WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=bjKngm3mYXI

Part: 1

1
00:02:03.439 --> 00:02:19.280
Good evening and welcome to the Bridgewater Township Planning Board meeting agenda for Tuesday, July 21st, 2026. Adequate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the open public meetings act NJSA104-6

2
00:02:19.280 --> 00:02:36.000
on January 21st 2026. Proper notice was sent to the electronic new sources of record filed with the municipal clerk at the township of Bridgewater and posted on the building board in the municipal building. Please be aware of the planning board policy for public hearings. No new applications will be

3
00:02:36.000 --> 00:02:52.800
heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10:00 p.m. Hearing assistance is available upon request. Accommodations will be made for individuals with a disability pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA provided the individual with the

4
00:02:52.800 --> 00:03:07.920
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

5
00:03:07.920 --> 00:03:26.640
holidays may be necessary. I would ask if everyone please rise to salute our flag. >> Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

6
00:03:26.640 --> 00:03:44.400
justice for all. Good evening, Miss Probes. Could I have a roll call, please? >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Vasio, >> here. >> Mayor Mench, >> Mr. Bonjouro, Councilwoman Ela

7
00:03:44.400 --> 00:03:59.519
>> here, >> Mr. Papis >> here, >> Mr. Maggora, >> Mr. Wang >> here, >> Miss Sakora >> here, >> Mr. Vango Mitch Charterish >> here. >> Mr. Chowdery >> here.

8
00:03:59.519 --> 00:04:13.120
>> Mr. Atkins >> here. >> We have uh Katie Fina here for Mark Peek, board attorney. Bill Burr, board engineer. >> Katherine Sarmad,

9
00:04:13.120 --> 00:04:28.800
board planner. Sorry. And Maurice Shed, >> traffic engineer. You have a quorum. You can proceed. >> Thank you, Miss Prost. At this time, if there are any members of the public that wish to address the board on any matter that's not listed on tonight's agenda, please feel free to

10
00:04:28.800 --> 00:04:49.320
come forward at this time. Seeing none, moving right along. We do have one resolution for the board this evening to approve, and that is for application 2518PB. That's New Jersey American Water Company. Are there any questions, comments, or change to the record?

11
00:04:52.240 --> 00:05:11.680
If not, I'll take a motion to approve said resolution. >> That's Mr. Chowry. I'll need a second, please. >> Second. >> That's Miss Chardawitz. Can I have a roll call, please? >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Ela.

12
00:05:11.680 --> 00:05:26.320
>> Yes. >> Miss Chardawitch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chowdery. >> Yes. >> Mr. Atkins. Yes. >> And that's the extent of eligibility. >> Thank you, Miss Propes. Moving along to our application portion for the evening.

13
00:05:26.320 --> 00:05:44.199
Our first applicant is 2602PB. That's for Tropiano Vincent. That's block 102 lot 1 and 1.0515 Campbell Court for a minor subdivision. And who will be representing on behalf of our applicant this evening?

14
00:05:56.960 --> 00:06:11.840
Good evening. I get to be chief cook and bottle washer tonight. >> Good evening, Mr. Styrus. How are you? >> Good. How are you? >> Good to see you. >> I guess I have to be sworn as well. >> Uh, we should. >> Yes. Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear? Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help you God.

15
00:06:11.840 --> 00:06:28.319
>> Yes, I do. Um, again, I'm representing the applicant, uh, Vincent Tropiano. Um, I am the engineer for the project, not the attorney. >> Sure. Yep. Um,

16
00:06:28.319 --> 00:06:46.000
we are here today to um, uh, create a lot line adjustment for two existing lots that he owns on Campbell Court. Um, the original subdivision was created in 1984

17
00:06:46.000 --> 00:07:03.360
and Mr. Tropiano bought two of the lots shortly thereafter in early 1985. Um, he built the house that he's currently living in, which is on lot 1.05, which is the closer house, uh, the one that's closer to the property line,

18
00:07:03.360 --> 00:07:18.880
and it's been there ever since. Um there's also another house on um lot one along with a pool drive you know the whole um similar situation. Um what he's looking to do is to

19
00:07:18.880 --> 00:07:34.160
um again when his house was built for some unre un I don't know why but the uh as you can see on the plans the house is about a foot and one inch from the property line. Um, so what he's looking to do, he's going to sell the house on

20
00:07:34.160 --> 00:07:51.120
lot one, but before he does so, he wants to make his lot conforming. Uh, there's also a shed in the back that he wants to essentially transfer from lot one to one point or his lot. Uh, we tried to set up the lot line to conform,

21
00:07:51.120 --> 00:08:06.160
but uh, we couldn't get it to be 20 ft. So, there is a variance for that uh, shed of 10 ft. But everything else is conforming with regards to the subdivision. Uh both lots as far as setbacks and everything are

22
00:08:06.160 --> 00:08:23.599
conforming. The areas are conforming. Um I did create a rendering of what the potential house would look like. Uh if the board I can mark that as exhibit if need be. Um but um I know that uh your planner

23
00:08:23.599 --> 00:08:38.320
was concerned or had a potential concern about what would the house look like for on the new lot. It would be conforming. It did it does meet the setbacks. Um as you can see in the lower uh left hand corner, you can see the river behind the

24
00:08:38.320 --> 00:08:56.399
properties. Um the flood hazard limit is in the slope of the coming up from the the river but does not get onto the property. So there are no flood hazard concerns with either of the lots. So um again it's just really to correct

25
00:08:56.399 --> 00:09:12.720
the lot line before he sells the property. So thanks Mr. Tires for that introduction. Um interesting. And uh I think what I'd like to do initially if there's anybody that that you'd like to have testify if there are any general questions from the board primarily we'd

26
00:09:12.720 --> 00:09:57.680
like to start there. >> One question. So to clarify, you want to move that that middle lot line down a little, right? >> So shade. You said >> and the shed that's going to switch uh

27
00:09:57.680 --> 00:10:37.440
property ownerships. >> Yep. Any other questions? >> Miss Sart, Madam, I'm curious to hear if what has been presented to us tonight, if at all, alters the state of affairs. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And actually, I

28
00:10:37.440 --> 00:10:53.839
think Craig is referring Mr. is referring to is we have a joint review memo that was done by Mr. Burn myself. So, I'm not sure if it was my comment necessarily or Mr. Burs, but nevertheless, um there were a few items in that review memo that I'm not sure Mr. Cyrus has kind of um addressed yet.

29
00:10:53.839 --> 00:11:09.839
Um so, I don't know if you want to walk through those or just, you know, a few of them are cleanup items. I think a few of them are more of substance related to the flood hazard area that maybe Mr. Burr wants to talk through. >> Sure. Unless there's anybody else that's going to be testifying tonight, we can start there. I think that's a good

30
00:11:09.839 --> 00:11:26.720
start. >> Um, so just a few cleanup items. I think um noted that the plans show a proposed lot area for each of the lots that differ from the zone table. So I can just clarify which ones are correct. >> Yeah, it would be on the zone table. I

31
00:11:26.720 --> 00:11:41.279
think you're talking about the others where the um the application material >> on sheet three of three. >> Sheet three. >> Yeah. underneath where it says proposed block and lot, it shows the the area um

32
00:11:41.279 --> 00:11:59.200
underneath it. What whatever it is, it just needs to be cleaned up. >> Yes, the the table is correct. >> Yeah. Should be consistent on the plans then to match that. >> Yep. Um uh there was just one question about the

33
00:11:59.200 --> 00:12:15.440
the F and the improved law coverage in the zone table show that they are maxed out for the proposed the the home that's being demolished and then going to be rebuilt. I'm assuming that that is um just just to be representative of the fact that it can

34
00:12:15.440 --> 00:12:31.600
go up to those amounts, right? >> Yes, it it is intended that it would comply with all conditions of the of the zone. >> Okay. So you're not necessarily saying you are going to max it out by >> correct. Correct. >> Okay. Um and I think the only thing remaining on my end and then I'll pass it over to Mr.

35
00:12:31.600 --> 00:12:50.959
Burr is um we will need you know variance testimony related to the location of the accessory structure and the new lot line. So we'll just need some proofs for the for the bulk variance on that. Okay. >> I'll send it to Mr. Bur. Um Craig, just just a couple of quick

36
00:12:50.959 --> 00:13:12.880
points of clarification. So do you have any sense for how long that shed structure has been on what is now lot one? Any idea how old that is? >> Since he built the house. >> Since the house was built.

37
00:13:12.880 --> 00:13:30.079
>> Yeah. So roughly 1985. >> Okay. And um I think you mentioned it in your testimony, but when you looked at the layout of this subdivision, did you come up with any alternative alignments to where that shed could be positioned in a

38
00:13:30.079 --> 00:13:48.240
conforming location on what's now, I guess, going to be moved to lot 105. >> Uh I mean, if we kept moving it to the 20 ft, it started kind of compromising the lot one. Um and the same thing we tried to keep it um

39
00:13:48.240 --> 00:14:05.040
I guess in good practice of surveying you know a straight I mean we could go and do a jog around it and you know come up with some cockamamey you know excuse me but property line but we tried to keep it straight and you know somewhat um like I said in normal surveying

40
00:14:05.040 --> 00:14:20.160
practice. >> Okay. And do do you know off the top of your head if if you did move the proposed lot line further say to the south so that you did maintain that 20 foot setback would it then cause lot one

41
00:14:20.160 --> 00:14:36.720
to become non-conforming in any way whether it be lot area or I don't know if you knew that off the top of your head or if >> um it would start compromising the the you know for example the house yeah the future house right >> okay all right um and the intent as your

42
00:14:36.720 --> 00:14:52.160
plan shows is to to remove or to raise all of the improvements on what's now lot one. So there's a dwelling there now and what looks like an ingground swimming pool. >> What the remains of an ingground swimming pool that's the intent is to clean up that lot. >> Yep.

43
00:14:52.160 --> 00:15:09.040
>> And then presumably the applicant wants to sell that lot and there may be a house, >> correct? >> Built there in the future. and your testimony was because of the existing flood hazard area line any future development would not have an issue

44
00:15:09.040 --> 00:15:24.880
moving forward in life even the repairarian buffer would most likely be 50 ft which barely even gets onto the property even if it were a more substantial repairarian buffer the disturbance on lot one already could be permitted most likely by a permit by rule anyway

45
00:15:24.880 --> 00:15:41.199
>> okay and um there's a drainage easement on lot one on the southerntherly end of lot one. >> Yes. >> What what happens as a result of this lot line adjustment or future construction on lot one does not impact that drainage structure and that will

46
00:15:41.199 --> 00:15:55.600
rem or the the drainage easement and that'll remain as is and it it's currently I would assume being maintained by the property owner of lot one. >> Correct. Yeah. Nothing would change. Correct. >> Right. Okay. Um Mr. Chairman I think

47
00:15:55.600 --> 00:16:13.120
that's all I had for now. Oh, just one more point of clarification. Just a a note typo, Craig. The plan mentions uh Hudson Essex. Just make sure that reflects Somerset Union. I know how that stuff gets carried through. >> Yes, >> that's all I had though. Thanks.

48
00:16:13.120 --> 00:16:53.480
>> Thank you, Mr. Burr. Any question from board? >> Question. Um could you Craig, could you point out the drainage easement on that plan, please? So is the easement entirely on that lot or is it go into the joining? Does is it

49
00:16:57.440 --> 00:17:23.360
Okay. Uh, in the U there's a pipe underground. There's an underground underground pipe. >> And what's the what type of pipe? And what's the size? Do you know? I believe it is a 24 in concrete pipe.

50
00:17:23.360 --> 00:17:37.360
Um, one of the things that we've discussed at the board, Mr. Chairman, is whenever there's a drainage structure on a private property that there would be a condition of approval that the property owner would be responsible for the

51
00:17:37.360 --> 00:17:54.559
maintenance of that um structure. Do you have any problem with that being a condition of approval? >> Uh, it's it is a public road that it currently drains. So it's not just his property that

52
00:17:54.559 --> 00:18:09.840
drains into that pipe. So I think it would be unfair to put all that onus on this specific. >> Who do you think is responsible for maintaining it? >> I would say that it was most likely dedicated to the township and when the

53
00:18:09.840 --> 00:18:26.320
subdivision was created. Well, we don't know what the verbiage of that easement states. It might just provide access by the township but is unlikely to require the township maintenance of it. And so that's generally the case. We've seen when

54
00:18:26.320 --> 00:18:42.960
there are drainage easements on private properties, it allows the township access but does not u require the township uh maintain it. that's the case and we can confirm that I would want there to be a condition of approval which we've been consistently uh

55
00:18:42.960 --> 00:18:58.160
applying in every instance when there's such a type of a even for two lot subdivisions as I know a lot line adjustment but the structure is on that property and uh if you've said earlier in your early testimony that the

56
00:18:58.160 --> 00:19:13.919
property owner maintains the easement and I did not say that I said there is an easement on his propert I'm looking for that to be a condition of approval. We've made we've been consistent and I would, Mr. Chairman, propose that that be a condition of approval here.

57
00:19:13.919 --> 00:19:30.880
>> I would say one other thing is that if this were a standard subdivision in today's day and age, that would not be permitted by the state. So, for example, if this required a detention basin, but it doesn't stormwater facility, it cannot be put the onus cannot be put on

58
00:19:30.880 --> 00:19:47.919
one lot. And that's what you're trying to do right now. So I think I've never heard that contradictory to state law. >> I've never heard that. Can our attorney shed any light on that or Mr. Burl? Cena. >> Um yes. I mean there's a lack of

59
00:19:47.919 --> 00:20:02.880
information here from my perspective that I would want some first of all a copy of this easement as an initial matter and then to the extent that let's take it from there. I I want a copy of the easement. deed. The deed certainly would show that easement.

60
00:20:02.880 --> 00:20:18.480
>> And just to just to piggyback on what Craig said, so if this was a new development and if it was a major development, then Craig is correct. Uh an individual property owner can't be responsible for the stormwater facilities for a subdivision that has

61
00:20:18.480 --> 00:20:33.520
multiple lots. That's not really the case here. This is an existing property that's been here for quite some time. Um, if it is a a concrete pipe in that easement, I doubt very highly that there's any maintenance that's required.

62
00:20:33.520 --> 00:20:51.360
I think what would be important is making sure that the flared end section at the end of that easement is kept clear. And I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the applicant to make sure that that's clear. Just like if there was a ditch on the property uh or or frankly a a catch basin or an

63
00:20:51.360 --> 00:21:08.400
inlet, they're going to want to make sure that that's not getting covered up with leaves or or anything else that would impede the functionality of the drainage. So I think it's a reasonable request in this case. I don't think anybody is expecting them to take ownership of 200 feet of underground pipe, but to the extent that it can be

64
00:21:08.400 --> 00:21:24.080
maintained in a free flowing manner and making sure that flared end section is is unobstructed, I think it's reasonable. >> What does the board think? I guess my question, if I can just ask a question of our attorney, I suppose that

65
00:21:24.080 --> 00:21:40.320
so I' I'd be curious to see what your analysis is of the deed and any language easement, but if there's no uh specific responsibility for the maintenance of this in the deed, then no one's potentially responsible for it and that

66
00:21:40.320 --> 00:21:57.840
creates an untenable situation. So, I appreciate your analysis of it. >> Yes. And I think that comes down to what what ex I'm kind of punting it here because what does the deed say? Because is the responsibility on the property owner is the responsibility ultimately when this division was created when um

67
00:21:57.840 --> 00:22:13.440
development was created was that left with the township? >> Could there be a a clause or notation on any u subdivision final subdivision map or on the resolution of approval for the subdivision? Is there any language

68
00:22:13.440 --> 00:22:30.720
>> there? There's nothing there's nothing specific on the final plat that was provided with the application. It just drainage easement to Bridgewater Township. But that doesn't necess as we found from prior research we've done throughout the town that doesn't necessarily require the township to be

69
00:22:30.720 --> 00:22:47.120
solely responsible for the maintenance. So um the final plat's not very clear and it's not surprising because it dates >> back some years >> 1984. So it's not surprising there there's a lack of information a lot of times and I think what Mr. Papus was

70
00:22:47.120 --> 00:23:02.480
alluding to is a lot of times now or or in the legal document you may see language that speaks to the town's ability to access the the the easement in the event that that maintenance is required. It gives us the right but not

71
00:23:02.480 --> 00:23:20.320
the obligation. Um, so if there is an actual legal document for the drainage easement, it'd be interesting to see if there's anything in there. But absent of that, um, with the final plat that we have, it's not clear. >> In the absence of that document, um,

72
00:23:20.320 --> 00:23:36.880
anybody that has a drainage on their property should at least do a a cursory or a a routine maintenance at least to see if the wet daylights is open as Mr. Bur suggested. And and I I absolutely agree with what Mr. Burr stated. If we're looking for a condition in

73
00:23:36.880 --> 00:23:52.320
relating to keeping, you know, we use the word maintain, if we're just keeping it clean and making sure it is allowed to free flow um and not clog up. If that's the condition, I see no legal issue with proceeding that way. Um to the extent that you are looking into No,

74
00:23:52.320 --> 00:24:08.960
they need to actually maintain the pipe. That's a different question. >> I had a question, >> Mr. Chowry. So I actually like what Mr. at least you know be a carticious so-called maintainer to clean the leaves

75
00:24:08.960 --> 00:24:24.320
and other things that it makes sense we all do it in you know whether it is township or doesn't matter it's a common practice uh also I think you know Craig should at least agree agreeable to

76
00:24:24.320 --> 00:24:40.720
if the township wants to come and you know out and all this thing that's those two conditions make sense but um In addition to clean up the basic things still the you know the drain clog or something

77
00:24:40.720 --> 00:24:56.960
would be the responsible for that one. I personally think that you know at least clients should not be responsible for that will clog there if he basically does the regular maintenance and then clock comes here because clog may come internally you know in the drain pipe

78
00:24:56.960 --> 00:25:13.600
itself. It happens many times, >> but I don't think this board has the authority to compel the township to maintain that board. This board does not. >> Correct. Council, >> can you repeat that question? >> This board does not have the authority to require the township to maintain the

79
00:25:13.600 --> 00:25:32.880
easement. >> Correct. >> Who would be the 1985? >> And that ultimately leads me to what when this development was established. Um what did the what

80
00:25:32.880 --> 00:25:49.600
did the deed says? What did the easement say? What obligations were taken onto township if any? Um I would need to ref review review further documentation. Um but again going back to Mr. Mr. Bur stated um yes, this board does have the authority to put an obligation or

81
00:25:49.600 --> 00:26:12.799
condition on the property owner as to you know keeping um the flare end section of it clean um and unclogged. >> Mr. Styrs, what do we think about that proposal? >> I'm sorry. keeping the flare and clean of the

82
00:26:12.799 --> 00:26:27.840
>> I would I would agree that the property owner would maintain it. I think the language is appropriate with what Bill said is that the township has the right to come on and you know if there is a clog or something like that they have the right to fix the clog and the

83
00:26:27.840 --> 00:26:47.440
property owner would agree to maintain um the the the facility. >> Keep it clean. Keep it clean. But again, if it's if the pipe becomes clogged, not because of him or some other reason,

84
00:26:47.440 --> 00:27:03.440
I don't think he has the means to to go. Whereas the township would have the simple means, I'm sure they have plenty of equipment that would clean the pipe. Let's be candid here. Mr. Tropiano lives in the existing house on the lot to the west. Correct. >> Right.

85
00:27:03.440 --> 00:27:18.960
>> Okay. And the property to be subdivided, there's going to be a new home constructed. >> Correct. yet to be determined who owns it. Okay. So, we're not talking about the applicant necessarily being the person responsible. It's the person whoever owns that newly built home, >> right?

86
00:27:18.960 --> 00:27:38.080
>> Okay. So, it's not the gentleman sitting in the room, >> right? >> Okay. >> Are there any questions on this end? >> Couldn't we put something in there where they will keep it clear of debris at the flare end? I think that's what it was, right? what was said and then with with

87
00:27:38.080 --> 00:27:54.320
anticipation that we dive into or either Er Burr or whoever it is dives into what who's responsible for it at this point in time. >> We would need to secure the document. >> Yeah. >> And that be a stipulation of like just coming to an agreement from >> Yes.

88
00:27:54.320 --> 00:28:09.039
>> from there. >> Okay. >> Were there being issues that language in there looking for that document as well? >> If that's acceptable then I Um, if the language doesn't exist, um,

89
00:28:09.039 --> 00:28:26.159
what what would we do? If if you can't find that language from the original deed, then >> I would say let me try first and then we'll take it from there. >> Okay. >> Because then I think this board then needs to decide >> how you want to proceed.

90
00:28:26.159 --> 00:28:46.399
>> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Any questions from our public? That'll close the public questioning for this applicant. Mr. Styers, I think we're aware of the document and the direction that we're

91
00:28:46.399 --> 00:29:01.520
headed here. Any other comments that you'd like to make? >> Uh, I don't believe so. I think as far as the um all the review letters, uh, we can work with your staff and and, uh, address all of those conditions. >> Very good, Miss S. Mr. Burn. satisfied

92
00:29:01.520 --> 00:29:17.279
all conditions and requests. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> Excellent. Thank you, Miss Fina. Before we move along here, if we could just um briefly outline exactly what we're looking for and what we're seeking. >> So, at this point, it appears that there

93
00:29:17.279 --> 00:29:35.120
are two two items that are open. One is that this board is considering a condition of approval of this application to include the property owner, the ultimate property owner who purchases this lot uh to be responsible for the um the drainage pipe easement.

94
00:29:35.120 --> 00:29:50.159
The question we have open is the extent of that maintenance um whether that includes as Mr. Bur recommended um you know the uh the maintaining um cleanup of debris of the flare and section um of

95
00:29:50.159 --> 00:30:10.399
that that drainage pipe or to what extent that we can expand that to actually maintain it. >> Thank you Mr. Papus >> very much forina. Any other questions or comments? Any closing comments from the board?

96
00:30:10.399 --> 00:30:26.240
No. >> Okay. Very good. At this point, then essentially what we need is we need a a motion to approve this application on the conditions that Miss Fina just stated. >> And that's the condition to keep the flare end clear. >> That's correct. >> I I'll make that motion. >> Yeah. >> That's Miss Sakura.

97
00:30:26.240 --> 00:30:41.520
>> I I'll second it. >> And Mr. Chowry is a second. Miss Pros have a roll call, please. >> Yes. >> Council Misla. >> Yes. >> Mr. Papis. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wang. Yes, >> Miss Sakura. >> Yes,

98
00:30:41.520 --> 00:31:21.880
>> Miss Chardawitch. >> Yes, >> Mr. Chowdery. >> Yes, >> Mr. Atkins. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Best of luck to you, Mr. Tropiano. Mr. Chairman, can we have the board would like to take a fivem minute break? The time is now

99
00:31:23.120 --> 00:38:58.560
7:40. A fivem minute break. I Miss Probes have a roll call please. >> Here >> Mr. Papis >> here. >> Mr. Wang >> here. >> Miss Sakura >> here.

100
00:38:58.560 --> 00:39:13.119
>> Miss Chardich >> here. >> Mr. Chowdery >> yes. >> Mr. Atkins >> here. >> And all of our board professionals are also here. >> Thank you very much Miss Propes. Moving along for our separate application this evening. It's a continuence of the Wheatsworth Properties urban renewal.

101
00:39:13.119 --> 00:39:29.200
That's block 406, lot 2011, commonly known as Cornell Boulevard and US Highway 2026. Good evening, Mr. Heinman. How are you? >> Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Uh my name is Jason Heenman on behalf of the law firm PriceMe Showman

102
00:39:29.200 --> 00:39:46.720
Darmmeno, uh attorneys for the applicant Wheatsworth Properties LLC, uh Urban Renewal LLC. Uh we're here today for the continuation of the uh preliminary and final site plan and minor subdivision for the property located at Cornell

103
00:39:46.720 --> 00:40:03.359
Boulevard and Prospect Street. It's block 406 lot 2.01. Um this application is part of the uh township's uh fourth round housing element and fair share plan. The proposal is to develop the site with a

104
00:40:03.359 --> 00:40:20.160
100% affordable housing development consisting of four units in one building and those units will be reserved for um very lowincome um uh very lowincome households in which a head of household is a disabled

105
00:40:20.160 --> 00:40:37.119
military veteran. Uh and then there is a second building that will be 11 units and that will be deed restricted uh for low and moderate income families. Uh and it's a COA compliant bedroom mix. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Heim. And

106
00:40:37.119 --> 00:40:53.440
before we proceed this evening, just to state on the record, there is a deficiency in ecro this evening before the application. >> Thank you. Yes, we were made aware um late last week and uh uh the applicant is aware and he's uh he'll have that that check uh submitted shortly.

107
00:40:53.440 --> 00:41:09.920
>> Okay. Normally, we do require that full escro required there. However, this evening, should there be a judgment this evening, we do not have or we will not most likely um proceed with a resolution this evening before we have that escrow. >> Yes. And we don't anticipate um being

108
00:41:09.920 --> 00:41:27.119
complete this this evening. there are interested parties that will be presenting uh affirmative testimony. It's my my understanding. So, we anticipate further meetings. >> Okay. Thank you very much. And just a quick announcement. Uh when I arrived this evening, I did encounter the door uh open as it should be. Uh however, we

109
00:41:27.119 --> 00:41:44.240
have been uh made uh aware that the door did close. It is malfunctioning at this time. Uh please uh continue to leave that door open as it should stay open during our meetings. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, as you heard, just a summary of the the development

110
00:41:44.240 --> 00:42:01.440
application. Um, testimony was provided at prior hearings. Uh, April, I'm sorry, uh, February 17th. You heard testimony from the applicant, Mr. Luchiano Brunie. Uh, regarding the, uh, development of the site, the operations. Uh, there was testimony from our civil engineer,

111
00:42:01.440 --> 00:42:18.319
Michael Fischer, at the next hearing in in, I believe, March 3rd. uh he provided um testimony related to the civil engineering aspect. Uh there were some additional I think we we heard some questions from the board and some questions from the board professionals.

112
00:42:18.319 --> 00:42:34.880
Uh but we did not we were not able to complete his testimony. So we've recalled him. Uh we'll hear uh additional testimony regarding some of the comments that we've received since that last meeting and then we'll open up for additional questions. Uh you also heard testimony from the applicant's

113
00:42:34.880 --> 00:42:50.400
architect um back in March, Mr. Yogish Mystery. He testified with respect to the uh design of the buildings, the floor plans, uh the architectural features. Um he provided um he was he

114
00:42:50.400 --> 00:43:07.520
was subject to questions from the board and cross-examination from um members of the public. Uh and to the extent needed, he can be recalled at a sub subsequent hearing. So uh with that said, um Mr.

115
00:43:07.520 --> 00:43:24.240
Fischer remains under oath. Mr. Fischer, since the last hearing, your license and qualifications uh remain in good standing. >> I think it should be on. >> Yes, it's still in good standing. >> Um so unless there are further

116
00:43:24.240 --> 00:43:40.000
objections, I'd like to proceed with Mr. Fischer's testimony. No objections from our board. Please proceed. >> Thank you. Um so picking up where we left off, Mr. Fiser, um subsequent to um

117
00:43:40.000 --> 00:43:57.599
the hearing back in March, we received a supplemental um review letter from uh Mr. Burr. Is that correct? >> Yes, it is. >> That letter is dated May 18, 2026. And you had an opportunity to review that letter? >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. And at this time, we would just

118
00:43:57.599 --> 00:44:14.960
like to proceed through that letter and have Mr. Fischer provide his responses. So, if you could, you just want to run through that list. >> Sure. So, it's a it's a memo of uh nine items listed in the supplemental drainage review letter. Um, first one

119
00:44:14.960 --> 00:44:31.520
indicates um that we are to comply with all the outstanding comments from the preceding letter dated February 12th, which we agreed to. Um I know that there were some um outstanding items there. We can we can work with the board's engineer as a condition of approval to

120
00:44:31.520 --> 00:44:47.440
meet those requirements. >> Okay. >> And since that last meeting, you you did perform additional soil testing. Correct. >> We did. That was one of the items that was listed in his letter. It was announced um the previous night under my testimony. Um at the time there was only

121
00:44:47.440 --> 00:45:04.720
one test pit that was done per basin. We've since done uh additional testing in each basin to conform with the uh chapter 12 of the BMP manual uh as well as uh perform additional testing to confirm the hydraologic soil group um

122
00:45:04.720 --> 00:45:20.400
for the soils on site. >> So based off that additional testing um are any modifications to the design as previously presented uh is that required or necessary? >> No, there are none at this time. So we we've essentially confirmed the design

123
00:45:20.400 --> 00:45:38.640
uh will comply with the applicable regulations. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. >> And for those reasons, those previous uh your previous testimony with respect to Mr. Mr. Burr's uh storm water comments in his uh prior letter. Uh your

124
00:45:38.640 --> 00:45:55.119
testimony is unchanged that uh the the applicant can comply with those those conditions. >> Yes, that's correct. Uh moving on to comment number two. >> Uh that was comment number two with regards to soil testing. >> Uh comment number three is confirming that all new impervious coverage will be

125
00:45:55.119 --> 00:46:11.359
captured and managed on site by the proposed bio retention basins. Yes, that's correct. Uh we we are doing that now and we uh no change in the design so that that'll be maintained. >> Okay. Comment number four. >> Uh confirm that the roof runoff from the two proposed buildings is directed into

126
00:46:11.359 --> 00:46:27.200
the on-site storm water management system. Um that's correct. All uh the drainage areas have been designed and sized with uh impervious coverage associated with the roof areas. Um the plans graphically depict uh roof leader

127
00:46:27.200 --> 00:46:44.880
connections. They have not been designed but they will be designed um as a as part of a condition of approval should the board approve this application. Uh the next comment >> applicants engineer shall ensure that the proposed grading directs runoff to the storm water facilities and does not

128
00:46:44.880 --> 00:47:02.400
create ponding or uncontrolled drainage conditions. I believe that there was a a question from some of the board members previously and I just think this is going to kind of tie in also with item seven in the letter um that there was some concern about um bypass runoff that

129
00:47:02.400 --> 00:47:18.240
wasn't being collected uh that might still be directed at a neighbor specifically neighbors um of lots three and four. Um, since we last met, I had a chance to look at it. Um, and I believe that I can

130
00:47:18.240 --> 00:47:34.240
safely uh install or or propose a um an inlet at that corner of the property, which would be the southerntherly corner of the property, which is adjacent to lots three and four. Uh, and have a pipe connected to the manhole at the

131
00:47:34.240 --> 00:47:50.560
downstream end of bio retention basin 1A. >> So, that that's the corner. uh adjacent to lot four. >> Correct. >> And it's it would be right across from where we've identified the EV spaces next to the uh

132
00:47:50.560 --> 00:48:05.760
>> more or less it would be down slope of it. Um that that was a concern that there was a there was bypass area that was running around um from originating from the the time to eat diner. Um so so we're going to put an inlet in there and we'll we'll we'll lower it enough so

133
00:48:05.760 --> 00:48:22.480
that way it it has an opportunity to collect any runoff. um and and pipe it over to our system that is discharging into the uh inlet in Cornell Boulevard. >> Okay. So, um just circling back to your prior testimony, the existing system

134
00:48:22.480 --> 00:48:39.280
will capture all of the uh new impervious from the parking lots as well as the runoff from the um the building roofs. Correct. >> That's correct. >> All right. And then this inlet will capture additional runoff that's not being generated from our site, but is flowing across it.

135
00:48:39.280 --> 00:48:54.559
>> That's correct. corner. It's gonna to It's going to more or less protect um is that lot four that's directly adjacent to us. >> Yes, that's lot four >> right here. >> Oh, that's three.

136
00:48:54.559 --> 00:49:09.920
>> Lot three directly adjacent to us because lot four, the majority of the runoff that would be coming across that property is is well offsite and there's nothing I can do to capture that. But but I can put an inlet in the corner there to to cut off some of what would be running across their driveway. Um,

137
00:49:09.920 --> 00:49:25.440
anything to the uh to the south of that is is not is is outside of the the drainage area that would be running across their property. >> Thank you. And and still your opinion that the uh proposed improvements will

138
00:49:25.440 --> 00:49:40.720
um improve the existing runoff conditions. >> That's correct. The system's been designed uh in accordance with the the um state storm water rules which uh require that the um volutric runoff be

139
00:49:40.720 --> 00:49:56.160
reduced um under proposed conditions which we have done so and it's stated in the the stormwater report. >> So that addresses comments six and seven. Moving on to comment eight. Uh

140
00:49:56.160 --> 00:50:14.640
eight is also I think tied in with with um seven. It's it talks about bypass runoff um and and the the inlet will will satisfy that. >> And the last comment number nine. >> Number nine uh we maintain that that we

141
00:50:14.640 --> 00:50:29.680
would like to submit the operation and maintenance manual as a condition of approval uh should the board look favorably upon it. And the reason for that being that >> uh it's typically a a manual that gets prepared after the system has been designed and accepted uh before it's

142
00:50:29.680 --> 00:50:45.359
been constructed. Um so it just minimizes the amount of what needs to be prepared and and revised. >> Thank you. And that concludes the list from Mr. Burr. Um at this time we don't have any additional affirmative

143
00:50:45.359 --> 00:51:01.200
testimony from Mr. Fischer. So we'll open up to questions from the board and uh the professionals. >> Thank you Mr. Fischer. Any questions from our board? >> Just a clarification. The operation and maintenance manual that will also include the uh fire brig uh and also the

144
00:51:01.200 --> 00:51:17.119
garbage collections and anything else? >> No, it's it's limited to the storm water management system. >> Only storm water management. >> Storm water management. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Mr. Papus, Mr. Fisher, when you were here back in

145
00:51:17.119 --> 00:51:33.119
March testifying, I had a few questions that I never got to. Um, so if I could, um, there were there were some comments that you may have made. Uh, not sure who made them. I just have this noted here. Um, regarding the maintenance of plantings

146
00:51:33.119 --> 00:51:51.040
along the privacy fences. Could you um are there are there any I guess that should ask the question. Are there any plantings that are contemplated by you folks against the privacy fences that are being installed?

147
00:51:51.040 --> 00:52:06.079
>> Um, well, I guess for for starters, I will just for clarity, are you referring to um which side of the fence are you referring to? We have plantings proposed along the neighboring side of the property? >> Yes, that's the one I'm referencing. Yes.

148
00:52:06.079 --> 00:52:21.920
>> Um, I don't believe that I made reference to this. I I went through the transcripts. I don't recall discussing um the maintenance of it, but I I would say regardless of that that um the maintenance would fall in line with

149
00:52:21.920 --> 00:52:38.440
whatever the the the township's requirement is uh in terms of a landscape plan and and how long after it's supposed to be maintained should should it become uh you know diseased or or or need to be replaced.

150
00:52:38.800 --> 00:52:55.520
>> Mr. Chairman, if I could. So, if if this application is approved uh after the project is constructed, it's common place to have a two-year guarantee, a maintenance guarantee to protect the landscaping. In this case, however, I I I don't think it's unreasonable for the

151
00:52:55.520 --> 00:53:12.240
board to expect that the landscaping is maintained in perpetuity. Um it's something that is only fair to the to the neighbors and something that I'm sure the applicant would agree to. Um but but certainly there's going to be a two-year landscape guarantee, but I

152
00:53:12.240 --> 00:53:31.440
would recommend that landscaping be maintained um forever moving forward. >> Thank you, Mr. B. >> No issue. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and this is a few months. I'm trying to remember what um my notes meant. Um you

153
00:53:31.440 --> 00:53:47.359
you testified about the sanitary sewer line and um could you just refresh my memory where the sanitary sewer line that provides sanitary sewage to this project? Uh where would be located?

154
00:53:47.359 --> 00:54:03.920
>> Sure. There's going to be two separate lines, one for each building. Um each building is going to require a individual um pump station, a lift station uh given the elevation that it would need to it it wouldn't be able to

155
00:54:03.920 --> 00:54:19.359
discharge via gravity. Um so there there would be two pump stations proposed. Um both uh both are both are located on our property. Um the lot 2.02 2, which is

156
00:54:19.359 --> 00:54:46.960
the 4unit veterans building. Um, it is directly between the building and the rightaway line. Um, and then, um, I have. So, it comes directly out perpendicular

157
00:54:46.960 --> 00:55:03.839
from the building to a sanitary sewer pump station. Um, it's it's a gravity line from the building to the pump station and then it pumps up to um a connection with the um pump station force main um

158
00:55:03.839 --> 00:55:19.440
from lot 2.03. That pump station is located in the island on the easterly corner of the building. Could you could you take the cursor on the laptop there and just kind of point to the location? >> Sure. >> Thank you.

159
00:55:19.440 --> 00:55:37.520
>> So the cursor right here is on 2.02. That's where the pump station is going to be for that building. >> The pump station for 2.03 is going to be in this landscaped island here. Um and from there um it's going to come on a

160
00:55:37.520 --> 00:55:54.880
diagonal. is not my thing, but we'll figure it out. On a diagonal in that rough direction, it'll run parallel with the curb line. Um it runs through the 20 foot wide section of the property which

161
00:55:54.880 --> 00:56:10.720
fronts on Cornell Boulevard which is in accordance with the um the township ordinance. Um and there it will connect with the force main from the pump station from lot 2.02 2, which will run diagonal

162
00:56:10.720 --> 00:56:31.119
across the driveway. It'll connect and then continue pumping up to the manhole, which I believe is in front of this house here. >> Okay. >> Lot five. >> Yes, it's in front of lot five, which is

163
00:56:31.119 --> 00:56:46.960
unfortunately off the screen on that exhibit, but there's an existing manhole there, and that's where it would connect. Um I can't recall was there um any um could you just review the the plantings or any kind of barrier that is proposed

164
00:56:46.960 --> 00:57:03.200
to exist along the highway? >> Uh the majority of the plantings uh as graphically shown on that exhibit are um evergreen in nature uh to to create a buffer along the along the highway. Um

165
00:57:03.200 --> 00:57:19.839
there are additional um plantings peppered through the site along the curb line which are deciduous. Uh the intent is um to to meet the um requirement for replacement trees. Now I know we

166
00:57:19.839 --> 00:57:35.200
originally came in for a waiver with this application. I since had a chance to take a look at this and I believe that I can swap out some some plantings to to make that waiver um go away and eliminate it um and conform with the the

167
00:57:35.200 --> 00:57:55.040
replacement tree requirement. >> That's all I have for now. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Papus. >> Anybody else? How about from our professionals? Miss Sarmmed. Any other questions?

168
00:57:55.040 --> 00:58:09.599
>> Looking through my notes from the answering, I I don't believe I have any additional questions for Mr. Fischer. Thank you, >> Mr. Burr. Anything to add to uh February's notes and and beyond. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Mike,

169
00:58:09.599 --> 00:58:26.160
you had testified um that you guys since the last meeting, I think at the end of March, you performed some additional soil testing. >> That's correct. Uh just to be clear, we did it in both March and April. Uh March, I believe they had a machine malfunction and they could no longer

170
00:58:26.160 --> 00:58:42.960
complete any of the testing, so they had to come back in a couple of weeks. But yes, >> time frame. >> I don't think I've seen th those results. You would have no problem with sharing them with the board. >> None whatsoever. I intend including them in the the formal resubmission of the report. >> Very good.

171
00:58:42.960 --> 00:58:59.680
>> Yeah. I just want to go back to your testimony about the the the bypass runoff and how that's going to be managed. It was a source of a lot of Q&A at the last meeting or actually I guess two meetings ago from the early part of March. Um similar to what you did you

172
00:58:59.680 --> 00:59:15.119
just did to answer one of Mr. Papis's questions. Can you go to the cursor? I just want to just want to make sure we're all on the same page. So essentially what's happening is on the west side of this property where the time to eat diner is there's some runoff

173
00:59:15.119 --> 00:59:32.319
that that emanates or that originates off property. Correct. >> That is correct. >> In the existing condition that currently flows across the subject property and then eventually it meanders way its way down through lot three to Cornell Boulevard to the storm system in Cornell

174
00:59:32.319 --> 00:59:48.559
Boulevard. >> Yes, that's correct. If the project's approved in the current plan or on the current plan, the building on lot 203 will essentially obstruct the ability of that water to flow through your property. >> Correct. >> And one of the issues that I had raised

175
00:59:48.559 --> 01:00:04.319
and and some of the board members had raised is we want to make very sure that there's not going to be any impacts to lot three and four fronting on Cornell. So, in response to that, you're proposing to put, I guess, a lawn inlet

176
01:00:04.319 --> 01:00:20.559
in or a series of lawn in a >> inlet. >> And can you just point on the plan to where approximately that >> everyone see the cursor? It's it's going to be roughly adjacent to where that tree is at the corner. So, so any runoff that that comes from the time to eat

177
01:00:20.559 --> 01:00:37.119
area is going to make its way towards the new uh building on 203 and then there may be a swale or a burm right >> on the rear of that building. >> Pointed out that the site is is is graded higher. >> Okay. >> So, it's creating its own swale like

178
01:00:37.119 --> 01:00:52.559
condition. >> So, it's going to run off along the the toe of the slope that we're creating. It'll get picked off by that inlet. I'll put it a little a recess a couple inches lower >> so that way it has an opportunity to to collect it all. >> And then it and then from there it's

179
01:00:52.559 --> 01:01:10.000
gonna pipe across parallel to the curb to where the the um manhole is located downstream of the outlet control structure for basin 1A. >> Okay. All right. So that will address any potential for that runoff to impact

180
01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:25.440
those neighbors. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And in the course of installing a an inlet and piping, is that going to have any impact to your ability to put that landscaping in? Because the exhibit you have shows some landscape plantings in

181
01:01:25.440 --> 01:01:40.400
that area. You you think you have enough room to fit in a drain pipe and an inlet without compromising any of the new landscaping? >> Uh, I believe I can make it work. >> Okay. All right. Good. um the storm system that exists on

182
01:01:40.400 --> 01:01:58.240
Cornell Boulevard that any overflow from your onsite drainage facilities is going to connect to that. Have you had a chance to take a look at that that system in terms of finding out what type of condition it's in? Is it good repair? Is it >> I have not had a chance to look at it. I know that it it discharges um

183
01:01:58.240 --> 01:02:13.680
approximately 850 ft away into the Petersbrook >> via a series of u pipes and and structures whether it's manholes or catch basins or a combination of >> um but no I have not had a chance to to

184
01:02:13.680 --> 01:02:30.079
uh inspect the system itself. I know that uh one of the things you had asked for was to provide a a um television inspection. Um I I don't think we have any objection to to providing that so long as as it's uh up to a certain length. I mean I don't think we should

185
01:02:30.079 --> 01:02:47.200
be you know scoping it the entire 850 ft because again runoff is going there today to that inlet and through this piping system and we're reducing the flow to it. >> So that that's a point I want you to just touch on for a minute. So there's

186
01:02:47.200 --> 01:03:02.960
an existing system in the frontage of this property or along the frontage of this property that you're proposing to connect to formally with this project, but your testimony is that because of the two proposed bio retention basins, the amount of water that's going to be

187
01:03:02.960 --> 01:03:19.280
entering that system should be less than what enters it now. Is that >> that's correct? say, and as a condition of any approval, you would agree to get um eyes on that system that it's going to connect to to make sure it's in good uh condition and functional to accept

188
01:03:19.280 --> 01:03:38.559
>> what runoff may connect to that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um Mr. Chairman, I I think that's all I had from a drainage perspective at this point. Let me just make sure.

189
01:03:38.880 --> 01:03:55.599
Yes. Um, can I ask just a few additional questions not related specifically to drainage? Please do. >> So, back to the question about the buffer along the highway. As I recall from one of the prior meetings, there was an agreement to put a fence up along

190
01:03:55.599 --> 01:04:11.760
the the rear portion of the property in addition to some landscaping. Are my notes correct? Were you guys offering to put a fence along the highway portion of the property? issue came up with the fact that, you know, we probably want to put like a six foot

191
01:04:11.760 --> 01:04:28.480
privacy fence >> and whether or not that would require varants relief because >> technically fronting a right of way. So, yeah, that's that's something that we we could >> that's something you would be willing to do, >> but it would require, you know, just a

192
01:04:28.480 --> 01:04:44.559
confirmation of whether or not we needed relief and then whether this board would grant it. Okay. Um, from a lighting perspective, I think there was some testimony previously and maybe even some board questions that the lighting plan has some dark areas, maybe

193
01:04:44.559 --> 01:05:01.039
some areas that are a little bit higher than the average allowed. You you had agreed to take a look at your lighting plan and make sure that you're going to comply with the ordinance requirements, right? Okay. In landscaping wise, I think we just heard that um you're planning to remove one of your waiver

194
01:05:01.039 --> 01:05:16.480
requests because you are going to be able to provide the sufficient amount of of replacement plantings. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. And last question has to do with um two internal but outside uh review memos. One from our fire official, the

195
01:05:16.480 --> 01:05:31.599
other from our sewer utility. Okay. >> I think they were dated early in the year, January, February. just want to make sure that you've received them and you can just put on record that you have no issue with addressing uh any of the comments in those memos. >> That's correct. I have no issue with

196
01:05:31.599 --> 01:05:48.160
that. As far as the fire official, um I think I think it's been uh at least addressed during the last hearing when I presented the uh turning exhibit that I I had um reviewed it. he had provided specs on his on the fire truck. Um, and

197
01:05:48.160 --> 01:06:05.440
we showed that we could have the the uh truck maneuver the site. Uh, additional comments were regarding um a 5-in storage connection on the building side and marked and knockbox

198
01:06:05.440 --> 01:06:22.160
and truss roof signs which I are are standard practice. So, we have no objection to that. >> Okay. As far as the sewer, uh, I've read that and then just in, you know, a brief overview, yes, we have no objection to, um,

199
01:06:22.160 --> 01:06:39.920
meeting the the, um, the requirements in that letter as a condition of approval. >> Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Burn. >> I just wanted to mention I do recall there being a conversation about the fence. I remember Miss Sakura asked

200
01:06:39.920 --> 01:06:57.119
about it and you guys had mentioned yes, you would because we were we brought up the fact that we were worried about kids getting into the highway. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> I do have a question on you called it an egg inlet, right?

201
01:06:57.119 --> 01:07:11.359
>> A inlet. Type A. >> A type A. How what size storm is it built to hold? >> It's it's not really a matter of a size storm size that it's designed for. It's just the the uh square footage of the surface area that it it has. It's it

202
01:07:11.359 --> 01:07:34.160
it's effectively um a curb in great >> with a box frame. >> Okay. >> Just to to um make it clear for everyone, a type E. And then obviously a type B, like I

203
01:07:34.160 --> 01:07:49.039
said, is is that a sized grate with a a curb piece on top of it. We wouldn't need a type B in this instance because there's no curb adjacent to it. >> And with the water runoff the way it is now, it goes to I know you explained

204
01:07:49.039 --> 01:08:06.880
where where that hooks into, right? Does the water runoff go to that same area now or does it go to multiple >> runoff across the site? Um per per the the drainage area map that was provided

205
01:08:06.880 --> 01:08:24.000
in the plan set which is page nine um shows an overall drainage area of called labeled EX1. Uh it's approximately 3 acres in size. Um and it it encompasses a portion of the time to eat diner. Um and it runs all the way up to route 202

206
01:08:24.000 --> 01:08:40.080
206 uh to the curb line that all uh runs across the property. Um some of it stay runs across exclusively exclusively our property. Some of it runs across the neighbors lots three and four. Um but it

207
01:08:40.080 --> 01:08:56.480
all um ultimately discharges into that catch basin that's in Cornell Boulevard which is where we're connecting to. So you're confident that it can that the water can flow appropriately and not overwhelm the system? >> That's correct. >> Okay,

208
01:08:56.480 --> 01:09:12.799
>> Mr. Corey, your question is interesting. I was thinking the same thing. So after Mr. Burr asked his questions and going back to Mr. Fischer, we were talking about using the a to capture that water entering the system. Now we talk about capacity. There's there's clearly capacity that you're offering which is

209
01:09:12.799 --> 01:09:28.880
excellent. uh prior to this um to to any groundbreaking here, doesn't the rate of flow currently as exists today, there's water runoff from time to eat into that area? So, there's a slower rate of flow. So, with the proposed uh application,

210
01:09:28.880 --> 01:09:44.400
the proposed um improvements here, aren't we talking about an increased rate of flow regardless of capacity? Are we worried about the increased rate of flow entering that a inlet? Like we talked about monitoring and maybe taking a look and see what the existing issue or the existing status of the pipe is

211
01:09:44.400 --> 01:10:01.440
today, but are there any Mr. Burr, are there any concerns at all of of the change in the rate of flow? Because today it's there there's quite a bit of expanse there for for that water to gently dissipate as it runs off. >> Yeah, I mean it's a good question.

212
01:10:01.440 --> 01:10:17.679
Theoretically, and I'll let I'll let Mr. Fiser chime in as well. Anytime you're you're taking overland flow for water and putting it at a pipe, technically it's going to speed up um the time that it gets to its end destination, which could have an impact. Um

213
01:10:17.679 --> 01:10:32.960
what I would say is we're not talking about a large area of drainage here. Um I would also say that, you know, where it flows now, it kind of cuts right across the property. In the proposed

214
01:10:32.960 --> 01:10:50.239
condition, it's going to kind of meander its way over land flow behind the new building and then it's going to make its way into that inlet and then travel along that property line to the rear of lot three in a pipe that's pretty flat. These are not steep properties. They're

215
01:10:50.239 --> 01:11:06.960
not going to be steeply pitched pipes. So, I really don't think that you're going to see any issue um with the storm system or the impact on the storm system on Cornell. Mr. Fiser is going to have to revise his plans. He's going to have

216
01:11:06.960 --> 01:11:22.239
to provide calculations to make sure that we're not going to have any negative impacts. But just just based on the testimony I've heard, based on my review of the plans, I don't think you're going to have um a substantial impact from from making that change to

217
01:11:22.239 --> 01:11:37.520
putting that water into a pipe. >> Really don't. >> Thank you, Mr. And quite quite honestly, um if that does come to prove to be an issue, um nothing stops the applicant from trying to keep that water on the

218
01:11:37.520 --> 01:11:52.719
surface through a swale or through a burm and swale, some combination if we do think it's going to cause an impact, but I I don't think it will. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fischer. Any other questions? >> Uh if I could just verify real quick um

219
01:11:52.719 --> 01:12:07.840
everything um Mr. Bur said is correct. Um but what I would also say is that while that is specific to the we'll call it the bypass inlet and pipe um the the proposed systems that were that have

220
01:12:07.840 --> 01:12:24.640
been designed for this site um are are sized so that way the basins hold a volume of water and slowly let it out. So, so it it it will reduce the the the volumetric flow rate into the system

221
01:12:24.640 --> 01:12:42.159
um at a at a slower rate. Um so it it I have no anticipation that that that system should be taxed from from either the bypass or what we're releasing under proposed conditions. >> Good to hear. Thank you. >> Um so I I just had a question on who's

222
01:12:42.159 --> 01:12:59.840
going to monitor the rates in real time. Well, I I believe that comes comes in with the uh operation and maintenance manual. >> So, the township, will they have um any kind of oversight like an annual report

223
01:12:59.840 --> 01:13:16.080
where we can go back and make sure >> so >> it goes as planned? >> That's one of the um one of the conditions that we had asked the applicant to agree to. They're required to agree to that operations and maintenance manual. that that's common

224
01:13:16.080 --> 01:13:33.360
place now and it's a requirement on any project like this that's a major development. We're also asking for the applicant or developer to provide an annual certification that they are in fact maintaining the facilities on the property. So because what the township

225
01:13:33.360 --> 01:13:49.360
is going to have to do on an annual basis is certify to the state that the facilities are being maintained. We're not we're not responsible for doing the maintenance on a private property, but we have to certify that they are being maintained. So, we need to get a written

226
01:13:49.360 --> 01:14:06.400
certification from the applicant that they're doing that um >> and the this is all regulated by ordinance and um there is uh a fining ability on the town's end. if we find private if we find out that these

227
01:14:06.400 --> 01:14:21.679
private properties aren't being maintained, we do have the the ability to issue penalties um if needed. So, it it's all spelled out by ordinance and I think that um it's a process that is working. It's a

228
01:14:21.679 --> 01:14:39.360
newer process, but so far so good. So, we do have we have oversight. We're not responsible for the maintenance, but we have the oversight capability or ability. >> Thank you. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Thank you, Councilman. Anybody else?

229
01:14:39.360 --> 01:15:11.600
Are there any questions for Mr. Fischer from our members of the public? Please come forward. Just give me a second, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate that. >> Your time. No problem. >> I have a lot of questions. That's why I just want to try to organize it to make it as efficient as possible.

230
01:15:11.600 --> 01:15:54.880
>> Unfortunately, we have a lot of time. So, >> good. Okay, let's pop that up there. Members of the board, good evening. Um, good to be back here as always. Rob Simon from Herald Law here on behalf of um my clients who I've identified. I'll

231
01:15:54.880 --> 01:16:10.000
just identify them again. Um, Richard Cash, 203 Cornell Boulevard, block 406, lot three. That's Bridgewater Township. Um, Jennifer Fleer and Jason Rodker, 110 Prospect Street, block 153, lot 16.

232
01:16:10.000 --> 01:16:26.080
That's in Somerville. Um, George Cook and Barbara Cook, 199 Cornell Boulevard, block 406, lot 4, that's in Bridgewater. And then Brian Riley, 100 Prospect Street, block 153, lot 15.01, 01 in in

233
01:16:26.080 --> 01:16:41.840
Somerville. So, two Somerville families and and two Bridgewater families. >> Um, Mr. Fischer, good evening. Good to see you. I'm going to call you, if that's okay, either Mike or Mr. Fischer, depending on what my m mood is as I get

234
01:16:41.840 --> 01:16:58.960
through this. Yes, I I appreciate you being uh accommodating with regard to that. Um, so I'm going to try I will be jumping around a little bit. Um, and I think that, um, what I would like to do, um, is

235
01:16:58.960 --> 01:17:14.400
maybe to sort of start because I haven't had a chance to cross-examine you, maybe start from the beginning and then during the course of my, um, questioning, I'm going to, of course, ask some questions about, um, testimony, including testimony that you gave uh, this

236
01:17:14.400 --> 01:17:31.840
evening. Um, so um, Mr. Mr. Fischer, how many times you've been to the site? >> Uh, probably about four times. >> And you've reviewed the township's ordinances and master plans in connection with this application? >> Yes.

237
01:17:31.840 --> 01:17:46.880
>> Okay. And and you're familiar with them in terms of the development um that is being proposed on this site? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. And you've uh created the the site plan, the numerous sheets in the site plan. has al also reviewed the

238
01:17:46.880 --> 01:18:04.080
application materials that um supplemented that site plan whether it's the application itself or any other types of reports that were submitted by any professionals on behalf of the applicant. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. And with regard to this property itself, have you had an opportunity to

239
01:18:04.080 --> 01:18:19.679
review a a title search or title commitment regarding this property? >> I personally have not, but I know that one was done at the time of the survey was prepared. >> Yeah. But you you yourself have not reviewed. No. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. >> And

240
01:18:19.679 --> 01:18:35.120
um your exhibit 1A that you presented the um the aerial um what's the source of that photo? I'll call it.

241
01:18:35.120 --> 01:18:51.360
>> Uh the the image source was I believe Bing. >> Okay. And when you say Bing, you're talking about a computer program search engine that provides aerials. Yes. Right. And and and do you know um approximately the date of that? >> I am not aware of it. No.

242
01:18:51.360 --> 01:19:06.640
>> Okay. And and you don't know in terms of from how far it was taken or any of the circumstances, right? >> I am not I am not aware. >> Yep. Um, in terms of the uh minor sub subdivision preliminary final site plan set that

243
01:19:06.640 --> 01:19:27.520
you've submitted, um, just so I'm clear, the uh, latest date that I have is uh, December 3rd of 2025. Is that accurate >> in terms of your plan sets? >> Yes, that's correct. Okay. I was

244
01:19:27.520 --> 01:19:42.960
actually looking at the exhibit and that's what I was pausing about. >> Right. Yeah. My my uh fault if that was unclear. Um so since December 3rd of 2025, you have not made any plan revisions to any plan sheet in your plan

245
01:19:42.960 --> 01:19:58.719
set. Correct. >> No, that's that's incorrect. I'd actually like to amend my last >> Yeah. Yeah. Please. >> Statement. Please do. >> Um the the original date, the origin date of the plans is December of of 25. Um in January 25 we revised them and >> January 26

246
01:19:58.719 --> 01:20:12.560
>> 26 sorry. >> All right. >> Um we revised them and the note into sheet one only was revised for a county submission. Um and that was to address any any issues that the or conditions that the county requires for Somerset

247
01:20:12.560 --> 01:20:29.520
County um for submission purposes. So, for instance, you if you're looking at the cover sheet on the plan, sheet one, there's a um an acceptance stamp box that Somerset requires. It's on the left hand side of the margin. It's it's literally a blank box.

248
01:20:29.520 --> 01:20:46.719
>> Yeah. I don't have that on mine. That's why I'm asking. Yeah. >> Mhm. Okay. So, other than um creating the um the approval box on the left hand side of sheet one, are there any other revisions from December 3rd of 2025?

249
01:20:48.400 --> 01:21:03.760
I believe it would it's it's all limited to the cover sheet. I don't believe that there were any other notation changes on on the um notes and references. Everything is limited to um to that signature block. >> Okay. Um with regard to sheet two of 16

250
01:21:03.760 --> 01:21:19.520
entitled boundary and topographic uh survey plan, some you or someone from your office prepare prepare the survey for this. >> That's correct. Uh Ken Dystra is a licensed land surveyor in my office. He he signed off on the the deployment. >> When when you say he signed off on it,

251
01:21:19.520 --> 01:21:35.120
did he actually prepare the survey himself? >> No, he did not. >> Okay. And and do you know who prepared the survey? >> I do. >> You do? Someone from your office? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Um but you did not participate in in the uh creation of that survey, correct?

252
01:21:35.120 --> 01:21:49.840
>> I did not. >> Okay. And what was the date of the survey? The date of the survey is December 3rd. >> Same as the date of your plans. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And was that survey done based on a site visit? >> Yes, it was. >> Okay. And do you know when that site

253
01:21:49.840 --> 01:22:04.000
visit took place? >> Uh I am unaware. >> What? >> I am unaware of the exact date. >> And with regard to your plans, you know, you refer to um some boundary lines. You talk about um uh

254
01:22:04.000 --> 01:22:21.600
burrow of Somerville, Township of uh Bridgewater, and there's some uh municipal boundary lines that are created um specifically including on sheet three of 16. Did you um review both the Township of Bridgewater and the Burough of Somerville tax maps and um

255
01:22:21.600 --> 01:22:35.840
creating this plan? >> My office did when they prepared the plan. >> When you say your office did, did did you yourself when you signed off on this plan? cuz I see your signatures on this plan. Correct. Right. When you signed off on this plan, had you yourself

256
01:22:35.840 --> 01:22:53.440
reviewed those tax maps to um assess where boundary lines are, zoning uh lines are per the tax maps of both the communities. >> Well, the the zoning lines would not be on the tax maps. They would be on a

257
01:22:53.440 --> 01:23:10.400
zoning map. I did review the zoning map. Um, as far as the the tax lot lines, um, the municipal boundary line, again, that that's something that's prepared as a part of the survey. That is a survey related item. Um, and that's where that that line is generated from.

258
01:23:10.400 --> 01:23:25.360
>> Okay. But you yourself you you didn't review those. >> You didn't asked an answer. Please move on. >> Mr. Heyman, I'm just getting clarification here. Uh, the those municipal tax maps, you did not review them yourself. Correct. >> I did. >> You did. Yes. And you and and you and

259
01:23:25.360 --> 01:23:43.520
you believe that the um identification of for example on sheet three of 16 of the location of the we'll call it the township of Bridgewater and Burough of Somerville municipal boundary line

260
01:23:43.520 --> 01:24:00.560
um is accurate per both of those maps because it says here municipal boundary align per Somerville tax maps. Did did you also review the township Bridgewater tax maps? >> My office did. >> Okay. You did not though, correct?

261
01:24:00.560 --> 01:24:16.960
>> And so you didn't rely you yourself did not rely on the Bridgewater tax maps when you created this line. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And um and sheet two of 16 refers to Cornell

262
01:24:16.960 --> 01:24:35.920
Boulevard as a 100 foot rightway per tax map. Correct. >> Okay. Which was that from the uh Somerville tax map because that's the one you reviewed. Okay. And um sheet two

263
01:24:35.920 --> 01:24:55.880
I just want to Mike let me just go to it because I don't want to misstate it. She too, note number three, refers or references NJ do plans dated July of 1987.

264
01:24:56.239 --> 01:25:13.440
>> Was that 67? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay, hold on. >> My mistake. >> I think it's 87. >> You're correct. >> Right. Um, so what what does that note three refer

265
01:25:13.440 --> 01:25:28.800
to and what's its what's its relevance to sheet number two? >> So again, when when my office prepares a boundary and topographic survey, uh they don't just rely solely on the the deed of the specific property itself, but

266
01:25:28.800 --> 01:25:46.159
they research uh they research deeds and and uh filed maps. And in this case, because it's adjacent to a state highway, DOT maps and they review that and they prepare the the boundary survey based on the review and assessment of

267
01:25:46.159 --> 01:26:02.639
all of the maps together. >> Were were all those maps um provided as part of this application for the public and the board and the board professionals to review? >> No. >> And it talks about a parcel

268
01:26:02.639 --> 01:26:21.120
to be acquired. What parcel is that referring to? See what I'm talking about? So, and I apologize for continuing to take my glasses off. It is what it is as you're getting old. Um, and I'm reading here NJ DOT plans entitled general property

269
01:26:21.120 --> 01:26:38.880
parcel map route number US 202 and 206 1953 section 1 route 28 to Brown Road showing existing right ofway and parcel to be acquired in the township of Bridgewater and burrows of Somerville and Raridan

270
01:26:38.880 --> 01:26:55.040
County of Somerset dated July 1987. So Mr. Fischer, that's what I'm referring to when I'm asking you, do you know what parcel or parcels were contemplated to be acquired per that note? >> No.

271
01:26:55.040 --> 01:27:12.000
>> Okay. And and do you know whether because I didn't see it, whether those parcels to be acquired were actually depicted on the survey that your office prepared? >> Since I already answered no to the previous question, the answer is no. Again, >> okay. And so you don't know if that land was actually acquired or not acquired.

272
01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:28.080
Okay. Um, sheet number two, note four, the next one refers to NJ DOT plans dated March 8th, 1991. Do you know what that refers to? >> The construction plans of 202 and 206.

273
01:27:28.080 --> 01:27:44.320
In other words, note number on sheet number two, note number four, um, NJ DOT plans titled construction plans route US 206 1953,

274
01:27:44.320 --> 01:28:02.480
section 3G, Route US 202 and 206, 1953, section 1G, and then it goes on and it talks about plan sheets dated uh, March 8th of 1991. Can you see what I'm referring to? >> Yeah, I know. I see exactly what you're referring. >> Okay. So, um, with regard to that, um,

275
01:28:02.480 --> 01:28:19.920
do you know what what that comment or what that note or reference refers to? As a point of reference, all of the maps that are listed in the notes and references, again, as I've stated before, are are maps that are utilized by our survey department when they put

276
01:28:19.920 --> 01:28:36.000
together the the survey to prepare the most accurate version of a boundary and topographic survey as they possibly can. So, this is a map that they utilize, not me, but they utilized in the preparation of the existing conditions of the site. I am not a surveyor. Therefore, I am not

277
01:28:36.000 --> 01:28:51.280
involved in in the >> and you and you haven't seen that. So, you don't know what it what it said. >> I have seen DOT mappings. I don't know that it's exactly the same map, >> right? You don't know what those maps specifically show. That's fair. Um, now in this case, you're referring to the

278
01:28:51.280 --> 01:29:06.719
plan itself adjacent to 2026. Is there a driveway or a curb cut or or some other um access um that may have even been originally

279
01:29:06.719 --> 01:29:23.120
proposed to the current property, the mother lot from 20220 206. >> There is an existing curb cut. And what I will say about that curb cut, >> wait, what's that? >> What I will say about that curb cut? >> Hey, can you just hold on just one second? Let's just I just want to break

280
01:29:23.120 --> 01:29:38.480
it down. So, and I don't um Mr. Fischer, I'm going to leave it to you. Whatever whether it's the exhibit that you have up on the board uh currently or whether there's a better plan sheet that on your site plan that would better

281
01:29:38.480 --> 01:30:31.199
>> I'm looking at sheet two that we keep >> communicating about. But bring that up for the benefit of the public and the board. >> Yeah. >> Sorry, Jay. Thank you. >> So So we're we're looking at sheet two again dated December 3rd, 2025. This is

282
01:30:31.199 --> 01:30:48.400
sheet two of 16. And Mr. Fischer, I asked you a question about a curb cut. You said there is a curb cut and you were going on and I cut you off maybe rudely and I apologize, but I just wanted the board to get a visual and the public to get a visual as as you continue your testimony regarding the

283
01:30:48.400 --> 01:31:03.679
curb cut by first identifying on sheet two approximately where that curb cut is and then whatever else you were going to say. >> Sure. So, uh I while you were just talking now, I zoomed in on sheet two. Um, and you can see that the curb cut is

284
01:31:03.679 --> 01:31:21.199
a a heavier um line uh near the the inside corner of the mother lot as you refer to it. >> So the curb cut is right here. >> So the curb cut is >> almost in the middle of the property.

285
01:31:21.199 --> 01:31:37.520
>> Okay. Because and I apologize, Mr. Fischer. What's the date? only because what I'm looking at right now on a copy of, you know, sheet two of 16 with the December 3rd date, I don't see that I don't see that line or any of those

286
01:31:37.520 --> 01:32:10.560
notations. >> That date of the survey is the origin date. There's no additional date >> December 3rd, 2025. It's directly beneath the United States Highway Routes 202 and 206 on on the

287
01:32:10.560 --> 01:32:26.480
ramp side. >> So, where there's a reference to I apologize. >> Depressed curb. >> Yes. Where it says depressed curb. Um that's what you're referring to. >> Yes, I am. That's a current and that's located off the property.

288
01:32:26.480 --> 01:32:40.800
>> That's correct. It's located in it in the within the DOT's right away on their curb. >> And do you know for how long that depressed curb has been um there? >> No, I have no historical knowledge of

289
01:32:40.800 --> 01:33:01.920
the of the origin of that curb cut. >> Okay. Um so the property adjacent to um 202 206 to the north beyond the property

290
01:33:01.920 --> 01:33:21.040
line for existing 2.01 1. Is that route 20220 206 right ofway? Is that Bridgewater right ofway? So what I'm referring to, Mr. Fischer, >> I know exactly what you're It's It's that almost triangular section. Correct.

291
01:33:21.040 --> 01:33:36.400
>> Yes. >> So immediately to the north of the subject site, what I'm referring to is right up here. This land that's off of the property. immediately to what I believe to be the north or I'll call it north, right? Something like that.

292
01:33:36.400 --> 01:33:51.520
>> It's it's it's uh due north. >> North. >> We'll go we'll go with that. >> Okay. So, that land what what you know, first of all, who owns that land? >> It's it's right of way. >> It's right of way. And and is it

293
01:33:51.520 --> 01:34:10.280
>> who's right of way? Again, I'm not a surveyor. I I I I'd have to ask my surveyor to confirm that. But but right now, my My gut instinct is it's it's part of Cornell Boulevard. >> So that >> as I recall, there was a map from 1973

294
01:34:10.800 --> 01:34:27.920
which the DOT um prior to the construction of 202 and 206. Just bear with me for a minute. >> Yeah, take your time. >> Notes. >> Yep. Appreciate that. Um there was um a map from the DOT, a jurisdictional

295
01:34:27.920 --> 01:34:43.280
limit map I believe is what it's uh labeled as uh dated November of 1973 in which uh the DOT transferred the um transferred Cornell Boulevard, which was

296
01:34:43.280 --> 01:34:58.480
at the time formerly a state road according to that map, uh transferred it to uh both Bridgewater and Somerville at the time. >> Okay. So, so that that land then in the in the triangle

297
01:34:58.480 --> 01:35:14.719
that is from what you believe without verifying it um is likely Cornell Boulevard right ofway. >> Likely. Yes. >> Likely. Okay. And that and that >> way of some kind >> of some kind. And that that intersects

298
01:35:14.719 --> 01:35:33.760
at some point with 2026. >> Uh yes. um >> by in a paper nature. There's no actual um access across it, >> right? And and so um do you know who who

299
01:35:33.760 --> 01:35:50.400
owns that? Who has jurisdiction? You you don't >> I mean maybe the maybe the the the township knows. >> Yeah. But you don't know. >> I don't. >> Okay. Um, you referred, I believe, um, as part of your testimony back on March 3rd, um, and I apologize if my notes

300
01:35:50.400 --> 01:36:08.080
were wrong, um, some sort of like 19 I think it was 1995, you said some sort of interlocal uh, agreement for the maintenance andor reconstruction of Cornell Boulevard. >> Yes, I was made aware of it. I I looked through it >> and I didn't study it, but I'm aware of

301
01:36:08.080 --> 01:36:23.040
it. >> Was that provided to the board? Uh choosing did you you did not override that? No. No. >> I haven't seen it this way. It was not submitted. And and and and you saw that in a local agreement. Um where I guess is the right question. Is it part of a

302
01:36:23.040 --> 01:36:39.239
public record? Is it something that was provided to you? If you if you recall, >> it was uh obtained by way of open request. >> Open request to to Bridgewater. Okay. Um,

303
01:36:41.120 --> 01:36:56.000
okay. And regarding uh Cornell Boulevard, um, and you said and you refer to to it as a 100 foot right away. Um, did you do you identify in your plan how much of that

304
01:36:56.000 --> 01:37:13.199
um is in Somerville versus Bridgewater, >> the actual rightaway itself or or the traveled way portion? the actual right. We're going to start at the rightway itself. >> According according to my maps, it's it's approximately u down the center >> down the center. >> Slightly skewed, but for the most part

305
01:37:13.199 --> 01:37:40.719
down. >> Oh yeah, he can't just leave. >> Take a break. Correct. >> Let him go. Let him let him go. >> No, I'm sorry. You slipped my eye there. >> You want to take

306
01:37:40.719 --> 01:37:57.040
>> We could take a quick break. >> Yeah. Why don't we go ahead and take a break? Uh, however, I think there's a good opportunity to kind of let's let's get the wheels in motion a little bit more because these questions are good, but I want to get a little bit more progress out of some of these questions as well. >> So, >> I'm getting I'm getting the answers I

307
01:37:57.040 --> 01:43:05.119
was very good. >> So, it's okay. No, there's no time limit. No, not not in this not in the situation. All right, but we will take a 5m minute break if that's okay. >> 8:42 Second, >> Miss Sakura. All in favor?

308
01:43:05.119 --> 01:43:20.480
>> I. Miss Propes, could I have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Basio >> here. >> Councilwoman Isla >> here. >> Mr. Papis >> here. >> Mr. Wang? >> Yes. Here. >> Sakora >> here. >> Miss Chardich >> here.

309
01:43:20.480 --> 01:43:37.199
>> Mr. Chowdery. >> Yes. >> Mr. Atkins >> here. and all the board professionals are here. >> Thank you, Miss Pro. Mr. Simon, thank you very much for accommodating the break. >> Thank you. Of course, thank you for accommodating um truth be told. Um Mr. Fischer, thank you. You good?

310
01:43:37.199 --> 01:43:52.400
>> Test. Okay. Um Mr. Fischer, I I recall from your prior testimony that you're aware um of an encroachment, existing encroachment on the adjacent diner lot, block 406, lot

311
01:43:52.400 --> 01:44:09.520
two onto the subject property. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. And that's the paved parking lot in the northwest corner of the parcel. >> That's correct. >> Right. And and just to clarify, I believe you you testified that it was an approximately six foot

312
01:44:09.520 --> 01:44:24.639
encroachment 50 feet in length. Is that about right? >> Triangular. Yes, that's about correct. >> Okay. Um you have not observed the diner operation encroaching on the subject property. Correct.

313
01:44:24.639 --> 01:44:39.600
>> In terms of them you them parking. >> Yeah. Have you have you I should have asked it a different way. Have you observed um the the diner operation whether it's employees, patrons, etc. Um or just people just parking there? >> I have actually. >> You have?

314
01:44:39.600 --> 01:44:55.840
>> Yes. Um >> when when did you make those observations? >> Aerial photographs. Um not aerial photographs. Um Google Street View gives you an ability to to look. You can see that. Um I actually have been in this area frequently over the last couple of

315
01:44:55.840 --> 01:45:11.760
weeks as my daughter plays travel softball. So I've been in Readington quite quite every weekend. So I pass by there every Saturday and Sunday. So I have noticed it a few times. >> And when you say because of >> what I will also >> travel soft is it travel softball you

316
01:45:11.760 --> 01:45:26.000
said yes in Readington and you pass by it on Saturdays and Sundays. Correct. >> What are you observing? >> I observe cars that park across the the white striped line. There is parking that is that is striped um that uh is

317
01:45:26.000 --> 01:45:44.719
well within the diner's lot side um and that is obviously displayed on the aerial image. Um the diner patrons andor um um workers I guess um park across that.

318
01:45:44.719 --> 01:46:01.840
Okay. Um, if I'm looking at sheet two of 16 dated December 3rd of 2025, it depicts assigned by I'm sorry, signed by Mr. Dystra. Um, it it depicts a paved parking lot in that northwestern corner

319
01:46:01.840 --> 01:46:18.960
of the subject property, lot 2.01, um, with striped parking stalls actually encroaching and located on a portion of your property. Correct. >> That's incorrect. It is not striped. It's it's a cross-hatching to indicate the encroachment by nature of itself.

320
01:46:18.960 --> 01:46:34.480
>> So So what we're looking at here >> is not actually on that plan. The striping is displayed on um both exhibits A1 and A2. >> So the fact that it says so it it says pave parking lot, all those lines,

321
01:46:34.480 --> 01:46:49.760
you're saying that's that's your interpretation of cross-hatching and not actual parking spaces. >> Correct. because a a parking space uh would be in nature 9 by8 and and those those lines are probably about 1 to 2

322
01:46:49.760 --> 01:47:05.600
foot wide and parallel. Plus, it also extends along through the driveway into the the um curb cut for the diner, >> which would also not be parking. >> Okay. And and so with regard to the the parking that you observed on Saturdays

323
01:47:05.600 --> 01:47:21.600
and Sundays even recently, um are those um passenger vehicles? Are they trucks? What what what >> I didn't take that I'm driving, so I I I have a an obligation to pay attention to the road. >> We we we appreciate that. >> Knowing the nature of of my my being

324
01:47:21.600 --> 01:47:36.800
here, I do pay attention to >> Of course. Um so but you or um no one at Dyster Walker have made any types of um recorded observations in terms of number of vehicles, types of vehicles, the

325
01:47:36.800 --> 01:47:52.800
extent of the encroachment for how long the property or how long that property has been used um by the diner and its patrons for parking or otherwise. You don't know, right? >> Okay. Um, and are you aware and you said you talked about Saturday and Sunday.

326
01:47:52.800 --> 01:48:09.040
What about during the week? Do you have any idea what goes on during the week there? >> Uh, I do not I'm not down this area. >> Right. And and are you aware of um actual trucks, park trucks on on the property? >> No. As I stated before, I I'm not aware

327
01:48:09.040 --> 01:48:26.560
of specific vehicles that parked there. I just have am aware that vehicles have in fact parked there. >> Right. And so and but you have no um nor does anyone at Dexter Walker have any independent knowledge or investigation um that resulted in some knowledge as to

328
01:48:26.560 --> 01:48:44.800
the extent nature or for how long cars have been parking on lot 2.01. Correct. >> Chair I I'm just going to object to this line of question. And this was addressed in the first hearing and the applicant agreed that, >> you know, any encroachment would be

329
01:48:44.800 --> 01:49:01.119
taken care of as part of the site renovations. And we've also had um dialogue about erecting a fence and if that's something the bureau wants us to do, that would um provide a barrier to prohibit future trespasses by the diner. So I I don't know where we're going with

330
01:49:01.119 --> 01:49:15.600
this line. Thank you. >> The the the reason where it's going a lot. >> I do recall that testimony from >> we absolutely and that's why I'm engaging in this cross- examination or this area of cross the reason why I'm engaging in it. um just to pull, you know, behind the curtain is that under

331
01:49:15.600 --> 01:49:32.719
uh the law there is um something called um easement law and you can obtain something called the prescriptive easement or adverse possession by utilizing another property for a

332
01:49:32.719 --> 01:49:46.960
continuous period of time, open, notorious, etc., etc. And we don't know, at least I don't know today based on the record and in the um evidence and the documents that have been presented in support of this application whether the

333
01:49:46.960 --> 01:50:04.000
diner has any such legal claim or legal right. And the reason why that becomes important for purposes of the processing of this application is that it may result in the pro the applicant a having

334
01:50:04.000 --> 01:50:21.760
less land to work with than what he's here it is representing. Number two, it raises an issue as to notice for to the extent that this property, whether it's by permission or otherwise, is being utilized for purposes um of of the

335
01:50:21.760 --> 01:50:37.840
diner's operation for the requisite period of time, whether it's 30 years, 25 years, etc. That's why I'm just not it would be 60 years, and it's not a claim that anybody here would make except the diner. And that claim has not been made. >> Well, wait, hold on. I don't know where we're going with this. >> First of all, it's not 60 years. It is

336
01:50:37.840 --> 01:50:53.119
60 years. This is vacant property. >> Are we aware of the designated? >> It's a parking lot that's being used. It's not uncultivated land. >> Object property is vacant. So by statute, the term for adverse possession is that longer 60-year period.

337
01:50:53.119 --> 01:51:11.440
>> It says vacant and and uncult and uncultivated land. And if you are using, and I'm very confident that if you were using land for parking, parking for a diner and parking for trucks and parking for patrons, that certainly at a bare

338
01:51:11.440 --> 01:51:26.480
minimum there's ownership. >> I was going to let let's stop the legal argument back and forth that that issue is not before this board. So, if we can move on. >> Well, it it the reason why I'd be remiss if I didn't raise it right now. you're and the one of the rules of the game

339
01:51:26.480 --> 01:51:43.199
here is that we don't sit in their hands and hold off until later on and say, "Hey, gotcha board because there was something that I knew of and I held back to give my client an unfair advantage visa v the board." That's not how we play here. The way we play here is that if there's issues, they should be brought to the board's attention and

340
01:51:43.199 --> 01:52:06.480
that's what I'm doing. I will move on. Okay. Um with regard to um you have on your plan um the proposed development Mr. Fiser on

341
01:52:06.480 --> 01:52:23.599
um sheet four, the site layout plan. And I know we had a discussion earlier in the hearing or the board did raise some great questions um I think to you and maybe to the applicant as to um

342
01:52:23.599 --> 01:52:39.440
potential location of an outdoor play area on this site. And I believe, and I don't, and I apologize if I'm not remembering it correctly, that the response to that is that that's

343
01:52:39.440 --> 01:52:55.520
going to be taken into consideration or something along those lines. Has the applicant team done any type of further investigation or contemplated um outdoor play areas or patio areas for the the

344
01:52:55.520 --> 01:53:10.400
residents on the site? and if so, where would those be located? >> So, yes, it was discussed uh at the last hearing. It was discussed in the form of amenities. It wasn't specific to uh

345
01:53:10.400 --> 01:53:26.719
playgrounds or play areas or um um patios. Um but what I can say is I did look at that um and each parcel adjacent to the building has at least 6 to 800

346
01:53:26.719 --> 01:53:44.239
square ft in contiguous area where um land could be made available for such amenities as uh picnic tables and things like that. >> Picnic table. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um why don't you show me if you would on

347
01:53:44.239 --> 01:54:01.159
sheet four of 16 specifically. Um and actually you know what let me let me do it one better. Can you um bring up the landscaping plan that's being proposed? >> The colorized >> Yeah. Let's do the colorized one. Sure.

348
01:54:13.280 --> 01:54:33.119
And um even even before we get to before we get to that, can you um Jason, you just had um a slide up before that shows the existing conditions with all the trees. Can you put that up first, please? I thought it would be easy just because

349
01:54:33.119 --> 01:54:53.040
I thought it was a slide before. So >> this one. >> Yeah, that's great. Just um real quick. So that's the um this is an aerial I don't know um what exhibit it is. >> A1. A1 um that shows it's an aerial of

350
01:54:53.040 --> 01:55:08.400
existing conditions and obviously there's a lot of tree and tree canopy that is currently on the site. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And that tree canopy is proposed to be removed in connection with the development of this property. Correct. >> Yes, it is.

351
01:55:08.400 --> 01:55:24.320
And um on the actual plans themselves, is there an identification of the number of trees that are proposed to be removed in terms

352
01:55:24.320 --> 01:55:49.679
of size of tree, type of tree, diameter, breast height of tree? >> Yep. Uh page sediment control plan, >> right? >> Um it it depicts every tree that was

353
01:55:49.679 --> 01:56:08.320
field located by my survey department during a site visit. >> Yep. and and it looks like if you eyeball >> and all of those trees um are in regards to the township ordinance of 8 in or greater in in um diameter size in DBH

354
01:56:08.320 --> 01:56:25.760
and then as you look at that that plan there is a tree inventory list on the left hand side uh which indicates all of the trees to be removed >> right and so with regard to this first of all um if you compare compare sheet

355
01:56:25.760 --> 01:56:42.880
six of 16 to exhibit A1. There's a in terms of visually there are a lot more trees on exhibit A1 that are currently there than what you were

356
01:56:42.880 --> 01:57:00.239
showing on sheet six of 16. >> I don't think that's a fair assessment. I think I think what you're seeing is the tree canopy which these symbols noted on the plan don't necessarily do enough justice to to depict that such

357
01:57:00.239 --> 01:57:15.199
canopy. Um okay >> and that's that's a standard uh >> right so so thank you for that. So basically what you're saying to me on sheet C six of 16 is that the trees that you're depicting

358
01:57:15.199 --> 01:57:34.280
that have X's through them that are proposed to be removed do not fairly represent the actual size of the canopy that each tree has. Is that fair to say?

359
01:57:36.000 --> 01:57:53.440
I I agree with that. Okay. >> Uh but what I Go ahead. >> Right. So, um we'll get back to trees in in in a couple minutes. Have you and I know you talked and we'll get back to storm water management in a minute. Have you taken a into consideration the um

360
01:57:53.440 --> 01:58:08.880
first of all, let me back up. Have you done an inventory of trees that are proposed to be removed? trees, plantings, hedros that have a diameter breast height of less

361
01:58:08.880 --> 01:58:24.639
than eight inches. >> No. >> So you couldn't you can't tell the board whether there's going to be 100 or 150 of those or 50 of those trees are going to be removed as part of this development. Correct. >> That's correct. Okay. And um you have

362
01:58:24.639 --> 01:58:41.040
not done any type of assessment as to the water impact as a result and storm water impact as a result of clearcutting the trees that

363
01:58:41.040 --> 01:58:57.440
are on this property. >> Are you referring to the runoff conditions, the hydraologic conditions occur? >> Runoff conditions. If you take if you have a forest of trees and you clearcut that forest, right? Um then you don't

364
01:58:57.440 --> 01:59:13.440
have those tree roots to absorb the water that's coming down from the sky. Correct. Or that's running through that property. >> That's fair. Yes. >> Right. Um so, and I apologize I'm being clumsy in asking you the question, but I'm not an engineer. So, have you done

365
01:59:13.440 --> 01:59:30.639
an assessment of the impact um on storm water? simply putting the BMPs aside for the moment of the removal of not just the trees that are on your tree inventory,

366
01:59:30.639 --> 01:59:46.000
six of 16, but also trees that have a diameter breast height of less than 8 in and the impacts of the removal of all those tree roots on this property. You can't ask that question without wanting to know the answer of the BMPs

367
01:59:46.000 --> 02:00:02.000
themselves because the BMPs themselves off any type of increase in runoff that might happen if there no tree cover >> if there was no tree cover. >> Correct. >> Right. But because we have the tree cover, that's what I'm asking you. >> Right. And that's why that's why I have

368
02:00:02.000 --> 02:00:28.800
the BMPs in place to to contain any additional runoff that might be generated. bio retention basins held back, cleaned, held back and then slowly released into the into the Cornell Boulevard system

369
02:00:28.800 --> 02:00:43.440
where it goes today. >> You're saying that that that there's no difference between going from >> That's not what I said. That's not at all what I said. >> Okay. So is there I'll break it down then. There is a difference then from

370
02:00:43.440 --> 02:01:00.639
going from a property that doesn't have any trees to impervious coverage versus a property that has hundreds of trees including mature trees and and and some with very large diameter breast heights to

371
02:01:00.639 --> 02:01:17.440
imperous coverage. That's what that's what I'm asking. Do you understand the question? I'm going to object because that's not what's being proposed. We're not cutting off cutting down the trees and not replacing it with anything. We heard extensive testimony about the storm.

372
02:01:17.440 --> 02:01:34.400
>> I I I'm not saying you don't have a storm water management system. Of course you have. What I'm asking is does your design take into account the fact that you're going from a situation directly adjacent to the state highway, you know,

373
02:01:34.400 --> 02:01:50.719
and other commercial and other properties with impervious coverage going from a site that has essentially a forest to what you're proposing versus if it was just dirt or grass, no trees.

374
02:01:50.719 --> 02:02:07.360
to what you're proposing. >> My my design does take into account the change in in runoff conditions based on the surface cover. The surface cover in this case also includes tree coverage. So yes, it we are going >> but you're taking into account the fact that those tree roots that currently

375
02:02:07.360 --> 02:02:24.639
absorb that water are no longer going to be there. >> That's part that's part of the hydraologic conditions that that are evaluated. >> Okay. All right. Um, one of the lots you're proposing here is a a flag lot. Correct.

376
02:02:24.639 --> 02:02:42.080
>> Uh, no, that's not correct. >> That's not correct. >> A flag lot according to the to the township's ordinance. >> Why Why is Let me get the number right. Why is proposed lot 2.03 Why is that not a flag lot? Uh because

377
02:02:42.080 --> 02:03:01.599
according to the township's ordinance and if you bear with me for a minute so I can cite you the code. >> Sure. >> There's a section within the ordinance that talks about the um when when you're creating a lot, you have to provide a a

378
02:03:01.599 --> 02:03:24.639
minimum width of 20 ft to allow utilities to be extended up the property. And that does not designate it as a flag lot. And I just need to find that section because I have it. So it's part of A3 zone requirements. It

379
02:03:24.639 --> 02:03:42.239
is uh paragraph D sub paragraph number two. I'll read it to you verbatim. In order for utilities to properly access the property, the lots may be configured to allow at least 20 ft of frontage along the rightway as long as no structures are located in this area.

380
02:03:42.239 --> 02:03:59.520
Fences, landscaping, and other forms of screening shall be permitted in this area. >> Right. So, the ordinance allows you to provide utilities with a minimum width of 20 feet. Okay.

381
02:03:59.520 --> 02:04:17.159
Does the ordinance the AH was it AH3? >> Yes. >> Right. AH3. It doesn't say though that this is a permitted flag lot. Correct.

382
02:04:17.280 --> 02:04:31.679
>> You know, you you agree that flag locks are prohibited in in the township. Correct. >> That's correct. But this is not defining it as a flag lot because of this condition >> based on what you just read. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And um does does proposed lot 2.03

383
02:04:31.679 --> 02:04:48.000
does that lot provide access um public access uh for a vehicle to that property? Direct access >> does not have direct access. It has access via an an easement across lot 202. >> Okay. So

384
02:04:48.000 --> 02:05:03.280
because of the easement which we'll talk about in a minute um and you don't have public access um the applicant needs a planning variance pursuant to section 3435 and 36 in this bell use law.

385
02:05:03.280 --> 02:05:24.239
Correct? >> No. >> No. Um, Mr. Fischer, do you have an opinion about that? >> I I do not have an opinion on it. >> Okay. Have you taken a look at whether a

386
02:05:24.239 --> 02:05:40.880
planning variance is required for this application because it does not provide direct access for a vehicle from a public street? >> Have you taken a look at that? >> He said he was not aware.

387
02:05:40.880 --> 02:05:57.440
>> Okay. So, you haven't taken a look at it. We didn't flag it as a variance and neither did the burough professionals. I understand that the that no one including the applicant including the burough professionals may have flagged it as a variance but you know our

388
02:05:57.440 --> 02:06:14.080
position and we'll talk about that I guess another time um is that in fact it should have been identified as a variance if you look at sections 3435 and 36 of municipal land and use law and it requires variance relief but if you haven't taken a look at it Mr. Fischer,

389
02:06:14.080 --> 02:06:33.679
I'm not going to belabor the the point. Um, are you aware of any lot um created in in Bridgewater that has been approved

390
02:06:33.679 --> 02:06:50.800
um with this type of lot configuration? You know, no direct access for vehicles and a 20 foot what I'll call flag stem. Are you familiar with that, Mr. Fischer? >> I am not familiar with any other properties that have been designed in >> similar nature

391
02:06:50.800 --> 02:07:12.719
>> for none. Even multif family um residential in in Bridgewater. Correct. You're not familiar with this? >> Correct. Okay. Um just try to the with regard to the easement that you're you're talking about. Right. So

392
02:07:12.719 --> 02:07:29.920
that the um law 203 2.03 is relying on an easement um from law 2.02 for vehicles. Correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Um, is that type of easement

393
02:07:29.920 --> 02:07:47.360
contemplated as permitted in the ordinance? >> It's an access easement. >> I I I I know it's an access easement. My question is, is the access easement that's being proposed permitted as of

394
02:07:47.360 --> 02:08:03.599
right or does the applicant require based on your professional review of this a form of either variance um or a design exception relief under the ordinance for proposing that a

395
02:08:03.599 --> 02:08:21.920
particular lot has its sole access via an access easement from >> Mr. Chairman, I I have a question. Is is the the line of questioning to the engineer is about an ordinance, not about his testimony or engineering. Is that am I incorrect in wondering whether

396
02:08:21.920 --> 02:08:38.239
this is pertinent? >> So the reason why I'm asking our chairman, our attorney, I am seeking I am seeking testimony and question a line of question. It's a little bit more progressive at this point. We want to make some progress. You know, I recognize what time it is at the moment and I recognize there other people in

397
02:08:38.239 --> 02:08:52.400
the audience and we potentially have some more testimony. So, I I would like to hear things that are a little bit more appropriate to the engineering line of questioning. >> Well, I I think that first of all, Mr. Fischer in response to that um on sheet

398
02:08:52.400 --> 02:09:08.320
one of 16 put together a zoning table. He put together zoning requirements. And I don't need to get on a soap box to say as I said earlier that to the extent that any member of the public identifies the need for relief that has not been

399
02:09:08.320 --> 02:09:23.280
requested by the applicant that he or she should not be sitting on his hands or her hands until the close of making a summation. Right? It's not fair to the board. Frankly, it's not fair the board's professionals and it's mostly not fair to the applicant. Right? It's not a hide the ball thing. So, the

400
02:09:23.280 --> 02:09:38.800
reason why I'm I'm raising these in in a public forum is not to show that I'm smart or what have you. It's to is to help the process. It's not supposed to be an adversary proceeding, right? We don't intend it to be, but we're trying to make sure that all consideration is

401
02:09:38.800 --> 02:09:55.280
made of all relevant, you know, proposals regarding this de this development application. I will move on and I appreciate you making the comment. I do. >> Well, it's not just a comment. A lot of the questions that we're hearing now, we visited these back in February and a lot of the questioning actually was brought up a lot by the board members. We talked

402
02:09:55.280 --> 02:10:11.360
about trees. We talked about trees in a specific area. What would happen in that in that in that scenario? So, I I appreciate and I understand exactly why you're asking this line of questioning, but let's just continue to move on a little bit. >> That's fine. Okay. With regard to trees, we'll go to the landscaping plan. Talk

403
02:10:11.360 --> 02:10:36.000
about talking about trees. So, with regard to the landscaping plan, um, and and I'm sorry, Mr. Fischer, uh, the tree removal plan is on what sheet? >> Uh, the tree removal plan is on the soil erosion sediment control plan, which is

404
02:10:36.000 --> 02:10:52.000
sheet six. So in referring to both sheet six and sheet eight. So you identify on sheet six. And what I'm referring to

405
02:10:52.000 --> 02:11:10.320
right now are the trees that are adjacent to my client's properties on lot four and lot three. And specifically um the fact the comment that you made earlier, Mr. Fischer, that the circles

406
02:11:10.320 --> 02:11:28.239
with the X's through them do not accurately depict the actual canopy um of those trees. So um you have not done an investigation yourself as to the actual size of those

407
02:11:28.239 --> 02:11:45.199
canopies and the associated um drip lines in terms of the root systems of the trees that are on or immediately adjacent to the common property line with lot four. That >> that's been asked and answered. He

408
02:11:45.199 --> 02:12:02.560
he did not survey the site. Okay. He didn't survey the site. My qu So my my question to you, Mr. Fiser, but your your office did, correct, Mr. Fisher? >> Yep. >> Okay. So, I'm I'm looking starting on

409
02:12:02.560 --> 02:12:18.800
the um if you look at lot four, the northeastern uh property line. Um adjacent on um the subject property are a number of trees

410
02:12:18.800 --> 02:12:35.440
in the corner there um next to I guess the paper prospect street that appear to be on or near the common property line. You see those? >> Are you referring to the existing trees? >> Yes. >> Yes, I see them.

411
02:12:35.440 --> 02:12:52.079
>> Right. Um, and there's identification on lot four, for example. Um, it's there's like two where it says 12-in oak, 12-in oak. Are those trees that are located on lot four? >> The trees that are that are depicted on

412
02:12:52.079 --> 02:13:07.599
this plan on you're referring to the landscape plan, correct? >> I'm referring to sheet six of 16 and it has two notations, >> three inventory, >> 12 in oak, 12in oak. But those notations are located on lot four,

413
02:13:07.599 --> 02:13:22.719
not on your client's property. And I'm just trying to understand to make sure that no trees on either the common property line of with lots four

414
02:13:22.719 --> 02:13:41.040
or lot three are going to be adversely impacted or their tree root systems adversely impacted by any um soil disturbance um or grading associated with your project. Uh well, what I will say is for

415
02:13:41.040 --> 02:13:58.239
starters, I believe in February, fe I'm sorry, March when I last testified, um one of the questions was to try and minimize the amount of tree disturbance that we had on site. Uh and I and I acknowledge the board member by saying that we would look at that and

416
02:13:58.239 --> 02:14:13.040
minimize the limited disturbance as much as possible. I stand by that testimony today by saying that when we further revise these plans, um we will consider reducing the limit of disturbance and tightening it up as much

417
02:14:13.040 --> 02:14:28.560
as possible to minimize any additional tree disturbance that might be occurring at this point in time. Should that should that impact any of the trees that are noted to be removed, that'll be reflected on the schedule correctly. That being said, none of the trees that

418
02:14:28.560 --> 02:14:44.800
were showing to be proposed as being removed are not on our property. All trees being removed are shown strictly on lot 2.01 as it exists today. >> And none of them are on the common uh B property line. That's your that's your testimony. >> Yes.

419
02:14:44.800 --> 02:15:02.239
>> Okay. And with regard to trees that are identified on lots three and lot four immediately adjacent to proposed grading and disturbance. You just said that you're going to, you know, do the best you can. And I don't want to put words in your mouth, Mike,

420
02:15:02.239 --> 02:15:19.920
but how do we know that there's, you know, identified 10inch oak, 18inch pine, 16inch oak, 12in oak, 12-in oak that are on lots three and lot four immediately adjacent to the proposed

421
02:15:19.920 --> 02:15:35.040
grading are not going to be adversely impacted. I know you you said you're going to do best efforts. I get that and I respect that. Um, but like those are big trees on my client's properties that are of concern to my clients.

422
02:15:35.040 --> 02:15:52.639
>> Again, it's it'll be it'll be based on um standard um development practices that the applicant will maintain. As far as clear cutting, as far as as far as limited disturbance, we we propose a silt fence along the limited

423
02:15:52.639 --> 02:16:09.119
disturbance. Um there will be a silt fence along this side. it'll be it'll be demarked based on what's proposed on the plan and approved on the plan. Um and again tightening that up is is is an opportunity in that area um to pull it

424
02:16:09.119 --> 02:16:24.880
further away from that property line but but no guarantees, right? I mean you are you proposing any tur certain method of disturbance to to not adversely impact those trees that

425
02:16:24.880 --> 02:16:41.599
are not on your property? What method of disturbance should be? >> Okay. Okay. So, you you don't you're not proposing anything right now to to um limit the possibility of disturbing those trees and the root systems. >> Uh other than other than than minimizing the limited disturbance further,

426
02:16:41.599 --> 02:16:56.719
shrinking it. >> Okay. Um have you considered that >> considered additional means? >> Well, no, limiting the the limited disturbance. >> I I have looked at it um to some degree. >> Okay. Um

427
02:16:56.719 --> 02:17:13.040
the township's uh ordinance considers high density residential developments to be at least four units per acre. Correct. >> Uh I I believe so. I have not I didn't study that. >> But you've reviewed the ordinances. I

428
02:17:13.040 --> 02:17:28.080
asked you that earlier. Right. Correct. And so >> the ordinance with respect to the zone that this property is in >> and and highdensity residential developments as defined in the ordinance are required to have at least two means of ingress and egress. Correct.

429
02:17:28.080 --> 02:17:45.040
>> If that's what I'm going to object because he said he didn't look at other zones. He studied the zoning applicable to this site. >> The zoning applicable to this site is doesn't the zoning um of this site and the AH3 zone specifically state Mr. uh Fiser that unless otherwise stated in

430
02:17:45.040 --> 02:18:01.599
this zone, all other requirements and um ordinance provisions of the township or Bridgewater ordinances apply. >> I believe I believe it does. Yes. >> Right. Okay. And um if this is a highdensity residential development, you

431
02:18:01.599 --> 02:18:18.240
agree under the ordinance that's applicable to this site, they're required to have at least two means of ingress and egress. Correct? >> Uh I'm I'm not agreeing to that at this point. >> Okay. And and what's your do you have a basis for not agreeing to that? Do you do you believe that I'm wrong in terms

432
02:18:18.240 --> 02:18:49.120
>> Oh, you haven't read it. Okay. Okay, that's fair. Um, keep going here. Just give me a second. So you went through um some of the uh

433
02:18:49.120 --> 02:19:08.719
comments that um were made to to Mr. Burr's um letter of uh of late of May 18th. Okay. And I just want to get confirmation on a couple things that you said that um

434
02:19:08.719 --> 02:19:24.960
all new imperous coverage will be captured and managed on site by the proposed bio retention basins. That's what you stated. >> That's what I stated. >> Okay. And that includes the buildings,

435
02:19:24.960 --> 02:19:41.359
the driveways, the parking areas. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Um, and with regard to the inlet at the southerntherly corner adjacent to lots

436
02:19:41.359 --> 02:19:58.479
three and four, um, there is landscaping that is provided in that area. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Right. and um you believe that the landscaping that you're proposing in

437
02:19:58.479 --> 02:20:17.439
that area can be installed, can thrive, can be ma can uh be maintained in perpetuity um with that a inlet being constructed in that area. I believe this question was asked by the the board's engineer and I and I addressed it

438
02:20:17.439 --> 02:20:33.760
>> both with the piping and the inlet >> that that you still can get the the landscaping that you're proposing there. >> Yes. That I can I can make whatever adjustments necessary to to accommodate it. >> And um >> Mr. Simon, if you don't mind, I'm going

439
02:20:33.760 --> 02:28:00.240
to ask for a quick fivem minute break. Is this a good place to stop or do you have another >> No, no, we five minute break. >> Five minute break. Okay. We'll reconvene at 9:30. >> Mhm. The time is 9:31. We will reconvene. Could I have a motion to reopen the meeting? >> I'll make the motion.

440
02:28:00.240 --> 02:28:16.000
>> Miss Sakor, second, please. >> I'll second. >> Miss Charteritz. All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Miss Propes, I have a roll call, please. >> Chairman Vesio, >> here. >> Councilwoman Isla >> here. >> Mr. Papis >> here, >> Mr. Wang >> here,

441
02:28:16.000 --> 02:28:32.560
>> Miss Quora >> here, >> Miss Chardawitch >> here, >> Mr. Chowdery >> here, >> and Mr. >> here >> and our board professionals are here. >> Thank you, Mr. Simon. Please proceed. >> Um, thank you. >> Appreciate it. So, um, Mr. Fischer, I'm

442
02:28:32.560 --> 02:28:48.560
I'm now talking about Mr. Burr's May 18th, 2026 letter. And we we we talked about the inlet and I know you just stated, well, we talked about that already that you think you're going to make it work in terms of the of the landscaping, but beyond the landscaping, what I'm what I'm concerned about and

443
02:28:48.560 --> 02:29:03.200
and if you would take maybe your cursor on the the exhibit, I guess that's a is that a >> A2. >> A2. Thanks, Jay. Yeah. Right. The A2. um if you can just maybe show the board and

444
02:29:03.200 --> 02:29:20.640
the public um where the water flows and how that inlet is going to be helpful. And what I'm just before you go on, what what I'm concerned about is because of the big 11 unit building that the way

445
02:29:20.640 --> 02:29:36.319
the water's going to go that it's either going to bypass that inlet andor not even get there and end up on lot four or or lot three because obviously that's my concern. I would like to instead of

446
02:29:36.319 --> 02:30:15.280
looking at the colorized version pull up the drainage area map and that'll probably a better depict better job. >> Thank you Mike. Appreciate that. This is the existing drainage area map. >> And this and this is sheet >> sheet nine of 16 in the plan set.

447
02:30:15.280 --> 02:30:31.920
>> Okay. Thanks. Go ahead. >> Uh to to uh describe everything, the thick dashed line. if you could just keep it >> sure >> brief and answer the question because this has been been addressed extensively already.

448
02:30:31.920 --> 02:30:47.040
>> So runoff runs through the entire area that's labeled EX1 area of 3.07 acres I believe it says. Um that's that's all surface runoff that that traverses across that area and finds its way into

449
02:30:47.040 --> 02:31:03.040
POS1 which is the catch basin at the property frontage on Cornell Boulevard. So is it fair to say that um generally the water flows you know from the diner in a let's say southeast direction towards POS1.

450
02:31:03.040 --> 02:31:18.319
>> Yes. >> Not just from the diner but across our property. Majority of the property >> just kind of property >> sheets across. Right. >> Okay. >> So >> so you you heard my question of my >> I'm getting there. >> Go ahead.

451
02:31:18.319 --> 02:31:34.000
>> Switching to sheet 10. This is the proposed conditions with the proposed drainage areas. There is a cut off drainage area that that runs along the curb line and up to the backside of the the diner property and and building. Um

452
02:31:34.000 --> 02:31:49.760
there was questions from the board members previously about runoff that would come AC uh from from the diner property um down behind the curb line that we've we've we're proposing to construct and

453
02:31:49.760 --> 02:32:06.080
adversely impact the uh the property and improvements on lot three um and to some extent lot four. So you can see the drainage area and and and where that's running. >> Yep.

454
02:32:06.080 --> 02:32:22.800
>> That is 1.7 acres in size as opposed to reduced down from 3.07. >> So >> and the majority of that in the after condition >> uh at lot 4. Correct.

455
02:32:22.800 --> 02:32:39.280
>> Yes. small portion of it is being collected um in a triangular section on the southwesterly side of the of the drainage area that is labeled 1C. >> Right. So that's that's on Right. So there's a portion

456
02:32:39.280 --> 02:32:57.160
>> small portion >> that will be on lot 2.03 from lot 2.03. >> Right. There's a portion from the diner that that that's being collected um and and um managed on in within basin 1A.

457
02:32:57.439 --> 02:33:13.680
>> Moving to um page 11 of 16 that is C >> can I can I ask a a dumb question? So when that water flows and it's going to hit let's say that the 11 unit building, right? And the impervious coverage that's that's sort of behind it and that

458
02:33:13.680 --> 02:33:30.399
sidewalk. Isn't that going to be kind of pushing it or directing it now going towards >> based on my evaluation of the drainage areas? I'm collecting the majority of it and and um managing it within the basin.

459
02:33:30.399 --> 02:33:45.359
That's why that's why you see a heavier dashed line that runs behind the building and runs up to the diner property. That's the limit of the drainage area based on the topographic conditions. So, so your your position, your sworn

460
02:33:45.359 --> 02:34:02.640
testimony is that there will not be any adverse storm water impact to lots or lot three. By virtue of this development, given the

461
02:34:02.640 --> 02:34:18.240
existing conditions that they're right now looking at a bunch of trees with with root systems that absorb this water, storm water to the proposed condition. >> That's correct. In addition to we're still going to provide that additional

462
02:34:18.240 --> 02:34:33.439
catch basin at the toe of the slope, which is >> the is that the inlet a >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> The I call it a catch basin. Inlet same thing six and one half dozen the other. um with a pipe that connects to the to the manhole downstream of the outlet

463
02:34:33.439 --> 02:34:50.479
control structure for 1A basin 1A. >> Okay. And then um >> and that will further pick off anything that might make its way onto lot three. Lot four, as I as I stated when I addressed Mr. Burr's letter, majority of

464
02:34:50.479 --> 02:35:07.439
that runoff is is generated from lot 4 itself, not from from the development or cause of the development itself. So runoff conditions are existing in nature pre and post conditions across lot four. >> Right. Um number six on Mr. Burr's May

465
02:35:07.439 --> 02:35:31.359
18th letter that the bill asked you about about the storm system in Cornell Boulevard and you said you haven't looked at that yet. >> Right. Have you um but the first sentence says confirm even before we get the television scope. Um confirm that

466
02:35:31.359 --> 02:35:45.840
the existing storm system in Cornell Boulevard is in good >> No, hold on. Hold on. The first sentence says, "Confirm that the existing storm system in Cornell Boulevard is in good condition and able to accept the overflow from the proposed on-site

467
02:35:45.840 --> 02:36:03.359
system. Have you done any evaluation to confirm that statement?" It's been asked and answered. >> Have you, Mr. Fish? It hasn't been asked or answered the first. >> Yes, he said he has not inspected that specific facility because we're reducing

468
02:36:03.359 --> 02:36:18.960
the runoff. So, if the existing conditions and uh uh are sufficient for that uh facility, then there's no reason to believe it won't be sufficient for a reduced capacity. But as a condition, he

469
02:36:18.960 --> 02:36:33.359
will inspect it. That was his testimony. >> We did hear that twice this evening. >> Well, okay. But Mr. Chairman, I just want to confirm that >> it's been confirmed. >> Confirm from Mr. Fiser that in fact he

470
02:36:33.359 --> 02:36:50.880
has not currently examined the existing storm system in Cornell Boulevard. >> Correct. >> Evaluated based on flows to the system. That's the extent to which I'm verify that. Anything above and beyond that is is exactly what's been testified to multiple times tonight.

471
02:36:50.880 --> 02:37:08.399
>> Okay. >> Um, you talked about a um a pump system, right? Pump station, I'm sorry, for the sanator sanitary. >> Okay. >> Right. >> So, we're no longer in Mr. Burn's no 18th letter. >> Correct. Okay.

472
02:37:08.399 --> 02:37:25.520
um regarding the sanitary sewer lines and you said there's one for each building and each requires a pump station and you identified during your direct from Mr. Heman where that's located. Um is there going to be any type of um generator or other power

473
02:37:25.520 --> 02:37:42.399
source in the extent of a power failure for those systems? >> Uh I believe typically generators are included on these properties. I do not show a pad for it, but that's something that we can absolutely include without any um >> that was that was testified by the

474
02:37:42.399 --> 02:37:57.359
architect at the last meeting. >> Oh, that okay. I wasn't >> You weren't there. >> Okay. But but in in terms of for the for the for the pump station. Your testimony is that there's going to be generators. >> There'll be a generator for the building is what I'm testifying to based on

475
02:37:57.359 --> 02:38:14.000
>> what was previously testified to. >> Okay. Um, you haven't done any evaluation in terms of emergency vehicle access if Cornell Boulevard is is blocked by parked vehicles, including, you know, delivery

476
02:38:14.000 --> 02:38:29.840
of landscaping vehicles. Correct. On on both sides of the street. >> Have I done an alternate means for emergency access? >> Yeah. In other words, if if there's cars parked on both sides of the street on Cornell Boulevard, >> do you do an e do do you do that type

477
02:38:29.840 --> 02:38:46.720
same type of an evaluation when someone's parked in front of someone's residential driveway? >> I'm asking you. >> I would say no. So that's my answer. >> Well, you don't. >> Well, wait. Whether you don't or not, I'm just asking you respectfully if you can answer the question. And I'll

478
02:38:46.720 --> 02:39:03.359
ask it this way. You have not done an evaluation as to emergency vehicle access via Cornell Boulevard to this site in the event that there are vehicles parked on one or both sides of

479
02:39:03.359 --> 02:39:34.240
Cornell Boulevard. Correct. >> Correct. >> Um what I would say though that Cornell Boulevard is The width of roughly 30 feet in width curb to curb uh which would allow for a vehicle to be

480
02:39:34.240 --> 02:39:51.040
parked and still allow for safe passage for additional vehicles. >> Say a vehicle to be parked um Mr. >> parallel along the curb line. >> Parallel. So if there's along the 30foot cartway, >> if there's vehicles parked on both sides

481
02:39:51.040 --> 02:40:07.920
of the street, including let's say landscaping vehicles, >> let's call that 10t wide. >> Let's let's call it 10t wide each vehicle the footprint that they're taking into the traveled lane. So you're taking you still have an additional 10

482
02:40:07.920 --> 02:40:25.600
feet in width that you can allow a vehicle to pass through. And is that sufficient for an emergency service vehicle? >> According to the >> to the what was provided by the the fire chief,

483
02:40:25.600 --> 02:40:48.160
>> the width of the vehicle is 8t wide, wheelto-heel edge 96 in. So, yes. >> Have you have you performed and I saw your exhibit and I reviewed it. Um it didn't appear that that depicted um

484
02:40:48.160 --> 02:41:06.720
turning templates for emergency vehicles should there be vehicles parked on both sides of Cornell Boulevard? >> No, it did not consider that. But it would be it would then be down the center line of the roadway

485
02:41:06.720 --> 02:41:22.880
>> as opposed to within the center line of the travel lane that they would be approaching or departing. >> Right. Um the in terms of um

486
02:41:22.880 --> 02:41:39.600
you did provide some um some minimal um or my that's my word, no disrespect. um we'll call it traffic and and and parking testimony. You've still not conducted um traffic counts at other facilities that the developer owns and

487
02:41:39.600 --> 02:41:56.880
operates. Correct. >> Traffic counts? No. Yeah, there's no >> and and and what what about no traffic study? Has there been any parking counts in terms of u parked vehicles, number of parking spaces? >> I'm going to object to this line of questioning because this is RSIS

488
02:41:56.880 --> 02:42:12.479
compliant. This is an as of right use. So traffic generation, parking demand is not a consideration of the board. We're not seeking a variance for for anything related to traffic.

489
02:42:12.479 --> 02:42:28.640
>> They're not providing any type of space for delivery vehicles. And I will tell you that if it's determined that at the developer other facilities, if the um facility is doesn't have sufficient

490
02:42:28.640 --> 02:42:45.280
parking and it requires the um user, whether it's the resident or whether it's a visitor to be parking on the street because there's insufficient parking at the other facilities that they have specifically cited to, including facilities on state highways

491
02:42:45.280 --> 02:43:01.600
as providing a mirror, a practical mirror image of what's going to happen here. I think that's a consideration for the board in terms of site plan considerations. That's why I'm asking the question, but you're not aware of any of that. Correct. You didn't do any of that evaluation. >> Operator testified as his observation.

492
02:43:01.600 --> 02:43:18.000
>> I'm asking I'm asking Mr. Fish. >> Let's keep the questioning going, please. Let's keep the questioning going, please. >> Doing it. Um, proposed driveway apron connecting the driveway to Cornell Boulevard. That's a street improvement, correct, Mr. Fischer? >> Yeah. and the proposed curbs connecting to the existing curb on Cornell

493
02:43:18.000 --> 02:43:42.960
Boulevard. That's another street improvement, right? >> And some of those improvements are actually encroaching upon the Somerville rightway, right? facilities located under Cornell Boulevard. Correct. >> That's incorrect. They're connecting to American Water and Sewer. They own and

494
02:43:42.960 --> 02:43:59.439
operate that that sewer system. >> Okay. And the Burough of Somerville has nothing to do with that system, >> to my knowledge. No. >> Okay. Um and this development also proposes borrow retention basins that connect to the Bureau of Somerville's storm water

495
02:43:59.439 --> 02:44:14.960
catch basin. Isn't that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Um and the two sanitary sewer pump stations that we talked about contemplated uh connect to the sanitary sewer manhole located in Cornell Boulevard. Right. >> Right.

496
02:44:14.960 --> 02:44:31.840
>> Okay. Um so the ordinance contemplates, you're aware that the ordinance contemplates projects involving the extension of municipal facilities such as sewer and water to be qualified as a major subdivision. Isn't that correct? >> Say what? >> As a major subdivision. Isn't that correct?

497
02:44:31.840 --> 02:44:47.840
Have you taken a look at that, Mr. Fischer? >> No, I did not. You that question? >> Sure. Um, do you or I'll ask it this way, Mr. Fischer, you have not done an evaluation to determine whether based on the um improvements that are being proposed here, including the

498
02:44:47.840 --> 02:45:04.080
installation of street improvements and the extension of municipal facilities, whether those activities warrant this application and proposal is qualifying for a major subdivision as opposed to a minor subdivision. Have you looked at that?

499
02:45:04.080 --> 02:45:31.760
>> Our review is under >> Well, I'm asking Mr. Fisher did he review that? >> No. Okay. And um are you aware whether an Okay. Um, there was no environmental impact report connected in connection

500
02:45:31.760 --> 02:45:48.160
with this application submitted, right? >> Right. You didn't do an analysis of any environmental impacts that may have on the site or the surrounding properties. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Um, and you're aware that the township ordinance does not permit an application for

501
02:45:48.160 --> 02:46:03.439
development to be approved unless the required environmental appraisals have been conducted. Correct. >> The required I'm sorry, environmental appraisals have been conducted. Correct. >> We obtained a waiver from that

502
02:46:03.439 --> 02:46:36.080
>> submission waiver. Okay. >> Slopes. Um you haven't done any type of um evaluation for threatened endangered species on this site given the tree canopy. Correct. >> No. >> Okay. And um you haven't done any type

503
02:46:36.080 --> 02:46:53.200
of noise study. um in connection with this application. Correct. >> Okay. Or in including the noise impacts that will take place um as a result of taking that tree canopy on this site and

504
02:46:53.200 --> 02:47:19.680
and clear cutting it adjacent to a state highway. You haven't done that evaluation, right? >> That's correct. >> Um just a couple others and then I think I'm done. You're not aware of any history of um of accidents on Cornell Boulevard?

505
02:47:19.680 --> 02:47:55.359
>> No, I'm not. >> Yes, I apologize. Yes. Yes. Um just give me a minute. Mr. Chairman, just give me two minutes and then I think I'm done. No problem. Um, Mr. Mr. Fischer, I I I did notice in

506
02:47:55.359 --> 02:48:10.080
going back to the zoning table that in terms of, you know, existing versus proposed that um what is

507
02:48:10.080 --> 02:48:27.120
being proposed on on each one of the lots is 10% I believe approximately, Mike, 10% building coverage and what is permitted per ordinance per your zoning table is 20% building coverage. Correct?

508
02:48:27.120 --> 02:48:44.960
>> Yes. Okay. And um similarly um that on one of the of the um the 11 unit lot um maximum pvious coverage permit is is 60% and what is being proposed is 43% and I

509
02:48:44.960 --> 02:49:02.319
think on the the 4unit lot um maximum permit is 45% and what is being proposed is 35%. Correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And you're aware that there's no setback standards, there's no F standards, flurry error ratio um with

510
02:49:02.319 --> 02:49:20.000
regard to uh these lots under the ordinance. Right. >> I am >> and and the reason for the predicate of of those um comments is there is nothing currently that prevents the developer or future owner of this

511
02:49:20.000 --> 02:49:36.399
property from expanding, intensifying either or both of these lots. Namely, you could double the building coverage.

512
02:49:36.399 --> 02:49:52.160
You could significantly increase the impervious coverage, especially since you have no setbacks, no F requirements, and still be in full compliance with the ordinance. Is that correct? >> No. question before you answer. No,

513
02:49:52.160 --> 02:50:08.800
because the site plan approval will govern what can be done on the site. >> What what I'm what I'm asking is that once if this application is approved and the site plan subdivision, whatever nature is approved, there's nothing to

514
02:50:08.800 --> 02:50:25.680
prevent the applicant or successor owner or operator from coming back to the board for mechanism. arguably a compliant amendment to that plan. >> Well, that's the mechanism. They come back to the board and the board has the

515
02:50:25.680 --> 02:50:42.640
right to either uh approve it or deny it. And >> but if they >> what what will will have to be considered with that is all of the other engineering aspects, things like site lighting, things like uh disturbance, things like storm water management, all of that will have to be taken into account with the any further

516
02:50:42.640 --> 02:51:15.439
development. And if this is if if if what I have is what fits on this site. has nothing. >> So, but you but you teed it up. Well, so the storm water management system that

517
02:51:15.439 --> 02:51:32.000
you are being that you are proposing for this project. It doesn't contemplate the maximum permitted

518
02:51:32.000 --> 02:51:48.160
building coverage imperous coverage. Correct. >> The storm water management rules, the most recent storm water management rules which we designed this for accounts for um runoff conditions under current conditions and future conditions. So it

519
02:51:48.160 --> 02:52:03.520
allows for an expansion of of um volume of water. These basins have been designed both on the current and and future conditions as um stated in the storm water management rules. So, if you

520
02:52:03.520 --> 02:52:22.080
were to um without arguing the point, if you were to go from 10% to 20% building coverage and you know 60% impervious coverage maximum on the 11 unit site and 45% on the four

521
02:52:22.080 --> 02:52:39.840
unit site. Um, if you were to do that, would the storm water system that that you have designed um be able to address? Yeah, go ahead. >> That's not what I was saying with my previous statement. >> No, that's because I cannot answer that

522
02:52:39.840 --> 02:52:56.240
question. What I can say is that that these these storm water management facilities have been overdesigned based on the sizing requirements that they the new storm water rules make you consider. So there is there is additional volume

523
02:52:56.240 --> 02:53:12.479
for future conditions down the road. >> Right. But you can't um >> I I have no way of knowing. I mean it's we could say it's it's 40% building coverage. What happens if it ends up being 45% building coverage? I have no way of knowing that. I can't tell you that. >> Right. But you but you can't tell me

524
02:53:12.479 --> 02:53:29.359
right now whether it's designed to contemplate the maximum permitted. >> I can tell you that these storm water management facilities and basins have been sized based on both current and proposed or future conditions. And right now there is extra volume available in

525
02:53:29.359 --> 02:53:46.399
these storm water management basins for future conditions. But to future conditions, meaning future storm conditions, not >> future storm conditions, greater greater amount of runoff, which would would a which would be could be considered um

526
02:53:46.399 --> 02:54:03.000
synonymous with what you're saying right now. >> Right. But to to what extent you just don't know right now? >> I can't I can't. >> Okay, that's fine. Um two minutes. See, we talked about that. Covered all that.

527
02:54:03.920 --> 02:54:20.960
Um, I'm going to sit down and you've been very indulgent and I thank you for that. Um, so I may have a couple more questions that may come up based on the questions others may ask, but um, I'm going to sit down for now. Thank you. >> That works. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Fischer. Appreciate your courtesies.

528
02:54:20.960 --> 02:54:42.080
>> Thank you. >> Are there any other members of the public? Good evening. >> Good evening. Uh the first thing I want to do is um I thought Rob gave you some useful information about potential

529
02:54:42.080 --> 02:54:59.600
jurisdictional issues that you have in this case. And I realize that you don't want to go into the legal considerations of that, but they're real. And I would join his objection on both um the potential. I'm not I'm not convinced about the uh the uh diner easement, but

530
02:54:59.600 --> 02:55:16.240
if the diner does have an interest in this property, it would create a split lot zoning case and would we diners aren't permitted in the AH3 zone which would then require it to be heard at the zoning board because it needs a D variance. But we don't know at this

531
02:55:16.240 --> 02:55:34.319
point about the title. The second point >> Yeah, I'm sorry. Dennis Galvin with the firm of the Galvin Law Firm and I'm representing the Burough of Somerville. And the second point I want to make which I did not see before tonight which I thought was really wise was about the

532
02:55:34.319 --> 02:55:51.120
easement driveway that connects to Cornell. Um NJSA 405D-35 does say that you have to have frontage on a roadway. This is a very odd >> I'm I'm placing an objection on the on

533
02:55:51.120 --> 02:56:08.240
the record and you're interrupting me and you shouldn't. >> He's here for cross-examination and we're we're >> I have a right to speak microphone, please. >> All right. >> I I'll complete I'm sorry. Uh the what I wanted to complete was that if that is a

534
02:56:08.240 --> 02:56:23.680
correct assessment that it doesn't front on a street then of course you can get a variance for it but it suggests that it should be done by the zoning board again depriving this board of jurisdiction. So keep that in mind that if this goes on

535
02:56:23.680 --> 02:56:40.960
to the next level the uh burough will join in that in those two objections. Okay. >> Okay. >> Now I have a few questions. >> Okay. Um, I keep crossing them off because I thought Mr. Simon again did a very good job and I don't want to waste your time. I a couple of them are might

536
02:56:40.960 --> 02:56:57.680
sound repeating, but I think you'll be okay with it. One, the depth of seasonal high water. Um, there was some issue about that. Did you go back out to the site and uh do the pits that had to be done?

537
02:56:57.680 --> 02:57:39.840
>> There were additional soil testing that was done in second test pit that was required per BMP structure. >> Um so we we dug Okay, I found those comments very

538
02:57:39.840 --> 02:58:05.920
draining. Um, that's cute. >> All right. Uh, where is the padmounted transfer utility located? Huh? >> Transformer on the >> Yeah, I mean that that Yeah, that that's

539
02:58:05.920 --> 02:58:32.000
that's >> okay. Is the New Jersey American hotbox building above ground? Um, can you com uh can you confirm that all the drainage you're talking about drainage and the utility connections

540
02:58:32.000 --> 02:59:11.439
that they all occur in Somerville? Okay. Now, don't you need Somerville approval for that connection >> because we're we're listening to the conversation about uh you know, doing something with the line, checking to see if it's avail, you know, you're going to

541
02:59:11.439 --> 02:59:28.399
put a camera in it. That camera, that information should be going to Somerville. >> We'll do that as part of the postapproval uh permitting process. It's not a sight plan consider. >> All right. Now, I want to talk about uh emergency services. I haven't heard that

542
02:59:28.399 --> 02:59:56.000
much about this. Now, you had a report from the Bridgewater Fire official that kind of said it was you the the um the can service a fire truck. >> Now, now Is it a common practice to use K turns

543
02:59:56.000 --> 03:00:09.840
for fire trucks? >> What isn't it preferred to have forward circulation? >> Um good fireatic practices.

544
03:00:09.840 --> 03:00:37.040
>> Okay. So, in this case, uh, who what how if there's somebody that needs an ambulance, where's the ambulance coming from? >> All right. >> What about if there's a uh some sort of incident that requires police response?

545
03:00:37.040 --> 03:00:56.319
Who's responding? Bridgewwater. >> That's not >> Well, you have you put an entrance on to uh you're use you're putting an entrance on to Cornell. So, I'm curious how where where are the vehicles coming from?

546
03:00:56.319 --> 03:01:26.040
Where which fire department is servicing this uh this property? According to Bridgewwater's review, >> so there's no anticipation at all that that this property would be serviced by Somerville's emergency services.

547
03:01:35.760 --> 03:02:20.479
We have concerns. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. 10:30 p.m. >> 10:30 p.m. >> Oh, is everybody not signing in? >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members

548
03:02:20.479 --> 03:02:35.520
of the board. My name is Kim Wartman and I ride reside at 289 West Summit Street in Somerville. recently. Um, I want to share this as context before I ask Mr. Fischer some questions. The Somerville Environmental Commission actually presented a

549
03:02:35.520 --> 03:02:50.560
comprehensive flood risk management plans to the Somerville mayor and council and they said they were going to be sharing it with Bridgewater. What it showed is that our shared regional watershed including Peters

550
03:02:50.560 --> 03:03:06.880
Brook is already at critical capacity. And Petersbrook does run under the properties where that we're talking about here with nearly 29% of Somerville properties facing moderate to major flood risks.

551
03:03:06.880 --> 03:03:24.080
Now, because of this, Somerville recently updated its storm water control ordinance to mandate stricter New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection compliance. And because environmental impacts do not stop at our municipal borders, we must ensure that

552
03:03:24.080 --> 03:03:39.920
Bridgewwater's engineering standards do not create an active downstream public safety hazard for our residents on both sides. So, in light of that context, Mr. Fiser, I had a couple questions regarding the watershed modeling. >> Okay.

553
03:03:39.920 --> 03:03:57.120
>> So, in preparing your storm water management report and calculating the post-development runoff, did your hydraulic models account for the cumulative downstream impact of Somerville's storm water infrastructure? Specifically regarding the Peter Brooks

554
03:03:57.120 --> 03:04:11.760
Peters wershed, or did your study stop strictly at Bridgewater? My study stopped at point what's labeled on the plans as point of study one. That's the catch basin directly adjacent to our site frontage. However, what I will also

555
03:04:11.760 --> 03:04:29.680
say again um is that the runoff going to that catch basin under existing conditions currently today if we do nothing is greater than what will be going there under proposed conditions when assuming the site is developed and built.

556
03:04:29.680 --> 03:04:46.319
>> Wonderful. So, in light of that, um, will you now, since that report has been produced, actually take that data and commit to reviewing Somerville's mitigation models before finalizing the project's design? I understand what you're saying that it will help, which is wonderful, but can we also make sure

557
03:04:46.319 --> 03:05:00.720
we incorporate these new stand? >> I believe what you're asking is um, similar to to the review letter that we received from Somerville that we're subject to their review. >> Okay. So that's >> so I believe that we are going to be

558
03:05:00.720 --> 03:05:16.319
subject to submitting uh is that correct Jason >> during the permitting process. >> Perfect. >> Thank you. >> Wonderful. And if you need copies I actually attended the meeting where they uh passed all that so I can also forward and I followed up with the environmental

559
03:05:16.319 --> 03:05:33.439
commission to read all the studies that they had done and actually watch right it was very very informative >> um in terms of the tree canopy and the soil. So also the environmental commission what a wealth of information they provided. Your re your report

560
03:05:33.439 --> 03:05:49.040
actually details significant removal of trees and which we also highlighted through the attorneys. And can you tell us exactly how many thousands of gallons of natural storm water absorption capacity will be lost daily by clearing

561
03:05:49.040 --> 03:06:04.800
the canopy and how the proposed artificial detention basins the two will replicate that lost natural infiltration? >> Uh I no I can't tell you that the exact volume that that'll be lost from the trees. >> Okay.

562
03:06:04.800 --> 03:06:21.439
>> Um no. So the reason that I'm asking is what we're worried about is the flash flooding, you know, impact. And they did highlight in the report, it was actually extensive. They talked about the fact that the soil stability when you remove trees, and I'm not a tree expert, but it

563
03:06:21.439 --> 03:06:37.760
was very informative in terms of understanding. You pull all that out, now you're subject to flash flooding. And while the catch basins are very helpful, it can actually erode that ability to mitigate that. So, what we're worried about as residents is the flooding on Prospect Street and

564
03:06:37.760 --> 03:06:54.960
especially Arlene Drive. >> Sure, I understand that. >> Okay. So, um I'm sure you're aware of this, but in terms of runoff rates, the New Jersey DE regs require that post-development peak runoff rates do not exceed pre-development rates.

565
03:06:54.960 --> 03:07:11.600
Post development doesn't exceed pre, right? >> Uh it's it's actually um based on a reduction rate. >> Okay. 2 year storm is a 50% reduction. The 10-year storm is a 75% reduction and the 100year storm event is an 80% reduction.

566
03:07:11.600 --> 03:07:28.000
>> Wonderful. So did the design that you put together um actually is it I guess uh was it updated for the higher intensity climate resilience and the rainfill data currently maintained by the state? Yes. And Okay. And how will >> mentioned previously?

567
03:07:28.000 --> 03:07:44.160
>> Perfect. And then how will the site handle the hundredyear storm without spilling onto Cornell Boulevard? >> The storage volume basin has capacity to contain that and slowly uh let it out. >> Okay. >> Through the outlet control structures.

568
03:07:44.160 --> 03:07:59.040
>> Wonderful. I have two more questions. So, I I think I heard about the project relying on actual rightaway access through Somerville, and I was wondering if your team has requested or secured

569
03:07:59.040 --> 03:08:36.880
any land disturbance or storm order management permits from the Burrow of Somerville. No. >> Okay, perfect. And if in the event Somerville denies it, I'm just curious what would happen in

570
03:08:36.880 --> 03:08:59.760
terms of the engineering contingency plan to manage the site's water entirely within Bridgewater or is that not contemplated? >> Have nothing. >> Okay. Got to take some notes. And then actually you talked about the fire trucks. So because Somerville and

571
03:08:59.760 --> 03:09:14.880
Bridgewater have a wonderful relationship in terms of mutual aid and response times and we know where the fire truck is likely going to come from if it has to respond from Bridgewater. I was curious if the board or even as the engineer would also ensure that we

572
03:09:14.880 --> 03:09:30.640
engage Somerville's fire department to ensure that their radius turning can be achieved. >> I don't have an objection to that. >> Okay, >> that was it. Thank you, Mr. Orman. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.

573
03:09:30.640 --> 03:09:47.439
>> Just a reminder, the time is now 10:18. Uh Mr. um Fischer has answered many questions tonight, and I'd like to continue the line of questions. So, anybody that does come up, please do um enter your name and address into the record there and use the sign-in sheet. Uh but please do keep in mind at this

574
03:09:47.439 --> 03:10:04.000
stage of the application, we're strictly asking questions of the applicant, of this particular witness. Uh any commentary, that's at a later stage of the application. So, let's really try to focus on a line of questioning. I'm really trying to avoid any grandstanding. Let's try to be productive. I'm I'd like to allow some

575
03:10:04.000 --> 03:10:29.040
more public questioning >> and I'll enforce minutes if uh if things take longer than they need to. >> You're going to enforce what? >> Minutes. All of a sudden, >> Steve, >> we have allowed the excuse me, we have allowed quite a bit of questioning this

576
03:10:29.040 --> 03:10:45.840
evening, especially from uh any opposition uh attorneys that have been here this evening. And I think the entire board and the public has benefited from that time that has been spent. >> He's done a great job. >> He has done a great job. And I'd like you to go ahead and answer ask some questions at this time. I am affording you the opportunity for this. That is

577
03:10:45.840 --> 03:11:02.240
what we do. >> 311 ultimates. Let's not take up time, right? I'd ask that you remain professional. >> I am being professional. So, I want to go back. >> You shouldn't bring trees this time. >> I have a multitude of questions, but um I want to refer back to where Mr.

578
03:11:02.240 --> 03:11:17.600
Fischer, is it >> claims that he was going over >> the Somerville circle and observing Time to eat diner? >> Yes. >> So, I've lived here for 61 years within a 10 mile radius. I'd like to know where and I'm just trying to get to the

579
03:11:17.600 --> 03:11:34.640
validity of your honestness so to say that you have children in a car going over a bridge and you study the time to eat diner with the parking stalls and you testify to Mr. Simon that you saw such can you >> I I

580
03:11:34.640 --> 03:11:52.479
>> tell me what field you're going to >> I was actually coming that's fine I can >> I I just wanted >> I was in Readington I was coming from summer road park in Readington. Okay. >> Um, as recently as this past Sunday, >> um, >> but that being what it is, um, you

581
03:11:52.479 --> 03:12:09.359
you've never once glanced off the roadway and and had taken acknowledgement of something because you're you're you're aware of your surroundings. >> Not with children in the car. I'm sorry. And it would have been smarter for you to say you pulled in there. So, I'm just trying to get to the validity. >> Please avoid any indirect commentary.

582
03:12:09.359 --> 03:12:25.120
Let's focus on the question. So qu first question it relates to you. Does this property need to be subdivided >> and have an easement and a flag lot for these two buildings to be accessible and developed? >> It's not a flag lot.

583
03:12:25.120 --> 03:12:40.960
>> I don't care. Does it need a subdivision? Does it need to be a subdivision? >> What's being proposed? This is what's >> Does it need to be a subdivision for Explain your reasoning for subdividing the property. I believe it's for financing purposes by

584
03:12:40.960 --> 03:12:55.920
the developer. Each building has to be on its own property. >> Each building has to be on its own property. >> I don't believe that's correct. >> Each building has to have its own property so you can gain access to publicly funded money. >> Is this a question?

585
03:12:55.920 --> 03:13:11.359
>> I pay and people pay. No, I'm asking you. Would this be a subdivision? Would this be approved without a subdivision through it in your eyes? Would it meet all the criteria for the COA housing without it having a subdivision?

586
03:13:11.359 --> 03:13:28.239
>> Again, outside the scope or Fischer's testimony. He didn't testify to I'm objecting to your question. He didn't testify to the >> uh particulars of the financing that came from the uh applicant. >> I didn't ask him that. I asked him if it would be if

587
03:13:28.239 --> 03:13:44.479
>> the question it's not appropriate for the civil. >> The question can be objected and you can say it for the different a different witness. No, I'd like to know if I came to you guys. I'm a developer. If I came to you and tried to get two lots with a flag lot or whatever you want to call it

588
03:13:44.479 --> 03:14:00.080
and I didn't need it for any access because I'm building a road onto Cornell that splits into two buildings. Why are we proposing a subdivision? >> I I think Mr. Heindman's reasoning here is that it's not appropriate for this witness. >> But he's the he's the engineer. He's

589
03:14:00.080 --> 03:14:16.720
proposing the subdivision. Mr. Wheatworth isn't proposing the subdivision. The engineer is >> I don't believe that's correct. >> He's testifying to the civil engineering aspects of it. So if you want to ask him a civil engineering question about >> why are we subdividing this property?

590
03:14:16.720 --> 03:14:33.279
That's a civil engineering question. >> No, that's not. >> Yes, it is. What is What is the benefit of subdividing this property? >> It was asked >> other than monetarily >> it was asked and answered. >> Well, I want to hear it again. >> Move on to the next question. >> What's that? >> It's time to move on to the next question. But nobody gave me an answer.

591
03:14:33.279 --> 03:14:48.000
>> That's right. >> Perhaps a different testimony will give you that question. So let's >> Okay. >> Next question is you had told a number of people that you were going to try and gain access to 206 which Ashley here asked in the last meeting why no one has

592
03:14:48.000 --> 03:15:03.920
ever brought that up. You then subsequently and remarkably retained an attorney that I know and I have used. And how did that work out for you with access to 206? Did you gain access when you applied to have your

593
03:15:03.920 --> 03:15:20.239
roadway come on to 206? >> I'm not following you. What attorney you were? >> So, I'm I'm not mentioning attorney's names. Did you apply to the state DOT to get access on the 206? >> Yeah, there was an application. >> And were you denied? >> Yes. >> Reason?

594
03:15:20.239 --> 03:15:37.040
>> Uh, I did not make the application so I can't tell you that. Prepared the site plans and the stormwater management plans. >> And you didn't read why it was denied? >> I was not provided that. No. Interesting. So, have you ever created a subdivision like this

595
03:15:37.040 --> 03:15:53.200
in your firm or you yourself where it required two lots with a deed access to the lot to create two separate buildings? >> Again, I'm going to object. I'm really

596
03:15:53.200 --> 03:16:09.200
straining to see what the relevance of this is. This we're not seeking variance relief for the subdivision. This is a as of right application. Why are we >> I'm just asking ever done this before. >> You're just asking. >> It's got to be relevant to the board.

597
03:16:09.200 --> 03:16:26.239
>> It is relevant. Have you ever created a subdivision in this capacity where you're dividing a piece of property that is a viable piece of property on a standalone basis based on the Affordable Housing Act with all the requirements that don't require a

598
03:16:26.239 --> 03:16:43.600
subdivision? Have you done this in the past? >> I'm maintaining my objection. I don't think this is relevant line of questioning. I'd like him to move on. >> Is he going to answer it? >> I don't believe he's going to answer the question. Perhaps you can say it for a different witness. >> For a different what? >> A different witness. Someone else that

599
03:16:43.600 --> 03:17:00.399
will give testimony. Perhaps at this hour at a different meeting. >> Who would that be? >> Perhaps the other witnesses that have already testified. If you have a question directed at somebody else, perhaps you could ask of someone else. >> So, you're um I heard in your testimony

600
03:17:00.399 --> 03:17:16.560
that you're talking about possibly putting a fence around the property. Is that correct? The plans depict a a six foot high uh solid privacy fence. >> How would um a disabled veteran access the time to eat diner if there was a

601
03:17:16.560 --> 03:17:33.120
fence around the property? >> Currently, there's no fence shown on that side of the property. >> Okay. So, we're gonna let a honorable man in a wheelchair somehow come out on the Cornell go all the way down, make a ride on West and

602
03:17:33.120 --> 03:17:49.840
and go up the circle to get to the diner >> or you're talking about handicap access. >> Well, I'm just wondering so in my vision >> question or is it about fences? So, I'm asking you, are you proposing, would you be um privy to putting a fence around the entire property for the safety of

603
03:17:49.840 --> 03:18:05.760
children not running on to 206, people not sneaking through the woods to get to Time to Eat Diner? >> I'm not sure you you're talking about safety of children, but then you're talking >> Well, there's going to be children there as well, right? >> Talking about safety of children, but then you're also talking about handicap

604
03:18:05.760 --> 03:18:22.479
accessibility. >> I'm not talking about handicap. I'm talking about personal >> personal um experiences where these guys are driving around on these wheelchairs all over the place. >> So I just want to make sure that we're the board is recognizing the safety of

605
03:18:22.479 --> 03:18:38.640
this site >> contemplated for the neighboring site. So I don't >> let's just clarify the question. The concern is that gentlemen in wheelchairs how does that how does that reflect on safety and >> and how are they going to access anywhere? >> Okay. >> I mean Mr. I don't remember his name. In

606
03:18:38.640 --> 03:18:55.359
his first testimony, he said it is in his experience that no one ever leaves his communities, which was a total lie because I maintain a lot of these and people spurt out all over the neighborhoods, but he said no one leaves his community. I want to know how they're going to be trafficked.

607
03:18:55.359 --> 03:19:10.800
>> Do you have an answer to that question? >> I we can go back and read the transcripts, trust me, because he did say it. >> I'm I don't know really how to answer that question to be quite honest with you. Um, as far as far as handicap accessibility, there there are means

608
03:19:10.800 --> 03:19:26.479
into and out of the building onto the parking lot. As far as um the parking space accessibility, they can gain access into an accessible vehicle and and navigate and and get driven to wherever it is that their

609
03:19:26.479 --> 03:19:43.200
destination might be. That's about the best I can give you in terms of an answer. >> Mr. Fisher, this site's ADA compliant, correct? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Next question is if you haven't changed the plan since the last time, which you haven't, you have no fire lane, no parking depleted

610
03:19:43.200 --> 03:19:59.120
anywhere in your parking lots. >> Uh that was testified previously that uh as a condition of approval, we would provide that striping and work with the >> But why wouldn't that be on there on your approval on your your application? >> I want to revise the application in between the hearings. We're going to

611
03:19:59.120 --> 03:20:14.080
wait. >> So this gentleman right here, Mr. I can't read, but this gentleman right here said, "What's going to happen when there's a party and either it's Christmas or dollar or whatever we're having? Where are the people going to park?" >> Again, this is RSIS compliant. This has

612
03:20:14.080 --> 03:20:28.000
been asked. >> It is not compliant. >> This is RSIS compliant. So, no parking >> varianville has a lot of parties. St. Patty's Day, the bike races and everything. They >> maintain the position that it's complicant maintains the position that it's

613
03:20:28.000 --> 03:20:45.520
compliant. That's their answer. But we we investigated that in the last meeting and we found that it wasn't based on the uh electric charging stations. He was deficient and nothing was ever done about it. >> No, that's not true. We added that third

614
03:20:45.520 --> 03:21:02.080
EV space. It's on our color site plan. So >> yeah, but that gives you less >> standard parking back to questions to this specific witness. Damn. I'm saying when there I'm a realist. When there's people everywhere all over, where are they going to go? They're going to go

615
03:21:02.080 --> 03:21:17.920
out on Cornell, aren't they? And then, god forbid there's an accident. I made a video, which I'll bring next time, and I'll bring the pictures. >> I was going to say question. >> No, I'm asking him where the where the car is going to go. This gentleman had a great question. This gentleman said, "Why why aren't we saving trees?" Nobody

616
03:21:17.920 --> 03:21:33.680
ever addressed that again. He had a great question. You have a party and you have 20 people over. The question as to I I assume the question is where the car is going to go. Is that within the purview of your expertise if you are able to answer that >> parking lot has been designed in accordance with RSIS requirements which

617
03:21:33.680 --> 03:21:49.520
also includes according to the RSIS.5 spaces for guest parking. So >> 0.5 >> it's black and white half a car. >> That's what it says. >> That's the answer. >> That's interesting. >> That's the answer. >> That's interesting. >> We're okay. Next question. Thank you for

618
03:21:49.520 --> 03:22:15.040
your answer. So you have can you bring up on your map where the lot delineation is where the lots are separated with your proposed minor subdivision which we think is a major but >> that's sufficient. It still shows the

619
03:22:15.040 --> 03:22:30.920
>> I can't see it, but does one of the lot lines does one of the lot lines go through the detention basin? >> If I was looking correctly. >> Yes. So, so yeah, you want to uh you really want to look at the uh previous page.

620
03:22:55.120 --> 03:23:11.439
So, 40 years of doing this business, I've never seen a detention basin designed on two separate lots. >> Is that a question? >> My question is, okay, >> how can you explain that? How can you explain a detention basin with two separate lots with two separate

621
03:23:11.439 --> 03:23:27.920
LLC's? And I don't want to hear about the tax ID numbers the same. >> Yeah, but so how are you going to maintain that? If you break that off and sell the top piece to somebody and sell the bottom piece, where's the verbiage for maintenance on that? >> That's not something that I that that

622
03:23:27.920 --> 03:23:43.920
that that's that I would deal with. >> So, in your in your experience as a licensed engineer, have you ever done this? Have you ever split a detention B? >> That's impossible. >> How? >> So tell me how that's going to be maintained. >> Again, this is getting

623
03:23:43.920 --> 03:23:58.960
well far field of what is pertinent right now for Mr. Fiser. He's answered all the questions related to storm water and we addressed the uh proposed subdivision by deed that will incorporate the easements as well as the

624
03:23:58.960 --> 03:24:17.120
on andm um manual that will be uh >> but how how is this how is a basin on two separate lots? >> This happens all the time. There's an easement >> where >> multiple multiple spaces but let's let's keep this questions to

625
03:24:17.120 --> 03:24:30.960
Mr. Fisher >> as to what's in his purview. >> Who's going to be the other professional that can answer these questions that we have? >> Questions focused on Mr. Fisher. I I I can't tell you who they are going to present as witnesses. So, let's focus on

626
03:24:30.960 --> 03:25:00.399
Mr. Fiser and questions towards him. So, we had talked about the tree removal and replacement, and I think there's a flaw in the law, but you had uh kind of hit that point, but it only goes to 8 in caliber trees and bigger

627
03:25:00.399 --> 03:25:16.800
>> for your replacement per ordinance per town. >> Ordinance, right? >> Okay. Because I don't know if like the Mr. Simon said no one's ever really walked the property, but there's probably 5600 saplings up to 6 in caliber that are not in any of your calculations.

628
03:25:16.800 --> 03:25:34.239
>> I mean that I I based my evaluation off of the township ordinance. >> Understand replacement aspect of it. >> 100% agree. So, when you say you're going to camera um Cornell Boulevard and

629
03:25:34.239 --> 03:25:49.520
check out the sewer and and the water lines because they're owned by American Water now storm sewer. Sure. >> What if there's deficiencies? What will happen? >> Uh they'll be evaluated and based on the efficiencies

630
03:25:49.520 --> 03:26:06.080
um upgrades will be proposed >> to the to the main going down the road. >> Yeah. And would you consider that still a minor subdivision at that point when we start tearing up roads and replacing storm sewer? >> Yeah, there's no there's no change to that.

631
03:26:06.080 --> 03:26:21.359
>> So, wouldn't you think that it would be a good idea to get that done before this board decides what they're going to do because then it would become a major subdivision because I've done major subdivision. >> So, I think you should you should >> How did you How did you just have the authority to change that to >> I didn't have the authority to do that.

632
03:26:21.359 --> 03:26:36.720
I'm saying from personal and professional experience >> that if if we propose a subdivision and we look in and the sewer's collapsed and we have to tear up all of Cornell and replace it, that's a big deal. >> So >> crossrain that goes underneath Cornell

633
03:26:36.720 --> 03:26:52.319
and then goes behind all the >> I know exactly where it is. I live right there. So next question. >> I'm wondering if they would propose to camera it before this board decides on what's going to happen. >> Camera has to take place as a as a condition of approval. Fine. That's what I'm asking you. Yeah.

634
03:26:52.319 --> 03:27:08.560
Exactly. Not when they're going for permit. >> It's what's agreed. So even if it were to take place tonight, it still has to get done or otherwise the application is null void. >> Exactly. Exactly. So do you did you put a proposed um bus stop in yet or was that talked about? >> It was talked about at the last hearing

635
03:27:08.560 --> 03:27:23.840
and I believe it was agreed upon. Is that correct, Jason? >> I I reviewed the transcripts. I remember a discussion. There's no determination on whether or not there would be a bus stop because that's something we need to work with the board professionals on and

636
03:27:23.840 --> 03:27:39.120
also the board of ed because at this stage we don't know where bus pickup would be and we're not proposing any additional improvements. >> You don't but you only have one road. >> Yeah, I know. So bus pickup would be where

637
03:27:39.120 --> 03:27:54.080
>> until we meet and confer with the board professionals and the school board on what they want post approval. We're not proposing anything at this time. Ward or board professionals would like to um instruct us on what they want with

638
03:27:54.080 --> 03:28:12.479
respect to the um a potential bus stop. We'd be happy to include that as part of the approval, but at this stage we're not just going to unilaterally decide to put something there. So, have we made any um consignments so to say for sidewalks on your side of the

639
03:28:12.479 --> 03:28:28.720
what you call Bridgewater side of the road? >> Sidewalk to where? >> Anywhere to the bus stop to where kids are going to be. Right now, it just has a sidewalk coming down and terminating there. Like, where are these kids going to flood to when they

640
03:28:28.720 --> 03:28:47.600
get off the bus? It's a big concern of the the Somerville residents because um Cornell is a very >> Sir there there is no sidewalk on the plan coming from the site. >> I thought you had one coming to the end of the street. >> No. >> No. So there's no sidewalk at all. >> No.

641
03:28:47.600 --> 03:29:04.600
>> Coming to Cornell? >> No. >> And no bus stop for the kids. >> And there's going to be a fire lane do not park here on the side both sides. >> For one minute. on on the colorized exhibit >> currently to my knowledge.

642
03:29:07.760 --> 03:29:27.760
>> It's not there. >> There's Yeah, there's no there's no sidewalk shown. >> So, there's no sidewalk shown. How wide is your road there? 18 foot >> driveway, you mean? >> Yeah, whatever you want to call it. What is it? >> 24 feet. RSI is compliant. You're going to have a 18 in. Is that what it

643
03:29:27.760 --> 03:29:43.760
typically is? 18 inch on either side that says no parking fire lane. >> I believe that's that's typical. >> It's 18 in. Correct. So that's 3 ft. So now you have 21 ft, right? >> Sure. >> Of roadway with no sidewalk. >> You can still drive through that. >> I'm just asking with no sidewalk, right?

644
03:29:43.760 --> 03:29:58.080
>> Parking. >> No sidewalks. >> No sidewalks. So if children are walking to the bus, they have to walk on the road. Correct. >> Currently, it's not been contemplated. They walk down the driveway and could potentially just get picked up on the street like most >> What driveway? The

645
03:29:58.080 --> 03:30:14.880
>> the driveway from the site. >> I consider that a roadway if it has traffic. >> Driveway per just, you know, that's what I'm checking out because I'm all about safety. So, if there's some handicapped gentleman driving his his um little handicap wheelchair and there's some

646
03:30:14.880 --> 03:30:31.600
kids, there's nohere else for them to be but on the street. Correct. >> Currently, correct? >> Okay. I I request that the board reviews that the safety of the people if you approve this, you know, you really need to think about that. >> Safety is most

647
03:30:31.600 --> 03:30:51.520
>> you're talking about veterans, disabled, you're talking about children, talking about a lot of people in that facility with no sidewalks. >> Again, questions, please. >> No, I'm done. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Have a good night. >> Thank you, Mr. Mos. Mr. Fiser has answered a lot of

648
03:30:51.520 --> 03:31:06.399
questions tonight and I'm going to allow him to continue answering some questions. If there's anybody else that would like to ask a question of Mr. Fischer. Again, at this point in the application, we're asking questions. Commentary will be heard later on in this application at a later date. That's

649
03:31:06.399 --> 03:31:23.920
not going to be tonight. >> Good evening, board. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Uh, John Manilio, 255 West Summit Street, Somerville, New Jersey. >> Can you spell your last name for me? >> Sure. M A N I L I O.

650
03:31:23.920 --> 03:31:40.319
>> And feel free to cut me off. I have like six pages of questions. So, >> if they're questions, feel free to ask. >> Um, so I apologize. I did come late to the meeting. Um, I know when I was listening on the YouTube, uh, Mr. Simon was asking some questions. So, I I misheard. So on the EIS, a waiver was

651
03:31:40.319 --> 03:31:54.800
requested for the EIS and that was a formal waiver. >> It was part of the application. >> Okay. Cuz I've I went through the application package and the um the narrative that is part of the checklist. >> I didn't see it there as a as a but I'll I'll look at it again. Um and the reason

652
03:31:54.800 --> 03:32:12.160
I ask is per the ordinance it says um no application for development shall be approved unless it sure no application for development shall be approved unless it has been affirmatively determined after an environmental appraisal that the project

653
03:32:12.160 --> 03:32:27.760
proposes um will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment has been conceived and designed in such a manner that it will not significantly impair natural processes. and will not place a disproportionate or excessive demand upon the total

654
03:32:27.760 --> 03:32:42.720
resources available to the project site and to the impact area. So were all those items >> you might have missed it but Mr. Simon asked that exact question >> okay >> feel free to stop me if I ask a question >> testified that this was part of the

655
03:32:42.720 --> 03:32:58.880
waiver request and the pertinent information about the site was put on the sheets rather than in a formal report. Okay. >> And was a presence or president's absence or letter of interpretation um applied for from D? How was that and how

656
03:32:58.880 --> 03:33:21.600
was that um I guess confirmed that there was no wetlands on the site? >> I believe there's a note on the cover page of the plans. >> Okay. So, who did the site inspection? >> My office. And are they, you know, trained and licensed to review? >> I have someone that is a specialist.

657
03:33:21.600 --> 03:33:39.520
>> Okay. Uh would the applicant be opposed to applying for a president's absence termination? That's the confirmation from D. >> If if it was required by the board, we would have to do it. But in our opinion, it's unnecessary based on the observations and the mapping that

658
03:33:39.520 --> 03:33:56.319
exists. There are there are no wetlands here. >> So the only reason I ask is the zoning officer's letter. Um, his only comment was no zoning comments. The lot looks wet. So, it's just, you know, another opinion from the the the township that >> I didn't have a direct conversation with the zoning officer, but interpreting

659
03:33:56.319 --> 03:34:12.640
that letter along with the soil conditions that were found, the soil conditions are found to be type D soils, which are very poorly transmissive soils. So, any type of um rain event, it's not going to absorb into the ground

660
03:34:12.640 --> 03:34:29.439
very very uh well. and it's going to run off across it. >> Okay. And um I think I heard earlier that additional testing was performed on the site. >> Yes. >> And was that submitted to the township? >> Not yet. No, that was also that was also discussed that it'll be submitted within the the contents of of an updated storm

661
03:34:29.439 --> 03:34:46.239
water management report. >> And do you have an anticipation when that will be done? >> Part of the post approval conformity. >> See, that's where I have concern is reading through Mr. Bur's um review letter and me going through the the there is a lot of inconsistencies in the

662
03:34:46.239 --> 03:35:02.399
stormwater report and you have a lot of objection from the neighbors not only from Bridgewater but from Somerville. I mean I would it would probably behoove the applicant to make those revisions and get it back to the township to have her reviewed by the professionals by the objectors. Um I have probably two pages

663
03:35:02.399 --> 03:35:17.680
of stormwater questions and we'll get to it. >> If you if you had a if you were here earlier this evening Mr. Bur actually checked off a lot of those concerns. Um, so that's something that perhaps you can review the minutes of tonight and you'd find some of that perhaps answer some of those questions. >> Not a problem. Um, was there any

664
03:35:17.680 --> 03:35:35.279
testimony as far as what the density is for each lot? >> The density? >> Yep. >> Number of units per acre. >> No, it was it was designed based on the zone requirements that the allowable units. So, in a in a backhanded way. Um,

665
03:35:35.279 --> 03:35:52.560
yes, I guess. but only based on the am maximum amount of amount of units per lot. >> Okay. I know it's not a question, but if the board's okay with me, I I did did a calculation for density. Um, so lot 2.02 is 6.9 units per acre and lot 2.03 is

666
03:35:52.560 --> 03:36:08.479
11.2 units per acre. Um, are there any slopes that are greater than 10% uh on the project site or off the project site that are being disturbed? There are no slopes on the subject property that are greater than 10% as

667
03:36:08.479 --> 03:36:24.640
measured across 10-ft interval contours. >> Okay. And then how about the entrance off of Cornell? So there is a a pretty steep embankment there. If I >> Sure. But but the the intent of the ordinance, the way that's written for this for the definition of steep slopes, uh takes into account that it's measured across 10-ft interval contours, which

668
03:36:24.640 --> 03:36:41.040
means that that would be essentially a minor topographic variation because of the um lack of of uh grade change less than 10 ft. >> Okay. Because it does say in the ordinance also that you know slopes 30% or

669
03:36:41.040 --> 03:36:55.920
greater, no development is permitted. And it appears that the driveway is going >> based on 10 foot interval contours. Correct. That's what it does say. >> I I did not read the the the ordinance section for the slope. >> You cited a part of the ordinance. I just >> Yep. Correct. I was citing the ordinance

670
03:36:55.920 --> 03:37:12.160
that says you can't be disturbed, not the definition. Um I know there was questions about what the purpose of the subdivision. I'm not going to ask that. Um and there was questions about the the basin that crosses two property lines. There's driveways that cross two property lines. I don't see any easements on the plans.

671
03:37:12.160 --> 03:37:27.760
Um, >> yeah, that's going to be part of the subdivision by deed. >> Is it going to be a blanket easement or a defined easement? >> Excuse me. >> What kind of easement? A blanket easement or you going to have a description to the easement? >> A description. >> Okay. So, shouldn't that be shown on the

672
03:37:27.760 --> 03:37:43.680
plans as well? >> No, not at this time. We It's going to be submitted as part of the subdivision. It's approved by the municipal uh engineer that is get sent to the county. I'm I'm a little familiar with site plans and subdivisions and and typically when these plans do come in front, they

673
03:37:43.680 --> 03:37:59.840
do have um the easements shown or there are revisions that are done per the comments offered by the board professional. So again, it's it's concerning that I guess the applicant is trying to get this approved with conditions and there's a lot of conditions. Um >> let's let's save that for the commentary though. >> Sorry.

674
03:37:59.840 --> 03:38:14.319
>> Yeah. >> Um I know application has been made to DOT for the subdivision. Was that granted and approved? >> It was submitted. I don't know what the status of it is. Um I don't have an update for you on the status. >> Uh did your office do a conformance

675
03:38:14.319 --> 03:38:34.800
analysis on the the lots >> and they both conform to DOT standards? >> Okay. And if for some reason DOT does not approve the subdivision, what happens to this project? >> Um we know we talked about the flag lot as well. It's not a flag lot. Um but I

676
03:38:34.800 --> 03:38:53.040
believe in the the definition of the H3 zone and I think you testified earlier the 20 ft is permitted um for utilities. Correct. >> Yeah, it's uh do I mean I can I can reread the the cited section. >> Sure. >> Okay. So section 126-32110

677
03:38:53.040 --> 03:39:08.880
paragraph 2. In order for utilities to properly access the property, the lots may be configured to allow at least 20 feet of frontage along the rightway as long as no structures are located in this area. Fences, landscaping, and other forms of screening shall be

678
03:39:08.880 --> 03:39:25.520
permitted in this area. >> Okay. And what utilities are going through there? >> Water, sewer, and gas, I believe. >> And is the any of the buildings sprinklered? >> Yeah, that that was testified to the architect. >> Okay. Uh, so you do have a fire service as well that that goes from through that

679
03:39:25.520 --> 03:39:41.040
20 foot section. Correct. >> I believe it's a 4 inch line that's extended up to the building and then and then teed off. >> Okay. And the water provider was >> American Water >> and um from my understanding any um fire service or structure that's over 100 ft

680
03:39:41.040 --> 03:39:57.279
from from the water service will require a hot box. Is that your experience as well? >> It's not been my experience. I know that we have to provide hydrants. Um, and then where does the meter go for those hydrants? >> It if if it's something that American water requires, we'll provide it. It's

681
03:39:57.279 --> 03:40:12.800
not been my experience, though. >> Yeah. So, in my experience, I hot boxes are usually required for for uh a fire service. And if like you said, if there's a hydrant, it's going to be a private hydrant and it'll be needed to have a meter. So, that would go in a hot box and it needs to be before you get to

682
03:40:12.800 --> 03:40:30.680
the hydrant. Uh, so I'm not sure if that's considered a structure, but that sounds like that would be in that 20 foot. um flag portion or 20 foot width. Um that's the staff. So I believe that's something that your office probably should look at um because that might be a variance.

683
03:40:31.920 --> 03:40:48.399
Um I wasn't here for the first part about the 2026. I'll get caught up later. I won't ask you questions on that right now. Um but has there been any uh consideration about realigning the site driveway elsewhere on the site? >> Not at this time. because it looks like where the driveway comes out right now

684
03:40:48.399 --> 03:41:04.560
is essentially across the street from from a residential lot. Is that correct? >> Uh it comes out between the property line uh for lot 1502 and the dwelling.

685
03:41:04.560 --> 03:41:19.840
>> Good engineering and traffic practices. Usually, you know, those driveways want to cross, you know, another, you know, street or intersection. And I, you know, I see Arleene Drive there. Was there any consideration to have the driveway exit directly across Marlene Drive?

686
03:41:19.840 --> 03:41:38.800
>> Not at this time. No. >> Uh, was there any consideration for the disabled veterans um property to have more ADA parking spaces? >> Yes, I believe that was a consideration brought up at the last hearing. Um, and we agreed to provide an additional

687
03:41:38.800 --> 03:41:55.920
handicap space for each parking field associated with each building. >> And I assume that will be provided on the >> Yes. >> revised plans eventually. >> Yes, it will be. >> Um, outdoor recreational space. I know there was um testimony to that I think from a lot of experts. Um, uh, do you

688
03:41:55.920 --> 03:42:11.600
know how much area is provided? >> I believe I testified to that earlier. >> Uh, not the area. I don't remember. You've testified to an area, >> I believe. >> Yes, there was testimony. if you'd like to repeat it. >> Yeah, that's fine. I I believe there's between 6 to 800 square feet of of area um contiguous area for for each

689
03:42:11.600 --> 03:42:27.520
building. >> Okay. Uh you weren't at the last meeting there was questions about the generator. Um I know I brought those questions up. Uh has any information been submitted uh about the generator? >> That was so that was the architect. You you um questioned about that. >> Correct. >> I have not had a direct conversation

690
03:42:27.520 --> 03:42:41.439
with him about that. >> Yeah, exhibit A3 was submitted with the generator specs. >> Okay. >> 13 track 7.5 kilowatt >> that was submitted today as an exhibit. >> No, that was submitted uh April 20th.

691
03:42:41.439 --> 03:43:03.680
>> Yeah, last meeting. >> Uh I guess that's a question for the architect if he comes back about a sound attenuation. >> Sound attenuation. Um, has there been any consideration to the the um refuge area for the ADA uh

692
03:43:03.680 --> 03:43:20.000
for the disabled veterans? So, I mean, it's a normal um dumpster enclosure, but you know, if people are are handicapped, are there any considerations to make that ADA accessible of some sort? >> The access to it or the the dumpster itself? >> The access to it. Um,

693
03:43:20.000 --> 03:43:38.399
well, the the access across the front could be made a depressed curb. If that's what your concern is, there's no reason it can't be. Um, I'm I have no objection to making it a depress curb to give access into the enclosure. It still won't um change the

694
03:43:38.399 --> 03:43:55.359
nature of the dumpster itself, >> dumpster stuff, but even maybe the latch as well. >> Okay. Um, I think there was testimony about the garbage truck pickup and frequency. Um, you know, they would just back up. Um, but you do have one deadend area, I

695
03:43:55.359 --> 03:44:11.520
guess, in front of lot 2.03, which is a significant amount of of area that they have to back up. Um, I'm assuming those trucks will have beeping noises as they back up. >> I couldn't tell you that. That's that's to the the hauler to the compliant

696
03:44:11.520 --> 03:44:27.920
vehicles. Yeah. Was there any testimony provided about moveins and move outs besides trucks, number of trucks? >> You mean as far as uh >> Yeah, that was that was I think addressed by the um operator. >> Okay. Is is there a designated >> that was not part of civil? >> Yeah. Is there a designated loading on

697
03:44:27.920 --> 03:44:46.160
the loading area? >> No. >> Uh has a hydrant flow test been done on the uh water line in the street? >> No. Um, it's another reason why I think you're going to need a hot box. I'm looking here at my notes. Um, looks like

698
03:44:46.160 --> 03:45:02.000
there's a uh you have one one tap off the water man and then it splits into a domestic fire that's not permitted per New Jersey American water. >> Sorry. >> Yeah. Yep. No problem. It's a late night for me, too. This is my second meeting. Uh,

699
03:45:02.000 --> 03:45:18.960
>> no. So, there's one tap off the water main right now on your plans and then it splits to a fire service and a domestic service. As far as I know, that's not permitted per New Jersey American Water. This is another reason that you'll need a hot box and you'll have to consider if that's a structure or not. >> So, so again, this has to be submitted

700
03:45:18.960 --> 03:45:34.880
to American Water for their review >> and we'll make accommodations based on that. >> So, my concern is if they come back and say they want a hot box, is that considered a structure? >> I believe that'll be a determination with the board's professionals.

701
03:45:34.880 --> 03:45:51.040
>> If it is a structure, then isn't that a variance? And that kind of nullifies disapproval. >> Come back and request the relief if if necessary. But at this point, we're not there yet. >> We can't discuss that because it's hypothetical. We're not sure what American Water is going to require.

702
03:45:51.040 --> 03:46:07.680
>> We're not we're not sure if if that hot box is required where it's going to need to be placed, where it's if it's going to have to be in that location or if it can be somewhere else. So, right now it's it's speculative, but we can cross that bridge if we have to get

703
03:46:07.680 --> 03:46:23.840
to it. >> Okay. Um I see you have a force vein for the sewer. Um and it appears it does cross into the burrow's um portion or their their jurisdiction. Is there a reason for that? And do you have approval from the burrow for that?

704
03:46:23.840 --> 03:46:41.040
>> Uh no, we we don't have an approval for it. Uh we will be seeking an approval from American Water to connect to their sewer system. Um the improvements while they may be in uh the portion of the

705
03:46:41.040 --> 03:46:58.640
rightway that that is in Somerville, um they are outside of the traveled way, >> right? But I'm looking at your plans. It looks like all of the um travel way is within Somerville and all the utility

706
03:46:58.640 --> 03:47:14.160
mains are in Somerville. Is that correct? >> We're showing a proposed force man that that somewhat parallels the curb line on Cornell Boulevard on the westerly side of Cornell Boulevard.

707
03:47:14.160 --> 03:47:32.080
>> So on your sheet 50 of 16, the force man is not within the burrow of Somerville. I I I did acknowledge that before though. Okay. Did >> And it appears the rest of the utility connections crosses. >> It won't require a road opening permit in order to install that.

708
03:47:32.080 --> 03:47:47.920
>> Yes, it will. >> Not in the traveled way. >> It's in a rightaway. I think any work in our rightway requires a road opening permit, not just within the travel way. >> If it's required, then then we'll seek it. And is it it appears that all the other connections come through Somerville as

709
03:47:47.920 --> 03:48:04.160
well to tie into the mains. >> That's correct. And and we will we will obtain all necessary permits. >> So I'm going to go through I have a lot of storm water. It looks like some of them have been answered. Um so additional soil testing has been done to comply with the BMP manual. Number of

710
03:48:04.160 --> 03:48:22.239
Okay. >> Um and they've done they were done to the correct depth. So twice the basin depth or 8 ft below the basin. >> Twice the basin depth is necessary if you don't hit any groundwater conditions. However, we're not we're we're not considering we dug uh and did

711
03:48:22.239 --> 03:48:38.239
not find any groundwater conditions um to within 2 ft below the bottom of our basin. We're not providing any um groundwater recharge or um infiltration directly into the soils because of the soil conditions. >> What kind of basin are you proposing? A

712
03:48:38.239 --> 03:48:54.560
bio retention basin with an under drain. >> Is that a grass >> bio retention basin with an under drain? >> And what kind of bio retention basin is it? A grass bottom or terrestrial forest? >> Terrestrial forest. >> All right. Cuz that that's another issue I have is if it's terrestrial forest,

713
03:48:54.560 --> 03:49:12.239
there's requirement for 24 in of soil media and I believe the plans show 18 inches. >> I believe they show 36 in >> of soil media. >> Yes. >> Review the plans again, but I don't think I saw that. Um, and did the new test results show any

714
03:49:12.239 --> 03:49:29.199
difference in seasonal high groundwater or groundwater from what was previously done? >> He did not. >> Um, and again, so is that going to be submitted to the township or? >> Yeah, that's going to be part of the the updated storm water management report. the the the additional soil testing, the

715
03:49:29.199 --> 03:49:44.960
the results that were revealed through the hydraologic soil group testing. Uh that'll all be included in in I believe it's appendix A of the storm water management report which is on-site soil testing. >> And when will that be submitted >> as a condition of approval as it was

716
03:49:44.960 --> 03:50:00.479
stated before? >> So I I don't know how the board could vote on a project that where the storm water management design system is not designed. >> It's a condition of approval. So it will not be approved unless they agree to provide to make that condition

717
03:50:00.479 --> 03:50:21.199
otherwise it doesn't get approved. Yeah. So I'm looking at sheet is this 13 of 16. You have a bio retention basin section and in there it says 1.5 ft sandy loom soil bio retention media that's 18 in where 24 in

718
03:50:21.199 --> 03:50:36.960
is required for a terrestrial forest. Furthermore, looking at your test results, right now you have 2 feet of separation to seasonal high ground water. If you add another 6 in of soil media, you'll be less than 2 ft from >> Actually, the the soil test results

719
03:50:36.960 --> 03:50:53.279
noted on this summary table indicate a groundwater elevation of greater than the depth. Now, I'm looking at basin 1B. I don't know which basin that you're

720
03:50:53.279 --> 03:51:13.359
looking at if that's 1B or or 1A. >> It has an estimated that you're talking about the the table on page 13. >> Yep. It says bottom of bio retention media elevation 94.5. >> Sure. >> Column all the way to the to the right of that. It says estimated seasonal high the abbreviation for estimated seasonal

721
03:51:13.359 --> 03:51:29.120
high groundwater table >> and with a greater than symbol. >> So does greater than mean? less than 92.5 or higher than >> deeper. It's been a tradition within my office to show it that way. When when we have

722
03:51:29.120 --> 03:51:46.399
not hit groundwater at that depth, it is deeper. It is greater than the elevation would be greater. >> Okay. I guess it's hard to um confirm if we don't see the updated results and see what's out there. Um, I know you're

723
03:51:46.399 --> 03:52:02.000
relying on on the board professionals, but again, there's a lot of um people concerned about storm water and runoff. Um, and and that's why I'm I'm making a note of it that it probably should be submitted. There's >> understood and so are we. But again, those comments are going to be very

724
03:52:02.000 --> 03:52:18.800
useful during our comment section. >> Okay. >> Um, many inconsistencies and errors in a storm water report. Uh, your post development time and concentrations were not calculated correctly uh for sheet flow lengths. um they were um short by 40 to 50%. Have you run them since then

725
03:52:18.800 --> 03:52:33.520
to make sure that they work? >> Um not no I haven't. >> Uh also noted in Mr. Bird's report is the limit of disturbance um differs between what's on your um allowables 1.16 acres versus your soil erosion plan

726
03:52:33.520 --> 03:52:49.279
which is 1.5 acres. Have you done the math on that to make sure it still works? >> All right. I actually did the math. I played with some numbers. I didn't even play with the TCS. I just played with the um limit of disturbance. And you were over on the allowables for the

727
03:52:49.279 --> 03:53:04.399
two-year current storm and a 100-year future storm for point of analysis one and over on the two-year storm for the point of analysis two. So, another reason why I think updated plans should be submitted in storm water report. Um

728
03:53:04.399 --> 03:53:21.120
your basin outfall for um basin 1A um what was that designed for? West storm event. I'm sorry. I should be more acc. >> What storm? >> West storm water. Yeah, storm event. >> You mean

729
03:53:21.120 --> 03:53:36.560
you mean like the what elevation was the we set at? >> No, your your your pipe design. What was that designed for? What storm event? Coming out of bas? >> Yeah, correct. >> Okay, thank you. Didn't understand. It's it's late. Um all all basin outfall pipes are designed for the 100red-year

730
03:53:36.560 --> 03:53:53.040
storm event. >> Okay. Um, how about the structures above basin 1A? Were they designed for 100 year or 25 year? >> Five per per the RSIs. >> Okay. And if I look at the grading um of those, so if they're not designed for the 100-year storm, my interpretation

731
03:53:53.040 --> 03:54:08.720
looking at it is that the 100-year storm will never get to that basin. It would overflow those catch basins, go down the driveway, go down to either Cornell or into basin uh I guess 1B. Um, so that's another concern that I have that yes, you designed the basins for

732
03:54:08.720 --> 03:54:24.720
hypothetically water getting there, but looking at the plans, the 100ear storm will never get to um, basin 1A because it's not been designed that way. But >> we just have to make we have to be careful when making comments and statements like that because Miss Fi, if I'm not wrong, we're going to have to

733
03:54:24.720 --> 03:54:41.040
swear him in if he starts to making testimony as a professional. >> Yeah. No, let me be very clear to all these witnesses. Everything you say are not factual statements or anything. You are not being sworn as a witness. We cannot emphasize enough that these are only supposed to be questions directed

734
03:54:41.040 --> 03:54:58.239
to this witness. Any statements you make, any positions you present to this board that you believe um are are your opin they're simply your opinions. They are not fact and they cannot be considered or weighed by this board. And and I'll reemphasize that with this

735
03:54:58.239 --> 03:55:15.520
board. what these um witnesses are asking. You can only evaluate what Mr. Fiser is stating. You should not be taking what these um witnesses are ask they're not even witnesses. I apologize. What these um members of the public are asking. You cannot take what they're

736
03:55:15.520 --> 03:55:31.920
saying as a matter of fact or law. They are simply their opinions. That that should not be considered in your overall evaluation. You should only be evaluating what Mr. Fiser is testifying to. Thank you for Thank you for bringing that up. I did want to clarify you as

737
03:55:31.920 --> 03:55:46.479
well. I'm not used to being on on this side and I'll phase it as questions because Mr. Simon's really good at that. Um so what were the um pipes designed for above basin 1A >> 25ear storm? >> So if we get a 100ear storm event will

738
03:55:46.479 --> 03:56:06.479
the water runoff go into basin 1A? I'd have to evaluate the 100redyear storm elevation relative to the great elevation that >> okay and if it did not get into that basin where would that water go?

739
03:56:06.479 --> 03:56:23.040
If it didn't get into that base, >> if it didn't, if those those catch basins are designed for 25 year >> and a 100year storm comes around, hypothetically, if the water cannot go into that pipe because it's not designed for it, where would that runoff go if it does not go into basin 1A?

740
03:56:23.040 --> 03:56:38.800
>> It will bypass the the basin. You're correct. >> And where does bypass flow go to? >> Down to the Cornell Road inlet. Then do you know what the town system was designed for? >> No.

741
03:56:38.800 --> 03:56:54.640
>> Uh do you know what most storm systems were designed for storm event wise? >> Most storm systems in summer >> in general as an engineering practice. >> I'm under the assumption that they're designed for the 25-year storm. >> Yeah. Uh so if that's been designed for

742
03:56:54.640 --> 03:57:14.479
a 25year storm and we have hundredyear coming down the driveway into Cornell, where does that water go to? It's going to continue on going down the road. >> I guess I would make the statement though to that point that under current

743
03:57:14.479 --> 03:57:34.560
conditions, if the 100red-year storm event came down off of the site and reached point of study one in the inlet and it bypassed it, it would go right past it today under current conditions. Uh it's not necessarily the same. I'm I

744
03:57:34.560 --> 03:57:50.960
don't I want to squirt. Um but uh what's there today? Is it impervious or pvious? >> It's pvious. >> And if there was bypass from a storm event from this development, would it be impervious or pvious? >> It would have to be evaluated. How much of that runoff would be bypassing?

745
03:57:50.960 --> 03:58:10.000
>> Would it be all 100% pvious? >> Uh not necessarily 100% but probably a good portion of it. >> Okay. That's a fair assessment. >> Um, has any analysis been done in the storm system in Cornell Boulevard as far as capacity, velocity?

746
03:58:10.000 --> 03:58:25.040
>> No. >> Okay. Um, I have to find which storm pipe there is, but I believe there is one storm pipe in Cornell that's 12 in and is dead flat. Um,

747
03:58:25.040 --> 03:58:41.920
so I guess is there any plans to do analysis see if there's capacity in in that pipe system that you're tying into? >> It wasn't something that was brought up by the board's professional engineer. >> Um, was there any analysis done on the inlet that you're tying to in Cornell?

748
03:58:41.920 --> 03:58:59.199
There's currently two uh 12-in connections. Um, you're proposing two new connections to the back and there's um already connections on the sides. Is there enough room in that inlet for the all the connections? >> Uh, that that'll be evaluated at the

749
03:58:59.199 --> 03:59:16.000
time of construction. If the inlet needs to be reconstructed further, we can. >> What type inlet is that? >> A type B inlet. I believe it's going to have to be converted to an E inlet. that was noted in uh the engineers's initial

750
03:59:16.000 --> 03:59:33.040
letter. >> Okay. >> Um has all the storm water and all the impervious been picked up on the site? >> Yes. >> I don't have the drainage area maps here, but um it appears that there's 76

751
03:59:33.040 --> 03:59:55.920
um feet of driveway that is not captured and treated for water quality. Um so are you sure that 100% of the sites impervious is being picked up >> that'll have to be evaluated I guess um

752
03:59:55.920 --> 04:00:12.160
for water quality at a minimum >> and if that's not picked up then that would need to be um treated with green infrastructure to comply with the storm water regulations. >> Yes. Is there any fencing proposed around any

753
04:00:12.160 --> 04:00:27.760
of the basins? >> Any fencing? The storm water management basins, not catch basins. >> Yeah, that's storm water management bas. >> Um, no, there's no fencing proposed. Nothing. Nothing to enclose the basins themselves.

754
04:00:27.760 --> 04:00:44.319
>> U, I mean, would you say it's good engineering practice to have fencing around it, especially if you have families and you have um I don't know what's the basin? It's not uncommon to provide for to provide a perimeter fencing is what I'll say. >> Okay. Um, and how deep are these basins?

755
04:00:44.319 --> 04:01:37.239
>> How deep are they >> to the bottom of the basin? To the burm. >> From the burm. roughly 4 feet to the inside of the basin for basin 1 A

756
04:01:40.960 --> 04:01:57.680
and similar for 1B. Again, these are all cut basins. >> Yeah. My concern is you have disabled veterans, you you might have children and, you know, find their way into those um systems when it it it is filled with water. >> Um have you proposed any access into the

757
04:01:57.680 --> 04:02:16.479
basins for maintenance? >> Uh there's a graded slope that that you could traverse down into. >> What is the grade of that slope? >> Roughly 10%. On the Basin 1B and

758
04:02:16.479 --> 04:02:34.399
basin 1A. Uh, a a graded slope could be provided on the southwesterly side of the basin adjacent to 2026. Uh, is it true um in chapter 9.7 of the

759
04:02:34.399 --> 04:02:52.640
BMP manual that an access um lane or or path is shall be provided for each basin? I believe that's correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> Uh so is the applicant willing to put a an access into basin 1A? >> Yes.

760
04:02:52.640 --> 04:03:13.319
>> Um as far as lighting, I didn't see a conformance table on the plans. Uh how do we know that the lighting is conformance with the township uh regulations? >> Uh well, the lighting has been reviewed by the the board's uh board professionals. Um

761
04:03:14.720 --> 04:03:31.760
and they have provided uh subsequent review of that in terms of uh nonconformities that they found that we've agreed to uh upgrade the the design and maybe why >> where were the non-conformities? >> I believe it was light levels over the

762
04:03:31.760 --> 04:03:53.520
property line. I don't remember the exact light level that was uh in in excess over the property line. Um, but I believe it was with the the common lot with uh common line with >> I I I'd have to look at the the

763
04:03:53.520 --> 04:04:10.319
professional to >> I mean question is would it be prudent to revise that prior to you know action by the board um especially if it does affect one of the neighbors that are out here? No, because we agreed to comply. >> LED light fixtures are are easily adjustable in terms of what the

764
04:04:10.319 --> 04:04:27.600
manufacturers have told me. So, being able to to make a light source, an LED light source conform to the requirements is is what I'm being told is is something that's possible in most cases, >> but it does not conform right now.

765
04:04:27.600 --> 04:04:44.319
>> Not not till I update it. >> Mr. Neil, um, you have a lot of questions. You're getting them in there, which is good. Um, how many more do you have roughly? Because I'm just taking into consideration who else has questions out in the public as well. >> I'm pretty much on my last page.

766
04:04:44.319 --> 04:04:59.359
>> Okay, >> 60 seconds. Go. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, please. >> Uh, what do the light fixtures look like? There's just a generic light fixture detail on the plans. Nothing what it looks like. Color. I if if the board requires it, I could submit a a

767
04:04:59.359 --> 04:05:16.720
catalog cut sheet, but they're uh they're typically a a sleek shoe box type LED fixture. Shoe box in the nature that they're square. Um but as LED fixtures go, they're they're relatively thin. >> Uh do you know what the apex angle is of

768
04:05:16.720 --> 04:05:31.040
the light? >> Uh it's downward facing. >> So in the ordinance, it requires a maximum apex angle of 150 degrees. None of those specs were provided. So, we don't know if that comp complies or not. >> Again, I I can provide catalog cut

769
04:05:31.040 --> 04:05:48.080
sheets to the board if it's required. >> Is there any security lighting proposed that will stay on all night? >> There was a discussion at the last hearing about uh looking into security lighting. I don't believe that that we've um discussed that any further since then, but security lighting is something that that uh can be provided

770
04:05:48.080 --> 04:06:04.960
on site as a condition of approval. >> Uh has there been any consideration to lowering the lights? Um right now they're mounted at 15 ft. Has there been a consideration to 12 or 13 ft? >> 25 ft is the maximum height uh for for lighting as per the design standards in

771
04:06:04.960 --> 04:06:26.800
in uh Bridgewater Township or the building height whichever is lesser. Um so no at this time there's there's no consideration because we're well under the the requirement. Are any street trees being proposed?

772
04:06:26.800 --> 04:06:43.279
>> Uh well, yes. They're in conformance with the the shade tree requirements in the township of Bridgewater ordinance. >> Uh shade tree or street trees. >> The ordinance refers to them. If you give me a minute, I'll find this

773
04:06:43.279 --> 04:07:11.960
section. Sorry. >> 126 191 B13. >> I have it somewhere. Bunch of numbers. Want it to be in the record. >> Oh, sure. Section section 126-191.B13.

774
04:07:14.080 --> 04:07:28.960
>> Right. I'm just looking for the exact uh language in terms of what they refer to it as street tree versus shade tree so I can provide proper testimony on that. I don't seem to have that section. I thought I brought it with me but I

775
04:07:28.960 --> 04:07:44.319
didn't seem to bring it. Maybe it's out in my car. >> That's fine. So to paraphrase, street trees are required every 30 to 50 feet along street frontages. >> Okay. Um, so looking at it, you know, with Route 202 206 in Cornell, you have

776
04:07:44.319 --> 04:08:19.199
a lot of frontage there. Um, and I don't know if I see any street trees. Maybe one on Cornell. >> Well, we provide two. >> And how much frontage do you have? 160 ft roughly >> that includes both frontages.

777
04:08:19.199 --> 04:08:34.800
>> That includes the the portion directly adjacent to Cornell Boulevard before it makes that bend. And we don't know who owns that portion of the property. If I that's that in order to provide street trees through there, I would actually have to clear additional trees to provide them in there, which really

778
04:08:34.800 --> 04:08:51.840
doesn't make a lot of sense. >> I don't see any trees on your plan because they're not trees per the ordinance. >> Sure. >> Okay. Semantics of it. Um, so whether there whether there are trees

779
04:08:51.840 --> 04:09:08.880
there or or vegetation in that area, there is area that would have to be clearcut, whether it's trees or vegetation or trees less than 8 inches in diameter in order to put it an additional street tree along the frontage of Cornell

780
04:09:08.880 --> 04:09:23.680
Boulevard, which again, in my professional opinion, is not something that's really prudent. >> And on 202026, any street trees being planted there? >> No, there's no street trees provided there. Instead, we provided um evergreen

781
04:09:23.680 --> 04:09:42.479
screening to help with some of the um vegetation and trees that were removed on site to provide an additional buffer. >> Is there any fence? It might have been asked already along 2022 206. >> It was a discussion point. I believe it brought was brought up earlier. Um and I

782
04:09:42.479 --> 04:09:58.160
believe it was something that that we did agree to Jason. Yeah, we'd agree to it if the board um uh if the board um would like that included and pending determination of whether that variance would be needed for the six-foot privacy

783
04:09:58.160 --> 04:10:15.040
fence. So, that's something that we are willing to add. Few more. Um so, I'm not sure if you're familiar with section 126 175 of the township ordinance regarding highdensity residential developments.

784
04:10:15.040 --> 04:10:31.600
Yeah, that was discussed previously and again we're subject to the AH3 zone which imposes RSIS standards rather than that provision of the code. It's superseded. >> I'll leave that to Mr. Simon out of my

785
04:10:31.600 --> 04:10:44.640
perview. Um I would assume that then the section one uh 126 189 design of building layout is the same. I don't think that's a RSIS requirement. design of building layout for highdensity

786
04:10:44.640 --> 04:11:00.720
residential uh specifically 126 189 A1C any building face to parking area half the height of the highest building face or 12 ft minimum is required between the building and the parking area on lot

787
04:11:00.720 --> 04:12:09.600
2.03 3 you have 6.5 ft provided. There's a waiver being requested from that section. >> What was that section? 126 189. >> Yep. A1C >> uh dash. >> Yeah. While he searches for that, perhaps you could ask

788
04:12:09.600 --> 04:12:45.040
>> what was the subsection again. I'm sorry. is a >> 126-189 A.1 dot parentheses C I have that's my last question. >> If that's fine. If Mr. Heidman was

789
04:12:45.040 --> 04:14:26.319
searching for that, I was going to say you could ask Mr. Fisher directly. Perhaps continue to the next question till you can find it. No, I I have it. I'm reviewing it. So that yeah, there might be a uh required waiver for that since this

790
04:14:26.319 --> 04:14:42.960
provision of the code doesn't address that. Uh this provision of the affordable housing zone doesn't address this specific design requirement. >> So you're has to >> so there there we'll we'll look into this but there might be a need for a

791
04:14:42.960 --> 04:14:58.159
waiver for that parking distance. >> Okay, Miss Fina, we we have noted of that, right? >> Okay. Thank you, board. I have no further questions and so hopefully they submit revised plans or or reports. Thank you. >> You had a few but you got them through.

792
04:14:58.159 --> 04:15:13.600
I think we have one question here. >> Yep. >> Just just one thing to note that the specific ordinance for the H3 zone does require um compliance with the RSI standards which do regulate driveway width, drive circulation, all of that. So, I'm not entirely sure. You know, Mr.

793
04:15:13.600 --> 04:16:03.920
Heman has indicated that a design waiver might be required. Um I haven't reviewed it in detail yet but the RSI standards I believe would trump here um in that Please. And that's why I said I'd have to look at it because I've got to take a look at

794
04:16:03.920 --> 04:16:21.359
the RSIS standards for if if if distance between parking areas and buildings is contemplated and if it is then proceed then we would have to comply with town's ordinance and potentially seek a waiver for that. >> Okay. >> Mr. Simon is correct. We have to look

795
04:16:21.359 --> 04:16:39.399
into it. >> Okay. Very good. Any other further questions? I I I'd like to, if possible, I'd like to get somebody else that has not spoken yet tonight if that's pos. No problem.

796
04:16:40.479 --> 04:16:57.000
Any other members of the public that wish to ask any question based on Mr. Fischer's testimony? Sure. Please come forward. Please state your name and address for the record and use a sign-in sheet. >> It's Oh, there's no pen.

797
04:16:57.520 --> 04:17:14.399
>> Thank you. >> Oh, it's Hines Nummire and I live in Summerville on Bum Street. >> Okay. Your last name, I'm sorry. >> Numire. >> Nummire. Okay. >> Mhm. >> Could you spell that for me? >> Yeah. It's N like a Nancy, E like an

798
04:17:14.399 --> 04:17:29.920
elephant, U like an umbrella, M like a mother, A like an apple, I like an India, E like an elephant, and R like an Robert. Do you want me to spell my first number too? >> Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

799
04:17:29.920 --> 04:17:47.120
>> Okay. Thank you. So my question was if this is definitely not from the northern part you can't access the property from from the time to eat dama couldn't you come from the south

800
04:17:47.120 --> 04:18:05.680
southern part into the into the property like from from that little strip mall isn't that bridgewater property as well and you could create a parallel street to 206 You know what I mean? Like from parallel

801
04:18:05.680 --> 04:18:22.560
to 206 kind of like coming backwards. >> So wait access through 206. >> Oh well >> like from the southern side and then just create and then just leave us Conal Boulevard because I mean for us

802
04:18:22.560 --> 04:18:42.880
is is so much traffic there. might be an idea to look into it. >> That point wasn't considered. Um, but I I I think it's a a moot point anyway because we made an application to

803
04:18:42.880 --> 04:18:59.520
the DOT and they denied us for access along the high. >> There is already an access point into the interet parking lot, isn't it? You could just create from there. We would have to get >> neighboring property that

804
04:18:59.520 --> 04:19:19.279
>> yeah from the southern border from the southern side coming into it. If you can't come from the northern side >> coming off of their driveway. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm just was just was asking the the engineer kind of like I'm I'm not I'm not a builder.

805
04:19:19.279 --> 04:19:36.399
>> I that wasn't that wasn't contemplated. However, um it would require believe it would require still require a DOT permit to allow that additional access because we'd be upgrading the access into that

806
04:19:36.399 --> 04:19:53.920
drive or or from that driveway for the additional use. >> Mhm. Council, >> just something to think about it >> and and judging by the fact that the DOT denied the application for access >> are you talking about tying into I'm

807
04:19:53.920 --> 04:20:08.800
>> anticipating Mr. Mr. Num, Mr. Numire, Councilwoman Nissa has a question to that. >> So, there's a strip mall. It's not really a strip mall. There's a daycare there off to the right. >> So, you know, little kids are there. So, I think DOT would have to review that

808
04:20:08.800 --> 04:20:25.439
also because it's adding more traffic on that side there. There's like newborns and a lot of it's it's very dangerous driving out of there >> as well. >> Oh, >> because it goes on to that same 206 issue, right? So, it's also it's someone else's priv private property. We

809
04:20:25.439 --> 04:20:41.120
couldn't just private. >> Yeah. There's a dance studio. I don't know if that's still there, but I know the daycare Eli's Academy is still there and some other >> there's a few a few shops. >> Yeah. >> And stuff. So, no, I was just thinking of looking at it because when you can't

810
04:20:41.120 --> 04:20:56.800
come from the north, maybe you can you can come from the south. >> Yeah. So it would need like the review again like he said the dot review see the traffic who's who's there whose property is that. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> But thank you for that suggestion. Yeah.

811
04:20:56.800 --> 04:21:12.560
>> Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Newer. >> Any other questions? >> Thank you. >> Okay. Is there is there anybody else first who has not spoken? Okay. Is there anybody else who has a

812
04:21:12.560 --> 04:21:29.840
question? Last call. Is there anybody else that has a question from Mr. Fischer? Go ahead. Take the last question. >> Two quick questions. Uh, so I wasn't here for the earlier one. Uh, so DOT denied the application. Is that correct?

813
04:21:29.840 --> 04:21:46.000
>> My understanding. Yes. I didn't I didn't submit the application. So I don't know this. I don't know the the greater details of it. >> Who submitted the application? >> Believe that was Dolan and Dean. >> Traffic consultant. Dolan. >> Traffic. And was a copy of that denial uh submitted to the township?

814
04:21:46.000 --> 04:22:01.439
>> I don't I didn't I I wasn't involved with the application submission, so I I don't know. >> Okay. And will that be submitted to township prior to a vote or is that going to be a condition of approval as well? >> I mean, we're we've never contemplated

815
04:22:01.439 --> 04:22:18.359
access from this. We pause to consider it, but I mean, I don't we could if needed, but uh we're proceeding with the application is filed right now. Okay. Thank you,

816
04:22:19.680 --> 04:22:35.439
>> Mr. Simon. You had a question. You You'll close it out for us. >> Just a comment question. I have a question. Not a question. It's not obviously a comment on the application. So, just procedural. Um, so there's been a lot of questions asked of Mr. fishers

817
04:22:35.439 --> 04:22:52.560
tonight that in particular included um storm water management and um the response was that an updated storm water management report including updated calculations would be provided and I think um it was a little nebulous I

818
04:22:52.560 --> 04:23:08.880
think in terms of the public's perception in terms of the timing of that because um it sounds like that what the applicant is proposing is that um they will submit all these updated reports and calculations um etc as a

819
04:23:08.880 --> 04:23:25.680
condition of approval and that if they don't do it then the either the permit will be rescended or the the application can't go forward once approved um I will state and just so it's out there been doing a lot of that tonight that there's

820
04:23:25.680 --> 04:23:41.520
case law that very very clearly talks about um important and critical infrastructure for a site plan application and a board whether it's the the field case, a good fellow's case, etc. There's other cases too that stand

821
04:23:41.520 --> 04:23:58.560
for the proposition that an application um is sometimes denied for site plan approval even if it's a fully fully conforming application if the applicant who has the burden of proof fails to demonstrate that the needed infrastructure for the project can work

822
04:23:58.560 --> 04:24:14.159
without adverse impacts to the surrounding neighbors etc. And clearly we humbly and respectfully submit that there's been enough questions and and I give Mr. Fischer a lot of credit um in terms of his answers that there are continuing to be unknowns here and that

823
04:24:14.159 --> 04:24:31.199
we would respectfully request because it's supported by the law that prior to the board's deliberation and vote on this application that the applicant be required to submit um his updated storm water report that he says he's going to.

824
04:24:31.199 --> 04:24:48.159
I fully believe him. Um for review first initially by Mr. Burr and then also by members of the public including members of the public's engineering professionals um and that would include um you know Somerville who's here as well. So um I believe that that's

825
04:24:48.159 --> 04:25:04.239
needed. I think it's critical. Um I think there's enough questions um especially given the answers given by uh Mr. Fiser that that be required certainly prior to the conclusion of the public proceedings so that the public um and its experts have an opportunity to

826
04:25:04.239 --> 04:25:21.840
fully and fairly assess that revised information uh that's provided and and if it's fully compliant then it's fully compliant and that's great. But clearly there's issues that um currently exist regarding that report and and while they intend to provide updates um it's

827
04:25:21.840 --> 04:25:37.760
important that that's done prior to deliberation and vote and not as a condition of approval and we respectfully contend that there's um legal support for that position. Just want to make that comment so the board can consider that. Thank you. And that so that the applicant is well aware.

828
04:25:37.760 --> 04:25:55.199
it's right on the radar that if you know there's a refusal and and that doesn't happen that that's that's a problem certainly as far as my clients are concerned. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. S. >> And if I met Mr. Chair I would defer to Mr. Burr on whether that prevote

829
04:25:55.199 --> 04:26:10.960
submission uh would be required for his review or whether he's comfortable with postresolution review. Uh again, you know, uh we are are more than happy to comply with the board's um uh

830
04:26:10.960 --> 04:26:27.520
determination on this, but in our opinion, we believe that we can comply with the conditions and we want to avoid a situation where we're doing a lot of revisions and delaying this process for additional revisions to be required. So, you know, we would rather hear the full

831
04:26:27.520 --> 04:26:44.399
extent of the testimony, uh, receive the full extent of any plan modifications or revisions before we, um, make final modifications to these reports and, uh, designs. >> Mr. Burr, what do you think about that?

832
04:26:44.399 --> 04:27:01.120
>> I think that I would like to see the results of the soil testing. That would be a good first step. Um when we performed the original review, uh we felt comfortable that the intent of the design meets the stormwater ordinance for the township.

833
04:27:01.120 --> 04:27:16.000
However, we also raised some questions and requested some additional revisions in our report which the applicant has agreed to. Um so as a starting point, I'd like to see the results of those soil testing, but coming into the

834
04:27:16.000 --> 04:27:33.199
meeting tonight, I was comfortable. Um, of course it's up to the board, but I was comfortable with those revisions that the applicant agreed to being addressed as a condition of approval. We've heard some additional Q&A tonight. Some of those questions, in my mind, are

835
04:27:33.199 --> 04:27:48.960
going to be answered by our review of those soil tests. Um, and and we've heard that the applicant's going to address some of the other some of the other issues that were raised. >> Mr. Chairman, as one board member, I have confidence in Mr. Mr. Burr's uh

836
04:27:48.960 --> 04:28:04.560
judgment and I think if the applicant can provide what he has asked for then he when next whenever we have the next hearing Mr. Burr can then report to the board and then we can determine um where we go from there. >> I I'm in agreement as well. This board

837
04:28:04.560 --> 04:28:18.560
you know dots its eyes and crosses its tees and we've been heavily relying on Mr. Burr's you know good faith and his professionalism. So uh I I also agree with that statement >> and uh yeah the applicant agrees with that as well. we can get you those uh uh

838
04:28:18.560 --> 04:28:39.560
updated soil testing um data within the next week or so. >> Okay. >> And just procedurally, there are no other questions for this witness. So that'll close the public portion of questioning for Mr. Fischer for this witness.

839
04:28:40.399 --> 04:28:56.479
Mr. Heman, we are at the 11:30 hour here and I don't believe you want to bring up any other witnesses, do you this evening? That's correct. >> And I also said in the beginning that I would not. Yes. So, >> and carry this to the next available date. >> Okay. As far as the next available date goes, I will refer to our planning

840
04:28:56.479 --> 04:29:16.080
department secretary and our land use administrator, Miss Nancy Propes. What do we have? >> 84 is our next date. >> 84. Mr. Mr. Hman, can you accommodate 84? >> 84 >> August 4th. >> August 4th. >> We can carry without

841
04:29:16.080 --> 04:29:40.720
>> Okay. I'm I'm sorry. I If you can come to the microphone. Sorry. Yeah. >> Just asking as a courtesy to the public board professionals. Um we're going to carry it. Hold on. This one. We're going to carry it to 84. Um just

842
04:29:40.720 --> 04:29:58.319
asking uh the applicant through Mr. Heyman what um witnesses if any they intend to present on 84 so the public is aware. >> Well, we concluded our affirmative testimony and questions on the applicant's architect.

843
04:29:58.319 --> 04:30:14.720
I believe members of the public and Mr. Simon reserved um on certain aspects of cross. So we're going to make Mr. history available um for any additional Mr. Simon, Mr. Galvin or members of the public have on the issues that were not

844
04:30:14.720 --> 04:30:31.279
specifically addressed related to the architectural building location. Uh and then of course we're going to submit the soil testing to her to the extent that there are additional questions Mr.

845
04:30:31.279 --> 04:30:52.399
>> Correct. Thank you. >> Anything else, Mr. Heinman? If not, we'll see you on August 4th and uh just we'll be carried without further notice. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Can I can I just comment and thank you, Mr. Fissers. You have been really

846
04:30:52.399 --> 04:31:10.159
patiently uh answered all the questions. Very nice of you. And also the public questions are very good also. U Mr. Simon and I forgot the gentleman name. uh as an engineer. Thank you very much. Very nicely done questions.

847
04:31:10.159 --> 04:31:34.560
>> Thank you very much, >> Mr. Chairman. If I could, Mr. Heinman, can you extend time to 8:30? >> Of course. >> That'll close the public portion or rather I'm sorry, that'll close the application portion of the meeting. Uh we'll just go into some uh

848
04:31:34.560 --> 04:31:51.279
homework here. And uh Miss Probes, again, we now heard our next meeting is going to be on August 4th. Uh what else do we look like uh in the rest of August? And what other announcements do we have? >> The 18th, we have nothing scheduled at the moment. And the only announcement I

849
04:31:51.279 --> 04:32:10.560
have is uh for tomorrow, reminder to check emails regarding the 4pm tour. >> Okay. Any questions or comments? If there are none, I'll take a motion to adjurnn.

850
04:32:10.560 --> 04:32:20.680
>> That's Miss Sakur. I'll take a second. >> Second. >> That's Councilwoman Isa. All in favor? >> I I have a good night, everyone, and thank you very much.