Adequate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the open public meetings act NJSA 104-6. On January 21st, 2026, proper notice was sent to the electronic news resources of record filed with the clerk with the
municipal 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 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 aliance 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 Pro, I have a roll call, please.
>> Chairman Vesio >> here. >> Mr. Bonjouro >> here. >> Councilwoman Isla >> here. >> Mr. Papis >> here. >> Mr. Maggora >> Mr. Wang >> here. >> Makora.
Mr. Banga. Miss Chardich, Mr. Chowdery, >> Mr. Atkins, >> Mr. Peek, board attorney >> here. >> Mr. Burr, board engineer,
>> Mr. Armed, board here. >> You have a quum. You can proceed. >> Thank you, Miss Prost. At this time, if there are any members of the public that wish to address the board in any matter that's not listed on tonight's agenda, not listed on tonight's agenda, please feel uh for you to come forward at this time.
Okay, seeing none, moving along. Okay, the sole point of business this evening is a land development application. That's application 2521 PB200 Route 22, Land Investors LLC. And this is for a preliminary major
subdivision. Um if I could just make a quick note. Um if you are here this evening, this um application that will be heard is solely and strictly for hearing of a subdivision, a lot subdivision. Uh any other subsequent use essentially would have to come before
this board at a later date for a site plan. Mr. Peek. Uh what are some of the uh things that we can expect uh from members of the public if they'd like to actually understand what could be taking place on this site in the future? >> Well, the purpose of a subdivision
application is to see if the proposal uh conforms with the township's subdivision ordinance. So if uh you know if they require any variances associated with that, you know, if they don't meet certain criteria um of the subdivision
ordinance, uh then they would need a variance and uh that would be for further debate. But right now the question is, you know, does the proposal conform with the subdivision ordinance? That's and that's all it is. And with
the subdivision, that just means you're taking a lot and you're reconfiguring the lot lines. Um, that's all. And as the chairman said, any proposed development, this is not going to contemplate any development of any kind this evening. When there is a
development proposal, that will be a separate application and notice will be published. Well, there's new ways of publishing that, but it'll be on the website and it'll still go to everybody who's within 200 feet. um and and all that. Um but that would be as the
chairman said a separate site plan application whatever the use is. This is just to determine whether their proposed lot configuration conforms with the zoning ordinance. >> Can I get some clarification? uh on the
agenda it says something beyond that and so that um that that needs to be clarified and I think correct >> well that may that may be but that has nothing to do with the subdivision application right >> you know I think that's one certainly
one permitted use in the zone uh that can come but again we're not going to see and we're not going to see anything related to that tonight to any proposed use. Whatever they decide to do um in the future, they're going to have to come back here with a full-sight plan uh
addressing uh whatever use that's proposed. >> So, so this property is uh site of a an area needed redevelopment and has a plan that was approved that captures a couple of permitted uses.
And so any of those either of those that are part of the approved plan would have to come back for to this board for site plan approval of you said as you've said and the approved uses are limited to those two specifically delineated in the
redevelopment plan which would be a data center or senior housing. >> That's that's correct. So, and if they would want to propose something that differs from that, that that is a an entirely different u issue that probably can't cannot be dealt with by this. >> You would need an amendment to the
redevelopment >> governing body if you're going to change something substantive. >> Right. >> So, so the reference to this on the agenda is somewhat inaccurate in that uh the as you said, it's just for
subdivision. That's the topic of tonight's agenda, >> right? Correct. >> Okay. >> And and the use, you know, that that's certainly a a viable possibility, but we won't know for sure till a site plan application comes in.
>> Mr. Papas, thank you very much for that inquiry. And Mr. Peek, thank you for keeping us honest and giving us some further clarification on that. >> Any questions? >> Um, I had a question since there are a lot of people in the room. Um, does anyone know if they currently are within
that 200 ft of the proposed area? Could you raise your hand? >> Okay. And everyone else who's not will be notified through our public website. >> It'll be on the website and also every municipality now has to have some sort of because newspapers don't exist
anymore. You used to have to publish in the papers. So now um every municipality has to have a digital news source in in lie of uh the newspaper. Yeah. Any So, anyone who raised their hand, you're going to get something in the mail, uh,
certified mail whenever a site plan application comes in. Everyone else, it's just going to be on, you know, the municipal website and what what what is the Bridgewwater tap into is is what we use here, >> I believe. >> Yeah, >> that's tap.
>> Tap into. Yeah. >> So, that's >> that's where it will be. >> Great. Thank you. Yeah. >> All property owners within 200 ft have to be notified by the applicant. >> Correct. >> Yeah. By by certified mail. >> Thank you very much, M. Councilwoman Isla.
Okay. Moving along again for that preliminary major subdivision commonly known as 1210 and 1220 Route 22. Who will be representing the applicant this evening? >> Can you hear me? Okay. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. >> Good evening. Jeffrey Cheney. Uh good evening members of the board and board
professionals. My name is Jeffrey Cheney. I'm an associate of the law firm of Connell Foley located 56 Livingston Avenue, Rosland, New Jersey. To my left also is Kevin Kley, partner of Conno Foley. Uh we present the applicant 12 uh 1200 Route 22 Land Investors LLC and
1200 Route 22 Land Holdings LLC on the application before you this evening. I'm going to turn over to Kevin who's just going to provide a brief overview of how we got here. >> Yes, this has gone on for maybe three or four years. This this me >> might have to bring it a little further down as well.
>> Green on his. >> Yeah. How's that? >> Good. That good. Pretty close. >> How's that? >> Okay. Okay.
Yeah. So, so this uh property is was purchased by the current owner approximately three or four years ago just before the municipality change the zoning of the property to eliminate warehouse use. Um so at that point there
was uh you know efforts to to kind of address that change of zoning. uh there was a use variance application filed, there was litigation filed, but ultimately and I guess most importantly that led to the uh adoption of the redevelopment plan, not only because
it's good for the property and good for the township, but because it it resolves these matters, it will resolve these matters going forward. So, uh I just wanted to give you that background and then turn it over to Mr. Cheney.
>> Thank you, Kevin. Uh so as we heard from the board attorney, the applicant is seeking preliminary major subdivision approval tonight to carve out three single family residential lots and a culde-sac along Woodside Lane as required by the Greymark redevelopment
plan. Uh notice of of this application was provided more than 10 days prior to the hearing in the planning board's designated official electronic news source. Tap into the breeze and provided s uh certified return receipt requested to all property owners owning property within 200 ft in all directions from the
outer boundaries of the subject property via certified mail return receipt requested more than 10 days prior to this hearing. An affidate of service has been filed with the board secretary and as such we believed jurisdiction properly lies with this board. Uh as Kevin noted, this is the first step in the broader process of redevelopment of
the grreymark office tract. Applicant is the owner of the properties and is presently seeking designation as a redeveloper. Importantly, the township has indicated that it will weigh the requirement that the applicant have executed a redevelopment agreement with the township prior to filing any application for development of the
property. Per the Greymark redevelopment plan, redevelopment of the property must include at least three single family detached residential dwellings to be located along the western street line of Woodside Lane. Further, a new culde-sac bulb must be constructed to create a
northern terminus. The preliminary subdivision application before the board tonight simply seeks to set in motion those residential approvals. As the board attorney indicated, uh the greater redevelopment of the property is not before the board tonight. That will be a subsequent
application. And just to also add another use that's permitted under the gray mark uh redevelopment plan is also indoor commercial recreational facilities. We are in receipt of the following review letters from the township staff and professionals. The joint engineering
review memo dated March 12th, 2026. Is zoning officer memo which is undated. An environmental and health official memo dated March 11, 2026. a fire official memo dated March 2, 2026, a traffic safety uh memo dated February 25, 2026,
and a sewer utility memo dated February 24, 2025. Tonight, in support of the application, we'll call upon the following professionals uh upon actually just one professional this evening, Ryan Kaden from Bowler Engineering of respect the specifics of the pro of the proposed
project enter and to entertain any questions posed by the board. Uh with that with that I will turn over to Mr. Kaden uh if I can ask the board attorney to swear in. >> Do you swear uh that the testimony you're going to give in connection with this hearing will be the truth and
nothing but the truth? >> Uh thank you. Could you state and spell your last name for the record? >> My name is Ryan Kaden. K A DN. Thank you. >> Can you please just state your educ your
education and your background? >> Um I'm currently an assistant project manager with Bowler Engineering. Um where which is located at 30 Independence Boulevard in Warren, New Jersey. I have a bachelor of science in civil engineering from New Jersey
Institute of Technology. I've been practicing civil engineering for the last five and a half years. This is actually my first time appearing in front of a board. Um, I've attended and discussed at multiple technical review committees in White Township as well as Edgewater Park. I am a professional licensed engineer in the state of New
Jersey within good standing. >> Thank you. We ask the board accept Mr. Kaden as a licensed professional engineer. >> Yes. Does the board have any objections to Mr. Caden's qualifications? >> Please proceed. >> Thank you. And what materials uh did you
review and exhibits did you prepare in preparation for this hearing? In preparation, uh, we reviewed the submitted, uh, subdivision plan prepared by Control Point Associates as well as the, uh, Greymark office tract redevelopment plan, uh, prepared by the
township here. Um, are you familiar with the property? >> Yes. Uh, the property is located at 1210 and 1220 US Route 22, Bridgewater, New Jersey. >> And are you familiar with the Grey Mark redevelopment plan? >> Yes, that's been reviewed prior to this.
>> Okay. And where's the property located? So, we have uh actually provided um some additional exhibits here. If I could mark this in here, we have up on the board. We'll call that A1 with today's date. >> And once you've got that marked, I'm just going to ask you to uh briefly
describe it what we're looking at here, especially for the people at home that may be attending via Zoom. >> Yeah. So here we have just an existing lot layout plan um that clearly denotes the lots within the Greymark office track redevelopment plan. Uh we wanted to provide this exhibit to just clearly
demonstrate the existing conditions of the site and uh the surrounding uses and neighborhood environment around the redevelopment area. >> Can you just walk us through the existing layout? >> Yep. So page uh page south is technically north actually as the north arrow points down. So the site is
bounded by US Highway Route 22 on the north side of the property. As we work clockwise, um the eastern portion of the property along Route 22 is commercial districts with a car dealership and an existing gas station. As you move south um and south of our property, it
consists of residential developments um along the eastern portion and the southern portion of the site. Continuing clockwise around the property and along Woodside Lane, we have existing residential developments. Outside of that, we have existing office space with the associated parking improvements that
front US Route 22. >> Excuse me. Could you, since there aren't um electronic exhibits that you didn't provide, is there a way you can turn that so the public can also see your exhibits? >> I know it's tough. So, both the board
and the public to Is this >> Yeah. >> trying to have it. So the board as well as >> public may have to relocate too. >> Well, we need to see it. The board needs
to see it. >> The board needs to see it, too. And I I can't see it. >> Oh, maybe maybe the audience can go. No, that that's good. >> I think that's the best you're going to get in there. >> That's as good as it's going to get. >> All right. Thanks.
>> No problem. >> Can you briefly describe the subdivision, the proposed subdivision? >> So, uh, in the existing conditions, we have lots 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 2, and 2.01,
which are all subject to the Greymark office track redevelopment plan. Um just want to note that lot 1.03 will be untouched during this proposed um subdivision plan. So the lots that will be subdivided consist of 1.02, 1.04, 2,
and 2.01. Um I have a secondary exhibit that can just demonstrate the proposed conditions of the subdivision. Um and I'll be getting to that shortly. >> Can you can you repeat it again, please? U >> yes. So the uh proposed lots for the subdivision consist of what one the four
lots 1.02 2 1.04 2 and lot 2.01 and in the existing condition uh lot 1.02 which is located on the eastern portion of the site consists of 13.47
acres. It is currently vacant. There's a regulated stream that runs approximately from Route 22 towards the rear of the site. This regulated stream has a associated flood plane as well as buffers that are to remain and will not be inundated by this proposed application.
Moving uh clockwise, lot 1.04, which is on the western portion of the site, is 7.35 acres in total, is currently vacant. It is mostly lawn with uh some perimeter uh plantings, tree plantings around the south and uh western portion
of the site around Woodside Lane. Additionally, as well, there is an existing wetland located at the rear of the site that has an associated buffer that will not be impacted by this proposed uh subdivision. And then lastly, the other two lots that will be part of the subdivision consist of lot 2
and 2.01. Lot 2 is 0.1 acres and lot 2.01 01 is 0.09 acres. Both lots are currently vacant with existing uh street tree plantings along the frontage of Woodside Lane.
Um looking at the proposed conditions, if I could flip this to our next exhibit and we can mark that as A2. Uh this exhibit now marked as A2 dated today March 17, 2026. Uh the main difference between this and the previous
exhibit is the uh this exhibit shows the proposed subdivision layout. So the previous lot lines that were shown in yellow have now been amended. And this is our proposed plan to subdivide to one larger lot that contains the majority of the site as well as the three
residential lots along Woodside Lane. Uh continuing uh I just want to remind that this is an application for just the preliminary subdivision. There is no proposed site improvements. As the board had stated, those proposed site improvements will need to be presented in front of the board at a site plan application and approved at a separate
hearing. Looking for the proposed subdivision, we have lot 1.05, which we've denoted. Uh, this is subject to approval with the township's tax assessor. So, we'll guarant we'll get that before we receive preliminary and final subdivision approval. But I have outlined that here,
which is the majority of the site. We've come up with that number uh based on combining the previous lots 1.02 and a portion of lot 1.04. This area of lot 1.05 05 consists of approximately 20.15 acres and is
outlined here. Secondly, um lot 2 and 2.01 in the existing condition will be subdivided into the proposed three lots along Woodside Lane. Those lots we've uh came up with lot numbering of 2.04,
2.05, and 2.06. Again, those lot numberings are subject to approval by the tax uh township tax assessor. So those will be confirmed and finalized before preliminary and final approval. >> I'm sorry that was uh 004 to 006. >> Yes sir.
>> What is the exist acorage for 2 uh 2 and 2.1? >> So uh for the existing lots of 2 and 2.1 previously those acreage uh lot 2 is.18 lot 2.01 is 09 acres. So, a portion of
those lots will be subdivided as well as a portion of the previous lot 1.04 to create these three new residential lots. Uh, when looking at our proposed subdivision layout here, we can start from page north. That's lot 2.04. The
proposed lot uh area is 0.23 acres, which is 10,ou approximately 10,026 square ft. This area is greater than the minimum lot area as required in table three of the greymark office track
redevelopment uh plan. Additionally, the frontage uh lot width of lot 2.04 is approximately 111 ft which is greater than the minimum lot width which is um from table 3 of the greymark redevelopment plan which is 80
ft. Moving north but page south we have lot 2.0. 05. This lot is approximately 0.23 acres. It is approximately 10,082 square ft, which is greater than the minimum lot
area of table 3 of the Greymark redevelopment plan. The proposed lot width is approximately 111 ft, which is greater than the minimum lot width requirement of 80 ft. Lastly, we have lot 2.06,
which is at the bottom of Woodside Lane here. The proposed lot area of 2.06 is 0.37 acres, which is approximately 16,387 square ft. The proposed lot width of lot
2.06 is approximately 259 ft. Both of these values exceed the minimum lot area of 10,000 square ft and minimum lot width of 80 ft of table 3 of the Greymark office tract redevelopment plan. >> And Mr. Okay. And I know there was a lot of numbers said just now, so just just
to confirm, each of these lots are in compliance with the Great Mark Redevelopment Plans bulk requirements. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Um I just want to state um as well that yes, these lots are currently in compliance with the redu uh greymark office track redevelopment plan. And as
we don't currently have any proposed site improvements, as we previously stated, a site plan application will be filed for those proposed uses for the overall site development on lot uh 1.05 as well as the residential uses.
Um I do want to touch base quickly on the utilities and stormwater management portion of the the project. We are currently not proposing any proposed utilities or storm water management for the site, but as these sites continue to go through site plan application, they will comply with the
Greymark Office track redevelopment. They will comply with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protections stormwater regulations which are consistent um through the rules of NJAC 78 as well as the local stormwater management uh regulations of Bridgewater
Township. >> Mr. Are are water and sewer extensions available though from the site? >> Uh yes, there is water and sewer um available on on the sites here. >> Thank you. Uh the last point I'd like to bring up is the natural features within the site. As this is a proposed
subdivision application, all natural features are to remain and will not be impacted by our application tonight. >> Um overall, I believe that concludes my testimony here. Um, as shown on the sub submitted subdivision, the proposed lots are consistent with the Greymark office
track redevelopment plan. And uh, any updates that may come tonight or part of comments that we have received will be updated and resubmitted to the town for preliminary and final subdivision approval. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Kaden, for that testimony. At this time, I'd like to open up to the members of the board for
any questions regarding the testimony just heard. >> Mr. Chowry, >> thank you very much. Uh what is the size for 1.03 and where it is actually 1.03 current which will be undisturbed?
>> Uh 1.03 is approximately uh 6.8 acres and that's going to remain as is with the office building and parking on site >> and >> and that goes approximately from the bottom here along Route 20 uh 22 and
almost in line with Woodline uh Woodside Lane. It's this portion right here. current parking lot size. >> Yes. Yep. That existing parking lot and u office building will remain as is. And that access agreement that is between currently lot 1.03, 1.02 and 1.04 will
remain for access to the site. >> What's your plan against on the near the Adams fields road that side? Yes, >> that's going to remain uh as part of the overall lot 1.05 for now. Okay. That is basically consist of 1.02
and 1.04 then. >> Yes. Yep. Uh previously um the lot line approximately down the middle will basically be removed and those two lots will be combined with a portion obviously being dedicated to the three residential sites along Woodside Lane.
>> Chairman, we cannot ask anything for each choice. >> Not on not only on the testimony here. >> Okay, >> no problem. >> You get your chance. Let me stop it right now and then I'll come back again. >> Thank you, Mr. Chowy. Any questions from
this end? >> I have one, >> Mr. Papus. >> Yeah. Um the lot um on the I forget which lot number is the on the westerly portion of the property. Easterly portion of the property, I'm
sorry. Yeah, that one. Isn't there a piece of piece of the lot that uh goes easterly towards Adamsville Road? >> Uh there is a portion of the proposed lot 1.05 that does go towards Adamsville Road. Yes. >> Right. And are you familiar with the
provisions of the uh redevelopment plan that address future usage of that >> or Mr. Kley may someone may be familiar with that. Well, we yeah, we're aware that there's
no no access from that side. >> I just want that to be stated. >> Yes, >> some people may wonder about that because you look at the you look at the plan and you can see this, >> you know, this portion of lot that goes to Adamsville and and I know that people would be concerned about I know we're
talking about a subdivision, but still if you could address that specifically and and the restrictions that are in existence there. The access to the site is going to remain off of US Route 22 with the shared access agreement um as is today. There is uh in this area
there's an existing stream and abundance of regulated wetlands and waterlands that would make access from that point um very difficult. >> But beyond that, there's language in the plan that I think prohibits that. I just want that on the record for everyone
that's here. >> Yes. The uh greymark office track redevelopment plan states under the redevelopment regulations uh mandatory components number eight off of Adam Adamsville road that no vehic ve vehicular access will be permitted from Adamsville road.
>> Thank you Mr. Papus. Mr. Mcgora. Yes, I'm not sure you can answer this question as to >> uh we do not have a proposed use for that lot as of yet. So we do not
>> Mr. customer at this time. Again, this is just for a subdivision. >> In a subdivision, >> I understand. I'm just looking for way that data center might be. >> We are unsure at this time. We don't have a proposed use. This is strictly for the subdivision. >> It's not it's not before the board this
evening. And once again, for those that walked in later, uh tonight's purpose is this is an application to hear of a subdivision for a lot. There is no proposed site plan. When and if that should ever come to fruition, that will come before this board at a later date. whatever chooses to come on, you know,
in front of us as far as a site plan goes, we will not be discussing that this evening because again, that will be coming at a later date. This is just about a lot subdivision this evening. >> And I do just want to clarify that the three residential lots will have direct access from Woodside Lane. And I did
actually forget to mention we are providing the dedication as requested with the Greymark Office redevelopment plan. Um the dedication is approximately 0.11 acres is located at the southern portion of Woodside Lane. And this is for the construction of the culdesac
bulb of Woodside Lane. >> That was 1.1 acres. >> 0.11 acres. >> 0.11. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Okay. And with that dedication and again with the uh subdivision the way that's been presented, all utility storm water in this office tract is
essentially going to remain as is from when we when this board last saw it under the uh graymark redevelopment plan. >> Yes. Uh we are not currently proposing any improvements currently to the utilities as are right now. >> Okay. >> Are there any other questions
for Mr. Kaden? Very good. Anybody else? >> Let's hear from >> Miss Sarmmed. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just one thing to get ahead of. Um, there are the
review the joint review that Mr. Burr and I prepared was based off of the plan, the subdivision plan that was submitted um that was prepared by control point associates, not by Bowler. There are a number of questions, comments, um, cleanup items based on
that plan. And I just want to make sure that I'm not sure how that's going to captured because, um, the witness tonight is from Bowler. So, you know, a lot of it has to do with the actual subdivision platining it up. Um, so I I'll just ask them how that how that will happen.
>> Uh, Control Point Associates is a direct subconsultant of ours and we will have the plan updated and resubmitted for preliminary and final approval. Thank you. Um I think one of the major major items um within the subdivision plan that I identified that was missing is
there's no table that indicates the new lots and what their lot areas are. Um I think that's a pretty important point. Um just just tonight I you know we we discovered that 1.05 is the is the lot that's going to be combined on the larger portion and I don't know if we've
heard yet how big that lot is in square footage and acres. >> Uh yes, sorry. Uh, lot 1.05 is approximately 20.15 acres. I do not have the square footage in front of me. So, >> um, yeah, I would just ask that that get added to the plans. I would also request
just because of the nature of the plan that was submitted, it is almost a combined survey and subdivision plan. And I would request that the subdivision plat be done on a separate sheet so that it is more clear and clean. Um, I I would request that the table showing the
new lots be also added. Not a zoning table per se, but you know, a plan that shows what lots previously existed, what their square footages are were. Um, and then, you know, a table or a column that shows what the new what the new proposed lots are, and what their square footages
are, including the acres. Um, so that it can be it's going if the plat is going to be filed, it'll it'll preserve, you know, the thing the the information that we need. And thank you, Miss Armed. I noticed that several members of the board were looking in earnest for that table, uh, myself included. So, thank you for bringing that up as well. We
we'd like to look for that in the future. >> Yes, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Very good. >> Thank you. >> Um, just a question about the lot designation. I notice that the existing I know it's going to be up to the tax
tax assessor, but for the residential lots right now in the area that they're included in, it's lot block 221, lot 2 and 2.01, and then it jumps to 04, 0506. I don't know what happened to 0.02 and 03.
>> I believe there's existing lots 02 and 03 uh page north outside of the subject uh of the properties. So, we were planning to continue from the last number. >> Okay. So that was in in the same block. Okay. >> Yes. >> Um
I think that there are um some some items within the redevelopment plan that need to be captured as conditions of the subdivision plan. I indicated them in the review memo. Um there are once those residential lots are created, they will essentially be
buildable lots that will not be under the jurisdiction of this board. Um, and if they do need bulk variance relief, they're going to end up as single family homes at the zoning board. Um, and so I think there are, you know, and I'll let Bill, Mr. Burr, talk about the storm water management and kind of the implications that are the requirements
of the plan and the implications of the overall lot and tracked. Um, but I think at a minimum that culde-sac that was just discussed um, and the dedication of the land towards the Woodside Lane Culdeac needs to be captured. that needs to be those improvements need to be done
before those homes can come in for plot plans at building um in order and and that's really to preserve the town to make sure the improvements get done um and there isn't a home being built without the roadway being properly constructed um in addition to other
improvements um I think in the same vein as that um I think there needs to be a condition that all of the single family home lots that are being created which is proposed 2.04 2.05 05 2.06 be subject to um all of the township ordinance
requirements including landscaping um and the and the zoning requirements of the redevelopment plan. There is a note in the redevelopment plan that indicates that once the lots have been subdivided, they can be reszoned to R10. I just want to note that that's probably inaccurate.
I think that they would have to go through a normal reszoning process with through an ordinance. I don't think the redevelopment plan could allow that. So, um, at the point where, um, once they are subdivided, I think the reasonzoning can be accomplished, but that's a township council decision and, um,
effort essentially. Um, I think that most of the testimony has provided some of the cleanup as far as the lot designations and things like that, but I would like to make sure that um, the lot areas and everything make it onto that that plat. Um, so that that that's a major point. Um, and other than that,
I'll let I'll let Mr. Burr um talk about some of the other improvements and any questions he has. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um so, first just a point of clarification. What we're talking about here is just
preliminary subdivision. Correct. And and that's acknowledged that the next step after you perfect any conditions of the preliminary subdivision, that's when final subdivision gets applied for. >> Correct. And the act of applying for
final subdivision allows you then to file the final plat and that's essentially what will create the new three single family dwellings. Correct. >> Correct. And if the board approves the
preliminary subdivision, we're talking about a few conditions and you heard Miss Sarmad. Um, one of the conditions of the redevelopment plan that also we're recommending be a condition of this this subdivision approval is the construction of that culde-sac bulb. I
assume you have no issue with that as a condition. Well, well, the the the the bonding um yes, I understand the bonding aspect, but creating those three new lots and obtaining construction permits and
building homes, I think need to be subject to having built that culde-sac bulb. applicant would be willing to tie that to the CO to the certificate of occupancy. >> And um you know, I just I just want to
talk just a moment about storm water management. And I know the testimony is is that there's no storm water being proposed as part of this subdivision. And that's correct because there are no site improvements being proposed, but storm water management is an integral
part of the overall development of this property. And then the absence of the site plan which is going to come at some point in the future. I think it's critical that storm water is still addressed as part of those three single family lots. And I think without having
the site plan dealing with storm water holistically, those three lots are still going to be subject to the major development requirements from a stormwater perspective. So I just want to make that clear. Uh and and I would certainly recommend that as a condition as well
because frankly we don't know at what point the site plan may come through. That hasn't been presented at this point and we're really just dealing with the paper subdivision. So the building of those three new homes once those lots are created do need to comply with um
the major development requirements. So just just a point for the board and the applicant. And then the only other question I guess I have um deals with landscaping. There is a provision in the landscape um excuse me the the redevelopment plan that deals with the
construction of a landscape buffer directly behind the three single family lots to provide a landscape buffer from what may be built on the nonresidential portion of the property. And I guess my
question is, is it appropriate for that to be a condition of this subdivision approval as well or would it be appropriate to defer that until uh you know the future site plan? But that's the only other comment question I have. Uh I think the the other two provisions,
the culus act, the storm water management, and then we heard that the applicant will agree to clean up the plan to address some of Miss Sarmads and I's other other comments. That's all I have at this point. >> Now, the applicant had indicated when it
comes to the culde-sac bulb, try to tie it to the CO as opposed to a condition of preliminary subdivision approval. What do you think of that? Yeah, I think I think if it's bonded um and and I think if it's constructed before the
first CO of the three COS, I think that would be appropriate. I wouldn't have an objection to that. >> And I'm sorry. And then what was the last condition? I was too busy writing down there. There's a there's a condition in the redevelopment plan and
I I can pull it out, but it essentially states to constructing a 40 foot wide landscape buffer directly behind the three single family lots to provide a vegetated screen from the future
nonresidential development, whatever that may may come. There's I think there's six permitted um uses. So whe whether or not that buffer gets constructed when the homes get constructed is my question. Um
I guess there's pros and cons to that. I didn't hear you Mark. >> That's in the redevelopment plan. >> That's in the redevelopment plan. You know, certainly certainly getting it getting the the plants put in the ground sooner allows them to become a little bit more mature. >> Sure. But you wouldn't want them to be
disturbed >> at some point in the future when when the rest of the site is is built out. >> Um I think there's probably a way to protect them if the board's desired was to have that buffer go in sooner. Um
but I wanted to bring it to the board's attention. The the plan doesn't specify the timing of when the landscaping has to be put in. That's why it's a little bit of a of a
question mark. I >> Yeah, it So I have here. So it says a planted buffer with a minimum width of 40 feet shall be provided between non-residential uses which is really the balance of the site
uh or age restricted multifamily dwellings and lots containing single family detached dwellings. Those are the three lots that are going to be created along Woodside and the required culde-sac. So it talks
about putting a land a planted buffer between the nonresidential uses and the single family dwellings and culde-sac. Said buffer shall contain deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs sufficient to create a yearround visual screen.
Yeah, it it doesn't it doesn't say where the buffer needs to go, Kevin. It doesn't it doesn't say >> lot. >> So presumably it's going to be on proposed lot 105 which as I understand is is the balance of the larger the 20 acre lot which
could be subject to the future site plan. Um it's got to go there because you're right a 40ft buffer and not enough room on the single family lots to put that in. So I envision the three single family lots down to the culdesac and on 105
that buffer goes. >> So in one of the plans that I received in the package, so it'll be a 10 uh ft parking set back and then it looks like it's a 40 ft residential buffer and then
a 70 ft side setback. Is that what you're reading? >> Yes. kind of consecutive, >> I think. So, yes. Yep. Exactly. >> Just to draw the picture for everyone that >> Yeah, you're right, Councilwoman. I see
that >> Kaden 40 foot residential buffer and it is on proposed lot 105. >> Yeah. >> Behind the single family lot >> and it does go on the top too. It looks like just for everyone. Um that's the main street side.
>> M Mr. Kaden, the um the proposed three residential lots. Uh just for the benefit of everyone here, what's the depth of the lots from the >> I do not have that um on hand, but uh yeah, I'm not 100% on that one right
now. >> I'm sorry. Say again. >> You talked about the width of the lots and the area, but I'm just curious what the depth is approximately. Uh yes, sorry. They're approximately 90 feet deep.
>> Thank you. Um just my comments uh following up on councilwoman and and Mr. Chowry, Mr. Burr, the issue of u you know, storm water management. We've had cases before this board where there's a
maybe a two lot subdivision and uh it wasn't preliminary was probably just preliminary and final or I guess when it's only two lots it's not considered a major >> it's usually not >> subdivision so we would not have to have
preliminary and final but we we we did talk extensively about the need for storm water management by the to be maintained by the owner of any of these lots that are created. So any drainage structure
that is required for any of the new lots would be required to be maintained or the owner of those lots would be required to be um to maintain those.
Is there any objection to that >> uh for the residential lots? >> I don't believe so. No. >> And and again I know that this is only preliminary but I know that preliminary prelim preliminary site uh subdivision approval is
very significant and the final is not insignificant but I think the major points need to be dealt with at a preliminary level. It's been my experience and so I think even the condition that Mr. B talked about about
the buffer requirement um I think should be dealt with here and not later. Um and then one point of clarification I guess for Mr. Pek just uh as I think either Miss Armad or Mr. Burr talked about if these three residential lots are
approved preliminarily and then final, they would not require site plan approval because they would be buildable lots and I think they >> correct unless they wanted to situate a house like on a property line or something unusual like that. But if they
>> No, presumably they they would not need anything beyond uh you know permits township construction. And that's why I think dealing with any of these issues now that would have an impact on those three single family lots and the surrounding neighborhood now's now's the
time to do it. So I think for benefit of the public and everyone I think you know you're you folks need to I mean it's my opinion. I know if the other board members feel that way, but I think now is the time to address any of the board's conditions and you know address
that with you folks here and hopefully come to an agreement. >> Thank you m Mr. Chowry please. >> So um Mr. Bar, I just wanted to clarify with you one thing. Uh Mr. bar. Uh so what you are recommending to put a
conditions that all the three residential lot or uh that should be treated as a distinct will be different than combining it when the actual site plan will come >> from a from a storm water perspect or
any other you know township regulations will be there. It will be considered as a single housing rather than a three housing as a one unit. It it would if if if this subdivision application came in at the same time as the site plan that
clearly showed how the balance of the property was going to be built out, >> right? >> Then that would absolutely be a major what we call a major development from storm water purposes and you're going to have a number of different storm water
features proposed on the site. But because we don't know how the balance of the site is going to be built out by by creating these three new single family lots, carving them out from the
much larger 20 acre development, they are still part of that major development. >> That's just we don't have a plan to to know how the rest of the site is going to be managed from a stormwater perspective. So, if we're carving out the three single family lots and they're
going to get built at some point in the near future, unrelated to the rest of the site, then the only way to address that requirement is to make sure that those three lots also comply with the major development requirements of the township and state stormwater ordinances
or storm water requirements. >> And that's Yeah, that's what you actually wanted to be conditions now. >> It has to be. Exactly. >> There's no way around it, >> right? Thank you. So that's how you would phrase the condition. It's just that the three single family resident residential lots are subject to the
major storm water >> yes >> rules. >> I don't see any I don't see any way around it. >> 1.05 05. They can >> tie everything in and >> right and and it would be easy enough to say, well, couldn't we defer the storm
water from the single family lots to the balance of the the lot 105. The concern I have is we don't know from a timing perspective when the rest of the site may come in for site plan and ultimately get built out. >> Exactly.
>> If ever. I mean, frankly, so you can't you can't treat storm water at some point in the future for a project that's going to get built, you know, next year, even if it's just the the single family lots. So, they have to be dealt with separately, but they still have an
enhanced threshold. >> Yeah, that's actually my followup. >> It's very unique. Yeah, my follow-up question wasn't related to that because now we are only talking about hardly 7 or8 acres for a three uh single family load.
>> However, there will be something coming up in 20 acres which is a huge uh and so we are fully in sync with you because storm water management's criteria should be you know included now rather than later but at the same time I probably
have a question to you Mr. back without knowing what may happen on the 20 acres. It's a huge lot. It can be done many office building and everything else can be done in multif family houses and all these things. So how I'm asking you how
we can approve it as a subdivision without knowing what may happen. >> Well and that's what I I just uh asked Mr. Burke. So, what what we would do if we get to that point is make as a condition of the subdivision approval
that it's acknowledged that the three single family lots are subject to the major storm water regulations uh and all applicable state and township regulations that have to do with storm water because if they were
just cut loose as a single family lot, they could be developed with without any of that. But if we make it a condition that they're subject to >> when the big lot gets >> developed and puts in their storm water facilities, they're going to have to account as part of that approval. You
know, because of that condition, they're going to have to account for the major storm water on those three lots and design the system to capture any runoff from those lots as well. >> And that's what you are putting in the condition. >> Thank you. Understood. No question.
>> Follow-up question to that. So, if this board approves preliminary approval creating this larger lot and the three single family lots with the condition that you've just mentioned about storm water, uh, is there anything that would prevent
the applicant for coming back with just final approval for the three single family lots? And what impact would the condition that you've just mentioned have on their ability to uh get that final approval if the
stormwater planning is tied to the larger lot? You understand my question or not? >> You're assuming that the proposed lot 1.05 is never developed. >> No, no. I'm just saying if if we grant preliminary approval
>> and the applicant chooses to come back for final approval just for the three single family lots, >> can they effectively do so without meeting the condition that we've just discussed? >> I don't think I don't think so. >> I know that they can parcel out the
>> Okay, they can't >> because that condition would tie it together. But I would say like if for some I can't and I can't think of how they could but if they were able to we just carry that condition through through any approval. So when that lot's developed you know it
accounts for the three presidential lots. >> I'm sorry. >> Very good. >> Very good. Once again, Mr. Peek, it's a mechanism that allows this board in order to look into the foreseeable future and say we
can tackle that issue when it comes to us. >> Yes. Yeah. And and and not subverting ourselves or or limiting ourselves or anything like that. This, you know, keeps everything on the the up and up.
>> Mr. Bonjouro, >> um I have a quick question. Um hopefully one of the our professionals could answer this. Can you explain the uh regulations differences between the
redevelopment plan and an R10 zone? >> Yeah, it's actually a good question and one that I had just looked at myself. Um the R10 zone is different from what's in the redevelopment plan actually. Um, and I don't want to go point by point, but
let me just pull up the >> the highlights would be good. >> The highlights, yeah, would I think would be helpful. Um, so the redevelopment plan requires um an 80 foot lot width for a resident single family residential dwelling, whereas the
R10 zone requires a 100 foot lot width. Um the the it's the same minimum lot area. So it's 10,000 square feet. So that's a similarity. The um coverage allowance is
the same 35% for both uh the rate of mountain plan and the R10 zone. >> R >> the F is uh the same at 0.25 25 uh the same height, same number of stories. And as far as the setbacks,
um one second setbacks, the front yard is a little less in the rate of mountain plan. It is 25 ft whereas 30 feet required in the R10 zone. The sideyard setback for an individual sideyard is the same. The
combined sideyard for the R10 zone is 40 feet and it's a little less in the redevelopment plan. 30 feet and the rear yard is requ is the same at 20 feet. So, um most generally the same but some minor differences between >> we're looking at between the front and
the back setbacks we're looking at about 50 feet. >> Uh >> average >> 40 45 ft minimum. >> 45 ft minimum. >> Correct. And with a depth of 90 ft, the
house could be up to 45 ft maybe if it's within the building area. >> 45 ft deep. Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you, Mr. Prono. Any other questions from our members of the board? >> Any other questions from our
professionals? >> At this time, I'd like to welcome any member of the public that would like to ask a question based on the testimony you just heard. Please come forward at this time. >> And please remember to sign in as well. >> If you could just please sign in and
then quickly state your name and address for the record. >> Um, I'm signing and trying to write at the same time. Um, >> take your time. Name is Martha Havland. I live at 245 Woodside Lane in Bridgewwater. and thank
you for all the information you've provided. It differs from what we were provided on the website, so it's a little bit confusing for us. Um, so I just had a couple of questions I were hoping you might be able to answer. One is you mentioned that there was water and sewer connectivity. I wondered where that was coming from for the
residential. Is it coming from the street or is it coming from the rest of the property? Uh, >> I don't know if that's been determined yet as the proposed plans have >> Okay. I don't think there's water at the end of that street. Just so everyone knows,
no city water. We are all on wellwater at that end. The front end has water. Uh we we do have sewers. I Well, I have a sewer. I don't know the houses at the end if they do, but there's no water. Um I would like to
really reinforce the storm water management issue. We used to call Woodside Lane Lake Woodside because every time it rained it flooded. The whole street flooded. You couldn't
It was You needed a boat, right? The township very graciously came in and gave us um a whole new road and water management. And unfortunately,
my neighbors on Adamsville now have Lake Adamsville. So all the water that used to be on Woodside is now on their side. Um I don't know what the plans are for these three lots, but I do think that it's critically important that what we have
on Woodside continue to be maintained at that end. Um, and anything that can be done to mitigate what happens on Adamsville, I'm sure my neighbors would appreciate. So, um, I don't know. Have you guys been on
the street to know what needs to happen at that end in terms of water manage? I guess there's no plan at this point. >> Yeah. No, I have not been down to the street yet. >> Okay. Um, I wondered, and this is just me not having I was asking my husband like, "How big is our lot?" Because I
don't know. How how much do these lots mirror the sizes of the lots on the rest of Woodside Lane? Are they about the same? Are they bigger? Are they smaller? Do you know? >> I would assume they're about the same as I believe that is the R10 zone as well, which has the same minimum lot
requirement, but I cannot confirm that as I have not looked into the lot areas of the adjacent lot. So, it has the same minimum, but you don't know if the lots on the street are in fact generally larger. >> I do not know that. >> Yeah, I don't know either, but I think it would be nice to maintain what's happening on the street, and so knowing
what's on the street might be useful. >> Yes. I mean, the proposed lots are near the minimum, the two are at 10,000 uh square feet, and the one larger one which has the portion of the bulb dedicated to it, the usable area is similar to the other proposed lots as well.
So that's that red spot. >> Yes. >> That's sort of an awkward lot because it's got that bulb. >> That's why it's slightly larger. So there's a portion that sticks out around. >> So is is the buildable size on that lot
the same as the build? You know, clearly that whole end of the lot they're going to pay taxes on and not be able to use unless they're me and they put up gardens, which is what I have on my lot. But otherwise, that's a very awkward little corner there. Um, is the rest of
the lot still have the size it needs to put a house on? Uh, it'll meet the requirements of the Greymark office track. So, the front yard setbacks and all that will maintained and will be buildable within that area. >> So, the short answer is yes.
>> And Mr. Okay. And that's an awkwardly shaped lot because it is a very >> well is it's required to be a culde-sac under under the redevelopment plan. So it's just the nature of a culde-sac. That's where the bulb shape is emerging from. >> All right. Kind of >> I guess the question is is the building
envelope similar in size for the lot at the end near the culde-sac than the other two. Right. That's basically your question. >> Sorry I didn't know. >> Yes. Three lots have similar building sizes and envelopes. >> With the additional three houses, are
you planning to put a fire hydrant in? >> I don't believe we've looked at proposed improvements for that as part of this application. >> Okay. There there is only one fire hydrant on our street and it's not close to this end. that would that would be a consideration during the site plan when
when they're talking about extending utilities and that's that's when that would come up would be during any site plan application. >> Okay. >> Um and then just out of curiosity and this
is just again me being curious, there are for sale signs already up. Is that common that you put for sale signs up for the lots even before they've been subdivided? >> I'm not sure Mr. Kaden can speak to that.
>> It's just we were all surprised, I will say, on Woodside Lane to see signs there. >> I was there today and I saw the same thing. >> Yeah, it was a little a little odd. Um, so and then my last question, I appreciate uh your patience on all of
this. So, I understand there's a 40 foot >> from from the describe description 40 foot of plantings that would happen between the the residential lot and what happens. But I'm wondering how how far would a building be from that?
>> Uh the building would meet the sideyard setbacks that are off of the proposed residential lots um within the Greymark redevelopment zone. So I believe looking at table two um the setback to the residential uses is 70 ft. So from that residential use
the closest a building could be would be 70 ft. >> 70 ft. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for question. >> Just a reminder to everybody uh we're really looking for questions that are directed at the testimony just heard. There will be time for general
commentary. Any other uh comments that you'd like to make in public at the conclusion of this application. So right now I think general questioning for the testimony you just heard would be would be prudent. >> Mr. Chairman, just one thing. Yes. >> Off of the the U member of the public's
question about the fire hydrant or you know comment about it. Mr. Burr just pointed out that um the township fire marshall did request the fire hydrant on Woodside Lane. So I do think it probably is prudent to put that as a condition particularly because wood sign laid
improvements will are contemplated as a condition here u prior to the first co and so obviously the fire hydrant would go in as those improvements are being made and so I think it probably is something that should be captured under the preliminary conditions. I thought there was no water there though from the first speaker.
>> That's going to be some there. I don't know where they're going to get water from. If it's going to be from the existing site or what, but no matter what, if they are improving it and they are improving the road and that the township fire marshall says he wants a fire hydrant, it's going to have to happen. So, >> it's a condition of approval, but it's
also subject to change when a site plane comes in as well. >> Well, the site plan might not because it's no longer going to have frontage on Woodside Lane. Uh the fire hydrant's really related to those single family lots on Woodside. Um and the fire marshall notes that in the you know in
his review memo and it's it's really about the staging. This is going to happen in phases. The single family lots are proposed to be subdivided. They could move once they're subdivided they could move forward. Um as long as the improvements to Woodside Lane are done and obviously the fire hydrant can't come after that because the improvements
once the improvements are done um kind of lost that chance. So, I think it is part and parcel to the Woodside Lane improvements as a condition themselves. >> Mr. Peek, can we make that an official condition? >> Uh, you can you can I mean, I would have thought, you know, to do it all uh with
the larger site plan when they're discussing utilities and whatnot, but there's certainly nothing preventing the board from making it a condition. Now, >> do I need a motion to do that? >> No. >> No, that'll come at the end. What what'll happen is, you know, if there's
a a motion to approve the requested preliminary subdivision, there's there's been a bunch of conditions listed already. So, the motion would, you know, we'll go through each condition and the motion would include all those conditions, but we're not there yet.
>> I just had a quick comment um on the the flooding issue. Um I'll definitely go and check it out. Usually, I go before, but thanks for pointing that out. both Adamsville and Woodside Lane hopefully is better now, but definitely Adamsville. Thank you for sharing that.
>> Claudet Vaude at 218 Woodside Lane. Um, just had a question about the residential lots. Um, because I too walked that road and have seen the signs that the three lots are for sale. The company that is marking the those is
actually saying on the site that it can be combined. so that someone could build a custom house on all three lots. Are they three residential single family houses or is it possible that someone
could be building a mega mansion at the end of Woodside Lane? >> How would you answer that? >> I I mean again it's you know not part of Mr. Cadence testimony and you know certainly the approval is for three uh
three residential single family residential and that's what's required in the under the redevelopment plan >> and again the board could certainly and and thank you for bringing that our attention. The board could certainly if it if it wished uh again as a condition
say that these you know can't be >> it's a requirement of the redevelopment plan. They have to provide no fewer than three residential lots. >> Right? So there'd be no merger. >> There cannot be a merger. There has to be three residential lots. >> Suspenders. We can add it as
>> you add it. It's per page 10 of the Rita Mountain Plan item number three. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Well, the zoning won't be changed until after and that's again that's up to the council. I think it's not going to
automatically happen. It's not going to automatically switch. I think we will keep an eye on that if it's necessary. And that's probably I have to say redevelopment areas are like an overlay zone and so they can go away once it's completed and you close out a
redevelopment plan. Um it would go away and then kind of the single family zoning it would revert back to whatever the the original zoning which was the M1A zone I think or M whatever it is. And so they would be non-conforming. And so the purpose of that included in the redevelopment plan really was to capture
that these are going to be res residentially developed and so the zoning should match that. And so down the line once they are developed I think we'll we'll reszone them properly. Um and that they would have the minimum lot areas and everything that would match that. But no problem. Thanks.
>> Good evening. >> John Arolio 1110 Washington Valley Road. >> Sign in please. >> I did. Okay. Um uh the Woodside Road, I mean the three lots start at the uh boundary of 360 Woodside Road and
continue on as far as I can see. Sort of contiguous with 360 on this on the uh eastern side of the >> uh Yes, they they line up directly with the lot of them. >> And uh notoriously those roads in that area are have very narrow, no sidewalks.
all those amenities we we installed to sort of be compliant with any uh town ordinances in terms of sidewalks, curbing, storm drains. I see there's one near 360, but you'll probably have to go additional storm drains down the road. I guess that's not in your plan right now.
>> Yes, we were strictly providing a proposed subdivision for that. >> Uh I'm only make one comment on the rest of the lot, the larger lot that's going to be developed, a data center. I mean, I'm not going to get into sizes in terms of square footage. I'm just questioning
height. Are you >> that's that's something again that is hypothetical, but >> we don't have a plan before us. >> There's no plan. >> Just one quick question. Is 70 ft for a two-story data center allowed in that area? You can consider >> whatever the redevelopment plan the
redevelopment plan would have the the bulk or the dimensional >> limits. You know, that's just >> I don't believe 70 feet is I I I don't I haven't committed them to memory, but I don't believe 70 feet is a permitted height. >> Well, I mean, it's a data center has 26
foot roofs. I'm aware of that. >> I don't know. >> 26. >> We're not talking about D because we a single story would be 40 feet. I'm just >> I'm only going to go up by height. I'm not going to get into >> questions about his testimony only. That's the only reason I'll leave it at that. It's just >> me up there is to ask him questions
about his testimony only. >> Okay. Not speculating. >> That's about it. Just Woodside Road. I mean, thank you. >> William Jasco, 401 Woodside Lane. >> William, >> could you just restate your name again into the micro?
>> William Jasco. J A S K O. I live right across the street from the uh the three uh lots right there. Um as proposed um a few just well one of the questions I just pulled up realtor.com and Zillow. Uh they both have pending
and they do say water in the street. That's one thing that as uh we also heard earlier there's beyond as I was told when I moved in in 2014 when they're redoing the roads it's there's no water beyond the yellow house right something like that and so it was uh
yeah so the water in the street uh just to to to clarify that um and also with the the sewer uh the sewer if I think it's pretty important that the the sewer is decided on where that goes uh if it goes into the new development or into
ours and is ours sewer that we have on our street, the the storm sewer as well as the sanitary sewer, are they adequate to to uh handle three more homes? Um and also the size of the homes as well. Um and also as we all do have wells, um how
does that what's the impact going to be on the wells with say the lot coverage etc. Um that is concerned with the um uh the recharge zones for wells that well what's are they going to get recharged? are they going to go dry and with no water in the street? Uh that's a
concern. Um so what what impact will that have on the uh on the existing wells on the street, the recharge areas, etc. I guess that's about it. Um we don't have existing survey in that
street. So we were unaware, you know, how far that water line actually goes down and the impacts of the proposed three residential homes. Um, you know, this is was strictly for the subdivision purposes. So, we have not determined where that tie-in location, the sewer location, any of that has been
determined yet that again once that site plan is brought in front of us, that discussion would take place at that time. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And Mr. Kane, everything would be done according to township ordinance and township requirements. >> Yes. Everything will be done and performed with the uh municipal
ordinance and requirements. So, if the condition of approval for the fire hydrant were made and part of the approval, the applicant would have to figure a way to bring water to have a fire hydrant there and it would either
be down Woodside Lane or through the larger lot. Right. >> I I didn't hear you. I said if if the if the board, you know, included that condition of approval of a fire hydrant
on Woodside Lane, then public water would have to be extended to provide water for a hydrant, right? And it would have to either come down Woodside Lane from wherever it terminates or I suppose it could come through the larger lot and
extend through an easement to Woodside Lane. I mean, those are options. it and ultimately it would be the water company that would have the final say, right, as far as where the service is coming from. But yes, those are the two options. >> The the applicant would have to negotiate that with New Jersey American
Water to determine which is the most appropriate option or which one that they can agree to. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay. My name is Anthony Delia. I live at 13 Heather Hill Way. My first question is uh for Mr. Kaden.
You say there are no proposed uses at this time and yet the application that's before us on all of these screens clearly mentions a data center. If the owner doesn't currently have any proposed uses in mind, where did that come from that representation? >> It's uh one of the principally permitted
uses of the redevelopment plan, but there is a list of approximately 10 that are within that redevelopment plan. So nothing has been finalized. We are unsure what that proposed use is going to be at this time. Your testimony strikes me as still contradictory to what the application description says.
It lit it it explicitly says with one of the proposed lots intended for use as a data center. So that doesn't say for one of the 10 uses hypothetically listed under the redevelopment plan. It says it's intended for a data center. So
I was just wondering where that representation comes from. Uh my my belief is that we are not here for a site plan application and that the proposed use is yet to be determined and it will be one of the permitted uses within the gray market redevelopment plan. So >> I understand that's been your
representation all night. You're very adamant that everybody understands this. >> That's that's the plan. Yeah. >> Representation has been made. Did you not participate in the prep in the preparation? >> Mr. Julia, this township prepared that agenda and that that's why I raised the
question early and it was probably not uh correct for the agenda to be uh the wording to be included as it had been. That's why I questioned it. >> Fair. You said, Mr. Kaden, you said you're not currently proposing any changes to the
utilities at this time, but do you anticipate there being a need for any development of additional utilities in terms of electrical or water infrastructure at the site regardless of what hypothetical use the lot is put to? >> Uh I believe so. If there's a proposed
use on that uh lot 1.05, it will need some sort of utilities. Yes. And as the uh other speakers have already asked you with regard to your testimony, it you maintain that you haven't done any of the work to figure out how or where things like the
water or the sewer are going to connect to these residential lots. >> No, we have not. This was strictly for the subdivision purposes. >> Um and I just wanted to lastly go back to the question about combining the residential lots because I disagree that it's not part of the testimony. The testimony was that there would be three
residential lots, not one combined lot on those three current spots or the proposed spots, I should say. The entity selling the lots is advertising that they can be combined. So, where is that representation coming from? And >> now, let's stop right there cuz the entity that's representing, they can say
what they want, but they're wrong because if they get a subdivision approval here, it's going to be clear that those three lots can't be merged. They have to be standalone. three single family lots and that's going to be a condition of of any
subdivision approval. So these realtors are getting way ahead of themselves it seems. I haven't seen any of this but I've heard now several people calling it up. It's >> not going to happen. >> Mr. Pek, I understand that that's your position but I'd like to hear a response from the applicant.
>> But I'm just saying that's >> Do you >> I'm saying it's a matter of law. They're not going to be able to do that. >> I understand that's your I understand. I would just like to hear from the applicant whether or not they agree or disagree that it's permitted under the current proposal before the board tonight to combine the lots. >> Again, we've already said the revel
redevelopment plan requires three and Mr. Kaden has no involvement with the listing of the property on a Zillow listing. He he just doesn't have any involvement with that. Uh so I'm not sure how that really pertains to the testimony that he's provided tonight. >> Uh he testified that there it would be
three lots. So I just I just want to know whether the applicants agree or disagree that the lots can be combined. >> We've already said that we agree that they cannot be under the redevelopment under the redevelopment plan and the planners also agreed to that tonight as well and saying that they cannot be merged that the redevelopment plan
requires a minimum of three. >> Okay, that's all I wanted to hear. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to I know there was a question about where you know the intended use and that's not subject of this application. And I just wanted to clarify that the cover letter from the applicant did talk about a data
center. I don't know why it's obviously not part of this application. I think it was a mistake. It is one of the uh allowed uses in the redevelopment plan, but this is not a site plan application. So, it's a valid question from, you know, the member of the public, but I think it's just should be noted. It's it's an error that it was included.
>> Thank you, Mr. Ar. >> But it's also an error that was put on the agenda. >> I believe the agenda pulled it from the from their not from their notice. both their notice and their application information. So, it's it was just a carryover from from the information provided by the applicant.
>> I I I thank you both for bringing that up. And if anyone wants to see those 10 proposed, it's on page 12 of the redevelopment plan. Correct. If they want to see what the 10 proposed are. >> Yeah, they're not proposed. Those are 10 permitted uses >> permitted. Yeah. On the redevelopment,
>> it's like a zoning ordinance in of itself. So, those are uses that are contemplated and permitted by the zone um and allowed by it. >> I guess that's a legal question. If someone includes a cover letter that that um Mr. P >> cover letter has has no
>> it's not the application effect. Yeah. It's not >> evidence. It's not part of the application. It's not anything. And they may may have been getting ahead of themselves and they may be contemplating a data center, but that's not before us. And there's no testimony presented.
There's been no application presented. So, it would be highly improper certainly to base any subdivision decision on potential future uses. I mean, the lot lines are the the lot lines. And again, if it's consistent with the redevelopment plan, if it's
consistent with the zoning ordinance, that's what this board is to look at, not speculative future uses. Whatever the future use uh that's proposed again is going to have to come back here. And that's where all questions about
utilities and storm water all that will be addressed. And that is why I asked the question earlier in the beginning of the agenda about beginning of the meeting about that notation on the agenda. I think that was uh incorrect to
be on the agenda because purpose of the meeting is to or this hearing is to talk about the subdivision period. >> And Mr. Papis, just so you're aware, it appeared in their legal notice as well, the same way it appeared. So I I don't want to complicate it. I just want to make it that the members of the public
who do live within 200 feet probably got it in the legal notice that the applicant submitted to them which is why >> yeah I can't you know I can't the applicant may you know making it harder for themselves. >> Yes, >> I agree. >> I don't know why but that's again getting ahead of themselves. It's not a
subdivision and site plan application. It's just a subdivision. And and when I was there earlier today, I'd been there earlier and I saw those for sale signs, I thought I was going to raise the question, how is it that there can be legitimately three for sale signs when
the subdivision hasn't even been approved yet? >> Well, and and only for preliminary. >> Yeah. And it creates >> if they get preliminary subdivision approval, >> they still need to come back and get final subdivision approval and then they'll need to satisfy all the
conditions and you know that all takes time. So to be selling lots on that unless they're like futures contracts or or something like that, some exotic thing, I don't know, but I don't know how how any lot could could be put on
the market right now. My name is uh Curtis Kraut uh resident 199 Adamsville Road. Um I've looked at a lot of the paperwork that exists in the application file. And I guess just
starting with the basics like the last resident was mentioning um the description basically says that there are five lots to be reduced down to four. And so that's lot 1.03 1.04 1.02
are the large track lots. And then lot two and 2.01 is that small section that currently exists. Now, you're going to make three residential lots along Woodside Lane,
and you still have uh you're going to remove the dividing line between lot 1.02 and 1.04 to make a large lot 1.05.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Now, in the drawings, it's very confusing, but it says that that's lot 1.01. >> Yes, that was incorrect. We are getting confirmation with the tax assessor, and we currently have it listed as lot 1.05,
which is approximately 20.15 acres. Similar to the point that the other gentlemen make is that in your description, although I understand this is a preliminary subdivision discussion explicitly,
the description basically leads you to believe that a data center is eminent. So if if if you're com if the three residential lots and the one combined
lot make four lots, then if you add in lot 1.03, that's still five lots. >> Yes, there's still going to be five lots in the proposed condition. So 1.03 will remain un untouched, unproposed, and changed. It will be exactly as it is in the existing condition.
>> I'm sorry, repeat that again. There will be five lots as well in the existing condition. So the consolidated lots between 1.02 and 1.04 are consolidated into 1.05. And then the three residential lots as well as 1.03. So there's five
>> really turning four lots into four lots, just redrawing the internal lot lines is what they're doing. >> Yes. >> Okay. But the total number of lots that you're going to have in the end is five. with. Yes.
>> Okay. And the main reason for combining lot 1.02 and 1.04 is because of the future application that you want to put there. >> Yes. For the proposed future development, which has been undecided. >> Okay. And lot 1.03. I know this has been
discussed numerous times, but that's where the existing Greymark building is today. >> Yes. The existing office space. >> Right. And what's confusing is whether or not lot 1.03 is included in the
redevelopment plan along with the other empty elements of the track that have not yet been developed. >> Lot 1.03 is within the redevelopment plan but as per this application is not being updated. Its lot line will remain the same. >> It it is in the redevelopment plan.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Well, in going through your application and this is the application for a preliminary subdivision, okay, you include a subdivision plot which basically is
very suggestive of a fade. It it basically refers to for con it says for concept purposes only but essentially it refers to phases one and phases two of I
guess the eventual development of this this site and right now phase one I understand is going to be consumed in lot 1.05 5 assuming that happens. But uh and then you get approval and site plan
approvals and all the other things that we need to to see before going further. But phase two basically is yet a second proposed data center. >> It would also >> that's where the existing building is. >> It would also require a site plan
application and approval by the board. So that's it would require a site plan application and approval by the board. So that would be at a different hearing and held at a different time. >> But it it was my understanding when the the redevelopment plan was discussed at
the planning board and and at the council that the Greymark building would remain, not be destroyed. >> The proposed use of that lot, I don't believe, has been determined from here. Right now, we are not adjusting that lot line. So currently, that lot is not
being adjusted. So that's why we're currently showing it that way. >> Yeah. And I can just add if the redevelopment plan states that the Greymark office building is to remain, then it's going to remain unless they get an amendment to the redevelopment
plan, which would mean going through the whole process again with the council and the planning board. I'm not I'm not representing what the redevelopment plan says with respect to that building, but if it does say that it has to remain, then unless the redevelopment plan gets
amended by following the statutory process, it's remaining, >> right? But like I said, if this drawing wasn't in the packet, >> I can't explain why they would put a concept plan in with the subdivision
application. I can't, you know, I I can't I'm not going to speak to that, but Just to clarify then what's going to happen tonight. Okay, we there's a an application for a preliminary subdivision of the Greymark Track and
it's going to result in five net lots which were there were five original and three of those are going to be residential lots that are going to take out a piece of lot 1.04 4 and be up
against Woodside Lane and then you're going to maybe agree that that's okay and then they're going to have to come back at a future date to present a site plan. >> They'll have to come back first to get
final subdivision approval. >> Right. >> Okay. >> First two-step process. So they have to come back do the whole thing again for final. Then if they get that, once they perfect the subdivision, and by perfecting it means they've satisfied
all the conditions and obligations and and whatnot that they would have to do. Once they perfect their subdivision, then they can come back with a site plan application for presumably lot 1.05, 05, the large
block, which would be yet another application that would be subject to public notice. And that's where you get into the nitty-gritty. >> Yeah. I I think it's been really misleading that uh you know, we're going
down this path with uh um a data center only option. And as the prior resident indicated, there are 10 10 possible uses that are uh uh indicated in in the redevelopment plan
of which the data center is only one. So, um, you know, I think in terms of you guys communicating to us in and you know, it needs to be a lot clearer because I I was thoroughly confused as
to what this phase one phase 2 document represented and um and I'm and I'm still I'm still really uh perturbed about what's going to happen in the future, especially with your data your data center. With all due respect, I think
the conversation about a hypothetical data center is exactly what's confusing this evening. I think again I need to refocus here. We are discussing a redrawing of a lot this evening. So, as you so adequately stated prior, we're really here to look at that redrawing
and look at the the three, you know, properties that essentially would be redrawn and any and other talks that would have to come before us. As Mr. PC said there's going to have to be a final and there's going to have to be a site plan actually submitted. So again, we're looking into the future here at this point. So I'd like to keep the focus at
least for the members of DESR professionals and the members of the public really on what's happening this evening because you know we're going to have bigger questions that come out of this evening and sometimes you know mking it up a little bit with the discussion about what could be or what might not be. It's not appropriate for this evening. Well, the the redevelopment plan is explicit in that
it says that there there shall be three residential lots along Woodside Lane. And then it says for the rest of everything, it's one of these 10 things basically. And >> the as per the grayark redevelopment plan, there are other potential uses,
but again, those will not be heard until we have a site plan before us. >> Right. But shouldn't there be justification then as to why lots the balance of lot 1.04 and 1.02 902 then need to be joined together and why why why would the lot line
>> that's consistent with the redevelopment plan >> I'm sorry >> that's consistent with the redevelopment plan which I believe contemplates um having the three single family lots plus the larger residual lot >> just one lot that's that's the point
>> well right then the grey mark the existing office building >> all All right. Thank you. >> Can I address something you just said, Mr. Peek? >> Sure. >> So, I think we're saying the same thing, but what I'm thinking of this
application beyond preliminary, it's a final subdivision application that would would include a site plan application. >> Well, you know, procedurally there's more than one way to skin a cat, you know, if you wanted to combine
>> those. But that's not before us today, that's for sure. No, but but as long as we address all of the elements that are the of concern of the board that will probably find their way into the present resolution, you know, we should be able to get final subdivision and site plan
approval. I don't >> you got some you got some elements you got to address. I mean is that >> I don't I don't think it I don't think I don't in a normal case at least site plan approval is not an element of a dividing three lots for residential
purposes but that's a that's just my experience. Good evening, Kathy Franco. We met Road, Martinsville, New Jersey. Um, so I'm just trying to follow all this. So tonight, we're looking at not only
creating these three residential lots, but also then combining everything else into one lot that doesn't include the current Greymark building. Is that correct? >> Yes, that would be proposed lot 1.05,
whereas lot 1.03 that has the current Greymark building will remain. >> Okay. So, um, so I know we talked about 10 possible, um, uses for this property, but if we're combining
like all these properties into one, and I, you know, I mean, one of the uses was housing and another was a data center, and I don't remember the other eight or whatever, but I can't imagine the owner of a data center wanting to build housing. So, are we combining things
that are later going to have to be subdivided again? It's just my question, you know. I mean, >> well, there would there wouldn't be like, right, if this subdivision were to go through Okay, go ahead. >> There would be single family homes built
on those three lots, >> right? >> Grey mark building >> stays as is. And then that remainder >> which is basically 3/4 which is like 3/4 of that big >> park. No absolutely as it is intended to
be that large remainder lot 1.02 plus the leftover 1.04 would be available for any of the permitted uses set forth in the redevelopment plan. >> Okay. But at some point I would anticipate that those anticipated uses
if it's more than one is going to come back and ask to subdivide because as I said I can't imagine >> you know I I can't imagine >> I mean I guess theoretically you could but the re and again I haven't committed the redevelopment plan to memory there might be certain bulk requirements for
whatever goes in is proposed for lot 1.05 5 there might be a minimum lot size of 20 acres >> which would preclude you know subdivision >> right >> so but I guess theoretically it's possible that that if on 1.05 05 if
multiple uses were uh proposed, but I I believe that would also need another amendment to the redevelopment plan. >> Okay? because I was at all of those presentations of the redevelopment both here in for planning as well as at the
town council and I asked questions and I do recall very clearly um that you know it was talked about the residential about housing and about a data center. Okay. So I would anticipate that those
were the primary focus. I I didn't hear the other seven like highlighted or talked about in any detail. You know, they they were skimmed over. They were in a they were on page 12 of the report, but they were not discussed in detail. So, you know, that's just that's why I'm
asking the question as to, you know, I would anticipate that as I said, I can't imagine somebody building housing and somebody building a data center are going to be the same developer. you know, it's like having a farmer and a truck a trucker, you know, saying, "Hey,
let's let's share the property." You know, it doesn't really work. Anyway, that's my two cents. The other thing is with this subdivision and now you're taking these three residential lots, you know, so I'm carving out and I'm taking this space out, okay, of the property.
So now for people who live beyond asking okay so so well I don't know if this is their question or >> you're okay >> as you as you know >> so from area >> we supposed to ask questions on testimony >> so we're required to provide notice to
people within 200 ft >> application okay so you've now taken out these three lots okay so if I live 200 feet from this port border. Okay. Right now, but now this border is moved back
90 ft. Okay. I would be 290 ft from whatever was going to be built on the large piece of property. Is that correct? >> Yes, I believe so. >> And therefore, and therefore the larger property, if this is subdivided off,
would not be required to provide me with notice that they were doing anything. But that is correct. >> Eventually. >> Well, well, but that Okay. But if if they're recorded very quickly, >> now we don't have a subdivision. >> Well, after you get the file
subdivision, then it can happen. seems like a long and arduous road. >> And in the meantime, there are residents who might be within 200 ft of this of this line, but now are going to be
beyond the 200 feet of this line. So that's why, you know, I'm asking on their behalf. I live three miles from this site. Yeah. You know, so I'm just asking because >> you you were aware of of the hearing, >> right? >> You didn't get noticed. I no, but that's
because I do ask for the agendas to be sent to me. I read all I read the public notices in all of the newspapers. Okay. I have alerts that are sent to my emails when things pop up. Okay. I get
notified about Somerset County, about Warren Township. I get notified about a whole lot of things that border me and that can affect me or in this case my township. Okay, >> that's a that's a very sensible way to proceed. Okay. So, and you know, but the
whole thing is individuals are entitled to that notice if they are, you know, within a range of, >> but as as I'm sure you're you're aware, it would be a very improper consideration for the board to determine whether or not to grant a subdivision on the fact that well, in the future,
somebody may not get notice who today could get. >> No, no, but I am allowed to ask that question. >> Well, I I know and I'm just reminding the board that that would be an improper >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I think that's it. Thank you very much.
Happy Pat St. Patrick's Day. And to the Irish, it's really inappropriate that we had a meeting tonight, but thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, I'd like to clarify the size. >> If you could just please state your name, please, and address for the record.
>> David Classic, 215 Woodside Lane. That's K L E S Z Y K. I realize the one that wraps around the culdeac is a very unusual shape, but what are the exact dimensions of the other two lots?
>> Uh, they're approximately the other two lots are approximately 111 ft wide by 90 ft deep, which gives you the area of approximately 10,026 ft and 10,082 ft. Okay, that's all.
Thank you. Anybody else? >> One last question. Um, the applicant, are they actually looking to sell the three residential lots or that's beyond
your perview at this point? >> That's uh beyond my knowledge. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Mr. Pek uh just to clarify so basically we are approving or disapproving
whatever the decision may be for uh 1.02 1.03 is a stand standalone untouched all lot 1.04 and 2.0 No 2.1 to those are basically
coming down to 2.04 2.05 2.06 those three lots will be there from those existing two and a half or >> right their proposed subdivision where a piece of 1.04 all of two all of 2.01
are going to create those three single family lots along Woodside 1.03 03 which is the office building existent >> not a part of this not drawing those lines but then everything else that's left over which is all of 1.02 >> and the remainder of 1.04
that's going to become a proposed 1.05 5. >> Okay. >> So, it's really just you're reworking the internal lot lines, erasing some, you know, moving others, >> right? With the conditions that we all talked about, including professionals,
that will be the part of the approval process. >> Oh, there's we'll go through that, but we're not we're not there yet. But yeah, there's I have noted a number of conditions. >> Thank you. Please. And if there are any other members of the public that wish to ask Mr. Um, Kaden, any other questions?
Please feel free to come forward at this time. >> My name is Jack Shrum, CH HR M. I live at 245 Woodside Lane. Looking at the plan, it it appears to me that the three lots that are proposed
are going to be quite similar to the two that are just passed that are alongside it. and and I feel to me it looks like I'm going to get an extra 90 feet buffer between what comes. So from that point of view I'm going to be getting it at
the cost of maybe six extra cars driving up and down my street and maybe some extra storm water. But I am curious if the lots that are going to be created will be desirable and by any chance did you query the residents of the two lots that are going
to mostly mimic find out if they thought they were desirable lots. And is that even appropriate to find out? They might want to know, well, I have two lots already. Should I make three more that just look like the two I have? Are they desirable? >> Uh, we did not query the existing
residents, but this is part of the redevelopment plan to propose these three residential lots. That's why we had shown it that way. >> That was what I thought, but I had to ask. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Okay, that will close the public portion
of this meeting for this witness. Please, one more before I close it up. Thank you. If you state your name again for the record, >> um I just want to clarify a point. Um the previous planner here, I forget his
name was Michael Sarkeesian. When we got reszoned from R20 to R10, are you aware that the township promised us only one additional building lot for Woodside Lane and now you're proposing three?
>> I am not aware of that, but part of the Greymark redevelopment plan requires the three residential lots. Therefore, we are proposing the three. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Last call. Okay, that'll close the public portion
of this meeting for this witness. Mr. Kaden, any other testimony? >> Uh, that is all for me. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Cheney. Do you have any other witnesses? >> No further witnesses this evening. Thank you >> very much
public to generally comment. >> As Mr. P said, if there are any members of the public that wish to provide any commentary at this time, this would be the time to do it. >> Yeah. So just to to make it clear, the way it works is after each witness gives their testimony,
the public and the board, everybody can question that witness only on what their testimony was. But now they have no more witnesses. So now the public can just generally comment, you know, I like this project, I don't like this project, here's what I think about this project,
you know, whatever whatever statement you want to make as long as it's related to the application. So that's your your time to be heard. Martha Havlin again, 245 Woodside Lane. I have to say I'm not necessarily opposed to having three more houses on
the street, but I um am very very very concerned that the communication that's been shared with the public and the neighbors has been so distressing. Um and communication not just in terms
of what was provided to all of us on the websites, what was mailed to us, but what we see on the street. And so the trust level is pretty low and I would hope that your board would recognize that and um help to support
the residents as much as you possibly can. And to that end, the fire hydrant, making sure there's actually water, making sure there's actually a drainage plan that makes sense. But I think in addition, even though I know the data
center is not on the agenda, I think it is important for us to understand what is likely to be put onto the site and the impact that will have to the residents and the three new residents, and if it is going to need additional water infrastructure, which
is likely, if it's going to need additional electric infrastructure, which is likely, what is that going to do to our taxes? What is that going to do to our ability to sell our residences? What is it going to do to our electric bill? What is it going to
do to our wells? We all are on wells. And I don't think it's appropriate to make a decision about just subdividing without understanding the implications for the rest of what will likely be a
project and impact not just three these three sites but the rest of us on the street. And so again, we're pretty distressed and I think we're legitimately distressed given the information that's
been provided to us. And I would hope that you would understand that and take that into recognition and make sure that what you require them to do in the order that it is required to be done actually gets
done because so far it hasn't at all been done in in the appropriate order at all. Right. The street the the the forale signs are there. The letters have been sent.
The plans have been shared and and that's a problem. That's a big problem and I think it should be a problem for you and not just for me and I hope that it is. Thank you. >> Wait, before you go, Mr. Chairman, may I speak? >> Mr. Mr. Bonjouro.
>> Um, is there something that we, Given that this is a preliminary, are there questions or things we haven't looked into that you think we should be looking into in terms of protecting the residents and the township? >> Mr. Burner, I think they've been
expressing that all night. I I think yeah the storm water issues water in general if this is in fact going to be a data center. >> It's going to need water. >> Yes, >> there's going to be water runoff. We already have water runoff problems in
this area. It's going to need large amounts of electricity. >> Again, now we're getting into these are all site. >> I understand. I understand. But I think that in terms of protecting the residents, >> it's important to understand these and have the infrastructure in place before
it happens, right? Yeah. >> Um but I think the other thing is that, you know, if we're in fact going to have a fire hydrant, we need to know where the water is. The fire hydrant has to be put in before the houses are put in, >> right? So there needs to be timing of these things that's appropriate.
>> I think we brought >> So I appreciate that, but I appreciate, >> didn't we? >> Thank you. I I think this is for the public to speak and not necessarily for the board to engage in dialogue with the public. We should listen to the public and then the board will then deliberate, but I appreciate the member of the
public expressing her concerns. It's legitimate. >> Thank you, Mr. Papus. Again, everyone here at the DES will have time to deliberate the application before us this evening, but I do really want to hear the commentary this evening. It's important to this day, please. I need to introduce myself again.
>> Uh, sure. >> Uh, again, Anthony Dia. I live at 13 Heather Hillway. Um, I just wanted to say, you know, I know that we're all engaged in this, you know, act about how we don't really know what's going on here. Like, I understand that, you know, this is just a preliminary step.
However, speaking just from that perspective, what we've heard tonight, in my opinion, is ev is uh evident of a plan that has been very sloppily or hastily put together. There's a lot of data that is
not reflected in the plans. It seems it seems like the drawings based on the professionals uh questioning have not been submitted in a format that makes it easy to review. Uh there's a lot of concerns from the town's people that are
not necessarily related to uh hypothetical future uses of this land that need to be addressed. And uh from the perspective of somebody who sat here and listened to everything that's been said tonight, I personally don't see how
anything that has been presented to the board is ready at this at this stage for any kind of even preliminary decision. I mean, I understand that it's not necessarily required at this time, but there were no
visits to the actual site. This is uh, you know, it just seems like this is being done in a very uh slipshot, very hurried manner, trying to get through this process as fast as possible. And I think that's where a lot of the concerns from my fellow residents at Bridgewwater
are coming from. And so at this stage, I personally, if I was in your shoes, uh would ask for a lot more before voting in favor of even this preliminary step. And uh you know, otherwise, I guess I'll just leave it there. So, thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Respectfully, sir, I I wasn't talking about the board. I was talking about the applicant, not not the board. It's the applicant that I'm talking about here. >> Thank you. >> Curtis Crowd on Adamsville Road. Um,
I've lived uh at my current address uh for 40 years. Um, I'm very familiar with all the historical development applications and stuff on this property and every application has
been done on under uh land use law and not redevelopment law. And the big issue that I'm running into with this application is similar to what the gentleman just said is that it all seems
very compartmentalized. And there's really uh we we've been through uh just before the redevelopment plan went into effect um there was an application for a warehouse on this site
and before that there was an application for a hotel and then before that there was an application for office buildings and restaurants and uh um you know there's so many issues related to drainage uh related to property grading
everything that really is not being addressed at all with this preliminary site plan. And I've never experienced any of those applications previously that didn't include a site plan as part of the application.
And a lot of the questions that are coming up, I mean, I I have a ton of questions about uh you know, infrastructure, water, uh sewer, especially electricity, given the fact that they've been talking about putting a data center on the on the property. Um
you know, uh the power substations, all these other things that were potentially uh to be used in in in the data center type application. yet there are other 10 applications that might might be considered. So, it it really just seems
uh so peacemeal to do this on a preliminary uh site plan approval, come back again for a per a final approval, and then come out with a some sort of uh of um site plan that
that actually um I'm sorry, sub final subdivision approval and then come out with a site plan that that really discusses the meat of what everybody is interested just didn't understanding and uh you know if I lived on Woodside Lane
I live on Adamsville Road but I would want to make sure that uh you know fire hydrant and and and water services and sewer were already there and that all those provisions were there before subdividing anything.
I I think at this at it seems like a a premature application that's haphazardly put together my opinion. >> Thank you. William Jasco once again from 401 Woodside Lane right across from the lots there. Um the one thing I do see about
the lots is that I do appreciate it's residential. Um nice to have some neighbors there. Um however um jumping into that uh as has been shared earlier the trepidation there uh just in that the with the the sewers uh with the well
the water supply the drainage the wells um and what effect would approving this have on the rest of the lot and development does that change anything I don't know the details of that but that would be a concern um residential I'm not I'm not opposed to that I do it's
much better than having a warehouse 50 ft from the uh uh from the property line as was before the parking lot whatever it was. But uh just a concern is there that that everything is is is researched well. Um just the impact on the on the
residents that are there right now. Um that it is able to handle those three houses that the services yes fire hydrant may be in place. Um uh yes. So the positives I see, but also just the the precaution in just you know before jumping too quickly into that uh before
getting too excited about say neighbors instead of a um a warehouse right there um would that mean yes then a data center is more likely or something like that which would have much greater negative impacts on the community as a
whole. Um so just uh that just note of precaution that I sense. Um so just wanted to share that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Dave Classic, 215 Woodside Lane. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be as nice as Martha,
so uh I'm going to hit a little bit below the belt what I have to say. Uh, I've been a resident on Woodside Lane for 40 years and my folks moved to Bridgewater before my first birthday and I'm looking at 72 years old now. Let me
ask a very simple question. Are there any other areas in Bridgewater that are zoned for a data center? I don't believe so. This redevelopment plan for the grey marks started late in 2024 and was approved for a data center and other
uses around this time last year. In other words, within six months, a data center came into play. A handful of us raised questions about the proposed changes. Most were focused on the data center. One person on the board voted no
because of height problems, but the measure passed. During these meetings, Mr. Kersh had said the owner of the property has every right to develop it. Since moving on to the street in 1986, there was approval to build two more
office buildings that were never built by the owner. Other non-conforming applications were denied at later dates, but at some point the owner got approval for a changed office building design. So much to say that the land was basically
strip cleared to the Eagles and Woodside Lane properties. Steel was delivered and rusted away for at least 10 years or more on site. So during this time at least two times the owner had the opportunity to build. Now enter
Bridgewater saying that there are in need of redevelopment are the Ethicon site, the Greyark site and the Prominade Woods. There's enough traffic in the prominade site. All those trees should be saved and not developed at one at any
point. Getting back on the subject, I still don't understand what the rush to declare and change the zoning at the Greymark site. And once again, going off point, there are other areas of Bridgewater that are considered eyes. By
Mayor Munch's own words about five years ago, the property at the intersection of Adamsville Road and Indian Avenue, he declared as an eyesore. Yet that property remains as is. I can think of
what I would consider two more eyes of the vacant Verizon building with graffiti and unmode grass on Route 22 to Adamsville Road. Another is the boarded up Club 21, a bar at Chimney Rock Road and East Main Street. Yet, this town
wants to cut more trees down on Route 20220 206 and get sued by Somerville and Bridgewater residents. Where is the common sense planning? As a long-term resident and attending meetings, whether it be variance,
planning board, or council, I've really not seen this town listen wholeheartedly to concerns. And getting off subject again, when Arbor Glenn was proposed, now Laurel Circle, I asked a question
about whether the fourstory building and the more residential looking villas could be flip-flopped. Mac Trucks and Vinderville School were on the villa side and the fourstory building was where houses would eventually be built on Jackson. My wife vividly remembers
being told by an elected official, "Be lucky we don't condemn this area and make it a mall. Is Bridgewater really listening?" I feel you've heard the problems with noise, water, and electricity issues
that these data centers demand. And yet the zoning was changed. At these late 2025 meetings, I brought up the subject about dividing the property in three residential lots where none existed before.
And uh just to say is I saw them, you know, listed at $395,000. Not a bad deal for the developer. Again, I feel that I've said enough right now, but thank you for your time and maybe listening.
>> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Okay, that'll close the public portion for commenting for this meeting. >> Mr. Pek, have we satisfied all conditions and requests? >> Well, we have to remains to be seen if they're going to satisfy all all
conditions, but uh unless the applicant is any more witnesses, do you rest? >> Yes, we rest. Thank you for your attention, consideration this evening. We respectfully request the board grant the application based on the documents and information provided as well as the testimony this evening. Thank you.
before I open up for deliberation. Yes, sure. >> Have a question for I guess Mr. Pek andor Miss Sarmad. Just to restate the the application before us is for preliminary subdivision and the lots that are proposed are conforming to the
redevelopment plan ordinance. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, they're conforming. This is a conforming application. >> No variances. >> No variances. Okay. So, can I just make a couple of comments? >> I was just going to ask Miss Sarat and Mr. Burr if they had any other questions
that needed to be satisfied. >> Oh. Um, I just wanted to clarify that many of the conditions that I'd recommended to the board because this is a preliminary subdivision, um, I would like to see them on when they come in for final so that we can see them on a plan. Even though this isn't a site plan
application, these are conditions related to the improvements that are going to be necessary. And I think that um we can work with their team to make sure they make it on the plans, but I would like to see them as notes. Any any conditions that are included in any resolution, if this board acts favor
favorably, I would like to see them as notes on notations on the plan that is ultimately um recorded so that they are forever carried through. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Papus. So um I share the frustration
by members of the public about certain aspects of the application that have been presented. The uh I started off with the just the agenda and how that provided confusion. U mentioned that I was there today and I saw the for sale
signs. Um, I think those things complicated this hearing that were unnecessarily that didn't have to occur and it it it uh distracted all of us from the application which I just asked for clarification that this
is a conforming subdivision, preliminary subdivision application. Uh, and I just want to make a couple of comments. I know this property has been the subject of many applications over the years, hotels, uh I've walked the site myself and I've seen the the remains of some of the storm water
structures that were partially installed. Uh it's it's not been um uh the previously approved applications haven't come to fruition and it's it's impacted the the area and those are some of the reasons that this area was
designated as an area in need of redevelopment. Um, I also think it's very important, while some folks here may not want to recognize that, that uh there was an application before the zoning board, I think it was the zoning board for a warehouse
and the application, was it the zoning board or the planning board? >> They came here first. Okay. And then >> and it was before one of the boards >> names got changed before then they >> so it was a it was an application that the property owner had a right to
ultimately have I think an a warehouse constructed and the governing body at the time changed the zone to prohibit warehouses. So, uh there was then a legal action that was instituted between the property owner and the township
regarding the the position of the property owner to build a warehouse. And so the township determined that that was uh not something that the township officials wanted to see to occur. And so
a lawsuit ensued was subsequently a settlement. And part of the settlement was the creation the designation of the site as an area redevelopment and the ultimately the the redevelopment ordinance that was approved that some people in this room didn't support. That's the history of this. And if if
nothing had occurred, then the likelihood of a warehouse being constructed on this property would likely be the reality. And that's that's the the choice that the township had ultimately. And so while um while people
here may not appreciate aspects of this, the three residential lots, that was part of the redevelopment ordinance that this board approved and the council approved. And so they're here asking for this subdivision because it's part of
the approved ordinance. And so uh the the concerns about drainage, I share those. Anyone that comes to these meetings know even for much more insignificant subdivision applications. I have been a stickler
among many board members about drainage and the impact to the adjoining properties. That is something that this board through our our professionals are absolutely committed to ensuring that those issues are addressed. The other issues and concerns about electricity
and other things, while I'm not minimizing them, they're not a part of this application here tonight. And I agree it would have been better if some of the paperwork here were cleaner, but it doesn't, in my opinion, unless Mr. Peek will correct me. It doesn't
necessitate uh another application, nor does it necessarily necessitate the board delaying action here tonight. If this is a conforming subdiv preliminary subdivision application, there's I don't think any legal reason why this board
can't uh consider this tonight. Um, and so I think the the entirety the context of all of this, what I've said about a warehouse, about the litigation between the township and the property owner, how we got to this point is very, very
relevant. People may not want to consider it or deal with or recognize it, but that's part of the context of this. And so for that reason, those reasons, I would like to hear the conditions of approval that have been outlined and
other board members may have other conditions and professionals may have, but I felt it was really important to remind everyone in the context of how we got here tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Papus. Those comments
>> and the the proposed conditions uh since Mr. Pap has uh just asked and again I I there's a lot flying around so I might have missed some. So I have first of all uh they have to provide a zoning table
and a lot dimension table for their uh you know resubmitt of the plans. Um the single family homes are subject to all township requ uh lots. The single family lots are subject to all township
requirements uh in particular uh for zoning and landscaping. U the culdeac bulb is to be constructed. It's to be bonded for and uh it'll be constructed prior to issuance of the
first residential co. The three single family lots would be subject to major storm water regulations uh as well as all it'll be treated as as major stormwater development and all state and township
stormwater regulations uh will apply uh to these lots. um the 40ft landscape buffer that would be on lot 1.05. Um did we come to a decision on that
whether that was to be installed as a condition or >> I think we we did note that it was shown on the plans the the line area but as far as the actual sequence in which it goes in I don't >> yeah like when when do they plant? Do we
want that now or is there a chance Mr. that if it's planted now, they could be damaged down the road. What What would your recommendation be? >> Well, my recommendation would be to to install it now because it gives it it gives the the landscaping just more time
in the ground a chance to take off. >> And during a site plan application, if anything dies or there's holes, you'll never >> have to be replaced. >> Yeah. >> So, we'll have the 40 foot landscape buffer behind the single family homes is to be installed. Um
as a condition uh fire hydrant on Woodside is to be installed prior to issuance of the first CO. Uh the redevelopment plan is to be followed and there will be a minimum of three single family lots as depicted on
the plan. There will be no merger of those lots 2.04, 2.05, 2.06 6 uh permitted and those are all the conditions that I had. >> Can I just correct one thing maybe? The >> Yeah, please.
>> The 45 buffer that doesn't have to be behind the residential unit. Yeah. As per Mr. Bur, I think he mentioned it can be in 105 lot also. Am I correct? the the buffer is going to be on lot. >> The landscape buffer is going to be on lot 105, but it's going to be directly
behind the three residential properties down to the >> culdeac. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, I know I didn't hear all the conditions, but the one that I did hear very well was about uh planting the buffer. Now, it's not impract it's not
practical there. There really really needs to be a lot of grading done on that lot uh lot 1.05. So it's it doesn't make sense to do it now. But I mean we'll agree to some kind of condition that says when we do it we
will plant high enough trees so to make up the difference for whatever has gone by while while we're grading the property or some something like that. or or dedicate a deed restricted deed restrict the property in some way to that condition
>> deed restriction if because they're going to have to submit deeds to the review and satisfaction of you say there's got to be a 40 foot >> yeah I mean if if I had a site plan in front of me that showed the grade was
going to come up 8 feet in the final buildout condition then I would agree it doesn't makes sense to put landscape in now that you know there's a ton of grading that has to be done but I don't have that information. Um you know if it has to be built up in
that area nothing stops the applicant from building up the grade in that particular area to get the landscaping ready to be planted. But I I just don't know what what the ensuing construction might entail. It's hard for me to say. >> I think it's a board a board decision.
The only thing I I would say is that, you know, this is a condition related to the other building that the building that it's not before the board and it's really reaching out and grabbing a a part of the the other uh building and and trying to apply it here. You'd have
to get a soil a movement per movement permit to do this. And I'm not sure that the board is that this that we're going to get a soilum movement permit to to do this work in advance of a of a site plan approval for a building. I
>> mean, so I think it's it's well intentioned, but I think over overreaching. >> I'm not the guy you got to convince. >> I'm just I'm >> I mean I hear what you're saying. So the the options would be to to you know do the installation with potential soil
movement this or that or have it set out in the the deed for lot 1.05 that there has to be a 40ft buffer and make it you know make it clear but I think it's the board has to has to
make the call on that. >> Any comments to that effect? I don't know if you want me to. So, you know, in the absence of more refined engineering plans, we probably could have a note placed on
the subdivision plan that speaks to the need to install the landscape buffer at the beginning of the sitework phase of the non-residential portion. you know, if it if if it truly is not possible to do it now because of all of
the other site work that may come at some point in the future, I think it it at least needs to be memorialized on this plan to indicate that that's going to be prioritized um with the ensuing site work. the sooner it gets in, the sooner it gets in
the ground and is protected, better chance it has um as a compromise because I I re I really don't know um what site work, you know, grading wise to Mr. Kley's point is going to come with this final plan. So, it's hard for me to just
recommend to the board, no, absolutely the landscaping has to go in now because I would hate to have it go in now and then it has to get all ripped out and we're back at square one anyway. I don't know if Katherine if you have a >> Yeah, I think the note on the plan is probably satisfactory, at least in my
opinion. I'd like to see a landscape plan. I'd like to see the design. I'd like to see the types of plantings, the distance between them, the species. So, in the absence of not having a landscape plan, which would come with a site plan, I think the note on the plan for now would be fine. And we'll we'll deal with the plantings, the actual plantings
later on. >> Does it need a certain duration for it to be effective? I mean that's going to I think the type the species the planting height that's all going to come into play. So if we lose, you know, what could have been a year worth of growth or something, then maybe we make up when
the it comes for a site plan and say, "Okay, we want, you know, some bigger, more >> Well, they did, I think, indicate that that if they could wait, they would plan slightly higher than ordinarily." >> And as long as it's on the subdivision plan, so that whoever it is, me or someone else in the future, would would
be able to look at that note and say, "Okay, you know, we're owed something." Is there anybody opposed making that the condition for approval? >> I have one questions. Um, uh, chairman. >> Yes, >> Mr. Pek. Everybody in the town, uh,
basically residents raised their concerns about the sale sign. Uh, is there any should we tell can we tell them to remove it or >> Well, I think that they've heard that, but I mean, if they're selling lots that don't exist, I mean, these lots won't
come into existence until they get final subdivision approval and comply with all the conditions. I mean, that's not going to happen tomorrow. It's not going to happen probably six months from now. So, I mean, again, unless they're selling
like, hey, you know, potential future lot. I mean, you can't stop people have the right to to contract, but I I don't know what they're selling right now because these lots don't exist. >> Yeah. I just want to raise the question because
I'm loud and clear that that's really rubbed people the wrong way, >> right? Thank you. if nothing else. But they, you know, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing for them to sell. These lots aren't in existence. >> I don't I don't think it's that unusual
for a builder who has an as of right um ability to build. Again, as of right has a particular context to to advertise his property. >> Um per perhaps uh maybe not the best judgment, but but not unusual. No, I
personally have no problem at all. I was just uh request respecting the you know residents who raised this concerns. That's all it that's asking. >> Do you know if they're sorry >> yeah if they're also like is it just a
for sale sign or are they sharing layout of the houses? >> I don't know any of us knows. Sounds like there's some misinformation from those four sale signs. That's up to whoever's selling them and
doing that. That's going to impact their own sale. It sounds like the misinformation had a little bit of fear-mongering for the people in the audience. Hopefully this meeting clarifies that the township has no, you know, nothing to do with that and that's really at at their kind of
>> peril. So yeah. So in in in light of all the you know miscommunication some things you know we don't have control over but maybe um we can have better control in what the planning board gets as a really nice package from Nancy and I want to make sure I get to see what
they've received in the mail because it seems like they're saying on the internet it's different. Um you you guys received some communication that was also different and then I want to make sure it's not different from what we received. So in the future if there's a way of just better communication. So
what we're reviewing is truly what we're listening to. >> We can't argue with that. >> We'll try to better communicate. >> Thank you so much. >> I just had a few clarifications of the conditions or additions maybe to the
conditions for Mr. PC's list. Um one was to um have the lot notations confirmed by the tax assessor. Um, another was that the fire hydrant will be under the fire officials review. So, location and specifications would be
under the fire official review. Um, in addition to the condition about it being installed prior to the first CO. Um, as I mentioned before, I would recommend that the any of these conditions be added as notations on any final
subdivision plat. Um, all the ones that Mr. PC noted and um that any public water or sewer information be included on that subdivision plat. I believe it might be of a checklist item too, so it would be have to be provided anyway. Um
and then finally um that that all of these changes be provided on a separate a sheet that is separate from the survey on its own subdivision plaque because currently the sheet we did get shows existing proposed conditions and a lot gets lost. So, I
would prefer that that be done on a separate separate plan sheet. That's all. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Peek. Do we have um even though it's included in this in the um in the redevelopment plan, do we have uh address Mr. Pap's earlier concern about
the wetland area or the wet area that juts out is could we make that a condition or is that inherent from >> I mean it's in it's already in the redevelopment plan which is an overland that says no access but we can you know belt suspenders and then another belt
you know it's we'll just we'll put it in there that no access from uh Adamsville right >> there any other comments or proposed conditions Mr. Mcora. >> Sure.
Okay. The the applicant is in a development stage of this project. The question here is, can I subdivide this piece of property? If we say yes, he can then proceed to develop a project scope,
a cost estimate, an execution plan, and hopefully um a site plan. in the next time. Um, a lot of these questions that we have will be addressed with that project scope, including the hydrants.
But, um, I think that's that's what he's looking for right now. After we give an approval or not, if he we do give him approval, he has a path to proceed and then we'll see what happens from there.
That's all. Yeah. >> Any other comments before I open it up for uh deliberations? >> Okay, I'll close the comments and officially open it up for deliberations. >> Mr. Chowry, >> I got a motion.
>> Well, I I'd like to u >> if there's any more deliberations. >> Any more deliberations at all? >> No. I just want to let you know uh Mr. share that at least you know next time probably it will be less confusions to the vote for our ourself as well as the residents and uh hopefully at least we
can do some better homework to make sure that we can come with a clean um informations and proposals. >> Thank you Mr. Chad. Uh and if I could make a quick comment um I certainly don't take offense to any of the
commentary that was brought up this evening. I think it's important uh for this board to hear. Um I do however encourage everyone to go back and perhaps take a listen to the record from 2024. Uh this is not the first time that we're hearing anything that's taking
place on this site. Um it's not the first time that we've addressed storm water management issues. Um we we spend quite some time addressing some of these issues. Uh I'm I'm looking at that wooded lot there and I'm thinking about that head wall that's there that was developed in the early 1980s and about how they were talking about having to
redevelop that, you know, to address some of the further, you know, the flooding downstream. I do remember we had our uh our director of municipal services here at that night uh that was addressing, I believe there was a uh there was an intersection further down there. I don't recall exactly what it was and about how things take place
there. Um this is not a conveyor belt board. uh we are your fellow residents, the public, these are the members of the public here. So any issue or application that's brought before us,
it's important to understand that we're not here to prevent development. We're here to encourage smart development. We're here to improve development. Right? So whenever there's an application comes before our board, it's an opportunity to improve the existing condition. I'm looking at a lot there
that's been sitting there as we talk about a partial sitting that's unimproved. It's been an eyesore. It's been unfinished for several years now. Uh dare I say over a decade. >> Yeah. >> Um and um when you have an opportunity to improve this type of condition, uh
you're looking at, you know, the potential to improve your neighborhood as well. Um we're a methodical board. Uh our job is to understand your emotions because we have emotions as well here. But we have to also be methodical and we have to be procedural about what takes place and
how it's done. Uh whether this passes tonight or or it does not, it is does not have an effect as to what's going to happen when this becomes a site plan before us. Uh we we have every and all right to deliberate that uh you know for for several evenings if we have to. Um,
I I do want to point out, however, that I appreciate the work that our professionals have done, uh, because if it hadn't been for them this evening, for example, they brought up the fact that we could put a condition for storm water management review of these three single lots before it even has to
happen, right? So, they keep us in check here, right? It's emotional for you, but it's emotional for us as well. We have to make sure that this we understand this is Bridgewater and Bridgewater has a water in the name, right? And every one of us here is concerned about that uh from every neighborhood in the
township. Uh again, it's not the first time we've heard this. We have a redevelopment plan we have to follow. This is how it works. Uh we want smart development part of township's ordinance. And at the end of the day, when the site plan does come in here, we want to make sure that they're a good neighbor. And that's going to be the
time to hold them to be a good neighbor. That's a time that we're going to have an opportunity to say how good of a neighbor you going to be to Woodside Lane. Right? So, these are all things that we want to consider up here on this day. And I appreciate everybody's commentary. It's important. I do want to just mention that we have uh, you know,
a member of the environmental commission here that's on our board as well. And he does walk the site and he's very sensitive to any and all environmental issues that we do have in the township. So, please understand that we are members of this township and we are your fellow residents. >> Okay.
>> Any other comments? Okay. >> Yeah. >> I just wanted to add I'm very happy with the professionals we had. I just wanted to ask since I wasn't here last year, did the redevelopment planner also kind of provide all of this type of feedback
that's very easy to digest for our neighbors? >> Very much. >> Okay. Yeah. So, like you said, I think go back I I'm going to go back and watch all the recordings as well. >> Yeah. I'd implore everyone too.
Okay, >> Mr. Peek. >> Well, if someone's inclined to make a motion uh you know, either to approve or deny the application. U if the motion would be to approve the application would be to uh make a motion to grant
preliminary subdivision approval subject to the conditions that we elaborated. And of course, if you want to deny, it's just deny >> to approve with subject to all the various integrated conditions. >> That's Mr. Papas. Uh, could I have a
second to that motion, please? >> Mr. Bonjouro. Miss Propes, could I have a roll call, please? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bonjouro, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Isla, >> yes.
Mr. Papis. >> Yes. >> Mr. McGora. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wang. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chowry. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you, M. Probes. >> Mr. Cheney. Thank you very much for the
application presented this evening. >> Thank Thank you. Have a great evening and we look forward to working with the board in the future applications. >> Very much so. Thank you. >> We'll see you in the final. >> Yep. Okay, moving along. We do not have any other business on the agenda this evening. There any general comments from
our board? >> If not, I'll take a motion to >> special meeting on the 31st. >> Special meeting. >> Miss Probes, anything else you want to add to the calendar? >> I was just going to remind everybody about the special meeting on 31st. >> Very good.
Okay, with that I'll take a motion to adjurnn. Mr. Bonjouro. Second, please. Mr. Chowry. All in favor? >> Have a good night, everyone.