Welcome to the Bridgewater Township Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, October 7th, 2025. Adequate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the Open Public Beatings Act, NJSA 104-6. On January 9th, 2025, proper notice was
sent to the Courier News and the Star Ledger, filed with the clerk at the Township of Bridgewwater, and posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building. Please be aware of the planning board policy for public hearings. No new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10 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 a disability provides 48 hours advanced notice to the planning department secretary before the public meeting.
However, if the individual should require special equipment or services such as a CART transcriber, 7 days advanced notice excluding weekends and holidays may be necessary. Would everyone please rise and salute the flag? I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Miss Propes, could I have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Bessio,
>> here. >> Councilman Kersh, >> here. >> Mr. Papis >> here. >> Mr. McGora >> here. >> Mr. Wang >> here. >> Miss Sakura >> here. >> Mr. Banga. >> Miss Chardawitch >> here.
>> Mr. Chowdery. >> Yes. >> Mr. Atkins. >> Mark Peek, board of present. >> Bill Burr, board engineer. >> Here. >> Katherine Sarmmed, board planner. >> Here. >> Have a quorum. You can proceed.
>> Thank you, Miss Prost. At this time, I'd like to welcome to the podium any member of the public wishing to address this board in any matter not listed on the agenda. Please feel free to come forward at this time. Seeing none, hearing none, we'll move on. We do have one resolution this evening and that is the memorializing
adoption of our comprehensive master plan. At this time, I'd like to welcome any comments, questions, or perhaps changes to the record. Hearing none, I'll take a motion to adopt our township's comprehensive master plan.
>> I'll make that motion. >> That's Miss Sakura. And I'll take a second, please. >> Second. >> That's Mr. Chowry. Could I have a full roll call, please? >> Chairman Vesio, >> yes. >> Councilman Kersh, >> yes. >> Mr. Papis, >> yes. >> Mr. McGora, >> yes.
>> Mr. Wang, >> yes. >> Miss Sakura, >> yes. Miss Chardawitch, you were absent, so you would not be eligible. >> Mr. Chowdery, >> yes. >> Mr. Atkins, >> yes. >> Moving along.
>> Is that true that Mr. Charterich is not eligible? >> I believe that is correct. Mr. Peek, >> you have to if the member wasn't present during the >> hearing, then they can't vote on the resolution.
Are we okay with the roll call, Miss Propes? >> Okay, we will move along. We do not have any applications this evening. However, we do have a presentation of the bound book which is currently operated by the Stavable Construction Materials Company
and who will be presenting this plan this evening. >> Good evening uh Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Thomas Branch B. I am with Stavola Arcosa, a company that's been in existence uh for quite
some time, operating the quarry, as you know. I've been before this board a couple years ago, also uh each year before the township committee for our mining license renewal. As part of that process, um the board has the opportunity to have
us come before you and present our progress towards reclamation of the quarry which plan was approved back in 1986 and that has been a documented reclamation plan for which we're
continuing to follow today. Um since we were here in 2022 uh before your board, we've taken the opportunity to offer uh tours of our quarry to I think several of you members who have joined us. Uh we've had informal
discussions with your staff uh including attorney, the chairman, uh the administrator as well and also town engineer Bill Burr. And I think that was very helpful uh to exchange information as to where we are in our overall
reclamation of the quarry. Um where we are tonight and the purpose for being here is to essentially bring the board up to date with those discussions that we've had over the last several months. And I think at the conclusion of those
meetings, I think the members of that uh committee were satisfied with our information and what our responses were to their queries so that we could then move on to the next step which is the presentation we're here for you tonight.
Um joining me tonight I have various uh representatives of Stavola Arosa uh including our president Mike Jentoso general manager Max Winski and first up I'd ask Wayne Ingram of French and
Perllo our consulting engineer to step up and put the presentation before you tonight. And at the conclusion of his presentation, I'd welcome any questions to be asked by any board member to any of us uh here tonight. So again,
appreciate being here. Um hopefully you'll find this very informative. Um and if you have any questions, as I said, please feel free to ask at the conclusion of Wayne's presentation. >> Thank you, Mr. Branch. >> You uh raise the right hand. Do you
swear that the testimony you're going to give uh in connection with this presentation will be the truth but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Could you uh just state and spell your name for the record? >> Sure. Wayne Ingram. I N G R A M and I'm the an engineer and planner with Stabola. >> All right. So, um what we brought with
us tonight are two plans uh which I think we've given reduced copies uh to the board. Um but uh it's basically uh our mine plan and an overlaid version of the uh the reclamation plan. So just to start with the mine license plan um you know basically on this we've tried to
highlight the the various areas uh you know as we kind of segregate out um what's been done on the quarry. Uh the highlighted yellow area uh is our active mining area. Uh in dark green we have the reclaimed areas. the lighter green on the southern end uh as the uh
constructed retail uh redevelopment. Uh we've highlighted the uh fencing that we have along the residential zone uh along with the 100 foot uh buffer and 150 ft mining limits uh adjacent to those zones. And in the blue you can see
uh our existing uh storm water basins. All right. So, shifting over now to the 2025 reclamation plan. Uh, what we tried to do here was take the the four areas that were highlighted as part of the 1986 um plan over top of where we are at
today. Uh, to kind of try to give some context uh to how we followed that plan and where we're at and where we're going. Uh so starting with uh what and again these designations go back to that 1986 uh reclamation plan. Um the first area which you call the primary quarry
area is uh under stage one phase one. Uh that area uh was the initial area of removal for the quarry. Um we have our our primary crusher in that area. Um and again they're active operations going on uh there. Stage two uh the chimney rock
slope area. Uh that's an area where uh prior reclamation has occurred as you can see in in the green areas on the top. That's where uh slopes have been stabilized uh over over time. Um they've done res-sloping of those areas uh in cons consultation with the uh the state
and the department of labor. Uh and that's where we have our constructed storm water basins. The lighter uh blue is the ones that exist. Uh the darker is uh what is a proposed basin. Uh and that's again going to be done in consultation uh you know with with the
engineers and also I think one thing we wanted to highlight tonight uh is that we are working with um Somerset County and a consultant AECOM uh as part of a flood mitigation project. Uh they've kind of gotten through phase one of that review uh where the county has said that
they believe that you know the quarry can be uh a benefit to downstream flooding uh with flood mitigation by creating that storage areas. So we've kind of moved on to the next step and that's an ongoing process and evaluation uh where they're doing hydraology studies uh to figure out how uh you know
the quarry can be incorporated into those plans to reduce uh flooding uh in the areas. Uh so again that that remains ongoing and you know we're happy to support uh them uh you know in trying to utilize our basins that we need for our storm water management uh to benefit the
community as a whole. Uh stage three uh is our largest uh area of cing. It's the western side, the rear of the site. Um that's the area where we have a lot of active ongoing mining operations. Uh eventually the uh crusher
will be relocated back there. Um which will allow for further reclamation of phase one. Uh there's relocation of the overburdened material back there so that you know we we keep our a reserve of that material on site to support the future reclamation activities. So that's
being relocated. I I think we're taking down to the southern end uh of the site uh to await uh reclamation as we you know mine out certain areas to the limits. As you can see on the northern end uh the high walls are basically uh nearing the 150 foot mining limit.
And finally we have uh what's also called the primary core area stage 4 phase 2. um that's located within the C3 zone uh south of the uh the ridge line as you can see that's that's a wooded area um you know the the northern portion of it has already been reclaimed
and uh you know there's no uh mining activities proposed uh in that area. Um so again these areas uh you know that the shapes that you see were part of that 1986 plan. You can see that you know it's kind of in line with with what's occurred to this point. you know, we we've already uh you know, done the
reclamation and redevelopments of the eastern portion. Um we've got our slopes stabilized and the other areas uh remain active at this time. Uh the life of the quarry is is a variable. Um you know, the the finite number ends up being what
you have in terms of reserves, but how fast you go through them is a function of a lot of factors, including the economy. Um, you know, I think the last time we were here a few years ago, uh, we estimated 35 to 40 years of quarry life and we're probably at the 30 to 35 years of Corey life now. Uh, but again,
that's something that can shift, um, you know, based upon how fast we we, uh, are able to sell those materials. Um, I think that, you know, more or less, um, you know, describes the, you know, the the way we're proceeding with the reclamation. uh I can certainly go
through uh what we documented as the questions from the the last meeting of a few years ago just to provide some clarity and finality to to a lot of those issues raised at that time. Uh so uh just from you know from the notes that we've taken um first question was
what are our block and lots um we kind of highlighted that in the prior plan. Uh there's multiple block and lots that have been part of the quarry. the active mining application takes place on block 7-Eleven lot six. Um second question was is the current grading sloping compliant with the state
requirements for 30% or less? Um so our our grading and sloping uh has been done in accordance with the New Jersey Department of Labor and their requests uh you know in areas what were steeper than that. It's because they were trying to prevent uh things like ATVs uh you
know from coming into the site and creating an unsafe condition. And so there are areas that you know in their opinion it was smarter to steepen the slopes to prevent people from you know utilizing them um for things they weren't supposed to. Uh so we basically followed their um you know their
guidance uh with respect to that. Um third question was is there a before or after of the reclamation plan and if so how has it been modified? Um, I think that's kind of what we tried to do here with this plan and the overlay uh to kind of show you how those 86 lines uh
matched up to where we are today. Uh, fourth was is the current operation within the limits of the 150 foot buffer? Uh, it is our opinion that it is. Uh, again, we've highlighted that you know that buffer on the plan high walls are inside of that. You know,
there's obviously no intention to, you know, go into those areas. Um, you know, we we fully intend to uh to hold to those uh requirements. Uh is there question five, is there a six is there a six foot chain link fence around the perimeter consistent with the
ordinance? Uh we do have a chain link fence uh as shown uh and documented on both plans uh which goes around the portions of the property uh adjacent to the uh all the residential zones. So that is in place. Uh sixth question was do the stormwater
basins overflow to the west branch of the middlebrook? Um so the quarry does discharge in that direction but um our basins are what allow us to control uh our uh discharges and that's what makes us uh you know a good opportunity for
flood mitigation because we control when the water leaves our site. you know, we can make sure we don't have releases at times that there's cons flooding concerns uh so that we can uh you know, minimize those those downstream impacts. Um and you know, we'll be happy to update the uh the township uh as we get
updates uh from the consultants involved uh on the status. Uh number seven, is there any documentation that demonstrates the progress uh of the reclamation? And again, I think uh that was our intention here. Again, we'll happy to answer any questions later on uh that may arise
from that. Uh eight, is the reclamation plan consistent with the deadlines for completion outlined in the ordinance? Uh yes. So, it is our intention uh the ordinance uh requires that you complete your reclamation within two years of ceasing your quarrying activity. That is
our intention uh is to perform the reclamation concurrently with the quarrying so that we can complete within the time frames required by the ordinance. Uh question nine, what measures are in place to ensure on-site material is not washed away in flooding events? Again, I
think that comes back to the basins. Uh you know, those are uh you know, sedimentation basins as well. So, you know, anything that comes off, it's not as if it's going off the property flowing down the road. It it's managed and collected within the uh the basins on the site.
And the final question we had was uh how are fill and millings stabilized to prevent erosion? Uh we'll obviously fill you know as we you you know perform the reclamation it's graded and compacted into the site. Uh the quarry maintains a soil conservation permit uh with the
county uh that you know we we get periodic inspections. It's a permit that's renewed you know every three and a half years. Um and as part of that you know there we show them all of our soil erosion uh measures um and they will check you know those are all in place to prevent uh you know the off-site
migration of any of those materials. Um that's what we had uh from our notes in terms of the questions from last time. Um but you know we were happy to answer any questions or concerns the board may have. >> Thank you very much Mr. Ingram. At this time I'd like to open up Mr.
>> Just um more of a almost a procedural question just to clarify the materials the 2025 reclamation plan the executive summary the fact sheet that supplements and amends the 1986 reclamation plan. You're not replacing the 1986.
>> That's correct. We're trying to add clarity to to show you how we've been following that and how it fits into where we are today. >> So, right. So, to the extent there's any inconsistency between what you're presenting now and what was in the 86 plan, what you're presenting now is what would be operative.
>> Yes. This is the operation that we're performing >> for the record. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Thank you, B. Mr. Peek. Any other questions from our members of the planning board regarding Mr. Ingram's presentation?
>> Mr. Chowry. >> So on the stage three, I think on the west side that where you're going to stay uh start the mining operations soon, I guess >> mining operations have been ongoing. So these lighter lines you see, uh that's that's the benches that have basically
been created to bring you from the higher grade down to the lowest area of the pit. So that's been ongoing for many years. Um we can't go any further north. We will progress west uh and south. And again the reclamation is going to kind of take place in a a clockwise fashion.
uh you know be moving material uh to areas that are finished up you know start reclaiming slopes and uh you know utilizing that area and the back fill materials. So how many years it takes basically for starting any reclamations because you
looks like that you had 86 and now uh 2025. So uh the stage one is almost done now. There is no operations there. Right. >> There's still activity certainly going on here. Um again we have our crusher located in that area. Uh some materials
are being mined. So um you know it took many years for the eastern portion of the site to be you know completed and redeveloped. Um, you know, this will be an area that, you know, probably gets left earlier on as they work towards the back. Uh, once they remove the crusher
and place it back there, they can finish up reclamation activities, but it's going to take place over that 30 year or so year lifespan. >> Okay. So, initially you said it is about 35 to 40 years of quarry life. Uh so since you are moving towards the west so
that also added the 35 years again or >> that's that's the that's the quarry itself that's how long we will have are we're estimating active quarrying to take place on the property as a whole >> that I mean the way the stages were broken up it wasn't as if
>> one area would be completed before you would start another um you know for instance stage four phase two there's nothing that's going to occur here it's already it wasn't really u you you know, sequential numbering as much as it was breaking up how things would occur.
>> We'll still be in these areas, you know, during that time. >> The last one is your storm water uh basin that is sufficient enough for uh bringing the water from the lower level from the Somerset counties. >> Yeah, I mean we you know we have low areas that we collect water we can
discharge to those you know to those basins. As I said the light blue ones are the ones that are active today. uh this is kind of the future basin that's envisioned. Um but again the sizing and and everything that you know part of that's going to be what we need for reclamation and you know as you get
closer to the end of reclamation then you can start thinking about you know redevelopment major things that might affect how it's used and then also we we're going to take into account what we get out of this uh study that's being performed with the county if they have you know other ideas and recommendations
to incorporate into the sizing that would you know improve those flood conditions that can affect it as First of all and lastly, thank you for at least having us. Uh it was a nice tour. Um the interesting is I know little now about qu. Thank you.
>> Any other questions? >> Mr. Chairman, I have some Mr. >> Um Mr. Ingram. Um I appreciate you addressing the questions. Uh, I followed um questions that were captured in the
planning board minutes from September 13, 2022. And when we met as professional staff and our consultants with you folks a few months ago, um,
it was represented that these questions were going to be addressed here tonight. So I I see that you did address some but you didn't address all of them um from my perspective. So um again looking
at the same set of minutes I'm referencing a question that I asked um you Mr. Ingram. I'm just going to read the minutes because they do um capture what was said. Mr. Papis asks this is page four. Mr. Papis asked Mr.
Ingram to review the memo in order to address questions about sequence. He asked what the document labeled quote page 54 end quote was and pointed out that there was no reference to the
document having been recorded. Mr. Ingram indicated that it was part of the agreement. Mr. Papis asked how that could be verified and then asked what reclamation plan they were following. Mr. Montag advised that this was the
first time he was hearing questions about the validity of the document assured Mr. Papus that they would research it >> refer to our council press know that I I think we've discussed that in our prior meeting had meetings with you before
this we've sat down with representatives but uh we think it's a completely legal legally binding document of an agreement that and so that wouldn't accept solid. Uh so that is the agreement that everybody's
been relying on since then. We believe it's properly created copy and we have no issues of the document and if there's questions beyond that I I'm happy to take that up with your council.
>> Well, I'd like to address it here as one board member uh because it's still not clear to me. I understand what you've said here tonight, which is what you said before. uh you referenced the agreement that was primarily established to prevent this facil this property from
being used as a solid waste facility, but that doesn't necessarily reference or capture what what um the content of the reclamation plan back from 1986. And that continues to be my question. And uh
when I uh posed this question back in 2022, that was really the the the central point of my question. And you keep referring you the document that I was referencing. I didn't bring my copy with me rather thick. I referenced that portion of it clearly was recorded, but
then a portion of the document that you presented was not. and you were I didn't push you at the time because I was trying to be considerate but since then you've really not addressed that question Mr. Montag, let me finish,
please. And um I'm frustrated by that. When we met a few months ago, I felt uh encouraged by the tenor of our conversation when we met as a professional staff with you folks. And tonight, I'm feeling a brush off being
feeling this point as being you're being dismissive of it. >> Well, I'm I'm certainly as I said, we've had several meetings with you and others. Uh I thought we We have gotten past that that everybody
and that in itself in our view as a legally binding document that do in that doc and while we're not going we believe it's legally binding we are not going
concern that it goes to Mr. Respecting our position that that's a legal document but any reclamation might update that plan short
or or edit it in some we have no problem and if there's any concerns about the rec with all due respect I don't think there's any reason we have to argue about a 1986 document whether it was
recorded or not that was you know 40 years ago I I I don't have the records but either way We believe it is perfectly legally. >> Every time you have been uh when we've discussed this, you keep stating the same point again and again. I understand
it's a document that's been recorded. I understand there was agreement, but you also said and you've said previously that the point the main point is my takeaway and you can correct me if I'm wrong, was that it was it captured uh the point that this would not be used
as a solid waste facility. And and I I continue to ask for and I'll ask again, what parts of the 1985 or 1986 document capture reclamation and what parts of that document are being amended with
what's being presented tonight? Perhaps if you ask that answer that question, at least for me, and maybe I'm the only person that has this question in my mind, but if you answer that question, then maybe I can move on. But I really don't think that that question has ever been answered. my perspective.
>> Well, >> so if you can if you can address that, that would be helpful. >> And I believe with all due respect, the whole purpose of tonight was to do an overlay to show
how the phases of the plan 1986 plan uh out. And the question became, well, how does that align with with what we're seeing today on site? And that was that very
>> so if Mr. Ingram could Mr. Ingram could say >> that one point we believe it is it is consistent you weren't asked to come here to to express precisely what was being amended or not we're just saying to you it what
we're doing is consistent with the 86 plan and we outlined it up here just to show you on the mapping and we were asked to make it more current believe Again, that's what Mr. Pek and I discussed and that's what we're trying to do in good faith. If there's
something else you want to see, we're happy to do. >> So, what I just asked for is if you could point out, Mr. Ingram perhaps could point out what parts of the document that he's referencing are specific changes to the 1985 or 1986
plan. That's my question. I think it's a simple question. We don't think we have anything that we're saying is materially different in terms of what we're trying to accomplish with reclamation from the plan. We did I think also additionally provide um a document where we went through the ordinance and described how
we you know complied with the different you know aspects of of the township ordinance. I mean the, you know, where we say that, you know, things have changed. We talked about how, you know, the sloping has been amended in accordance with what the Department of Labor asked us to do in terms of, you
know, protect being protected. Um, you know, that's probably an amendment, you know, from that wording. But in terms of where we're working and what we're doing and what the goal is in the reclamation, I mean, that really hasn't changed. And that's that's what we're trying to show here is that we followed that plan. We
don't, you know, we don't have the need to, you know, change it really in any way. I mean, we could say that stage four phase two doesn't really matter anymore because we're not working over there. It's it's done. We can we could essentially say we're removing that from our needs for reclamation. But, you
know, the active areas of the quarry um you know, we're proceeding exactly as we we had always envisioned. >> I feel like you're deflecting. You're not answering my questions. I am not aware of what the spec I mean again >> I I just said concern >> there are specific
parts of the previous plan that you're relying upon that you're saying through the agreement through the court action what parts of that plan that you have represented as the reclamation plan correct you have heard that numerous times what parts what what you've shown
us what parts of the original plan have been changed that's my question and you know you're wanting to be you're being trying to be general and I'm asking you to be specific. >> Don't I don't know what the specific question is that you're looking for me
to say is changed. >> Well, I'm just asking you to identify what has changed. What what changed to the reclamation plan that you're presenting? This is shown as the 2025 reclamation plan. Right? So that means that this is likely different than
another plan prior to 2025. And if it is, I'm just asking for you to point out where the changes uh are reflected here. If I could maybe may perhaps interrupt. If you look at page two of the the fact
sheet for example um or A7 like the 1986 plan recites specific uses that that could occur after reclamation whereas now you you know it's it's a more generalized
statement um that would replace what originally went and that statement says you know that the goal of the 1986 reclamation plan is to the property is left in a safe condition and suitable for future redevelopment. Um, is there significant life left in the party's operation? Future uses can only be
speculated upon at this time. But and then it it goes on. >> That's fair. I mean, I look at that as not even part of reclamation. That's redevelopment. Reclamation is is our process of >> That's one of the Wayne, that's one of the criteria though in the ordinance
that the reclamation plan is supposed to contain. Um and that was that was your response and I'm just suggesting that that was a change from 86 to present. >> Sure. We the you know and I think what we've discussed prior is that you know
predicting what should occur here 40 years from now is difficult and you know probably a conversation that should be left till we get a little closer because what's in demand in 40 years is not we don't even know what it is. So you know that's fair. We're we're suggesting
that, you know, reclamation for us today is a matter of creating safety and stability for the site for whatever those needs may be down the road. That's a fair point. Again, I'm sorry if that was missed by us. We're looking at this more in terms of
how we're how we're operating and leaving the site for whatever that means. You know, I mean, if if we're talking about changes that would have occurred between prior plans and today, I mean, essentially what you're seeing every time we redo this is an updated aerial picture in the background where,
you know, the the will spread out back here, and as we move here, slopes will get stabilized, grasses will be installed, you'll you'll see less brown, you'll see more green on on the perimeter. You know, the basins will enlarge to over time to show you what
we, you know, as we develop this. But you know and and we stay >> and we maintain and move piles to facilitate that reclamation. That's really all reclamation is to us. It's how we're going to leave this in a safe manner.
>> I I have I have another question actually. When when a section of the quarry gets reclaimed, how is the parcel then redeveloped? Would the quarry owner, whoever owns the underlying quarry, would they market that parcel would you
>> there's various ways I mean as you can see we've already taken areas that were part of the quarry you know um you know the county came to us and and s you know suggested this is an opportunity for this redevelopment an agreement was made you know stabilized and redeveloped you know if areas in the front you know
finish up and we have sizable space that you know and a need comes along you know we could come to the board and and propose a use um you know there's a good chance that the fact that the quarry is so large, you're not going to want to be parceling out small things here and
there. The idea would be to, you know, try to get the quarry stabilized and, you know, you know, a much larger plan put together for for what should occur here rather than parcel out small pieces. Could it happen? You know, could something come along that makes a lot of sense? Sure. But I don't I don't believe
that's what what our plan is. And again, we see that as more of redevelopment, which we're not we don't feel like we're at the right talk about it yet not knowing what the needs will be. We had if we had proposed warehousing, you know, we we would already missed the
boat, you know, on that by the you know, and so obviously, you know, whatever we pitch today, it could be a totally dead thing, you know, 30 years, >> Mr. Papas, does that partially answer your question? >> So, so Mr. Peek, is it is it safe to ask
whether or not Stabbola has the capacity to show us which section of that 86 master plan has been amended to show us what he's showing us today? >> Well, I think what what they've done is is basically said the 86 plan is what
they're relying on and it's the job of of this board to make a it's been referred to the board by by the ordinance. So the board has to report back to the governing body to say, you know, either we we endorse what they're doing or or we don't or we do, but make
these recommendations that it, you know, be amended in some way. So what they're saying is they have the 1986 plan and they're showing how they've progressed in accordance with that and they've made from from what I've read, they've made some some changes. you know, instead of specifying, hey, we're going to have a
ski hill possibly in here, they're saying, hey, well, we just want to stabilize and make it appropriate for redevelopment, you know, so when the time comes, we can then appropriately figure it out. So, I mean, if the if the board wants to see more specificity of
in some regard, I mean, now's the time certainly to ask ask them. But I don't think what I'm hearing is, you know, they don't have a point by point of saying, you know, on page, you know, pages 13 through 14, you know, we
deleted this or we're we're changing that. I don't I don't think we're going to see that. I don't think >> I I guess I want to clarify. I am not suggesting by my questions that I think that you're doing anything wrong. I'm just trying to ask a question for clarity.
And Mr. Montag, I'm sorry. For years now, I feel that you have been very dismissive of this question. For some reason, you have not wanted your client to answer the question. And that concerns me. That continues up until tonight after the meeting a few months ago felt, okay, we're past this and
we're going to get answers. and I am just as frustrated tonight as I was in September of 22. So that's all. Thank you. >> I I would only say the purpose of being here tonight was to make sure everybody is very comfortable where we are with
the reclamation plan and and that is the most important thing. You know the document that was created in 1986 is you know 40 years has passed. They have generally followed that plan but for year to year we are in front of of the town. You know requests are made.
you have an ordinance. We have to make sure we're complying and we're going to do that. And if tonight there was a question to ask for more detail or you had a concern about the direction of the reclamation plan, we're happy to address it. We're not we're not stuck. We're
flexible. Uh and we can have that discussion. And I think that's the most important thing is that we're here to have a dialogue and work with you. We're not telling you you're stuck with with anything. Uh but we're obviously just providing the update. We wanted to show
you the consistency that we see with the plan that was started back in 1986. And we believe this is all consistent, but obviously we're providing some more detail for you. >> Can I ask a question if you don't mind? Um, what specifically has changed from
2022 to now from the reclamation plan >> in the last three years? there there's no material change in our mind as to how we're it's just as I said it lines will lines will move incrementally you know in as slopes get stabilized as we push
out in other areas as we move material to create the stable slope. So you you know reclamation isn't any you know it's not a redevelopment all you know it's it's all we're going to see here is rising rising and lowering you know altering of of slopes so that we and you
know as we intend to keep them fully in line with everything in your ordinance um you know except we're and I think even when we talk about slopes it's said as practical and and safe and you know again that's that's what we're trying to do with you know under our required permitting
So, I know you said changes materially. What about what would you consider not material? >> I mean, I don't think any plan got so specific as to say and and it wouldn't be smart to get to over get overly detailed with the plan to say, well, we're going to move this here to there
because things change over time. You know the that's why broad strokes are used because we can't predict how fast we're going to get to areas because if we don't sell a certain amount of material, we're not going to be there. And if we have to do certain reclamation and we haven't sold enough yet, we're
going to we're going to pivot a little bit. But you know it's really we see it as the overall goal that we're working towards you know is those safe slopes and maintaining materials on site so that we can meet the requirements of finishing this in the time periods that
are required. >> So what does that mean? I know you talked about stage what was that three the back and I know you had asked questions about moving backwards right I I have a business that's very close to a quarry that's highly impacted after it
it moved more towards my where I have a business I noticed there are homes there what is the plan or how how soon will that expand closer towards those areas where
people live It's always expanding in that area and again with a with a 30-year time frame, you know, in in our minds, you know, that that's cessation of quarrying activities and then within two years of that, we have to have this the site reclaimed. So, as you would see us pushing back into those areas, which
will take place over the next, you know, from today till 25 years from now, you know, we'll be continuing to move in that direction. And as we do that, other areas of the site will be brought back, filled in, you know, to to those stable
locations. As you see, you know, here it's a a flatter area. We're we're stabilizing the southern areas. Um, you know, we'll come out in some and we'll and we're working back in in others. >> So, as you as you stated that 30 years is a long time, right? And you're saying 30 years, right, that this is going to
continue moving back over the next 30 years. I don't like to work in 30-year time frames. I'd like to know more specifically about how how long each stage will go inside of stage three. >> Everything here is a bench. So, as you
work out, you take that bench back a certain distance and then you bring the next bench back. And it it's hard to tell you time frames because it again it's dependent upon sales. If we hit a recession, lines aren't moving. You know, they're going to stay here. If if the things pick up and there's a ton of
development in the area, things may speed up and that's that's what's going to like we have a certain amount of reserves. That's the fixed number. The rate that it changes is totally economic. >> Say the economy stays the way it is. How
long will each bench take? >> Again, I don't I don't know that we can answer that question. >> How long did the last bench take? So as Wayne was explaining, site has to be brought down a certain level. >> Those benches are circum circumvent the
entire quarry. So we're working from the top down. It's not like we can just move east to west and close off areas as we're going across. Has to be almost like a bench down each time. So we can't close out those upper
benches until we cases went explained to the extent of the >> Each bench take could take years or likely takes years >> as we move around in a circumference.
Yeah. In a circular pattern. And there are no other material changes that you would say from the last reclamation presentation to now. >> Well, I think Wayne mentioned earlier about the relocation of our primary crusher. >> And for those of you that went on the
tour, you saw the relocation of that primary crusher, which is now placed on a final elevation for where that reclamation take place. What that allows us to do once that crusher has been moved is to take that mountain of material that was in the center for
where that primary was previously located and take that down to the final eleation. >> Hey Tom, I'm going to retroactively swear you since testimony. Could you raise your right hand? >> Do you swear that the testimony you have given and possibly will give in the
course of this presentation uh has been and will be the truth and nothing but the truth? and you just state and spell your name. >> Sure. It's Thomas Ra. >> Thank you very much, >> Mr. Chairman. If I could just add on to
Miss Sakura talked about depth um referring to page seven of those minutes from September 22 and I referenced uh concerns expressed earlier by Miss Doyle who was our planner at the time and it was specifically about depth. So could you talk a little bit about the depth? I
I know that she had expressed to me a question about the depth and u the lowest point where that is in relation to the plan. >> Well, I think and again we believe we're compliant. I don't have an act an exact
elevation to give you tonight. We can certainly tell you know check the plan and let you know what the lowest current elevation is. You know and there there's probably a distinction between quarrying and you know how we're leaving the site. So obviously if we take the quarry down to a certain level the basins have to
get taken down lower to provide the storage volume you know to mitigate runoff. So you know we may have to look at you know lowering these and we may do that in accordance with when we get the response from Somerset County and they say make you know if we can do the following things with these basins it'll
provide better flood mitigation. You know once we have that again we're happy to present that to the township and you know show you why you know how that may change what we do. Um but you know we don't view the you know the basins as part of you know the quarrying activity per se. It's our it's our mechanism for
maintaining our storm water but we can get you an elevation on the quarry limit. >> Yeah I think that would be helpful. And so is the the depth lowest point or what could change is that referenced in the reclamation plan
that you reference and rely upon >> and if so where on that plan >> we don't think we have an exact number in that but also again we're we're hap I mean these plans are presented we're happy to work with your engineer you know our goal like obviously you know
from wherever we have to drain it to we also have to make sure that we whatever our reclamation heights are that we're maintaining pitch to get the water we say it's going to go. Um >> I I again I'm just trying to understand that's my question is what what's the
lowest depth has that changed? Will that change? What I mean I guess you could answer the question at some point. Has it changed? That's I no my question was what's the current lowest point? Has
that changed? and you know approximately what period of time has that changed. I think that's what Miss Doyle was getting at a couple of years ago and I don't think anyone answered the question then. >> I and I and I think I'm trying to just answer ask some simple questions and
again my frustration is you you don't seem to choose to or are able to answer the questions and I don't understand that must be a strategy and I don't understand the strategy because I'm just trying to get clarity. That's all I'm trying to get is clarity. They don't
have an agenda trying to understand. >> So, we'll look at the plan. We're going to get you that number. Uh before today, we presented you and Mr. Pek and others with the list of what we thought were the the key questions and what we were going to address tonight. We actually
outlined that. We provided to everyone, brought it to your engineer. We didn't get any other requests, but we're fine. We'll we'll have that number. It's just not doesn't happen to be on the plan, but we'll get that. We'll get that very quickly for you. >> Mr. Ingram, I believe personally I
believe that from what we saw in September 2022 to now, I I think the representation of the work that's being done and the work that's projected, the representation is far better than it was back then. I really understand better today what processes are taking place
for the reclamation. Uh so thank you very much for that. Uh I'm hearing both sides and and I think one of my questions now that's kind of born from this is that um and I think to some extent our former planner uh Miss Doyle had a question how can we ensure uh that
progress is being made on the reclamation plan and I believe the response at the time was that that the overlay would help. So I I I do see this overlay. I understand I I appreciate from what I read in the the um the fact sheet that if I if I understand this
correctly, this is taking place like like a clockwork, right? So you're starting in one place and you're kind of working clockwise through the quarry and you're reveating, you're you're re-establishing the buffers until you get to the other side, right? So if you could get just a high level representation of how this is taking place visually for the board members. I
think one of the things we note is how we took, you know, we took material from the northern end that we were stockpiling. We've moved that to the south end. Uh because as we, you know, hit these limits and work back, we're going to use that for um as part of a reclamation. As Tom mentioned, you know,
we we've worked on the relocation of the crusher. So, this area will can be brought down to its final depth. Um, you know, and again, maybe in future revisions, what we can start to show you is, you know, you can see a wood line here, you can see a grade, you know, we
can start to try to take, you know, overlays of one iteration to another and how things are moving in. But, you know, once we hit these limits on the southern end of where we've taken all the material out, we you'll start to see material brought back um to create those
final slopes. So, you know, that's a specific thing that you'd like to see, we can make a make more of an effort to highlight it. Um, you know, the cycles of returning as to, hey, we managed to pull this area back 200, whatever, right?
>> And I think that's part of the question. Um so as these these milestones are achieved right I if is there any ability when we do you know achieve some of these these different tasks uh is there a a section in the reclamation plan that can be referenced each time that
progress is made so when we we actually have something to go back to to as a point of reference to say that hey this was in the reclamation plan and we've achieved that part of the reclamation plan. Are we allowed that that level of specificity? Should we require that? I
mean I think area to area we you know we can you know discuss how you know you know distance-wise you know well in stage one we've you know the reclaimed area has pushed north just speaking in generalities we can
start to talk about that type of mechanism you would find helpful >> and I understand how complicated this can be because there could be environmental factors economic factors that take place understood so things could change but But again, general progress that's made. Is is there an is
there a specific point in the 1986 reclamation plan that can be referenced to check off a box, so to speak, sometime in the future? >> M Mr. Chair, >> I think the problem is that the areas were, you know, they're large swaths,
right? So, it's not like we're going to come in here in three years and say stage one checked off, done. because even though they broke it up into these areas of work, the intention wasn't necessarily to, you know, finish stage one before we go to stage three. As you can see from the fact that stage four
isn't even going to get touched. I mean, we could basically cross off the reclamation plan. Um, you know, we're working in these areas concurrently. We're just performing different operations in them at this time. You know, once we relocate the crusher, then the plan will change a little bit about
what will occur in stage one. there'll be more reclamation, you know, final quarrying and then reclamation as we finish in the rear. I mean, that's probably the specificity that we would, you know, look to provide other than, you know, incremental changes that we can.
>> I'd like to hear from our professionals if possible to weigh in on the situation. >> Yeah. And this is timely. I was actually going to try and jump in there. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of my suggestions um is that the reclamation plan itself, the actual narrative document be updated. Um
I don't think it's been updated since 1986. Is that correct? >> No. >> So >> provided the you know the summaries and things >> summaries and things I think yeah they're great but I think you know and this is probably just on my mind the township had a had a 1990 comprehensive
master plan. That was the last time that the township of Bridgewwater had a comprehensive master plan. Over time there were amendments and the township just adopted a new master plan 35 years later that includes everything together. And I think what would be really helpful in understanding because going back and
reading the rec the 80 the 86 reclamation plan helped me to understand what was included in there what it talked about the point in time references. It was the first time that a reclamation plan had been done because mostly because of the the ownership and also the the state requirements at the
time. And I think what's really what would be really helpful is if that was updated to date to include everything that's changed over time. Talk about all the things that have happened with the county facility and the DPW. Talk about the storm water um potential changes to
the storm water basins. I think that's that's what's helpful. The map and the overlay is incredibly helpful. But I think having a narrative that outlines all the things that have occurred just like they did in 1986 would be re really helpful. >> Yeah. And I don't think that involves I
understand I think we've heard two different kind of requests. >> We can do that, but I don't think it'll involve us having to amend the 1986 plan. What we can do is if you wanted to turn some of this into a more detailed
narrative, we could we could do that by way of update obviously, you know, and explain it. I do believe we created a document that was that we've given to the board that does explain that. Uh it doesn't go into incredible detail.
>> The two-page doc, >> that's it. And it's a general overview of it, but we could do if it would help, we could do a more more detailed update. >> I think sort of explaining where things are right now. I think that's one. And I
I think the other question uh that came up was um maybe trying to show when there are material changes to reclamation to be able to point to that so you can more readily follow it. And I think that's something we could do. You
know, the the when I when we were, you know, getting an update, you know, what's happened, you know, in terms of reclamation between 19 uh between 2022 and 2025. Well, not much. They've been mining during that most of that time. There hasn't been a lot that's changed
on the mining plan. Again, nothing material at all. But um but obviously it's a fair question to say, hey, you know, when you are making changes, can we see that and can we point that out with a little little more clarity. So I so I think both we can work with you on.
>> Yeah. And I I think that that would be wonderful and I think it would give the opportunity to also answer some of the questions that the board had asked so that it is somewhere that it can be pointed back to. Um I think to Mr. Pap's question, I think having topography,
legible topography on one of these maps might be helpful too. Um just so there's an understanding of where low points, high points are reference. >> Yeah. Um, the only other question I had was the reference to the stage 4 phase 2 area in the 86 recommendation plan and
in the updated summary really just it only references that. So, um, I believe the 86 recommendation plan talked about potentially regrading that area and it looks largely wooded right now. Um, can you just provide an update if that's
still the plan from the the 86 reclamation plan? So w with the way that you know there was zonings and requirements to keep the high ridge for the the idea of going into that area is just squashed. So >> I think you know >> then that would be a great update
>> more or less just say removed from the idea. I mean there's nothing you know we don't want to take down trees to regrade that this is going to this is not part of reclamation anymore. It's going to stay as as part of the quarry. >> Okay. And that's one of the big updates that I think would when it makes its way into whatever we're going to call it
whatever that document is. That's a that's a better update than what was provided here. It's or it's more accurate at least. Thank you, >> Mr. Orman. >> Mr. Burr, do you have any questions or comments? >> I have a few, Mr. Chairman.
And I think the first kind of goes back to the discussion of the 1986 reclamation plan versus the 2025 plan. And when when we hear the word plan, I'm thinking I'm thinking this. I'm thinking what Wayne
has up on the board. But the 86 plan is a written document. It's a narrative. And I think when someone is trying to compare a written narrative to an engineered plan, sometimes the details don't line up or
they're difficult to, you know, m make sense of when you're comparing them. So, I agree with with some of the board's sentiments. I agree with Katherine here. I think it would be very valuable to have an updated narrative reclamation plan, whether it's an, you know, a
an amendment, a separate document or something that's a fix to this somehow because right now we really don't have a good baseline of what was approved in ' 86. We have this reclamation, it's called reclamation program, but the the
copy I have is not dated. So having that baseline document and this is really a compelling document speaking about the history of this quarry back to gosh I'm embarrassed 17 or 1800s
and then it goes up to 40 years ago and then we have nothing. And I think there's probably been a lot of important and and good storytelling that's taken place on that property in the last 40 years. Let's get it current and then build upon it in the future. You know,
we heard Wayne um I think he mentioned 30 to 35 years of of life left. The exe the executive summary says 20 to 25 years. I get it there. you know, that's hard to pinpoint, but to have that information be included in an updated
document. Um, so that we're not comparing a narrative and all in and what I consider an outdated narrative to a plan or subsequent plans that get submitted every year with the annual license. That would be helpful. There's some things in the original reclamation
program or narrative that I think are outdated. Something as simple as the owner. The owner is no longer Stavola out of Redbank. I think something like that should be should be updated. Um there may be changes in that original plan. It speaks to different zoning requirements. Some of those may have
been updated. Um there's a preamble about the the 45% slopes and the 50 50 foot benches. I don't know that that it sounds like that's not not still what's being um not complied with but but what's I think we have ultimately we have slopes that
are steeper based on what Wayne said with their discussions with the department of labor and then the original narrative talks at that time in 1986 to the useful life. We know those days are changed. So I think just having an updated document uh knowing exactly
what the original document was and then have it be updated, amended, appended, however it however it needs to get executed so that we know what we're dealing with in 2024 moving into the future I think is going to be valuable
as as this this Corey for the next 20 or 30 years continues to operate. So that's my that's my two cents. I have a couple of quick questions for Wayne while we're at it though, unless anybody has any questions for me. Wayne, you talked about um
the fact that your plan was updated to show the chain link fence and that chain link fence. I the ordinance requires a chain link fence anytime the quarrying operations have approached closer to
than 150 ft to I think the adjacent residential zones. So it is that why the chain length like is the chain length fence shown everywhere around the perimeter? I haven't looked in close enough detail or is it only shown where
those cing operations have encroached closer than 150 ft. >> Not necessarily closer but along property lines where our intention is to go up to the buffer. So the fence line is essentially, you know, following here along the residential zone to the west
and along the north. Um, you know, this northern edge is where we're basically right up to the 150 foot mining limit. And the idea was to put it anywhere we're adjacent to those residential zones. So, you know, we are not within anywhere close to that distance along our southern boundaries. And again,
that's that's all commercial zoning. you know, we own this parcel here, you know, and we're not going to be getting within um see what our scale is here, you know, 500 400 of that. So, we believe we're compliant in that respect where we have a high
wall that it butts those zones that's being quarried >> and that fencing is in good good repair right now. Correct. >> Yes. Good condition. you know, >> understand >> trees fall, you know, breaks happen, but you know, it is it is an operable fence.
>> And I I guess my question is to that point because that's a good one. Does somebody from uh Stavola currently survey the the the perimeter of the property to make sure it's in good shape? >> We review our our security and, you know, take measures to fix any damage.
>> Okay. Uh you had mentioned the work that AECOM in conjun in conjunction with the Corey owners and Somerset County are working on kind of a regional storm water review a flood mitigation type type proposal and
they're currently engaged. Yes. >> Yes. >> And they've completed the initial phase of the project and now it sounds like they're in the next phase which is doing a little bit more of the the hard engineering it right. They they reviewed the hydraology, you know, came to the
conclusion that they believe that this could be a beneficial site. That was the idea in that final. They concurred with that and having them move to the next step which is concrete design. >> And do you do you know how long this
next step is envisioned to take? >> No. No. I just didn't know if we were looking at 12 months, two years, six months, if you had any feedback from 12 to 18.
>> First phase, uh, as Wayne mentioned, was to understand the hydraology. Uh, Joe Scoopian, if you know who he is, he's the storm water expert for Somerset County. He was engaged to analyze the benefit of potentially storing water
within the quarry. His initial report came back showing that yes, there was a benefit diverting some of the water, specifically the eastern branch of the Middlebrook into the quarry. So with that, it now comes back to us as the quarry owners to look at how structurally we could actually make that
work in conjunction with our operation. So as Bill, you asked, I'd say 12 to 18 months. I had one more question and now I give me a second come back to my mind. Well, in the absence of of thinking of
my other question, I'll ask this way. So stage three where where the current coreing operations are taking place is is that the focal point is that going to be the focal point for the next 20 to 30 years? I I'm sure you mentioned this
already but I just want to clarify. So stage one the coring the active coring is complete. Stage two it's complete. >> Well again so the the crusher has been relocated. Y >> eventually it's going to be relocated to the rear which will allow us to get the last bits out of stage one.
>> Oh, so there is still a little bit of potential in in stage one. >> Okay. >> We have we want to bring that ultimately bring that down to the level that becomes the reclaimed level. are areas that are still being at that point. You know, once that that's back there, the rear area, stage
three, is where most of the operations will >> and do you have any sense of the timing of when that equipment gets taken out of area one and when area one gets I mean, are we talking in the near term or are we talking years out? 15 years
>> for the next 15 years >> the focal point is going to be area three. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Okay. And last question, um, you had mentioned you can update your plan to
show the topo, show the elevations in a little more clarity as well as give us the depth of >> Yeah, I think >> bottom of the the the to your point, they're on here, but at this at this scale, it's tough. I think the beauty of it is you can see the totality,
>> but if if you think something like, you know, basically taking this in quadrants and blowing it up, so you have like four sections in a greater detail that you can read them a bit better. I mean we can certainly do that >> and that and that would answer the question that was raised earlier by Mr.
Papis and Miss Doyle previously about the depth of the of the mind basically. >> Yeah. I mean my in my poor you know eyesight I can see ele you know contour grades in the 80s you know seems to be the lower end of these section. >> Okay. >> Elevation 80 seems to be roughly what
I'm seeing from the contours. >> Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burn. I'll come back to you if you do recall the question that you had. Any other members of our planning board have any questions?
Any members of the public that wish to speak to this current witness? Please feel free to come forward. And I'll close the public portion for this witness. Are there any other speakers that you'll have for this presentation? See,
>> we just want to make sure we thank you all for we I I see this as a good dialogue, as a productive dialogue. I think and it started with Mr. Pek and I having a lot of conversations and some letters about this. But I think what the takeaway was, you know, we we don't want
to argue about the 1986. We think that's a standalone document. I don't think we need to amend it or do anything like that. That's not going to be our focus. But my takeaway is I think you do want a narrative that marries to what the
current plan looks like, what you're looking at. Put some more words to that so that you can say, "Ah, let me just read it in plain English." And then also have us think about how do we show changes over time to you so it's a
little bit easier to follow. We'll make that our homework assignment. >> When are you guys before the township council? December. >> We've asked for November procedurally the council is supposed to have some
sort of referral report from this board about the reclamation. So I'm just thinking how get you know the updated narrative and you know so we have enough time and can can handle that. What do you propose?
>> Well we'll move quickly from our end to get that to you and maybe you and I can work out procedurally how we do that. Obviously, we want to do this well before year end. So, >> yeah. No, it would appear. >> Yeah.
>> I don't know what the upcoming schedule looks like. >> We have a meeting scheduled for October 21st um where we are hearing one application. Um thereafter, November is a little bit of a weird month um because
we have election day, which means we don't have a meeting the first Tuesday of the month. And then the second Tuesday of the month is the League of Municipalities on the 18th. So it's unclear if we will have a meeting that evening, leaving December 2nd.
Give me one second. Double check that. No December 2nd being our next pretty much, you know, known meeting. >> And and for similar reasons, the one and only meeting of the township council during November is November 6th with uh you know, the league and
Thanksgiving and you know, all kinds of other things. >> You mentioned October 21. Is that is that looks like what you know for us to get this done by your end? I think that's what we're looking at. You know, we'll have to work quickly and get you some more information, but I think we'll
we'll just plan on that if that works for you. >> October 21. All right. >> It will >> we Correct. How we do have a few items of business that evening. Correct. >> One hearing.
>> One one hearing. Okay. So, >> we'll just carry this until until the 21st. >> That works for you. That works for us. >> It does. Thank you. >> I appreciate it. >> Thank you, Mr. Monte. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. two weeks. Okay, moving along this evening, we do have a quick update on the open space and recreation plan ela master plan. And then Miss Sarmmed, would you like to give us that update? >> Mr. Chairman, >> thank you. >> Um, so while we have a little bit of momentum with the master plan, um there
I did mention um at last week's hearing that there is one other master plan element that has not yet been adopted. That's the open space and recreation element to the master plan. Um I did reach out to CME who is the primary author of the document. Um they are
we're going to work together to you know fix up any last minute things. We did have a workshop last year. Um, so if any changes needed to be incorporated from the open space workshop as well as any recommendations related to open space and recreation that were um heard by the
planning board last week um that could be incorporated. So some final changes um potentially looking towards um early December um to to also uh get that adopted. So, I will continue to provide the board with updates related to that
draft um and when it could be finalized for adoption. >> Thank you very much, Mr. >> Any other questions or comments from our board. >> With that, I'll take a motion to adjourn. >> I'll make the motion.
>> That's Miss Sakura. Second, please. >> I'll second. >> Miss Charteritz. All in favor? I I >> Good night, everyone. Thank you.