--------- 7th at 7:30 p.m. I want to thank Jeff Fouse and members of the planning board, I'm sorry, the zoning board who graciously surrendered their use of this uh room so that we could have this special meeting. I promised we would try to be as quick as possible. In
compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act of New Jersey, the adequate notice of this meeting was provided on May 22nd, 2025 by sending written notice and electronic notice to the Courier News and the Breeze, posting on the website and the bulletin board in the municipal
building and filing with the township clerk. May we have the roll call, please? Councilman Kersh here. Codella here. Pedroso here. Councilman Ring here. President Galis. Yes. Uh Tim, would you lead us in the pledge? If
you're able, please stand and join us for the pledge. Pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, justice
for all. The agenda has been cut to the quick. There will be no reports from the council. Uh we will move directly into meeting open to the public. Members of the public wishing to address the council in any matter. We'll be allowed three minutes to speak unless there are
unusual circumstances. May I have a motion to open to the public, please? So moved. Second. All those in favor? I All right. We're open to the public. Anyone wishing to address the council, please come forward, sign in, and tell us what you want to say.
Um, thank you, Councilman President. And 654 Stangle Road, Martinsville. I'll speak quickly because I understand speed is of the essence this evening. Um although I am pleased that the public does not have to ask any more the when of the 2025 budget, I am implored to ask
why. Why was the public provided misleading and evasive information over the last few months pertaining to the budget process and timeline? Why were all of our surrounding townships able to approve and adopt their budgets in a timely manner but not you? Why is it the fifth consecutive year that the budget
process has not followed state statute? so the public can have a fair and balanced review. This year's deadline was March 31st. Although this municipal budget is approximately only a third of the school districts, it's difficult to understand why this is such a challenging endeavor
to complete in a timely manner each year. Instead, the administration stalled and the council routinely rubber stamped each spending request made so that the administration could delay this presentation and still pay its bills. Basically, you present the budget to you to us already half spent. At no time
when these spending authorizations were approved by you was there any objection, comment, request for timeline, declination, statement, or other reassurance that the council was not complicit with these workarounds. I believe only Councilman Pedrosa voted against one spending authorization,
however, did not remand any recourse. Even when asked directly, no member of this council nor administration was able to provide a cogent explanation month after munch month for the delay in public presentation of what was obviously an operating budget beyond our
view. From this side of the podium, one must unfortunately conclude that the lockstep actions of the council reflect either arrogance or ignorance or a bit of both. Simply put, without pressing the administration to present the budget in a timely manner, you are not
adequately representing our interests. Indeed, taxation without representation. Moreover, this year afterear pattern demonstrates enormous disrespect toward the residents and business owners of this community who fund this enterprise. This attitude in the agendas
of the last few months reflect an indifference to get to the good stuff. We have enormous potential and opportunities in this township. given the richness of resources and talent of the community to do much much more. We could be using the council meeting time
to identify initiatives that would enrich us, the kind of programming that is evidenced by our neighboring communities. How can we create meaningful activities that bring different parts of our sprawling community together more often? How can we expand services to our senior
residents? How can we create meaningful experiential learning opportunities for our teens and simultaneously complete and improve township operations? For example, the coding expertise and digital media talents of our teens could be tapped with the internship opportunities throughout the school year
and summer. For storm water management, our engineers and public works leadership could engage with Rutgers University faculty who have the specific expertise to develop a plan to address this chronic township issue. But we cannot even begin to do so if the
council is unwilling and unable to exercise its authority in providing the basic fiduciary oversight for which you have been elected and to execute even a routine and recurring obligation with this sort of delay and disengagement. This is such an unfortunate and
unnecessary ma'am. Do you have much more to say? Is this going to go on last three sentences? Okay, thank you. Maybe two. I urge you to reflect on the governing body can return to its core responsibilities and look beyond its routine approvals, all necessary of
course in transacting the business of the township and realize how much you can unlock the potential of public engagement and interest to help you improve our township when you can take your responsibilities to heart. I also ask if my statement can be entered
verbatim in the minutes. I may have read it rather quickly and I'm not sure if it was all clear. I'm not sure how to do that. You may provide a copy of that to the clerk. Okay. I can contact you via email. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else wishing to Ladies and gentlemen, please.
I just want to know for the record that I haven't rubber stamped anything. I voted no uh several times when matters came before this governing body. I voted no for every single ordinance that asked for the uh to give permission to the administration to exceed its budget
appropriations. Uh so I just want to note that uh uh though it's clear that I haven't rubber stamped anything. Thank you. This is Franco. Great. Good evening. Kathy Franco, 766 we road.
Um let me just say a couple things. I know you'll be introducing the budget tonight. I was a little disappointed although mixed emotions uh both disappointed but happy. Um one that it's
6:15 or 6:13 tonight I got a revised agenda which actually had a amount of the budget um as well as a sewer fund on it um which will be introduced tonight.
Um, the other thing is I'd really like some clarification on resolution 6B, which is the resolution to authorize the self-examination of the 2025 budget because based upon that resolution, when
I read it, it seemed as if it limited the ability for the public to access. Oh, you will have access. The entire budget uh will be on the uh the website first thing in the morning. Is that correct, Mr. Papis? Yes, sir. Okay. Because it you will the way the way that
appeared and when I read into it, it looked as if it limited it. The statute says that we would have to read the entire budget and we'd probably be here well after the zoning board wants to go. That was resolution 6A. So, this is 6B, which is authorized self-examination of
the 2025 budget, which had to do with like a 10day period before the um adoption. So, I just wanted to be sure that indeed we would have access to the budget long before that. Okay. So, I guess my other question is considering
how much the interim um tax bills are going to go out and when I did my quick numbers last week, it came up at like 7.4% based upon what last year's municipal budget amount was versus last
year's. And then what I see tonight, which is 51.4 million versus last year 50.5 million and change um on each of those um which is now like 2% or less.
Um, I guess my question becomes, is were there a lot of cuts that were done? Um, and maybe that's where I need to do the deep dive or is it due to the fact that there's other things other than the imposition of taxes on the taxpayer
where you're not collecting. Maybe it's through hotel taxes. Maybe it's through other pilot programs. You know, I know that certain pilot programs are probably expiring. maybe Center Bridge One, maybe parts of them all because, you know, as I've heard through all of your
introductions of things that pilots last 30 days from the um certificates of occupancy on each thing. So, I'm just wondering how it all impacts and do we need to as residents do a deep time to really
understand why it is that the municipal portion is increasing so much? and maybe you can't answer that tonight, but hopefully through the deep dive and through our um final, you will have some answers for us as taxpayers. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else wishing to adjust the council? Seeing no one come forward, move to close public input. So moved. Second. Second. All those in favor? I. We are closed. All right. Moving on to
item number five, municipal 2025 municipal budget. Item A, calendar year 2025 ordinance to exceed the municipal budget appropriation limits and to establish uh cap bank. Now, by the way, uh, from
my perspective, I question whether A and B should be swapped, whether we should introduce the 2025 budget first, but I'm I'm told that statutoily this is the process that we have to do. Uh, so uh, Mr. Papis and or mayor, good evening.
Uh, any comments uh, on the option to exceed the cap bank? No, that's just a misable accounting uh, deals with the obviously the fact that there's a cap. Some of our expenses are over the cap, some of them are under the cap, and that's just a municipal accounting measure. I have comments on the budget,
but not Okay. Could I have a motion for 5A? Please make the motion to approve 5A. Second, please. Second. Any additional comments? Yeah, Mr. Council President, consistent with my prior votes, uh, I will vote no on this matter. uh in uh
prior times I had often cited the fact that I didn't I didn't have a budget to make the proper to make a proper and reasonable decision and now that I do have the budget unfortunately my concerns have come true um and I will be voting no on the cat bank ordinance you know what
a cap bank ordinance is have you read the cat bank ordinance I mean you vote no a lot but have you actually done any substance to look at any issue with the budget because in all the emails I've received not a single one has come for you with a suggestion on a budget a proposed cut on a budget other than allowing your colleagues to hold your
water while you try to preserve some makeshift record. That basically means you can skirt any responsibility for any decision-making of this governing body and instead continue to vote no to avoid either reading or making decisions on a substantive matter. So if you have a
reason for voting against the cap bank budget, which is a municipal finance measure, I mean, have you looked at the budget? Do you know what's in the cap bank? Do you know the fact that we are under by over one million or more dollars of what the cap bank is? So apparently not. So we can just vote, I
guess. Okay. Mayor, I'm gonna I'm have I'm entitled to respond to the mayor's comments briefly, please. Briefly, mayor, three years ago, your budget had a 5% tax increase. Two two years ago, your budget had a 6% tax increase. Last year, your budget had a 13% tax
increase. And this year, your budget proposes an 8% tax increase. I will I will vote no on these budgets and on these financial matters. Not at 8% increase. Roll call. Roll call. That's that's enough discussion. Roll call on 5B, please. Councilman Kersh. Yes.
Councilman Codilla. Yes. Councilman Pedroso? No. Councilman Ring? Yes. President Ogalis? Yes. Could you set the date? Yes. Final action for this ordinance is scheduled for Thursday, June 12th at 7:30 p.m. here in the
municipal courtroom. Public inspection of this ordinance will be made available on the township website, on the bulletin board, and in the clerk's office. Thank you. Okay, we're up to 5B, the meat of tonight's meeting. Introduction of the 2025 municipal budget current fund in
the amount of 51,41,645.82 sore fund in the amount of 13,78,696.3. Public hearing for adoption uh is scheduled for June 26, 2025. Uh Mr. Mayor or Mr. Papis, uh would you care to
comment? Yes, please. Mr. President, um very briefly, uh you have the budget before you. Uh the budget that the administration has proposed, which is being well for you for introduction tonight, uh it has a 2.48%
uh increase on the tax levy. Um it's a 82% in overall spending. Uh this amounts to a $34 tax increase on the average resident. Um we spent a lot of time over the past few months working with the budget uh the council budget
subcommittee along with our staff uh to identify a variety of um both cuts and um different sources of revenue. As the council knows, we had $ 1.9 million of revenue that was not reoccurring from last year. So, we had to look for other
sources of revenue as well as areas where we could cut without cutting services. Uh so, we're pleased that we were able to do that. No services have been cut. Uh we are increasing our park um our park maintenance. uh we are continuing to provide all the services
for our police officers and public safety and uh you know work forward with our uh affordable housing plan and all the elements that come with that. So we're proud of this budget and uh we thank you for your uh input for the four of you that provided input and uh we
look forward to uh discussion with the public uh and with council for file adoption of the budget. Thank you. Could I could I have a motion please on 5B? I'll make the motion to approve 5B and a second. Second it. Okay. Uh now we're open to discussion. Any questions, comments by
indiv Mr. President, I think it's just important for the public to realize that this is not an approval of the budget. This vote just merely acknowledges that we have received the budget from uh the administration. uh and over the next
month or so it is possible there could be you know changes tweaks and adjustments that would come before this body but this is not an adoption of the budget. Mr. Council President it's my opinion that tweaks and adjustments uh are highly needed in this budget. Um the
amount to be raised by taxation is quite excessive versus last year. Uh I don't think the budget is is even at a point that it's ready for introduction. I think the administration has a lot more work to do and maybe use that pen to to slash back and make some cuts. I will not support the introduction of the
budget. Mr. President, I'm I want to just simply acknowledge the process that we've undertaken as we have every year. We've been as collaborative as possible. Uh Councilman Ring and myself representing the budget subcommittee. Uh we can only have committees of two of us. We have then uh uh had meetings with
uh other the other council members in some cases repeat uh meetings, phone conversations, inputs. Um you know, we we'll have plenty of time to to go into the details of this budget uh in the uh upcoming few weeks. Uh the action we're
taking now essentially acknowledges that the mayor has presented a budget. It is now ours to own and that is factually accurate. uh candidly any vote but yes is um on on introducing a budget uh it simply misstates the facts of what's
happening. The facts are we have a budget. It's ours to now consider uh and it's a procedural vote. It's a procedural uh requirement and uh that's why I I I moved it and it's in our hands now and I personally applaud the the
work that uh Councilman Ring and Councilman Ker put in. I know they have gravebled in this thing for for months. Any other comments? Just if any members of the now that you know the council has a budget, if anyone does have any feedback, we would welcome any specific uh
information shared with one of the members of the finance committee. Great. Okay. Uh roll call, please. 5B. Councilman Kersh. Yes. Councilman Codilla, yes. Pedroso, no. Councilman Green, yes. President Ogalis, yes.
Moving to resolutions. Resolution 6A, resolution authorized the 2025 budget to be read by title only as permitted by state by statute NJSA4A colon 4-8. Um, and we have done that. Uh, any
uh any com I have a motion, please. What happens if we don't approve this? Pardon? What would happen if we didn't approve? We have to read line by line. Well, if you want me to read the entire thing, I I don't think uh it will be available to the public tomorrow morning. It's available to us
right now. And uh I I do not believe it would be constructive to sit here and read the entire thing. Okay. So moved. Second. Second. Roll. Roll call 6A. Councilman Kush. Yes. As God. Yes.
Pedroso. Yes. Ring. Yes, Gallas. Yes. Uh B is resolution to authorize self-examination of the 2025 budget. Uh Mr. Papis, would you provide a few words in terms of what that process is, please? The state of New Jersey requires
the uh Department of Community Affairs to examine the budget formally. I think it's every three years. This is one of the years that that's not required specifically and it uh permits the CFO to certify the budget. Um I would point
out though that this budget still will be sent to the Department of Community Affairs. There is a review but a different type of review that is this one will be done as is done every year. The one that I mentioned that would take the place of the self-examination is a much more lengthy intensive review.
Thank you. Uh, could I have a motion on 6B, please? I'll make that motion. Second. Second. Any com any additional comments on that? Hearing none. Uh, roll call, please. 6B. Councilman Kersh, yes. Councilman
Codeller, yes. As Pedroso, no. Councilman Ring, yes. President Ogalis, yes. Ladies and gentlemen, we're up to item number seven, which is adjournment. Uh, could I have a motion to adjourn this august body and turn the room? Mr. President, I just want to thank again the uh the zoning board uh to to Jeff
Fouse and all the members of the zoning board and all the uh professionals and public that are here for for that item for allowing us to uh to do this tonight before your meeting. So, thank you chairman and thank you all the members of the public and and they're here for the meeting. That's the applicants. Do
we have a motion? So, moved. Second. All those in favor of adjourning I I we stand adjourned. Ladies and gentlemen, especially the zoning board, thank you very much for your patience. The room is now [Music] yours. Was
quick minutes. Part: 2
Open public meeting announcement. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with the open public meetings act NJSA 104-6. Specifically on January 15th, 2025, proper notice was sent to the courier news and the star ledger and filed with the clerk of the township of Bridgewater and posted on the municipal
bulletin board. Please be aware of the zoning board of adjustment policy for public hearings. No new no new applications will be heard after 9:30 and no new testimony will be taken after 10 p.m. I suspect tonight we're going to go to 10:30 p.m. because of the township council meeting. So if you're able,
please rise for the salute to the flag 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. Hi there. Good evening. Hi. Could we
have a roll call, please? Sure. Chairman Fouse here. Mr. Widelli I here. Mr. Sweeney here. Mrs. Amin here. Mr. Bonjono. Mr. Gasi here. Mr. Fresco here. Mr. CCAT here. Mr. Vesio here. Mr. Mr. Kulak here
and Mr. Gabbot here and we have Mr. Sha Coller filling in for Mr. and Mr. Burr here and Miss Sarmad. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Uh as you heard we have Sean Collier here tonight filling in for Rich who has double pink eyes. So I thought it was
best that he maybe stay home. Sean, welcome. Hopefully we don't beat you up too bad and you don't want to come back. I'm glad you could be here. I want to open up the meeting to members of the public that would like to speak on any land use issue that is not on our agenda this evening. Okay, seeing none, we're going
to close that portion. Uh we're going to go right into we have one resolution for adoption tonight. That's 859 Brown Road. You have changes or comments, please. If none, I move. All right, we have a motion. That was Mr. Wedelli. Do
I have a second, please? Second, Mr. Fresco. Mr. Widelli. Yes, Mr. Sweeney. I'm sorry, Mr. Fresco. Yes, Mr. CCAT. Yes, Mr. Kulak. Yes. Oh, you know what?
Mrs. Amin, I mixed you up. So, sorry. Mr. Kulak, yes. Mr. Vesio, yes. and chairman Fouse. Yes. All right. Thank you very much. Uh, tonight we're going to do for scheduling purposes only. We're going to hear uh from Germuck
Oil's attorney. Good evening, Mr. Simon. Correct. Now, at our last hearing, we had some discussions about some things that needed to be moved. Why don't you give the board a quick update? Sure. Um, so at the last uh Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Rob Simon from Herald Law. At the last meeting, uh there was
some issues that arose regarding uh outstanding violations that not had that had not been fixed or remediated by that time. And so the matter was carried into tonight for scheduling purposes only. Uh so to make sure that what needed to be
done was done so to ensure that the property uh was safe and not in violation. Um in fact um I spoke to my client. Not only did I speak to my client, I actually went out there personally to double check on the way to a hearing last week. And in fact, um the
uh container that where there was some oil that has been removed. Uh there's been uh some uh some lawn maintenance done to the property. Anything that needed to be cleaned up uh has been cleaned up. And my understanding from my client and also from my own two eyes is that there's no outstanding violations
currently and that we're in a position now that we can schedule the matter for future hearing. Okay. I I too went by and any board members if you have any comments um board professionals as well I know please uh what did you do with the container out of curiosity um it I I
actually communicated with Mr. Burr. Um, as you may know that the operator has a number of gas station facilities and he actually about a week ago had um I can't I think it was L I can get the name Lewick um petroleum oil picked that up
as well as the containers from his other gas stations in the area and and brought them I believe to Elizabeth. Okay. Thanks. Yep, Mr. Burr. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. So um to Mr. Simon's point, uh, he did reach out to
me earlier this afternoon to let me know that the grass had been mowed and that that fuel containment tank was removed. I happened to be on the road looking at some other sites. So, I did do a driveby this afternoon and did confirm that the the lawn was mowed a couple days ago and
that fuel tank has been removed. Um, I don't know where it went to, but um, Mr. Simon certainly stated, I think it was Lewig. Um, that removed it. So, it's gone. Uh, not on site anymore. Catherine, you're good. Just had one
question of clarification, and I apologize, Mr. Simon. You weren't here at that meeting, but we were told that that those containers are a matter of practice on gas stations. Yeah. And I I've been looking for them ever since at every gas station I've been going to. I have never seen one. I'm happy that that it's been removed and that his other
sites have been cleaned up, but I just want to make sure that that's clarified that that's it's not a matter of practice and this was kind of an abnormality. Well, my understand I mean I'm not gas station operator. I'm a lawyer. But my understanding is whether they're concealed or not in other stations, they
are there for for emergency purposes for an active gas station at other stations and if necessary at the public hearing in the future we can get clarification on that in terms of the operations. Thank you. I appreciate it. All right. So if there's no other issues, any other board members, we're going to go in and
schedule this. Um Mr. Simon talking to Mr. afternoon. Um, we can put you in July 8th or July 22nd. August is open and September is open. Can I I I think I'm going to take July, but just if I can just have the indulgence of the
board for a minute just Yeah, take your time. The 8th or the 22nd of the two dates. Both are going to be split hearings with other cases. Of course. Understood. Um, 22nd. All right. Sold July 22nd. And that's with no further notices from
the right. So So that'll be at what time is that? A 7 o 7 p.m. this room. Tonight was a one on one time thing. We don't ever meet at 8:00. It's too close to my bedtime. So we're going to go 7 p.m. July 22nd. Gunk Oil. Member to the public. There will be no further notice
and we'll be in this room. I thank the board. All right. Thank you, Mr. Simon. Good seeing you. All right. Next up, we're going to take care of the residential case. Uh Bird Avenue 2026, I believe. Mr. Silbert. Good evening, sir. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members, board professionals, members of the
public. My name is Michael Silver, and I'm an attorney at the law firm D. Franchesco Baitman located in Warren Township and I have the privilege this evening of representing the applicant, Mr. Muhammad Chad. Um, before I go on with my introduction, I just wanted to
confirm for the record that notice was published outside uh the doors of the municipal building and outside the meeting room um notifying the public that the meeting start time had been pushed back from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. uh prior to the start of the township
council meeting. Um, we're here this evening uh to present an application for a single standalone C variance for property located at block 480 lot 7 as shown on the official tax maps of the township of Bridgewwater. Subject property is
located in the R20 single family residential zone district. It is a corner lot at the intersection of Bird Avenue and Route 2026. The lot is irregular in shape and is largely vacant and it consists of approximately
37,918 square feet or point 0.87 acres which exceeds the 24,000 square foot minimum requirement for corner lots in the zone. As noted in the joint professional review memo prepared by Miss Armad and Mr. Burr dated May 21st, 2025. The property is surrounded by
single family residential uses in the R20 zone to the north, west, and south and by single family homes in the R40 zone across Route 202 206 to the east. The applicant proposes to construct a single family residence on the northern portion of the lot fronting route 20220
206. As reflected in the NJD freshwater wetlands letter of interpretation, there are state open waters identified on the southern portion of the property. Due to the presence and location of this environmentally sensitive area, which
we'll testify to tonight, constructing a dwelling with access or frontage on Bird Avenue is not a the feasible or realistic option. Under section 126 1262 of the township's land use ordinance, the rear yard on a corner lot is defined
as the yard opposite the narrower lot width. So based on the configuration, the rear yard is located opposite Bird Avenue. The proposed home will have two front yard setbacks under the ordinance along Bird Avenue and along Route 202
206 and one sideyard setback adjoining block 480 lots 8 and 10. The only variance requested is for a rear yard setback. Uh the rear yard setback of 25.5 feet is proposed or as 50 feet is required. So essentially what the
applicant is doing here is is seeking to treat one of the two rear yards created solely by the corner lot nature of the property as a sideyard based on the orientation of the dwelling fronting on Route 202 206 as opposed to Bird Avenue. If the property were not a corner lot,
the proposed dwelling setback would in fact comply with the sideyard requirements of the R20 zone. So this is again just due to the technical designation of uh corner lots defined under your ordinance. Again, all other bulk zoning standards for the R20 zone
are met by the proposed development. In addition to the joint review memo from Miss Armad and Mr. Burr. The applicant is in receipt of the following department reports uh from traffic safety and police. Uh their report commented no issues with the
application. Uh the fire officials review dated May 6, 2025 similarly indicated no objections to the application. We also received a review by the township's tax assessor dated May 21st, 2025. Again, he indicated no
comments. Uh before calling our expert witness, I would likely I would like to just briefly address the sore utility memo prepared by Mr. Goenova dated May 13, 2025. Uh in short, the applicant intends to comply with all applicable review
comments and will satisfy any required sore connection fees. Just one thing of note is that the applicant is actively exploring an alternative sore connection route via Bird Avenue as opposed to a connection through Route 20220 206. So in the event that an alternative
connection option proves viable, the applicant will submit revised plot plans reflecting the up the updated SORE plan in connection with the submission for building permits. And of course any such plan will comply with all applicable local and state requirements. So to the extent that an updated SOR plan is
submitted, um certain items within Mr. Gova's memo may become inapplicable. So, we just request that should the board uh view this application favorably that the resolution reflect this possibility. Um, and that of course the applicant will comply with any applicable requirements
that would attach to a revised sore plan. Um, I'm joined tonight by the applicant civil engineer, Mr. George Folk. Um, I'm also joined tonight by uh the applicant's architect if the board would request uh testimony on the
architectural plans. Mr. Careshi is here to provide testimony if necessary. And I'm also joined by the applicant, Mr. Shad, who I don't intend to call as a witness, but he's here to answer any questions. Um, so Mr. Mr. Silbert, you're flying as usual, and I appreciate
that. So, you're accepting Mr. Gova's memo, correct? In the event that could change, you could have an alternate route via Bird Avenue. You're going to go and submit. You're going to work it out with him if he has any comments? Absolutely. Okay, good. I just want to clarify that. Um Sean, why don't you swear all his witnesses in and we'll move on to the first
one. If you all could stand up and state your name for the record. Let's go left to right. Mr. Collier is going to swear you in. Go ahead. Okay. Go ahead. You can introduce yourself and then we'll do the swearing in. Okay, gentlemen, would you all three
please raise your right hands? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth this evening? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. And uh counselor, I didn't catch your your last name, but if you could
just um well, if you could give me your last name, but also just confirm that uh notice is adequate and the board has jurisdiction to hear the application. Sure. Uh my name is Sean Collier, and yes, the notice on the application is in proper form. It was published timely and timely served by certified mail, so the
board does have jurisdiction. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, with that, if I could please call Mr. folk as our uh professional witness. Mr. Folk, I'm going to ask the board to accept you as a professional witness in the field of engineering. So,
if you could just state your name again, your professional background and educational credentials for the record. Uh George, state of New Jersey, been practicing engineering since 1985. All right, we accept you, Mr. Pulk. Have you been in front of this board before?
I think you have. All right. Yes, I have. All right, great. Good to see you again. And uh if you want to use this instead. We have one question for you. What year did you get your license? Uh I got my license in 1990.
Thank you. Um so so Mr. Folk, uh Mr. Mr. Styrus, you cannot be here this evening, prepared the plan before the board, but you're familiar with it. You've reviewed it, and you can testify upon it. That's correct. Excellent. So, can you just walk the board through what the
applicant's proposing this evening? Single family dwelling at the corner of Bird Avenue and Route 202 206 South. Uh the single family dwelling is located on the northerly portion of lot 7. Uh there
is a state open waters that comes from 20220 206 and goes from east to west and with that open water there's a 50-foot repairarian buffer which goes pushes this building envelope to the north. Uh
the the proposal is a typical single family dwelling. And I'll just ask a couple questions of you, Mr. Folk, from the uh professional review memo. Um to your knowledge, are there any trees proposed to be removed as part of this application? Yes, there is one tree uh
right here, right behind the house? Okay, thank you. And um can you just discuss briefly the existing storm water drainage um and the location of where storm water runoff is presently directed and indicate whether that's changing by way of this application? the
the direction of storm water is from an east to westerly uh sheet flow across the property. The intent for this project is to collect a roof runoff and put it into a dry well. Thank you. The uh existing drainage that
comes from 2026 has been rerouted around the property previously by either the township or the state. So the majority of the water that comes from east to west under the the state highway has
been rerouted. So in essential in in in essence this state open waters receives very little drainage area as part of its runoff. And you noted that there is a proposed drywall on the property. That's correct. Behind the garage. Okay. To the
west of the garage. And um you you feel confident that the uh that well let's this is not a major development under the uh local and state storm water regulations. That's correct. Okay. But you feel confident that there should be no adverse impacts felt to uh nearby
neighboring properties as a result of the proposed storm water management uh and drainage plan for the property. That's correct. Okay. [Music] Um I had mentioned in my introduction that there was a variance uh that we're
seeking this evening. Can you just briefly touch upon that? I I think the the explanation earlier from council was that the lot definition in the township is on a corner lot. The lot with the shortest frontage is the front. So that
would create a side and a rear. And then being that there's a frontage here, we have another frontage. So, um the rear yard which is 50 feet required in the zone, uh we're showing it as 25.5 ft for the garage. And the reason to push this
over again is because of this state open waters, which doesn't receive the drainage that it used to get, but the state came out and gave us an LOI for this property and uh placed a 50-foot repairarium buffer on the state open waters. Thank you, Mr. Folk. And just a
couple more questions. So, uh um so, uh minor access permits going to be needed for access to on to 2026. Yes, that's correct. And to your knowledge, the application's been submitted and and we're awaiting receipt of the approval. It's been approved and approved. They've
sent it back with the fees for the approval. Okay, great. It's two two-stage approval and I have that letters should Mr. Bur want to see them and so um we can certainly provide that if necessary and um the any other D
approvals possible for the property. So for example if the uh sore plan was to come in and the connection was to come in through Bird Avenue is it possible that we may need additional uh D approvals? Yes. The D does allow a utility crossing where you you bury the
crossing in the in the same dirt that you've dug out and it's uh you know after the growing seasons of one or two years you don't even know the utility is there. So that permit is available for this project. So to tie in a sewer can
can come to Bird Avenue. Thank you. So, if we do end up coming in with a a different sore connection plan or sore plan, um we will comply with all state requirements and local requirements. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Um another question that was in the report, um the
impervious coverage calculations, uh can you confirm whether or not that included the rear patio area? Yes, it did. Okay. And if I may, um I don't know what your preference is, Mr. Chairman. I was going to ask uh Mr. folks some planning
questions. Would you prefer I conclude uh the his entire testimony or do you case Mike? Okay. So, if it's okay with you, Mr. Folk, I'm going to ask you some of the planning questions in support of the relief that we're seeking. Obviously, Mr. Folk, you're a professional engineer. Um not a licensed
planner. No, I am a planner. Oh, you are a planner? Oh, yeah. I don't I don't That's why I regularly wear the two hats most. Oh, okay. Well then, well, is your We've accept him as a planner before, so we're going to accept him tonight as well. Okay, great. So, your license is in good standing. Yes, it is. And the
Okay, excellent. So, the board's going to accept Mr. Folk as a planner. Great. Great. Great. Okay. Well, uh we believe that relief can be uh granted under both the C1 and the C2 criteria under section 70 under the municipal
land use law. Turning first to the C1 variance, uh the positive criteria variance relief may be granted where due to due to the exceptional narrowness, shallowess, shape, topographic condition, or other unique physical features of a specific property, strict
application of the zoning ordinance would result in exceptional and undue hardship. Would you agree, Mr. Folk, that this property presents such a unique situation? I do. and and again with the previous testimony of the uh the repairarium buffer that was presented by the D.
Great. Great. So you you believe that the hardship presented here is directly tied to the physical uh configuration of the lot, namely the environmentally sensitive areas and that this is a condition affecting this specific property and not necessarily the entire
zone. That's correct. Okay. And so addition to the C1 criteria, we believe the application also satisfies the C2 standard which permits relief when the benefits of the deviation substantially outweigh any potential detriments. So uh turning again to the positive criteria,
in your opinion, does this application meaningfully advance several of the statutory purposes of zoning under section two of the MLUL, namely sections or criteria A, G, and I. And we'll go through it. Yes. Okay. So let's start with subsection A which addresses the
promotion of the public health, safety, morale, and general welfare. Mr. Folk, isn't it true that the proposed dwelling is being cited on the northern portion of the lot away from the environmentally sensitive area to avoid impacts to the D regulated open waters? That's correct. Would you agree that this layout promotes public health and safety by
avoiding wetlands and minimizing disturbance to sensitive land? Yes, that's correct. And would you also agree that it promotes the general welfare by facilitating an efficient and appropriate use of the property in a manner that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood? Yes, it will. Um, tying into subsection G or criteria
G, which promotes providing sufficient space and appropriate locations for residential uses, this lot is oversized for the zone and and is surrounded by other single family homes. Correct. Correct. So would you agree that the applicant is proposing a permitted use in an appropriate location while
demonstrating sensitivity to sight specific environmental limitations? Yes, I would agree. Would you also agree that the development makes effective and appropriate use of an otherwise underutilized parcel helping to meet local housing demand without introducing any incompatible land use? Yes, I would
agree. And then subsection I, which speaks to promoting a desirable visual environment through creative and thoughtful design. Uh, isn't it true? true, and I think you've already testified to this, that the applicant is simply seeking to treat what is technically defined under the ordinance as a rear yard as a functional sideyard.
Yes, that's correct. Would you say this is practical and well integrated uh and enhances consistency with the surrounding development pattern? It does. And and just for the record, you can confirm there are homes along Route 2026 that front on 2026. Yes, they do.
So, this is certainly not out of character of the neighborhood. That's correct. So turning to the negative criteria, um you've already testified that you believe that this uh furthers furthers the purposes of the MLUL, you testified earlier that the proposed single family dwelling conforms to all
applicable bulk standards including height, coverage, and setbacks with the sole exception of the rear yard setback. Correct? That's correct. Um single family homes are permitted use in the zone. Yes, they are. And there ex you've already testified there are other existing homes from Route 202 206 with
uh similar frontage. That's correct. Um, are you aware of any substantial detriments to the public good or the zone plan that would result from the approval of this application? I do not know that. And and finally, just under the site two criteria, you would agree that based upon your testimony and the
facts of the application that the benefits of granting the requested variance clearly outweigh any potential detriments, if any, thereby satisfying the C2 standards. That's correct. Thank you. I have no further questions of Mr. Folk. All right, let's open up to questions from the board. And I I I definitely want to talk about the the
drainage and the drywall situation. We have Mr. Burr talk a little bit about it. Sure. Board questions, comments. I have a couple of quick questions for you. When you look at the when you're facing the property from Route 202 206 and you look at what might have been an
entrance from Bird Avenue, that's where your riparian zone is. And there appears to be a what I'm going to call a drainage area that is really rough in the way it appears. And then the house which is adjacent to that lot has almost
a little canal built in front of it which in turn I'm guessing dives into a pipe or con or something underneath the ground. And I don't know one I don't know where that water exits. Okay. just let me finish asking
my question and you'll have an opportunity to speak. But thank you for offering. So that that dives down into that um I don't know what the word is, but it looks like a big pipe. I'm guessing carrying it underground. Are you going to do anything to the uh in
the riparian zone at all to improve the appearance of that? No, we're not going to affect the riparian zone at all. Okay. And you said that the the state or the D had come sometime earlier and rerouted most of the flow. Sir, I don't
know who rerouted it, but it was rerouted either by the township or the state. Mhm. Previously. I'm not aware by whom or when. Okay. And do you know how they rerouted it? Yes. U there is a covert underneath 202. That's the word I
was looking for. Culvert. There's a culvert under 2026. Right. It goes from the easterly side to the westerly side. And it appears that they've improved that covert by um cutting off the the flow that goes to
the west into our property and then traversing across to the to the west and put an inlet there and then took a pipe, a 36 inch RCP, reinforced concrete pipe, and went over to the intersection of
intersection of Bird Avenue and Route 2026 South. and then went west along the rightway of Bird Avenue. Okay. Well, that that's helpful. Thank you. But as a result of um your request to do the
building and make all the improvements that you describe, you are not able to touch that land, that riparian zone, or is that something you could the applicant could improve if they so chose? I'm not quite sure as to whether you can touch it or not. I'm not sure
why you would want to touch it. if you could maybe explain I mean there are there are caveats in the D that permits you may be able to do something but there's hardships uh you have to prove that you don't have any
way around it uh if there are ways around it then you know there's no permit available okay so so it's it's your intention or the applicant's intention to leave that untouched correct okay thank Okay. The driveway that extends onto 202
206. How long is that? I can't tell from the map. 80 80 feet to the garage from the pavement of 2026. Okay. The pavement to the garage face is 80 ft. Mrs. Lot number seven. Can you hear me
now? Sorry. Can you hear me now? Yes, I can. Okay. Lot number seven. Okay. uh is owned by someone who also owns the adjoining lot which is uh I believe six
and seven. They are the owners of six and seven also. So have you talked to the owner that they can use six and merge it with seven? Did you speak to them about
merging so you could you didn't have this variance? Let me answer that question. So, the applicant owns lots seven and it's now lot 5.01, which both are are conforming lots. So, they're both they're they're both they're
they're oversized lots. Essentially, what happened was the applicant owned three lots on the tax maps and they were undersized. So, by the doctrine of lot merger, the applicant actually lost one
of his three lots. So the applicant started with three, now he has two lots. But if that I don't know if that answers your question, but he does own the property to the north. Right. So based on what I read here in the deeds, five and six became one lot.
Is that Yes. And it's identified as 5.01 now. Right. So So uh do they plan to put another house in future over there or what what do they have that? I would believe that that would be I don't know what the definitive plan is, but I think that
would be something that the applicant certainly would consider in the future to use the other his his other lot. Let me see. Okay, I have another question for him. Can you hear me now? Okay. Uh there is a
lot of green green. You know, I I I went there to look at the property. Lot of trees, lot of greenery. So, so, uh, how much of that, uh, this lot number seven, you're going to remove a lot of them?
I think we're going to disturb around 13,000 square ft. Let me check with that. Um, 12,500 square ft. So, I mean, your drawings doesn't show as many as I'm
looking at there. We're going to minimize the amount of disturbance for for that house. And then there are including fallen trees that there are a couple of trees that have fallen down, so on so forth. Well, we we're only taking one tree out and we're allowed to
take two. Okay. So, we have one tree credit. Yeah. So you're going to has to be taken down. We we have that. But I'm sure they're going to uh you know sub uh landscape and provide I see. Okay. Greenery. So
only three two three uh trees will be taken out. That's what you're saying. Well, one tree is proposed to be taken down, but we're we're allowed up to two, but we think we can we only need to take down one tree. We think obviously we'll the applicant's going to clean up the
property and get rid of dead foliage and and any type of dead uh vegetation and make the lot suitable for single family dwelling. That's correct. Thanks. All right. Anyone else?
All right, Mr. Burr, your thoughts on the plan for storm water? So, I agree with Mr. Folk. the project as a minor development does not meet the threshold of a major development. So in
a case like this, I think a dry well is applicable. There is a maintenance component to to dry wells once they're put in the ground. So we'll want to make sure they're being maintained. But um if it's sized properly and if the applicant confirms that we don't have shallow groundwater, which they haven't yet
done, then it would be it would be um you know a suitable measure. Could this be a condition of potential approval if we had that deed um that the maintenance manual put in? Could be. It's been done before. Sure. Okay. Yeah, they they can
give um they can do a a test pit um and then agreed to do a maintenance manual that'll be recorded on the deed. But yeah, I think the dry well is is is a good fit here. I also think that there needs to be a little bit more swell work
done on the property. Um, it sounds from the testimony that just the roof area is what's going to be connected to the drywall, but you have the driveway that I think slopes to the rear of this corner lot actually back around around
the house according to the topo. I'd hate for any of that runoff to impact the existing dwelling to the rear that faces bird. So, if you can rework the grading to ensure that if there is any runoff, it's not leaving your property
onto that onto that neighboring property. Get it in that that drainage that drainage channel or that open water area? We'll do. Okay. So, it's your opinion that the other residents behind I guess to the west would be safe
if if they agree to rework the grading. Yes. And if they put in the dry well and it checks out as a condition, the only other question I would have is just George, if you can confirm the the the volume or the sizing of the dry well, want to make sure that it's going to be adequately sized to capture a
substantial storm event, not just a, you know, a one or a two inch. The calculations are designed for 25 year, okay, for all the impervious on the site. Okay. However, we're capturing just the roof leaders at this time. Okay. So, it's the drywall is oversized
uh for the impervious that we're capturing, but we will work something in to capt capture the uh the driveway and I think the the the pack the patio could probably be uh created out of porest pavers.
Mr. Chairman, if if they can work in some of those revisions, then I think from my perspective, I'm I'm satisfied with the drainage plan. Mr. Sbert, you'd be willing to file that as a condition of appro approval. the maintenance manual. Yes, absolutely. Okay, great. Thank you, Katherine.
Thank you. Um, I don't know if this was covered. Um, just some questions about the the D regulations on this site. Is the D going to require as part of the LOI that that that portion be deed restricted that's been identified?
No, they they won't require they don't Well, it's part of the LOI which is uh filed at the county with a map with meets and bounds. Okay. So, it will Okay. It'll be it'll be recorded by deed. Yeah. By deed notice, declaration
of deed notice. Thank you. Um, one thing that, um, was missed in the review memo that we did not bring up was that, um, this is an opportunity for street trees. Um, and under one section
126-19B13, it does require all streets, regardless of it being route 2026, have street trees. Um, so I would I would um recommend that the board would include that as a condition um to include the street trees. Obviously, they haven't been identified. So, that would be a condition of any approval. They would
work with you on that. Is it okay with you? Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. All right. Their second condition there and I think every I think they covered everything else. Thank you. All right. Members of the public that have questions on Mr. Folk's engineering or planning testimony, come on up. Just
need your name and your address, please, into the microphone. Sorry, I hate public speaking. No, no worries. Good evening. Welcome. Anyway, I'm uh Kathy Lamb and I uh live at 794 Bird, which is I didn't need that. Which
is um the subject property is going to be the corner here. I'm over on this side, second house. All right. And this gentleman's with you. Yes, we both own the home. Okay. He's my support system in case I fail. Um, so we bought the house in
2002 and the lot that is adjacent to the other lot was also a vacant lot. And across the street, drain water comes down on both sides to the right and the left, goes under 206, and then it just opens up and
goes. So, and I I have a video and I can show you at at this point right now. We kind of have to get your comments into a question on his testimony. Okay. Well, my question at the end of the case, I'll give you a chance to present. The big question is the the storm water
runoff. What are what what's the proposal to do about that? Just let it go. Yeah. As is like if you put the house there and you said you were going to redirect it or somebody How are you going to redirect it? I I didn't I couldn't see what you were showing. Oh,
I'm sorry. I'll show The drainage currently comes 202. It's 202 206. This is the covert that comes underneath 2026. This is your house over here. My house is over here up here. This is Yeah, the cover. Well, no. It
used to open up, but the someone state or township pipes it along the road frontage of 2026 south and then into bird intersection and then west. Yeah. See this
here? Show them. water. The water drains from from here to here. Opens. It doesn't go that way. Well, you don't you don't see that pipe because it's under the ground in the rightway in the road. But this head wall
uh is still here, but nothing really comes out of it. Then it comes up this way and then heads towards Well, that could be a heavy storm where these are overflowing. Mr. Folk, if I could just follow up with
that. In your opinion, is the application before the board doing anything to exacerbate current drainage issues that may exist in the neighborhood? No, we're not. So, you're not saying that there there could be an issue, but we're we're certainly not doing anything to to exacerbate it,
right? Can I ask something? We're not we're only one tree. Everything from over here over here to the south from from the corner of this house to the south is all being is being left
alone. That's the repairing buffer that we have to acknowledge. I'm sorry. You have to ask a question and you got to get it in the microphone or Can I show him the video and ask him if this is going to be maintained? Are they doing anything to make this worse
or alleviate it? Well, why don't we establish what the what that picture is, when it was taken, who it was taken by. I I can see it. Yeah. Eyes work. My ears don't. Do we want to mark it in the record if we can? How we going to get it in the record?
Okay. When is the picture from and who took it? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. The assistant township engineer. Okay. Right. I'm I'm not aware of having seen that. So, I can I can definitely talk with Tony. I'm just not use right
now. Well, one thing he did say is when he looked at that, he says they looked at this and to alleviate the problem, way too expensive. They can't afford to do it. Well, well, first of all, it's a state road, so it's not Bridgewarters Road. Um, Bill, would we even have Well,
Bird Avenue is Bird Avenue. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. So, we're talking about the runoff on Bird Avenue. Okay. I would, Mr. Chairman, if it's okay, I you know, I I definitely respect the concerns of of the uh objectors or the members of the public that are questioning right now, but if we can
keep this to questions and then all of your concerns, you can certainly uh make the applicant and the board aware of Okay, you'll have another If we could just get you a microphone, ma'am, come on back. Let's use the microphone. Thank you. question
is what effect will this exasperate the already existing issue the building the new building that's the question no it will not the question I have is when they do all these things you're talking about drywallness what happened uh when
they built the property across the street from where he's talking about on 2026 they put it on bird on the east side of 2026 across what's across the street going toward Green. Okay. Yeah. So the east side, right? The town made then put in a
swill. Made them put a swall. A swall. Okay. Actually, but once the house is built, the town says, "Well, we don't care what they do with it." So everything you're talking about with him having to do this and that, once the gentleman owns a house, right, he can do whatever he wants. Well, we're going to record this in the deed, the maintenance
requirement for the dry well. So if something goes wrong, you're going to have recourse to go back against this property owner. Last time it happened, the guy filled it in and the town said, "We don't care." Well, if that happens, they're coming back here. In addition to that, there if this does get approved,
there'll be a resolution of approval that if you notice something wrong with the way that the property is being maintained, if you think that the applicant or a future owner is not maintaining the drywall, for example, the zoning officer is well within his authority to issue a zoning violation.
So, my concern is if you make him do what he's supposed to do, which is fine, right? He does it. But then when he moves in, he says, "I don't like this. I'm going to just fill it in or whatever." And the town, the last time it happened to us, the town just said, "Well, it's his house. He could do what he wants." No. Even though they made him
put it in to begin with. If that happened to a case that the zoning board or planning board heard, Mr. Burke would be out there on site. I mean, he took down backfilled the you should go and contact the zoning officer in Bridgewater. did. They said it's his house. Just doesn't sound like
what he would say. If it's flooding, we got to fix it. That's exactly what happened. You can also go to a a township council meeting, too, to vocalize any concerns. I'm trying not to vocalize our concern, which is why we're here. And we were told it's his house, he could do what he owns it, we're out
of it. I I again, I can appreciate your concerns, but this Well, I just want to know is that going to happen again? Can that happen again? Mr. Chairman, I I would I I respect everything that they're saying, but I would like to to move on if you don't have any other questions. Well, my question is unanswered. Can that happen again where you tell him he's got to build this and
then once he owns the property, he could do something different with it and you don't care about the town. I think it's more your question. Oh, I I care and I'll I'll go over there and I'll I'll raise hell and I'll have Mr. Burr and I'll have our zoning officer. I've been doing this for 14 years and I'll tell you, everybody on this board cares
because we volunteer. And when if we if I was to see something like that happen, sir, I I guarantee you I'd be there with my Jeep in their driveway with Mr. Burr, just like Germunk Oil has had a problem with this board for three years now. Actually, I think it goes back further
since 2017. I've been pulling in their gas station. I pulled in it yesterday. I left my house and I I went and I sat in their driveway and I guarantee you if there's a problem with this case and Mr. Silbert, I know pretty well, he'll be there with me. I've had I've had people that have come before this board and
I've driven to the application site at midnight after the hearing and I' I've met with the owners. I guarantee you if that dry well gets filled in, I'll raise holy hell that if you do say, "Well, this has to be done for construction for it to meet what we want." Yeah. That it
cannot be changed later because he wants to change it and you don't can't do anything about it. Bill, why don't you real quick talk about what would happen if this drywall was filled in? Well, I I think that's part of the reason why there's going to be a maintenance plan. That's part of the reason why it's going to be recorded on
the deed. Uh and certainly as that makes it a permanent structure. That that is a permanent underground structure. Uh and those documents ensure that there's some legal responsibility for the new owner, whoever is going to be the the future owner of the house to maintain that
facility. Um as Mr. Silbert said there's also going to be assuming that this application's approved. There will be a resolution of approval which memorializes everything that's been agreed to. That's going to be the document that the zoning officer andor
the engineering department in the future if there is an issue can use to get that that matter corrected. I suspect what happened with the house across the street is that it was not the subject of any type of planning or zoning board
application. I think it was a conforming lot that they merely applied for construction permits, got the permits uh and and built the house. I am a little surprised to hear that you were told that there was nothing that could be done. I could try to look into that depending on how long ago it was. Um
that was like 200 what? Five. But I would I would definitely not expect something like that happening on this particular case. All right. That's all we were concerned. Sure. No, I I understand. Mr. Silbert, real quick, could you talk about what would happen if a maintenance plan was not followed
by the applicant and it was furthermore filed with the town or with the county clerk? What would happen? Well, if there was a maintenance plan and the and the applicant failed to abide by it, the township could come in and um maintain the storm water management infrastructure and put a lean on the
property and um the applicant or a future property owner would be in a it would be in trouble because they wouldn't be able to dispose of their property with a hefty lean on their property. So, all right. The property, right? our problem. All right. So, put it in.
Yeah, they're we're going to deed restrict it. And if you want to speak more at the end of the case, you're welcome to come back and and make comments. If you don't have to ask questions, you can make a comment, sir. There'll be a beautiful house built here and it'll help. No doubt about it. You got to get our own microphone.
Understood. We're just more worried about it changing after the rules of how to build it. But if this if this gets approved, maybe the house that's been foreclosed upon will will sell and it'll hopefully serve as an igniter. All right. Thank you,
sir. The gentleman, member of the public. Oh, that's loud. Uh, sir, would you mind just putting your name on the record for Peter Kuza, 794 Bird Avenue? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Uh, Mike Mlan, lot uh 4810, block 10. um
west of the proposed site. My question would be, are you aware of the building that went across so the east side of 206 that was just recently built there, adding to more water being pushed across the highway, making that lot more wet
and including my yard, which is where all the water goes to. So, if that has already been disrupted, I don't know when that plan was made, but was that plan made after the the last construction? because that new construction caused a major issue and it's actually a highway safety issue
currently. There's been a cop sitting there every time it rains to make sure nobody goes through a puddle that's so big it's going to cause an accident. That water's now running across the highway into that lot. Was when was the last time you saw that? February. I got a picture of February with a cop sitting there with a big splash coming off the highway. Okay. So I would say that each
property owner has a responsibility to ensure that there's proper storm water management on their own respective property. And if there's an issue with someone else's property, surely my client and just like you, you can't be held responsible for that. What I can tell you and what our expert has uh
conveyed to the board this evening is that we are going to conform with all local and state regulations when it comes to storm water management. And that's all we we will control. Everything that's in our control, we will control. That doesn't really answer the question
of whether or not you made the planning prior to knowing the water level with the new runoff. There's more runoff than there was probably when the plan was made. I think that has to take into account because you're saying all you're going to do is try to divert the water. I don't think you realize how much water
is coming through that property. I think the problem I can't step in my property for weeks after it rains. I can't go in the backyard. Yeah, I think the the issue there was that it wasn't fully um stabilized yet. That whole area, that
whole property just drained straight into the highway. I was assuming it was construction runoff originally, but that house is done in full and that that highway still fills up stabilized and and I don't know whether they had their uh drainage infrastructure that I'm sure
this town approved uh was installed yet. So, I mean, it's one of those things that it happens when you have a a free crane storm when you're in the middle of construction. I remember that. I do. And we we we were asked if it was our
project. I just know that, you know, that house has been my family since it was built. There has been always a little bit of dampness. It's a large lot. Never been like this before. So, I can only imagine another house right behind it is only going to make it worse. There was no real plan to keep the moisture out of it. I don't see how
that is fair to the neighborhood because at some point it's going to push off my property to the guy behind me. So, fortunately, you're you're upstream of us. No, I'm lot 10. I'm downstream. That water's coming from the highway through your lot to my lot. Oh, you're down on
lot 10. Oh, I thought you were on the other side. No, the other side of the highway is where they built which is pushing the water. Yeah. Yeah. My other question would be what's the definition of a tree? How could you be taking down one tree? It's a forested
lot. Well, the definition is 8 in at DBH. There's not more than one tree in that woods that's more than 8 in. Not in the area of our disturbance. Yeah. I just find that hard to believe it's a wooded lot. It's an entire It's not like an open lot where there's one tree or two trees. It's an entire set of woods.
When it's forested in, you can't see the highway. But now you're saying you're only removing one of those. I find it hard to believe that they're all tiny sticks, but could be many trees that are Yeah, that was my question. Thank you. Is there any merit into upping the size of the dry well here to
help the neighbors, you know, potentially pick up some runoff? Uh, we can look at that B. We'll work with him. Sure. I mean, there's there's what we can collect is is what I could put in a drywall. Sure. Um, where he's talking
about is way off our property. you know, if it's size to a 25-y year storm, you know, maybe doubling it even though you don't, you know, pick up a linear increase, but you know, in some of these massive storms, the hundred-year storms that seem to be happening more and more, maybe a larger drywall is something that you could look into and work with Mr.
Burr on. Yeah. And we can look into other things. Like I say, pvious pavement for the driveway, maybe if if uh you know, that would help alleviate some of our impacts. Any other members of the public
questions? All right, next witness. Thank you. So, I'm just gonna, Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to have Mr. Keshi very briefly um address the submission of his architecturals. Um, so Mr. Keshi
able to go. Yeah. At the end of this case, you you can speak as much as you want, which we should be in about 15 minutes. All right. And we can put that in the record. Thank you. You can just state your name and your professional background, your your credentials on the record. Um because
I'm going to ask the board to accept you as an expert in the field of architecture. Sure. Uh my name is Ali Koreshi and I'm a licensed architect in state of New Jersey since 1996 and you've uh appeared and testified before other zoning boards and planning
boards in New Jersey. Uh yes I did. This is my first time in front of this board and you've been accepted by those boards as a as an expert in architecture. Yes, I was. License was in good standing. License? Yes, it is. All right. Good. We accept you as an expert in architecture. Thank you. Thank you.
I'm going to just um quickly go over the floor plans. Um and these these have already been submitted. Yes. So I mean um the shape of the house or the floor plans doesn't have anything to do with the variance we seeking. Uh
basically it's around 4,000 ft house. This is the ground floor with a twocar garage, a large um living area, family area, and a kitchen, dining room, and a living room. And the uh main foyer,
twotory high with some a patio in the back. And on the second floor, we have four bedrooms and a two three bathrooms, I'm sorry, four bedrooms and three bathrooms. One one of
them is uh the master bedroom and this is twotory high space in front of a house. The house is going to look like something like this. We're going to have stucco on the majority of the areas.
Some stone on the foundation wall and the middle portion will be um cultured stone. A few little u elements to give a little spice to it and um basically it's going to be really
beautiful addition to the to the neighborhood. And Mr. Kesh Keshi, there there were no uh questions or comments relating to architecture in the review memos. Um but just to clarify, we can conform with all the bulk standards and
that there might be some deviations once we go to pull or submit for building permits, but this is a general idea of what a house will look like here. Yes, it is. Thank you. I have no no further questions. All right, four more questions on the architecture testimony.
How does the size of the proposed house compare with others in the neighborhood? Well, I don't have that data with me, but generally they are similar sizes houses. Can you base that on what? If you don't
have the data, well, just by looking at it, we have gone through drove through the whole neighborhood. I live very close to that area. So, in general, this these houses are the most
popular at this point. And and Mr. Sweeney, if I can just uh hopefully address your comments. So, the the permitted F in the zone is 16. We're at10. This is an oversized lot. So, the
minimum lot size is 24,000 for a corner lot, but we're not maximizing F. So even though we're um a lot that's uh you know a larger lot than what's the minimum required we aren't maximizing F. Thank you.
Anyone else board professional? Well I I have a question. Um just what is the distance from the front wall of the house to the back wall of the house? I was looking for it. I didn't really see it. So if you can just like front wall to the back wall. What's that distance in feet? 40 ft. The distance is 40T. Yes. Okay.
Thank you. Mean the depth of the house. Correct. That's what I was looking for. Thank you. Yep. We're professionals. I don't I don't have any questions. I would just like to clarify for Mr. Sweeny's question. There there's there's a mixture of different kinds of
architecture on 202. There's not many houses. There's a lot of gaps. You know, it's not it's not a neighborhood or development, per se. Um while this may be a popular architecture in Bridgewater on this road, there's a mix of capes, ranches,
colonials, there's a whole mix. Um would I say that this is the predominant one? Probably not. But there's a mix. So it's no matter what it was, I don't think it would have a common thread. One question from from a lighting
perspective, can you just give us an overview of what type of lights are going to be installed on a house like this? Well, uh we're going to put the typical residential lights which will not shine on the neighboring properties.
uh mostly diffused lights to be low wattage residential style. Yes. Yes. We will comply with the zoning ordinance. And um would you agree to a condition prohibiting spotlights of any any kind
of lighting being being affixed to the rear of the building that might shine into the rear yard off property limits? Uh yes, we will agree to something you'd agree to. Yes. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
I have a question for Katy. Katy on your report here under maximum floor area ratio when you look at it you say uh required 3,600 square ft. Then you go go further
down propose is 4,00 19. Does it require variance? No it does not. I made an error. Um I I multiplied the floor ratio by
what the what's required in the zone. The 24,000. That's why that's lower. It's actually what's permitted in the zone is actually 6,066. So 0.16 on a 37,000 acre um okay foot lot would actually be 6,000. So they are
under. I apologize. That was just a typographical error. Catch Mrs. Thank you. All right. Members of the public, questions on architectural testimony. All right. Seeing none. Thank you. So, I
uh I I don't have any further witnesses. I'll just briefly conclude my case to say to the board that um they're clearly nearby residents have vocalized uh concerns with storm water management and drainage issues. Uh I'm not I'm
certainly not belittling that. Um, but we haven't heard any issues uh with respect to the frontage on Route 202 206 versus Bird Avenue, the rear yard setback variance, which is really what why this application is before the
board. The board is is equipped to uh assess whether or not the applicant has met its burden of proof with respect to the variance relief. And I think that this the fact that we're here because of this variance um should give the co the
public some comfortability as well as the board because now we're really required through your resolution and through the conditions we've agreed to to work with the board professionals to ensure that we're doing the best we can with storm water management where if this was a fully conforming application,
we're submitting for a building permit and we're not before the board. So, I would ask the board to keep that in mind uh in deliberating on this application. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Silbert. Uh members of the public that would like to speak for or against this case, now is
the time to approach and you can we got to get you on microphone if we can get your name and address again. Please give you this letter that I wrote to um the town engineer and I when I had emailed it to him I put all the exhibits in
there along with the videos of exactly what happened. I just get your name and address please. Happy Lamb. Thank you. 794 B. And you would like to give a letter that was dated just this past July and you wrote it to township of Bridgewwater? Yes. To uh Mr. Gallow.
Could you just summarize it and then you by all means you can give it to the board. just can you just give us a summary of what the letter is? Letter about the complete water issues going on on both sides on block 478 and where they're planning to build and um and the event of um the history of what took
place from the building the one that they built on my street. Okay. And ma'am, before you begin, can I just swear you in for the record for testimony? If you would raise your right hand. Sure. Okay. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give to this board tonight is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I
do. And I heard you say that you had submitted some documents uh already to the secretary via email. Is that correct? To Mr. Gallow. I sent the engineer when I sent the letter. I I actually emailed it and I attached exhibits with it of um uh Have you seen
this letter? I haven't seen it. So this letter is dated July 2024. July 18th, 2024. July 18th, 2024. So prior to the submission of this applic I I haven't seen it. I don't have an objection though. It it can be it can
be submitted that there's clearly issues and I I just think that this is not necessarily the proper forum to express these issues. This application isn't creating the issues that you're No, no, no, no. It's issues that pre-existed. So yeah. So I just So you want the board to
each read it before they deliberate or how do you want us to handle this? No, I just thought I was just going to hand it in. I'm going to instruct the board that you've just summarized it. Why don't we give it? We can pass it down. Um, while we take care of and we hear from other people, take care of business.
Okay. All right. We can mark this for the record as 01. Okay. And why won't we hand it down to Mr. Vesio? Can we pass the video? Oh, Anthony, he has the video. I submitted it to him. Letter I don't have anything. I've never seen any of this. This is the first time hearing
of it. Sorry, Mr. Gallow does not work for me. I am a volunteer. This board has jurisdiction over tonight's testimony only and the reports that our board professionals have submitted, they've submitted in a packet and that is dated.
Okay. I just brought it with me, but I I did. Can we show it to No, it's fine. So we have a a May 21st, 2025 letter from both of our professionals, Katherine and Bill. Katherine is our township planner. Bill is our township engineer. So they take all the
information that is submitted by the applicant and they put it together and they give their professional opinion and questions for us to ask and basically give their opinion. So nowhere in their letter, and I want this to be very clear, have they referenced any information from you, any video from
you, any letters from you? Okay. This is the first we're hearing of it. Okay. So, I would like you to talk about the video, why it's important for us to hear it, because it actually shows what happens with the flood water where it goes. Because as far as I know, the two
um drainages that come on the east side from 2026 come under the road and then just open up into the land that there's no sewers connecting them or running them in any way, shape or form and they just come
out into the properties and the only sewers that are on the road on bird is in front of my house and then across the street. They're not connected to anything on the east side and then the one on my side just runs across the
street and then runs down. But there's nothing where the ones coming across the street. So So M2 I'm going to make a formal objection if that's okay. So I I I think that the I I'm making an objection on the basis of relevance.
Not that there isn't an issue. I'm not suggesting there isn't an issue, but in the context of this application, the the video isn't going to aid the board in their deliberations of whether or not to grant variance relief for this application. So, for that purpose, I would object to the playing of the video
this evening based upon your your testimony. Miss Law, what what I can do for you, I I I don't need to see the video. I don't think the board needs to see the videos. I I will talk to Mr. Burr offline after this hearing about potentially Bird Avenue maybe needs
another sewer. Oh, it does. Okay. You don't want my other letter, but I have something they were going to do. I need one of you to speak at a time. Okay. Time out. We have multiple board members that have hearing aids. They can't hear you. Okay? And I want them to hear you because what you say is
important. So when you want to speak, you can come up to the microphone so the board members can hear you and they can, you know, use your testimony as they make a decision tonight. You understand? Okay. So, I will talk to Mr. um Burr and we will talk about
potentially a sewer in front of your house on Bird Avenue. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. All right. Sir, why don't you come on up? Okay. All right. So, Bill, we're going to talk offline about Bird Avenue, not related
to this case. No problem at all, Mr. Chairman. I I will add that I do know there are some pre-existing drainage concerns in that neighborhood, Bird, Victor, a number of those roads. It's it's a classic case in
Bridgewater where uphill areas have been collected in formal storm sewers and then the runoff was allowed to discharge in open ditches and it just makes its way through properties. Right. I'm aware of some issues. Let's talk offline. I am going to speak with the assistant
township engineer to get more information on this particular issue and we'll see what we can do. Right. Okay. And just real Can I just one question? There's nothing that's happening here that is going to make any of those issues any worse right in this application. If if the project is
approved and built with the conditions or the amendments that have been agreed to, then I don't believe there will be any negative impacts as a result of this housing. Thank you. Yeah, that's all we can do. I just want to make sure that that's clear. Sir, separate email address,
please. Uh lot 4810 Mike Mlan again. My question was to the rear variance since it does back up to my property. If I were to do anything on the edge of my property, does that impact where that house is? If I want to put up a fence, do I want to put up a pool a pool? If I split my lot and I want to build a house
there, am I not going to be able to because now I need a rear variance because he's too close to my property. Attorney? Um, yeah. I I can I I would just say that there's nothing that we're doing with our application that in any way will impact how you are permitted to use
your property under the township zoning ordinance. So if you have if in your hypothetical if you were creating a variance it has nothing to do with our property. It's because of your setback is still far enough that it wouldn't the setbacks are determined based upon the lot lines and not based upon upon where
we're constructing a home. It it has no impact to your to your lot. In fact, we're complying with the setbacks with respect to your lot lot 10. Okay. But I would say that I do believe that the water runoff will be more because of the building. I know he said it wouldn't be,
but I don't see how that'd be possible. Okay. Thank you. Any other members of the public would like to make a final comment? All right. Looks like we're done with public comment. Mr. Sber, could you just take us through the stipulations that we agreed to in this case? I know we had
the the deed restriction on the maintenance. We had Mr. Burr suggesting about lighting. Um I think you had something on trees. You're gonna limit to one tree. Okay. So we would we agreed that we would uh include all maintenance obligations in the deed with respect to
the dry wells. Um Mr. Burr requested that more soil work be done um to address uh possible changes to the driveway grade to allow runoff to the drywall. Um, we suggested and I I don't remember if this was a I don't believe
this was a condition, but we are going to look into whether or not uh to put in porest pavers to the patio. So, if we want to put in the resolution that we're willing to work with Mr. Burr uh to come up with other possible solutions to reduce storm water uh concerns or
drainage issues, we're happy to do so. Um, we're going to work with uh Mr. Mr. Burr, Miss Sarmad, with respect to street trees to make sure that we're compliant with section 126-19 B13. I think it was
B13. Um, no, we agreed that we wouldn't put any spotlights that shine light on neighboring properties. And that is what I have. All right. Thank you, Mr. Silbert. If you're done, we're going to open up the liberations. I'm going to throw it down to Mr. Vesio. Good
evening, sir. What are your thoughts on this case? Um, listening to the residents um comments here, I mean, I think they have um, you know, real concerns, right? I think they're they've been genuine what their concerns are. Um, considering what
they've brought to to this uh, hearing, I don't believe that this property will um, have a significant impact to the current water issues that there are present. Um, so I would be uh voting in favor of this applicant. Um, definitely
looking forward to the town looking into this issue on 20220 206 and Bird Avenue and the surrounding streets to see how they can mitigate any further uh uh water issues in this area. So I would be yes with this. Thank you, Mr. Fresco. You know, this is uh this this lot's
been vacant for a long very long time. Um I'm familiar with the area. I used to live in this neighborhood. Um, and I just think that, you know, our board is bombarded with developers, um, trying to cram condos and apartments and multiple lots and units into small
spaces. So, I'm actually in favor, fully favor of this. I think it's great that this gentleman has invested in this neighborhood to build a single family home to bring more people, more families into our neighborhood and on this corridor. Uh, looks like a nice design. I think the water is an issue, but we've
got the best. This is the these are the best people in the county that are are helping us mitigate water and um I uh I support it and uh I think it's a great case and I appreciate the the honest testimony and the experience. So, good
luck with it. Thank you, Mr. Sweeney. Thank you. Uh, I look at it as a a hardship case because of the riparian zone that runs through almost the middle of the lot, which has a significant impact on where any housing unit can be
placed. And I, you know, from what I from what I recall, they're right on the edge of that riparian zone. So, there's not much room for them to play with that. Um but that is the real reason why there's this
um setback issue on the rear in the rear yard. Uh otherwise I think it's a it's a good plan. Uh I think the neighborhood will benefit and I'm in favor of the application. Thank you. This is a min. Your thoughts, please. Okay.
uh the lot that we're looking at is double the size of what's required in that area and uh it's uh from my perspective the only little thing that we are looking at here is a side side yard or
backyard whatever you call it and since the property on the other side who knows how long it's going to be vacant because it it's wetlands and all that may be they may not even wire. So that that side of the property will be almost
empty, I think, in my opinion. So I'm in I'm going to approve the application. Thank you, Mr. Um I'm in favor of it. They've said just about everything. I think Mr. Burr is on top of the situation here like he always is on
these and um I'm in favor of it. Ask it. I would agree. I'm in favor of the application. It's clear that um the variance it's required is just a result of how this property functions. Um the only thing I I would say is if there is
any any thought of developing anything on that lot six which I think I heard as a possibility then any considerations to the size of that dry well possibly taking that into consideration might make sense but otherwise I'm in favor.
Um, I understand that there are current water issues. Um, I don't believe that the project uh presented to us will exacerbate the water issues. So, I would be in favor. Yeah, I would echo the comments that
were made earlier by the board and I would add that because we have a a lot that presents a hardship and we have a corner lot which requires the kind of dual setbacks that's really forced us into this situation where we have a reasonable request for a nice addition
to the neighborhood and I would support it. While I sympathize with the water issues on a very personal level, um us granting this variance I don't think has any impact on that. I trust Mr. Burr's uh
expertise on this as I am not an engineer and he is uh I would be in favor of this and uh and to save some time I'm just going to skip it. I'm going to move for a motion please. I move. Was that to approve? Approve. All right. Motion to approve. A second is
Mr. Gi Mrs. Mr. Amen and Mr. Gas. Mr. M. All right. And if we could get a vote, please vote call. Mr. Widelli. Yes. Mr. Sweeney. Yes. Mrs. Amin. Yes. Mr.
Fresco? Yes. Mr. Gayi? Yes. Mr. CCAT? Yes. Mr. Kolak? Yes. And I think that's seven. You can call me. Oh, chairman. Chairman Fouse. I'm a no. I'm a no. So 61, you're
approved. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we need a break. Yes. All right, why don't we take a very quick break? It is uh 9:20. Let's come back at 9:25 and we'll pick up with 8:21 JCC.
last weekend. I was going to have you come such a cute smart little guy. I mean, it totally went down the tubes. Sorry. Hope Jenny's all right. Just kind of looks sad. So that's that good times.
He's a funny dog. He had a personality on him. All right, we're going to come back into session. Um Rick, could we get a roll call, please? Mr. Widelli here. Mr. Sweeney here. Mrs. Amen here.
Mr. Fresco here. Mr. Bonjouro is absent. Mr. Gi here. TCAT here. Here. Mr. Vesio here. Mr. Gabbit here. Chairman Fouse here. Do you want me to
do the professionals? Mr. Burr, Mrs. Sarmad here, and Mr. Kolia here. Thank you very much, Mr. Kley. Good evening, sir. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board, uh Kevin Kley,
Connell Foley on behalf of the applicants. And with me is Mr. Howard Cohen, Esquire, uh who uh separately represents the Jewish Community Center. Mr. Cohen. So, um we're here this evening to
continue u this case which um my recollection started last August. We were here in uh November. We were here in March um and this evening and just to kind of I know everybody has a great memory. I don't so I I do recount things
a little bit. So, it's a 15 acre property, 3 acres of which will go to the Jewish Community Center if this application goes forward. The other 12 acres will be retained by um the other applicant and used for um residential
housing, town houses. Um the la the first hearing you heard from Miss Freriedman of the JCC who testified as to the reasons why the JCC wants this property and why its uses support a a use variance for this pro
for that property. As you remember it's not on one of the designated streets and so it must uh get a use variance to expand its operations. You also heard from Mr. Michello at at some length. uh he'll be back this evening and he's
really here for two reasons. One to kind of bring the board back full circle of all the changes that have been made to the plans from when it was filed and and mostly to to uh address um the the main change that that's being put forward
this evening which is a reduction in density and a reduction in F. put in simple terms that we started out with a a project for 64 units. It became 60 um
when we had to adjust a lot line change and now it's been reduced to 52 uh units. Um so you'll hear from Mr. Michello on those grounds. You heard from Eric Keller, the traffic engineer
who testified for one meeting. Um Mr. Peter Steck, the planner. Uh he started off at the last hearing, did not get finished. He's here uh again to to finish his testimony. I guess he would start off first to get him finished. Um
so that's the our plan for the evening as far as we can can uh go with that. [Music] Um and we will also just note and I'm sure you remember this is a bifurcated application. So if if granted it comes
back to the board for site plan and subdivision approval um as if it were starting over but with the the use variances if granted attached to the application at that point.
Um, one housekeeping matter and uh I don't know whether Mr. Oler uh uh made you aware of it, but there's a a document that Mr. Steck utilized in his last testimony. It was a an an age bar chart of age of people living in
Bridgewater. Like to move that into evidence if I if I might. I think it was it was a uh seven. Was that a census document? Yeah. Census document. Sure. Okay. All right.
Um, so unless the board has any questions of me, I'd like to uh bring Mr. Ste back. Great. Hey, sir, if you would raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give to the board is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth this evening? I
do. Thank you. Um, I was, I guess, in the being cross-examined uh the last time I was here at the meeting, but uh I want to uh kind of amend my testimony because of the recent change uh in the reduction of the number
of units. So, just to kind of summarize, time out. Time out. That's the first hearing of a reduction of units. So, so, so maybe you should have Mr. Mashella testify before this is news to to the
board. We were at 60 units, or you can just tell the board now what you're proposing. I'm fine. I did that was and I actually told Mr. Ste that he could rely on my representation. I just needed to confirm with your attorney that this is in fact true. So
you know a planner to give a to give design testimony is a sudden bit of news to us. So officially the units are 52 on site 52 from Mr. Michello. Okay. Thank you Mr.
Okay. So uh the applicant uh reacting to his its perceptions from the last meeting uh reduce the number of units age restricted units from um 60 at the last time the board was entertaining
this application to 52. uh you will see a plan that shows you where at least on the concept plan uh the units were removed. But keep in mind it's a concept plan and and if per chance it's approved
there certainly can be changes uh to the site plan because the board still has site plan approval. The consequences of reducing the number of units uh reduces the density
uh the prior density at 60 units was 5.035 dwelling units per acre. The new density is 4.36 uh dwelling units per acre. And if you
recall, I had quoted from your 1990 last comprehensive master plan uh that the density range started at five and then went up from that talking about multifamily in in uh Bridgewater. So
we're we've dropped considerably. We're now 4.36 dwelling units per acre uh because we have eliminated a number of units. The floor area ratio has also uh gone down. Uh it was
0.45. Um and the new floor area ratio is 0.39. Um I'll just mention this although we are not seeking the C variances at this time. Um the adjusted imperous coverage
is being reduced from 48 at least on the concept plan 48.6% to 45%. Uh so um we are still because this is bifurcating
um asking for a use variance a D1 variance for the age restricted town houses the multifamily in the R40 zone the single family zone. Uh we're asking for
relief to expand the campus of the JCC by three acres. Um and again there there are slight modifications to the density um and the floor area ratio that is going that it's going down. Uh the only other
thing I'd like to add um and and the you'll see in the concept plan now where the units are proposed to be eliminated and where there is now uh an opportunity for some kind of recreational space uh
on the property. The proposed future lot line is staying the same. It's still part of this application is three acres being assembled with the JCC and the balance uh being on the uh the townhouse
property. Uh what I did uh one final point is that um after I testified I know that there was some commentary about um you know the increase in first of all
uh 55 and over population and that the municipality has accommodated certain age restricted housing. I did go back um and review your planning documents on the website and I just wanted to uh
reference page nine on your 2022 re-examination report. Uh that was a re-examination and a master plan amendment. The master plan amendment was largely had to do with warehouses.
But uh let me just read from um uh point B in that document page nine. It said the title is extent to which such problems and objectives have been reduced or have increased subsequent to
such date and such date was the prior re-examination report and I'll just read this paragraph if I may. As it relates to the balance for a variety of residential uses, housing options for its seniors was particularly evident in the zoning and approval of two major
sites previously envisioned for senior housing. one on Route 28, an apartment complex, and one on Route 20220 206 North, a large lot in the AAR zone, were either converted to unrestricted housing
by the state legislature or developed instead for houses of worship purposes. The Four Seasons complex on Route 202, 206 North is an existing owner occupied townhouse community for seniors. The new
master plan should present attention to other potential locations for owner occupied senior citizen housing communities within the township. Approval was recently granted for an age restricted community with individual
housing units on individual lots in the Martinsville village. This provides a reduction of concern for senior living accommodations. So the only point that I want to raise is yes it's true you've produced age restricted housing senior
housing uh but at least the last re-examination report in 22 said there's still a need for um senior housing um predominantly owner occupied
and frankly that's that's the category that we're proposing. So, that's kind of just an amendment to my prior testimony where I was cross-examined and I don't know if the cross-examine has finished. Um, do you
know what the occupancy rate is? Can you I mean, you're stating that uh those exist. Do we know how successful they've been? All I can tell you is the public policy of your re-examination report is even though you produce some town, at least
the planning board says we're still looking for additional owner occupied senior housing. Right. I get it. I get that you're making a point about the fact that uh what this document said, but what we're really here to hear is
whether it's necessary, right? So if those that you are quoting exist, are they filled? Are they empty? Well, whether it's not a a variant standard, uh we're
my testimony is that the site is particularly suited for this type of use. Um we, you know, as I mentioned last time, I'm not I didn't do a market study. That's not my expertise. uh the developer happens to have done a
significant number of age restricted communities and I guess I can say he's putting this money on the line. He believes that even though you know we're now down to 52 units now but he believes that there is a significant market. This is a slice of the market. This happens
to be as you know these are taller buildings and they meet the height limit but they're at the higher end of the scale in terms of price. But he believes that there is a a significant demand for these types of units. Right. I understand that and we we get that. But
we have other we know that there are other properties in town that were developed for this purpose that remain vacant and unsold. So I'm just asking if which it sounds like you're saying no. You don't have the answer and that's okay. I don't I I am not a market person
but I again uh I'm not spending the money to develop this. Right. Yeah. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. You were mentioning revisions pri that had taken place prior to the master plan and quoted a paragraph that we don't have in front of us, but you were saying
that it offers some guidance as to what the new master plan might include and yet there is no new master plan and therefore it would not be included. Is that fair to say? Yes. Uh I I think again the reason I emphasized about the
uh age of the master your last comprehensive master plan um largely having to do with the negative criteria. You know if you had just adopted a new master plan and said we you know we don't want any more age restricted housing in town I wouldn't be here
because that would be substantially detrimental. But the answer is you don't have allegedly the the website suggests that you're working on a master plan now. The planning board is um I looked
at the uh the videos that are on the master plan and they just don't uh divulge what the future policy is. All I can say is that the last time there was a re-examination report, it acknowledged
yes, we've built some uh age restricted housing, senior housing, but the m at least the planning board says, I guess to itself when we're doing the new master plan, there's still a need for
owner occupied senior housing. I'm not I'm not sure that it says there's still a need. I think it it's offering that there would be an opportunity to include that in the new master plan. And since we don't have a new master plan, which what guidance you're trying to provide
us, I think is irrelevant to the testimony. Well, let me just that I'll repeat the one sentence. The new master plan should present attention to other potential locations for owner occupied senior citizen housing communities within the township. But there is no new
master plan. And the new master plan, should one be adopted, is not bound by that revision. It it we don't know what the new master plan is going to say. We already said that. We agree. We don't know what it's going to say. And and my my point and we
don't we what we do know is that any new master plan would not be bound by a suggestion in a revision to the old master plan. It's not bound by a re-examination. That's what we're trying to get at. So I would urge you to go on though because Time is of the essence.
I'm I'm through. Great. Thank you, Mr. Mr. St. What happened at our last meeting that led to the applicant reducing the number of units from 60 to 52 specifically? Uh, that's your testimony. Those are your words. That's my testimony. You
said there was a reaction to what happened at our last meeting. Hear what we did so I can do it 10 times more and get the F. I was not party to the reduction. the applicant made the choice to reduce the number of units. I was not party to that decision. I was Mr. Your
testimony was and I wish I could have it read back was that there was a reaction to our last meeting. So what were they reacting to? What specifically did this court do to get it to 52 because I want to do it again. the the the all I can all I know is the
applicant reacted to the proceedings and but you testified at the last proceeding. Yes. But I but I don't make the decision as to the number of units. There was for example a criticism that there was no area on the plan that
allowed for recreational use. Perfect. What else? Um, I mean there was talk about traffic, but in in my opinion that at least was technically solved. Okay. But I I can't
speak for the applicant. All I know is that the You did. You said that there was a reaction. Yes. Okay. The the applicant is aware of these proceedings and made a judgment in reaction to the last hearing. Well, I from the start of the application. I'm
using your words. I'm not making this up. This started with 64 units. It went to 60. It's now at 52. The applicant is is for whatever reason making a judgment that this is a a a better applica, a better development for the property.
Now, your testimony is it was in his judgment. It wasn't reaction to anything specific. I can't speak for the applicant. So, what's your testimony there, Mr. St? I just gave it. In my opinion, I I amended the statistics associated with the project. Okay. I
think that the rationale that the planning rationale that I offered is is uh warrants an approval of the application on a concept basis. Uh it sounds like you reviewed our master plan and um I'm I'm curious is there any part
of our master plan that has high density where uh we typically allow housing units to be built with such high density as such you're proposing here in this case? you again your master plan gave a range and the low end of the range was five units an acre for multif family
we're now 4.3 something we we are undergoing a master plan revision which has gone on considerably and I know Mr. Kulak has sat on that subcommittee. Thank you for your service there, John. Um, is there anything maybe you can give us a slight preview? I know it hasn't
been adopted, but is there anything in this new master plan that's going to have um the ability for someone to build in such high density in Bridgewater? The master plan will be hopefully adopted in July just to give an update. Wonderful. Status. Um, and as
a preview, I do not believe that the master plan will have any recommendation about that about highdensity housing. Okay. Bridgewater. All right. Thank you. All right. Mr. Ste, um, any other board questions? I I just want I guess
clarification on what is the density again as proposed? The the density that we are now proposing at 52 units is 4.36 dwelling units per acre. 4.36. uh per acre and without a variance, what would
that density be if you had to conform the the the con? So, we're doing 52 units. If you just use the minimum lot size and don't take out land for uh streets in single family development,
there could technically be 12 dwelling units on the property. So, but what's the density number? Uh if you divide I'll let me I have the calculator with me. I'll tell you um that's close to one unit an acre.
So we're going from one if it was if it was single family. And again that's rough density. If you were, as you know, a development was single family, you'd have to eat up land with like a culde-sac, etc. Okay. I just want to be clear, we're we're going from 1 to 4.3.
That's correct. It's it's again, it's the approximate one unit per acre was intended for one kind of land use. We're asking for a different kind of land use. So again, when they set that density, um
that was intended for detached single family. Understood. Thank you, Mr. Stack. On your testimony, a lot of it's almost all of it has focused on this being age restricted housing. Uh my question is, what is the spirit? What's
the intent of age restricted housing in a community? What are the objectives of age restricted housing? And why, you know, would, you know, Bridgewater, you know, want to have such type of housing? Well, um I can tell you that um there is
a segment of the population that um wants to be in a specialized environment where there are not a lot of kids running around all the time. They choose an age-restricted community uh at that stage of their life.
I find that municipalities often uh pressure developers to do age restricted housing and primarily because it's more of a ratable. There are no school age kids and while that's not that's a a rational
zoning reason to zone an area for age restricted housing. uh the applicant has built these types of communities be before. The applicant believes that there's a demand for this type of unit based on the population now. But uh
outside of that, I find that many municipalities like to go in that direction. Um again, because it's it's less of a burden on municipal services. I note that um for example the new COA regulations recognizing that
municipalities favor age restricted housing has increased the ratio from 25 you can do 30% of your need now on age restricted housing. So the state recognizes at least from the low and
moderate point of view um that there is um a demand for this kind of housing. Does our objectives of affordability sort of a a goal of age restricted housing? Well, it's a mandatory goal.
You know, we're in the fourth round. Um so, this project is not exempt as you know from the testimony. Um the applicant is uh committed to uh paying its fair share dollar amount rather than
building on site. And that's essentially a negotiation between the applicant and the governing body. Okay. But if I'm if I'm 55 and older, is having a home where I more affordable to me something that should
be considered when zoning age restricted housing. Is there a reason for having certain price point for age restricted housing? you know, a certain level of pricing so you know, folks on a fixed income can actually afford it. It's
again, they're different segments of the population. Uh this applicant is um um made a marketing decision that a higherend uh age restricted housing is a
a marketable marketable item. That's not going to solve all the problems. Any, you know, single family house that you present in front of you, you could say, you know, why don't you make it smaller, only have three bedrooms instead of five. It, you know, the marketplace
takes a role, obviously plays a role here, but your ordinance requires that multif family over five units uh contribute to the need for low and moderate income housing.
We have said on the record multiple times that um we are going to comply uh by uh not building on site by paying for the subsidy on another property and
that's essentially a negotiation between uh the developer and the governing body. Mhm. I I I I need to jump in here and Katherine, I think we need to to weigh this in. I know Rich had had talked about this. Our I don't know if you know
what our number is for Bridgewwater. I think it's 440. Nope. 421 421. We've required every single applicant to come in here under this round to allocate actual houses because, you know, Bridgewater has a big budget. They they approved their budget tonight,
$51 million. your money doesn't move the meter for Bridgewater Township and I need to hear from a governing body that what you want to propose is acceptable because I don't want to just drop this on the governing body. They need every single unit to get to this. And Katherine, as the township planner, I I
I think we need to have a discussion about this. Yeah. Bridgewater has satisfied much of it obligation by subsidies. Yes. And having worked with Scarlet who
was our planner at the time, that was a much more reasonable number. And you know, Mr. Kley and I know you know Mr. Ste that these rounds have really gone up exponentially on a requirement for a township to the point where I don't know where there's enough land for us to build these units. And and and that's no exaggeration. There literally is nowhere
to put them. So all the cash in the world you can pull up a brink struck isn't going to change the fact that we don't have a place to put them. Absolutely. And I think we need some sort of guidance from an elected official to that fact.
Well, you don't I almost think it's a negative criteria for you. The fact that you don't have this. Well, just just a few things. One, um I think that just just to correct Mr. Stack, the the state did not allow 30% age
restricted in the fourth round because municipalities like it. It's because New Jersey has an aging population that needs affordable housing as they age in place. And that's why it was increased because New Jersey is getting older and the options to stay here keeping it
affordable are harder. So to Mr. Vesio's question providing the actual units is incredibly important and it's my opinion too that that's important affordable units affordable units in the in the excuse me Mr. Kley can I finish the the third
round settlement agreement that Bridgewwater signed with Fairshair Housing Center actually included a provision the provision that Mr. Ste just noted under section 126-321.4 four which does require that any multif
family project so units over that produces five or more units has to provide a set aside 15% for rentals 20% for for sale nowhere in that section does it talk about the payment in lie of construction there's actually a separate
section of the township ordinance that has existed under the development fees which I've provided in I think my most recent supplemental memo and it does and I brought it up and quoted it in that memo for a reason because it indicates that the township may allow developers
of sites zoned for inclusionary development to pay a fee. So the allowance before the council I think is definitely in question reading the plain letter of the ordinance. This site's not zoned for inclusionary housing. Yes.
Mhm. Does it matter? That was before the settlement for round the course of these hearings. Mr. Savo was not on the phone. Someone from Mr. Savo's office was on the phone and he actually the the conversation that was had had to do with
the fact that the fair the amended fair housing act actually struck the provision whether it was inadvertently or not about payments in lie of construction and my position on that regardless of the township ordinance was is it actually even legal to do a payment in le of construction based on
the amended fair housing act. Mr. Kley disagreed with me and m the representative from Mr. Savo's office actually said they were going to check with fair share if that was the intent. Let get a letter from Mr. S. I I hate to interrupt you, but you really need to speak into a microphone because we can't
hear you and the people at home can't hear you. I mean, Mr. Savo and I have discussed this and I don't want to put him on the spot, but he basically is the board ought to act on this application, commission the
approval if they give an approval on on satisfying the council. Fair enough. In the past that that's how Bridgewater has met most of its affordable housing requirements. It was approved in previous rounds according to our township planner. It is not allowed in
round three. Okay. And and I the I mean your township attorney does not agree with that and I really think it's beyond M uh jurisdiction at this point to continue. Well, we have 29 minutes left according to that clock. We're not going
to go to a vote tonight. Mr. Kley, would you contact Mr. Savo or produce a phone call with with Mr. Armad and let's get this in writing so I don't drop a case or a requirement onto the governing body, the township administration that puts them in an untenable position. I don't want to do that as a board. No.
And and I was just referencing it wasn't an opinion. I was referencing the plain letter of the ordinance so that the board was aware what was permitted. Yeah. And and just so you know, Mr. Kley, just just so you know that we just did approve house housing project um and they did have a set aside of physical
units and and we would not accept a payment in that particular case. Now, this case may be different and I would love to hear Mr. Savo's opinion. Um if we could just get it in writing for the board to help us out. Variance. This variance is issued by a board of adjustment. It's as if the property was
so zoned. Okay, fair enough. So, you'll contact Mr. Sabo and get a letter to that fact. Contact Mr. Savo and see if I can get a letter. People don't generally go around writing letters in something that's
outside of their present jurisdiction. I'm not following the argument, but this is the first time see Mr. Savo tomorrow and I will ask him what his opinion is and if he would if he would write a letter to the board if he has an opinion
on the matter and work with Mr. and that way he can instruct the board that we can accept a cash in le of uh you know an actual set aside which we've done in other cases. Every other case under round three has been an actual set aside of units. You don't decide the money. I
don't. Thank goodness. Um, all right. So, members, I have one more. I have more. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Vessio, please. Um, pivoting a little bit. On the type of housing that's being proposed here, how is that conducive to age
restricted housing? For example, age restricted housing. I'm thinking about, you know, an elderly couple may, you know, they're planning that they're going to be getting older and maybe they'll have some physical impairments. I think you mentioned there it's higher density, more vertical construction. How
is that how is that appropriate or living? Um again is in my judgment skilled in this area and the answer is there are people that um want to be in an age restricted community but they
want to have not confined to onebedroom in a house. They want to have bedrooms to have uh relatives come and visit. Older children come and visit if they have the means and want to make the
investment. Uh obviously these houses are more than what you might find in Greenbryer like in Ocean County, you know, one one and a half story buildings with a you know a big first floor uh uh bedroom. Um these are larger units and
the applicant is making the decision that there are people that don't want to be confined to essentially a one-bedroom one, you know, one-bedroom house. Are there is there what could be four bedrooms, five bedrooms? Is there a single bedroom on the first floor of
this home? I don't recall what what the mechanism is. I I believe there were elevators in the I I don't recall the um and again this is this is a concept plan so things can change but my recol
uh observation is that you know the applicant knew very early on that the charge was to produce age restricted housing and he he's putting his money on the line. He believes that these are marketable there. There may be people that have, you know, again, a house in
Florida and one here, but um these are these are units for people that want to have enough space to have relatives visit, friends visit. I I I understand that point. Uh my my question is more
of is there a type of construction that is more suitable for age restricted housing? like would you want to arrange a home in a certain way that is inviting to more age restricted age groups let's say you know
because I don't see any difference between this type of construction and any type of other construction well what's the purpose code doesn't make a difference to them they're all single family housing they have to comply with the the you know the uniform construction code that's the end of it
they don't have a different standard but these there are units that for example have elevators in them um that obviously uh accommodate people with ambulatory issues. Um these are
units that are big enough to have multiple designs. We're at a preliminary stage. This is just a concept approval. The the variances we're seeking here are the the essentially the use variance for the expansion of the
JCC use variance for multif family in a single family zone and along with that because this zone was designed for just single family detached um there's an F issue and a um density
issue right and I think my question is not really the density issue building vertical yields you a certain number of units. The building more horizontal, you know, maybe having a a unit with a bedroom on the first floor and maybe the other three bedrooms on the second floor
will yield you a different density. So, I'm trying to understand on this type of community. Well, housing that would be really beneficial to this age group, you know, what does that look like? What is the density for that type of community? This is a a little bit unusual in the
market. It's not like again Ocean County, Greenbryer, the US US homes market. Those are very small lowerend units. This applicant has made the judgment that an higherend unit is salailable and there there is a demand
for it. And again, if that's there are there are people that when they're downsizing from their whatever five- bedroomedroom single family house, they don't want to get pigeonholed into a tiny single family
house in an age restricted community. There are people that have the resources that want to um keep their furniture, keep their home office, um allow relatives and friends to stop by and stay for a few days.
Okay. I I'll end my questioning. Thank you. I just said one. So, you mentioned the the 2022 re-examination and that the plan said that we need more we should look for opportunities for more owner occupied senior senior housing, right?
Yes. So you believe that what we were referencing in that re-examination was an unusual development that this development is unusual for senior housing. Um, so you think that this is consistent
with what was what is in was was in at the time and was what they were referencing when they said we should look for All I know is what I read you that you know the the uh the re-examination report did not go into more detail. It simply said that
although we've produced senior housing, we would like the new master plan to look for sites for more owner occupied senior housing. That's all it said of the right. But this is the type
of development that you believe we were looking for. We don't know. But it the answer is it is age restricted housing. There will not be one schoolage children child that will come out of this development. That is the only thing about this development that you believe
fits is that it is well 50 everything else about the which may be unusual in your words. I I think what's unusual about it is that I think people will be attracted to this site because of the proximity of the JCC.
I think that as I mentioned this site, you know, can't be integrated into the residential homes to the north or south. This is only oriented toward the state highway. So it c it can't it's it's somewhat isolated. And again, as you
know, I I spoke about the range of uses that are in this corridor now. And again, part of that is addresses the negative criteria. Um, again, in my opinion, age restricted housing is not one
sizefits-all. They're different segments of the market. I understand. I just want to make sure I understood what you introduced and how this fits in this exact I don't know more than what I read to you, but again, I wanted to I came across that because
there was a question of, you know, do we really need any more age restricted housing? And the answer is at least in 2022 the planning board suggested in doing the new master plan that you look for for more
sites. That's what it said. Mr. board member perfection is the enemy of good planner in this instance is looking to address consistency or inconsistency with the master plan. Unfortunately, you have a master plan that's so old it's
really relevant. Mr. Kley, I'm sorry to interrupt you. If you could pick up that microphone or or you could even be seated for your comments so you're closer to that microphone. It's the 35y old master plan. So you look at at at uh reviews of the master
plan. What else are you going to do? I'm not sure any court would uphold your master plan as a as an essential element in this matter since it's so damn old. Then why reference it? because it's a law. I understand when he
referenced that we were looking for that and I was just reacting to the fact that this particular development his own words is unusual for 55 and older. So Mr. Ste, what about these units will make it different and more marketable than the 12 units that are sitting
vacant age restricted on Dock Hollow property since 2023 which we approved in response. I'm not done. I don't I'm not done. I I I think that I don't know the marketing of those units. I don't know the size of those units. Those units were approved based on that 22
re-examination that was important in that case. Katherine, were you working with us yet? Yeah. But but we we had a developer in here that banged on the table how much we needed these units and he cited the same census documents and we need these units. Bridgewater needs
them. We're an old town. And I asked the attorney who happened to be in this room, how many have been sold and and maybe that there's a zero maybe there's an inaccurate price point for what you get for your money. I don't know the answer to that because I'm not
a developer. But this but you reference that these would be high-end. Correct. Yes. That's the same designation that that developer. Well, every housing unit that you've had builds in the last 10 years, what does the developer say? Luxury units. No, it's untrue. We just built one for orphans and and underage
ch. That's a specialty. Every developer kind of markets their units, even rental units. That developer marketed to orphans. So that's a marketing term. That and that developer also had a set aside of 15% for affordable. Actually, all of them were affordable. Yeah,
sorry. All of them were affordable. I I I can't answer what the marketing issue is with that, but all I'm saying is that this this developer happens to be experienced in this market. So your units will sell better and they're more in demand than the units that are sitting vacant currently on Dwaalo which
we approved in response. If there is a level of accutrants Chimney Rock Road Chimney Rock I'm sorry. Yeah. If there's a level of accutrants that's um comparable to the price uh this applicant has made the judgment that um
he can sell them. Yeah, I know there's a free dialogue just a question. get answered the question about eight times the question I asked why these units are different. It sounds like he
didn't he doesn't know but he he knows that they're in demand which the board heard I heard the applicant knows putting money to quote him is putting money on the line okay got it all right
thank you Mr. Fresco. All right. Any more board questions? Board professionals. No questions. Thank you. So, I know we we've referenced that the master plan is really old and it's hard to rely upon it because it's so old, but we're relying upon a master plan re-exam
now. And I brought this up at the last hearing that there's been at least 17 different master plan elements or re-exam reports done since 1990. at least that I know of that have been published on the website. It's like two a year, right? Two every other year, right? Um they make it sound like
Scarlet never did anything for our town. She did quite a bit and and they included not only master plan re-exams, but land use element amendments, which are pretty important. And you know, I think that it's a disservice to the amount of planning work that's gone into this town despite not having a
comprehensive master plan to to reduce it down to well, your master plan's 35 years old. It's not reliable. But this but this master plan re-exam report that says something that supports this, it's it's very reliable. Um I would also say that the language, you know, we've gone it over a few times and I appreciate Mr.
Koulak's comments, doesn't say we just need senior housing, owner occupied anywhere. It says the master plan's going to look at potential locations. The potential locations may be none. Right? The way that it's phrased is really we have to
explore that in the master plan. Well, we don't know what the outcome of that exploration is going to be. I think it's really important that it notes that the Chimney Rock, this is in Martinsville, um, project that you've referenced was approved and that it reduced the
concern. That's eight units of senior housing and that was enough to reduce the concern. So, I just want to make sure that that's known relative to this. I think if this site was approved at 52 units, it would eliminate the concern, right? If eight units was reducing the concern. So, uh, that's just in
attention to what was what was brought up about this. I think there's plenty of other planning documents that I think I referenced at the last hearing that show that planning work has been done in Bridgewater. It's not just 1990. Um, and going through any of those, I don't think we had a different outcome about
how this uh this site in particular or how senior units were were viewed. Like to hear Well, Mr. K, you put on the record that our master plan wouldn't be relevant in a court of law and and you know working with Scarlet for all those years and a
lot of members of this board worked with Scarlet. She was beloved. Um I know you know Scarlet as well and to say that that master plan that to say that master plan would have no relevancy which is a document we rely on until the new one is completed in July. I I think we need to hear from our planner to make sure that
the master plan document that we're relying on is in fact relevant. very but but you said it wouldn't even hold up in a court of law. That's a quote. It's a municipality problem. It's not Miss Doyle's problem. Well, she was the planner of record, but she doesn't
pass the master plan. If if I can just clarify, we had Katherine speaking and I and I was 35 year old master plan would be looked at with very jaundice eye by a court, right? Tell you that much. Okay. The the standard of proof for the
negative criteria is not the re-examination report. That's a different section of the municipal land use law. The standard of proof for justifying the negative criteria is the master plan. There have been a number of amendments to that but
they've been specialized. You want to discourage warehousing. You want to look at a different commercial corridor. None of them has addressed the issues on this property. Again, going back to the beginning, this was there was an interim regulation. Neighborhood C, we're going
to keep this single family. That was 35 years ago. A lot has changed. Now, we don't know what the master plan is until you adopt the planning board adopts it after, Mr. Ste. We had 17 opportunities to put highdensity multif family units
on that property and 17 times you went 0 for 17. It was never address. This property was not addressed since you go 0 for 17. Did you get any mention in any one of the 17 re-examinations since the 1990 mass? None of them addressed this property. The way that the You went 0
for 17, correct? Pardon? You went 0 for 17. 17 re-examinations happened and 17 times your property was never zoned for multifamily. Your your re-examination report said you need a new master plan
and it said you ought to consider additional sites for senior housing. That's all it had. You went over 17 because your property was never the 17 is meaningless unless you would address the land use issues with to continuing line of questioning. It's really not
productive. It's just arguing with Katherine brought it up. You interjected and here we are. All I said was that it's been more than just master plan re-examinations. There have been land use elements which are elements of the master plan which are
perfectly valid to talk about master plan goals in regards to land use. Has the R40 zone been looked at again? Has this particular property been looked at land usement to be reszoned? No. Does that mean that we've we we've we've just missed it or we haven't gotten to it
yet? No. In some cases, we're happy with the zoning, the R40 zoning. So, our master plan doesn't make any recommendations to change it. That's probably what happened here. Um, and and again, I think it's an oversimplification to say we've only re-examined the master plan. There's
plenty of land use element adoptions that have been amendments that have that have looked at different zones. Just because this property wasn't included doesn't mean that we missed the mark. In the pending master plan, are we making a change of zoning to this area? Oh. Oh.
So, you're going to go 0 for 18, Mr. Ste. So, why don't we open up if you're Thank you very much. If we're done, let's open up to members of the public that have questions on Mr. Ste's testimony. Questions? Well, he provided new testimony tonight. They're allowed to question
him. Come on up. If we can just get your name and address, please. Ferrara, 788 West Foothill. Um, so when asked about the reason for age restriction and maybe not a lot of
children, this these units will be right next to the JCC, which I happen to love the JCC and I love there being a lot of children, but you're I mean there's a lot of children at the JCC. So this is going to be right next to a place that not just has children, but has a lot of
children. So why do you think that's a good location for it? because there are a lot of recreational facilities that are open to everyone uh at the JCC. Yeah. But you agree, right, that there I mean all all year round, but especially in the summer months, it's all out, you
know, it's outside. It's a lot of children. These seniors are not going to be hermetically sealed on this property. But I my own judgment, and it may be the judgment of the developer, is that
Part of the marketing of this property is the proximity to the JCC. You know, swimming pool, exercise class, their religious functions there. U there may be a a logical connection of why someone wants a unit here. I I mean I So again,
very fond of the JCC. So I could see why anybody would want to go to the JCC. I just don't think then putting senior homes for people who don't want to be around children, that's a good place for it. Well, they're not going to have a children living below them or above them or to the side of them is the difference. And there's a three acre lot
between us and the campus. Do we have an opportunity to I mean so quite there's a lot of questions that we ask and your response is that's the developer or the applicant and we should just trust that they know what they're talking about. Do we have an opportunity to ask these
questions to them? Um I I I can't answer that. the all I'm addressing the variance issues that are before this board and I and I I'm not a market person but I have you know spoken to the professionals
involved to get a a glean why they're proposing this type of housing but the argument is that we need this housing for age restriction but we don't have any data to suggest that there isn't enough age restriction or that we can
they can af afford those homes. The only data that I presented is that when the 1990 master plan was done, 17% of the population was 55 and over in the latest census estimate, which
is a couple years ago, uh it was over 30%. But that's just the number of of of older people, right? That's not the that's 55 and over. and and some of them may not be interested in age restricted housing, but that's a dramatic change
from what this situation was when the 1990 they could all have homes already. We don't know that. I'm saying all I'm saying is that there's been a significant increase in the sector of the population that is eligible for this type of housing.
Okay. Um, I looked for it and maybe I missed it. So, I'm uh is there has has there been any analysis as far as um and this might not be the right question for you, but analysis as far as noise pollution or light pollution or what that's going
to do to this area. This is um a bifurcated application which means that if we get approved at this stage we have to come back and talk about lighting and all that kind of stuff. Okay. So this is
not uh we've left certain details out of this and we're required to come back to the board with a full-blown site plan in the future. I guess my my final question right now
is just why do you think it's a better use of this acreage to put to cram in 52 three-bedroom units rather than what it's zoned for and what I mean what's the point of the master plan if if that can just if we just ask for it to change
well the master plan is supposed to support the zoning ordinance but even the planning board says that you need a new master plan so the answer is we don't know what it's going to recommend yet. They're working on it, but it has
to go through a public hearing. We don't know what it's going to say. It's it's it's speculative to say that the master plan doesn't want to see any more multif family housing in town, for example, or senior housing. We don't know what it's going to say because it hasn't it hasn't been finalized and it hasn't been
subject to a public hearing yet. Right. But I thought we said that that it has been reviewed and there hasn't been a recommendation to change the zoning in this area. you in in my opinion it is not worthwhile to speculate what something is going to say in the future
because it's not here. Okay. One last question. You're familiar with this that that this corridor there that area? Yes. Do you So you're familiar with the other developments that have happened just north and south of that area. In my report I kind of did a land use
analysis of the whole corridor. Do you feel that we're getting into the territory of overdevelopment with considering all the other? I think because of the resources here, a state highway that can handle a lot of traffic and the fact that this is an isolated
parcel that can't be integrated into the abuing single family homes. It opens the door to a different type of land use that would not be detrimental. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public questions on Mr.
Stick's planning testimony? I I do have a question if there's nobody else. So, I'm trying to understand this is a benefit to Bridgewater residents. Well, it's a you can't exclude anybody,
but the answer is um there as you know there's a housing crunch in the actually New Jersey and the nation. uh there's a demand for simply more housing and it that's a benefit. It this happens to have a again
some municipalities love age restricted housing because they turn out to be ratables. You get a lot more tax revenue you know than uh the costs of municipal services, educational services. So a lot of municipalities u pressure developers to do this because
it's eratable. Okay. But I'm trying to understand why would a Bridgewater resident 55 years and older who currently lives in Bridgewater want to move to this development just because it's 55 and older because they don't want to
maintain the property anymore. They don't want want to be responsible for cutting the lawn. They they enjoy an environment with people that are in the same uh age bracket that they are. But yet there are there are people again
that you know have multiple homes. They may have a home in Florida. They may have a home here. This is for people that could afford both. And it's it's a segment of the it's only a segment of the population. But this for whatever
reason this developer has made a a an educated judgment that there is a a demand for these types of units. And it's it can't solve all the problems that you know with with one type of housing unit.
Okay. I mean I I just don't know anybody 55 years and older in Bridgewater that says I want to go to something like that. Okay. But but there are a lot of these around the state as you know. I I know nobody. Thank you.
Okay. M M Mr. Ste before you go and and Katherine I just want to get you back on the record. Um Mr. talked about speculation on the next master plan. You're responsible for Bridgewater's adoption of our next master plan. Correct. I am writing it. Um or I mean Scarlet started it. She did
a lot of it. Y I'm writing a little bit of it and so I'm kind Yeah. I'm kind of the responsible party. Okay. And in July, you're going to take this to the planning board and you're going to enter into um again I know we have not adopted the planning board is responsible to
adopt it and eventually the governing body will review it and make their adoption uh public does not adopt it. Is is there anything currently in the master plan, which sounds like it's been quite substantially worked on, where this zone, this particular property will
have zoning changes that will make high density housing. There's no recommendation. No. Okay. There's nothing in there. So, we're not speculating here. You do not see anything in this this coming master plan which is going to come forth in July
that is going to allow for a change in zoning on that property. There's no recommendation. Okay. So, you're not speculating on that? No. Okay. You're not arbitrary and capricciously talking about the the master plan. I'm giving away the secrets, right? Like we're supposed to
be unveiling this thing in July. But now to to Mr. Steck's point, that could change. But right now, just so we're not speculating, because I I'm I'm a professional speculator. I speculate for a living. Planning board's document, not the not not the planners document. I we're we're finally in agreement on
something, Mr. Ste. And I'm drafting it on behalf of the planning board and our ad hoc master plan committee who have all had eyes on it. Now, the zoning board does have a member that is part of that ad hoc committee. Yes. Who is that member? Mr. Koulak. Okay. So again, are
we speculating, John, that this property is going to question he's going to change? Mr. Chairman, I object to these questions. Fair enough. Noted. Mr. Kulak, is there anything coming forth in this master plan where we're going to be changing the zoning on this property? Certainly a confidentiality as to what
they're doing. I think you ought to think about that. Microphone, please. Yeah. Could you speak that in the microphone? I think I was. There's a there's an element of confidentiality when people Mr. Kulak, have you signed a confidentiality agreement with Township of Bridgewater? Well, there are a couple
issues, but the so I have not and two, I I don't feel comfortable in answering your question directly since I haven't seen a final copy of the master plan. Okay. And um I know that it's been there have been some public input hearings and there will be some additional circulation of the plan to the public
and the council itself will have to approve the plan after the planning board approves it. No. So, only the planning board approves it. But I just don't want to say it right now. No, fair enough. And thank you, John. I I think it's good that, you know, we're maybe not going to finish up tonight. So, the
planning board's going to get to see this property. Why don't you go to the planning board to to to Katherine and and try and get your change in zoning that you're seeking? I'm curious, Mr. Ste, why you haven't done that? I don't know why the applicant. All I can say is that we have a right to apply for a
variance. Okay. So you have not gone to our our planner or any I have not done that. My my statement is to look at this as an application to the board of adjustment. But but you could right we I could do
200 years ago. But I only do what I'm contracted to do what I'm assigned to do. I'm not the developer. I'm an agent for the developer on the planning side. Thank you, Mr. Stack. It's 10:31. We finished up our hearings for tonight. Thank you everyone for attending.
Um, the next meeting that I have on my schedule, June 20th, Mr. Sorry, Mr. Klay, the board is is going to need to respectfully ask you for an extension of time on your application. I granted an extension to June 30th. June 30th. I
think we're we were going to see if we could ask for July 8th. Oh, I'm not granting any more extensions right now. So, the June 24th hearing right now, because we don't have a June 10th because of the primary, right, elections, um June 24th, we have uh Starbucks and Rockland APV, which is a
brand new application. Starbucks is ongoing. Okay, that night is full. July 8th, we just we have Bridge. He's not going to grant us an extension, so we'll put them at the end of the hearing on on June 24th. Um you you have Starbucks, which is a pretty big case. Uh they've
been filed for multiple years and Rockland APV is a brand new application is a brand new application. So um looks like June 24th. If we get let me ask you a question. If we grant an extension will you act on this application by
whatever that date was July 8th. Is that the date you gave? July 8th is also has Bridgewater self storage which is a big application. It I think did GMO get carried there? No, 22nd. Correct.
Uh, Germanka carried to the 22nd of July. So, the eighth week we could technically put them on for July. Yeah, but but Mr. K, I can't guarantee a vote is going to happen. If members of the public object and they want to speak, I'm certainly not going to stop them. Also, sir, is there going to is there expected to be any revision? I heard there was a reduction in the number of
units tonight. The professionals would need to about to present plans for that. So, are we supposed to stay here till midnight? We didn't get to Mr. Michello. I asked many times for you to let him get get on the stand. Okay. So, should we tell members of the public they shouldn't ask questions? You're the
chairman. You run these meetings. You're the applicant. You run these meetings. Yes. Yeah. For good or ill, you run them. Okay. Uh I will consult with my client if and ask them if they will further extend to what is the date? July. July
8th is the next available. There will be no extensions beyond that date. Sure. But Mr. Mr. Kley, when you have surgery or things happen, we're more than happy to move our schedule around for you. And you know, we have tremendous we have tremendous respect for you, Mr. Kley. When you needed time, we gave you time.
We when your when your number two person resigned, we gave you more time. I had back surgery. Don't strongarm the board. Don't strongarm the board and say, "We've been at this for for a year. It might take more years. If the members of the public want to speak and ask
questions, I'm certainly going to grant them as much time as they need to ask questions. It's reasonable. Seems it seems you control the meetings, Mr. Chairman. I control the meeting, right? Yes. So, we'll see you on the 24th of June or the 8th of July.
Right now, it's the 24th of June. Okay, we'll see you then. All right. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Second. Second. All right. Thank you. Good night, everyone. He's granting an extension until I'm going to have dinner. Yeah. It's not