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 in 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. Bentega >> here. Miss Scott >> here.
>> Mr. Johnson >> here. >> Mr. McNeel is absent. Mr. Graves >> here. >> Miss Rickettts >> here. >> Miss 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 October
8th, 2025 meeting. May I have a motion and a second? >> Mr. Chairman, I move the minute meeting minutes of October 8th be approved and as written and dispensed with their reading. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I
>> opposed. So moved. >> Mr. Monguso, are there any communications? >> Uh, there are no communications, Mr. Chairman. >> Hearing none. Our first order of business this evening is a continued hearing from uh, I believe September the
10th. Uh, it's calendar number 3462, David Pereira. Location is 2775 Meister Avenue, block 3610, lot one. Applicant wishes to construct an accessory structure and lot coverage.
Councelor >> Natasha Montalava from Java Bonar Warft. On behalf of the applicant, David Pereira, we are requesting an adjournment to the December 10th meeting um at the last hearing. He was given 60 days to comp to do some changes on his
property and he is asking full the full time to make those changes um as was instructed by the board. >> That will be without notice, right? >> Correct. Without further notice. >> I I had conversations with council. Well, this is Rob Pansula, the board attorney. Uh, and yes, that's accurate,
Mr. Chairman. I think it's a reasonable request because the applicant apparently is taking charge of the site to try to make some adjustments that were in response to board comments. So, uh, as long as, and just for the record, Natasha, that the applicant waves any
time constraints to realize the adjournment. >> Correct. And uh so we just a motion and a second to carry this to the December t the December 10th date without further notice. All right. At this time, can I have a motion and a second to adjourn calendar
number 3462 to December the 10th and it will be without notice. It'll be held in this room at 7:30 p.m. May I have a motion and a second? >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion for calendar number 3462.
Uh David Pereira, 2775 Meister Avenue. The block is 3610, lot number one. Like you mentioned before, we're going to journ it to December 10th and it'll be without notice. >> Second. >> Second. >> Roll call.
>> Sorry about that. Mr. Wy, >> yes. >> Miss Martins, >> yes. >> Mr. Ben, yes. Miss Scott, >> yes. >> Mr. Johnson, >> yes. >> Mr. Graves, >> yes. >> Mr. Champion. >> Yes. Thank you, counselor. >> Any public hear tonight on the case uh
for Ferrara? It's going to be adjourned to December 10th at 7:30 in this room. You won't get a new notice mailed to your house. This is the only notice. If there are any questions or any details that you need about the application, you certainly can circle back to the building department during normal
business hours. I don't know if there's going to be a revision in plans, but certainly there's going to be an adjustment, we're told, in the uh site layout. So, there's going to be certain things that are going to be adjusted. So, uh that's something to keep in mind, but it's not going to be heard tonight. It'll be heard on December 10th, 7:30 in
this room without further notice. Okay. >> What's the address on that? >> The address is 2775 Meister Avenue. Continuing with tonight's meeting,
our second order of business is calendar number 3466. Location is 310 Carnegie Place and it's Carnegie Place JL LLC. Location is 310 Carnegie Place,
lot 5811, lot 40. Applicant wishes to construct a two family dwelling. >> Counselor. >> Good evening. Natasha Montalavo from Jabber Warft on behalf of the applicant 310 Carnegie Carnegie Place JL LLC. We
are here today for a variance application. Um we this application was for a D6 height variance and a few bulk variances. one for stories um and lot width uh lot depth sorry and lot size.
Um the site is currently vacant and the the applicants proposing to construct two uh two sing two family house and before we get into um our professionals today we heard some feedback from the
town. Uh we have prepared an exhibit today that is more conforming on height and we're no longer seeking a D6 height variance. Um I'll have our architect go into detail on our height, but we were
able to bring down the height on the revised plans to 27t 11 in. Um we will discuss that in testimony today, but I just wanted to make the board aware of that. We are not presenting our original application tonight. So, we're going to
present start with our engineer to go through the grading and how the site is. Call our architect to go over the plan the exhibit that is was prepared for tonight. We would like to get the board's feedback and the public the lovely public that's here. Um, which is
no one for the record. Um, and we would like to have the town, the board engineer and zoning officer review the revised plans. But I just want to lay out how we're going to proceed tonight. Um, if and then we would request after
testimony to carry this application so that the town the board engineer can review um >> can review the revised plans. If there are no preliminary questions, I would like to first call up the engineer uh Giovanni Mleio to discuss about the
grading plan. >> Uh for the record, council and board members, I did mark A1 the application as it was submitted. I marked A2 the uh site plan as it was originally presented consisting of two sheets and I marked the architectural drawings as they were
submitted uh which are five sheets A3. So it's A1 through A3 for the record. And can I ask the witness to swear or affirm that any 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? >> Sure. Uh name is Giovani Manilio Gio V A N I. Last name M A N I L I O. uh the engineer on the project from Manta
Design >> and you qualified. Have there been any changes in your credentials since you were last qualified as an expert engineer before this board? >> No changes. Um so I do have one exhibit for tonight. It's just a color rendition of the site plan and then an aerial exhibit as well.
So it's entitled 310 Carnegie Place um site exhibit uh with today's date. Mark does it. >> Yeah. Thank you. Uh so briefly I'll just go over the um existing conditions and the existing site. Um so the site is known as block
5811 lot 40 uh located in an RB zone which is the residential two family zone in town. Uh the the site itself shown here on this aerial portion um is generally rectangular in shape. It's 56 feet wide
along Carnegie Place and 70 feet deep approximately uh with a lot area of 3,931 square feet. Uh the property is currently surrounded uh mostly by multif family, two family dwellings. Um I did notice there was uh maybe one or two
single family uh in that general vicinity as well. Um the lot is currently vacant. There's nothing on the lot. Uh but looking through historic aerials and uh Google um street view um it appears that there was a twocar garage at one point on the
property and I dated it back all the way out to the 50s that that structure was on the site. Um there are two non uh pre-existing non-conformities on the site. Uh one is lot area. So in the RB zone a lot area of 5,000 square feet is required. Uh
where this lot is undersized it's 3,931 ft. Additionally, the lot depth uh in the zone 100 feet is required uh where this lot is 70.2 feet. Again, those are pre-existing and are not being affected by this application.
Next, I'll zoom into the color rendition of the site plan. Um so, what's being proposed as part of this application is a new two family dwelling, uh which is a permitted use in the zone. Um it is I guess in
technicality per building code it is um three stories. Um I believe per zoning it may be considered two stories because the first actual level is a garage and only garage. Um and and some of the um the actual building is buried as well.
Um so each unit has two bedrooms and they're located on the top floor. Uh the middle level is the living area and the architect could go a little more detail as far as the um architectural portion of it. Um as far as parking, there's a onecar garage for each of the units and
a driveway in front of each of the units as well. Um we are proposing four parking spaces for the project. Uh per RSIS3 spaces are required. So we are exceeding the amount of parking that's required for this development. Um as far as other site development uh
improvements, it's very minimal. Um since it is a a two family lot, um in front of each of the um main entrances, there is a a uh a step or two and then there's a landing uh that that leads you into the main entrance of both of the dwellings or you have both dwelling
units. Uh we are proposing to replace all the curb and and sidewalk along Carnegie Place um along the whole frontage. And then in the rear we do have two AC pads, one for each of the units. And then we have a small retaining wall that surrounds uh I would
say the sides and rear of the property as well. Um not shown on the plans that were submitted. Um I know it was a comment from the board engineer uh saying that storm water is required and that we should provide uh separate dry wells for each unit. Uh we have no issues providing that as a condition of
approval. Additionally, we did show uh utilities for the project. Uh we didn't show separate gas and sanitary um just because it was intended to be a two family dwelling and and one one unit. Uh the board engineer had requested that we
separate all utilities and again speaking to the applicant he has no issues separating the um utilities. Uh other than that I believe every other uh uh comment or or um statement from the board engineer uh we have no issues with and we can comply
with all those comments. Perfect. Um, I just like to go over the zoning performance for the property. So, I know um that the applicant and the architect did did as good of a job as possible to get this thing to comply with the requirements. Um, so just to
note, it is an undersized lot, so it is smaller than than allowed. Um, it is narrower from front to back, so you do have a smaller building envelope uh than you would typically have on a conforming lot. Um and then additionally last is um there's also a requirement as far as
front yard setback um where you can take the average setback of the um the properties adjacent to you and that average setback is actually 14.8 ft. Uh but the ordinance also says that it can't be less than 20 feet. So we respected the 20 ft and you can see the
houses to the left of us is is further towards Carnegie and the dwelling to the right of us or to the north of us is closer as well. this this house is pushed back even further to comply with the zoning. So it complies with all the setback requirements. We comply with the front yard setback of 20 feet. We comply
with sideyard setbacks of 5t. We comply with the rear yard setback of 25.3 ft where 25 ft is required. We comply with the building coverage. Um 40% is is allowed. We're at 29.1%. So we're not even close to maximum building coverage.
Um same with the impervious lot coverage. We're allowed 60% and the slots at 45.6%. Uh the two bulk standards that we do not comply with I stated earlier are both the height uh with number of stories uh three versus two and then the building
height itself. um where originally I I believe it was 32 feet was required and the ordinance did change. Um we're pretty much I think halfway through this um this plan or we're going to submit for actually just for for building permits at one point
but it ended up coming to this board. Um so now uh originally what was submitted was 31.79 ft for the building height. Um the architect will go into detail showing his revisions uh to do a minimal pitch roof. Uh with that being placed,
the height uh from the the grade to the roof itself would be 27.92 feet. And then we also show architect shows a little bit of a parapit as well. So I I'm sure the board's aware what a parapit is, but the roof itself is on the building and then there's almost
like another facade that kind of extends a little bit up just to give a little more character. Um but the architect could talk to to that respect as far as the height of it. Um right now it's proposed at I think one foot one inch, but it can be lowered and it it's more to serve uh two purposes. One for the um
the weather proofing and and making sure the flashing works with the roof and to provide some more little character to that that dwelling itself. Um so I think technically if you measure to the top of the parapit we're at 29 ft. If you measure to the roof we're 27.92 feet.
Um, and that concludes my testimony as far as um site improvements and and zoning. >> Thank you. I have no further comments. >> Are there any board members that would like to question Mr. McNiel >> on his testimony?
Um, I don't know if um I should save this for the architect or uh if you can answer this, but you say that the front yard setback is 20 ft, which that is true, but um the driveway comes up short
because the length of it that that would be a variance. The driveways should be 22 feet, the length of a driveway. >> So, just I just wanted to add that in. >> It's okay. Is that is that a variance or a design waiver? >> Well, I you're here. You know, it's
>> So, if it's a variance or design waiver, we're I guess we are asking for >> Yeah. I mean, I just wanted to point that out. Each driveway should be 22 in 22 feet in length. >> Thank you. >> And I believe it's Hold on.
1702601. >> 1702601. 2601 would be the would be the code number would be the ordinance. Uh B would be the ordinance just so you know. I mean it's not that big of a deal but that's
I want to get that on the record. >> Thank you. >> Hearing no board questions. Are there any members of the public that would like to question the testimony this witness has provided? Hearing none. Counselor your next witness.
>> Yeah. Paulo Dontes. Oh, can I ask the witness to swear or affirm that any 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. Uh, my name is Paulo Dantes. First
name Paulo P A U L O last name Dantis D N T A D A N T A S I am the owner of Dantis K Architecture located at 427 Chestnut Street uh Union, New Jersey. >> Any changes in your expert credentials as an architect from the last time you
were qualified before this board? >> No, it's still up to date. >> Thank you. Can you take us through the floor plan >> of um the proposed two family please? >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So the proposed ground floor plan
which is our sheet uh A3 uh each unit uh will include a mechanical room which will house uh the water heaters um the furnace and also the sump pumps. Um we also have a onecar uh onecar garage and
in addition to that we have an interior um stairs which gives accessibility to the front and also accesses to the uh the second floor and the third floor. Um the the construction of it is going to be a slab on grade on and masonry
foundation uh throughout. On our second floor, we have uh what we call it open concept layout, including a living and dining area with a kitchen. Uh the kitchen we tried to design with an L-shape and an
island um that opens up to the living area. A half bathroom has been proposed on that level with a closet. And we are proposing at the currently we're proposing 8 ft um ceiling heights at this current place. Again uh the access
stair is overlapped on the same location to give accessibility to the third floor. Uh our third floor will consist of two bedrooms uh one hallway bathroom um and one bathroom for the master uh
bedroom. We also provided a laundry closet and um also stairs. Um again going to the second for accessibility. All of this we're going to have a livable area per unit of 1,336
ft and a garage square footage of approximately 198 square ft. Our proposed elevations and this is part of the exhibit. Uh, this was not submitted in our original um application.
See if I could This is the new version that the board does not have. >> Mhm. Yes. >> Why don't we mark that A5 for the record as a revised architectural rendering? >> Okay. So what are we looking here is we're taking uh the front elevation um
currently uh and this the way this is indicated our uh top of roof is indicated at 27.92 ft. Uh what we have done is kind of a little bit of a split level uh with these two dwellings taking the contours
and the topography of what the street is currently uh taking place. So it's going from a higher point on the right side all the way to the left that is maintaining um our our highest point at 2792.
Um within that we're giving a slow a low pitch roof towards the back. Um and we tried to bring some of the architectural characteristics in the neighborhood within the town and so what um some of the materials that we selected is going
to be um uh the brick on the bottom at the base uh some fiber cement. Some is going to have the clapboard. Um and then in the main entrance we'll have the vertical. Uh along the sides we'll have the vinyl siding. And we also along with
this we tried to um break down a little bit the monolithic of the building by introducing a couple bumpouts as you can see where the three windows are and along with some roofs which breaks also the the height um of the elevation. Um,
with that, we have, you know, canopies being covered at the front entrance and, um, and also in the garage. Um, it's pretty much that concludes the testimony. >> Thank you. I have no further questions. >> Are there any board members that would
like to question the testimony Mr. Dantis has provided? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh, just quick question about the the height. >> Sure. Um, you do understand that the 27 ft is the max. >> Yes, I do. >> Uh, I do understand that you guys are a
little bit over, but is there any reason why you can't abide or comply by that? >> Maybe m maybe making the room smaller or >> Sure. So, the intent when we do these things like even with codes and everything, I try not to break it down
to a minimum because there's always um site constraints or mistakes and all of that. So, you always give you yourself a little bit of a lenience. Um, given that situation, um, if we're looking to lower it, um, I'm looking to
provide maybe we don't do double plates, you know, over the foundation. We do a single plate. Correct. Uh, maybe I'm not pitching this roof all the way towards the back. Now, I'm pitching it to the sides. So, we are, we could leave what we currently calling out 2792. I could
aliate that. Um, can I reach 27? I definitely could try and I think we'll get very close to it. Um, but without me manipulating current, you know, the the actual CADs and everything, um, I don't want to 100% say it, but I think we
could do it. M >> Mr. Dantes, I have a question for you. >> Sure. >> Um, what's the ceiling heights? >> So, we have ceiling heights of 8 ft. >> 8 ft. Okay. And are are you familiar with uh our
definition 17201 which is a story? See my concern is three stories. >> Yes, it is. >> And I know that the engineering department weighed in on their interpretation of it um and and not
taking into consideration that's the uniform construction code part of it. Have you looked at that aspect of it? And um >> so you know given the ordinance is totally separate from when I buy permit drawings. >> Correct.
>> Um we all going to comply with a three-story building. It's going to have a construction type of 5A. What does that mean? That means anything that is primary or secondary structure will be rated um either with sheetrock or otherwise mechanically. Uh but at this
moment I think we could do with sheetrock. uh any penetrations such as recess lighting and all that will have their proper fire ratings. Um so as eventually if this gets approved and I present my permit drawings it will be stipulated as that.
>> Okay. Um because you know there was some talk about sprinkler systems in a >> in a threetory. >> So there's two types of way to do it. Um the most economical way is the way I explained it. >> Correct. The other way I could do the 5B and then come back with the sprinklers
which gives me an additional uh one story height but I think I have done plenty of these buildings that uh fire rating um or bearing conditions in the primary structures is is satisfactory especially in especially duplex let's
put it that way which we don't have we don't have nothing on top of each other >> correct you just have the the firewall in the center >> right and then the staircase during the vigil so you have two egress separated already at that moment. >> Okay. >> Any other board questions?
>> Hearing none. Are there any members of the public that would like to question the testimony Mr. Dantis has provided? >> Hearing none. Counselor, your next witness. Um, I'm going to hold off on calling our planner as I would like to
um get feedback from Vince Dave, the board engineer on the new um exhibit that we pres presented today with the 27 um feet 27.92 ft. Um, with that being said, I would like to request an
adjournment to that for this to be carried to the November 10th meeting December 10th, sorry, my apologies. December 10th meeting without further notice. >> November >> December 10th. >> December 10th. Okay. >> Yes. My apologies. >> Is this the 10th? No.
>> Yeah, we figured it out. >> So then we'll have three cases that day, right? >> Two. >> Well, we're figuring out the third one. >> The 17th. >> You have a lure. >> Yeah. >> And you have Pereira. >> Yeah.
>> Then you would have this one. >> Yes. Internally three cases >> with our firm. We'll figure out what we're doing with Allure. >> I proposed the 17th, but apparently it's not. >> Our our planner is not available for the 17th. >> All right. I'd rather have him testify
later than now on after we get input. >> I agree. >> From the town. I mean, one of the things I didn't weigh in on because, you know, Mr. Bentegny asked a question and a code official responded to the stories and the issue. >> The the 27th ft is the and you raised it
in your opening. uh bless you has significance because the town changed the ordinance specifically to get to that. So I think we're all on the same page with that. >> Um so it is what it is. I don't know how we're going to do three cases on the 10th, but we'll we'll cross that bridge
when we come to it for notice purposes tonight. >> We we will also figure it out internally since all three cases will be from our office. So >> okay. So, and again that will be without notice.
>> Correct. >> All right. Can I have a motion and a second to adjourn tonight's meeting? >> For for calendar number 3466, reschedule it to December 10th without notice. >> Move that we adjourn this uh calendar
3466 3110 Carnegie Place. JL LLC 310 Carnegie Place. adjourn block 5811 lot 40 construct two family and we adjourn it until December 10th >> second the motion
>> roll call >> Mr. Wy >> yes >> Mortens >> yes >> Mr. Bentega >> yes >> M Scott >> yes >> Mr. Johnson >> yes >> Mr. Graves >> yes >> Mr. Champion. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Obviously, I should have said the applicant waves time constraints to realize the adjournment.
>> Yes. >> Noted for the record. >> Mr. Chairman, there being no further business coming before the board, I move that we adjourn. >> All in favor? >> Opposed? So moved.