Documenter name: Enicely Mojica

Agency: New Brunswick Planning Board:

Date: Feb. 10, 2025

Summary

Minor subdivision proposal in Block 321 to merge lots 7.01 & 8.02 brings no detriment to public good or property owners because no physical changes are being made, only redistribution.
With assistance from the City Tax Assessor lots have been redesignated as the following: 7.01 to 7.05 and 8.02 to 8.05.
Planning Board voted yes to proposal and a resolution will be drafted next meeting.

If this minor subdivision creates no physical changes and is an improvement in the surrounding area, why wasn't it proposed before? And if it was, why was it never brought to fruition?
How will the Planning Board move forward and account for the now vacant spot of Board Engineer in future meetings?

II. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT

III. SALUTE TO THE FLAG

A moment of silence was given in respect of Board Engineer Antoine “Tony” Hajjiar who passed away on Sunday.

IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

Meeting started at 7:04 PM. Brightly lit in the room, heat is on, comfortable temperature.

No microphones or audio devices observed. Brief delay to the meeting as council members went to pick up materials for the meeting.

Members in attendance were:

Previous meeting minutes were reviewed to confirm attendance for eligible voters. Approved.

V. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. FIVE-III-SOLAR, LLC

569-625, 631 JOYCE KILMER AVENUE / BLOCK 321, LOT 7.01 8.02 (PB-2024-07)

MINOR SUBDIVISION WITH ‘C’ VARIANCE

The applicant proposed to subdivide a portion of Block 321 and merge it into existing Block 321 Lot 7.01. The contract purchaser of both Lot 7.01 and the portion of 8.02 to be subdivided and merged. The applicant is proposing no physical changes to any of the properties at this time. All existing utilities, improvements, and easements will remain in place and undisturbed. The property is located in the I-1 District.

Aaron S. Brotman, Esq. introduced Jeffrey Haberman to discuss the proposal. Jeffrey Haberman serves as a Principal of Dynamic Engineering Consultants.

“Mr. Haberman maintains a Professional Engineering License and a Professional Planner License in New Jersey and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Rutgers University.”

Mr. Haberman had an exhibit displayed to the Board that depicted Lots and proposed subdivision.

Site description stated as: two existing parcels located along Joyce Kilmer Avenue, adjacent to each other, located in the I-1 zone. Known as Block 3.21 and Lot.7.01 and 8.02. Lot 7.01 is towards the eastern side and is 65,272 sq ft in size while Lot 8.02 is on the western side and 149,198 sq ft in size.

With current lot configuration, a portion of the improvements on Lot.7.01 operations fall within Lot 8.02. This has created a bit of conflict here with parking improvements and circulation aisles fall in Lot 8.02 but they are being used by lot 7.01.

Clean up and re-subdivide lines- subdividing portion lot 8.02 and consolidating it to 7.01 to reflect onsite operations as they exist today.
The subdivision line exhibited on display runs through the middle of the lot. Starts along Joyce Kilmer avenue and falls along a chain link fence at the northernmost property line. Fence is the dividing line between the physical operations of both pieces.
No physical improvements are being proposed. Working with the tax assessor have agreed that the new lots are to be redesignated. Lot 7.01 to 7.05 with 79,460 sq ft. and Lot 8.02 to 8.03 and 135,424sq ft.
This new redesignation will create a new bulk variance. For exceeding the maximum coverage of 75% on new lot 8.03. Simply because there are existing lawns surfaces in area being proposed to be conveyed over to new lot 7.05 which brings up the coverage percentage of 8.03

Mr. Haberman described how this subdivision would fall under a C2 flexible bulk variance. To satisfy a A C(2) variance deals with building & property configuration cases and an applicant must satisfy certain negative criteria. There are two requirements for negative criteria: 1. granting the variance is not producing substantial damage to the public good and 2. Granting the variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zoning plan and ordinance. In this proposal they believe they cover both criteria in the following ways:

This subdivision will result in variance improvement meaning granting this variance will advance purpose A of the MULA which states:

“To encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in this State, in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare;”

Clarifying lot lines on site to reflect use of on ground operations of both facilities, a matter understood to both parties resulted in no detriments seen with this change.

No detriments to public good or surrounding businesses, simply a readjustment. The existing zoning would require applicants to possibly demolish or remain in current condition where one property is using a portion of another, this subdivision application will clean that up.
Removes two existing nonconformities 1. Maximum building coverage 7.01 maximum side yard 7.01
From a practical perspective, Mr. Haberman did feel that granting this variance through this subdivision process would make more sense than another legal method.
Board Member inquired about fences mentioned and their origin. Mr. Haberman and Mr. Brotman were both unsure of how long fences have been there. They had in their possession two deeds submitted in the 80s so the assumption is for several decades.

Opend to the public; no comments. No discussion had by Board Members.

Board Member made a comment to comply with plans dated February 6th and not the earlier date.
Next steps mentioned for the proposal were to have applicants provide documentation confirming they have contacted the city tax assessor.
Applicants to provide proof of deeds shared with city clerk and tax assessor. The tax assessor must also be found to be satisfied with the form and content of the deed. Applicants are to comply with plans dated Feb 6th, 2025 and one variance for impervious coverage.

Board member moved that due to the simplicity of the proposal to have a resolution drafted for consideration. Board approves.

VI. OTHER MATTERS OF INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting ended: 7:21 PM

If you believe anything in these notes is inaccurate, please email us at yeimy@colab-arts.org and victoria@colab-arts.org with "Correction Request" in the subject line.