within the community. Um this is an existing two family use. Uh this exhibit just shows
uh other two family uses within the immediate area. So it's not out of character for the neighborhood. Um this uh this neighborhood also has sidewalks and it uh has a a good walkable community and this creates a sense of
place. Um, our plans accomplish the goals of the smart growth mentioned in the master plan by maintaining the existing two family use um and just improving its flow and design. Um, this also addresses housing needs. The two
family a two family home creates a diverse uh housing options in the community. Um so that's that promotes the uh purpose of the municipal land use law. Um it's also particularly
uh suitable for the property the existing building and infrastructure can promote the existing use that we're improving upon. Um and this minimizes the need for new construction and reduces environmental impacts and uh
reduces disturbance to the neighbors. Um as noted like this is an existing two family house and it is going to remain a two family house. No increase in the bedroom so the intensity will not be will not change. Um
uh upgrading the building will also enhance the overall appearance in the neighborhood. Um so that supports the purposes of the municipal land use law to create a desirable visual environment. Um for the the C1
variance relief that is being sought. This is the hardship. Um our lot as it exists is undersized for the zone. Um so we can't change anything about the size and shape of the lot. Um we're doing our
best to keep it as is. We're not changing the size of the building. We're not increasing, we're not decreasing any of the setbacks. Um, we are requesting uh lot coverage variance. Um, however, this results from the improvements to
the front of the building. They're adding two stoops, separate entrances for each of the units, and there are two walkways from the sidewalk to those doors. So, that was an increase in coverage. And then we're providing a small patio area in the rear yard that's
just an amenity for the tenants who live there. Um, and this uh if if we had a conforming lot size of 5,000 square feet, we would have a conforming lot coverage of 57%. So because of the
undersized nature of the lot, that is why we are seeking a variance for the uh lot coverage. Um and then just for the benefits versus detriments, um the C2 portion.
So the benefits would need to outweigh any detriments to the community. Um because we're keeping it as a two family, we're not taking a house down. We're not building a new house. There's not going to be any construction. So no disturbance to the neighbors
there. Um, and then the increase in the coverage for the new walkways and the patio just uh it it just makes the house look a little nicer, a little more inviting. The backyard patio just gives space for the people who live there to be outside
and enjoy the weather. Um so I feel that this promotes uh the purposes of planning a general welfare um c light air open space um I desirable visual impact and m efficient use of the land.
Um I don't think this development would cause any substantial harm to the public good. Um it promotes the zoning ordinance and the master plan. Um, and I believe it advances the smart growth
goals of the township's master plan. >> Um, and Miss Barnett, have you received uh the Kier's review letter that's dated March 16th, 2026? >> Yes. >> Do you have any issues complying with the uh statements in that letter? >> No.
>> At this time, I have no further questions of this witness. Are there any board members that would like to question the testimony Miss Barnett has provided? >> Hearing none. >> The one thing I'd like to just for the record with the planner and council. We
referenced this at 631 selfmaster reasonable effort. It's not a condition per se, but we'd like to just make a statement so I could put it in the resolution that the the tenants will be using reasonable efforts for the garage
and driveway space for the parking since they're compliant. Um, anyone knows selfmaster, we know parking is a premium. You are compliant. So, there's nothing there that I'm suggesting needs to be cured. But because you have the driveway spaces in the garage doesn't mean you're going to use them.
reasonable efforts from the occupants or the the tenants that comes from direction from the owner. Whatever the living arrangement is, if they're going to keep it and rent it, that the people who live there are going to use the driveway and garage for their intended purposes for the vehicles rather than using up spaces on park on the
selfmaster. >> Yeah, of course. That's no problem. And actually, you reminded me um just for the record, we should probably label this uh as exhibit A5. It was previously used in the 631 as well, but it's uh also being used here. So, it's a tax map
that shows all the diff the uses and the the two family houses in the zone in the immediate area. >> The one that's on the screen. >> Correct. It had been referenced, but I realized it hadn't actually been put into the record. Are there any members of the public that
would like to question Miss Barnett? Hearing none. Counselor, do you have another witness? >> No, I have no other witnesses. >> And would you like to sum up? >> Yes. Um, thank you again for your time both this evening and in March. Um, as we testified today, uh, the house isn't
existing to family, so we're not asking to increase the use at all, and we're actually keeping the bedroom count at exactly the same. Um, and we listened and heard your comments from the last hearing about the livable space in the basement. And so that's why we made all
these changes and we hope that the changes that are shown on these plans are sufficient uh to warrant a yes vote in favor of the application. Thank you so much. >> At this time I I believe we can conference this. Miss Scott, would you like to begin?
>> Uh good evening everyone. I see no issues with the revised plans and uh can appreciate that you took the boards and the board counselor's advice and revising the plans and coming back before us. And so I think the property
now probably is aesthetically pleasing to the community. So I see no negative impacts and I will be voting yes. >> Mr. Graves, >> since plans have been modified, especially dealing with the basement, I will now be voting yes with the
Mr. Wy. >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. I agree with my colleagues. I don't see any u negative the positives outweigh the negatives. Uh, especially with the changes that they've made in the basement. Uh, that's where I had some concerns about it being
a living spaces like a kitchen or whatever. But now that they've made the changes, I see no problem with this this project. It's going to improve the neighborhood. Mr. Scott said it is aesthetically pleasing and I'm going to vote yes.
>> Miss Martin. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After reviewing the revised plans and hearing the changes this evening, um this is definitely a great improvement to the current site. So, I will be voting yes as well. >> Miss Little. >> Uh yes, Mr. Chairman. I agree with my Kai believes. Um I'm happy to see that
the applicants did make the necessary changes. It doesn't change the character of the neighborhood and I think it's a good application and I will be voting yes. >> As for myself, uh based on the revised plans and tonight's testimony, I feel
the applicant uh justified the variance as requested and it will not have a negative impact on the neighbors. Uh I feel now it's a good application. Uh the house is in needs a lot of repair and you're really going to improve the look of the neighborhood. So, I too will vote
yes. Roll call. I mean, excuse me. May I have a motion and a second to adopt the uh application? >> Mr. Chairman, I move that the board grant the variance is applicable to this application and the council is directed to prepare a resolution consistent with
the board's decision. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Wy, >> yes. >> M. Martins. >> Yes. >> M. >> Scott? >> Yes. >> Little? >> Yes. >> Mr. Graves? >> Yes. >> Mr. Champion. Yes. >> May 20th be the resolution made.
Perfect. Thank you guys so much. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There being no further business coming before the board, I move that we adjourn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Opposed? So moved.