tant of vettis Zoning Board of adjustment special meeting of February 27th 2024 is now in session adequate notice of this meeting as required by the open public meetings act 1975 has been provided by the annual notice published in the home News Tribune on December 18th 2023 has been posted in the meain main lobby of the missile complex on December 18th 2023 please join me in the pledge allegiance to the flag alleg FL of the United States of America to the it stands na IND andice Madam Secretary roll call please Mr bigel here Miss Shaw here Mr a here Mr chabra here Mr Sero sorry here Mr Patel here Mr Baron here Mr sadaha here Vice chair o Gorman here and chairman Kumba here Mr aara is here as well s you made the we got give the credit thank absolutely uh okay uh Madam Secretary do we have minutes for consideration yes we do we have minutes for February 20th 2023 for approval can I get a motion approved motion made and seconded roll call please Mr chabra yes the motion Mr Sero yes on the motion Mr Patel yes on the motion Mr Baron yes on the motion Mr sadaha yes on the motion Vice chair ogorman yes on the motion and chairman Kumba yes on the motion thank you all right um so we have a few announcements case z29 2023 Twan when at 23 Skyler Drive uh will not be heard this evening applicant has improperly noticed uh Reen notice will be required case Z24 2022 old poost realy llc at 604 610 Old Post Road the applicant has requested to carry to May 14th 202 2024 uh no Reen notice is required if you are here for this case for uh Z24 2022 it will not be heard this evening it will be heard on May 14 2024 this will serve as your notice final announcement case z36 2022 ID Lane llc at 1114 to 132 ID Lane East the applicant has request Reed to carry to May 21st 2024 if you are here for that case uh it will not be heard this evening it will be heard on May 21st 2024 uh Madame secretary uh resolutions for consideration first resolution for consideration is z44 2023 Aria Joi it's a denial resolution what's the board's pleasure mo may a second second okay motion made by Mr sedada seconded by Mr chabra roll call please Mr Sero yes in the motion Mr chabra yes the motion Mr Baron yes on the motion Mr sadaha yes on the motion and chairman Kumba yes on the motion and finally case z35 2023 Phoenix realy and Management LLC motion to approve second motion made by Mr Sada second by Mr Sero roll call please Mr Sero yes to the motion Mr chabra yes to the motion Mr sadaha yes on the motion Vice chair o' Gorman yes on a motion and chairman kba yes on the motion thank you Madam Secretary thank you good evening ladies and gentlemen this is a special meeting of the township of Edison zon Board of adjustment this board is composed of town Edison Township residents appointed by the municipal Council who volunteer their time in service to the board Municipal lus Law requires that members successfully complete a land use training course administered by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs this board also holds in-house training conducted by our board professionals the zoning board abides by the provisions of the mpal land use law in addition to our board's bylaws the zoning board is a quasi judicial land use board which differs from the township planning board under the M land use law board members are required to be impartial and are not allowed to discuss any case prior to its consideration before the board at a hearing all applicants will have the opportunity to present their case before the board with the opportunity for board members and board professionals to question the applicant and their Witnesses at the conclusion of the applicant's presentation of their case the case will be open to the public residents within 200 feet of subject property will be heard followed by residents from outside of 200 feet all residents will be sworn in they'll provide their name and address and they will be given six minutes to comment on the application being considered without the opportunity for a rebuttal residents may ask questions of the applicant the applicants professionals and board professionals the board requests that these questions are asked any comments being made on the application once commentary Begins the resident's timer will begin the applicant will be allowed for the opportunity for cross-examination of their Witnesses under the law the chair is allowed to stop any comment that is repetitive or is an attempt to filibuster the board further the chair is allowed to stop any commentary as as irrelevant to the case or prohibited from the board's consideration once the public portion is closed all public comment is ended unless new testimony is presented by the applicant following the closure of the public port the applicant will have the right of summation on their application following summation the case will go to the board for a decision this procedure has been followed by the board and is similar to the procedures followed by Boards of adjustment Statewide the municipal land use law requires the board to engage in a balancing act is not required to strictly apply Township ordinances zoning plan or master plan as a board of adjustment variances are granted when appropriately necessary following all legal considerations as has been the case with prior boards this board will see where we are at if we were still in session around 10:30 p.m. considering how long we would continue I ask that the applicants professionals and residents show respect to each other and be civil throughout all proceeding proceedings I ask that you withhold Applause booing or interrupting of anyone while they are speaking the chair will not tolerate any Outburst by applicants professionals or the public further since most cases are being recorded by our court reporter I ask that speakers do not speak over one another that being said madam secretary first case on the agenda please case number Z37 2023 equest our chemicals LP at 340 Meadow Road for vote only applicant is seeking bulk and use to replace an existing accessory structure scrubber structure on the site standards have not been met in accordance with the master plan chemical plants are not a permitted use in this Zone Building height required is 100 ft proposed is 120 ft affected property is located in the L1 Zone designated as block number 366 2 and 302 SL plot number 16 on the Edison Township tax map all noticing paperwork is in order thank you mam secary good evening councel hang on one second counc we just want to make sure that that the microphone's on testing oh there there you go there perfect let me do that again we can't see your here in here so it's just it's it's a great combination thank you so much I'll start over Joe PaPeRo from poro Bromberg and Newman on behalf of equistar chemicals LP uh as I began we were here at your January 30th uh meeting to begin our presentation uh during that hearing we introduced two witnesses uh Dan fster from equistar to talk about the need for the proposed equipment to be added to this existing uh facility and uh we also had Robert Walsh our engineer and planner to go through the uh layout of the new equipment and talk about the variance uh the reason why we're before this board the height of the equipment stack as it's known uh is 120 feet which exceeds the uh requirement of 100 feet by more than 10% or 10 feet which triggers a D6 variance under the municipal land use law uh only this board has the authority to Grant such a variance um we concluded our presentation at the January 30th meeting uh however due to the um board member composition we requested that the vote be carried to this evening until the absent board members had an opportunity to review the hearing transcript from January 30th our office obtained that transcript and supplied it to the board uh so that the missing uh board members could review it and be eligible this evening to vote uh we also had an opportunity in that interim period to address uh the reports issued by Belle planning and by DNR uh I sent a letter uh yesterday um addressing the uh request for some additional information regarding the existing refu and recycling plan at the facility and I also provided some updates as to the status of open permits for prior uh projects and approvals that were granted by this board uh for the facility so hopefully that met with your board uh Consultants satisfaction um and really this evening all I wanted to do is just take a brief moment to summarize the case uh and uh just to confirm that the absent board members are eligible tonight and to ask for a vote on the application I'll be very brief uh we presented detailed testimony at your January 30th meeting um the equipment stack as you heard from Mr fster is needed uh to improve efficiencies at the facility uh he talked about the uh environmental benefits uh this new equipment will not only benefit the facility but because of the new technology it'll actually benefit the environment uh our planner talked about the public health safety and Welfare aspect of the municipal land use law that's one of the goals and objectives of the municipal land use law and this new equipment that's being proposed will improve uh the uh what's being emitted from the facility and reduce uh down to um a level that uh is is better than what's there today so they constantly improving the uh facility and upgrading the facility uh based on the uh testimony that we presented uh through the witnesses at the last hearing uh we would respectfully request that this board Grant the approvals to allow the increased height of the stack to 120 feet you were provided with photo renderings that demonstrated that this additional height won't have any negative impact on any surrounding properties due to the size of the industrial facility and as I mentioned we're happy to work with the board's Consultants as a condition of any approval to address any open items however I do feel that the letter we sent yesterday um was a rate on point for those two items that were identified at your last hearing uh and for all of those reasons we would respectfully request that uh this board approve the uh variances uh requested thank you very much Madam Secretary we have uh received uh certification from absent board members that we do have a full board compliment uh available for to vote this evening um yes and take notice that Kyle did recuse at the last hearing yes yes okay yes members did he's going to recuse for the vote okay so we only still have six just so you're aware sure okay thank you very much and Council you wish to proceed I do thank you chairman do you have anything else to add I do not okay all right so uh that being said I will go to the board for a motion Mr chair Mr Cher I'd like to make a motion to approve the following application for 340 Meadow Road the applicant is Seeking a bulk and use variance proposing a replacement of the accessory building a scrubber structure on site with the proposed height of 120 ft where the maximum permitted height is 100 ft the property is located in the L1 Zone and the applicant has intention no other intention to further expand past this limit of 100 ft furthermore no negative impacts is shown for to the township or surrounding Community second motion made by Mr chra seconded by Mr sedada roll call please Mr chabra yes to the motion Mr Baron yes on the motion Mr Patel yes on the motion Mr sadaha yes on the motion Vice chair o' Gorman I want to add to that though I want to make sure that the in the motion includes the reports from uh the Consultants Hank berell Hank Henry Bernell mcnell Charles Carly and also that the they will get a TCO temporary certificate of occupany and yes uh I will vote Yes as well uh motion is approved and it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much for your time and consideration we appreciate it thank you Madam Secretary next case on the agenda please case number Z5 2023 vishall ra at 10 gentor Court applicant is seeking bulk and use variances to demolish and construct a new single family dwelling the following standards have not been met maximum building coverage required is 15% proposed is 19% maximum perious coverage required is 30% proposed is 40% F required is 25% proposed is 32% affected property is located in the ra Zone designated as block number 4108 Lot number 29 on the Edison Township tax map all noticing paperwork is in order good evening good evening you could bring the podium closer to you this way you're don't there no no no you could see the podium on the microphone just bring a little closer to you this way you don't have to lean over um and our is that better that is much better thank you very much uh and our attorney will swear in sir would you raise your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth to help you got I do and please State your full name for the record Vall Ral and Mr R will you be testifying I have an opening statement and then I'm GNA have the planner present as well okay is that okay you may proceed absolutely without objection first of all I want to thank the board for taking the time to hear our case and the zoning department who have got to know pretty good over the last few months uh by way of introduction uh my name is Vall Rael although I was born in India I have grown up in Edison for the past 35 years I'm a product of the Edison school system from grades first to all the way through JP Stevens I've had my wedding reception Edison both my children are born at JFK so through and through Edison about nine years ago my wife and I purchased the house across the street at seven gentor court and lived there for the last nine years which is only a mile away from my childhood home where my parents still reside for the past 2 years we have been actively looking for a larger home for our family however the more and more we look for it we realized that we did not want to leave our friends and neighbors within the street and their neighborhood therefore when the opportunity arose to buy the house across the street and build our new dream home we jumped on it there are four main reasons why we've been looking for a new home and the reasons why we have designed the home that you see in your plans as it exists one as I mentioned before it is the location of our dreams our friends and families are all nearby and there's a Great Park in the next few years we're also planning for my parents who live a mile and a half away to sell their home and move in with us so you'll see that in the plans we do have a large guest Suite on the first floor for them and their uh bathroom and the closets for them as well in addition we also have lots of guests visiting from India and my brother who also lives in Connecticut so we have to have ample uh space for them when they come for the holidays and other times throughout the year additionally pre pandemic I used to travel a lot I used to be on the road 50 50 weeks of the of the Year post pandemic my work has changed and I'm home a lot more so therefore I need a larger office space to conduct my business on an ongoing basis finally we had to increase space for our growing daughters who constantly fight about bathrooms and other things and so we need to have more space for them as well you'll see that that schedule on second floor with me is John John Dupont professional planner who will testify the impacts of the design the variances requested and why we should be granted and I have also an architect here if we need him to present any questions that you may have finally I also have brought in some neighbors as well to support provide their input as well for this uh case so thank you for your time thank you uh does the board have any uh questions for Mr rall can you put that down so I can see thanks all right thank you okay all right Mr Dupont Mr Dupont ra your right hand you saw me swear to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth so help you God I do and please State your full name for John P Dupont Mr Dupont you were here last week but just for the record if you can you you'll ask I'll ask you this once for this evening you'll be good for the rest of the night just give me please give me us a brief summary of your uh qualifications okay so I am a licensed professional engineer in state of New Jersey um as well as a licensed professional planner in state of New Jersey um I've had been a PE for about 30 years now I've served for the past 25 years the Planning and Zoning Board engineer for the Bur Carteret as well as planner um I've served as a planner in front and engineer in front of this board as well as the boards throughout the state um and all my licenses are current and in good standing thank you very much and you would like to be uh uh approved as both engineer and planner I would if we're going to do this once tonight yes okay all right boom thank you you may proceed okay so I'm GNA take the microphone and go over to our exhibit so on easel right here shown to you is the proposed house I think uh each board member has gotten the Steel part I think each board member has actually gotten um a smaller version of this so you can see it up close it's the design of the home and I'm going to switch over to the planning plan now this as well this is an exhibit I think we have to mark it that' be A1 are these all other than the first um first exhibit that you presented that was submitted with the application and these are additional exhibits was the home was the house plan submitted with the application the rendering the rendering the okay so the rendering was not the first exhibit that you have will be A1 which is the rendering so that will be A1 and then this second exhibit that you have um which is A2 consists of photographs um what would you like to call this photographs on the bottom that's right it's the it's the the tax map of the area and photographs of all the dwellings in in the area that's A2 then A2 and that's where I like to start the planning testimony so what we're dealing with here is we have an existing lot it is 15,625 square ft the lot depth is 165 ft and a lot width is 95 ft the property had a single family home on it previously that has now been demolished so the property today is vacant uh the applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home on the property that new home will be approximately 4,999 ft it will include a two-car garage a driveway as well as a pool and a patio in the rear so there are a couple variances both existing and proposed I like to address so minimum lot area in this Zone the lot area requirement is 20,000 Square ft the existing lot is 15675 so the existing lot is is undersized the minimum lot width in this zone is 100 ft our lot width is 95 ft again existing condition and undersized uh the lot uh coverage for a building maximum 15% the proposed home is 18.8% and we'll get into the proofs of this a little later the impervious coverage allowable is 30% we're proposing 40.2% and the F in this Zone is 0.25 allowable we're proposing 0.318 so when support of the application I reviewed your master plan your Zone ordinance I visited the site um we are proposing a single family home which is permitted variances there's D variances and C variances required for this application so D variance the increase in the floor err ratio that's a D4 in order for for you to approve a D4 we need to balance the positive and negative criteria we need to demonstrate that the site can accommodate the problems associated with a larger dwelling and if we look at the the primary reason for the FL ratio request tonight it's not that the house is oversized if the lot was the um if it met the requirements of minimum lot size if it was 20,000 square feet the FL ratio would be perfect it would be conforming so the lot the FL ratio issue is a lot area issue um we have an applicant who has since Co worked from home as you heard needs a home in an office parents are moving in and the family's growing the applicant again is a lifelong resident of Eden and currently lives directly across the street so he likes the neighborhood he's very familiar with the neighborhood he grew up in the area wants to stay there one very important thing this proposed house and we I just said that the house isn't too big and here's another reason why is it meets all the setback requirements although we got a f we are meeting the front rear and both side yard setbacks so this isn't a case of us building a large large home on a small lot we we're considering and meeting all those setbacks now the the neighborhood has lots it has a CAC and there's about 10 Lots on genor Court and we looked at each one and a lot areas on gentor Court are range from 15,150 Ft to 29710 ft so it's a pretty big range now on a cold saac bulb you usually see that some Lots at the corners are a little larger but you're seeing that here the dwellings in the area currently are from 2,148 sare Ft to 5,228 square ft that's just this cack so there's a large range of houses and lot sizes that's why we feel we're proposing something that makes a lot of sense now for the C variances there are two existing and two new the existing ones we're not modifying the lot area is the lot area and a lot width is a lot width and they're both undersized as far as proposed the maximum loot coverage for oil building is 15% we're proposing 18.9 again it goes to that reduced lot area we we don't have 20,000 sare F feet to work with we have 15,6 75 if it was 20,000 Square F feet our lot coverage would be 14% we'd be fully compliant the max impervious coverage allowable 30% we're proposing 40 if the lot was 20,000 Square ft our Max coverage would be 31% almost completely complying so it's a common theme now the C2 analysis needs us to show how we advance the purposes of the ML and that our objective will advance the purposes purpose a we're proposing a new dwelling in an existing neighborhood on a previously sub-divided property that meets the characteristics of the neighborhood purpose C we're proposing a dwelling which meets all the bulk setbacks and therefore providing the proper light air and open space purpose e we are not res subdividing the land we're not forcing additional dwelling unit in here we are proposing a new home on in an established neighborhood thereby promoting the general welfare of the community and the neighborhood and I we are improving the visual environment by taking an older home down and building a new home in the area it is a it is a beautiful cold sack right now it is really nice and this this house will fit right in so when we look at um an undersized lot and we look at the ml we look at the dmire versus Lacy case I know you've you've heard it in this case the Court's laid out steps that the applicant must do in order to justify the V the variance granting the variance one the our applicant has got to make an attempt to purchase land from ajoining Property Owners to make his complying or second half of that is he then has to offer to sell his property to the neighbors again all in efforts to make a lot more conforming we've done that our applicant has done that he's contacted the joining Property Owners he has signed affidavits they're not interested in either way so we made the attempt he has brought to you um specific housing plans that you could review tonight and he's the dalmar case says you have to make an attempt to meet all the bulk requirements we are making all meeting all the bulk requirements so the negative criteria I see no substantial detriment to the public good we have a property owner who who has grown up in the area his parents live in the area and they want to continue to call Edison their home they purchased a more a lot they're looking to build a home that will meet meet their current needs as well as their future needs the benefits clearly outweigh the detriments the granting of the variances will not substantially impair your intent or purpose of your Zone plan or master plan and really the case this case is about a lifelong resident of Edison who wants to continue to live here the applicant lives directly across the street he's looking to build a new home for his family the proposed dwelling will fit the characteristics of the neighborhood it will meet all the setbacks light air open space and he is only here tonight because the lot was too small and that does complete my testimony if I have any questions i' be more than happy to answer does the board have any questions for Mr Dupont yes Vice chairman looking at the drawings you got two dry Wells why are you putting why are you putting dry wells in and not tying into the street the the applicant uh when doing it there was an increase in purose area imp purose coverage so he's design professional on the engineering side thought drywalls would be appropriate to to account for the increase in impervious um I think I might have if I was doing the engineering report I probably would not have uh proposed drywells um but the drywells are on the plan right now and if they're going to use them they're going to need to do soil testing they understand that but they're on the plane right now do do the other properties have them uh a drywall they don't not that I'm aware of anyway I did walk to the neighborhood I didn't see anything like that at all thank you any other questions from Mr dup take a shot Mr BR John um yes thank you for your testimony welcome um I Heard repeatedly that all of your the house size uh the setbacks the impervious coverage F would all conform if the lot were 20,000 Square ft roughly as compared to 15,000 existing but that's the the purpose and the reason you're here you the comparisons to 20,000 are great and if that were the case you would not be here absolutely so I just want to keep that in perspective your arguments are well presented but they're challenging okay and I will just a little further that's why we did look at the entire neighborhood as well so I showed you the range of lots in the area we're on the small one but we're there and the houses were were within that range as well so I think that's why the characteristic was key to us but thank you for your comment okay thank you any other questions from Mr dup okay Mr chair oh I do have few questions with the elevations and the rendering I don't know if the architect would be more suitable I think we have an architect here they could do that if you so before we switch over does anybody have any questions from stup before we go to the architect Mr chairman Vice chairman yeah okay so looking at this you have a impervious cover average of 4.28% that's correct I mean but and then looking at it you have patios why can't you meet the 30% I mean you're you're why can't you meet the 30% I think I don't know if they can meet the 30% I think they they they designed a home that they really desire they they put a pool in there and a beautiful patio in the back I think if the board said we'd have to reduce the impervious I think they would they would be minimal to that I think they they've showed what their dream is and it's really a beautiful plan I think that's just they have a young family and they're going to use that pool and I think it's a benefit thank you so going off that point Vice chairman because I was thinking this is something very similar as that you know if there would be any consideration to use pervious pavers for either the proposed patio or around the pool it would then reduce the the impervious coverage and we've had that discussion and the applicant is willing to consider that absolutely on which I think perhaps the perhaps the driveway might be the por p on the driveway okay and Sir you're is that you want go no no no I don't I'm asking you I I just want to make sure that you're in you're in agreement with that condition so yeah we we consider the driveway actually or the uh the um area around the pools as well as an alternative to help reduce a little bit if we have to that's where we because if you'll notice we do have uh some of those impervious pavers in the patio area as well so we are trying to be flexible and we want to you know do with the Board needs as well okay so Mr dupon if we drop the brought the driveway down to pervious where would we where would that bring us and I can give you a couple minutes we can go to the architect and then come back to you just so we keep the keep the train moving down the track all right now uh sir uh will you just raise your right hand to be sworn you somly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth to help you got I do please State your full name for the record Jeremy Ryback I'm sorry I didn't catch the last name Jeremy Ryback and Mr Ryback if you just give your qualifications please sure registered architect licenses card okay um all right and how long you been practicing uh I've been practicing for five years okay first time before us yes all right welcome okay uh Mr Cher yes I have a question um in regards to your elevation shown on a201 and your render for a901 um I do see there's some kind of variation I don't see that third floor showing on the render is that accurate so there the third floor being the attic right so the may I approach the exhibit sure just you just may just want to take the microphone with you just so we can catch you on uh or you could just take Mr Dupont either or sharing is caring Mr dup so just to under make sure I understand the question you're referring to the elevations of where the first floor sits in comparison to what I'm showing as the third floor of the attic correct correct so the first floor is slightly above about 2 feet above grade elevation um and because we do have a basement uh or Cellar I should say underneath there the attic which is not habitable um is about 10 feet floor to floor um for the first and the second floors and then the attic above is about 7 feet so does that answer I mean I just don't see it in the render that's my question is it's it's hidden in the rendering it is hidden right so if your question is like the location of the attic so it is hidden it's more towards the back of the but from this perspective would you be able to see that third floor or not you would not be able to see that third floor okay and then um as far as your zoning table you mentioned that there's Max height the stories for the proposed is two two stories is that accurate or would we put it is accurate because the attic is not considered a habitable story based on the definition and the zoning ordinance okay good Mr Cher thank you very much okay does um anybody have any other questions for the architect Mr chairman Vice chairman can you go to uh drawing a2. that'll show in reference to the uh elevation view looking at it um so I don't have it directly in front of me well I just expand on what my colleague talked about in reference to the um two and a half stories yeah def thank you so on your application you have two stories yes and then when you go to drawing a 2011 there's another story there correct so as I was mentioning before we have two stories based on the definition in the zoning ordinance we are not 2/3 in the attic space or more so the adct is not is not considered a a story it's not considered a habitable story based on the definition in zoning is it going to be habitable it is going to be habitable yes but because it's not 2third of the floor area of the floor below zoning ordinance does not consider that a [Music] story you good Vice chairman yes thank you anybody other questions okay all right thank you sir Mr jupon you're up if we use porest pavers in a driveway we'll get that PO the impervious coverage down to about 35% okay all right we would appreciate that all right um anybody have any other questions from Mr Dupont Mr chairman Vice chairman in reference to the uh pavers what about in the back on on the patio by the pool to reduce this impervious if the board would like it certainly can be done absolutely well that's what's I think the payer of choice was just just not pores that that was all um it was a condition of approval I think the applicant would consider that we do that thank you thank you all right any other questions from Mr Dupont okay all right thank you very much thank you sorry do we want the zoning officer to confirm that it is a not a story I think I saw him shaking his head as well well um my question along with the habitable adct is that um it's not a story but it's still supposed to be considered in the F because it is habitable it's still habitable so while it's still habitable after in-depth discussions with uh the zoning department and review of the zoning ordinance uh it was determined that to at the zoning department um I spoke with Rachel okay all right just to clarify I'm the zoning officer Rachel is the zoning board assistant so um it's it is supposed to be included in the F so the the zoning ordinance also reads specifically that if it's not 2third of of the floor below that that's not included in the F correct okay I have to see that I don't Mr do you want do you want to take a few minutes so you can yeah verify that okay how long you um how long you need Jim would you have the ordinance number by any chance I'm sorry that's okay I can look it up very quickly if I may you could sure okay all right you want to take five minutes okay all right so we're going to uh take a five minute recess Mr you ready yes okay all right we'll return to session so we did take another look at the impervious coverage and if we do the ashoo driveway and um not even all the back but a portion of the back we can clearly meet the 30% Max and take away the variance okay thank you where so with your portion of the back can you just put a little more meat on the bone yeah I'm sticking around the pool around around the pool itself that we play so there's like okay all right okay all right so if so approved you would remove so the the both round the the area around the in ground proposed in ground pool and the Sall drive would be uh perious that's correct okay all right thank you for that and we'll we'll make it so it's less than 30 thank you we appreciate that all right now where are we on the 2/3 one3 issue okay so um s i just bring the microphone a little closer I'm sorry no problem sir um unfortunately it's not 2third in the ordinance it's oneir correct um I was under the impression that it may have changed and I was not made aware of it but it is still oneir of the floor area below um and it uh it's not excluded from the F so it be comes a habitable attic that must be included in the F okay uh understood so I I did misspeak just to you know clear up it is oneir um we do meet the oneir requirement still just uh you know memory um and we did also call the zoning department uh your office and and had a conversation with Rachel on two occasions to confirm okay Rachel is not the one that you need to speak to so I'm we're talking now understood so okay go ahead so uh we were we were just discussing um michall and myself we would look for ways to uh scale that back so that we do meet the requirements um okay well how are you going to meet the requirement okay so what would your F be inclusive of the attic can I ask a question if that's okay if we made it uninhabitable in terms of not finishing it and leaving it unfinished with that then not be considered a story it's not a habitable attic sorry then it becomes a non-habitable space be excluded so it's not heated it's not conditioned space it's not shrock it's not insulated I'll be honest we had set up that special room because the kids wanted a creative area and they wanted a special Den for themselves that's what has to get sacrificed to get the house approved I think we can finagle that and and do that uh if that works for the board because again the goal was that they wanted a special drawing room and everything else that's we have set it up we can make it so it's not there and just make it uninhabitable it also you know uh so that we can get to the approval so what um well okay he's up on sorry so what would the F be then it would be excluding that as it is right now what would the F be what is the number it it would be the same as what it's shown right now to 4,999 without the attic included correct because right now the numbers on this drawing show without the attic included okay all right so so your f is going to remain at 31 yes sir that's 31.8 correct all right Vice chairman Mr chairman still an F yes still an still a variance yes still still seeking a variance Mr chairman the the applicant should submit new drawings with the proper documentation so we can review it I I was happy to do that if that works s but I was trying to save another meeting if that's possible because we we do have the numbers if that's helpful uh Vice chairman i' really would appreciate that this way you can I said there are there's excuse me the plan show a habitable attic yeah yeah so we we can't approve these Mr I apologize for I we can't approve these plans unless they reflect what you're proposing if if you're proposing a non-habitable addict that's what you have to I'm sorry if there's if there's if I may is there any way as a condition of approval we clearly outlined those restrictions that the applicant will have to meet with submitt it's up to the board Mr chairman Vice chairman we're going to need proper drawings indicating before we vote on this maybe one of requests is I did you know lots of neighbors did come to present if they if you they can hear those so the issue is that once we then close that we would then close the case and we go to the public you cannot add present any new testimony understood okay because then we then because then after you presented new testimony we'd have to go to the public again understood and be like brushing your teeth with Oreos so we so so again all we would do is make that third floor uninhabitable no and I get it but the board the board would want to see those plans so but what we can do is we can we can reschedule for you for another night as a continuation once the plans are are final so we could we could set a date now so if you ask from your architect how long he needs to to to edit the plans and get them up to where they should be and then we can then look at our schedule to to put you on for another night yeah I think we love to get come on the next meeting then how long you think you need uh less less than a week okay all right Madam Secretary how's our schedule looking um we can offer them March 19th March 19th would that work for you and your team I'll make it work oh you can't answer Mr D yes that's fine okay all right and sah you're good for that yes sir okay all right okay so uh for anyone here present for anyone at home listening uh this case will be carried until March 19th with no further notice uh required um Good Luck thank you very much can we also have you amend the uh applications just to provide a copy of the amended with the new information to their variances yes okay great thank you very much for your time we appreciate it thank you Madam Secretary next case on the agenda oh yeah okay sorry all right we'll take we'll take a minute for the court reporter to set up I apologize you ready okay all right Madam case uh Madam Secretary next case on the agenda case number z36 2023 gra Vera at 341 planfield AB applicant is seeking bulk and use variances to construct a 266t wood deck expansion of a non-conforming use the following standards have not been met two family residential homes are not permitted in the zone maximum impervious coverage required is 40% proposed is 40. 79% affected property is located in the RB Zone designated as block number 104.0 3 Lot number 15 on the Edison Township tax map all noticing paperwork is in order good evening Mr Wy good evening uh John Wy appearing on behalf of the applicant um this is one of the smaller applications I've ever done but it's triggered by the fact that this uh underlying twostory dwelling is a non-conforming use apparently was constructed in the first decade of the 20th century uh it's a knowledged by the town that is a non-conforming use it has two relatively contemporary uh apartments one on the first floor the other on the second floor um my client uh hired a a contractor who neglected to have a building permit as well as zoning permit uh and it was fortunate that it was discovered because when the an architect examined the contractor's work it was not according to code and it represented a danger so in some cases permits actually are not abusive they really help save people so uh that's an example of that happening uh we have both the uh applicant as well as the architect that has presented uh um two sheets to sheet C1 and A1 um it should be noted that well I'll have my client testified to that so first I'd like to bring my client forward that objection please do ma'am would you raise your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth to help you God you you need to speak into the microphone and uh can you please State your full name you can have a seat Gra yeah thank you man maybe you could have a seat and get comfortable Mr R let me proceed yes um you and another party are the owners of 341 planfield Avenue in Edison is that correct yes it is correct and um when you bought it it was a two family house and was used as uh two apartments that is correct and um when you bought it there was a stairwell running from the second floor uh to the backyard is that correct that is correct and uh you hired um someone to put a wooden deck at the rear of the second floor apartment is that correct yes it is correct and what was the intention of putting a wooden deck in that location well I wanted to have um a deck on the second floor because I have a big lad and the people on the first floor was going to use that and then we leaving on the first floor then my thought was maybe in the future um because I own another property I don't leave there right now my son is the one that lives there I will move in with my son and I says maybe we can use the second floor because it's a little bigger than the first and it will be nice to have it okay um and I'm recounting it correctly you uh are fired a contractor to build a deck for you that is correct and you've learned that he did not get either a building permit nor a zoning permit is that correct that is correct uh I have no further questions to this witness does the board have any questions for Miss Miss ver seeing none oh I'm sorry M Mr Wy if uh they were not granted a Zone um building permit or a zoning permit so then what is your case relying upon to get this approval it's relying on the fact that the variances that are required are very very the Minimus uh meaning that you know in this case if you take a look at the lot coverage were uh under 1% differential for what's permitted under the ordinance um if you look from an F point of view uh we have we're well under the percentage required for f um and in fact if we used uh some of the asphal pavers we could probably dispose of the uh lot coverage issue in terms of building and pavement uh so that's essentially the issue the only real question is this 266 square foot wood deck which again would argue is a dis dous Improvement onto this property any other questions Mr Wy I do have a question sure um is there a previous resolution that has been made for this property um stating it's for two family it's it's a not it's it's a non-conforming use the building as I indicated was born you know I've seen two different dates 1907 and 19 1910 but it's been used as a two family prior to the adoption so it was bought as a single family it's always been a two family okay and it's been taxed as a two family so there's no issue about the legality of this two uses however uh any expansion of the footprint of a non-conforming use requires a use variance now there's various categories this I think is a c category if I remember correctly uh where you know the proofs aren't terribly uh honorous but they do require some discussion if we were for instance putting an addition on uh this would require I think four greater examination on the board's part as to whether or not uh they think it's justifi ifed but here we're pretty much coming in to say look we're talking about something under 300 square foot of a deck it's the Minimus we would be happy to have our architect come in and testify uh you know to why it should be this size and uh that's what I would propose to do next but if if there are any questions to this witness I'd be happy to hear them out Mr ch sounds good okay all right you may proce Mr Wy next I would like to call Mr Hernandez evening you could either have a seat or you go to the podium it's your choice okay all right so you just go to the podium go to the podium microphone there you go thank you tell me swear or affirm to tell the whole truth nothing but truth so help you I do and please State your full name for the record Roberto a Hernandez AR architect my office is at 267 Amboy Avenue in Metuchen I've been practicing for 12 years and work for an architect prior to that for another 10 years I've been licensed since 2012 and practicing for 11 years and your license are current in I'm licensed in New Jersey my license is current great we'll accept you please proceed thank you thank you I wanted to point out that I went to I think it was the tax department over a month month ago uh to find out more on the property and I found out that the conversion from a single family home to a two family home occurred in the I think in 1972 or 1977 unfortunately I left the the document out for my client outside of my office store and uh the wrong client picked up the and I don't know who it was but you can probably double check that tomorrow but that's when the uh conversion occurred in the 70s now when I when I uh took this job basically there there was a a wood deck which is a balcony pretty much because it's on the second floor uh and it's uh what you see on sheet C1 so whatever Dimensions you see here it's exactly what is there uh but the uh the construction of the balcony is so poor that I told her that we should not even fix it because it's very ult to fix some of the uh some of the problems that are there but to reconstruct it so I redesigned the deck structure based on the exact same size of the wood balcony that's there which is 266 square feet it's about 13 fo5 in depth and its width is is almost 21 ft the metal stairs that you see there have existed for a long time um so we just basically we did a deck uh wrapping in inside of the stair enclosure which is metal to remain metal stairs so the location of the deck is in some ways dictated by the location of the existing stairwell is that correct that is correct and uh how was the uh width from the building determined uh repeat your question how is the width from the building determined the distance between the end of the deck and the existing building uh so we meet as far as the setbacks the deck would would meet all of the like sidey setbacks rear setback there's no issue there uh and the in the ARB Zone the deck coverage maximum allowed is 4% uh the the footprint of the deck that the contractor constructed is 3.01 we're that's what we're asking for exactly the same the same uh footprint and and coverage so there is no uh variances caused by the deck itself in terms of uh uh setbacks or or coverages I have no further question to this witness thank you Mr her Mr Hernandez do you have anything to add I'm sorry do you have anything to add before we go to the board do you have anything any other testimony before I don't think so okay all right thank you okay uh so we'll go to the board if you have any questions from Mr Hernandez all right seeing none uh thank you Mr Wy I concludes my CL yes Mr all right thank you so we will now go out to the public um anyone present within 200 feet of the subject site wanting to be heard if you are within 200 feet you've received a notice via certified mail seeing none will go outside 200 feet if anyone present is without outside 200 feet waned to be heard seeing none can I get a motion to close the public portion motion to close public session second motion made by Vice chairman o Gorman second by Mr Patel all in favor signify by saying I iose nay the eyes have it public portion is now closed Mr Wy do you have any summation or I have no summation okay all right we'll go to the board for consideration Mr chairman Vice chairman like to make a motion to approve this application the uh impervious coverage is 40% the proposed is 40.799726 which is uh the Minimus this is going to met the the uh presentation met the positive and negative criteria it and there was no opposition from the public and it'll make the uh project safer so I make a motion to approve this project second motion made by Vice chairman o Gorman second by Mr sedada roll call please Mr Sero motion Mr chra yes the motion Mr Mr Baron yes on the motion Mr Patel yes on the motion Mr sadaha yes on the motion Vice chair a Gorman yes on a motion and chairman Kumba yes on a motion unan approval congratulations thank you uh we're going to take a uh five minute recess uh just to give the board members a chance to stretch your legs before the next case everybody ready all right we're going to return to session Madam Secretary next case on the agenda please case z34 2023 Muhammad zuar at 106 James Street applicant is proposing preliminary and final site plan approval and seeking a use and bulk variances to construct a three-story medical office building standards have not been met in accordance with the master plan parking required is 45 parking spots proposed is 20 maximum height required is 30 feet twostory building proposed is 32. 83 fet three story maximum floor area required is0 25 proposed is 344 front yard setback required is 35 ft proposed is 32.2 ft affected property is located in the OS Zone designated as block number 631 lot 12.11 on the Edison Township tax map all noticing paperwork is in order good evening good evening for the record my name is Lisa John Basta with the law firm kesa shahinian and Jan tamasi on behalf of the applicant the applicant is Dr zubar he's here tonight seeking preliminary and final site plan approval for a medical office building at 106 James Street the property was last used for medical office use and the proposal is to continue to use the property for medical office which is a permitted use in the zoning District the zoning district is an OS zoning District uh it allows Medical office use and the purpose of the zoning district is to provide for reasonable use of land for non-residential purposes um in connection with the application we are before this board because the applicant is seeking an F variance um which is the D4 jurisdictional variance that were're here before this evening as well as several other variances for um front yard setback Park and parking and and height I should say as well but that's a c variance we intend to call three Witnesses this evening Dr zuar who's the owner operator of of the property our architect and then uh John Dupont who's our professional engineer and planner to testify if it's okay with the board I like to call our first witness without objection May proceed thank you Dr Z Would you raise your right hand do you saw me SAR for him to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth yes I do and just State your full name for the record Muhammad a zuar Dr zuar you are the owner of property located at 106 James Street is that correct yes and are you also a medical practitioner yes okay and um what type of medicine do you practice pulmonary and sleep disorder medicine as far as the subject property um and I should say your license is current in the state of New Jersey is that correct yes I do okay and uh do you have a current practice today yes I do where is that located 900 Woodby Center Drive Woodbridge New Jersey and did you purchase the property at 106 James streen as with the intention of moving your practice to Edison yes I did and Q you State for the board the reason why you're looking to relocate to Edison so it has a little story behind it if I may um in pandemic last three years I think we as a community in the whole especially in JFK there was a shortage of Physicians to a level that pulmonary and infectious diseases specialty especially we were huge shortage so probably I work some of the nights probably 16 hour a day and 7 days a week um and that was Circle which went on almost 2 years that was the time when I had to attend some of the patient who end up discharging going to the uh outpatient coming to the office had a hard time dealing with them uh because I a practice in in in JFK Hospital which I done last almost 30 years so there was days I had 70 patient a day but also need to do the office so this property which is there was two pulmonologists who was in this property 106 James Street uh practicing at that time they left and the space was empty when I looked at it one more I said what could be better than this that I'm right next to the hospital where I can serve my community patient and be in the hospital at the same time and that was pandemic uh really at the peak level so that was the biggest intention so I can serve both in the hospital as well as in the office at the same time uh covering both patient so since a majority of your patients were coming from the JFK hospitals itself is it fair to say that that the majority of your patients are from the Edison area the nearby Edison area yes my biggest practice and most of the patients are middle sex and in Edison yes okay um and so as the owner and operator of the proposed medical building you are you are proposing to demolish the existing building is that correct yes and to construct a new building yes okay um and is it fair to say uh you're going to be operating the the building if the practice is open and approved by the board yes and you're familiar with the operations of that practice would be yes okay can you um describe to the board the the operations that would be occurring within the building um as far as the types of care that you'd be giving to patients so my practice is uh pulmonary as well as sleep disorder medicine which is related to breathing and cardiopulmonary System since pandemic most of the things are changing our lives and Medicine definitely change so I was looking to start this practice uh in that right away as a bu it when when I get in there realize cannot function what we done pre pandemic the patient isolation and the patient who I get are coming with acute sickness which is viral illness including covid RSV uh uh um influenza and other viral illnesses which need definitely a different kind of office like you guys probably seen in JFK waiting area where used to be 30 chair in waiting area is there six chairs right now area is the same but only five or six people so I sat with my architect and went over and over should I get extension should I what I do with this office how I make and work so so I said I'm willing to upgrade it spend money and make it the right decision so it's right for my patients because when you get a sick patient with a cuff you can't tell don't come to the office you have to treat them and you need enough space to AC accommodate them so that's why I I decided to tear down the office make a new office which I can accommodate the patient keep it in mind the Infectious process that these patient who come in is sicker than Cardiology or internal medicine or a GI or neurology patient it's exceptional with pandemic pandemic and cases going up you always keep in mind and isolate them so based on the types of patients that you're treating the infectious diseases that they potentially have or have and uh the contagiousness of it all there's a need to separate the patients is that correct yes and so um we talked before this that you don't have a communal waiting room like you would in a regular general practitioner's office what happens when a a patient comes to the facility can you talk a little bit more and and talk both doctor if you can about I'm going to say your your typical hours on the first and second floor where you have the exam rooms and we'll have our architect discuss that further in a few minutes on on the first floor there's five exam rooms is that correct and on the second floor there's five exam rooms yes and on the third floor there's three sleep study rooms is that a correct okay so as far as I'm going to say your typical regular uh daytime hours on the first and second floors the the only two floors that will be utilized is that correct yes okay and what are those hours that it would be utilized so the morning hour usually I go to the hospital and attend my hospital patients my staff comes in in the morning hours my technician who does pulmonary function test comes in the morning and those patient doing pulmonary function test will be go to separate room if I may explain to the board pulmonary function test is you breathe in a machine basically in and out if I may that's the maneuver we do to check the lungs how the lungs good are doing and many of these patient can be infected we do not do everybody's coover test or influenza test before we do it so I try to separate those patient from the room which I going to be used later on for patient who going to be walking and I'm going to be see it so technician will go to that separate room do the pulmonary function test by the afternoon I comes in 12 1:00 finishing up from the hospital in patient and come and start seeing my impatient now inpatient also we make sure they don't don't sit in the waiting room too long because they are all most of them coming with a cuff short soitis body exg pain suspected some sort of infection and some of them are cancer patient who are um immuno compromised so they do not get infection you you're obligated to isolate them as much you can so that's why number of rooms are made more so you get the patient in the lab in the in your waiting area transfer to right away to the examining room other thing I try to do if the patient is cuffing and infected I don't use that same room again right away I rather use another room which is empty and gives a break in that room so that room is little aired and clean in during that period my technician in the morning time doing pulmonary function task do can I just stop you for a moment okay so so your regular your regular daytime hours that's typically Monday through Friday is that correct yes okay and would that be from from 9: to 4: generally yes and do you have one one day a week where you do nighttime there's Wednesday we do 4 to S evening hours to okay so Monday through Friday 4 to 9 and then Wednesday you have 12: to 7: is that correct or till 7 o'clock we started late that I start late and and up up to 7 yes my stop comes 9:00 okay and so you just described to the board that when a patient comes in you essentially immediately put them into an exam room is that correct that's the best effort we do okay and then after a patient leaves that exam room there's a a time period in between between that that exam room being used Again by another patient is that correct so what's what's the time slot in between uh one waiting room being used to another you have staggered visits how do you schedu so best effort we do if the patient especially having cuff short of breath symptom we try tend not to use the same room right away we take the next room to another patient and that room will stay open another half an hour 45 minutes and then the that room will be used again okay okay so so even though you have a total of 10 exam rooms it's very highly unlikely that those 10 exam rooms would ever be occupied at the same time yes true okay okay so um and during those daytime hours can you talk about your Staffing uh you have yourself are you the only practitioner that will be um within the building I'm the only practitioner I have a two front desk uh uh staff and my technician is doing the pulm function test so total three and me four yes okay so so four employees including yourself total within the building at any given time yes okay okay then um can we talk a little bit about the the sleep studies what how how does that relate into your practice and what are those hours like so 70% sleep specialist are pulmonologist like me it related to sleep disorder cardio pulmonary disorder and the patient who have daytime sleepiness tired they end up with the pulmonary symptom high pressure in the heart so it is very close uh specialty and I'm double specialty in the both pulmonary and sleep disorder many of my patient who come for the uh issue with the breathing they need the sleep study so sleep studies that done at night time not the daytime which is natural time we provide so maximum number of patient we do is a three patient part technician and I have a three room but it is a maximum usually number is to average go it could be one and it could be three but mostly you're going to see a two patient at a time one night doing the studies and what time would those a patients be arriving to do the sleep studies patient comes about uh 9:00 8:30 to 9:00 study starts about 10:00 and it finishes off about 6:00 in the morning okay uh and how many employees would be within the building uh during those hours just one technologist with usleep so if I understand what you described uh correctly during the daytime hours when there's exams that are being conducted nothing is happening on the third floor where the sleep studies are and then vice versa when there's the the PE the time period when the sleep studies are happening nothing is happening on the first and second floors yes that's that's intentionally purposeful especially now historically people use the same room examining the patient during the day night time they put the patient for sleep since pandemic we became very conscious where patients sleeping at night 6 to 8 hour in the bed uh could be infectious person and we leave that room open almost 24h hour the practice I'm doing right now I'm opening three days a week my sleep center and rest of the day open we study Monday Tuesdays off night beds are off not used Wednesday again patient comes in again so it's a three nights a week we use those rooms okay so then is it fair to say that the need for the building itself at the size that it is is is for the health benefits of of the people with these acute disease diseases that are coming to your office so as not to spread the infection there's a need for this ventilation especially this growing system is now with the state-of-the-art offices are you need to provide the keep an pandemic and endemic and infectious processes mind to create that yes um so uh you're you're aware that a parking variance is being requested in connection with this application is that correct yes and the total number of physical stalls on the site is 19 parking stalls based on the way that your practice operates you believe that that number is is sufficient for your operations yes I do okay and would that be because you have at most four Physicians uh not four I'm sorry four employees including you as a physician for Max and then Max ever which is very atypical is that you would have 10 10 uh exam rooms full is that correct so that's 14 parking spaces maxed out if somehow somebody make mistake but my no patient walks in in my office it's all done by appointment an appointment done maximum three per hour but new patient is a two per hour okay um and just to talk about some other operational items um so trash what type of trash is generated from a facility like yours is a typical office trash it's a office trash because I do not do any procedure any blood drawing isal office type uh uh trash yes and the the volume of trash is it something that you can keep in bins were you planning on on having a staff pull out the the garbage to the curb yes exactly uh and you said that there is no medical waste that's associated with your facility no medical waste no um and as far as deliveries after if the board were inclined to approve this application after the initial fit out what types of deliveries would an operation like this um receive it's only the office type which usually my wife does the shopping and deliveries and uh no different than uh papers and mostly medical records are all electronic right now and um like if paper paper gowns that type of stuff that would be delivered by by what what types of vehicles or is your wife in charge of that as well yes my wife been okay so you don't have large you don't have large scale deliveries at this uh for your operations no okay um and there was a comment in one of the review letters whether uh you intended to install any sort of uh security cameras on the outside of the building is that something that you you could do yes I could um and another question was asked whether there was a proposed generator do you propose a generator at this point in time no generator of this time um thank you Dr zear I have no further questions does the board excuse me does board have any questions for Dr Mr AAR thank you chairman just uh one question I believe you said there'll be a maximum of four employees during the day including yourself yes and it's a breakdown is that's yourself and three technicians two front desk one technician and myself okay thank you thank you Mr bar does uh the board have any questions I actually I have one question what the size of your your current office space in Woodbridge what's that size it's about 5,000 square foot okay and I have issue with that is I'm doing pulmonary that was existing before pandemic I have a pulmonary function test and sleep study done in the same area and just to we done we I could not do sleep study at certain point but the way I provided the services nobody in Addison actually was doing PFT when we did it matter of fact Township reached out to me to do the PFT for uh police officer and firefighter so I'm just giving example the importance of having the office and doing it okay but but within your current 5,000 square fet you offer the same services that you do you just just need more space so as yes okay all right just just to clarify that um you had the your current space in war brige pre pandemic is that correct right okay so then based on the testimony that you gave earlier uh the need for the 7500 square foot building is because you need you can't you can't do what you do currently that is have the sleep study in the same room as as the exam room because of the need for the ventilation IE yes okay thank you um one question Mr chair can you just elaborate on the parking how many parking spaces are on the U plan our civil engineer can talk to that but it's 19 physical spaces that I saw and there's an uh an EV charging stall so you count you're allowed by the municipal land use to count that space as a as an extra space um the reason I asked is that on big Nell's U planning uh review uh he said for a property of this size there should be 51 parking spaces so M we can go through all that during the engineering testimony I'm sorry we can go through all that that's more of a question more suited for the engineer okay thank you thank you anyone else have any other questions okay all right thank you thank you okay our next our next witness is our project architect David barkas sorry sorry no problem how do I have your wrong email okay could you raise your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth so help you God I do and please State your full name for the record uh my full name is David Dugas du asz and I am a partner with Dugas and our architex uh located in fors New Jersey um I've been licensed since 1996 and had been running my firm for the last uh basically since 1996 so thank you we we'll accept you great thank you and David you were the preparer of the architectural plans that were submitt to the board before tonight's meeting is that correct that is correct okay and um I see that it's it's on an easel right now if we could there's a building rendering uh that's shown if we can mark that as A1 that's okay with the board attorney U yes yeah um the building itself is basically a three story structure and and um Dr zuar and I had worked uh pretty close in the initial stages of the uh project uh I examined the existing building that was there and as he had stated during his testimony uh we went back and forth several times and uh came up at a conclusion that the structure really wasn't going to be able to satisfy his needs uh at that point he decided to move forward with the idea of a new structure and he helped me devise the plan that we have presented to you today which would be the three story structure the two lower floors being almost identical uh one with the lower Lobby a elevator staircase up uh you also have a reception waiting room five exam rooms an office consultation room and a bathroom and I believe a kitchenet on both floors uh on the third floor is where the sleep studies would happen and there's uh sleep study rooms and and uh monitoring uh stations outside those rooms so they can be watched while they're sleeping and based on the size of the building we are requesting an flary ratio of aian is that correct that is correct and you did explore other options uh with respect to the building but it it was necessary for the the operational needs to have a building of of this size yes uh we went back and forth and the primary concern was the um way to remediate the rooms after it's used uh Dr Zar sees a lot of covid patients and uh obviously post post pandemic we're trying to accommodate the ability to uh for the office to function properly okay um and as far as the exterior design can you discuss the the materials and what it will physically look like yeah um the building itself uh he wanted to go with a somewhat modern look uh but he wanted to keep brick on it so we came up with a simple structure which would have a lower base uh cons uh which would consist of um cimu block and would transition into a a brick type structure except for a couple sections of the building which we was looking to incorporate some metal panels to kind of uh bring a little modern FLIR to the building and as far as the height of the building we also are requesting barings relief relate to the height um you discussed the the proposed height and what's permissible by code yeah uh the reason why we're going for the height variance is when you look at the structure itself and knowing the fact that we're going to have a drop ceiling and Ducks running underneath it we had to raise the floors up a little bit to accommodate the the HVAC system that we're going to be need it's going to be needed for the uh for the practice um so that's how we came up with that I believe the structure is like 32 feet right now 32 something and 30t was the max which is based on a flat roof So based on the um maximum permitted per code as far as feet 30 ft Max is permitted and a I believe from the the gray to the top of the roof it's 32.8 3 ft is that accurate that's correct okay and as far as stories uh the code permits a two-story building and uh we're proposing three stories yes we are and Dr zuar explained the need need for that um story variance but as far as as height and feet it's only 2.83 feet greater than what's permitted that's correct as far as signage at uh at this point in time there's there's no signage on the plane plans um you discuss if the applicant intends to comply with the the sign code and submit for a sign permit at a later date yeah we're going to uh go for a we're not going to be going for any variance or signage signage that we propose or will be proposed will meet the ordinance okay thank you I have no further questions does the board have any questions for the architect seeing none okay our next witness is Mr John dupon he's test in as both a civil engineer and a professional planner and I'll just note for the record that he was previously sworn in and qualified in the capacity of both the civil engineer and professional planner Mr chair I ask that You' accept him again your license haven't changed in the past hour no well I have to still swear them in because you you're going to have a separate transcript than the other application so I'm going to still swear you in Mr Dupont do you solemnly swear airm to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth to help you God I do okay thanks uh John if you can start by discussing the existing conditions of the property and its uh location setting within the town okay I'm going to I'm just going to put up a the sheet submitted just so we have some reference okay so hello everybody again um so the existing property um 2,792 square feet slightly over the 20,000 foot requirement uh it's currently developed with a single family home that was built but for the last 15 or 20 years that's been used as a doctor's office the property has front is on James Street it connects to Lincoln Highway and Grove Street it is located in the OS uh service office District where medical uses are permitted so permitted uses on this one uh the Jane Street Corridor is developed with a a bunch of mixed uses by Monday matter of fact I'll uh I do let's let's mark an exhibit if we can A2 is the next exhibit number so A2 I it's an exhibit color exhibit showing the area of the site and surrounding areas and pictures of all structured in the area you all have a smaller submitted I'm sorry least A2 A2 yes and this this uh just to orient yourself the property 106 James Street is towards the center of the sheet JFK hospital is the bottom right is that large complex and if you're familiar with the area um from Monday Avenue to the left side of the sheet Monday Avenue and and farther left is is more residential development from Monday towards JFK hospital is almost exclusively medical buildings so there's uh a lot of JFK places there's Modi medical there's an old uh older Temple that was purchased by JFK now being converted there are um medical buildings in the rear in the side it's surrounded even even to the even along Monday There's a brand new medical building just looks like it just completed um right in the area so it's almost extensively medical over there so our building footprint is approximately uh 2500 square fet well within the maximum building coverage permitted is 25 and we're proposing 11.4 the front yard setback existing um is almost identical to proposed it's about a tenth difference so it's about 32 .2 existing 32.3 proposed where 35 is required side setbacks we exceed both uh 15 feet single and 30 feet combined is required we're proposing 27 and a half and 54 ft one side yard is a little smaller um the property is irregular shaped so as it goes back but still exceeds all the side setbacks the rear setback requirement is 60 we're proposing 86 1/2 ft and the site access is by a two-way driveway 24 ft wide fully complying uh driveway which leads to and I will now look at sheet three of nine of the submitted set so sheet three of nine James Street is to the bottom of the page the proposed building is shown darker rectangle driveway coming up the western side of the property accessing parking in the rear of the property as you heard the attorney speak and the applicant there is 19 physical stripe spaces there are two EVS in the back we're taking credit for one additional so we're saying there's 20 spaces available because the Ada spaces we provided two Ada spaces and just being more of a modern thing we made one of the Ada spaces all Al an EV so we didn't take extra credit for the extra EV but we figured one of the 8 probably should be EV so that's the lay of the property there is a trash enclosure in the back which you heard is going to be pretty limited on what trash but there is a place to keep the trash enclosed sealed away won't be an eyesore we've actually even proposed a small box truck delivery space which our our applicant thinks is not necessary however Mr bnell mentioned it in his letter we put a smaller loading space in the back case the FedEx truck shows there'll be no conflicts so parking spaces and let's talk about that parking calculation so on my plans we utilize the square footage of the building from the architectural plans and we excluded stairwells and and hallways so we went with deliverable you know the usable space calculated 45 spaces required Mr bnell looked at the perimeter of the building it comes up with 51 either way doesn't really impact our situation whether it's 45 or 51 we as you've heard from Dr zuar need about 14 Max we're providing excess we know we are he has an existing practice we know how it functions um it's really up to the board to consider if it's 51 to 20 or 45 to 20 either way we we know we exceed our requirement what we need we briefly talked about the loading and the trash the circulation it's pretty it's actually nice to have a a decent Siz site that's rectangular in shape uh we had a wb30 truck easily for deliveries UPS FedEx could easily go down maneuver down driveway turn in turn into the loading spot drop off leave no conflicts there's no no compromising in the movements of the parking spaces um we have lighting so lighting is always a big big important issue in parking lots especially when you're next to a residential property there is the residential property to the rear of us so right behind our our building there are homes back there so we've done again we had a good siiz lot so it's a little bit easier we put one building mounted light one pole mounted light we have the coverage in the parking lot and we have zero spillage zero spillage um not even you know sometimes you have half foot can or quarter foot can we have none so we're complying with that it is the dark sky it will be on timers to make sure it's not obtrusive late and we'll meet all the township requirements with that so that leads us into into buffering Mr Bell um is very specific on his Landscaping requirements this again being the biggest part is the residential part property in the back we have buffered the entire perimeter of this property in Evergreens then we placed Street trees and and deciduous trees along the back we have a 20 foot wide buffer from the curb to the fence line to the proper line in addition to the Evergreens in addition to the street trees we also put a 8 foot high board onboard fence the screening is spectacular in this and might even be a little bit Overkill but it's really terrific just to give you an idea 19 Street trees 177 Evergreens uh Foundation plantings a second row of Evergreens around the perimeter of the parking lot we the M Dr Zar understood the importance of not obstructing on the on the neighbors storm order management there's an increase it's a minor storm order project as you guys are well familiar with we've designed a couple storage pipes along our driveway collect the water store it on site tie into the township system reduce all the Peaks your engineers uh we will had they reviewed it I think they agreed completely with me there were a couple tweaks that they would like and we'll talk about that in a minute but we will certainly do that um well I guess we're going to talk about it now Mr bignell wrote a February 8th letter uh 2024 we could fully comply with that letter we went through it there's no issues at all we will fully comply DNR wrote a review letter February 26th 2024 again again we wrot through the entire letter we can comply with everything John before you go into your planning testimony maybe we can pause here if there's any questions for the board on civil engineering I appreciate that Council U this way we keep one Hat on at a time um does any the board have any questions for Mr Dupont with regard to engineering testimony Mr Mr Sada uh you said you have 19 parking spaces right that's correct and do you have any handicap parking in that we do we have two two of them so in that and then uh okay that's thank you so on that point the just looking at the plan the um you have an EV spot doubling as a handicap spot we do so you doing that the hope that the handicap some of the handicap placard has an electric vehicle we did and we thought that was probably a nice forward way of thinking and then didn't take the credit for the extra EV so I think that's a probably the right way of doing it okay all right and then with regard to um your parking lot lighting you would said that there would be on timer can you give some specifics as to when timeing would be because I mean if you have if you have patients coming in for a 10 o'clock sleep study it imagine you to have them come in wait L we have a little more detail on that maybe so um I think I think we're open to to what the board would be inclined uh to approve I think that if they're coming in at 9:30 10:00 we can lower the lighting levels at 10:30 or or 10 if that makes sense okay that would that that that would uh just so that you know so they're not on all night right right so so I would say 10:30 then if if that works okay all right does the board have any question yes Mr Sher I do have a question Mr ch um Mr tupon what's the height for these fixtures 20t the one's a building mounted so it's on it's about it's about 22 feet probably and the PO is 20 ft poles are 20 ft yeah it's only one pole okay um there be some kind of consideration to make it shorter I think it's perfect it lets us use one pole with zero spillage on there there is no spillage on neighboring property so I think it's perfect instead of having two or three poles we got one it's not too high it's only 20 and it covers that whole parking lot so we if if I had any spillage concern at all i' agree with you I'd lower them and make them multiples this one works pretty well okay and this is located like what in the center it's believe it or not it's on the side let's see we'll go to we'll go through the sheet so if you look at sheet six of nine there is a pole in the back right corner of the by the by the uh trash inclosure okay facing towards the building okay and the the plantings and the trees and the shrubs that are planted in the rear for the buffer what's the plant height for those it does say the maturity height I'm not sure what the planting height would be right right um I mean there's there's some Street trees that can go up to 40 feet tall correct the Evergreens um Can Go weels 25 to 35 feet but what's the planting height oh at planting uh minimum 8 foot at planting at Evergreens okay we're planting them large right from the beginning okay that's a Mr Big Nell recommendation by the way for us to get him higher and sounds good store thank you on Mr jupon on that same question uh they will be uh um sprinkled yes oil irrigation syps sprinkled great thank you very much does the board have any other questions engineering questions for Mr dupon okay all right we're gonna go to you guys look this is playing Family Feud over there we're gonna start with Mr Oar because he he chimed in first good evening thank you chairman uh just a couple of things I just wanted to touch base uh for the Ada accessible space you're only required to provide one based on the parking that you're proposing correct that's correct okay it's one your ordinance speaks pretty specifically uh in terms of one of the two EV spaces be made uh Ada accessible doesn't necessarily have to be designated as Ada but it has to be Ada accessible so I think since he's providing that second Ada space he's really meeting the Ada requirement with a one with the one space in any case so there's some latitude there um I did have based on the testimony that they provided this evening um from the doctor we would revise our interpretation of the ordinance for the parking requirement would be that the the applicants required to provide 60 parking spaces there's 50 based on the square footage of the building at 1 per 150 for medical use and then your ordinance requires five spaces per Medical Professional so he testified that there'll be himself as well as a technician so 60 would be required uh to the to the 19 that he's proposing or 20 with the EV credit is that a that's a modification from 5A in the big no letter that's based on the the uh the second Medical Professional being identified this evening second Medical Professional yes also there was a slight typo it should have been 55 originally instead of 51 okay I just because because you did calculate the square footage of the property and the medical staff in your calc correct so instead of it being M I'm sorry M I'm sorry if you just share that microphone there you go sorry so yeah so it was a slight typo in the report um what you're referencing instead of it being uh it was five spaces per one professional and it just got added in the report as one space instead of the five so it would have been 55 and then since the doctor testified that there'd be two medical professionals the technician and himself that's why I got bued up to 60 understood thank thank you and just one more concern that I want to share with the board we heard the doctor's wife uh often does the the deliveries for the uh the the uh supplies required you know the concern that we always have in our office is the uh the approvals run with the land so we just think it's important to demonstrate that a FedEx or delivery vehicle can you know safely access that loading space because you know so the building be sold any parking restri you know parking requirements slash loading requirements would be run with the land John would you be able to provide that turning template as a condition of approval if the board were inclined to Grant the application on she3 of 9 we have a turning radius on there for that truck making that turn making that I'm just not sure it's clear that I can access that space if there's vehicles that are parked in the parking space that's the only concern we show like the back of movement we could we could add that perfect Mr MD I yeah so I was going to follow with the loading space to show that the s30 truck could actually get into and exit the loading space called out um with regarding the parking count just wanted to clarify that it would be uh the ordinance says that the uh for medical space it's calculated on Gross floor area and not the usable space so that's how we came up with the what is now 60 required spaces um and and then in terms of the lighting uh I don't see any lights in the access driveway like the entry point uh will there be any lighting proposed in that area uh we had not proposed any I could put a building mou if You' like maybe a smaller building mou we just didn't do that just because it's only the width of a driveway and generally it's good practice to have adequate lighting for entry exit points for we could certainly had building amount of light on that side of the building okay and then again with the building amount of light it would still have to comply with no spillage on the anything else Mr BR uh yep that's it for now but to me the big the big thing is with the parking um again it would be approved as a medical use so if the practices ever sold or changed to a different medical use there would still be substantially less parking that you would approved tonight than what is actually required by 40 spaces which is not an insignificant number yes and Mr dupon have you received a uh police and fire report I have not you have not Council I have not okay um I believe that's a requirement Michelle yes so um based upon the request for the number of parking space variances uh we do need a police report and a fire report we don't have one I don't know why but we don't have one um so if if the I I mean I don't know if you want to continue with planning testimony and finish up tonight or wait but we're going to need to see that I think the Board needs to see that to make a decision okay um yeah I was unaware that you would need those reports to actually act on that application tonight so if that is the case then I think we would defer the planning testimony until after we we receive that report um but if it's okay I don't know if we could open up to the public for any of the professionals that did testify this evening so that we don't have to so we generally we we would only open to the public once your Cas is is is done um are you able to come back okay okay that's fine okay all right Madam Secretary um so we sent out for the police and fire report we just haven't received anything back yet just so that's clear um but the next available date since we're pretty booked would be April 30th if that's okay April 30th yeah okay okay all right so for anyone here present and for anyone uh listening at home this case will be carried till uh April 30th um with no additional notice required um and thank you we'll see you on the 30th yeah uh and just just to clarify that the April 30th meeting will be held at 7 pm in this Chambers and U as stated no further noce will be provided correct thank you thank you very much can I take one minute because this is directly connected to me as the person living right behind it I have a I need to be here oh I'm sorry we're not out to any public we we're this application is being carried and so that the board has not gone out to the public if that's what it's you're here for that's that is what he said I didn't catch it um we can't hear anybody else at the moment we're going to go on to the next so it's car this case will be it will will continue on April 30th once they'll they'll can I finish talk sir sir let me finish talking April 30th they'll continue their case will then go out to the public and you will then have your ability have the ability to speak on April 30th April 30th my could be here yeah we can't we can't entertain I'm sorry I'm sorry sir you're GNA have sir you're going to have to reach out to the board secretary tomorrow okay this is totally unfair as resident of Edison you inconveniencing the Edison res sir sir you don't have the floor you don't have the floor at the moment okay we're moving on to the next application next case on the agenda Madam Secretary case number z38 2023 shoi Construction LLC at 12 mois Place applicant is proposing preliminary and final site plan plan approval and seeking use in bulk variances to construct a three unit one-bedroom triplex on vacant land standards have not been met in accordance with the master plan sidey yard setback required is 12et proposed is 10 ft maximum floor area required is3 proposed is 48 triplexes are not a permitted use in this Zone affected property is located in the lb Zone designated as block number 430 Lot number 18.0 one on the Edison Township tax map all noticing paperwork is in order good evening Mr sh good evening Mr chairman members of Mr Char you don't have a you don't have a mic on you yeah you got the podium but no mic Mr dupon can you give me a solid can you grab that that mic there on the table I've got oh there my name is Bernard sh with the firm of conver conver and Shire uh I am representing shenoi Construction LLC the owner applicant with regard to property located at 12 mois loock 430 lot 18.01 in the lb Zone uh the property is presently vacant there is a prior approval for a two-story office building on this property uh however uh in light of the fact that a uh 3unit residential Triplex uh was approved in this area uh by this board recently uh my client has decided to amend his application to propose the same uh residential construction uh the there are variances required uh and uh we have uh this evening Mr John Dupont who is wearing two hats as an engineer and planner to testify uh as to the reasons this application should be granted uh and also uh the the uh Basics uh of the site plan um unless there are any preliminary questions uh I'm ready to proceed does the board have any questions for Mr sh seeing none you may proceed okay uh call Mr Dupont Mr Dupont you saw me swear or affirm to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth to help you got I do thank you can State your full name please sorry I feel like the credentials are changing but you know they are we're going to have the long form not the short fir oh man okay so um good evening again 12 moisy Place block 43 Lots 1801 in the lb Zone existing additions this property is 8,334 square fet and is currently vacant property is are regular shaped and slopes towards the southern property line and there's an existing easement along the southern property line right adjacent to the railroad um it's right at the end this propa right at the end of moisy place I don't know if you're familiar with it but it drops off right to the railroad next to it so as you heard there was a previous application um with it for a uh two-story office this is different this applicant now is proposing a three unit Triplex two stories each unit to have one bedroom so each unit to have one bedroom one garage and one driveway okay in addition to the new units of site improvements include a retaining W on the rear and I'm going to now switch to the site PL here so I'm looking at sheet three of six which of your submitted set hopefully you have your smaller sets in front of you moisy plac to the top of the sheet you see the Contours run off towards the railroad towards the towards the left side of the sheet we've highlighted on my plan here I just highlighted for you so maybe you can see just the residential unit again all one bedrooms one car garages and a driveway the other fight Improvement we talked about we have a retaining wall on the uh right side of the sheet coming down the property and going around to the back just a soften ey grade so we could build a residential building we're proposing trees uh Foundation plantings the typical the typical things for a residential building here um from an engineering standpoint pretty straightforward the there is an increase in um well actually I'm sorry let me go back to this so the project will require some relief minimum floor error ratio allowed in the zone 30% proposed 48 minimum set setback for one side required 12 feet proposed 10 ft so from an engineering standpoint the project is is this one's pretty straightforward site's currently vacant we're proposing a Triplex the site is graded to the railroad um we will have the required parking the total increase in approv service for the for the site is 3,000 square feet about half of what that office building was so we've cut that down um we do have to update the storms design um if approved we'll comply with your your engineer for sure and meet that but we feel it's going to be an easier deal than originally approved because again we've cut it in half um the idea was to provide a more suitable building again this applicant has an approval already but then the township of Edison approved right next door imately Jason a Triplex just in May it's three two-bedroom homes no sorry two two-bedrooms and a one better trle right next door and the way the block looks and I think I must Mark uh A1 for my exhibit for this one you should have a smaller one in front of you it's just it's just a copy of it's an aerial view of Moise shows you the street coming down top right corner is our vacant site uh there's a uh office building on the corner we showed a picture of and then there's a home there showing on it it's an older home at 8 moisy place that's the home that's going to be demolished and the triplex is built there so that's immediately adjacent to our site just to give you a frame of reference we have um your engineers review letter as well as your planners the engineers review letter we can comply with 100% we have no concerns with any comments in there in Mr Bell's letter I think there's there's two points I like to just talk about quickly comment 5c talks about lighting compliance a residential development we're not proposing any Lighting on this property other than house lighting um and then also 10g asks for a fiscal impact study we'd ask for a waiver of that because due to the limited size of the project aside from that Mr big Nails letter we can comply with and I think that's from an engineering standpoint that's the first half if we like to have any questions about that okay I'm going to correct you on something so the adjacent property is three single bedroom units three singles yes they applied for for two two bedrooms and one one bedroom but the board approved them at three one-bedrooms okay they you know what maybe maybe give a little look at that resolution I I think we I think we had the resolution I have a to long talk with my Council thank you that's that's so it's similar to this billing then yes okay yes great um does the board have any questions for Mr Dupont okay seeing none Mr bar chairman good evening um most of the comments in our review letter I would characterize as minor in nature the one area that we were seeking clarification on was the storm water uh calculations being updated and he has spoken to that and indicated that he would agree to that as a condition of P to action so we're satisfied thank you Mr BAU thank you Mr chairman um the only uh question that I have if uh Mr dupon if you could provide a little bit of testimony regarding uh comment number eight with the pipeline buffering we will certainly provide those letters as required we will do that okay but you know if there's like a if there's going to be any issue with the buffering or no I think there's going to be no issue at all okay but we'll still provide all that documentation thank you thank you Mr Pell thank you Mr bar you want to put your planners on hat on yeah there you go so for my planning standpoint uh we do need relief for this application it is a D1 use variants to build a residential building in lb local business Zone we do require the use variants as we previously stated there is an approval for a office building from 2022 there's an approval immediately adjac to us for almost same siiz building um and the after some consideration our applicant thought because that other approval maybe this is a more appropriate use so we're back here tonight um again ours will have three One bedro units as far as the uh fla ratio it's a D4 variance allowable as 30% we're at 48 um seems high it's an irregular shaped lot it's falling off sloped it's isolated it's not nearly as egregious as other Flor ratios uh We've stated before before the contractor switched um he thought it was a beneficial change and we're only proposing the the restricted smaller units immediately adjacent to a railroad um this property has been underutilized and vacant for an extended period of time we have someone's going to put investment money in this um there's that easement there's steep slopes and a very lied buildable portion of this lot as far as the bulk variances there's one side yard setback required 12et propos 10 but it's required 12 feet because it's a lb Zone residential zones in town 4 feet 8 foot combined is normal so although we're asking for a variance for the side or setback I feel there's no impact at all on that and Mr dant uh Mr Big Nell also noted in his report a minor rear yard variance there was 40 F feet required in the zone and we have 37 ft uh under the circumstances is a residential application uh would you consider that di Minimus I certainly would so as we look to um the relief and the case and and how we how we Rectify it we look at the C2 analysis we must established that we're dealing with a specific piece of property that the purposes of the mlul are Advanced that the variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and the benefits will outweigh the detriments and that the variances will not substantially impact your intent and purpose of your Zone plan or your master plan so look at the positive criteria first for the bulk variances we feel that the purpose of the mlu or are Advanced um a c and I I could certainly read them to you but just in trying to make it a little briefer we're developing an underutilized piece of property we are improving the visual appearance of the property it's vake right now it's it's overgrown it needs to be cleaned up and we're going to generate additional tax revenue for the town negative criteria I don't see any negative impacts we're proposing a less intense use than prior approved we're meeting all bulk requirements except as we talked we are going to be consistent with the neighboring property and there certainly be no impact negative impacts that are surrounding properties there'll be no substantial detriment to a public good it's an nicely lot at the end of the yard up against a railroad there's no substantial detriment to your Zone plan or master plan in conclusion I feel the board can grant the application based upon the fact that the benefits of granting the variances will substantially outweigh any detriments the project will not have any detriment of the public good the mlul is being Advanced and the intent to purpose your Zone plan um is not is not impact you know impact substantially impacted this is a it's a it's unusual piece of property it's been sitting there and and it's it's set there for a long time we have an applicant who's looking to invest money and develop something and then not for nothing now you have two brand new buildings right next to each each other in a good spot and that does conclude my planning testimony okay does the board have any questions uh with regard to planning testimony from Mr Dupont Mr dup just I and I should have gone over through this on engineering um I noticed on the architecturals that there is no closet proposed in the office um I just wanted to see if you would agree to a condition that there would be no closet put in the office yes okay great thank you very much Mr Zada it's solely for residential right residential so we and then how many parking spots you have each unit has one garage and one driveway so two spots per unit thank you any other questions from the board Mr sh I do have a question Mr Cher um what's the foundation on is it slab that be slab Foundation right slab yeah slab Foundation okay any other questions from the board okay thank you Mr dup thank you Mr sh that's the applicant's case Mr chairman all right thank you very much uh so we'll now go out to the public if there's anyone here present within 200 feet of the subject site want to be heard if you're within 200 feet you received a noce via certified mail seeing none is there anyone outside of 200 ft seeing none make a motion to close public session second motion made by Vice chairman o Gorman seconded by Mr Baron all in favor signify by saying I I oose nay the eyes have it public portion is now closed Mr sh do you have any ination uh only that uh this board already approved uh almost the exact same use in almost the exact same place uh it would certainly be better uh to have a second residential use next to another residential use uh I believe that we meet all the requirements and the variances are relatively di Minimus uh in order to take this vacant unused piece of property and turn it into something nice okay all right so we'll go to the board Mr chairman Vice chairman yes to make a motion to approve this uh application based on B Bell's planning Consultants report except for 5 C and and 10 G and also DNR engineering report and the uh variation is the Minimus and it's no opposition from the public thank you second so I will um also add that um each unit will consist of uh one-bedroom units uh there will be no closet in the um office uh and they've met the positive negative criteria worthy of approval uh Madam Secretary roll call please Mr chabra yes to the motion Mr Sero yes on the motion Mr Baron yes on the motion Mr Patel yes on the motion Mr sadaha yes on the motion Vice chair o Gorman yes on a motion and chairman Kumba yes on the motion unan approval congratulations thank you very much Mr chairman good to see you all thank you Madame secretary is there any other business to come before the board this evening excuse me Mr chairman I don't mean do you need a transcript yes yes please is there any other business coming before the board this evening that'll be all seeing none uh we'll take a motion to motion to close second motion made by Mr sadata second by Mr Patel all in favor signify by saying I I oppose nay the eyes have it board stands adjourned