they're not babies but they're teenagers okay so back up she's home basketball practice so I don't have to drive okay 24 is now in session adequate notice of this meeting as required by the open public meetings Act of 1975 has been provided by the annual notice published in the home news and Tribune on December 18th 2023 and as been posted in the main lobby of the municipal complex on December 18th 2023 please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag flag United States of America to the Republic for which it stands one nation God indivisible liy of justice for all Madam Secretary roll call please Mr Big now Mr Bell here Miss Shaw here Mr aat here Mr chabra here Mr Sero here Mr Baron here Mr sadaha here and chairman Kumba here Madam Secretary minutes for consideration January 2020 January 23 2024 minutes for approval to approve second MO motion made by Mr sedada seconded by Mr Sero roll call please Mr Sero yes on the motion Mr chabra yes to the motion Mr Baron yes on the motion Mr sadaha yes on the motion and chairman Kumba 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 Zoning Board of adjustment the board is composed of Edison Township residents appointed by the municipal Council who volunteer their time and service to the board the municipal land use 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 provision provisions of the municipal land use law and to our board's bylaws the zoning board is a quasi judicial land use board which differs from the township planning board under the municipal land use law board members are required to be impartial and not 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 case will be open to the public residents within 200 feet of the subject property will be heard followed by residents from outside 200 ft all residents will be sworn in they'll provide their name and address and they'll be given six minutes to comment on their application being considered without the opportunity for a rebuttal residents may ask questions of the app the applicants professionals and board professionals the board requests that these questions are asked prior to 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 that is IR relevant to the case or prohibit 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 portion 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 procedur followed by Boards of adjustment Statewide the M landan use Law requires the board to engage in a balancing act and 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 if we are in session around 10:30 p.m. I ask that the applicants professionals and residents show respect to each other and be civil throughout all 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 a court reporter I ask the speakers do not speak over one another that being being said Madame secretary first casee on the agenda please case z44 2023 arandia Joi interpretation review 1856 Oak Tree Road applicant seeks an interpretation of a 1989 zba approved resolution to add an additional doctor office to be permitted at the existing office good even me Mr sh good evening Mr chairman members of the board Mr sh if you could bring the microphone closer to you can hear you but the folks at home want to hear you uh good evening Mr chairman members of the board my name is Bernard Shire with the firm of conver conver and Shire uh I'm representing Dr Arana Joi and uh her husband Nesh Joi uh who are the uh principles of the owner uh of the property at 1856 Oak Tree Road uh which is and was the subject uh of a an application made in 198 89 uh wherein uh this board approved uh the conversion of a single family home to a medical office on the first floor with a residential apartment on the second floor uh the ordinance uh stipulated that there be one Medical Professional and one staff member uh in the medical office and uh did not put any restrictions on the apartment above uh the interpretation we're seeking uh is uh a proposal that uh my clients provide for a second Medical Professional to utilize the premises uh after uh Dr Arana Joi uh has left the premises uh her hours are Monday through Saturday Saturday 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. uh the second professional would be from 3:00 p.m. to 900 p.m. uh utilizing the existing office to treat uh patients of the applicant uh and other patients at hours when the applicant and staff are not present uh the uh I guess the real section of the ordinance we're looking at is uh 37- 60.3 which requires for uh medical uh dent or chiropractical of five spaces for each professional person uh occupying uh or occupying or using each office of course there's one office here uh the uh basis of our argument is that uh The Logical interpretation is if there is only one Medical Professional and up to one staff member presid at any given time uh we are in compliance and uh it would be illogical to say that if there's only one Medical Professional present we would in essence double the parking requirements uh if uh if the ordinance were to be interpreted in that fashion uh I have uh Mr John deont with me who's a licensed planner uh as well as an engineer uh and I can certainly uh ask him if our proposed interpretation of the ordinance and the resolution uh would be consistent with good planning without objection Mr Dupont Mr Dupont raise your right hand you somly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth to help you got I do and please please state your name for the record name is John Dupont uh from jpd engineering at 756 Jackson Road in Stewartsville New Jersey Mr Dupont has testified as an engineer and planner before this board numerous times I know that Mr sh but I'm gonna ask him if his license are current or in good standing right they are they are thank you thank you Mr Dupont uh Mr Dupont uh you were hired by the uh uh principles uh in this matter uh to review uh the issue in question with regard to adding a second Medical Professional to the existing office that is correct correct right and you are familiar with the Edison Township zoning ordinance requirements for parking for medical professionals I am and you're also familiar uh with the property in question that's correct and you've also reviewed uh the resolution of the zoning board from February of 1989 I have uh now would a would the most logical interpretation of the parking requirements of the ordinance in accordance with the the resolution be that so long as there is only one Medical Professional and up to one staff member present at the existing office that that would be consistent with the zoning ordinance and the resolution I would agree with that statement the just just from my standpoint I did review that ordinance the ordinance does say one professional and one staff member it's exactly what we're proposing um there will never be two doctors there'll be no overlap there'll be one doctor at One Professional on site working different hours um that was the only restrictions in the 89 in the 89 approval resolution and I feel we're being very consistent with that uh the the board as uh your attorney will note uh is acting in a quazi judicial capacity uh interpreting the ordinance and resolution and how they interrelate uh and I would submit uh that this interpretation is most logical because the the reason for the parking requirements in Edison which are among the most stringent of the municipalities in Middle sex county is to avoid over congestion of the office and the parking situation because of the number of doctors who are present here we're limiting ourselves to one physician and up to one staff member uh there will never be more than one and therefore uh there is no reason for the parking res restrictions to be imposed in this situation uh and I would ask that the board make that interpretation does the board have any questions for Mr Dupont all right I'll I'll jump in the pool first Mr dupon um so what you're proposing is the interpretation so that the one Medical Professional would operate six days a week from 8:30 to 2:30 second would operate from 3 3 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. what occurs if one doctor is running late in their day I think there's enough time buffering and and this is th those are the most extreme hours right now too those are the extent but I feel there's there's at least an hour gap there um that is enough time to to clear out and and not have overlap of patience with all due respect there's a half hour gap there you're you're right I'm sorry you're correct but the you know just to be frank I when I go to the doctor they're never on time and that's it's understood it happens but if I think that if with that half hour gap you're it's it's it's intensifying the use as a from what the original application is origal application was we could make it an hour gap if that would please the board Mr Mr chairman Mr M if I could help you um you know we're walking a fine line here what's going on today as opposed to 35 years ago and if you look at that neighborhood 35 years ago I bet it was a lot more residential and back when we were all younger the doctors Liv it was like a home practice Private Practice type of deal it doesn't set it in the resolution so that makes it a little more difficult but I'm sure that the hours of operation weren't until 9ine o'clock at night it might have been an emergency type type situation um I I don't believe there's enough parking to to keep expanding this thing and we're broad broadening the the the scope of what's what was approved 35 years ago in my opinion um so I would personally like to see a public hearing and let them prove the use variant and do all that and that and then that way the public has an opportunity um to see what's going on in the neighborhood because because like I said it was 35 years ago a lot less traffic a lot less people um and the the whole medical profession I think was a lot different back in those days plus the fact there was an rsis um the apartment upstairs how many of your bedrooms is that it's a two-bedroom apartment so that requires the two spaces right off the top I mean 1.8 spaces for the unit um then there's the doctor and then another professional there's four and then if you start bringing patients in um you know one two back up there is there six parking spaces there or is there seven how many parking spaces I don't even know there's nine there's nine so so I think that they they may be able to make their case but I think it should be done with more of a thorough examination from the board with the with the public having an opportunity to speak about the operation I agree with you so that's my opinion I I completely agree with you because you know and I also with all due respect to our predecessors who put these conditions in the resolution you know when this board considers uh applications as such we consider things as as time limits of of operating hours there's nowhere in here where it says operating hours um and my reading of of the resolution and I'm not reading it as an attorney but I'm reading it as as Zoning Board member sitting here is one means one and I think if we start walking down the road of one could mean two one could mean three I think we're really uh we're we're going on a slippery slope here um but I'll open up the board for any other questions sorry Mr Brown Mr chairman uh Mr CH would uh your uh client be agreeable to start the process over and make a new application s plan and uh give us an opportunity to look at it in current time well here here here's my issue and I and I fully understand what Mr Bell is saying and we what you're driving at but the board's position tonight is to interpret the zoning ordinance as it applies to this situation it is not to decide if the board made a lousy decision uh 30 years ago nor to decide if uh things are different today than they were then you're you're talking about real planning consider ations which is Mr Bell's bwick but the issue here is the interpretation of the ordinance what is it say and what does the resolution say and what we're saying is that the ordinance should and can be interpreted to mean one doctor at a time Mr chairman Mr B if I can uh pleas add some more the ordinance says one five parking spaces for every Medical Professional not just just a doctor so the or I don't believe that was even in the ordinance 35 years ago but it is now so theoretically a pH physician assistant would require you know that could be the assistant with the doctor that right off the bat requires 10 spaces then it's another one space for every 150 square feet of gross floor area so I don't think it's I think if we interpret the ordinance that the that Mr Sheriff Mr U Mr sh wants us to interpret I think I think they don't have enough parking and they should have to justify that and provide some more testimony and provide the proofs and that's the only reason why I'm trying I think they need to go through the process and we've explained this to the applicant a few times like he chose this this route but I think that the the um the board should hear a thorough case we should look at the property we should be able to look at the lighting if we're going to go to 9:00 now you know it's you're we were talking a residential scale back then I don't you know with a person living in the neighborhood now it's it's a renter uh what happens if they have guess over things like that we need to examine these things and explore that stuff and so I think if you interpret the ordinance I think you're with well within your your power to say no this is an expansion of what was approved 35 years ago okay and I think that the applicant then can certainly seek um a minor site plan or a site plan approval I don't think ordinance requires allows for minor it should but it doesn't uh and then seek a the use variants to continue and to expand and then we can kind of like lock in the hours of operation and how we're going to enforce whether there's two doctors there or not and that's what makes it difficult here it's very difficult to kind of do that stuff even from a zoning point of view how would Mr rayot know or his staff know uh how many doctors there at any one time you know taking people's word for it you know the road to hell is paved with good intentions and and we've seen it all over town where everybody's supposed to do what they're supposed to do but they don't and not saying this applicant wouldn't but we have to be able to enforce those things and and so I would like I would feel a whole lot more comfortable if we went through the process so that's my that would be my recommendation to the board and during your interpretation Mr chairman if if I may respond sure once again those are extremely valid planning Concepts but that is not what the board's job is tonight and I would defer to uh your board attorney perhaps to uh expand on what I'm saying but I anticipated an argument about how do you enforce it and very frankly that would draw into question every single medical office that's been approved for a number of doctors in this town forever because if it's approved for two what's to stop three if it's approved for three what's to stop four how do you enforce it you enforce it when there's a problem and they see that there's too much traffic and they find out or maybe the sign has three names on it but that is not related to the interpretation of the ordinance the interpretation of the ordinance is simply whether we comply by having one doctor at a time we're not asking for a physician's assistant we're not asking for uh anything else except one doctor at a time plus up to one staff meaning a nurse or a secretary uh and that is the I realize that this doesn't come before the board very often but you're not here to determine if this is a good thing from a planning concept now Mr chairman with all due respect to Mr Mr Shar you're interpreting two things you're interpreting the ordinance that he's correct but you're also interpreting a prior approval and he's not living within that prior approval in my professional opinion and it's my my position to protect the community okay and I don't personally if if it's a nurse now it's a professional so now now we're required to have 10 parking spaces and then add up the square footage okay the ordinance didn't didn't um anticipate you know medical professionals they didn't have them back then U the you know the physician assistant or the nurse that could you know the registered nurse that had all the extra powers that we give medical professionals today uh because of the shortage of doctors um my my point is that he's you're you're supposed to inter the ordinance but also what was approved you're change he's asking to change conditions of an approved without without going through the public process or the public hearing portion of it I mean we can stand and argue this all day long but I that's my position and I think you know um I think the ordin you know it's 35 years ago again the community changed the neighborhoods have changed the traffic has changed um you know I'm sure I could bet you I bet you a lot that the doctor didn't have 9:00 office hours back 35 years ago because that's not the way the profession was 35 years ago um you know so that's that's where I'm at so it's it's a two thing you're you're looking at the ordinance and if I apply the ordinance then then he has I think he has even a deeper problem because of the what the ordinance says for parking um the two uses on the property so now we're interpreting the ordinance and the conditions of approval thank you Mr oh M yeah I I think I need to chime in at this point so I understand what Mr sh is saying I also understand what Mr Bell is saying um put simply you do have to take a look at the resolution because the resolution um approved an application for which we don't have sufficient information within even the resolution to indicate what was testified to other than the conditions that Mr sh correctly placed on the record notwithstanding it's very clear a literal reading of the resolution indicates one medical profession now you have to read that in conjunction with what Mr sh's requesting which is an interpretation of the ordinance and stating that do they comply if they have one medical profession at one time or another not knowing what the testimony was back then um that led the board to Grant this approval it's hard to opine or provide an opinion that one medical profession meant somebody in a neighborhood that was perhaps um changing because it does indicate within the resolution that within a half mile of the site there are other professional buildings but it also says it's a mixed use and not fully understanding the gravity or the scope of what was testified to the board has to look at that resolution and mean and interpret the ordinance to see if it is accurate to say that because this was a variance approval um so and I'm guessing Mr sh what I heard heard a few minutes ago from the board itself is that their thought process is that they have a very limited scope um in reviewing it and literally reviewing it it indicates one medical profession and now we're looking for two medical professions putting aside the fact that that's the condition um and then I understand that you have to read the ordinance so I'm not sure there's enough here for that interpretation to be that yes this fully complies or no it doesn't comply I know that was a completely useless and unhelpful recitation of what's there but he is entitled to an interpretation of the ordinance but you can't disregard the resolution because that's how this use came about and the resolution seems to the literal reading seems to be one medical profession um so don't give you much guidance I apologize chair Mr um fill me in if you have one doctor let's just say he came from 7 to 3 another doctor came from 4 to 12 with his own assistant and then another doctor came from 1 to 7 in the morning so with their assistant so how many people how many employees would be in that building there would be three doctors working in the 24-hour period and there would be three assistants working in the 24-hour period so that would be a total of six okay so I mean they're not asking to exceed the hours here but they're asking to exceed the number of employees well it's that the question isn't within a 24-hour period The Logical import of the ordinance is how many are there at a given time doesn't say that but it does not say how many all together in 24 hours I mean if if you had three doctors there in 24 hours and interpreted the ordinance the way uh some of the board members may want to interpret it that would mean we need 15 spaces plus one space for each 150 square feet that is not a logical interpretation of the ordinance unless we're asking for three to be there at any given time all due respect skip I understand what you're saying but I'm thinking of the resolution not the ordinance and the resolution clearly dictates one employee one doctor one assistant one medical assistant it doesn't say two more maybe coming in three more part-time you know it's one and that's that's in black and white in the resolution the issue is what does the ordinance mean I mean are we going to require if there were two doctors let's say there were four hours between there the hours the doctors practice there does that mean we still need 10 spaces for two doctors you always have to even though there's only one there at a given moment Gentlemen We if you could only speak one at a time please the court reporter is trying to take a take a transcript of the proceedings thank you thank you chair I'm good may continue Mr um I'm that's all I appreciate it Mr dupan Mr Char do you have anything else to add uh no I made my presentation and I'll be Satisfied if the board makes their interp interpretation of the ordinance as requested Miss sha as a matter of procedure do we go out to the public for something like this or there's no public notice required interpretation judicial obligation okay all right thank you I just wanted to be sure um does the board have anything to add or does the board have any discussions or motions okay um Mr Brown um chair Mr sh is there a side plan from previous yes there was a a site prepared by Angelo valetudo back in uh 19 what was it 19899 1989 but was it submitted under your application I believe we were able to get it and submit it if the board does not have it let me just see it we our position I mean the secretary's position is we don't have it Mr chairman Mr we that's the reason why I'd like you to have a public hearing I mean so the circle now I think that Mr Bron's asking because on the application for interpretation the last line says copies of the existing site plan are provided for informational purposes I think that's what he's referencing yes I thought I did if the board would like to withhold their decision until they see it I believe I do have it from Mr valud that's I do have it if the board would like me to submit adequate copies of it uh before they make their determination I'd be happy to do that who decides that Mr Brown no I'm I'm asking if that's acceptable if that's something that you'd like to see you can request it I mean if it's something the rest of the board would like to see that they can request it I don't personally I I don't see it's it's it's an interpretation so I I don't see where the site plan would make the biggest difference but if it chair what I was really alluding to is that I I think the site plan then or a site plan now and more importantly now would be um what's required and to Mr Big Nell's testimony I can say that and I don't like giving commentary but I hope this hasn't come across that but maybe your application if this resolution did not exist your application today and what you want to do even with one doctor and one staff member may be challenging based on changing parking regulations and uh ratios just saying just to be clear he's asking for an interpretation of what the proposal would be if it if it fits within the the ordinance and if it complies with the ordinance and I think i' I've I think you've heard Mr aot raise some concerns Mr Bell raised some concerns and I'm not sure the site plan in and of itself would be sufficient to respond to that or even make a difference in the interpretation is what they're seeking at this stage they haven't come in for an application yet which is what Mr Bell has suggested should occur um but again it's up to the board to make this determination on interpretation I defered the people uh Mr sh I think um Madam attorney reiterated that if you had a new application now then we can look at it fresh they not they not I can't I'll defer to the others as to position of the board Mr Cher yes Mr chairman um I feel that given the changes in regulations change in the neighborhood um the traffic patterns itself I definitely feel like the public hearing would be uh man would be essential in making this decision um we know that the neighborhood itself has changed a lot over the course of the last 30 years and definitely feel like we should um keep in consideration um all the attributes thank you um if if that's your position is it that you're making a motion that the interpretation does not permit what they're proposing so that is what I I need to know um because there has to be a motion made that the interpretation with respect to the ordinance is that the proposal is inconsistent is that the motion yes I'd like to make a motion that the proposal is inconsistent with the resolution I would second that motion all right motion made by Mr Mr Cher seconded by Mr Baron just to be clear it's inconsistent with the resolution and the ordinance is that or is it and I don't want to put words in your mouth what we're interpreting the ordinance so I want to be clear as to their proposal is it in what you're saying it's it's it's inconsistent with both one or the other now correct me if I'm wrong this was created by use variants it was created by so we're expanding in my mind we're expanding a non-conforming so it's you know whether it complies with the ordinance or not we're expanding a non-conforming use by adding people to this operation so that's why I wanted to go back as a use farance to the board that's was my position so I want everybody to understand that so we're not just interpreting the ordinance we're interpreting a decision that was made so now we're expanding you we're expand if you allow more doctors on that a property theoretically you're expanding a non-conforming use correct but the but the request is for an interpretation of the ordinance and is and his motion was that it is inconsistent with the resolution so I want to make sure that it's it's the resolution and and the what exactly they're saying okay but if you don't if you if you say all right he complies with the ordinance his what he's still asking us to do is expand the non-conforming use so it still doesn't get him anywhere but the board has to okay I I want you understand the Nuance of it yeah okay yeah all right motion made by Mr Cher seconded by Mr Bron roll call please I I still need to know what are we what exactly we saying sorry I apologize but I got to write inconsistent with the current use so it's okay I think I understand it Mr sh do you understand it I'm trying okay so that the proposal so I'm going to try to summarize it and the board can tell me if this is correct language the motion is that the propos proposed proposed use is inconsistent with the current use in having interpreted the ordinance is that correct I would I would I would say in interpreting the ordinance and also in uh interpreting the uh resolution uh of KZ 12288 clear Madam Secretary roll call please Mr chabra yes the motion Mr Sero yes on the motion Mr Baron yes Mr sadaha yes on the motion and chairman Kumba yes on the motion thank you okay so will will there be a written resolution can you bring the bring the microphone closer please will there be a written resolution adopted I would Pres assume I would have to prepare one thank you very much thank you uh does the board need a transcript Melle not on this it's going to be a simple resolution because this was an interpretive request thank you but but obviously if you intend to go further Mr sh you know we will need it see you all thank you okay we're going to take a uh two-minute break uh we'll be back at 7:38 we return to session Madam Secretary next case on the agenda please case number Z 39 2023 Divia properties at 222 Nicholson AV applicant is Seeking a bulk variance to construct a second story deck to a single family dwelling under construction rear yard setback required is 30% of lot depth proposed is 17.73% affected property is located in the rbb zone designated as block number 913 Lot number 12 on the Edison Township tax map all noticing paper work is in order good evening Mr warley good evening uh I represent the uh applicant divy of properties I have the uh owner of Divia properties who will be my witness uh as one could tell this is a relatively small application uh originally there was approval for a 220 foot paper patio when the original plans were admitted back in 2021 uh my client has decided that he would prefer to build a deck of 293 Square F feet however uh that would require a new rear yard uh variance um I believe 37.5 would be the distance that would be required under under the ordinance and we have 19.5 at this point I'd like to swear in my witness uh 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 yes I will if you can pull the microphone closer and state your full name for the record D Patel spell it for you d i v y a k a n and what is your position with Divia properties from I'm the uh president of the corporation and uh you're in charge of the uh construction of this uh single family house or you hire people to to build it for you but but you're the one that has determined that he would like to have a deck is that correct yes that's correct okay and this deck would be in the rear of the property is that correct yes and the deck would run out from an area of at the level of what might be called the first floor but it is actually raised as a result of there being a basement is that correct yes and uh its dimensions are 293 square feet is that correct yes and what is the purpose of the deck it's just uh uh using uh uh for the yeah correct correct sit down uh in a evening hours or in weekend it's and uh there would be a uh set of stairs running uh from the deck to the ground is that correct yes and under the plans that had been previously approved by the board there is a requirement of considerable screening in the rear in fact all around the um rear yard is that correct yes I really no further questions that us witness does the board have any questions for the applicant yes Mr chairman I do have a question for the applicant May proceed um so from your resolution of 2019 it looks like you have three variances already granted on the property is that correct he was not the applicant but that is correct I was the attorney so that is correct okay and and what if I may ask what is the hardship for this deck that you're seeking prior he had a a patio a pro uh paper patio that was running really at the ground level and he feels it would be more functional if he had a deck instead that one could enter on the first floor uh and exit onto the deck and from there he could then proceed to the ground if uh if if the uh future buyer wanted to and that previous P um patio how many square feet was that 220 square feet okay all right thank you thank you Mr chaver does any the board have any other questions for the applicant okay Mr BR all right okay uh Mr Wy you have anything to add I have nothing to add okay all right so we will now go out to the public if anyone within 200 feet of the subject property wanting to be heard if you're within 200 fee the subject property you received a notice via certified mail please come on up come on up sir yes please to the podium and then uh the attorney will swear you in sir raise your right hand you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth help you got I do and please State your full name for the record providing your address as well full name is AAR Singh I'm sorry AAR Singh a v t a r s i n g h resident of 223 Fletcher Street in Edison New Jersey thank you sir you may receed you have six minutes okay I am um I've been a humble resident of Edison for the last about 25 years and I live in the property directly behind this said property which is uh uh on Note here my only concern I've got nothing personal against anybody but my only concern is it'll be an intrusion into our privacy because of the height of the deck which is overlooking our area directly so that impeaches our privacy all together and it's not welcomed okay in addition I also have a signed letter uh from another Resident I'm sorry sir you can't present a signed letter nor read it that person has to actually be present oh all right if I may ask the applicant I mean the uh winess a question would you mind would you mind Mr Ry ask you a question yes sure uh are you aware that the height of the deck would be 7 ft sorry are you aware that the height of the deck in the rear would be 7 ft yes 7 ft which is much above the height of uh a person standing on the back of our house and it overlooks the the backyard and you're aware that there is screening required uh by the previous approval that could go as high as seven or eight feet screening on on the deck on the rear on the rear lot line your lot 11 I believe I don't understand the question okay you're directly a rear which I assume is a lot 11 not sure or you're not sure what it is but you have a shed in the rear of your property yes okay and uh you are aware that along the rear property line we are required to uh to provide plantings and we can increase the height of plantings that the board wants uh so that this would be obscure to you I'll be required to do the planting no we are required to do the planting already we could increase the height of the planting if it's a concern of yours but that'll take several years no what they're saying so sir just just for interpretation I'm not I I don't want to but so as part of their prior approval to build the home that they're building um they're required and and Mr Wy can correct me if I'm wrong but they are required to put seven feet like tree for a tree line which would be seven feet high correct Mr rley correct and you're what you're offering is to go higher so that so what they would plant would not be a s foot tree but maybe they would plant an8 foot tree or 9 foot tree so is to help uh for the natural buffering but if the deck itself is 7 ft High even 8T or 9 ft High um buffering is not enough to Grant any privacy to the neighbor unless it is like 7 ft higher than the foot level of the deck then I can understand because a normal person height is let's say 6 feet and if there is a buffering of 7 ft that is sufficient um but there should be some privacy in the world we live in okay I'm just I was just interpreting what Mr Wy was offering yeah I'm also telling you what I feel about the uh buffering Mr chair Mr if I may uh the plan show the deck at 4et 10 and 12 in from the grade to the bottom of the first joist you have a 2x10 joist let's call it a 2X 12 you have 5 foot to the foot yeah I just my client said seven but he's undoubtedly incorrect it's four you got 4 fo 10 and a half inches yeah it's not 7 feet you're going to plant you're you're proposing to plant 7 foot 8 foot trees and the Tex at 4 foot you got so the deck does everyone see that's on the second A2 to the right and center of where it says transverse section The Deck shows 4 feet 10 and a half in thank you Mr Sir do you have anything else to add thank you do you have anything else to say no okay all right thank you very much we appreciate it uh is there anyone else within 200 feet of subject property wan to be heard anyone outside of 200 feet of the subject property wan to be heard all right so that being said um Mr Riley do you have anything to add I have nothing to add okay can I get a motion to close the public portion motion to close second motion made by Mr sedada second by Mr Sero all in favor signify by saying I oppose nay the eyes have it public portion is now closed Mr Wy do you have any uh summation prior to going to the board as I indicated we're willing to uh plant uh 7 foot trees here to obscure uh the neighbor to our rear okay all right all right um thank you Mr rette that's it that's it thank you all right so we will go to the board any uh discussion or uh motions motion to approve uh provided uh the plants are uh enough height plants are U planted in the back of the property second motion made by Mr sadada seconded by Mr Sero roll call please Mr chabra yes to the motion Mr Sero yes on the motion Mr Bron wait no no sorry motion was closed we looked when when you need when when we asked for the public portion but we can't we cannot the public portion M public portion was closed sorry okay roll call please Mr Brown yes on the motion Mr sadaha yes on the motion and chairman Kumba yes on the motion congratulations okay um we're going to take a five minute recess to allow the court reporter to set up for the next case it's a small all right we will return to session uh Madame secretary next case on the agenda please case number Z37 2023 eostar chemicals LP 340 Meadow Road applicant is seeking bull bulk and deuse variances 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 36602 and 302 SL Lot number 16 on the Edison Township tax map all noticing paperwork is in order thank you good evening good evening chairman uh for the record Joe PaPeRo from poro Bromberg and Newman on behalf of equistar chemicals LP um as mentioned in the summary this is an application for the existing facility at 340 Meadow Road uh we are here for site plan and variance approvals for the installation of new equipment uh and the replacement of existing equipment at the facility uh this site is located in the LI light industrial Zone um the light industrial Zone uh permits the existing use u i yeah I'll defer to council I think uh hold on one minute chair Mr sha I would like to recuse myself from this case yes thank you Mr shair thank you very much I apologize no problem as I was saying this site is located in the LI light industrial Zone uh industrial uses are permitted will have our experts discuss uh those aspects of the facility however preliminarily I would note that there is no change to the existing use at the facility uh this is a replacement and an upgrade of existing equipment um no expansion of the use no change in the use uh the variance relief that we are seeking and the reason why this board has jurisdiction is the height of the equipment the ordinance limits height uh to 100 feet uh the proposed equipment is at 120 feet uh because the proposed height exceeds the allowance by more than 10 feet or 10% that triggers a D6 use variants according to the municipal land use law only this board has jurisdiction to approve such a variance and that is the request before you this evening uh for Witnesses this evening I will call a representative of equistar and then I will conclude my presentation with the uh site engineer and planner to justify the variance relief that we're seeking uh so chairman if there are no preliminary questions uh I'd like to begin with uh Mr fster on behalf of equistar does the board have any preliminary questions see seeing n you may proceed 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 yes ma'am and please State your full name for the record my name is Daniel fster I am the site manager of the L Del Bell also known as eastar facility in Edison New Jersey Mr fster uh for the benefit of the board and the public can you just provide your uh position with the company and what your day-to-day UH responsibilities are uh again I'm the site manager of the site so highest ranking officer at this location I've been with Lion delbel for six years I've been at this site for a year um I'm a mechanical engineer by degree and been in the industry for about 16 years uh again all the um activities at the site fall under my purview uh from day-to-day activities um um and um things like this construction project can you provide for those that may not be familiar uh what's an overview or provide an overview of equistar day-to-day operations what are the services it provides so echostar is a global manufacturer of chemicals uh this site here in Edison provides Catalyst um for poly olphen um processes uh the manufacturing of plastic I mentioned in my overview that we are proposing to replace uh existing equipment with new equipment and the height differential uh is triggering the need for variance relief from this board uh can you describe the purpose for this new equipment and what function it will serve so this new equipment is replacing some aged equipment uh the equipment itself is is 30 years old and um what we're looking to do is to upgrade and improve to the new technology that's available nowadays um the piece of equipment the piece of equipment is a uh process scrubber it helps us um with our environmental emissions and so we're looking to um continually improve our processes this is part of that and so we're investing in the betterment of this piece of equipment the reason for the variance the existing one is 80 ft we're looking to uh get the variance to 120 ft the reason being is we have a column on site that sits at 114 ft industry standards and our company standards um want that height of a discharge of a emission to be above any occupiable platform so we're looking to comply with both our internal company as well as General Industry standards the proposed equipment um that will not be manned correct correct the equipment that we are um installing um does not change our headcount or our um employees on site uh and there's no reason to access the the top of this equipment or anything of that nature there's no building structure or real floor area associated with this it's the scrubber equipment and column that you described correct correct and I know the engineer will come up next with more technical testimony but I just wanted to confirm that this new equipment won't will not result in an expansion of your operations you're not offering a new product line or anything of that nature is that correct correct this equipment has no production value for us it's purely environmental and again I want to emphasize that it is a betterment to an aged piece of equipment that we're we're looking to replace U again we have an engineer and a planner who will come up next to identifying the plans where this equipment will be located but generally speaking the proposed equipment to be replaced and the new installation are generally in the same vicinity on the site is that accurate roughly in the same area chairman I have no further direct uh for this witness at this time thank you does the U board have any questions for Mr fster Mr CH I'm sorry I didn't get your last name Daniel fster feemster fster Teamster with an F sir uh you make you're a a plastic manufacturer I heard that in your opening so we're we're a manufacturer of catalysts that's used in the production of plastic we do not produce plastic on site I'm just asking what is it then what's the end product I I don't understand it it's it's a catalyst we we produce uh it's a solid Catalyst um that is used then by other manufacturers and ourself to um subsequently react with uh ethylene or polyethyl or or poly excuse me propylene to produce plastic but no but no plastic is produced it's like you produce the chemical for lack of a better word correct we we produce um a solid chemical also in your testimony uh you mentioned environmental can you expand on that a little bit like in terms of how that connects to your application so so this piece of equipment is a scrubber um what it does is it allows us to change a chemical um before we release it to the environment and so uh the old piece of equipment um would say scrub uh roughly 80 to 90% of an emission where the newer equipment with the new technology would allow us to get up to 98 99% efficiencies in our scrubbing capacities so the discharge is much better and U all right and no other environmental I I asked a question if there were any other environmental uh parts to this application since environmental is involved I mean I'm just asking uh for us no uh again we're we're replacing an existing piece of equipment thank you Daniel thank you Mr Good Mr chairman Mr P I have one question is the is the plant in complete operation right now yes it is thank you Mr SAR uh how are you transporting that chemical uh how are you transporting that chemical what uh to the other facil so our chemicals and products are transported via truck thank you does the board have any other questions for Mr fster actually I have I have one question so you just seeing the the history of this so you came in in 2018 looking for 106 ft 2019 114t now you gone 120 feet um if so approved should I expect you in another year or two coming back before us for uh no sir uh again the the expansion that was done before to to get to that 14 foot um kind of set that limit for us um and again this this is that top limit above that that that discharges need to be to meet our industry and Company regulations so the technology is there the technology is is is is where we are not seeking an expansion uh at this time at this facility okay all right thank you very much uh any other questions okay all right thank you thank you very much thank you Mr fster our next and Final witness is our project engineer and planner uh Robert Walsh s would you raise your right hand do you solemly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth to help you God yes I do and please State your full name for the record uh Robert E Walsh uh Chief civil and environmental engineer of EI Associates located at 8 Richdale Avenue uh Cedar NOS new J New Jersey 0792 seven Mr Walsh I'm sorry and uh Mr Walsh if you could just uh present your qualifications uh yeah I'm a licensed engineer in New Jersey New York and Pennsylvania and a licensed professional planner uh I've uh testified in over 100 bring micone closer to you sorry uh as well as I I presented the last presentations you have questions about the prior application uh I provided testimony for that both the planning board which was 2018 and then Al later in 2018 and ultimately the uh resolution for the for the 114t height was approved uh in two 2019 and your license are current in good standing yes okay we'll accept you thank you chairman thank you uh Mr Walsh I know you have a number of exhibits um this evening uh why don't we if we could start with what's being displayed uh on the television screens we do have handouts for the board members um we can mark this one okay there's just there's coun there's nothing on the screens oh okay I see it on these ones I apologize two screens here for the great the board's here because we have we have one screen here I follow the instruction no earlier it was it was showing earlier it was before we started probably off yeah look you need to put it on oh there you go you got it Raj thanks check the Rangers score while you're at it there the board okay so the exhibits that are being passed around now consist of what I'm showing first an aerial image with which is a photo location plan and three photographs so it's four pages and then the six drawing sheets will be presented that are the same drawings that were submitted to the board revision B July 27th 2023 with a little bit of color on it so it makes it easier to read on the screen so you can number them what if you want to do each individual sheet I got no problem we'll just we'll do A1 for the first packet and then A2 if we could um for the second packet the site the rendered site plan and I'm going to hand those now Mr Walsh if you could uh describe for the board uh what's depicted in exhibit A1 the aerial exhibit uh you have some uh the of the proposed improvements highlighted if you could walk the board and the public through those uh images uh as which have been marked as exhibit A1 so uh the first exhib first page of A1 exhibit is an aerial image uh identified as drawing PL photolocation 01 and it's dated 129 2024 uh basically what it shows the Red Dot is the column that was approved in 2019 1819 to be 114 ft tall that was built and it stays in place it's not being altered the blue dot uh represents the existing and proposed location of the vent stack associated with the scrubber um the two yellow symbols down in the lower portion are the photographs one and two which will follow right after this they're taken from the town facility the boat launch area we used that in 2018 we had a photo rendering we were we took down the Titan process that was approved in 1819 was taken down and replaced with new facilities higher technology uh more efficiency uh and we use that vantage point to present the application at that time so uh I'm going to jump to the first photograph and there's actually three photographs in there and the third photograph is merely photograph two with a little zoomed in uh view so this is from the foot Bridge uh located at the B launch area what I've identified on the right is the structure that was installed in 201819 it's 114 ft and there's a very skinny Tower behind the tree that you can barely make out and just for reference when you see the plants the structure it's kind of an open structure it's got a little tan section furthest to the right uh where the uh 114 foot uh column is located that is identified on the site plan as buildings uh two the what tan building in the middle is building six and I believe it's building 10 is the tan building furthest to the left so we're next to building six with the proposed vent stack which will be changed from 80 feet to 120 then uh photograph number two is basically in the for like photograph number one where that truck is in the foreground that's where we're taking the photograph now uh so you can get a little better idea it's a very skinny column the one on the left that's getting replaced it'll be replaced by a a vent stack that's 20 inches in diameter which is shown in this site plan so you can see that it's hard to really see that and the new uh vent stack will be approximately the height is of the4 six feet taller and bear in mind that the height of the the col uh the column that was constructed with that 114 goes to a height that's the top of the column physical column which is a 4ot diameter distillation column and it has a platform with a 42inch high railing around it so that it's actually slightly higher it's essentially from this vantage point it's going to be the same height and then again so you could see it a little better with photograph number three uh you could see there's a I'm going to zoom in here you could see there's a platform on the highest piece of equipment which is what we got the variants for and then you could see basically uh that Standalone column way to the left and I hope you can see that on the screen because I think it it shows it a little better when I zoom in so that's the one on the left is what we're replacing and that is exhibit 1A correct correct A1 A1 now I'm going to go to the site plan uh drawings of six sheets uh consisting of the title sheet T1 uh c01 and then uh C02 and then A1 A2 and A3 are the drawing numbers and again they're the same ones that are that were submitted with the application package however we've indicated some features in red uh so the first sheet of this um now it doesn't want to zo Frozen yeah it's going to get a blue wheel the uh the overall property which is shown on t01 of this packet is outlined in purple that's about 90 Acres the portion of the property where all the development is has occurred and and where most of the imper the 18% impervious coverage is in the two uh is in the eastern part of the site and it rep represents about 18% impervious coverage uh so that's where the project location is I should note that the distance from that project or that project work area the Red Dot there over to the Meadow Road which it runs uh kind of north south on the to the right of that that closest property Corner which is the corner where we meet the town property that's 460 feet to that point just for reference and this is an enlarged plan again uh this is a drawing number c01 the site plan this is rotated 90 degrees north is no longer going up the page like it shows on t01 but it's to the right so Meadow Road is on the bottom of the sheet and mid Veil road is to the right we show a section line in there because on the last architectural elevation view you'll see we'll show building 10 six and two but we just turned that section line because we took one of the old exhibits for the original project and and we just put that in the elevation so it's it's really changes to a uh East View from A but you'll see when we get to that exhibit um and then this this is an enlarged plan same orientation as the c01 is C02 uh to show where it is next to building number six and I'm going to hop quickly to A1 which is a plan view with architectural Dimensions to show you that the work area is basically a 24 by 15t platform and you see where to the left hand side where I've zoomed in there's uh Four B Bas plates and Foundations to the left and it says Center Line of vertical stack that's where the column will be built or the vent stack there'll be a frame and that'll go up uh and the and the equipment is located to the right of that those columns and what it consists of is the scrubber unit which is a large diameter circle which has a blower and then a pump to to pump the water and does the actual scrubbing of the uh the material that's captured uh then I'm going to drawing number A2 which has two enlarged elevations these are uh looking in an easterly direction or west elevation the one on the left shows proportionally the elevation of the stack relative to the equipment whereas the one on the right there's a brake line in the stack to give a larger view of the equipment and again that equipment shows that it's at ground level the the scrubber unit itself is about 28 feet Yes 28 feet and then again the Stacked is a 20 inch diameter vent that goes up Mr Walsh not to interrupt you but I have a quick just clarification um when you compare looking at A2 and you compare the elevation of the stack and the equipment to what was approved and constructed in 2019 is it fair to say this is less substantial of a of a of a piece of equipment based on the amount of platform and Associated material absolutely much smaller and again this is a piece of equipment that's been there it's not not getting moved around it's purely a a upgrade in technology and a level of treatment and then uh lastly I have that exhibit that's referenced on the site plan where you could see the you know the relative height to the prior project where the to the far right you have what was the Eastern elevation of the building and structures that were um constructed in 2019 and this goes to the point that we just discussed when you compare the image to the right is that's the installation that was approved by the board and installed versus what's highlighted outlined in red is the proposal uh the uh mass of it is significantly lower correct correct Mr Walsh uh you've analyzed this application uh due to the need for a planning variance a a D6 height variance for the uh stack which uh exceeds the ordinance allowance by uh more than 10 feet or 10% um can you provide your planning opinion your professional planning opinion uh regarding the requested variants uh identifying the positive and negative statut statutory criteria sure first of all as testified by Mr fster this this is going to be an increase in technology and basically from the positive criteria it's uh you know um meets the benefit of the uh health and safety of the general public as well as the workers who are on site as Mr fer pointed out the pl the the stack elevation or vent elevation is being set by an industry standard for people who may be working on that platform they're they're discharging at six feet higher than the platform height that was recently constructed as far as the impact of the adjoining neighborhood this is all industrial Zone here and as you can see from the photographs it's quite a distance uh to that equipment and Visually uh there's there's going to be it's I don't think it's going to be noticeable in my opinion and there are no residential uh views or anything from that area and if you go to the other side of the site and you go to which is also industrial Zone uh where it goes upgrade and everything it's uh is less of a there's more trees blocking it because they're higher in elevation and uh those trees are like are are basically blocking the view of the existing facility uh as far as um being consistent or not uh um inconsistent with the Zone plan uh I think in the in the L1 zone or Li Zone allows telecommunication towers and unlike the restricted industrial Zone where it's specifically limited to 150 fet in this Zone it's based on the fall zone which states that uh you know any different zone property line uh to the base of the tow is the permitted height and as I mentioned before that's 460 feet to the corner of the uh so in in in theory you could have a 460 foot Tower here and it would meet the requirements of that conditional use identified in the Ali zone so and then again finally it's uh the master plan identifies this as a li Zone um it's consistent we're not changing anything we're not expanding the use uh it's basically a change of equipment and benefit to uh the health and Public Safety as I said the people working on site as well as the adjoining properties Mr Walsh to that point um one of the purposes uh of the municipal land law purposes of zoning is the public health safety and Welfare correct correct Mr feemster's testimony is that this technology will reduce the uh emissions and the uh clean the admissions to a higher standard I believe his testimony was 98 to 99% in your professional opinion the increase in the environmental benefits do you as a planner find that to be a public health safety uh and Welfare uh Improvement yes uh you've had an opportunity to review the reports uh issued by the boards engineer and planner correct yes and just for the record I'm referring to the big now planning uh report dated January 16 2024 and the DNR report dated January 30 2024 correct yes any objections complying with those requests and recommendations as a condition of approval uh no no issues thank you chairman I have nothing further uh for direct testimony of Mr Walsh okay thank you um we're going to go to the board see if the board has any questions for Mr Walsh no Mr chairman I do have a question for the Cent Mr Cher um so this is would be solely this application is asking for the variant solely for that scrubber no other buildings no other structures in the fuse has has an intention of exceeding that 100 ft limit that is correct okay thank you Mr chor okay any other questions from the board okay we'll go to the bignell planning Consultants report if I say we go to Mr bignell I don't want you guys both jumping up um Mr chairman I have no objection to the uh new scrubber of the height um the applicant has um received other approvals along the way my only concern is that U the applicant needs to uh follow up on all their building permits and all their inspections and they need to get CFOs that's why I asked the question whe they're in operation I don't believe they have certificates of occupancy at this present time and that needs to get cleared up almost immediately I spoke with the uh with the applicants engineer along Mr Suz the construction official recently and I maybe just a quick update on how you guys are doing with that yes we on yesterday we submitted the uh I submitted a letter certifying 118 construction reports that involve Geotech technical rebar placement and concrete cylinder testing uh those are all in compliance with the specifications that we prepared for the prior project and I hand delivered that to the Construction office with a sign and sealed letter certifying such and uh at which time I was told we need to now submit the uh the town issued approvals for the construction which I'm presuming are the uh approved stickers uh and uh the applicant is assembling those and we'll get them over to the town as soon as possible and you have to apply then for the final C ofos and everything occup and I would suggest that if you don't have a temporary certificate of occupany you apply for that immediately you know so you can be operational legally not have any problems we'll do that up right away Mr B thank you thank you and Mr chairman I would just ask that uh um I don't think you can vote tonight because you don't have five members for the D variants but maybe in the next 30 days or whatever before you vote on it stuff that they kind of get that stuff in compliance before final approval is granted is that possible so just a clarification I think there are five um no there are four only four five yeah there were five but one at to ruse we have one two three four board members that can vote I'm your board member raise your hand come on come on raise your hand for your board member boom yeah so you can complete your hearing tonight right uh in the meantime we can get caught up on all the paperwork and then they could vote when they decide at what meeting they want to vote on and the fifth member could read the transcript and know what was said this evening sure okay that's fair just said today you can come up tomorrow and apply for a TCO or a CO sure take the application at least absolutely we we'll do okay all right M Mr Bell with the bignell planning Consultants report do you have anything else further to pretty good shape made yeah we just agree on the when they do the resolution that there all the prior conditions are uh remain uh in effect um yeah like I said my my concern is making sure they're in compliance with the prior approvals and things of that nature that they're building out there or have built out there thank you uh now we'll go to Michael bignell for the Delaware r engineering report uh the only thing I have uh if the uh engineer could quickly for the record uh just address item 7.1 under the solid waste management on how the project uh complies with the Edison Township Solid Waste Management and state County Recycling mandates I don't know let me just no I saw that I saw the report today and I I hadn't seen that on prior applications I did in the town so I checked with the applicant and they believe that they have that information and can assemble it and comply with that okay thank you that's all I really had and that Mr B that's something that would be supplied on on yeah I mean that's something that they could find the answer to and then for the next meeting when they're before they vote they could provide that information okay all right great thank you that's really just for the benefit of the board members okay thank you okay um Council uh thank you very much and I apologize I discounted the number of board members um so we would respectfully request our presentation is is concluded we would respectfully request carrying the vote until there's uh additional board members since it's the D variant okay so you've completed your case we have okay so we're going to go out to the public thank you um so uh first with anyone within 200 feet of subject property want to be heard if you're within 200 feet of subject property you have received a notice via certified mail seeing none we will now go now go out to uh 200 ft of the property seeing none motion to close second the motion motion made by Mr sadada seconded by Mr chabra to close a public portion all favor signify by saying I I oose nay the eyes have it the public portion is now closed um Madame secretary if we have a date for um them to be scheduled for a vote we have available February 27th if you're all available for that day that that would be fine we appreciate it thank you very much okay um okay so for anyone here uh present and for anyone listening at home uh this case will be carried till Tuesday February 27th no additional notice is required um this is your notice thank you very much gentlemen thank you thank you we appreciate your time Madam Secretary is there any further business come before the board that'll be all this evening seeing none the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second motion made by Mr Sada seconded by Mr chro all in favor signify by saying I iose nay the eyes have it board stands adjourned thank you very much everyone guys