agenda for Tuesday March 18th 2025 adequate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act NJSA 10:4-6 on January 9th 2025 proper notice was sent to the Courier News and the Star Ledger filed with the clerk at the
Township of Bridgewwater and posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building please be aware of the planning board policy for public hearings no new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m and no new testimony will be taken after 10:00 p.m hearing assistance is
available upon request accommodations will be made for individuals with a disability pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA provided the individual with the disability provides 48 hours advanced notice to the planning department secretary before the public meeting however if the individual
should require special equipment or services such as a CART transcriber 7 days advanced notice excluding weekends and holidays may be necessary i would ask that everyone please rise to salute the flag i pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all miss Propes the roll call please here excuse
me mayor Mayor Mench is absent for the record councilman Kersh here mr papis here mr mcgora here mr wang here miss Sakura here mr banga is absent miss Chardawitch
here mr chowdery is absent and Mr atkins here mark Peek board attorney william Burr board engineer katherine Sarmmed township and board planner and Michael Sullivan
redevelopment planner you have a quorum you can proceed thank you Miss Prostes at this time any members of the public wishing to address the board on any matter not listed on tonight's agenda may do so at this time before I call on a speaker for this evening I would like
to acknowledge that this is not a public hearing obviously the doors are open this evening but anybody in the room that would like to comment on any matters that may in fact with businesses on the agenda this evening may do so at this time that will include any general commentary for our master plan consistency review as the presentation
materials were available on the township's website in advance before this general commentary can be heard otherwise I'd like to clarify the order of tonight's business the 1200 Route 22 consistency review is not considered a public engagement therefore the presenter this evening will not be
subjected to any cross-examination this is for the planning department's consideration deliberation this evening tonight is but a step in the lengthy process as with any area in need of redevelopment in any public ordinance
well do thank you very much this is the is the public this is the public portion of the meeting at this time I would like to formally invite the public for any general commentary on any land use matter in the township to come forward at this time and once again this is not a public
meeting and it's not a public hearing it's a public meeting it's a it's a public meeting not a public hearing good evening could you please state your name and address for the record kathy Franco 766 we wrote let me start by saying I'm disappointed to see that the
mayor is once again not in attendance at a planning board meeting of which he is a member the other thing is you talk about 7 days advanced notice for accommodation yet many times agenda items are not made available public with
greater than 7 days notice so to ask for accommodation is difficult if people don't know that an item is on the agenda how can they ask for accommodation with 7 days notice just as a point of information um master plan i'm wondering
when we might see a master plan for this township um the last full master plan was done in 1990 there's many been many reviews done of that um and you know it's come up at many zoning and planning
board hearings where we go back to the 1990 and then the reviews of it we've gone through many um surveys we've gone through public hearings we've put post-it notes all around this room for what we want to see
as a township and we're a number of years overdue for that so I'm wondering you may not have an answer to that i know the mayor didn't have an answer to that at the last town council meeting but I would hope that that's still on your agenda um finally I want to
understand the process for areas in need of in need of rein in need of redevelopment from my understanding the town council asked the planning board to see if it's an area in need of redevelopment if the planning board
decides yes then it's memorialized and it goes to the town council and then they declare it's an area in need of redevelopment the plan is then to be developed then it comes back to the planning board to look at as a redevelopment plan and it's voted upon
by the planning board only if approved does it go back to the town council as an ordinance to approve the redevelopment plan now Councilman Kersh who's sitting up here on October 1st
2024 as well as many other times has told the public that this would be a transparent process where the public would have numerous opportunities to comment on areas in need of redevelopment on areas that are taking
place yet tonight you have said this is not a public hearing so even though and I'm not I know I'm not supposed to comment on something that's going to come up later and is on the agenda i
question why I'm not able to comment on what Mr michael Sullivan will present as far as how many units of affordable housing how many buildings whether the 50 foot limit includes the HVAC units
that are going to be put on top of it whether or not it's appropriate to put the data center closest to the residential units or should that be closer to the highway because of the noise impact that will be you know happening so
when since Mr kersh has promised this public both at town council meetings and at planning board meetings that we would have numerous opportunities to comment when will we actually have the opportunity to comment now now would be
an excellent time to comment so So you have the floor Miss Franco i've heard you have the floor i've heard three questions let's start with the first one the first one is about the master plan we have our planner in the room this evening so any general updates potentially Miss Sarmad would be able to
answer that question for you so let's start with the first question miss Sarmmed any input i would be happy to answer that um yes the master plan has been in the works um there was a change in the professionals here so after Miss Scarlett Doyle had retired there was a
little bit of lag time but I will say that um you know I have been authorized by the council to continue the master plan work to finalize it and the uh estimated time frame for that is to be adopted by June of this year so it should be done in you know the next few
months that would be wonderful for us to be able to see as a public thank thank you Miss Sarban now in response to your second question regarding the process of INRs or consistency reviews uh Mr peek I believe our board attorney will be able to refresh some of which you've already divulged back to us which most of it was
accurate i think there were a few yeah no right yeah no the the procedure you described was was generally accurate but as for the time for public review the public had the opportunity to comment as part of a public hearing see I think there might be issues with nomenclature
public hearing would be when you know witnesses make their presentation and the public has the right to cross-examine the witnesses directly ask the witness's question this and that tonight is not a public hearing like that that part of
that relating to the redevelopment plan we're at that stage of it's already been declared an area need of redevelopment by the township council so now we're at the point of considering the redevelopment plan the planning
board's role in that is very limited the board's role tonight is to determine whether or not the proposed plan is consistent with the municipal master plan as it's been re-examined over the years and then also does does the board
generally recommend it to the township council to adopt an ordinance so you can make comments tonight about the plan that's being proposed you can do that now and that's that's great and the board can consider that you know Mr
sullivan's here he'll listen but tonight is not the night where you would engage with Mr sullivan you can just So only during tonight's public comment does a member of the public have an opportunity to comment on the redevelopment plan
that will be proposed well myself or any other member of the public only has this moment not after Mr solvent correct the time and this is laid out in the statute that governs well was you know what 4812A- I think six is the one that that
well well only only because the last on a different area in need of redevelopment I came up when it was under review and I made recommendations and I was told that was not the time to comment so I'm just trying to figure out
when is my time to comment or any other member of the public now mentioned several times this evening tonight and at this point in time of the meeting is your time to comment your time to engage and perhaps get into cross-examination
anything like that would be the public hearing with the township council when they're considering the ordinance okay so so let me go through a couple of my concerns then that I thought I would ask later but I guess it will be now
um so I see where it's 250 age restricted units um with no more than 40 units in a building um so I'm assuming this will probably be no more than six to seven units
um as far as buildings for these potentially 250 units um and they talk about a maximum height of 50 feet height will that be inclusive of HVAC units or will HVAC units be in addition to that
50 foot height you know so will HVAC have to be you know um go above that which will be 56 or or 60 ft you know with um fencing and whatever to guard it because that's also included in it um I
know there's I think three uh properties that will be built for single family homes i think it's on 2.98 acre lots um I do wonder because there's something about affordable units shall be deemed
restricted to remain affordable for a period of 40 years um and then I do wonder what happens after those 40 years um as far as those units like do they just go market rate all of them
um generators it talks about is that just strictly for the data units or will that also be for the age restricted units um because I know when I was a EMT on the rescue squad and I was answering calls during certain states of emergency
um a lot of our age restricted housing did not have emergency generators servicing them at like four seasons and uh the EMTs were walking up four flights of stairs and carrying people down four flights of stairs and those people had
no electricity and no heat and no air conditioning and no services so I wondered about that um the noise from the data center um is this planning board looking at the
noise from data centers um and I didn't bring up my phone to uh share with you um if you go on YouTube and you go YouTube data center noise um you'll see that many communities have concerns
about the noise um being generated from data centers so my question becomes when I look at the plan the data center is at the portion of the property that's closest to the residential areas okay
it's closest to the single family homes and you're putting the you know affordable housing and the senior um or the age restricted housing on the same piece why isn't the data center being put if that's what you're going to put there closer to the
highway so that that noise isn't impacting the residential portion so much those are my concerns generally i think uh let me just see if if you don't mind i want to make sure that I have all of them listed mr sullivan certainly heard them so I'm sure it's very likely
he'll address them but in case he doesn't I certainly will on your behalf so I've noted five items question about the HVAC units being or not being included in the 50- foot height there was a question you had about about impact of single family homes a question
about whether what happens to the restriction after the 40-year period whether there are generators for both projects or only one of them and a concern about noise from the data center and the location the proposed potential location on the property have I summarized that i think you caught it
all thank you Mr kersh councilman Kersh can I ask you just for a little bit of more clarification on the second item single family homes specifically what what what are you interested in in hearing more about well so so you're talking about single family homes i think it's three single family homes being put on Woodland or Woodside or
whatever that thing is and a culde-sac at the end so um I guess my question my question is you know I mean I understand you want to keep it residential but will people you know you know if you build it will they come you know you're building
it against a data center so and and then you know what will be the cost you know the other thing is um you know because it's an area in in need of redevelopment I'm hoping um that none of this is considered for a pilot program you know
certainly not the three residential homes but none of it in general because the whole thing is the township as a whole relies upon all of the taxable property to support all of the needs
whether it's school fire su you know whatever it is you know fire what rescue squad roads everything you know when you go into pilot it you reduce um you know you generally automatically
cut out schools which is understand which well well the pilot changes the timing what the pilot change a pilot change changes the timing and the amounts it changes the amount but it also changes who those dollars go to
because a pilot can be determined by the town council as to who to you know allocate that money to so you can give no money to the town to the schools and this this board though has nothing to do with with pilots whether or not to enter
into a pilot agreement or or anything like that that is strictly a function of the township of council oh okay no no and I appreciate that and I've probably gone beyond my scope and I appreciate that Mr pac um and I thank you all for your indulgence at listening to all my comments thank you very much thank you
Mr franco good evening could you please state your name and address for the record curtis Kraut 199 Adamsville Road Bridgewater um I have to say your opening comments really upset me and they upset me
because I have spent the last three months basically since the uh council voted to uh approve an AINR um development plan uh uh de
uh draft from Mr sullivan i've been trying to get uh a meeting to uh become at least aware of some of the elements and required elements that are part of the plan the AINR um uh investigation
that was conducted by Mr sullivan was very comprehensive i live on Adamsville Road adjacent to this property i've been involved in development applications on this property since 1986 okay i'm aware of pretty much
everything that's gone on and at this point in time I'm really trying to understand that if Mr sullivan is going to be presenting his RDP for this property later in the meeting you're saying that there is no opportunity for
the public to interact with him in any way is that what you're Because that's what I'm hearing not not tonight but this is supposed to be an interactive process i mean with all due respect to Mr sullivan and any board any board professionals that are here I have
professional skills also and I have also been involved specifically with this property for a lot longer than pretty much anybody in this room all right so I really um you know if I I have plenty of things to ask but it sounds like is it
just going to get um uh recorded in the meeting minutes tonight and and then forwarded to Mr sullivan after he makes his presentation i I don't really get it well this after if this board determines that the plan is consistent with the
master plan and if it thinks that the plan overall is is a good plan it will recommend to the township council that it adopt the plan and implement it by adopting an ordinance but what if what if in that process of adopting the
ordinance there's there will be a public hearing and the opportunity for more engagement and maybe you know the ordinance would get you know possibly amended in some way our the board's function here is very limited and and that's by statute and we want to make
sure that we follow the statute it's a multi-step process and you know we're trying to follow the statute as closely as we can i mean I read the AINR um uh resolution investigation report i'm sorry the investigation report on the investigation report yeah that Mr
sullivan drafted i already agree that there's a lot of uh good historical information and reference point to to springboard off of however it doesn't encompass everything and there are questions that I have and I'm sure other people have to want we want to make sure
that whatever you come up with for a redevelopment plan is not only um accurate but it also reflects optimally what could be in there rather than just wait we have all these different um milestones in terms of accomplishing
that tonight and then presenting it with nothing's happened before tonight is from the public perspective i got a copy of the AN the RDP draft earlier in the week but that's only because I received it from Mr papus and he assured me that
I'd be able to speak tonight and ask all the questions I wanted to and and and you should and and as I indicated to Miss Franco uh earlier now's your opportunity you know get recite any any concerns any observations you know any
general comments you have especially since you've had the opportunity to review the plan put them out there and as C you know Councilman Kersh you know diligently took note of what Miss Franco indicated i'm sure he'll do do the same right but there's a lot more detail than in what I have than what Miss Franco
brought up okay i I that's why I asked about a transcript and and getting these questions down and when are they going to be addressed if not prior to it goes to the council because it doesn't sound like there's going to be much of an interactive involvement to the public
even then so no I think I I I think I think that I think that that last characterization is inaccurate um it will go to the to the council the council will in assuming this moves forward will introduce an ordinance that's at one meeting it will then hold
a public hearing with full opportunity to to to ask questions and provide input to to your your elected officials well forgive me i I have a you know just an extensive development and engineering background and I've been involved in in in in public service as well on on the
code enforcement side for uh for many years and um I have never really seen a process which is basically not transparent in any way okay and doesn't have the opportunity to make adjustments
in terms of refining the the optimal document that gets in front of the council for review i think there's I think there's every opportunity for that because Mr pek you can correct me if I'm wrong um but we we have several options tonight based on on um the the dialogue
with Mr sullivan we can either adopt a resolution we can take no action or we can take action that is something in between we agree with this we disagree with that we'd like to change the other so so this is your opportunity through
this plan i'll articulate that to you and then you guys take notes and I don't know what if you want to tell me the topic you want to call out page numbers okay i'm just going to start from the top um one one aspect of of the RDP I'm just
referring to it in in in an acronym form Mr mr sullivan's uh plan uh on in page 23 I'm just going back to the uh uh to the end of the plan which is basically the review and approval development
applications process and the relationship to existing development projects all right so my major general concern is that there has been on parallel with this RDP effort there's been an active uh um uh development uh
plan uh I'm sorry an active development project um in front of the zoning board of adjustments since December of 2023 that's 16 months ago and the last professional testimony given in the
context of that um um that that uh project plan for to build a warehouse on this same tract okay has been active since then and there have been only one meeting with professional speaking and there have been 11 meetings since then
that have been scheduled cancelled continued cancelled rescheduled cancelled and that brings us to next Tuesday which is supposed to be uh a formally scheduled meeting regarding
this particular property to install a warehouse on it And again there's been no updating of any of the documentation that's been provided by the applicant and it's the same applicant that the RDP uh and presumably the township is going
to be negotiating with with regard to any alternatives that are proposed in this RDP assuming that it's adopted so the the basic question that comes out of this is that um um so there's a meeting scheduled next uh next Tuesday with with
the with the zoning board and um sorry um is this or any other redevelopment plan if this or any other redevelopment plan is adopted by the township how will this impact the ongoing review of the current warehouse application
i don't know if you can answer that at the moment but it it basically what I can say is that if the redevelopment plan under consideration is adopted uh as an ordinance by the township council I don't believe warehouses are
permitted use and you have to operate within the parameters of the redevelopment plan if you're a developer you can't go out there's no use variance that can be obtained once there's a redevelopment plan in place so it establishes the guidelines that are necessary for any future development
without exception there's some it looked like there was some flexibility in there that the planning board had but there's there's flexibility with within the redevelopment plan for uh minor bulk type variances you know like maybe setbacks here and there uh stuff like
that but as for the uses what's permitted in the area that's whatever's in the plan that's the only stuff that can be built okay well my experience with the township and all these development applications either through the planning board or the
board of adjustment have all been associated with conventionally brought um uh development projects that are submitted applicationwise to the planning office and then they go through that iterative process so if now the RDP
produced by Mr sullivan becomes the adopted uh guidelines for future development on this property if the owner of the property decides that they don't agree with the constraints of the RDP can they still submit a non-conforming development application
requiring a use or for example height variance because those are the two items i'm sorry they cannot so everything they will be constrained and they have no other legal recourse if they wanted to try to force it through i mean they could maybe get a
slight height variance but if they go try to go more than 10% over uh what's permitted by the plan that's that's a non-starter they can't Right well because the RDP clearly says that a warehouse is not a a prospective use in
the future at least as far as uh it hasn't been since two 2022 um so basically everything is going to go through the planning board in terms of development applications once this is approved by the council if if
that's approved by the council and adopted as an ordinance correct any development plan for that property or the properties that are the subject of that plan would have to conform with that plan would have to be consistent with the plan so it would always come to the planning board it would not go to
the zoning board because you can't get a use variance you know what's called the Dvariance um once there's a redevelopment plan in place right well there's two Dvariances that are obviously involved now which is the use and the height
all right um next topic uh a mandatory components of of the redevelopment plan and they're outlined on page nine of the RDP uh these components are mostly favorable from my perspective as they seek to
correct many of the deficiencies of prior abandoned development elements from past and incomplete site projects there are a few exceptions however one is that the access to the Greywork tra uh tract should not be allowed via the
R20 lot uh that has access um in the illustration i don't is is this videoed or not i don't know um sorry um so if if you look at the illustration
of the property on the east side there's an appendage that sticks out which is labeled R20 lot with access to Adamsville Road um it's very close to where I live and one of my neighbors as well it goes right alongside of his his
property the it's not really in terms of dimensionally a buildable lot but it's referred to in Mr sullivan's RDP is uh needs to conform to other aspects of the R20 zone however it's never been uh used to provide
access from Adamsville Road into the property and I was did not see it may exist but it did not see any reference to excluding that option as part of the RDP so that's one of the exceptions I'm
noting um also um although there's a a general comment of the under the mandatory comment uh components of the uh of the plan uh all storm water management facilities Mr sullivan does indicate that they need comp be compliant with
current state and federal requirements uh but these this has been a major uh issue for many of us that live along Cuckledsbrook which traverses under Adamsville Road and during uh um many of
the the major storms that we've had in the area uh and even certainly certainly Ida there was 20 ines of flowing water all throughout the wetland area and my own property and Adamsville Road so this is really a major concern going forward
and um most of those wetlands are on uh lot 1.02 and as well as well as the R20 appendage that also connects into lot 1.02 next topic is uh use issues and
comments on the positive side um a warehouse principal use is not part of this grreyark RDP uh and this is consistent with the 2022 master plan changes um however uh the use inclusion
of the age restricted uh residential dwelling units in the rec center and single family detached residential homes are definitely much more complimentary to the residential zones that are around the periphery um which includes the R20
zone that me and many of my my uh neighbors live in as well as the R10 zone to the uh to the west uh along Woodside Lane um so those those applications I I don't
really see much of an issue with and also he's in indicated that there's a plan to put a culde-sac on the end of Woodside Lane um and allow um the uh the properties that are part of the Greyark
track that are along the east side of Woodside Lane uh to be developed with single family homes on them so a question that comes up is are these detached residential homes only proposed along Woodside Lane or are they uh also
available as a principal use in the balance of the redevelopment site and although it's talked about in the context of the homes only along Woodside Lane it wasn't clear to me whether or not you could put you know a whole development of single family homes on
the property so uh on the negative side with regard to uh use issues um Miss Franco had already mentioned the data center and I'm personally familiar with these types of facilities uh but they usually
require large numbers of exterior situated high-capacity cooling equipment and they are usually uh situated both on mounted on on the either the ground or on rooftop and they were required ired to be uh they were required to maintain
the correct uh operating environment for the interior data equipment uh these units typically generate a lot of noise and and that noise can bleed into the adjoining residential areas both in and around the greymark site so that's the
R10 zone and R20 zones around the east south and west sides of the property um so there these it it basically the the uh the cooling equipment uh which is usually
more of what's required uh and and heat pumps uh require produce are a constant source of low and mid-frequency noise emanating from this type of equipment and it's usually very difficult to control um because it's a lower
frequency noise especially if it becomes problematic after construction construction and you know I've been involved with other development applications in the township um and we've had to bring in um acoustic
professionals from ruters to come in take sound impulsive measurements as well as uh ambient noise measurements at all hours of the day and night to see if they conform to the requirements in the township code in this case this is the
whole data center is going to have a massive bank of uh heat pumps and cooling units and they're likely going to be potentially certainly during the summer going to be on 24-hour operation so there is in the plan in the
RDP that is a proposed masonary wall buffer that's um proposed around the property i don't have a problem with it just from an aesthetic and and from a visual screening ability but um a hard
masonry wall is not going to do much to uh to cancel out low frequency sounds that are going to come out of these units so that is a major concern and with regard to the section I'm only
jumping ahead a little bit here but um buffering and and screening requirements which I believe are on page 16 so um the RDP references the noise control standards for data centers on page on
page 17 so there's a reference that says that a that that a study and an indep um and it didn't really go into the credential details but this is not a a trivial type of of
uh vocation um I have an acoustic design background myself to some extent um and I've had experience with other projects in the town where noise has been an issue so um the acoustic impact study uh
should be required of any proposed building and equipment design there's some comment to that effect that's that's in the RDP however it seems extremely vague so this needs to be tightly defined and and tightly
managed and even more importantly it has to be monitored by an independent acoustic engineer um retained by the planning board at the expense of the applicant at least that's my my my feeling this keeps some objectivity in
the process to determine if the design before it's complete has merit from the standpoint of sound dampening and sound control because once the project is built there's going to be very difficult depending on where these units are
situated to um attenuate any noise coming out of them so it's going to be a problem and I'd rather not find out about it after the data center is built so at least we need to have some confidence upfront and then there also needs to be a sanity check after the the
design is implemented to ensure that it's achieving the goals that are part of the acoustic measurement uh uh restrictions both for impulsive and continuous sound
um next topic are the bulk requirements uh this is yard and height requirements um specifically regard with regard to height on pages 12 and 13 in the current
um township code and the definition for the M1B um bulk requirements for the M1B uh zone uh the maximum building height is currently defined as two stories and 35 feet the RDP
uh proposed proposes four stories and 50 ft basically all of the projects that have been proposed on this this site including office buildings in this in the in the southern half of the of the
of the property on lots 1.02 and I believe it's 1.04 it's closer to Woodside Lane all of those projects have involved bringing up the physical grade on the land
um from the um south southeast corner of the the property which is basically where I live Mr paloma and other people live and bringing it up as much as 6 to 10 feet in elevation to level the
property out because all the drainage from uh surface runoff and everything on the property right now is scheduled to go into swale on the southern um border of the property this is between that
property and the Eagle's property so if a building is allowed to be um measured from its average elevation uh that means that a 55 or 50 foot high building from the standpoint of
residents is going to be probably on the order of 60 ft and that's um not you know and and that's not including any rooftop units uh the code township code refers to
rooftop impertinances like uh putting cooling equipment and heating equipment on the roof which is usually mounted outside and ducted to the interior this depends on the type of application what type of use ends up getting put on the property it could even be a data center
although I honestly I would be very surprised if a data center mounted stuff on the roof because it just would create even more problems than they they could handle but so essentially the all these grading plans whether or not it's for
the office buildings that were last approved like in 1999 they all show that Phil has to be brought in to bring up the grade on the eastern border of the property southeastern corner of the property in order to level it out in
this case they're planning to put 180,000 square foot warehouse but the same thing was true with two office buildings same thing was true with two uh hotels uh in one of the applications proposed as well as two other hotels
that were subsequently uh submitted in another development application like three years later so Mr crowd if I could just uh interject i'm just being aware of my time a little bit here approximately how many more questions or commentary do you anticipate um just
just a few more okay okay please proceed by and large I I think the plan is a good framework okay this is just some refinement and things that you guys need to be aware of mr sullivan should be more aware of uh when it's drafted so
that you know we don't have to suffer through this longer than necessary all right so with regard to the height um like I said this because of the increased grade that's going to end up looking like a 60 foot potential
um set of buildings out there and that's going to extend over the treetops of the wetland area that's along Adamsville Road and it's going to provide darkness to the new homes that are being uh
suggested to be built along the western side of the property along Woodside Lane they're just going to be in darkness until like noon time so really that the height at proposed with 50 feet I I I you could certainly
build a a building with uh with less um um less floor height um than what's required to do with the four stories at 50 ft such as three stories even at 40 if they need you know a lot of room for
plenums or whatever else for for uh drafting and and uh of of heat and cooling so I personally I I think that you should consider lowering the the maximum uh building height to like 40 ft
right now it's specified at at two stories and 35 ft but uh four stories and 50 ft with the grading and everything else is really uh just going to be obtrusive excuse me um one issue that has come up repeatedly
in many applications is the buffer requirement between construction on this site which is the M1B zone and where it abuts the residential zones around the periphery and the current applicant has not
basically have ignored everything that's been recommended by the township professionals in the review of that particular design but the bottom line is that um in the current uh township code still the same it is section 126
332 um basically says we're a commercial zone uh M1B abuts a residential zone um there's in the case of the M M1B B um that basically there should be an easement buffer of 100 ft and that's
measured from the lot line and then on top of that to any construction on the site then the setback would be applicable such as either sideyard or backyard or whatever it happens to be and that would lead to a total distance
which is beyond the setback by 100 ft now um for some reason oh I left it over there excuse me so um right now the question that comes out
of this is suggestion to to to change uh make make this this this change or make it clear in the RDP because right now um there's a minimum track setback of 70 ft that's specified I believe in table two
and in addition to the is this In addition to the minimum yard requirement that is the backyard is is 100 ft and then we have the uh 70 ft um uh track setback requirement does that mean that
any construction on the property would be say 170 ft from that lot line i hope that's clear so that's principally you know the most of the exceptions or uh suggestions that that I
have regarding uh the current proposal otherwise it it you know it the data center I I personally feel that it it might be too intense and might be too difficult to control the noise and because it the the property in the back
is about 14 acres of developable air developable area um and it's surrounded by residential homes on three sides um it's I think it's risky especially if the board doesn't take the bull by the horns
and get its own um independent acoustic engineer to at least verify whatever the design is that's going to be done by the u the developer and like I said even for this current warehouse project which is going to be continued again on Monday
I'm sorry on Tuesday of next week um that may be the the we still haven't even gotten to serious design reviews of many of these aspects with with that applicant all right well thank you board members for your Actually before you go
let let me Mr cra let me make sure I got them in summary i want to make sure I have noted in summary so you were concerned about um the warehouse application that is pending for the zoning board i believe we described and discussed yes that is there and it's
certainly the applicant's option uh to proceed or not proceed with that um there's several variations of that well I mean that that that's in the hands of the applicant an egg thing i that's that's in the hands of the applicant um future variances on this property there
would be no use variances permitted so I believe we've addressed that you have asked uh you've expressed concern about access via the property the portion of the property facing Adamsville you have expressed concern about uh storm storm water management particularly impacting
the brook uh that runs under Adamsville Road um and I'm sorry Cu right no I know I said I called it the brook all right my my hearing's terrible um uh and you you also uh expressed uh the fact that
there are wetlands in that area i also have uh on page 11 uh uh this was similar to to to Miss Franco concerns about the single family homes on Woodside the highcapacity um cooling equipment required and the associated
noise to back up one a little bit the the the homes the residential homes along the wood side are less less um um they're more well defined in the RDP
than the general question which is can the uh principal use for the balance of the property apart from those homes on the west side of the property be used to develop single family attractive single family homes or some sort of so would they expanded not the the issue not
being the three would there be more is your question well I think there's only probably room for three currently along the Woodside Lane strip um that's it's not R10 but I
I guess the proposal is to take the um to take uh essentially the R10 um format or or in in terms of uh lot lot and and and other requirements and
just perpetuated along u land that's allocated from this tract to building the single family homes but then can you also build single family homes on the balance of the tract and uh that that's that's an open question for
me all right so so I'll amend that the rest of the concern on the rest of the tract the high capacity cooling equipment noise uh and the the masonry wall if that's going to be uh sufficient for particularly low frequency noise concern acoustic the need for an
acoustic impact study the current definition in your opinion is vague and there's a a a necessity for monitoring uh on page 12 and 13 you had some concerns about the bulk standards including uh the the the fourtory 50
foot uh also concerns about elevation and grade that's that's a height stand standard that that's one of the 2D variances that's out now also but um right now it's specified as four stories 50 feet in the RDP in the actual
township code that exists now it's two stories 35 ft okay um the actual elevation of whatever is built there its grade and its impact on water management the height impact on the homes on
Woodside uh and the last concerns you mentioned was easement buffers and and setbacks is that a complete list well it there are tables indicating the bulk requirements for the tract as a whole
for the um for the additional requirements for the homes along um the the residential uh requirement along Woodside Lane and then uh also for the I believe the the data center and other
other developments on the property and it is not clear in there at least not to me since it sounds like this RDP is going to be basically a standalone um and the section that I [Music]
mentioned regarding the section uh 126 332 which is the um where a commercial zone basically absutment basically basically of an
additional buffer area of 100 ft and that um it's not clearly delineated at least not that that I could see in the RDP to understand whether or not it's additive to any setbacks that are
applicable depend so if somebody builds a data center is the data center going to be uh 70 ft away from the property line if that happens to be its sideyard or backyard or is it going to beund 70 ft
okay that about that's basically Does that conclude your commentary Mr crump all right thank you very much thank you for your insight we appreciate it thank you good evening good evening uh my name is Charlene Kavanaaugh i am current
secretary and one of the trustees of the Fraternal Order of Eagles area 2137 located at 350 Woodside Lane i'm here to get more clarification and information as regarding how it impacts our club
property um the first time I heard about this was from friends who happen to go to the same church I do and know that I'm a member of that club and they brought it to my attention i went online looked at the proposal for this warehouse that was proposed at the time
um and I'm sure you all are aware of the fact that the original writeup mentioned that uh abuing the site is the Elks located in the R20 zone we all know the Elks Club is well beyond Adamsville Road and it's actually the Eagles Club that abuts the property that is in question
um when I looked at the most recent development proposal including this data uh center and the um age restricted housing and all that stuff my first question is are we still talking about building a warehouse and all these other
things or is the new proposal the data center and the housing and the medical facilities and whatnot well I think all that's going to come out in the in in the conversation but um it will not be a warehouse okay because
I we have a exactly what it will be or could be that is the subject of the report and the commentary that we'll hear from Mr sullivan our trustees meet every week and and I'm here representing the board of trustees and I can take it to them and let them know so we can let
our membership know that something is being proposed and being worked on by the township um and I guess my other main question is the fact that given where the club's property is and it's a pretty extensive property piece of property it's a beautiful piece of property um it does abut the proposed
development area is that not correct yes it does i believe I I believe so yeah because when I looked at the picture of the map I can I can see our building our clubhouse and I can see the pavilion where as we like to call it the
grove where we rent out and that's one of our revenue um streams that we help pay our bills you also own the fields um it's it's I know it's a very extensive uh piece of property um
because we've got a big parking lot and then beyond the parking lot is some other grounds that belong to the club um I'm not exactly sure where the lines are drawn between I know there's the water runoff and some other stuff that goes on there i'm not really totally clear on
where the boundaries are but it's a huge piece of property back there um but again my main concern tonight is to get more information about what exactly is being proposed there so I can go back and present it to our trustees and see if they have any concerns so
when I come to next week's meeting I'm not sure what the protocol is for that meeting but um well Mr chairman with your indulgence what you'll walk away with from this meeting is um unless you've already had it is access to the redevelopment plan
in addition any commentary and conversation that occurs with Mr sullivan so that's what you'll walk away with tonight um as far as the next step presuming that action is taken by the planning board uh it would then go to the council council is meeting on Thursday so I want to be clear on that
that it's this Thursday meeting is at 7:30 um and there would essentially be the same uh presentation made um but at that point consideration by the council for an ordinance an ordinance is a two-step process being introduced at one
meeting then um advertise publicly advertised uh and then a hearing would occur and then uh an opportunity for the public to speak there and then if positive action is taken it's then taken at that second meeting in the form of an ordinance okay and my last question is
um since our property would be potentially impacted by any development on that um on the proposed property are we supposed to be receiving something in the mail with regards to all this because we have not received anything and I've been the secretary since June
of 2023 and I'm very diligent about checking the mail i had to call the township to find out what this was all about only because my good friends alerted me to the fact that something was happening or being proposed um and I'm just not sure what the procedures
are if you know the other residential houses along Woodside Lane if they're getting mailed information um I do now I got us on the email list so we're receiving notices about the various meetings which I then go online and I check the agenda i check to see what
else is new i was just curious as to whether or not we are officially supposed to be receiving something in the mail because we have not received anything not in connection with the redevelopment process if and when uh properties apply for site plan approval
pursuant to the redevelopment plan then you would get notice um the red the redevelopment law is different from the municipal land use law the municipal land use law which is that's what would govern a site plan application or a
variance application you know before the planning or zoning board as the case may be and in those CAA instances uh yes people who live within a certain distance of the subject property have to receive notice in the mail but the redevelopment a redevelopment happens
under the local redevelopment and housing law which is a completely different statute from the municipal land use law and while there's notice requirements Those notice requirements do not include a requirement to mail notice to just wanted to make sure we weren't missing out on something that
would require notified yeah this is a case where you know if there is a newspap you know check your newspapers but check the website well and and there are there are two ways that that the public is notified independent of any legal requirement one is um this hearing
with its subject uh uh noted uh has been on our website the second place is that um we have two newsletters at least two newsletters that go out one is a general Bridgewater kind of news newsletter um and then there is a second one that was
initiated roughly 2 years ago specifically calling out any uh of we we're basically the two land use boards and proactively sending to anybody who's on that list uh the notices uh and access to the materials for both
planning board and zoning board said I had the club added to the distribution list so I get it to my personal email i also get at the club so I'm covered okay and I do go on the website and I check the agendas because Okay by by being and
this is true for anyone who's in the room or just generally any for over a year now yeah you know anybody who's who's interested in land use matters the purpose of that email distribution is that at low cost we can have broad broad-based distribution to anybody who may have interest in any land use matter
i get that we do the same thing all right that's all I have thank you for your consideration thank you very much hi good evening nick Patulo representing my mother Marie Patulo 194 Adams Zil
Road so I'm going to take a little different view and I'm I'm cognizant of your time uh regarding tonight's um discussion it's not going to be about engineering because I know nothing about it i'm a finance person so it's going to be more of a humanistic uh element here
and I applaud uh Curt's uh the the information that Mr kraut um provided this this evening um and I applaud his longevity on Adamsville Road however my mom and my
dad uh lived on that road and have and currently live on that road for almost 60 years my dad my grandfather my cousins my uncles uh built the house that my mother currently lives in which is in the
valley of Adamsville Road adjacent to Cooksbrook and I'm the one that typically receives the phone calls when there's a little bit of rain forecast or maybe even a lot of rain falls because my mom is concerned about the rising
brook and whether or not her home will be flooded again the first time that occurred was in 1967 on Father's Day where the Finder and Fire Department had to come in and and pump out my mom and dad's basement roughly four months after we
moved in and that's been a concern for the years that I lived there and it's a concern until my father passed three years ago and it's concern presently for my mom so when it does rain I get the phone
call about how much is forecast how how high the brook has risen at that point in time and whether she should call the police and the last time that occurred was approximately two months ago and Bridgewater police came knocked on my mom's door and were very
polite and provided a lot of support for her um um and and and gave her comfort and calm during the storm so the concern that I have is when um
when plans are discussed about the wastewater management and that they meet current standards I'd like to remind individuals on the board that my mom's standard is not to be afraid every time it rains and that if there's any enhancement that needs to be made from
an engineering perspective regarding this property that should be one of the priorities um when it comes to the humanistic element of of of development and we all know that that occurs uh as we as we you know progress through our lives so
um so with that in mind I I I hope that that's going to be not just a asterric on on some memo or um another line item somewhere in a par buried deep in a paragraph regarding the standard but
that uh that information the information I'm presenting tonight um is looked at very very uh deeply and u and necessary action is taken all right thank you very much for your time i appreciate the opportunity to speak mr chair Mr
chairman if I just address this um briefly um so we we've had several hearings already and um concerns about flooding have been prominent in those discussions and one of the things that we've already learned is that what I will simply call the partially complete
nature uh of this property um has has created challenges over time to the point where um uh you know we we saw some some uh photos of partially complete parking lots that are not
operating in the way that they are designed to um uh control the flow of water um uh what has occurred at this point um arguably is the result of an
incomplete development on this piece of property and as a result insufficient um mitigation of of the water um anything that we consider uh here would address uh water um so it has been
mentioned before it will be mentioned again um you know I think that we all know uh in or near our properties where water water gathers um I certainly understand the concern that you have for this property for your mother who's still living there um and and that has
been raised up to now and it will remain prominent throughout the rest of this uh process thank you so much for your comments i appreciate that as well as my mom thank you thank you first name is Arresti last name is
Baloma i live at 205 Adamsville Road my first comment would be if the ordinance was changed on this property why are we going through this process that's the first one we're building a warehouse the
ordinance says no warehouses the master plan I think says warehouses on Chimney Rock Road i know we put one there somerville Lumber's gone okay the signature they backed out of the plan now we put one up on 2026 i think
there's one the question is why do we have a warehouse here in the middle of a residential neighborhood are there any re warehouses in a residential neighborhood i don't know i really don't know that one okay but the the question is if the warning changed for this
property because there was a lawsuit on this property don't know where it went whether it's still going forward whether we have to make a decision or not on the property first before it goes forward you know what I mean i like to
understand why why are we going through this process it's been over 18 months like Kurt says we've been getting notice we don't it's not on it's off it's off it's off that That's with a
different board i I really don't know anything about Well we keep coming to the planning board no you're going to the zoning board if there's been no such application here what this is this is consideration of a redevelopment plan that would act
as an overlay zoning ordinance over the property and it would just give the township a lot more control over what could be developed on the site okay is not this board has nothing to do with any Well I I'm concerned that we have residents on both sides of the street we
have Adamsville Road and we have Woodside Lane adamson Road as you can see flooding senior citizens not young people it's an old neighborhood my other story is I came out here 40 years ago 40ome years ago in Bound Brook and Bound
Brook was known for bars and I think churches is Bridgewater going to be known for warehouses and hotels because that's I see hotels all over the place we're putting one behind Chelsea Chelsea
Village two of them are going there we put one across the street i forget the name of it hampton there's so many changes going on which is fine as long as they're the right changes you know we look at the Red Bull Inn that's been there 40 years so many
problems how come that's not on the list of area that needs improvement or redevelopment the place is an eyesore it's always been an eyesore it's more been a headache for everybody in this township especially the police department but yet it's just standing
there i mean that's all I have to say everybody have a good day thank you thank you Mr palmer anybody else yeah John Merin 184 Adamsville Road um there I believe uh in the land
there's a thing of objectives uh that would want to be addressed and one of them I think address talks about protect and preserve Coldsburg i think the push you probably have heard as you mentioned but all the flooding is that we want to enhance it
and improve it not just preserve it the way it currently is i think I think that you can probably go through all kinds of news reports and hear about all the flooding that's occurred there more than once it's a primary access area for hospitals EMTs everybody fire
departments going up that road try to get to 22 if it's flooded out it's a problem and from what I understand in the current proposal there's even a potential to further impact upon Cucklesbrook by the way that swale may
be placed um and maybe maybe put more water into that that area of the bridge um concerned that by it's as was mentioned that the the lack of attention by the current owners of the property to
maintain what's there has perhaps further done something but I think one way or the other whether it's through this mechanism or through the zoning board or whoever it is to put the so say the match or fire under the butt of the
owners to do something to improve the drainage there then another point of clarity is um the think and the objectives is also to preserve and protect the integrity of the neighborhood um we was a whether it's so if we were
talking about warehouses we were worried about additional traffic from vehicles trucks and so forth that would be coming down there um with this plan I'm not sure if I saw reference to what would be maybe potential additional
traffic patterns that might occur there um and this worried about what would be uh ability to improve the well I guess what infrastructure I mean it's not just the what needs to be done on the property as delineated by these lots but
the infrastructure and surrounding areas which particularly is you know Adamsville Road um so I'd like to know I'd like there to be a little bit more consideration and address of that at some point um because you know it's I think no I think
everybody understands that we need more ratables in the in the town and progress going forward is important a point of clarity if I may if if this ordinance goes through will
it rebaseline all the building ordinances for any structures that might be done will they be required to to adhere to the newest ordinances for everything because a part of my concern is what Kurt brought up that I wasn't really paying attention to initially was
the height variances and the grading variances so will this allowance for this redevelopment rebar rebaseline everything and will it make it easier or for a developer to go in there
because they've got a whole different set of guidelines to to use for this this property in this area or will there be um kind of concern what what are the options for a developer going in there and what are the options for us are we
looking at taking this plan as is or are we better off trying to push against this and go with the with the warehouse plan uh and that's not perhaps clear to me or or the others by looking at what any any existing structure will be
unaffected by this plan it's only if if you're coming in to build something new or do you know a renovation or a rehab like you want to put an addition on or you know anything that would trigger a land use application okay to the board then you're impacted by the
redevelopment plan but if you're not planning on doing any development on your property it won't have any impact so the current property the C so I'm not clear it's not clear to me whether or not the current medical board building
that's there for medical offices will stay as is and is that delineated separate from any new structures that might be con might be constructed on that site i don't I mean I I can't get into specifics all I'm saying is any any new
construction in the redevelopment area would be subject to the plan the plan essentially resets the rules all right so there's no grandfathering of ordinances that may have been provided for a property the the anything that's
already there itself is grandfathered all right so there so the office building is still the office building okay so there is a so there was is a a um a concrete structure for water control that's up and I believe that was
been stated somewhere that it's inappropriately designed and should never have been there i think the original architect that who did that said no so is that going to be replaced or is it going to be or that there's that lack of clarity on my behalf so Mr
burton that ties into your first question as well you talked about uh protecting and preserving Cucklesbrook and I think if I recall we learned in the first hearing that there was a spillway on one of the one of those first um ars there right and that spillway actually I think they determined it was detrimental to the way
that the brook flowed if I'm not mistaken we'll hear that this evening uh a little bit more in depth I believe but I believe what some of the commentary was at the time was that potentially redesigning that spillway or removing it altogether that could potentially help uh preserve Cucklesbrook to the way that it should have been running in the first
place so we talk about historical references to what Kulklesbrook was i have a map from 1939 when my house was built that shows Kucklesbrook in a significantly different manner than it
is now um so if as far as a historical frame of reference to what it was if it was brought back to that we would probably wouldn't be having any issues about flooding as it is but over the course of years decades there's been a a
lack of attention to the flood plane and cleanup and maintenance of the flood zones there to improve the flow so I again I would like to see that there's an attention being drawn to the
infrastructure for something like that because I don't think you can do just put something up without considering much further downstream effects all right thank you thank you anybody else um I just want to Mr mr kra a question
it's Curtis Kraut 199 Adamsville Road um I'm just really still confused about the revision process associated with this RDP document okay that's the one that Mr sullivan is going to present probably
later in this meeting so in my case I gave you some recommendations based on my review of the document uh I didn't get a chance to interact with Mr sullivan um and mostly got feedback from you guys and Mr kersh
took some questions but as a designer and somebody who's been doing this type of thing for 40 years or more I'm kind of confused based on the feedback that all of us have
given you and the questions we've asked about in my case about this document specifically is there a revision provision that would allow the planning board to make alterations in this document based on feedback from either
the board members review of it or the public's review of it um prior to you guys just basically rubber stamping it and sending it up to the council because it's on the agenda as an introduction
um of this of a of a future ordinance where the RD DP I guess for Thursday night's um council meeting and it seems like you know is this a fata to talk about this tonight or is this uh you
know it it doesn't sound like it's a very iterative revision process well the board the board can accept the plan as it's presented or the board can request changes to it or the board can reject it in its entirety uh regardless of of what
happens uh if and when a plan is adopted as an ordinance redevelopment plan uh can and often are uh amended as as you know time progresses the ordinance gets gets amended follows the same process so
you know it can be it can be changed you know in in the midst of this process or subsequently so tonight you guys have the option to vote on sending this to the council or incorporating a change at this level i'm
not saying that you guys are been you're you were tasked with the responsibility by the council to um come up with a redevelopment plan and you hired a a contractor to do it and um so it seems
like you should be able to at least discuss revision possibilities and things like that at this level before you send it back to the council we we'd like to hear what what he actually has to say before we I'm sorry we'd like to hear what he has to say yeah I
understand that start deciding whether or not we're going to Well the problem is with it's like the cart before the horse here so but but but Mr let me ask you from a process standpoint because this is important um so let's say for the sake of argument that um you know
this board comes up with a handful of items that we would like um you know removed or something else clarified or something else added um um would that then result in Mr sullivan going back and um you know what
we have now is draft number two um in the time between now and Thursday would that become draft number three that the council would be able to consider yeah I mean if if the changes were such that you know we they could be discussed
this evening and the board you know agrees that hey we want to tweak it in this way and that way and whatever you I'm sure Mr sullivan could turn it around so if the board if the board provides clear direction on anything in this report that we would prefer to see
different presumably that would result in a slightly different document being presented to the council on Thursday with the commentary that it is different from what you have uh originally uh was originally proposed in the following in
the following ways yeah okay the board could do that if it if it so wish okay and so then the answer is this is revision changes proposed or whatever you know and but you know I don't know everything i'm just throwing out ideas based on my
review of his document yeah i but I think the answer is based on that that that guidance that this is this is not a fat comp plea this is not a rubber stamp this is an opportunity uh you know after we've heard the public uh to to hear
from from um uh Mr sullivan the good news is Mr sullivan has heard each and every one of these questions so presumably you know his commentary will cover or if it doesn't he knows that he'll be getting many or most or even if not all of these questions um and then
the board has an opportunity as as your representatives to to identify certain areas if there are any that we would like to see revised uh inc you know added or deleted so so th this is the opportunity this this may be a
non-traditional process um um in in that you know those who've been to other land use boards are accustomed to uh uh you know uh you know an a witness and then the back and the forth that occurs as Mr pek point out that's just not the nature
of this process we are following state law and guidance um but in the end I think that we we we will get to a place is is this process I I realize it's under redevelopment law but does it actually preclude the the public from
interacting with professionals and and and people who give testimony i I at this stage yes it does say that explicitly it doesn't explicitly say but it says here's here's how it's supposed to proceed and that's not a part of it
okay mr peek if I may I I I continue to hear the word approval and I'd like to remind the members of the public this evening there's nothing up for approval this evening so it's the it's the plan it's a recommendation and whether or not this goes to council uh we we could vote not to recommend or vote to recommend
the council could decide something entirely different so we are not the legal governing body right but you're a working group that has been chartered by the the the uh um the the the the
governing body to come up with a solution and if you make a recommendation that says yes just just accept this the way it is even though there's you know potential changes in the in the pipeline somewhere it sounds
that's not what it is we haven't heard from Mr sullivan yet i understand that we haven't had the opportunity and we haven't been tasked with just to prove it the way it is that is why we're here to ask our questions to be able to hear hear his testimony and and to be able to make our own decisions ourselves as well
we haven't even had that opportunity and and we we took all your questions down i took copious notes we I saw many of us doing the same and and we will we have a lot of the same questions i've been on the site myself multiple times and we I I I intend to ask all the questions that
you've asked if somebody doesn't already we just haven't had that opportunity yet okay all right um I I guess uh you know I understand this process at least the way the way it seems to be going but um
you know we have this meeting next Tuesday and preparing for a hypothetical uh plan review uh for a development project like a warehouse that's basically been in in the pipeline for 16
months and then we got notice this week on on Monday uh yesterday uh that this was you know a renotification to people within 200 ft and then in parallel this process is going on with the AINR and
the RDP produced uh as a result of its approval um if at the at the at the at the zoning board meeting next week um you know it sounds just based on the last time we actually had some part of
review for of this development application it sounds like they're going to be more professionals testifying presumably uh or the applicant is just going to cancel the meeting at the last minute before we actually get there it's possible we have nothing to do with the
zoning board we're we're not involved with the zoning board we have nothing to do with their agenda we have nothing to do with applications before them i have no idea what's been going on with with this warehouse application don't know it's not part of our jurisdiction we don't we have nothing to do with that
right but the warehouse consumes all of the RDP for this the Greymark tract oh they may not be but that what we're what we're dealing we're in the middle of a lengthy redevelopment process and right
now tonight we have the plan proposed plan in front of us which we'll hear from the planner the architect of this plan and and I'm sure the board will have uh a number of questions for him and just keep the process going but but as a statement of fact the owner of that
property does have an active uh application with the zoning board and has worked with our office uh ours I mean the township office uh and that presuming that everything is in good order they have every right to proceed with their zoning board hearing next
yeah no I I don't I don't question that but like it's knowing the the effectiveness of any determination of this RDP it sounds like it would supersede anything that was going on at the zoning board level so that if the
application for example was continued to be heard next Tuesday at at the zoning board okay and it's not complete um and in the interim the the council uh I guess introduces this uh RDP based on
whether or not you guys approve it tonight with changes or whatever um that at that point we're going to have um uh the basic question is going to be uh presumably when you introduce it at the council what's it 30 days later that the
public will be able to to um uh that it'll be presented at the council again a final draft to incorporate as an ordinance or or I I believe that that the the notice uh requires uh 14 days from one hearing to the I don't know if
it's different because this is an area in need of redevelopment two weeks two weeks so so you can anticipate presuming that this or some similar plan goes to the council the council would introduce on uh first reading uh I guess that
would be this coming Thursday i believe our next meetings are typically every two weeks sometimes they're every 3 weeks depending upon how the calendar goes uh ordinances if I'm not mistaken then uh have the ability for the mayor uh to uh overrule um Mr papus you can
confirm is that like a 30-day period something like that yeah there is a veto opportunity or window um and and then from there potentially an override procedure by by by the council so um I think the thing to really focus in on is
the action if any that's taken by the by the um planning board tonight and presuming that some action is taken and something is forwarded to the council that whatever action is considered and potentially taken by the council on Thursday night now if you're saying well wait a minute we would have an
introduction and first reading on Thursday we've got this zoning board hearing on next Tuesday are we going to end up with both uh you know I would think the answer is no um but you know ultimately it is the applicant who's who has the choice whether or not to proceed
with that um uh with that zoning board hearing next Tuesday right but assuming that the application still goes through continued reviews at the zoning board level because it's it's a it's a big project and there are a lot of professionals that have not yet
testified so it would be entirely conceivable that it's going to be continued even if the meeting is held on Tuesday so if in the interim this um RDP is uh somehow it goes beyond the introduction process at the council
level if at that point um it finally gets introduced as a resolution subsequently at the council uh with whatever revisions that you guys discuss based on feedback or whatever either from the board or us directly um that at
that point the area is going to be uh subject to redevelopment law is that correct Mr pek uh it it all depends again I don't know where the zoning board is uh with their
plans i don't I I just don't know possibly possibly when this gets adopted if and when this gets adopted it'll be an overlay zone and any application has to conform with it i don't know what's going on with the zoning board so I can't answer that but if the applicant
for example refuses to we're Mr chairman Mr chairman we're we're talking about hypothetical scenarios we could be here all night we We really need to get on this is the planning board we're not those board of adjustments unfortunately we don't have any access to the applications nor Okay
I appreciate it thank you very much thanks for your time thank you Mr kraut anybody else just a few comments please i'm sorry Kathy Franco i just had one or two more comments um one is would you consider
when you're considering the 50 foot height building the fact that I'm not sure and I don't know if you are whether or not Fender and Fire Volunteer Fire Department has a ladder truck or not green null does and they service the mall and center bridge and those
highrises but I don't know if green if um Bendern does and that would be necessary to service that area and the other thing was um Miss Sakura um you know I I know that you said a statement that you know you're here to consider it
you know consider this plan tonight um you know the concern that the public has is that it is already on the agenda for Thursday night as an introduction of an ordinance so it does seem like it's just going to be a pass through from the
perception of the public okay thank you very much okay thank you i just like to address the firefighting nature we have buildings in Bridgewater that are in excess of anything that our fire equipment can get to um and the solution there is internal uh fire suppression
and I'm certain that that would be in place here in addition to any firefighting equipment that would be sent to the site okay cuz I I'm just not sure whether or not um you know these you know if it's if it's housing if it
will require fire suppression you know so because that's not outlined in this plan and I don't know what the requirements are from a um that standpoint so it's just a point of information when you're looking at it thank you thank you Mr
branco anybody else okay that will close a public commentary it is now 8:40 i'm going to call for a 5m minute break we'll reconvene at 8:45 i'll think I'll need a motion for that i'll make a motion for a fiveminute
recess second i'll second all in favor i I Mr wang all in favor i I this probes cover roll call please chairman Bessio here councilman Kersh
here mr papis here mr mcgora here mr wang here miss Sakura here miss Chardawitch here mr atkins here moving along to section six to our board meeting minutes uh we do have a set of minutes from the special meeting that
took place on February 19th 2024 any comments or changes to the record move approval oh I'm sorry which date please uh that was February 19th 2024 uh 2020 I'm sorry i believe that there is
an issue with the error or there's an issue with the the date set of minutes with the date uh that should be February 19th 2025 for the special meeting so the motion would be to uh adopt it as amended who'd like to make that motion
yes that's Mr papus second please i'll second that's Miss Chartitz roll call please besio yes councilman Kersh yes mr papis yes mr mcgora yes mr chartzitz yes mr atkins
yes next we do have a resolution for this evening and uh Miss Propes if we could uh continue with the same habit that we formed uh asking who is eligible to vote uh for this resolution this is for the icon
keystone commonly known as 1120 Route 22 bessio I'm sorry who would who was eligible to vote that evening from that evening one moment just give me one sec sure the attendance here in the past we've had on the agenda the
list of eligible board members uh we should probably reinstitute that that was um cut off of the I mean it's not on the agenda that's we'll do Mr
uh Mr for chairmanio I don't have that information with me have the wrong folder I apologize that was I have to depend on the board to um people it was only a month ago so if people can remember if they the
January 21st meeting right I'll start from this end of the board here we were in president and this this was the old um Baker Taylor right that's correct so if you remember hearing Baker Taylor I know I was there you're you're uh
removing the building in the front and basically maintaining the rest of the property the vacant office portion right i know i was here i do have the um I apologize you do okay yeah I located my my notes thank you
so the only ones not eligible to vote absent from the meeting would be Mr papis Mr atkins everyone else would be eligible any comments or changes to the record i'll make the motion to approve council
Councilman Kersh Miss Sakura have a roll call please vessio yes councilman Kersh yes mr mcgora yes mr wang yes miss Sakura yes
miss Chardawitch yes and that's it seeing that there are no applications this evening for land development we are section 9 that's the master plan consistency review which is being considered for the grave greymark redevelopment commonly
known as 1220 Route 22 and who will be making the presentation this evening for this consistency review to the planning board good evening is this on good evening Mr chairman uh Michael Sullivan um
redevelopment planner Clark Kate Henstren um uh as far as presentation goes it's really I envision this more as a discussion and uh I feel like the public has already stole my thunder in terms of describing what's going on here but so I'll give a brief description
overview of the plan uh and then uh I can go right to the questions that were asked and try to uh answer the public questions uh also maybe in the minds of the board uh if there's any questions that you still have or that I've missed from the public shoot them to me and uh
we'll get through this and then ultimately if there are any recommendations for uh modifications to this uh plan uh we'll we'll discuss those and um and see how that goes so um yeah what what you're being what you're
considering tonight for a consistency review is a draft redevelopment plan for the what we call in the Greymark office track redevelopment uh area uh also known as we generically call it 12200 Route 22 um it's block 221 lots 1.02
1.03 and 1.04 uh the date of the draft is February 2025 i think someone pointed out it's draft number two um and it's located generally uh the souththeastern uh area of the township uh uh at the end
of uh near the end of Route 22 as it leaves the township uh it was designated as a non-condemnation redevelopment area by the township on December 5th 2024 which means that the powers of eminent domain or condemnation cannot be used within this redevelopment area um but
overall the the plan seeks to revitalize this site get it uh promote economic development on the site and uh clean up some uh deteriorated and dilapidated conditions that are contributing to among other things um storm water runoff
and erosion in the area that are negatively impacting uh residents in terms of proposed u of permitted uses the plan permits uh medical uses uh offices uh research uh and those are prop pro provided for within the
existing building or in that area um it also allows for a data center which has been subject to the discussion tonight an indoor recreation area or up to 250 age restricted multifamily housing units with an affordable housing uh set aside
of at least 25% of those units it also permits and requires the development of uh no less than three single family detached homes along Woodside Lane uh that is a an effort to sort of complete
what's a onesided uh residential street there and also uh the construction of a culde-sac to residential site improvement standards for streets in order to provide safe uh emergency access and vehicular access and also to provide an effective terminus for
Woodside Lane uh such that it's not used informally um requirements of the plan it requires um among other things conservation easements within any stream corridors wetlands or other areas um related to
Cucklesbrook um it does require uh a masonry wall uh in combination with vegetative or earthn buffering where uh this property abuts uh non-resident I'm sorry abuts residential zones or
residential uses um and that masonry wall is is not a requirement for screening of acoustic properties of a data center it's really meant to ensure that uh vehicular access headlights and things like that at the ground level are
not going um to disturb um existing nearby residences it also has extensive uh acoustic uh design requirements for the data center uh that are in here in terms of HVAC um and this goes beyond just
screening of these elements it also gets to the construction of those it requires an impact an acoustic impact study for the data center use and post construction evaluation and mitigation if necessary such that even after the
site plan is approved and you predict what these sound levels will be uh the planning board and will have the right for a post uh construction uh test and evaluation to determine if further mitigation is required with respect to
uh architecture systems mechanicals and other things like that thanks um in terms of uh the the plan that's what it does uh there is a um a a a a
diagram up on the screen and this is intended to provide guidance uh this is a conceptual land use plan and because we do not have development yet on this site or proposal for development this is still a conceptual diagram but what it
does do it does show the relative locations of all the permitted uses which could occur on this property and what's noteworthy is that along Route 22 the only use that's permitted there is the office research and medical uses there that exists within the existing
building um there's no ability for uh data center or recreational use or uh the senior housing or the homes that are single family to be located in that location similarly in the rear of the property it specifically identifies that
that is a location where either a data center indoor recreation or the senior uh residential multif family residential may occur so this is guidance in the plan but it's mandatory any development plans that come in would have to conform
to this in a substantial manner which means they couldn't flip these and conform to the plan that would require a plan amendment um any deviation from a permitted use within this plan would require a plan amendment any requirements any deviation from any of
the mandatory requirements would require a plan amendment it cannot be granted a variance or waiver by the planning board and that's the way the plan's set up so it's even though this is a conceptual plan it's very um uh binding in terms of
how a site would be developed here um that's the overview of the plan i will say that in terms of consistency and we identify consistency uh the degrees of consistency with several planning elements of the town
um it's consistent with the uh 2016 land use plan element of the of the of the town which calls for economic development and revitalization particularly along Route 22 in the commercial corridor um and uh the redevelopment standards uh reflect um
aesthetic concerns that were raised in the 2016 land use plan element it's also consistent with the 2010 land use plan element of the uh master plan uh which uh seeks to protect the quality of life
uh of residents enhance and increase tax ratables through a diversity of high value uses um this property has floundered uh as an office project it was approved in the 80s and it still hasn't developed and so the township has
been looking for those other high value uses which are in contemporary terms marketable and developable and so this does that it supports uh uh reinvestment um it encourages long-term sustainable
site planning um and uh it enables more flexibility and development uh beyond the current ordinances so in my opinion even if we were to tweak this plan with any adjustments tonight it is substantially consistent with the master
plan and the land use plan element um are there any questions on the the generalities of what the plan is or what it does thank you Mr svin i'd like to open up to the board for any questions from Miss Svin's testimony
just have one um you mentioned wetlands is there any state certified wetlands on that property or is it just an assumption that they're wetlands uh there were
wetlands delineated years ago um when the um and I believe the current um plan the the the zoning board application shows wetlands as well as uh stream carters and flood hazard areas
thank you Mr chairman few um Mr sullivan um I'm going to go through a few points and questions uh on the um I guess the third page you list township council there have been
some changes mr ring is no longer council president mr noralis is now council president mr pedroso is vice president i didn't have my own election okay uh that'll be that'll be fixed okay um
on on page nine uh could you just clarify uh towards top of the page redevelopment regulations uh could you just describe uh in the beginning of the second line uh you
mentioned uh consistent with use regulations do you mean what we traditionally say land use regulations is that what you meant yes zoning and land use regulations correct um on page 14 bottom of the page uh paragraph
8 you this is in the section uh that would u address the senior housing if that if that were exercised um you mentioned administrative agent services uh the the township um has an ordinance
the council approved a number of years ago that require any uh projects residential projects that have affordable housing that the township's designated administrative agent would be required so I will uh make sure you get
that ordinance and you could reference that because that is something section 126-341.2 okay we'll get that in there um see um on the next page page 15
uh in the section open space and conservation requirements uh point number two you just mentioned open space requirement again if this is developed for senior housing that there would be some property uh
dedicated or reserved for open space or of some sorts of recreation i think you mentioned number one one acre um I assume that would be handled in a site plan scenario whether the one acre would be contiguous
or spread out amongst the you know area of the project is that correct yeah yes the design of the open space would be uh handled as part of the site plan and on page
18 under uh post number three and four uh post construction mitigation maximum permitted daytime sound levels and number five maximum permitted nighttime sound levels and there was conversation tonight there are
various um um guess decibel level levels that are referenced um we have a township ordinance is is does this mirror the township ordinance or are there any other state or federal standards that
likely state standards that reflect that these reflect these figures reflect yeah I think the the daytime sound reflects the the township and and state and the nighttime is somewhat less
and additionally the nighttime sound levels are measured to the nearest residential building not the nearest residential property line um on the next page page 19 you reference indoor storage and again this would be for the residential
um I I appreciate that because many times multi-family structures don't have adequate storage for residents and 40 square feet seems very appropriate generous so fit a few comment you'll
have a few bikes in there yeah and then uh under traffic a little bit beneath that and there was um reference to that when would that you know this your your language is the redeveloper shall submit a traffic study to protect the anticipated traffic
generated by proposed development potential impacts on public thorough affairs what what's the timing of that when would that be submitted well the until there's a development proposal and we know what the uh proposed land use is
then um there's no way to do that traffic study so that would be part of the uh site plan development and what it's really meant to do is to ensure that the function of the public streets that surround this are are still going to function and if there are any improvements that are required because
of this any increase in traffic then uh the developer should be on the hook for those thank you um one one last question um and you're not an engineer so might ask Mr bird a comment on this but um because it's more within his wheelhouse
but there's been extensive commentary on this about storm water management and um members of the public have spoken tonight we've heard before from this area of town that storm water management is concerned with
the flooding that we've seen um I'm just wondering if you could comment on on that and then Mr burr could comment on what standards would be required yeah
the the redevelopment plan requires that any development application uh utilize and conform to the most recent uh current uh standards with respect to the the new D standards which are incorporated in the townships my assumption is that
the storm water management requirements when this property was initially developed and even subsequently for other approvals that were received probably differ maybe this is a question for Bill differed and what would be required
under any development of this property as compared to before oh the stormwater standards that were in place when the prior approvals were granted were completely different we've had probably um I would say four substantial
updates to the stormwater management ordinance that have been uh dictated by the state 2004 2018 2021 2023 that now have really raised the bar really
established a high threshold for the standards by which developers um propose a development on the property and it also allows me to provide a much more detailed review of the storm water design so um much different much more
intensive now and um frankly it's it at some point in time when a subsequent site plan application is presented that's going to be the number one issue that I dig into because frankly of the history of that issue on
this property so and and then this is one last question for Mr uh Sullivan because again members of the public were asking questions in that area the data center indoor commercial recreation facility age restricted multif family
dwellings it's not necessarily all of the above correct okay those are the alternatives okay so it's one of the three yes likely okay thank you that's all thank you Mr chairman thank you Mr pus
i have a couple questions mr sakura when to piggy back off of uh Mr papus the one of three how did we come to those three is that all in one zone data center indoor th those are the
permitted those are permitted uses those are the permitted uses in that particular location got it as a data center so um I have some experiences having uh work locations around data centers and there is a significant issue with
phone service so have uh has that been addressed or or looked into and what the impact would be to phone service it has not okay um according to access I see one shared
driveway access um is that the only point that would people would be able to access the back of the facility or the back of the property yes there is there's no access permitted
uh between this site and Woodside Lane um and there's and there's no access permitted onto Adamsville so in theory the homes that would be built where the new culde-sac is the
their backyard or behind their backyard would be the the the way it's conceived is that they would have you know a lot that conforms to the R10 standards and there would be a a 40 foot buffer but behind them before you got to any
improvements got it and a and a masonry wall got it from my experience on the site I apologize I'm bouncing around i have so many questions um the the area in pink so the commercial office medical research facility that's already there i
know it overlaps the other property or the property next to it in terms of the the lot lines themselves yeah oh the where the parking lot is yes where the lot lines are yes yes um is that subject to change if a new
applicant were to come or is that an existing condition well uh the way this is looked at is that you the lot lines are funible ultimately when this is developed there may be new lot lines created within the parcel um and so it's
not really clear where those distinctions are going to be down the road that would be a new application and it would it would be so let's say that somebody decides that they want to build a data center here and they're going to build the houses and they're going to uh you know have the office building and
the office building is going to stay the way it is well once they get that all configured they would determine whether or not uh there should be or need to be new lot lines there will be new lot lines for the houses because they would be not part of this commercial or
non-residential development so there will be a subdivision that would be included in this but until the configuration of the site plan is is actually formalized there's no way to know where those lot lines would fall the subdivision would require coming back to a board to it would all be done
at one time it's site plan and subdivision at the same time okay but we would hear it again i don't know subdivision what yeah if if somebody once the plan's adopted if a develop if a redeveloper wanted to come in for site planet subdivision approval
they'd have to come back to the planning board for that yes all the all the development applications will come to this planning board including height of the you know the data center or indirect whatever uses whatever uses are in the plan it it'll be here and if it's in one
big application they come one time presumably if it's it may be two applications but if they were to come in with uh different applications you they'd have to show you what's going to happen at least conceptually so that you would have some
confidence that you're not doing something that's going to have to be redone okay and I'm asking these questions because I know the residents had a lot of great great questions in there and I think although we can discuss some of them tonight we it will be important that we redis them when
when a new applicant comes on board so there is accountability storm water management the height of the building and grading if there was going to be a change to grading on the area um near the near Adamsville Road that strange jet out on
the side i can't see how big that is or I can't I mean guess I guess would are home would homes would a home be able to be built there or is it too small it's a it's a narrow lot i mean ultimately if
it were unconstrained you could find a way to put a house on that in the data that we looked at the state data um and the data from the development applications it it appears to be constrained by wetlands or with flood plane or something so in
terms of development it's not clear that someone would develop it as a residence um but in assigning it to stay with the zoning along there the R20 zoning really trying to prohibit access we could just
say we prohibit access but um it may be that uh an emergency access could be there but it's so constrained I don't see it and we didn't want traffic um showing up over there within the residential neighborhood got it so it couldn't be used as an access point to
the right now the way that the the plan is written that's R20 zoning which is a residential zone um if a use on this prop on the redevelopment area such as a data center were to put a driveway through that they would the accessory use the driveway or
the accessory structure takes on the nature of the principal use so you'd need a use variance in order to put an access out there got it if it were developed non-residentially it Mr sull if I can I'm going to piggyback on Miss Sakora's questions um I'm going
to assume that we're just talking about a data center for now so I have a few questions with inspiration from the public here regarding data centers and um many people probably realize that uh for a data center to be put in any neighborhood uh the area needs to be uniquely qualified to support a data
center right there's a lot of infrastructure that's involved uh uh there needs to be power first and foremost uh you need to have access to telco um you need to have major uh fiber optic drops close by um you know as they say in the IT industry you don't want to
be that many hops off of the feed that you're trying to get uh but there also things that are very important such as emergency fuel availability for fuel delivery uh typically I think FEMA has infrastructures hospitals and data centers is the top three whenever there's a major uh emergency right um so
I I'm looking here and I'm just wondering oh I'm sorry there also has to be access to the data center itself uh for emergency services um and typically whenever a data center houses uh whether it's government um major infrastructure or utility companies uh these types of
amenities are close by and they are rarely available is there anything that tells us today that this area is uniquely qualified and that's the reason why a data center is or would be one of the proposed uses yes we we've have uh an indication that there is power um and uh and the other
factors are not a barrier to development of a data center here yeah and typically data centers are on slabs there's no basement there's typically no foundations how would the um how would the foundation of this um proposed facility look would it just be on a
concrete slab i I couldn't tell you uh we're not at that level i mean that's really in the architectural uh and engineering part of this okay jumping ahead a little bit we're really just looking at the bulk in terms of the the zoning okay uh and if I
could and perhaps Mr burr our board engineer could give me a hand with this um uh they also tend to look at the flood planes when they're building data centers whether it's in a 100 year or a 500-y year flood plane um do we have any idea as far as this area Bridgewater
Township what type of flood plane this this lies in so the the application that is before the zoning board did I believe get an LOI from the state which is a letter of
interpretation that establishes the wetland limits um they also took a look at the flood plane and the flood hazard area i don't remember the exact limits off the top of my head but any future application for
development on this property will have to thoroughly examine those issues and make sure frankly that it can be built in conformance with those requirements so I don't know the specific location or elevations off the top of my head but it'll have to fully conform right and
there are the a majority of the easterly portion of the property where the Cucklesbrook comes in under 22 that entirely that entire portion of this property is constrained so it would have to fit in really the the area that
that Michael highlighted give or take in the in the magenta and the and the pink that's really the development area of the property anything to the east is virtually useless i could Mr sullivan one more question um do we know if the proposed facility
would it be built for multiple tenants or a single tenant um I don't know that okay i'm asking the question because uh some of the members of the public asked about the noise and
what would be required to um address the noise issue and a lot of times the noise is impacted by the amount of cooling that's required and the cooling that's required is impacted by the amount of kilowatts that are required to uh serve a data center and uh depending on what type of tenants how many tenants uh
would be in this proposed facility that could impact the amount of cooling that's required um they measure it in kilowatts uh and then they measure each individual ten in KVAs or kilovolt uh amps um so uh again I I guess as a general comment we don't exactly know it
sounds with the amount of cooling that's going to be cried at this time uh until we know what the type of tenant that uh we'd be looking at then correct okay those are all the questions I have for the moment any other
questions i I mean I I I have a sizable number that I can roll through i maybe we should you know I don't know if now is the time or let others have a bite at the apple first is there anybody that does not have a laundry list of questions i have just one more the the
the purple space are we confident that there are enough um potential applicants that would want to take on that space knowing it may not be a great data center area it's restricted because there's so much of the property that isn't buildable
well I I think we've looked at we've looked at other prototypes uh other plans of data centers to just get a sense of the general scale and we think that there's a data center that could fit in there um alternatively if you're configuring housing that's more flexible
or a recreation center which is probably analogous to the size of a data center in terms of its footprint if it's indoors and is there something that this might be more of a question for for you Mr pek the um if it were to be a data center is
there there ways should we include concerns now on you know if phone restrictions or noise because I know the noise even though that might be underneath the decibb what that sounds like um is that something for now or for if an applicant
comes well there are noise parameters set out in the proposed plan now where it says you know can't exceed 50 dB at the property line during the day and things like that then during the site plan process an applicant of whatever use they're going to have to
show how they're going to meet that standard and then there's even post construction monitoring and and such any other questions all right well you know I'm gonna I'm going to roll through all of them and some some of them have been addressed
and some of them were offered multiple times so I I just want to maybe go from the simplest um ones to to resolve first so when Mr burton was up he was concerned about enhancement and preservation of the brook in the neighborhood i guess that falls under
our concern that the um the overall management of water uh would be net better um than than um before so I guess my question to you is based on this redevelopment plan do you believe that a
future state that in that includes one of these items that is properly engineered that has water mitigation appropriate water mitigation would make the circumstance in the surrounding neighborhood better than it is today well I I can say that uh conforming to
the current standards would make conditions better out there today but any further detail I defer to Mr burr okay and the current standards are are more excessive than potentially they've been in the past correct marketkedly okay marketkedly more strict okay all
right um Mr paloma I don't believe there were any follow-ups mr uh Patulo also concerned about flooding so I think we've we've covered that and Miss Kavanaaugh was was principally concerned about about notice and and taking information back from this hearing so
going to Miss Franco um the first uh comment uh was regarding the u uh uh any HVAC or other units anything that would be mounted uh on the roof and whether or not that applied to the 50t height uh
restriction uh and I believe the answer is 50 ft means 50 ft correct 50 ft meets 50 ft there are no exceptions for uh rooftop mechanicals or pen houses or anything like that in here do we need to spell that out in greater specificity it doesn't hurt to do that it wouldn't hurt
it would make it much more clear you know if we're keeping now a punch list of items you know to to edit I I would I would for one like to see that there's clarity that 50 ft means 50 ft in the township of Bridgewater um there was also a conversation about um uh uh fire
firefighting i I you know I believe that um you know between any I mean that would be far much further down the process where there would be a review of an actual plan and sign off by fire officials and all that kind of thing right and and and you know during the site plan if there are any comments by
the fire official they will make those comments as it relates to the plan itself in terms of the buildings that's construction code fire code that would be handled by the code office in terms of any fire suppression that would be necessary for them okay and generally Generally speaking you know we have
buildings that you know we have you know the Somerset office complex as an example when you have buildings that exceed the height of your local fire apparatus typically speaking uh there is fire suppernal fire suppression correct yes okay um there was some conversation
about the single family homes on Woodside um so this plan uh provides for I guess uh installation of a proper a proper um culde-sac bulb and then those three homes those three homes would be
would would be conforming to the to the local zone correct yes they the R1 R10 zoning is a budget we would continue the R10 zoning regulations there and subsequent to any um any the
redevelopment uh happening with those homes there could be a consideration of actually just extending the R10 zone there so that they have uh complete R10 zoning rights okay a and in the event that a builder or a subsequent homeowner
would would need relief um to build something there um you know even if it was a deck or a patio something that is is in a setback or otherwise needs relief they would have to come back to the planning board correct that's correct because they'd be subject to the overall restriction in your experience
um ca can attractive conforming homes be built three attractive conforming homes be built there without the need for uh incremental relief yes okay there was also conversation about
uh the rest the restriction on um uh on a on a a senior is it senior housing yes it's age restricted the age restricted I mean that's governed by state law correct well the age restriction is is a requirement of this right so well no but
exactly how age restriction is is um I think the question was related to oh affordable was related to the affordable and the 40-year deed restriction and and upon expiration um the the township could seek to extend those controls um as we are doing with
certain properties today absolutely except that someone else will be sitting up here in 40 years yep well I don't know maybe Will will be up here in 40 years okay now there's also been uh extensive conversation about um
uh gen generators um and and and you know well well let's let's take them together generators and and you know u climate control uh and and noise associated with those i I believe the
question was asked and answered in relation to Mr papus um but one of the things that I I I would like to introduce for conversation um is there was concern raised uh by um by Mr kraut about how the an acoustic impact study
there was a certain vagueness to it um there was also potentially um uh concerns about monitoring ongoing monitoring and you know I don't want to put words in his mouth but I think he would want to avoid a situation where we're chasing our tail here so to speak
we'd rather make sure that we don't have the problem than continuing to try to mitigate a problem so is there any language that we can consider that's going to protect our community from from such a scenario like that associated with um the an acoustic impact study
being more specific what that means and what that is and how monitoring would occur well I think we did with I could tell you this that we did not have an acoustic engineer uh involved in the development of the plan we did the best we could in terms of identifying what we
wanted to study and what the performance should be in terms of this um but we also built in safeguards um in my mind that allow for um uh post construction evaluation and mitigation
of any problems so that means that post construction uh our consulting acoustic expert would review uh and then an analyze any data from from the site plan uh and make recommendations as to any
mitigation identification of any issues um if we if there are public complaints afterwards um in addition to that that respond to them and go even beyond what the standards are in this plan in terms of the um mechanisms that are identified
in order to hopefully dampen uh acoustic emanation from the site okay so so in your professional opinion is the way that is that this is written provide sufficient protection is there anything else that that could or should
be added to this language well uh absent actually providing a a scope for a detailed acoustic study which we don't have um I think it does i think it provides us the ability to uh
evaluate have our own expert um pre- approval and post-development and it allows us to to uh mitigate through u post construction um mechanisms is that and that's sufficiently in your opinion that's sufficiently spelled out here it
gives us sufficient power to do th to to take those actions yes i also think that in terms of a redeveloper agreement which is even can be even more detailed than this that those those uh that can be spelled out in a redeveloper agreement as well okay can can we even make a comment
there that that issue would be uh addressed through the redeveloper agreement certainly i I would feel more comfortable if if that's spelled out so that you know this goodness and knowledge is not lost tonight when we exit this room
um so we talked about generate oh I'm sorry generators we also talked about that from a noise standpoint I guess I guess that would be essentially even though it's for a different purpose that would be under under the same umbrella correct that's correct okay um there was also discussion about the location on
the property you know obviously at this point we just see you know purples and things because we don't know exactly where the building or buildings would end up um on on on the site um because that's further down in the process i I guess just for clarification for us and
for the members of the public that that's where this assuming that we proceed assuming that this planning board takes action assuming that the council takes action it's adopted and everything else that's where an actual plans would would would need to be
drafted and that's where site plan review would occur coming back to this board to discuss exactly where is it exactly at what at what altitude exactly what does the burming look like exact right all those details that either we or the zoning board regularly handle
when it comes to uh uh applications all of that would occur in advance of even a single shovel going into the ground is that correct that is correct all right all right so let me go down uh another list that I've kept um I think
that we satisfied the fact that um you know there is another application before the zoning board and that applicant certainly has the right to continue that following following those procedures any future variance would be subject to coming back to this planning board
correct any future variance on this site no matter how big or how small we now have jurisdiction over this site that's almost correct if there is a variance uh that requires a use variance it would have to have a plan amendment a plan
amendment and this if it's if it constitutes a devariance like a height variance that's too high percent or 10 ft whichever is greater or whichever is less or it's a use that's not permitted that requires a plan amendment so the planning board cannot grant any deviations from that nor can you grant
deviations from the mandatory comm okay but a plan a plan amendment is that the phrase you used yeah a redevelopment plan amendment you would go through the entire process of amending the plan when you say the entire process you mean like starting at step one no you Well you wouldn't you wouldn't start at the area need oh oh all the stuff short of that
okay yeah so you wouldn't go back to the area need but you would say "Okay we're going to now do a an amendment to the redevelopment plan you prepare that it would go through the same process governing body planning board then back to the governing body for adoption." Okay um I I do want to get some
resolution so you know if I'm if I have my um my um punch list here there's already two items on it uh a third one I'd like to discuss and consider is is that access via the via the portion of the property facing Adamsville Road um
now that's currently pretty heavily wooded right yes and and you'd also if you somehow could traverse that property you you would also hit the Cuckles Brook correct you'd have to cross it okay um so I I guess that that that is not at
all viable for emergency access or any other access correct well it's until I there are permits for linear development that cross streams and they cross wetlands uh that you can get from the D can you saying that they would be valid
here can you think of any reason why emergency access would be anticipated or necessary there i I mean it just seems highly inefficient there's so many other ways to get there it's not considered in the plan there's no access consideration there all right can we write in that
there would be no access from the portion of the property abuing Adamsville Road that would be my number three item yes if I may do we really want to do that uh because we only have I say one access for fire engines from
Route 22 and Well but it's but it's a heavily it's a heavily wooded area you'd have to you know you'd you'd have to you know you'd have to run tra you know you know fire trucks through through through through the woods and and over a brook right now it's heavily wooded but in the
future there's chainsaws uh I would think that the having another access for a firetruck might come into um that that little section there i'd almost much rather a second entrance on
22 versus one on Adamsville right where I agree with you well you only really have 22 and for whatever reason it gets blocked well you have 22 and in the expand of an extreme emergency I mean you could you
know get you know you know get to or near that from Woodside right you know and then presumably that's where the building is going to be um uh you know related to that I guess I would just like to understand do we have the authority or at what point in this
process do we have authority to um you know confirm the um the desire and the intention to maintain the wooded portion particularly of block 221 lot 102 that that it is our intention that that
remain uh you know nature that remain as it is yeah yeah the de the development of that area in terms of the the stream corridor flood hazard area or any wetlands is subject to this to the state um in terms
of uh any incursions into that there's no there's nothing in this plan that that is suggesting that so is that sufficiently protected or do we need to make a positive statement that we want to see that protected well it's it's it's required to have conservation easements around around that
i'd feel better about adding it in i I I'd like to add that in if we if you know if we can that you know it is our it is our intention that you know I don't know how exactly how we'd state that um but you know particularly the you know currently naturally habitated
portion of block 221 lot 102 would remain that way and I think by doing that that would include the um you know the the bulb for lack of a better phrase that extends to Adamsville Road so So let me let me say this i think that it's
hard to use um blocks and lots or lots to um say that because part of that lot is still developable and part of the lot is not so it's hard to say it just on that lot um I know that we say in the uh the objectives the preservation of the
Kokosbrook stream carter and that's in in here uh Michael what about just saying like no no no development with preserve and protect but but so so we're saying the issue we have is that we don't have a delineation of that stream
or wetlands or things like that so it's if we say that it's not giving us an objective standard in order to say that so that's why it's it's in the goals and objectives and in combination with the land use concept and in combination with
the permitted uses and in combination with the stormwater regulations that we think that we're doing enough to make that happen the rest of it will be up to the planning board as the site plan rolls in to say listen we think you need more here or you can go here but there's
going to have to be if there's going to be any relief from uh or remediation of the uh ancient storm water structures that are in there and there going to be there's going to be work done in there if that has to be fixed and and addressed so um absent being able to
delineate a specific area to say you cannot go in there um I think the language we have provides sufficient basis for the planning board to maximize the degree to which that stream carter is remains untouched or
restored or uh however you guys is that part even buildable if someone wanted to if someone wanted to build in you know if someone wanted to chainsaw that whole part down and start building something over there is that even possible or I guess within the stream cart or they
couldn't do it okay and they would have to whatever they theoretically could build would be subject to the action that we're potentially taking here abs absolutely and and and even restoration of a wetland requires D permits right so
but if I may suggest that we seek the input of the fire marshall see what he thinks about that and additionally um we need to use some wetlands i think that we have to develop
new wetlands in a ratio of 2 to1 no you're I think what you're what you're getting you're thinking about um a diversion of open space or something like that or a mitigation bank that that's not what would happen here no disrespect to our very dedicated fire
marshal but every fire marshal that I've ever dealt with would want 10 or 20 emergency access on any property and I'm not being facitious here but you know the Adamsville Road is I mean I think that's a policy decision i I think that
there's a there's a you know environmental constraints but I think ultimately it's a policy decision is do would we want to see Adamsville Road as an access point i say no myself and um how how we accomplish
that i'll leave the Mr mr pek to guide us i think the people that the the applicants that would want to create that as an access point would be a like a commercial recreational facility that would want another easy place to come into i don't believe
that unfortunately any applicant would spend the dollars to make that an access point for emergency vehicles only either unless it was required so I don't want it to be used for the wrong thing the applicant I'd rather prevent it from being able to be used you have a
lot of frontage on Route 22 and I think Ashley you mentioned that you could add another entrance in the western part of the frontage on 22 and you know in the event of an extreme emergency I mean you shut down 22 you
roll firet trucks the wrong way i mean you know you know emergency activities have precedent over o over anything else i you know I'd like to see you know some sufficient statement that um you know
access will not be permitted onto Adamsville Road i think that is a level of protection i I don't think it's viable anyway um and you know I guess Mr sullivan I'm interested to understand in this report is there sufficient recognition that that that area is
environmentally sensitive and thus subject to uh you know a wide range of of state regulation no the we're not we don't uh talk about wetlands and regulations like that because the state regulates it um in in
our mind when we were preparing the report we felt that because it's going to be subject to the R20 requirements that any driveway of a commercial nature that cross through it would require a plan amendment but I would suggest that if there's a consensus that we don't
want access there we're just going to put that you can't have access there you could do that but I would also draw the board's attention to uh section four under open space and conservation requirements on page 15 which mandates that conservation easements shall be
created for all lands composed of stream stream quarters wetlands and wetlands transition areas which looking just looking at the stream corridor that there's no way you're accessing through Adamsville without running through the stream corridor and if there's a conservation
easement that's going to be over that anyway that'll be delineated via meets and bounds and physical monumentation and signs i mean I think that's more than ample protection nobody's crossing that stream nobody's cutting down any
trees in that stream corridor which has yet to be delineated but we can still with our own eyes see that it's you know basically running north and south through the eastern section of the property you know I don't want to make this more complicated than it needs to be i just want to make sure that there is sufficient protection that that area
will be left as it is and as it is intended and that we're not going to see a an access point i don't think you're going to get stronger protection than a conservation easement and that would be included that's mandated okay all right you know I mean I'm only
one one vote i mean you know you know I I I you know I guess that's a sufficient response yeah for me again it's up to the board i'm not I have no no say you want to say no you know I'm I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to
put a question mark there we can come back um additional conversation uh about um uh storm water uh the Cucklesbrook that runs under Adamsville Road i think all those are subsumed by the conversation that we've had about water in general on this site uh let's see on
page 11 there was a com comment uh about um um confirming that the single family use would only occur in those proposed three lots on Woodside and would not be
permitted elsewhere so in other words this could not become an entire neighborhood of single family homes is that correct that's correct is that sufficiently protected in the document yep the plan which okay shows that okay we talked about the highcapacity uh
equipment needed for for for mostly cooling uh and the noise so we've already discussed that um the masonry wall um and all that the whole low frequency conversation so all of that we've already I I believe subsumed with
the with the other comments um as far as exactly where this masonry wall is going to go and exactly where the building is going to go and and any input at that point from the public and obviously decision-m from this planning board um that that's all that's all part of site plan correct it it's part of site plan
because the ultimate configuration of the site plan will dictate where these things go but I will say this that the the buffer um actually does have a configuration requirement where that wall is on the inboard side meaning it's on the inside of the buffer so that the homes or residential zones where that
wall is going to be located are not looking at the wall they're looking at the 40ft buffer that's between them and the wall okay and and and um there was also concern raised about the bulk standards uh on pages 12 and 13 particularly the fourth story and the 50
foot where did where where was that where did that come from i mean it was from looking at uh other data centers and recreation centers and also to provide if we're talking about a four-story um uh uh we're talking about senior housing
the multif family housing um uh having an ability to have a pitched roof be able to incorporate HVAC or other things within such a pitch roof and to have flexibility so that they don't feel squashed um so speaking to data centers
as an example is four stories a typical standard no it's uh it's two one to two stories is what we've seen the the examples I've looked this would be up to four stories it doesn't mean that it must be four stories and 50 ft the ones
that that we've looked at were two to three stories and and 50 ft is there So is there a such thing as a fourstory data center or not really there may be but it's not one of the ones that we looked at okay and and and for senior
housing you would also think that I mean I guess there'd need to be elevators and things in all likelihood but correct but you would envision a viable plan potentially being up to four stories for something like that too yes okay um I should have asked this question at the beginning but um we or maybe this was
already asked we we envision a developer coming in and picking one of the items from this menu they're not going to start picking two and three items from this menu correct correct okay so it wouldn't be okay there's going to be a 100 senior living here and there's going
to be a gym over here and there's going to be a uh a data center over here that is not a scenario that would occur no there's doesn't there's not enough room for that that there's not there's not enough room for that okay so so there's enough room for one viable use among
those that are on the approved list yes okay um does reducing the height make this less attractive for you know substantially less attractive for you know a developer i mean you know would a
would a 30 foot or 35 ft 40 foot 40 foot let's say uh instead of 50 would that like make this you know unattractive or you know or you know it would significantly reduce the uh it
would basically cut in half the way I understand it the data center floor area um and it would it you would lose at least a floor of uh housing so 25% less in terms of housing
half 50% less data center so if we're concerned about bulk of what's going to be built here whether it's housing or whether it's it's a a data center um it would be subject to our our bulk standards um subject to floor area ratio subject
to uh you know all the other items um based on the size of the property correct correct and but but the you know this the zoning in here is based on the property okay so that so that is so I I guess my question then is the quote
unquote new bulk standards that you're proposing on page uh 12 and 13 thank you on 12 and 13 are those substantially in line with with what Bridgewater standards are
today with the exception of the height i don't know these were developed for this particular site looking at u what the uses were going to be and what area we had it wasn't really looked at as an
evolution of existing zoning it was looked at as a new set of bulk standards for this property and that's what redevelopment zones are they're unique to a particular property and a particular location
all right but like for instance what I'm what what concerns me potentially um you know are the setbacks um you know the floor area ratio you know because those are going to those are going to create the perception of bulk in the vicinity of residential
neighborhoods um you know like I'm looking at the floor area ratio as an example of 04 um what what is it in this zone right now 35 I believe 35 so So it could be more intensive but
not not like a doubling or anything like that i need to I need to kind of think and come back on on on the whole bulk standard question um on pages uh 12 and 13 um let me see what else I've got um
questions about elevation and grade and you know exactly where where the how high the you know at what at what height the building is going to be constructed and things like that and and um um you know any BMS and all that that's all later in the process yeah that'll be
during site plan development all right there was concern about the height impact um potential height impact depending upon where this uh you where the where a building or buildings would go um with you know uh the properties on
Woodside either I guess the existing ones or across the street or perhaps even more importantly these ones that that would be built um I guess again that's also part of part of a site plan conversation rather than at this point correct
correct all right um and then there was also a comment about easement buffers uh and and and and setback details i I mean I you know I guess that's largely you know what I've kind of flagged as sort of the the bulk page 12 and 13 question
so so yeah that so that was a question that um was a good question so the way that the bulk requirements are set up there's a track setback and that basically says 70 ft from the track boundaries is a setback for whatever happens here there are yard standards that apply
to the front yard which is you know Route 22 but then there's sideyards and rear yards those are intended to apply to any new lots that are subdivided within here but the track boundary is what governs the offset from the edge
there's a 40 foot buffer standard as well so there's a 70 foot setback for structures from the track boundary then where you have residential zones or uses residential zones or uses you have a 40ft buffer that buffer is within the
setback they're not you don't chain them together so there's 70 ft for buildings and structures the maximum height is 50 so the the the yard set back is greater than one to one you know it actually you know it's 70 70 to 50 and then there's a
40 foot buffer requirement within that setback that's the way that works all right then I think where where I am is um you know I've added two items 50 ft means 50 ft um the the additional commentary about um
um noise impact studying and monitoring um you know I've kind of temporarily parking lot put put in the parking lot um the access via Adamsville Road um and whether or not we have sufficient protection to prevent that i you know I
I I I think my feeling is yes it does um but you know that may be worthy of some additional discussion and that leaves I guess for me um potential discussion of you know any of the the bulk requirements on 12 and 13 so so I'm
I'm resol resolved on you know adding two items you know I think maybe some discussion on on the Adamsville situation is warranted and and then maybe as our last item to come back to the bulk requirements those are my questions i
think I've set a record for questions in a public hearing mr chairman I don't think you missed any mr chairman how how do you p How do you suggest we proceed if we have any more questions and then are you then looking for comments from
the board as to how to what next steps would be i'd like to hear from some of our professionals as well just in case because there might be that shed some light on some of the concerns that we have and then uh following that uh if there are any remaining questions if there are not then I'd like to hear some general commentary and and and uh open
up for deliberations so with that I'll ask Miss Sarmmed if uh she has any concerns or if uh regarding the report if there's any questions that we haven't asked uh that certainly take some infotype from no I
actually don't have any questions i think that there was a very thorough discussion here very good questions from the residents and very good responses I think from the board um and a great presentation from Mr sullivan um I think the one thing to keep in mind is that yeah this is basically a zoning like a very specific zoning ordinance puts the
control and the and the power in the municipality to decide what they can and cannot do and I think it's a very thorough redevelopment plan so I have no other further questions [Music] our engineer Mr burr thank you Mr chairman i would I would echo um what
Katherine just said i I just had one point of clarification for Michael so um if there's not specific standards spelled out in this redevelopment plan then any subsequent site plan would be subject to the underlying zoning
standards that that exist today correct excellent question um one of the things that's that I want to make a point of is that this is a superseding zone this this supersedes all ordinances so the underlying zoning is going to go away okay there will be a redevelopment area
or zone or whatever this zone is called um when that happens the standards in here as Bill said they ref these standards apply but where they are silent the standards that are underlying in the uh land development ordinances
govern so we don't spell out everything you need to do in a parking lot right we just talk about how many parking spaces you need right so what'll happen is you'll look at that and you'll go back to those standards we're not going to reinvent your design standards the only standards in here that have been
developed are because of the specific nature of this site relative to the existing conditions and what the the land use is and some of the concerns so these are specialized standards for the most part but where this plan is silent the underlying um development
regulations and standards would apply thank you Mr b thank you are there any further questions from our board is there anything I do have one more sorry is there anything in the ordinance I keep going on the phone service because it's such a big issue in in one
of my athletic clubs that is surrounded by data centers that is there anything in there that we um that they have to hold um that there needs to be the same experience for the residents around so
that they can't make a significant impact so say it was a data center and when you say phone service you you mean cellular phone service okay like zero zero service and I don't know because because of the electromagnetic
or whatever scientific reason that that happens is Wi-Fi also impacted oh yeah no Wi-Fi oh okay significantly and it's data centers came up after the fact so I just want to make sure that there's something I know we talked about acoustical engineers but we didn't
address that piece and I'd love to put something in there in case so if there isn't any variances and somebody could put put a data center in there that it wouldn't in affect the residents around is there any way to put some sort of like impact study requirement in there
about about cellular or you know wireless services that they would have to show at the planning board level and then any mitigation that would be required i was unfamiliar I actually thought that was a great point um I'm unfamiliar with how industrywide that is
or if it's a known issue or it's just an anecdotal issue or if it's a known issue amongst data centers and have they implemented mitigation techniques to help um you know help help with that so I I think maybe it's not to punt it but to say maybe they have to show something
at the board level at during an application and they'll be the have they'll be the ones to have to show the mitigation for it whatever that may be because I was like I said it's new to me yeah know and that makes sense because at that point they will have done the engineering know where the location and dimensions of the building would be and
you know so if there were mitigate mitigating features that would be the time the discussion you actually would have a plan so I'm I'm comfortable with that so that's that's item number three on the punch list or four well it's three i still have one in the one in the parking lot i have two
in the parking lot right so that would be number three any other other questions since we're looking at this from every angle uh I did forget to ask a question if this were to be a recreational facility u thinking about a
ball field whether it's football soccer um there would be adequate space I'm assuming for a full field with parking in this spot as far as the far goes believe and uh and if it were to be one
of those uh bubble type uh structures it can only be indoors it cannot be outdoors it cannot be outdoors indoor recreation only indoor only okay so would it need to have like a permanent roof or would a a bubble be considered indoors if it's considered a building it
would be considered indoors how do we differentiate whether a bubble is indoors even though it is fulltime indoors it's a building it's temporary or permanent also just anecdotally those will have to be about 75 ft
i mean it depends on the size but a full football fieldsized one will likely have to be a 75 ft height oh so then we wouldn't make it wouldn't meet it very likely wouldn't meet it thank you Mr that narrows it down any other questions councilman Kersh you know I I
guess I got the two items in the parking lot um you know again this access via Adamsville Road I mean it's clearly not our intention for that to ever occur i guess the question is is does the redevelopment plan provide suff as it's written provide sufficient uh protection
for that or do you know is there you know is there something additional that needs to be said you know I'm you know I'm I you know I'm I'm not sure i mean I think I'm convinced that it is but I wouldn't want to I wouldn't want to be disappointed later i I don't know how
others feel i don't think there's any harm in being more definitive about it is there sufficient support for that Mr peek what would a condition of that magnitude look like i don't know i'm trying to put it
together in my my head now it could be very simple we would just prohibit it i mean if if that's what you guys want we don't want to have any vagueness in this it'll be prohibited you know from an emergency standpoint you know you have obviously Route 22 you know you'd have to have a colossal
disaster to you know have 22 be completely unusable you know you still have Woodside you know I mean there you know they might not be pretty but there are other ways to get in here um um probably prettier than going through the woods and over over a stream or over a
brook so um you know I I I you know if there's sufficient support I I would like that protection in here okay all right if there's if there's sufficient support on the board you know we've put in all this work you know I don't I don't want
to lose a whole lot of work over one one item if there's sufficient support I I'd love to see it included if there isn't sufficient support I'm I'm still comfortable moving moving along with the with with with uh the application i vote to
move down the deis for to prohibit access yes Mr w mr i feel uneasy about it but um I think there's alternatives i think it could be put into use
all right well I'm you know if I I'd like to include it i think it's an important protection mr atkinsh Mr charteritz yeah I would lean towards prohibit as well Mr cora okay all right sufficient support for this okay then then we're back to my last parking lot
item and thanks everyone for their indulgence um and this may be an area you know to to to particularly include you know Miss Sarmad um I you know we're setting the law here you know with this new table and I just I I just want to
make sure that we're comfortable that these are in fact the right numbers um you know given you know either what could be built there right now um you know the warehouse that could be built there right now um another office
building right cuz someone could build there's no economic viability to it but somebody could put up another office building there tomorrow right with without our taking any action then they probably could conform uh uh conform and not even have to go to
zoning board correct so you know I I guess what I'm looking for is just some either guidance that these numbers appear right or any areas where you know we need to you know go you know go back and and with Mr
sullivan fortunately still sitting here you know see if any of these any of these new bulk standards seem inappropriate for this for this for this site i did not I was not involved in the production of the of the zoning table
and the and the redevelopment plan so I will say that Mr sullivan's answer before was on point about how this was crafted with a with particular uses in mind it all is within the plan connected so
the the uses that are permitted and contemplated and the bulk standards that are contemplated are all interconnected so um he's absolutely right that this was for a particular site for particular uses that think about all those things what I will say is you know just your your question before about what zone is
a sin and what does that permit as far as F it's not it's 05 more so it's not exponentially more it's not double it's not close um it's you know that's 5% more um so it's not
it's not egregious I'd say um and I think a lot of the other bulk standards were like I said probably configured with a certain use and uses on the property in mind to be able to be able to accommodate them so it differs it's
fundamentally going to differ from the N1B zone because it has different uses and different things contemplated than the M1B B zone does um from looking at it I do I think it's completely out of character with other industrial zones and other
commercial zones in the in the township no i mean we have we have a number of them but when you look at them collectively there are certain zones that allow for 60 60 foot building height um that allow for um point4 f so
um I do I don't think it's it's something completely out of out of character or out of the norm for what other zones contemplate um but is it new is it different than the M1B zone absolutely that's why the redevelopment plan's being considered and and your
statement would apply particularly to the 60% coverage and the 40% F yes and the building height as well and the height wh you know while we're discussing the standards are are you also comfortable
where we are on the the rear yards and the sidey yards and and all and all all the other items that are on here i I think so i I mean again those are all those are more particular than some of the other ones um that we just mentioned but I I feel comfortable that Mr
sullivan had had contemplated all of these things and zoning and looked at the property um to evaluate and and come to a that's appropriate okay i will say that even though this is a redevelopment plan that I don't think this this
excludes other normal ordinance requirements we may have you know with the exception of provisions that they've put in for certain requirements but we have other requirements as well um and standard like design standards that may still apply here when they are before the
board all right so so that's table two i'm almost I'm almost finished on table two but let me go to table three um are are do those largely meet the R the R10 are they fairly consistent with the R10
believe they are and or maybe that's also a question from Mr sullivan those are the R10 those are the R10 standards copy paste okay um Um All right and then table four if we go down the path of age restricted
um that would be a maximum 40 per building and 250 I think was for the whole site correct six seven buildings okay um the affordable minimum affordable okay and and that's that's
important because I was under the impression until a few weeks ago that 25% was a standard it apparently is not a standard it is whatever we choose it to be um but I think in Bridgewater we have generally felt that 25% is an
appropriate number 25% as I've said in meetings before maybe not this meeting but uh um has been when you're resoning uh for affordable housing and set aides it's it's a reasonable standard we're seeing projects that are actually
getting built at that ratio um been approved and been built and uh so um if it's something we put in there's a compensatory benefit to whoever would come to develop here because they don't have this zoning now so there's a huge compensatory benefit uh so yeah 25% is
is where I would start and go up from there all right I I don't know if you can answer this question I'll ask it either way um do do you you know do you think there's econom eomic viability with with this plan if assuming we move forward to it does does this have
economic viability uh as a data center i think it's got economic viability um beyond what you have now um substantially beyond what you have now okay so I mean obviously the market will decide that but it would you would not
be surprised if the viability of a data center is determined and that we move forward with it as a data center right would you also similly not be surprised if somebody finds if a data center is not desired um for whatever reason that
somebody might say that senior housing is economically viable and that perhaps this board would see an application for a site plan associated with senior housing yes okay um All right all right so let me come to just back to table two and then
this is um probably a resolution of all my my questions and concerns i I just want to make sure that we are s as a community and our residents who are who live nearby we are protected from a monstrosity being built
um or monstrosities being built i know that's the purpose of bulk standards um you know it sounds like Miss Sarmad you're satisfied that within the scope of these numbers a a significant development
could and would occur but it would not be a what what would generally be considered to be a monstrosity or is that in the eye of the beholder it's a relative term i guess it depends on who you're talking to who would consider what that that I mean I guess if you want an open field anything other than open field is a monstrosity
right like I said I think that this is not completely out of line with other zone similar zones that we have you know that are industrial or commercial in nature um it's not it's not out of the norm um it's not like the lot lines and the setbacks have been set to zero and
the F is you know 2.0 Z not point4 so um I in my opinion I I I don't think it's completely it's it's going to lead to a monstrosity okay and now talking about who would be most impacted um you know it it would be those along along
Woodside so it would be the homes that this very developer is going to build so presumably um the the developer would be kind to him or herself the other one that does concern me a little bit though um is the um the Eagles
um now does the Eagles property uh um you know I'm looking at the aerial here um you know I I know there's a building there's also a pavilion i guess is that what's shown in like the the dark gray almost black and then sort of
the the tannanish color on well it's on the the cover page or is there a better a better view for me to look Oh that is a little better so what I what I see is um you know I guess my question is is
the e the eagle's property uh you know both the part that's developed and the part that's undeveloped that's what is entirely on the south uh boundary line of this property correct okay now there is there is a a wooded buffer there correct there are some
trees that's the location where there's a there was a swale that was developed there under the old um failed um site plan development there's some vegetation along that property line but some of it is part of that soil okay so if I'm looking at your
table two and I'm worried about the closeness to the Eagles um what would be in place that would be considered the rear yard of this right track boundary tracked
boundary i'm trying to Yeah because I'm on page 12 minimum setback to residential uses and districts that's in a residential district of 70 ft the setback a minimum setback to residential uses would be
70 but how does that jive with minimum rear yard of being 100 ft within if there are subdivisions within the track those would apply so let's say that there's a you know there's there's a a subdivision between
um at a center and the existing office or units for um senior housing those apply to that the track boundary uh setback is applied to all track boundaries and that would include the uh
and just for edification the M1B zone presently requires a 50 foot rear yard setback so it would be it would be more protection than what could be built today there there is no buffer requirement to that to that uh property line okay and
then I guess at a point where this planning board would hear site plan if there was concerns about uh vegetation buffering and and and and water mitigation and all that uh you know because certainly we we wouldn't want to harm harm the eagles with anything that
we do here all that would be part of that conversation correct yes if I may I'm a little familiar with that property there are like three buildings there uh the one with the cars on to the right of it that's their office building
if you want to call it that north of that you see that gray shaded area that's an opensided picnic pavilion pavilion where they cook hot dogs hamburgers and what have you and some place under the trees
there there's restrooms okay and periodically they also uh have motorcycle rallies there during the summertime i'm presuming that's legal um glad to know that that's uh being being used for for constructive purposes um
yeah you know I I guess now my question for Miss Sarmad and then I I I think I'm satisfied is um you know do you feel that these standards you know will provide the sufficient protection particularly to the Eagle's property
i think so and on top of that just knowing this has to go before a planning board hearing just like a zoning ordinance yes something can be conforming but I think that there's ways in which this board can also say that certain things are important and emphasize that to whoever
is before this board and say and particularly if the property owner comes to say what can we do to make sure that there's not an adverse impact on the neighbors because if they are before the board and they are going to become these people's neighbors then they should be a good neighbor and do those things so you
know I think the redevelopment plan plan as a first layer as a zoning ordinance does a fine job at increasing the buffers or the setbacks as they presently exist in the zoning ordinance for the M1B zone but I also think that if there are additional concerns that
come up if this comes if this is approved and then comes before the board as a planning board application that doesn't mean that the bare minimums that are in the redevelopment plan can't be then bolstered by this board's input for whether it be landscaping vegetation
screening whatever it may be because it has to go through that whole board application process anyway so so you know if we're talking about public input we're talking about transparency we're talking about all these things so you know there's still many more times not many at least a few more times
where we can we as a community have the ability to make sure that this property is developed in a way that is comfortable for this community correct it still it still has to go through the normal process of a planning board application even after if this gets adopted by ordinance by the council it
absolutely has to go through the same venue it has to go through completeness review it has to be scheduled for a board hearing it has to be dually noticed for that public hearing it has to go through a full approval process just like any other application site plan application
okay i you know I I I think I'm satisfied you know the the the point4 you know I'm I I'll have to if I think about it for a few more minutes I'm probably okay with um you know what I come back to on this is you know the responsibility that we as a community
have um to make sure you know this this land owner has has rights this land you know unless somebody wants to buy it um this land owner has rights they have rights to develop it and they have within you know within scope they have rights to develop it they have rights to you know to be profitable um at the same
time we have residents both those who are here and those who are not um you know we have a responsibility to protect them um you know you know I don't want to get into deliberation but um you know my my questions have have
basically been satisfied any other questions Mr peek uh I believe at this point uh we have suggested a few changes or amendments uh what what what I would recommend I'm assuming Mr sullivan picked up the
various edits that were Why don't I go through them just so Yeah you want to give a list like what I heard and and Yeah and that way and I don't believe that any of them are so substantive that it would need to delay anything you know a motion could just be made and I you
know prepared an anticipatory resolution so we could just do an edit there saying um in the last whereas that it's subject to the edits and clarifications of record and then in just the after the now therefore be it resolved it would be
uh that you'd recommend that the council adopt the redevelopment plan blah blah blah as amended and it'll be attached as a resolution mr sullivan could go through that yeah and and I'm sorry before you go through because it is critically important you you the the changes appear to be relatively minor in
nature and would result in a draft number three being available for the council on Thursday and your commentary presumably would acknowledge the lengthy hearing that we had the significant public input that we heard um uh
resulting in the following three changes so that there's a clear explanation for how version three is different than the version two that has been distributed to the to to the council and presumably also to the public same way this one was okay
here here are the changes that I heard one uh revise the plan to specifically uh state that uh the maximum height is 50 ft and that does not include any mechanicals above that clarify that two
was to ensure that uh put language in here that references uh including the acoustic uh performance requirements uh in the in our redeveloper agreement three was uh prohibiting access to Adamsville Road and then the
then the fourth one was from Miss Sakura fourth one was um at a similar point I don't know that I can get into as much detail but about a study to examine uh the impact of the predicted impact and
actual post construction impact of a data center on cellular and wireless communications yeah maybe it's maybe like a predicted impact on any changes to to residents that
or ways in which they have encountered this previously and what can be done you know it may it may be in the form of an impact study it may be in the form of acknowledgement of it it may I I just the whole point of an impact study is to figure out what the mitigation needs to
be so I think it needs to either be some sort of statement that says the applicant shall address this and figure out what the mitigation is if there is any a pre-application and postapproval impact study yes here's
what we think the impacts will be and then once it's built here's what the impacts actually are and then build in like whatever site plan well we're getting way ahead of ourselves at this point but whatever site plan could you know just condition that hey if the post
construction impact study shows that there's actually you know some impact some negative impact you know it has to be mitigated something like I I I think this is great i think you have to be really careful with the language because I don't think we're in a position to guarantee anything for anyone and I
think that could be a stretch and I don't think it's guaranteeing it's just simply that they would have to mitigate it's not like we're going to say that the levels of whatever data service are going to be any better or worse it's really about the applicant addressing if it is something that they have encountered industrywide well again the
language is important directing someone to mitigate is a very definitive statement and and I think you have to be careful with that so only mitigate if there's a negative comp if there's a negative impact that they because of their their build there
could be other things that cause I don't know right if there's already problems there we can't hold them responsible maybe it's something that the point because of their you know I remember as a kid there was a neighbor who had a ham radio and when he got on that ham radio
in the old days when you didn't have cable the TV reception and you could hear him over the TV right i mean and does anyone ever experience that so I think you have to be careful that you know it the the responsibility you can't make a property
owner responsible for to address everyone's problems that could be encountered i think that there's a there has to be a way to say I mean that I'll tell the club that I was that I I'm going to tomorrow they added a data center and it went from having cellular service to
zero cellular service and there are two there i don't know if it's a specific data center i don't I'm not right a guru by any means i don't know the reasons why i just know when that build happened that's when it changed so maybe there's verbiage that you could put in
that doesn't you know make that home that land owner responsible for mitigating anything but if there's an impact to what they've done the the other option is is if somebody does come in with the data center because we don't
know yet they could come in with senior they could come with the rec center they come with a if then those conversations prior to a redeveloper agreement or consistency review could that could be handled in a redeveloper agreement i mean now that we're on I mean like that's I think that I don't know that
there's enough time to research this from a technical perspective to actually sound coherent for me to sound coherent in a redevelopment plan at this point it's just it's just hard to do and without
unintended consequences and I think that if somebody does come over the data center understanding that we have these concerns now that you could require that as part of a de a redeveloper agreement that that's going to happen and uh I think that's one way to handle it so
assuming that there are no issues that exist today right instead of looking for problems that don't exist uh how can you hold uh a data center accountable for example for using a disruptive technology there could be something as simple as like a microwave that's being used sight to sight that could be
disrupting you know radio signal for frequency so how do you hold a data center um vendor accountable for the type of disruptive technology that might Right it's it's a difficult proposition because they'd have to actually go into everybody's house and operate cell
phones or wireless right to figure out what the baseline conditions are right because you want to know everybody's baseline conditions then you build it and you say "Okay your baseline conditions change it's so like well testing it's like uh sound attenuation things like that." I don't I don't know how to really articulate that well I
think we can identify it as a concern to be addressed in the redeveloper agreement correct we can we can it it's going to be very vague language but we can just if that's the way we want to do it we can put it in there just want to make sure it gets
addressed with an applicant that maybe doesn't show up with variances well I'm going to say this being be being designated a redeveloper and coming for a site plan is not a easy process you have to be designated as a redeveloper which requires other things
you have to enter into a redevelopment agreement before you can come to the planning board you need a consistency review to say that you conform with the plan and you can go forward there's a lot of these points so we can put language in here um that basically puts
everyone on alert that's the best I think I can do in this short time i think I think alert lang alerting language is is appropriate because you know again we're not we're not technologists here we're we're just looking out for the well-being of our
community exactly okay and then I guess I'm you know I'm back to you know maybe the maybe the you know the page 12 you know if if the board's comfortable with page 12 then I guess we're comfortable with page 12
assuming you mean the point4 basically I mean the point4 and well and you know the maximum coverage 6 you know 60% goes with the point4 you know I'm inclined to put my trust in our in in in in our professional that these numbers have have been calculated
appropriately um you know but again I'm I'm only one vote i would agree with you i would agree as well okay all right then we have four relatively limited uh additions all all
of which could be incorporated in time for Thursday night i wish I brought my laptop out you could pick them right now by now even better okay okay Mr peek that should address all the concerns and the amendments that been
addressed for this evening uh so at that point what I'll do is I'll take a motion to enter uh deliberations in that's Mr pavis I'll second that's Mr cora so it's really uh for the board to consider uh two things one is it
consistent with the master plan and two is the plan as amended uh this evening is it something you want to recommend to the township of council as something they wish to adopt and implement as an
ordinance with that I'll begin with Mr mcura i would have to say yeah I'll go with the plan as amended by the several um comments we u came up with
mr wang uh yes thank you i I think I um I go with um um the the plan written uh with the abandonment we discussed now thank you
Mr atkins i just say the amended version seems preferable miss Charteritz so I'm just looking at the various um ways that we're supposed to recommend do
we recommend it do we need an amended resolution for this or not well that's why I said there's the resolution that I prepared in anticipation if you go to page five I would just recommend in the final
whereas uh where it says board took action recommending to the township comm council that the plan be adopted i would add subject to the edits and clarifications of record okay so that would be borne out and again the edited redevelopment panel will be attached as
an exhibit to the resolution so then I have then under the now therefore be it resolved where it says Bridgewater Planning Board recommends that the Bridgewater Tenture Council adopt the Greymark Office track redevelopment plan dated February 2025 then I would add as amended comma and attaches exhibit A
pursuant to the blah blah blah i think that would account fair the only the only thing I just request is that somewhere you put in there in four instances so it's clear that there are four four items on the list i you know and I think Mr sullivan will be the one who spells out exactly what they are but
I think if you I can do that so where I say subject to edits and clarifications of record I say colon one two okay okay okay with what we have all right and then just for for so we will okay that makes sense
i'll continue with the deliberations mr papus um I u support uh the plan as amended just a couple of additional comments it was discussed here the uh members of the public spend a considerable amount of time and uh I
appreciate that concerns and the questions um but the backdrop the reality of this the backdrop is the zoning board application and the litigation between the property owner and the township regarding an amendment to the zoning
ordinance that the council approved and that's from my perspective an important part important consideration in this um this is Route 22 um a um obviously Major Carter in the township if not the region
and um you know seeking the the most appropriate use for this parcel is important but also in the context of the lawsuit the zone change that prompted the lawsuit and the zoning board
application thank you Councilman Kersh thank you you know I've I've pretty much tipped my hand um you know I do support this i I do I am uh happy about the um collaborative nature
the collaborative process that we've all undertaken um you know this is step I believe five of six um so um certainly appreciate the public who's here the public who has shown interest um you know I'm in the unique position um you
know being the council representative on this board uh you know I'll I'll see you again on Thursday Mr sullivan um this time with uh I sit on that side of the deis for for council meetings yeah um but um you know I think this is a good
this is a good plan i I think we do need to overlay what else it could be um because clearly this property is going to be developed as something um so I think we do need to to look at you know what some of the alternatives could be um uh you know obviously I I take the
responsibility to to you know represent our public very very seriously um you know no plan is perfect um but I I I think that we have come up with a with a with a a good approach that um makes this property economically viable um
hopefully satisfies the the the needs of that land owner as they have rights um while at the same time um you know you know protecting the the immediate neighborhood i I will be excited to see um uh environmental improvements on this
site i think this is the pathway i think leaving it as it is for many years has created um some of the literally downstream consequences not only um you know here on on um you know the Adamsville Road area but I know um you
know even further down Cucklesbrook there there have been some there's been some horrible flooding there have been some some major challenges so um you know I I see this as a pathway for significant improvement um uh economic viability and to the greatest extent possible maintain maintaining the
character of this neighborhood and protecting these residents so I I I support uh um advancing it to the next stage miss Sakura I agree with with the proposed changes in there i'm looking forward to seeing
something that could improve the water issues that are there and have some remediation to what is currently there and causing some some concerns obviously that'll take some time but I I'm looking forward to something uh that'll
improve the area not be a hindrance to it i also do find that Mr solvin's plan is consistent with the master plan and uh I know that the safety and the comfort of the residents does come first especially the environmental issues we've looked at these over the course of few meetings now and uh and I think that uh
development on that land will be positive development positive in the right direction but we also have to look and see what's economically viable bridgewwater as the councilman said and uh I believe it's probably the best scenario given the limitations of this area but I also do that it's qualified I do believe it's qualified to be whether
it's a data center or potentially uh in each uh restricted community uh that'll be uh that remains to be seen uh so for those reasons uh I do support it and I would refer to council as well with that being said at this point we'll
just need uh a motion to um essentially um refer this to council yep with recommendation that they uh adopt it right this morning so basically to adopt the ordinance as I mean the resolution as amended tonight who would like to
make that motion i'll make the motion that's Miss Sakora i'll need a second i'll second that's Miss Chartitz miss Propes could I have a roll call please chairman Vasio yes councilman Kers yes mr papis yes mr mcgor yes mr
wang yes mr cora yes miss Chardich yes mr atkins Mr sullivan thank you very much for your comprehensive report i'd also like to thank the members of the public for coming out as well thank you very much for your insight we look forward to seeing a successful project some point
in the future thank you could you please come to the deus if you don't mind to the uh to the lect turn just following along out out in public here um so I guess you just all voted to send this to the council right with with
with the the amendments that were noted so what you will see and and you know Mr sullivan can confirm this is that you will see a version three that will be different from version two in the four ways that we mentioned and version three I'm sorry version I'm sorry version I'm
sorry I got my numbers wrong version two is going to become version three um excuse me for for that it's it's obviously late um so version two will become version three with the four items that we've discussed um the four important protections that we believe
we've added uh to the proposal um that will be prepared in time for Thursday that will be what council considers uh uh intro introduction of an ordinance and that's a two-step process so it will be introduced on Thursday the 20th it
would then um uh presuming it's passed on first reading it would then be scheduled for public hearing either two or 3 weeks later depending upon when our schedule is and it is at that point there would be a full public hearing uh advertised everybody to speak about how
they feel about the plan whether or not they would suggest that we uh adopt it and so that's that public hearing is not going to occur at the council meeting that is the council meeting that is the council meeting so so on the 20th though you said well the well the 20 the 20th
is a regular council meeting the action taken on an ordinance it's two readings it's an introduction uh and which is not subject to public hearing but we do have public input so all of our meetings are open to the public we have a section a segment for
open public comment whether it's on agenda or non-aggenda items so if you want to come on Thursday night and address council you're certainly welcome to the action that council will be asked to take is introduction which is a first
reading that then sets up advertisement and then the public hearing that occurs either two or three weeks later depending upon our schedule there will then be a full public hearing where everybody and anybody that wants to speak specifically on that topic will
have the opportunity to speak on that topic and will the resolution be voted on on that second meeting that's public the second well it's an ordinance the second meeting is there is a public hearing where we receive input and then
have the ability to either adopt as is uh or uh potentially request uh change which would then I guess likely be a reintroduction because we re we're pretty limited with changes that we can make in an ordinance because an
ordinance is published so we pretty much have the choice of either yay or nay um there have been instances if something comes up where we say you know what we got to change it and then we would reintroduce but in all likelihood you're looking at an introduction and then
you're looking at a hearing followed by a vote tangible contribution of the public input though okay i mean we we gave input prior to even the presentation of this tonight and that was based on our
advanced information and access to the document to the RDP so down the road there's going to be a public hearing there's going to be introduction on Thursday of this week then there's going to be a a meeting scheduled which is
going to be a public meeting and then the public will be able to put their stamp on uh commenting about everything at that point public will be able to make any comment it wants on that subject during that public hearing and
if we come to the meeting on Thursday of this week we're limited to three minutes at the public portion of the meeting and are we going to be able to see this change sheet that has the four items stipulated on it that are going to be
addendum attached to the uh to the RDP that Mr you know I I would I would defer to how quickly Mr sullivan can get it and how quickly we can update it on our on on our the expectation excuse Mr kersh the expectation is Mr sullivan
will prepare it and it will be available available to the public by Thursday night it may not be on the website i'm not gonna we're not going to commit to that but it would be completed and available to the public on Thursday night perhaps or sooner but Thursday night we we will certainly aim to get it
we're not going to sit on this you know Mr sullivan stated that if he had his laptop it'd be done now the draft uh the document that the the planning board considered has been on the township website since March the 10th so that document which is largely what we've
what we've approved except for the edits has been available to the public since March the 10th so that that document that'll be available to the subsequent meeting two weeks after Thursday or whatever it is well that that you'll have to be rep three of the official
that version three will have to be available because the action we take on Thursday is first reading which then authorizes public publication that's the public notice which requires the full document to be made available to the
public yeah i tell you that this is the the most untransparent process I've ever been it's a process that's laid out by state stat moment completely and you've made that point now countless times mr chairman Mr chairman Mr papy uh Mr kraut you and I have spent considerable amount
of time one-on-one where you've come to the municipal building and I've spent time reviewing this process with you this goes back probably a couple of months i know you also spoke to Mr burr had the same conversation with him and he described the same process to you the
second time you came to my office Mayor Mench was there you also had that conversation with him so you have the the process was and then you came to a council meeting subsequent to that and you were given the same information so
you you understand the process i believe you understand the process you are expressing you're expressing an opinion that it is not transparent from your perspective and that's an opinion i'm not you're entitled to your opinion but but you have you have been given a
considerable amount of time and frankly any any member of the public that would contact us would be given that same courtesy so I I I think I I I had to make a statement here to to put in context what I know we have done to be
responsive to you look I as far as you know the ground rules that Mr sullivan used i personally I would have thought that there would have been some sort of market analysis about potential uses and things like that that that would be
highly marketable and maybe even had a discussion with the current owner and developer of the property to find out if any of those made sense in terms of uh the salailability of that property because right now he's going to he if you're successful with this uh this
process then he's not going to be able to build a warehouse but that's the job of the of the land owner we're not going to keep we're following state state statute we're not going to keep going back and forth about this mr kraut the purpose for the planning board this season was to determine whether or not his plan was consistent with the master
plan this is the planning board right the other business will be heard and and you know I know the hour is late and we will want to adjourn but the other issue is that you know we we are subject to state law state regulation in the event that we or any other land use board do
not follow that that's where you reach a point of litigation so while it might have been our preference to be able to open questioning to Mr sullivan that's simply not the process that's provided had we deviated from that process we would have really called into question
the the viability of this entire hearing and its result and then we would we would then we would likely see additional litigation so you know it is our desire as a community as a land use board to make sure that we are following the rules as they're provided the
regulations as they exist doing doing what what is right for Bridgewater and protecting you know the the rights of this land owner and that he or she they have rights as well as the interests of of the of the of the rest of the community and particularly the neighbors
so that that's our position you know if you agree with some of what we've done you disagree with some of what we've done you know that you know that's that's something you know I'd welcome to see you again on Thursday discussion um you know it's just that there's three of these AINR properties that I'm aware of
in the township one is the Ethicon site one is this Greymark site and the other is the yardway site we've provided sufficient time for public commentary i'm sorry we've provided sufficient time for public commentary all right i'm sure i'm sure we'll see you Thursday
thank you thank you Mr sullivan thank you and again thank you to members of the public moving along this evening don't believe we have any other business uh however Miss Probes I'd like to check to see what is on the planning board's calendar for the foreseeable future [Music]
do not have any don't have anything scheduled uh for the next meeting we worked so hard tonight we get a night off [Music]
um yep for one I don't have anything scheduled for 41 or 4:15 at this point it's too possible 4:15 is the spring break so you know yeah there will
be some attendance issues 415th so I think so would you um like to cancel the first now or do you want to leave that open and I can cancel it once confirmed we don't need any kind of followup we shouldn't cancel anything is it realistic for any business to um not at
this point not for April 1st we have two applications for the planning board that are still in uh completeness so they would not be is is is there any possibility that that anything is required as followup here
so that I don't I'm hesitant to cancel i I'd be hesitant to cancel and cancel i'm just think you might have attendance issues on the 15th like I know I can't be here there's many of us who can't be here on the 15th we don't we won't have any applications and
put it that way we'll leave the dates as is as as of this moment there are meeting schedule for the 1st and the 15th i'll cancel it prior to the meeting okay very good any other comments or questions take a motion to adjurnn i'll make the motion mr cor second i'll
second that's Mr papas and Miss Charter all in favor i I You held it that whole time