of adjustment March 11 2025 adequate notice this meeting was provided in accordance with the open public meetings Act njsa 10 col 6 specifically on January 15 2025 proper notice was sent to The Courier News and the Star Ledger and filed with the clerk at 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 applications will be heard after 9:30 and no new testimony will be taken after 10 p.m. if you're able please rise for the salute to the flag United States of America the stands one
nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all hi there Nancy if we can get a roll call please chairman fuss here Mr widley I hear Mrs Amin yes Mr Sweeny here presco
here Mr bonjourno here Mr gesi here Mr Cat here Mr kulak here Mr vessio here Mr gabbit here for the record Katherine sarmad is present board
planner William Burr board engineer Richard Aller board attorney do you have a quum you can proceed all right thank you very much at this time of I'd like 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
tonight all right seeing none I'm going to close that portion we have no minutes and no resolutions so with that we're going to open up uh our starbu case and just to Mr Kent Smith just to let you know we're going to divvy up the meeting to two
portions tonight you'll get half and then 821 will get half so good to see you again welcome back and Mr chairman before we do that I want to announce I'm sorry Rich go ahead so so if there's anyone in the audience tonight for the belly Holdings application at 19-21 Mount Pleasant Avenue that application
is not being heard this evening it instead is being adjourned to May 27th at 7 p.m. in this room and there'll be no further notices from the applicant okay thank you thank you now we're ready all right good evening all yours Henry
Kent Smith fir of fox Rothchild on behalf of the applicant which is bridgew whey this is the continued here hearing on the proposed Starbucks on Route 22 in Morgan Lane uh just to remind everybody this is now the fifth hearing we've had
on this application we started February of last year we had a hearing in March one in May and one in August so when we left in August it was clear to the applicant that there were concerns this board had relative to the Route 22
Ingress driveway the potential for stacking from the drive-thru to interfere with the free flow of traffic on Route 22 as a result of those concerns we went back to our tenant Starbucks and then uh basically said if you really want this
location you're going to need to close off that Route 22 Ingress driveway um and they have agreed to do that notwithstanding the fact that the driveway has a DOT permit and is uh in fact um in place on Route
22 so we revised the plans in order to eliminate that access driveway um and in so doing we now have free flow traffic along Route 22 um there are uh some additional plan changes related to how
we reconfigured the site in order to eliminate that driveway it caused us to go through some internal site um uh uh Design Elements which we have uh made and submitted to the board in December uh we were going to be heard in January
unfortunately our notice didn't get published in the paper in time so that brought us to this hearing this month um and so to continue this hearing tonight I have Mr michello who will uh testify on the plan changes from a site plan
design perspective I also have Elizabeth Dolan she will be testifying on traffic and she has evaluated the plans in light of the removal of the Route 22 driveway access and then Michael toia who is our professional planner given the time uh
issues you we'll see how far we get Mr chairman I believe that's an hour and a half that I would have about 90 minutes right okay I just want I mean looking like 8:35 is okay but you know I'm not going to cut you off the second with a witness but we're going to try and finish up and no into two I just need to
know my Pace this is good Pace I'm good with this so without any further Ado Mr Michelle if you would please come on up it's been while so let me swear you again would you raise your right hand please do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board
will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you go thank you and your full name for the record please uh it's Robert mosell M o c h l l and my business address is 265 Main Street Gladstone New
Jersey so Mr Michelle at the request of the applicant um uh in response to the concerns raised by the board you did prepare a revised site plan that has been submitted could you just identify that for the board that is correct yeah just identify the plan yes
and so what I have this evening is a rendered version of that site plan for the record it is entitled site plan rendering the original date was February 27th 2024 and it's be revised through March 11th 2025 and for the record I
believe this is a I'm up to A10 I okay A10 A10 and would you put today's dat on it too please okay excellent so utilizing this plan just want to give everyone an overview of this property really quickly
again we have the Route 22 in the east west Direction on the bottom of the page um Morgan Lane is on the east side of the plan going up and down direction or north south Direction on the plan you've got the Starbucks property here which is the um I'll say the highlighted portion of the plan and then of course you have
the um um Stonehouse Tavern or Tap House Tavern um restaurant that's now open I believe or close to being open and then the proposed hotel in in the rear so from the last meeting to now we have made some modifications to the site plan focusing number one on removing the
entrance that was on Route 22 so that's now been taken off the plan it's no longer shown here um and we'll close off that entrance that was basically constructed as part of the DOT permit and we've relocated a entrance for the Starbucks on Morgan Lane essentially where the existing driveway on Morgan
Lane is today um it's a right in only there's no exit here it's only a right in from Morgan Lane so if you come in down Route 22 and you were to go past the end the main entrance to the property um that's oh that's located where my pointer is here on the West side of the site you will continue down and make the right hand turn onto Morgan
lane and then a right into the into the property and then once you get to this intersection you can make a left or you can make a right there'll be signage there directing you accordingly to into the site and whether you wish to park your car in the existing part in the proposed parking spaces or go into the drive-through Lane which now we've taken
which was an originally a two-lane drive-thru um and we've narrowed it down to a single drive-through Lane with a bypass um because we have the internal um circulation now so basically that drive-through Lane can hold between 15 and 16 cars from the um pickup window
back through past the menu board and down through the stacking Lane till it gets to the intersection with the internal driveway I say 15 to 16 depending on the size of the uh the vehicles um once you get past that intersection you do have internal stacking within the property itself you
can at least hold another 15 to 16 cars depending on which direction those cars stack into that intersection so you're back up to almost 30 35 cars that could be stacked internal to the site um and still allow for circulation around the uh around the property we also modified
the um parking lot configuration we took some parking spaces that were on the south side of the lot here by the entrance coming in off of the Morgan the Morgan Lane entry and we took those spaces and we moved them um internal next to the Starbucks building um by by
shrinking down the size of the canopy that was on the building we also reduced the number of outdoor seats from 40 down to 16 um by doing this we're able to put nine parking spaces right next to the building um for patrons to park there to access the building um
directly we still have the spaces in front which are the Ada and the pickup spaces that we had previously for for people who were just running to pick up a online order so they're still on the front and then we have some additional parking on on the east side as well we actually went from 33 spaces down to 31
spaces in this in this configuration that you see here so we lost two spaces but given the required number of spaces for the Starbucks this which is I believe 13 this is more than adequate from an on-site parking perspective um we also reduced the overall lock coverage we went from
60.7 which was on the uh prior plan down to 60.4 because of a slight reduction impervious coverage by eliminating one of the drive-through lanes and consolidating some of the impervious parking area we also took the Starbucks building and moved it back 10 feet so we
were originally asking for a variance of 1194 feet for for setback variance from Route 22 that number is now 129.4 feet by moving the building back 10 ft um further away from Route 22 um in terms
of storm water management we did modify the front Basin because we got rid of the drive the drive lane that was coming in and just modified its volume slightly it still has more than adequate volume to handle the um impervious surfaces that are being proposed here so there's no so there's really no change from storm water management or site grading
or site utilities um in terms of in terms of loading and deliveries that remains unchanged based on what we presented previously the trash enclosure still in the back and we have the bypass lane for delivery trucks that can be used and again based on the test testimony deliveries are in the late
evening or early early morning hours when the building is closed so there should be no issues with conflicts there the signage as far as the signage on the building and drive-through signage all that um remains unchanged except now because we have the single Lane drive-thru with the internal
stacking we've eliminated the signalization system we originally had for the red light green light open close for drive-thru and that'll just function like a standard drive-thru um where there's no sign that would close the drive-through if it was full with 16 cars in it they would just queue out onto the internal driveway if that was
the situation um and then lastly in terms of um one of our design waivers for lighting we did slightly reduce the overall foot candles we were asking for a waiver for 2.4 2.4 foot candles um for the overall parking levels that went down slightly to 2.2 just due to the
reconfiguration of the impervious surfaces on the site but it just that went down slightly so want to point that out for the board um and I believe that covers the majority of the site plan modifications that we made so um two foot candles is still a
waiver still a design waiver correct yeah I think it's 1.5 is the standard yes it is so uh just one last thing then Mr Michelle relative to the changes that you've made that does not impact in any way your storm water management that is correct and by eliminating the two parking spaces up by the uh entrance
that comes off of the Morgan Lane driveway you've added some additional Landscaping we have added additional Landscaping in the southern area of the site here by eliminating those parking spaces um Mr chairman I don't have any further questions for Mr Michelle uh I
know Mr widely does I have a a couple so I was out there I was I parked in the Stone Tavern today and there's a fire hydrant and a utility pole that's to be moved says on the plans so I'm assuming you're going to lose about those six parking spaces I'm just curious was that
reflected in the last plan as well yeah that's right that's right right here okay yeah that was reflected in the calculations and the spots to the north they're shaded on the plans you're going to lose those also and those were also reflected in the last plan no these These are these spaces are all staying
along the along the limit here on the Stone Tavern side this Stone Tavern on the Northern side near the hotel you had them shaded on one of the the sheets and I want to make sure those parking spaces are still in play well there's parking spaces there now that are going to get
modified when the hotel gets built right okay yes so there will be parking if you're looking at the Stone Tavern you got the loading area behind it there will still be parking behind it um but it'll be when it gets reconfigured with the uh with the hotel I just want to make sure that we're not forcing this project out of compliance with the
original planning board no we we're not we're still over by I think almost like 30 parking spaces that's my question all right thank you I have I have a question about uh how how do the customers leave uh can you show us the they have a c
different go to for Le depending on whether you come out of the drive-thru or you're going to leave your parking space we have signage to generally and this was added on the plans to generally direct everyone if they want to go 287 we have signage to
direct them around the property back to the exit on 22 so if they come if they come out of with the parking space or the or the drive-thru if they want to get to 22 they can go this way to go out or if they're in the parking spaces they can either come around this way or they can go you know around through the site if
they want to get to 287 if they're just going back to 22 they can also go out the Morgan Lane driveway to make that right on to 22 but they have that option or they can come come this way but there's there's there's additional signage to direct patrons once they're
once they're finished to get back out to Route 22 or 287 so onto Morgan Lane people can make a left turn from the uh property people can make from this Morgan Lane existing entrance that's there to they can make a left turn to go down
Morgan Lane it's it's it's a no right turn going out there no right turn okay this is only an entry in they cannot exit here Mr Michelle what can we do to make people not turn right there besides you stationing a police officer 247 we have
made a mod A Min minor modification to the curb line here to increase the height of the curb there um so this way it would deter someone from making that turn but there's unfortunately you can't make it perfect that if you're in a passenger vehicle you can probably still
make that maneuver um but we are trying to deter them with signage and adding additional curbing to prevent them from making that that's in addition to what's there right now we're going to make it even more make it more more pronounced very easy to turn right that under existing conditions Mr chairman I agree
yeah we're pulling this out another I'll say three and A2 feet give or take and then making it more of a a pronounced curb there like a real curb any chance of a a solar lit sign on your property no right turn something
lit you know with a solar panel on it just with a light just something that we don't want people to turn right there flashing yeah yeah we could actually do one with a little blinking light I'm not an expert maybe we can work with our Planner yeah yeah come up with something answer yes I don't want to create any more foot candles but I also want to you
really create a situation where if you turn right here you're going to get a ticket the answer is yes may you have the statute underneath it you know 126 D4 Das whatever it is lit solar panel on top so it's always lit always flashing yes I mean I'm kind of at a loss maybe
the board can come up with a better idea and just for sake of clarification the the curb cut CU I turned into the lot today it's already there your new entrance is already on the property there's a little bit of cement there's a pad there this you're talking about this one right here is a curb cut there today yes and it's the same one you're
proposing yes you just can't yeah hopefully didn't you didn't pull in onto the I had a Jeep so no I went in on the grass and I was pulling on the grass but most people in a car shouldn't be doing that I just wanted to know cuz I was trying to measure in terms of safety where I saw people turning okay thank you yes that entrance is there today all right any board ideas on how to get
people to not turn right got to put a sign up says no R turn that's what we were talking about we can make it we can put flashing light so people don't ignore it and put the code you know you'll get a ticket under this code if you do this so yeah we'll certainly work with your your staff Mr chairman and
members of how do we stop caffinated teenagers from turning right best efforts to make sure that people don't turn right there there's I think the the signage is good as a permanent method to to maintain that no Red Light Green Light
Signs red light green all right um but what I would say is when they are if this is approved and they do have a grand opening probably for the first few weeks is actually have a police officer enforce it because if people get tickets when they do it they're not going to do
it again um so that's a way to kind of measure Behavior ticket it and then hopefully it will you know taper off and then stop idea you like that idea I like that idea yes uh regarding the signage you
you're you're kind of directing people more to the rear there in front of the Hilton um my only concern with that is your you're going to kind of force Behavior to kind of go that way they're going to see an exit there they're going to kind of use that you know first exit they see most potentially why why are
you showing this kind of trying to direct traffic to exit through the rear in front of the Hilton versus coming you know in the front of the property we have the sign here to tell them to go to 287 they can go they can go this way okay that's fine this way but if someone
makes the right hand turn I wanted to put a sign here to say to 287 okay I I you were explaining that the signage was going to direct people primarily to the rear then around in front of the Hilton then towards 22 only if they turn to the
right coming out of the drive-thru turn left the sign's going to say 287 go to the main driveway and turn there if they're at the drive-thru here and they make they see the signs going to say 287 that this way that way okay if someone inadvertently makes a right I want I have a sign here that says 287 go this
way just in case they they miss it the first time we're truly trying to get everyone to move towards the existing main driveway yeah I I I I agree with that I'm just trying I want to understand like how we're going to influence behaviors to kind of stay more
to the front because that'll that'll direct them more directly to an exit that's why we're putting the sign there okay then I I'm I'm fine with that thank you I mean you could theoretically get everybody out through the Stone Tavern that's correct nothing stopping that I mean that's something Catherine you know
I just want to keep people pull off Morgan Lane and you know not even just not making a right I just would like to take everybody out the Stone Tavern exit get them back on a 22 just because they have more time to react to the crazy 287 merger unfortunately that I believe that
that curb cut was proposed as part of the overall plan right so we'd have to enforce it even if and when the hotel is built the the same with the patrons from Stone Tavern right right so it's not just this application so we need to I think there has to be a conscientious
effort like I said about enforcement of that it can't just be put up the sign and hope it does its job I think maybe a stipulation that if it becomes an issue that they have to pay for the you know the traffic cop to be there for a short period and intermittently as it becomes an issue to to reup it I think that's
it's a good issue we've had this and I've seen this happen with towns with Chick-fil-A in particular they you know have a plan and Chick-fil-A ends up ruining a neighborhood and the town shuts it down so I I think we need some sort of relief mechanism if people start to overload Morgan Lane
Mr Kent Smith that we have to come back and and talk about this what do you propose no I I understand I to me I have to talk to the client but I have done this on other applications where we profer to compensate a off-duty
Bridgewater police officer to stand guard so to speak I mean I've done this on other applications okay I don't have the authority right now to say yeah we'll pay we've got to discuss what's the compensation all that but it's typically an off-duty bridgew police office officer that we would station
there I I don't think we're going to finish tonight so why don't we work on that stipulation we'll come back for the final meeting we'll we'll put that in and you know I think that's a good solution to kind of a rough problem you know because I I want the neighborhood to understand we're working to keep Morgan Lane like it is now we just do
not want to detract from the obligations and responsibilities of the police department so it's got to be an off-duty officer the problem is we're 35 square miles is a big town yeah but I love the fact that the you know some officers going to get some overtime this might be a good way to to attack it and you fix a
problem so you'll work with Katherine and with Rich on that stipulation yes great would you be able to illustrate for me and for the audience somebody coming in from Route 22 how they come in off Morgan Lane and the circulation they
would follow if they're going through the drive-thru and then similarly if they were coming in through the Stone Tavern entrance how they would integrate themselves into the drive-through Lanes so there's three ways to come into
okay so if they come in off of 22 they make the right into the site here they'll come to this intersection and there's a sign that's going to be able to direct them to the left to the drive-thru and we're actually going to add you see these Chevrons on the plan those are going to be painted on the ground so there's typical Starbucks
Chevrons for their drive-through so people will realize that that that's the way to travel down the front of the Stone Tavern and they'll make a right into the drive-thru okay if they they come in let's see they miss the entrance they come in they'll take that um I'll say the offramp or the slight turn lane
here and make that right turn onto Morgan Lane and they'll come in the entrance here and they'll be directed same thing driveth through make a right they'll follow the Chevrons around and they'll enter into the drive-thru and when you have two people arriving roughly at the same time one is making a
left one is making a right into the drive-thru is that fair to say typic well this one will be in the right lane turning in already they have the right away and this one this car will have to just wait to make the turn okay but there should be minimal interaction here that should be relatively easy to do you know in terms of vehicle interaction in
the parking lot they'll be driving slow enough to do that um if they happen to miss this entrance as well so now they've missed the two of them and they they realize oh I still want to get my coffee they can come in this entrance here yes and we have signage that can take them around either the backside
here to the drive-thru or they can also follow the signage into a parking lot here and come around to the drivethru so we have that third option to come through this way thank you you're welcome will there be a sign that tells them there's an entrance from Morgan
Lane there's no proposed sign here from Morgan Lane the entrance sign is actually I should entrance sign the identification sign is out on Route 22 but by the time they get to this point you can see the Starbucks you come around the turn here you could you could see the entrance we don't feel the need to have a fourth sign along the road
identify the entrance you'll see the building and you'll see the site from there so the Starbucks sign will be after the entrance on 22 the Starbucks sign is after the first entrance there won't be any Starbucks sign there so
there's an existing billboard sign there now that does have a placard that may end up getting a Starbucks plaque on it it's it's an empty space on the identification sign but we are still proposing an additional sign here in front of the Starbucks building on the plan you're seeing the Morgan Lane ENT
is the primary entrance to the Starbucks is that safe to say no we're actually quite Frank I mean again depending on traffic distribution I don't want to get into the Traffic Engineers testimony on how that would work you've got two main entrances actually have three the 22 and the two on Morgan Lane and it just
depends on which way which one the customer decides to use I would think my own opinion would be they would probably come in 22 first once they get used to it being there for some customers but there's no one p I wouldn't call any one a primary entrance
they're all well the signage would kind of lend itself to indic you know if you're not familiar with it and the in this you know the primary large sign is after that entrance right on 22 and Morgan Lane's going to be the one most commonly used by people that weren't there for the correct they would first
time visitors would probably use the the Morgan Lane entrance all right any other board questions Rich you good I'm good board professionals thank you Mr chairman um just a a few questions I
think a lot of the the the items that were raised in my report um were covered by Mr michelo but um I I did raise one question about the the signage um and if you are deferring to the planner that's
fine I just wanted to address it as far as the site plan there's there's three uh signs the menu boards essentially that are not captured within the signage package as far as it relates to I the the actual allowances per the
ordinance um so I I wanted to see how to treat them I wanted to make sure that if it was a variance that was required that it gets covered now um you know one of them is quite large one of them is almost 30 square feet um I think a Preen
order board is 9 s ft and then the one with the canopy I believe it's like 9 s ft Plus the canopy so I just want to address those and see if they were how how we should treat those they're all still proposed right so we had originally uh gone through gosh probably
the second hearing we went through the sign package uh and uh our planner Mr Toby is going to go through each of the uh variances for each of the signs in terms of planning okay we didn't count them just a Henry's point we didn't count them as square footage because
they were they were the menu board signs and they weren't identification signs as to the property or directional signs for signage so You' only get to them when you get up to the drive-thru so they weren't they weren't counting in that original uh square footage number on the plans okay again my my concern and I
don't want to be signage to death when we have limited time but it's that it's almost what like 45 square feet of signage and it could get out of hand if they ever came back for New signage what's the limitation there is there a limitation so I'd rather think that
they're they're really ground mounted signs they're Digital Ground mounted signs capture them in the signage package in the allowances and address them as if it's a variance it's a variance based got ground mounted signage allowance um in a similar vein that canopy over the ordering point I don't
believe was was um the setback was addressed at least internally to the to the condo lot um as an accessory structure but it probably should and just eyeballing it it looks like it's like 30 38t or so I don't think that there's any relief required
um the canopy here you're talking about this canopy here on the plan one in the back correct correct yeah but I because it's internal to the condo to the overall lot I don't believe any actual variance relief for the lot would be required it's just capturing it as
internal to the condo lot on the zoning table okay yeah because it fits within the setbacks of the actual property itself correct we can identify it we can identify it on the zone table Yeah I think that'd be helpful just to get it in there okay um I I for now I don't
think I have anything else for this witness all right thank you Mr Burr thank you Mr chairman um Rob just a couple of questions the existing or the the proposed building in no way changes in size correct it's still the same size
as before the building itself is is the same we talked about the or you talked about the canopy yes reducing in size for the outside seating correct correct and that was originally proposed at 40 seats now it's down to 16 that is correct okay and the prior plan showed
two Drive aisles now you're proposing just one and the rationale behind that is there's more stacking provided internal on the site such that you don't need two Drive aisles that is correct so the two Drive aisles had about 24 25 cars now because we have the internal
drive lanes and not the driveway out to directly to 22 we can stack at least another 14 15 cars internal so we actually get more stacking than having the double drive-thru Lane and there's no longer a need for the drive a indicator light the on the the open
closed light correct that's off the that's off the table now just standard signage identifying the drive-thru and how to get to it do you know if the Fire official reviewed this latest plan and was satisfied his only comment was about an FDC connection but the building under
from what the architect testified to said it doesn't require a sprinkler system per code so we wouldn't have an FDC connection okay but in terms of the layout yeah he he didn't have any other no further no further comments yeah because him and I I spoke with him a while ago about the access around the building he was he was satisfied with
that we heard your testimony that storm water does not change lot coverage though decreases slightly that's correct G to go back into your memory bank for a second do you remember what the coverage the the approved coverage was as part of
the original site plan I believe it was 60.8% 60.8 your prior plan was 60.7 now you're at 60.4 correct yeah okay only talking you know maybe 1,200 sare F feet in total but it does bring that percentage down but the point being is you're lower now than you were at the
prior approval correct and the drainage that's proposed is still sufficient obviously correct a lower amount of with the actually with the change in the driveway um moving it from 20 to Morgan Lane we actually picked up slightly more Bas in volume like maybe two 3% because
it it moved to the uh to the to the high side over here okay very good thank you you're welcome thank you Mr chairman thank you Bill uh Maurice and I want to introduce the board to Maurice rashed from CER engineering our traffic engineer if you have any questions Now's the Time no questions at this time I
will wait for the traffic engineer thank you beautiful thank [Music] you question for you before we go on would you just cover cover how if we lost any pedestrian access or how you've addressed pedestrian access in light of the redesign um so pedestrian
connectivity is generally the same as it was before um we have of course the sidewalk and Patio in front of the Starbucks building um we now actually added these nine spaces um to the west of the building so those spaces and those patrons have direct access to the
sidewalk to the front of the building where we didn't have those before we still have the sidewalk that goes out the back of the site across crosswalk and then splits in the east and west direction towards the hotel site so if I want to go to the hotel I can go to the West cross the street here and it'll
eventually connect to the hotel sidewalk system if I want to go out to Morgan Lane I have two crosswalks that are at the intersection here and that will take you out to a sidewalk that connects to the existing sidewalk in Morgan lane and then there is a small crosswalk here in front of the drive-thru for these parking spaces on the east side of the
building that hasn't changed okay great thank you you're welcome all right we're going to open up to members of the public have questions on the testimony you've heard from Mr Mella all right seeing none we're going to close that portion thank you for the update thank you very much thank you rob
um my next witness is Elizabeth Dolan if you please come up Stan would you raise your right hand do you solemly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth the whole truth and the nothing but the truth so help you got yes I do and your full name for the record please
Elizabeth Dolan d o l a n thank you Miss Dolan if you would be so kind as to give the board your professional uh credentials including your education licenses held and uh qualifications relative to Prior acceptance as an expert in the area of traffic engineering yes I have a Bachelor of
Science degree in civil engineering from reders I am a licensed professional engineer registered and in good standing in New Jersey I'm also licensed in bring States for 39 years I've focused in the traffic engineering uh industry and have testified in over 300 municipalities
throughout New Jersey and been accepted as an expert in traffic engineering uh both representing applicants as well as reviewing applications on behalf of planning and zoning boards I'm also a member of The Institute of Transportation engineers and American Society of civil
engineers and you've been qualified and accept as an expert yes I have okay is your firm in Martinsville or is it in Somerville we're now in Somerville well now about 10 years it's been uh 181 West High Street 10 years I think so all right thank you very much we the board
accepts you as a licensed professional traffic engineer is that correct yes thank you Mr chairman and and who's the licensing authority over Traffic Engineers Mr Kent Smith so it's the State Board of Mr Mr Kent Smith all right whoever it's a is a licenser under
the State Board credential system I don't know what the statute number is you it's I don't know the statute number it's a State Board of Professional Engineers and land survey so it is it's it's board Engineers yes yes I'm a licensed professional engineer and I specialize in traffic engineering so I
want to ask this now before testimony because has nothing to do with anything it's merely for my education when something goes wrong and you testify as a traffic engineer how do boards handle it how do boards go back to an engineer whether it's traffic whether it's a survey
whether it's any sort of engineering and a traffic engineer makes a proclamation on the record into a microphone and it gets transcribed how does a board or a municipality or state have an ability to
go and have a corrective action to have that board professional that testified that put their license on the line that made a mistake theoretically and this has nothing to do with you how does the how does a board handle that how does a municipality handle that I think some boards well in my experience some
planning and zoning boards have put conditions on applications uh because traffic engineering is not an exact science we're making projections and estimates of driveway volumes and parking demands so sometimes we're asked to come back and study the um the post
occupancy maybe six or 12 months after a site opens count and see if the driveway projections were within a realistic um um estimate uh check and see if the parking demands were closed close to what had been estimated um and then of course the boards have their own
professionals to rely on and review our work often times uh like in this application we've got the state level we had to make submissions and I'll be testifying to that tonight or in many applications the county so we have those additional layers uh but in my experience to come back and check the
projections is is something that is written into a resolution I guess that's it for now thank you very much it was good answer uh so M uh Dolan Miss Miss Dolan did you
undertake an analysis of the projected traffic impact associated with this proposed development yes we did and our latest report is revised December 20 20124 um and the December 2024 submission and revision to the traffic
impact analysis accounts for the plan changes that are before the board tonight that is correct and the board had at that time a different engineering um company reviewing the traffic that was Bright View so some of the updates to the traffic study had been uh made to
address bright View's uh last review for this application and just for the record Bright View when we had the annual rollover we appointed call yours and Maurice as you can see here two I think both land use boards in Bridge order yes Mr all do you we need to Mark the
traffic report as a separate we do not okay it's in the record okay just want to make sure all right so um Miss Dolan did you um in your analysis just describe to the board what it is you looked at sure as I said this was a
revised report it had been uh revised uh previously um the initial submission was from April 2024 then we had a July uh 2024 update the the LA last and um final revision is December 20 2024 and that
latest revision is based on the site plan changes that Mr shello just um reviewed with you um and was generally consistent with um the prior versions but as I said had been expanded to include additional information that had
been requested in the Bright View uh review letters and as part of this analysis does that include doing counts of traffic on the adjoining Road system yes we had initially performed morning and evening weekday uh traffic counts at
Morgan Lane and Route 22 Eastbound And as part of the Bright View review they had asked for a Saturday uh analysis as well so the the the traffic counts performed by our office specifically for this application um go back to um March
2024 uh we counted from 7:00 to 9: in the morning that's the peak period we isolate the peak hour um and then 4: to 6:30 in the uh evening and even though Starbucks is more of a morning generator uh we did uh perform the analysis um
during the evening peak hour as well and then we updated the counts in uh June before school ended to capture the Saturday Peak period and that's generally late morning early evening so from these traffic counts we isolated the the highest one hour uh volumes and
those were recorded from 7:30 to 8:30 in the morning on a weekday 4 to 5 p.m. um weekday and then the Saturday highest uh hour counted was from 12 12 noon to 1 p.m. so then based on that
analysis do you then project the uh traffic anticipated from this proposed use onto the road system that's right and that's what I was saying earlier it's not an exact science but uh we have the actual counts as the foundation of the report those are are collected
traffic volumes we isolate the one peak hour um and then we estimate the driveway volumes and for the Starbucks with drive-thru there's a instit of Transportation Engineers uh land use it's called coffee donut shop with
drive-thru um and like any of the other land uses in the it trip generation manual uh the trip rates are based on counts conducted at actual facilities in this case Starbucks Tim Horton uh and most notably Duncan um and so there's a
category without drive-thru and with drive-thru the numbers are somewhat um comparable but uh for our do part of this analysis we are are obligated to use these it uh peak hour rates and
using those we estimate a total of 212 trips during the busiest one hour in the morning that's 108 in and 104 out uh again based on the the data that's been compiled by it and submitted by Traffic
Engineers like our office so 212 is the um morning peak hour drops down to about 96 48 in 48 out during the evening peak hour and then on Saturday the peak hour volumes are comparable to what you get in the morning on a weekday 109 and 108
out for a total of 217 so those numbers are the numbers that are presented for trip estimates driveway volumes uh that would be expected during the highest peak hour we combine them with the highest uh count
hours and that represents a worst case there's certainly traffic generated before and after 7:00 in the morning after 8:00 in the morning um and throughout the day um as well as on the weekends but we're we're focusing on a combination of peak hour volumes based
on actual traffic counts and then Peak projections of the busiest driveway hours at the Starbucks so those are the the volumes that were used and we'll get into some of the dot stuff in a little while but um for both the report that's been submitted to the board as well as
for um communication back in and forth with DOT about permitting and possible permitting exemptions those are the numbers that we're using uh some of the it data and face-to-face interviews we've collected um such data at convenience type uses
this is considered a convenience use uh they like to locate on busy streets because traffic that's already passing by will be diverted in um and Route 22 is carrying uh 3 to 4,000 vehicles in those busy as peak hours based on our
most recent counts uh which are down somewhat from prior counts that we had from this location um but there's certainly a good stream of traffic passing by this site and so um many convenience uses like gas stations fast
food restaurants um convenience stores they like to be on busy corridors because 50 to 60% at least of the driveway volumes those 200 um you know 100 in and 100 out will say in round numbers um a lot of that is derived from
the traffic flowing past the site so there's certainly a good volume passing the site and again the it data would indicate that uh anywhere from 50 to 66% of the peak hour volume would be drawn from in this case the Route 22 traffic
passing the site now just a a side to contrast that then to for example what is a use permitted in the zone for example an office building or medical uh office building or what had been previously
approved a uh child educational center sure would they create more new trips on the roadway or are they also just picking people off from the highway well for the previously approved GD school at this location that would depend upon where the parents are working um and so
maybe they would divert to 22 to drop off the children here but you're going to have that pickup drop off in the morning pickup drop off in the evening with comparable volumes and we had in our study for that uh 123 um total driveway movements for the
evening peak hour um for an office use those you don't get these the passby trips those are destination trips uh an office would probably generate lower volumes uh but it would be dependent upon the size of the uh of the office
the hotel uh with that had been approved that still isn't built uh 46 peak hour trips so um it's a little bit higher but the the volume is a lot of it coming from the traffic already passing by the site on Route 22 and and eventually when
the hotel is built there should be some interaction between the restaurants and the hotel uh we did uh run some of those calculations but an internal credit of only Seven Trips as as a maximum resulted so really we're looking at all
of these driveway volumes as uh new to the driveway system and the Morgan Lane intersection at eastbound Route 22 then what's your next step of analysis so the next step of the analysis is the level of service um
calculation and um we ran the um the right turn from Morgan Lane onto eastbound Route 22 as part of our analysis and we also analyzed the um the site driveway um and we do a before and after
we we take a projection into the future with some background traffic growth compounded over a few years traffic from the mixed use development next door um we added that traffic and then do a before and after analysis of what happens at the um at the adjacent
intersection and then what happens at the site driveway so referring to figures eight and nine of the latest traffic study we show the levels of service for um the peak hours so I'll start with the morning
Peak hour uh level of service C which is right in the middle of the scale I'm sure the board has heard that testimony about level of service before um that's an average delay on unsignalized of um 20 to 35 seconds so it's C in the
morning from Morgan on to eastbound 22 with or without the Starbucks traffic it's D which is the uh 35 to 55 average delay in seconds uh for the vehicles exiting toout 22 so we have a D in the
morning I'm sorry D in the evening peak hour with or without the Starbucks traffic and on the Saturday because there's less traffic on 22 and on Morgan Lane we have a level of service b as in boy for the no build and then when we add the Starbucks traffic we add uh we
go to to a level of service C uh these are typical levels of service for a highway Corridor uh many driveways operated d& uh dot won't allow us to get to an F which is the bottom of the scale and that's typically when you start to
need um improvements um so the level of service analysis for the intersection shows only a few added seconds of delay and that's again on average for the vehicles that are at the stop sign waiting to turn on to um 22 for the site
driveway uh on 22 the exit um and that's the existing driveway that that is is right in right out we've got a C and the morning peak hour D in the evening peak hour which is what we got at Morgan Lane and a c for the Saturday peak hour um
the critical uh movement for the driveway on Morgan Lane would be the left turn exiting uh that new driveway that we're proposing is right in only that's unimpeded so that doesn't get a level of service analysis but the left out has to cross with the traffic
two-way on Morgan Lane um but that calculates that level of service a dur during all of the peak hours analyzed um so the level of service calculation before and after uh shows the nominal impact to Morgan Lane I would point out
that consistent with the highway access permitting for the um the garded school uh we looked at the the split the distribution of traffic and and I know Mr michelo took you through some of the um the signage onsite we did uh route
the majority of our site traffic out to Morgan Lane um I'm sorry out to the Route 22 egress directly um and as relates to the I 287 ramp uh about 900
ft past that driveway it's about a 50-50 split if you take all the volumes we counted and then you see how much goes on to 287 versus travels through East on 22 it's roughly 5050 um and so we assigned our site traffic that way as well um and so
if you want me to get into the do permitting as related all these volumes yeah sure right we did we looked at that weave and again that goes back to the Bright View review uh they were interested in the additional traffic that would be using that right in right
out driveway in front of the restaurant and the possible um volume that might go over to get to the 287 ramp so we analyzed that um movement as well and that came out again at the um low
service C or better uh for that weaving movement um I would point out that it's an existing configuration I I know I handled and I don't know how many years ago it was but the access application and the local application for the hotel
and Starbucks U I'm sorry the hotel and the restaurant and um dot didn't make us do anything at that time but probably more interesting and important is that before we decide decied to close the recently constructed driveway on the
what had been The Goddard site which is now the Starbucks site we had filed a request with NJ doot for a letter of no interest um for the Starbucks and that was granted uh in October so more recently we have been
getting Dot's requests for things like weave calculations and analyses uh even though there is no uh need for an access permit so they did not raise that issue uh when we filed most recently and that that filing was made at the beginning of
August before we returned uh you know our last hearing here and then they um got back to us in October uh saying that no additional analysis was required uh so it's an existing condition we recognize it um it's three lanes I travel that quor pretty much every day
and I I know how how some drivers operate but in terms of the ability to move over one lanee uh We've looked at the gaps in all the videos and of course I've been there many times um and the formal analysis shows an acceptable uh
level of service for that weave so at the dot level they have been satisfied with what is higher trip generation of course associated with the Starbucks uh because we had processed the application for The Goddard School um and they did
not require any additional permitting or analysis now that said we will now be closing that driveway so we will be revisiting dot to get the formal approval to close the driveway that was recently somewhat recently constructed
um that that has to be removed and that can only be done through an access permit process so in terms of that because the board's concern was related to how the drive-thru stacking and that entrance off of Route 22 could be in conflict
as the drive-through stack potentially would go into the access aisle it could create a condition in which the Route 22 exit entering traffic would become in Conflict from your professional experience and your opinion does the
removal of that proposed Route 22 driveway address that concern well it absolutely does and I think and as we pointed out in our report there's there's certainly a height a heightened attention to drive-throughs now because of Co and what happened during Co and I
know there were many sites that I would pass by where that drive-through queue would spill out onto the road because it couldn't be contained in the site itself so we've eliminated that Ingress driveway and so we've eliminated the potential for any Q to spill back out
onto 22 um as Rob had said we can get 15 or 16 in the designated drive-through Lane and that's I think there was some testimony at the last hearing that 9 to 10 is a typical Q at Star bucks 14 to 15 operationally would be their Max so
we've got 15 to 16 in that lane but then beyond that if if you look to what happens between the drive-through entrance and that existing right in right out driveway that's in front of the restaurant we can get another 12 to
15 cars there uh as as you look in the opposite direction you know coming in off of what is now the proposed right turn entrance driveway we can get about seven cars between the drive-through entrance and that new Ingress only
driveway coming in off of Morgan Lane and if you wrap it around up to where the existing driveway is that would be in you know basically in front of the hotel you can get another seven or eight there so I think the capacity to queue on site is well beyond what would ever
be expected at this location but to your point there would be no spillover onto the roadway system because nobody's going to be waiting in a Starbucks drive-thru um after 15 Vehicles it's uh it's a little longer than than some fast
food restaurants and I think it becomes somewhat self- policing there's plenty of parking around the um entire building and with mobile app ordering you know that's a that's a um a quick uh Park and walk in get your order and leave they can go through the drive-thru but it's
it's a longer wait um than is necessary so I think we've um adequately addressed the concern about um potential spill out onto Route 22 there's there's no way and even the introduction of the Right End driveway
from Morgan Lane there would be over 20 cars waiting before that driveway would be blocked so I don't see there being any uh negative impact with the access design with regard to spill over from the drive-thru now one of the changes that we made because we removed the
access from uh Route 22 is we were able to add believe Mr Michelle has testified to nine additional parking spaces immediately against the building itself uh from a traffic design perspective is it is that a benefic beneficial to the
site well sometimes I I know there's there have been in my experience concerns about people crossing over the drive-thru exit Lane which um that's a that's a very common design and it is incorporated into this plan as well um but those nine spaces are directly
adjacent to the west side side of building and and the sidewalk system so they would not be crossing the drive-thru those those folks that Park in those spaces they're walking directly onto the sidewalk um and into the building um and with regard then to the
um overall site circulation that uh you've reviewed the site plan Mr Michelle has testified would you agree with his testimony that it is designed in a way to handle the loading the trash removal Etc in a in a safe and adequate
manner safe and adequate and also as is typical for these types of facilities and I know that um Rob's office has has done the truck circulation um test to make sure that the uh trash pickup can happen and so forth but generally the
dimensions on the plan are consistent with recognized design criteria um and designed not only to promote safe and efficient circulation but with visibility throughout the site to clearly see the entrance to the drive-thru there's
the bypass of the drive-thru which is a bonus it's not a must but it's certainly um comfortable um and that I would consider a bonus in terms of the site uh design but overall incorporating the existing access system
uh to serve the Starbucks is a goal of traffic management and that's certainly Do's preferences for shared access so I I think we've done a good job um by eliminating that Ingress driveway that had just been approved um and
constructed so then uh to summarize in your professional opinion is the proposal before this board tonight uh will it have any detrimental impact on the adjoining Road system no I don't believe it will uh the we're taking
advantage of the existing site access system we're closing up the driveway that had been um approved recently um we've introduced a right in only driveway that gives the Starbucks customers ready access to this portion of the overall development as I said
that's an unimpeded movement right turn in um Rob had taken you through the modifications to the existing driveway system to further deter the right turn out on Morgan Lane um we want it you know there's signage there's the
modification of the um Island and the uh curb radi uh so I think that in addition to um following the recognized design criteria we've we've cleaned up the site quite a bit and I as I had testified a few minutes ago I don't see the
drive-thru queue ever reaching the either the Morgan lane or the Route 22 driveways I have no further questions for M all right thank you board questions please M Dolan um one of the things I'm concerned about is traffic
leaving the site and trying to get back on Route 287 Southbound um I understand there's going to be signs on site pointing people to the Westerly entrance and exit for 287
correct that's correct yes there aren't there going to be some people especially people after they if I if I read that sheet correctly after they make their pickup the easiest way for
them that's not where they get their food they're going to pick up right they're going to okay from there yeah wouldn't the easiest way for them despite the exit to 287 signs wouldn't the easiest way for them to go back out
onto Morgan Lane and make a left on Morgan lane and then try to shoot over the Route 22 East traffic to get to the 287 southbound entrance I I don't I don't really think so they're going to they're going to pick up they're going to come to the end of the drive-thru and what you're suggesting is they all the
way back up towards the no no no that's not what I'm suggesting and maybe I'm misreading your the slide but if they pick up they travel South a little ways and make a rightand turn before that before that before that can't you can't
you can't that's a curved island with landscaping and there's a sidewalk Crossing so there's no way you can do that so how how would they if they were looking for a way back to 287 and they either didn't see your son signs or they decided they were going to ignore them and find their own way how would they go
back to 287 well I I think the easiest way and the sign is here that they would come back through in front of the restaurant and use the driveway that is existing the the right in right out driveway because that gives you then 900 feet as
opposed to just shy of 400 feet if you try and merge over from Morgan so I mean I watched a lot of the count videos uh in addition to through this Corridor all the time I only saw one vehicle make the
merge over from Morgan Lane um did they survive that it was morning peak hour too um but when when you sit and watch the videos you do see the gapping that happens I mean we talked about the levels of service calculated for that Morgan Lane
approach when you watch the videos you can see most of the time you have one maybe two cars waiting to get into the 22 flow the most I ever saw was four and by the time the fourth one came the first one was going so I it's I I I would think that if somebody is not
familiar with the area maybe they would try to do that but that's why we have the signage is to get them over to the West so they have the time to make that lane merge in your opinion is there anything else that could be done to
further encourage people to use the the W the Westerly entrance exit to get back to 287 anything else I I think the signage is is really the appropriate um means to do that
because when you're when you're leaving the drive-thru you're at a stop point the sign's right across from you I would think that a lot of people using this location are going to be commuters um and familiar with the area I think it's someone who may not be as familiar that
might try to recirculate but I I do think that it almost to me feels like you're going backwards uh to come down Morgan Lane but I do I do feel that the signage is is the right thing at this location so you don't think there's anything else that could be done to discourage that
traffic well we've already looked at the Morgan Lane movements and we don't want the traffic going to the residential area which is that's that goes back to the hotel and restaurant application so um the only
other you know we could we could put another sign up in this area um where the Eastern circulation aisle meets the existing uh Drive aisle and put a sign there to to head to the right to get to
287 I mean I I my fear is that somebody is going to wind up on Morgan Lane trying to make a right-hand turn on to 22 and then cross over three lines of traffic to get on to 287 and they're going to wind up dead I'm just trying to
feel is if and and if your opinion is there's nothing else that we can do to discourage that fine that's your opinion I like I said so if I could interject because I just talked to the design engineer um since we are going to be coming back we are looking at there is
another option but we can't commit to anything until we actually sit down and draw it out and see how that impacts and get the the the thumbs up that we can do that but I hear what the concern is and uh I would trust by now we take everything this board says very
seriously and we will we've already started noodling what might be able to accomplish the goal that you have stated which is don't let them go out that way okay thank you Mr chairman may I have for please a suggestion and it's by no
means the only the only way or the solution but um in listening to uh Miss jolan's traffic testimony you know a lot of it is behavior right um so people learn Behavior so the first time they won't do it again but you don't want that mistake to be made and anything bad
to happen but um one of the things and this comes up a lot now with technology is um if an application has some restrictions on turn movements on things like that sensitive Ingress egress to the site is if it is approved that it would be their responsibility to contact
Google or ways and to basically make it so that if someone plugs it in their GPS exiting the site it will never take them to the Morgan land entrance out so if a driver has a waypoint set on 287 South as a destination we would alert Google and whatever Drive Garmin the Stone
Tavern it would make sure that they took the exit if they're following the directions out in front of the Stone Tavern it's a great idea you think Mr Kent Smith oh absolutely this is a very good point by the way and I want to add to um what's been discussed that the sign that is
proposed is a very good sign is well placed however it is small the whole sign is 18 in and when you're looking at it from uh let's say 30 ft or so it's very small and I did some quick Cals uh
on an 18inch sign the lettering height is probably 3 in so what I recommend is to increase the size of that sign so that we can use four or 5 in lettering on that sign which actually is the
normal type of U lettering size used on small roadways and I'm sure the applicant should be meable to that that would design exception because as long as you meet uniforms one more at this point just letting everybody know all
right thank you thank you Maurice I have a question on the traffic uh numbers you have so I'm looking at the 20126 build traffic volumes okay um you have 133 cars is turning right onto Morgan Lane and 106 cars this is the
morning entering the site for Morgan Lane by the the Starbucks um then you have 94 cars exiting by The Tavern is that correct yes okay so you're going to have 94 cars per
hour speeding up to get on to 287 22 and 287 and then you're going to have 133 cars slowing down do you see I don't do the level of service consider that sort of you know traffic with different you know kind of one's
accelerate one's decelerating um it it's not so much a level of service issue as it is a DOT design uh issue do doesn't want any hesitation on their highways um and so the requirement is a minimum of 100 feet of spacing from um an
intersection to a driveway and we've got well in excess of that and now we're taking out that driveway that had been constructed so um the there's there is a natural expectation of crossover or slight weaving um as well uh but the the
formal weave analysis with the 287 with the much higher volumes came in at level of service C in the middle of the scale so um this type of configuration would be expected to work acceptably yeah so you see no safety concerns of
accelerating traffic and decelerating traffic it happens at driveways and intersections all over and in fact if you've got um subsequent driveways or um driveways closer to intersections you know I think about it you may be waiting to turn left or I'm sorry like in this
case maybe you're waiting to turn right off a Morgan Lane and you see somebody with their blinker on to turn right well they're going to be a few hundred feet away if they're turning into the existing right in right out driveway as opposed to what you could have at like um an oldfashioned gas station where the
driveway right up uh at the intersection and you don't know if somebody's turning onto the street or into that driveway so this to me with the um it's it's several hundred feet of spacing between Morgan Lane and the um and the driveway the
other thing too is that the uh Starbucks is not busy in the evening when the restaurant will be busy so you kind of have that good balance too um you've got uh more traffic exiting the driveway in the morning because of the Starbucks um
but then you don't have the Starbucks addition during the evening peak hour when the restaurant's busier and the restaurant is is that a a breakfast restaurant as well no no lunch and dinner so it's just the Starbucks morning traffic would not be competing with the restaurant that's correct so
it's a nice um complimentary use um in in consideration of the the peaking characteristics of this versus the restaurant so just follow my follow up on that is we did discuss about the Starbucks being closer to Morgan Lane which would kind of have folks naturally
kind of turn on Morgan Lane would it be a safer design if the signage was farther west on 22 such that traffic is taking that right in right out um and you know entrya that correct the the right in
right out would it be a safer design if if if it was influenced signage was placed there to direct traffic to try to enter that point understanding you do have entr on Morgan Lane but if it had signed closer West you know would would you consider that a safer design I don't
know that it would be safer I think that this site is visible it's going to have its identity not just by a sign but also the building and and so forth um and I do think that a lot of the customers are going to be coming from that traffic already traveling on 22's commuter
Corridor um and the folks are going to be generally familiar with this um I don't know know if perhaps an additional um like ID sign for the entrance at that location uh that might be something more for Rob michelo to address but I don't
see it as being a safety issue because the driveway is there um and the um again the intersection is uh is spaced far enough from that driveway that it exceeds all of the dot criteria and again DOD didn't see a
safety issue with this um through the submission of all the same number crunches that was in our report that went to do um for this Starbucks evaluation as well okay thank you welcome other board
questions all right um I have a few questions uh Morgan lean what's the speed limit on Morgan Lane five would you classify that as a residential Road yes can you and if you can't we have Katherine there maybe can help us what
are the regulations in Bridgewater on a residential road is it even allowed to have access to a commercial site like this I I can't answer that I don't cther any any feel for residential Road serving a commercial entity of of this size is this even allowed under master plan
[Music] rules I mean this m uh Mr chairman when we were before another board I'll be it but also on the original application with the hola hands and the hotel together before this site even got on to
the map okay that driveway had been proposed approved and built from the planning board right that they would have jurisdiction over that driveway because it is a municipal roadway all right so let me rephrase would would you characterize Morgan Lane as a
residential Road well certainly to the south of this area certainly um residential we've got commercial on the 22 we've got the Jiffy Lube across the street they've got got a driveway un um and just I I'll let Katherine speak but
the state highway access management code does give dot the authority to require access on a municipal or County Road uh in addition to the state highway access that that's more my question so the dot has
basically subverted any any master plan allowances that we've made locally yeah there's a provision in the code that specifically says that dot has the jurisdiction over access and um I would tell you that in today's do world uh because this is several years old now do
would not allow the Restriction that is on that Morgan Lane driveway because for the very reason we want traffic to distribute uh and I understand because I was here you know for that application we didn't want to have the commercial traffic on the residential Road however
doot their operating procedure now would make that full movement so that you don't have to force people to Adamsville to hit 22 that the traffic can distribute so that's kind of do's end of the um the the answer as to what they
call alternative access on on the side street okay thank you that's a good transition to my next question you know call it a half mile 3/4 a mile Morgan lane from Route 22 going South to Route 28 would you characterize the majority of the of the activity as residential on
that street aside from the Jiffy Lube which you just mentioned yeah right okay so it's over 90% we're going to call it a residential Road I mean I I don't know how much traffic I'll say cuts through you know from the 28 quor to to 22 and vice versa you know there's there's certainly some of that just we're in
agreement that sounds like that this is a 25 M per hour residential street sure yeah okay great so on page six of your document uh basically in uh you know you opened up tonight's testimony by I'll use a quote it's not in exact science um
so Page Six the software has certain inherent limitations in that it cannot take into consideration that most motorists regularly use the flared shoulder of Route 22 as an acceleration Lane to more efficiently merge with traffic onto
Route 22 sorry where is this not I'm on page six of December 20th 2024 your document and it says page six at the bottom okay oh I see the software has certain yeah okay got it got it all right so
what I saw today and I I sat for about an hour in my Jeep basically parked where your Starbucks is proposed and I just watched and every single person that I saw in that 55 minutes to an hour that I was there utilized the shoulder as an acceleration lean so my question
to you is if the software you use to generate your analysis this level of service which frankly seems like a mystery to me but nonetheless your software has inherent limitations in it so how do we truly know that your level of service C in the morning or your
level of service D in the evening I'm not finished is accurate being that has inherently inherently limitated in that it cannot take into consideration that most motorists use the flared shoulder right so the the shoulder is
being used for Axel Dell right and the software you put in the lane configuration we got a lot of Lan in here I'm one of them so Excel desel acceleration and deceleration yes correct okay all right thank you so the the software you input the lane
configuration which across the front edge and across Morgan Lane is three lanes the Middle Lane splits to either go to 287 or continue East so we plug in three lanes and that doesn't include the
shoulder which if you sit there and I've been watching the videos again in preparation for tonight you do see the use of the shoulder to decelerate into the site driveway decelerate into Morgan lane and then depending upon the people
what they want to do when they're leaving Morgan Lane they're most of them I see gun it and then get into that outside Lane as opposed to using the shoulder which was it's tapered in its Str striping uh so it's not a full
shoulder at Morgan Lane as you entered 22 so the I'll say the results I would consider to be a little bit on the more conservative side but this is the recognized methodology God bless you um
for analysis and had do requested the analysis this is what we would have given them so it's the software that we use but it's not perfect and that's why we we also visit the site and watch and see what happens and it's great the way
we're Counting Cars these days because we've got the videos to go back to and that's what I'm saying is when you sit there and watch over an extended period of time you do see the gaps in traffic that let people come out of Morgan lane or let people come out of the the site
driveway um as opposed to when you're a a a driver going through this Corridor or maybe coming up Morgan Lane to turn right and you get a little frustrated but based on everything I've SE seen the level of service CD make sense and that's also consistent with most
driveway analyses we see on on 22 throughout not just Bridgewater but 22 is a pretty busy road yeah but you know traffic is kind of life and death and it's to use something and to sit here and say you know it's a conservative analysis but it's inherently has limits
in it I mean this is life and death this is my 17-year-old new driver hopping on your street that you designed that you testified here five times or we've had five five hearings you know at what point you know does a piece of software in an algorithm with you know I guess you dropped in
your total trip on Route 22 heading west to east of 3,637 you drop it into the software you model up the lanes and you say okay this is a c it pops out of the other end of the software but you know when we're dealing with life and death at what point does it give you pause you know to Mr sweny's questions at what
point you know it's scary going trying to get over to 287 and I know you can't engineer out bad decisions and I'm not asking you to do that but when something has inherent limitations when I see that footnote and and I thank you I think that's incredibly honest that you put that in your report I'm grateful for
that but at what point does a a board of of of layman that you know we have nowhere near your expertise you know do we say okay let's let's do this and that's what I'm struggling with and and and Mr Ken Smith your applicant was wonderful in redesigning this and we've really been tough on you last five
hearings but I think you hear us and I know you do that it's about safety and it's about the neighborhood it's about the people that live on Morgan Lane so we we got one of them we can check one box that you have testified and and I think you've done an adequate job in saying that we're not going to have spill out to Route 22 but now how do we
protect Morgan Lane and the people that are going to be accelerating on 22 and try and cowboy it up to 287 South so Mr chairman that exact issue Mr Sweeney you brought that up as well is what and again this is a five second
conversation with the design engineer but he gave me an immediate oh yeah we could do this now I can't represent to this board what it is exactly because we haven't designed it but we hear you loud and clear you want to eliminate to the greatest extent possible any traffic
from this site going out to Morgan Lane definitely that we hear it we're going to work on it we hope to have a submission back to this board in short order to address that concern well and the other thing is when you say level of
service C out of a piece of software that has inherent limitations that gives me pause how do we make sure that this can we model up an acceleration Lane and between now and the next heing I mean they have algorithms for everything
now and does it take into account someone's holding a cup of coffee 90% sugary drink cup of coffee got something in their hands no there two there's two options okay so um I so so there's there's an existing condition
that is a very real situation and it's the proximity of Morgan Lane to that split and do hasn't through our submissions seen that to be a concern that's not to suggest that it's not because I have seen people
make that move I am troubled by the way people are driving since covid I am all over 22 and I am appalled I am passed on the right on the shoulders where three lanes are opening up in the vicinity of
Chimney Rock or uh the overpass at uh just before vosler people are passing me in the right lane that Chimney Rock when they're coming down and they're merging from the left they're blowing through it is insanity what is going on and I can't
drive the cars but we can certainly look at re-engineering our site we can look at the signage and so forth that that um your your consultant has talked about um and as to the intersection configuration um I I don't right now have an answer
because that would seem like a lot of engineering and it's something that would really be up to do um and so I'll I'll I'll stop there yeah because I I think Mr chairman Mr the rest of members of the board you know I think we can
accomplish we can't ever do everything 100% but we can accomplish a great great deal of reduction of any potential traffic from this site going on Morgan Lane I'm you know I've now heard a third option that we are going to be exploring
so I hear the board I hear you loud and clear it's our intent to when we come back to have an answer well Maurice if you don't mind I'd like to open it up to members of the public for questions and then after that I'll come back to you and our board professional so uh members of the public
you came out tonight I want to make sure you can participate we have about 20 minutes just under 20 minutes I see Mr singer approaching good evening Mr singer if we just have your name and address please for the record Steven Singer 11 Kelly Court Bridgewood New
Jersey um and chairman F do I address the board or do I address the you can ask questions it's not time to address anybody yeah ask questions questions on the traffic stat at this point at the end you can make a statement as long as you want that's why I asked I appreciate it thank
you 11 Kelly Court Bridgewood in New Jersey which I will note is one of the cross streets that comes right from Oregan Lane which is why I'm here because it's I I appreciate you hearing them and I appreciate all of the questions that you have all asked um I can't make statements up now so I'm not
going to do that right now um what I heard before was that there is basically no way for them to turn left onto Morgan Lane once they're done with the the Starbucks is that correct the the existing driveway uh will remain
but it will be improved if you're exiting towards Morgan Lane you're only allowed to turn left to go back to 22 right that that's what I thought the configuration was um but the impression that I got was that you think that most people aren't going to go that
way is that correct uh well we have again we've modeled it but we have sent sent a lot of our traffic exiting back to the existing driveway on 22 all right I mean so as someone that has lived there I've seen uh the traffic that came off of Hol hands never came to complain
about that uh but when you have you said 15 potential cars in your queue most of whom are going to take the path of least resistance which would be that exit right there what I'm concerned about is the backup onto Morgan Lane that's going to happen because of the 35 to 55
seconds per car that it's going to take to turn from Morgan Lan on to Route 22 you multiply that by the 10 to 15 people and now we're looking at a 10 to 15 minute backup at any given time on a residential Road where people are trying to get
off right the um the the increase in traffic on the Morgan Lane approach to eastbound 22 is between 27 and 59 vehicles in in the peak hours so in the worst case on the
Saturday it's about another car per minute that might be added to that movement and again that's the movement from Morgan laye on to 22 the worst case is on a Saturday I'm more concerned about the 7:30 to 8:30 on a week so the
additional um activity on the morning peak hour is 42 and the evening peak hour 27 so you're anticipating that 42 cars per hour will add on to Morgan Lan at that point during the busiest morning peak hour yeah right which again can
create anywhere between 20 to 40 minutes worth of backup well it doesn't quite work that way because when when you sit and watch the traffic as I testified earlier most of the time you see one or two cars that might be waiting and they're waiting for that that traffic in the outside Lane to to pass by to get
into into the uh into the Stream So when we look at the average delay that um is calculated and it it comes out to about another two to three seconds of of average delay okay um so you said you
know the one to two cars that are currently making that as Mr fuss mentioned this is a residential road so those are only residential cars that are doing that you're anticipating adding about four times as many cars per hour to that area based on the addition of the Starbucks uh but that's fine I
understand your point about that um so are you expecting that no one traveling on on 22 heading toward 27 is going to see Starbucks and be like oh let me cross the three lanes to Starbucks well I think between you know we talked a little bit about GPS and and and so forth I think a lot of people are
looking if they're if they're not familiar with the corridor and what's available um then they're probably gpsing where to get coffee and and this isn't the only game in town there's there's you know sites East and West and on 28 we were just talking about um and so depending upon where they're coming
from um I would think that if they're if they're not familiar with the fact that the Starbucks is here they're going to be looking for coffee or food and GPS will help them get there okay the last one I have is that you you mentioned that the Gard would be comparable to Starbucks in terms of of volume is that
only for that peak hour in the morning and that peak hour in the afternoon because Starbucks to me seems to generate traffic throughout the entirety of the day yeah I was I was speaking to the peak hour volumes that were used in the garded report versus the current report before the board whatever traffic
The Goddard would have would have created uh really would have only been during those two hours but but Starbucks would have been during the entirety of the day well and and both of them would be generating driveway volumes throughout the day because the garded um has dismissals that start midday and go
throughout the day so so it's not to suggest that it would just be the two peak hours but I would agree with you that the Starbucks overall is going to generate higher driveway volumes thank you all of your questions lessen mine greatly so thank you all thank you
other members of the public questions all right seeing none going to go back to board professionals and you guys can all right Maurice grabs the microphone U Miss Dolan good evening thank you for the testimony I have a few questions for you um let's start with
the level of service which you talked a lot about but I think the board and the public is still probably not unsure as far as what makes a level of service a A or B or C or D and what does it mean and
how do you go from A to B from B to C and C to D can you please explain to the board how does it work and keep it simple please sure so we're talking about a grading system it's a lot like school with the difference being that
levels of service D and E are okay uh whereas you wouldn't want to get D's and E well there is no e you're going right to F but it's based upon it's based upon the average delay that a vehicle and uh experience a driver experiences as they
wait to make a turn so level of service a for unsignalized which is what we're studying here 0 to 10 seconds of average DeLay So some Vehicles may wait a second some may wait up at the top of that scale is 10 level of service B 10 to 15
seconds average delay per vehicle level of service C which is what we're talking about in our study 15 to 25 seconds of average delay um and then D which we've got a couple of those 25 to 35 so it's based upon the the average delay and that's combination of the Turning
vehicles and in this case the through vehicles on Route 22 East okay thank you so the criteria is the average delay correct so the average delay is for example 30 seconds that would put you in the d as in David category right that's
right okay and if it increases by 10 seconds that would put you into an e category that's right yes and if it goes above 50 seconds it puts you in an F category and that's what I said DT will not allow for a new driveway correct okay so can you talk about the queuing
and give the public and the board a better idea of how many cars you expect the queue to increase by when you compare existing to propose are we going to have one more car two more cars que if you have that information readily available
sure um I can tell you that the well let me start with because the concern seems to be uh the approach on Morgan Lane as you turn right on to 2 correct so so we talked about the the no build to the build condition um being a level of
service C in the morning and with the additional site traffic we're only adding 2.3 seconds of delay in the morning peak hour can you give us the seconds can you put them on the record how many existing how many proposed okay sure so this is the morning peak
hour uh 15.7 under the no build condition and then 18 seconds which is an increase of 2.3 seconds during the morning peak hour that keeps us in the level of service C range okay so no build meaning Starbucks doesn't exist
and build meaning Starbucks is open and operating that is correct okay for the evening peak hour 26.5 without Starbucks which is a d and then when we add the Starbucks traffic we go to 29.1 which is still a d and
it's an increase of 2.6 seconds of average delay per vehicle during the Saturday peak hour no build level of service B at 13.8 and then with the addition of the Starbucks traffic it goes to 15.4 which
is just over the level of service C threshold and that's an increase of 1.6 seconds of average DeLay So the queuing while it it may sound like another vehicle per minute is all of a sudden going to add queuing the calculated queue results don't don't um they don't
double for example they're they're staying at the 1 to two range okay uh as far as access on Morgan Lane um you have two driveways you have a right end which is approximately maybe 150 ft into
Morgan lane and then in another 200 ft you have another um uh driveway feeding the site that has an entrance and an exit why do you need two entrances on on Morgan Lane and can the
site operate with only one can we close off the first one and if not why not uh sure I I think that when we were here back in August it was it was very clear that there was a concern about the the the newly constructed Gard driveway the
entrance only on 22 um and that creating a spillover potentially of queuing onto the highway so when we eliminated that for I'll say ease of access to this pad portion of the overall development uh track we
looked at at that right in only to get the Starbucks customers in a little quicker um as I had said during my direct testimony it's an unimpeded movement um I think it can from a capacity perspective certainly be
accommodated at the existing right in left out driveway on Morgan Lane okay we talked about the split of uh traffic between Morgan and the driveway um to the West the right in right out on
22 to the west and I think we you you told the board a little bit about the split but can you go over it one more time what do you expect uh the split of traffic uh as soon ass uming everyone um observes the sign and makes
a left which I think most people do not everybody will but most people will what do you think that split would be in terms of numbers uh and the reason I'm asking um so that we come to the exact number or as much exact as possible that
is going to end up on Morgan uh Lane okay sure um so of the again for this the modeling of the the Starbucks and to load up the Morgan Lane intersection for the purposes of analysis we routed all of the Starbucks entering
traffic to turn right onto Morgan lane and then turn right into the Starbucks pad uh for the exiting yeah we had about 70 75% exiting to the right in right out driveway to the West on 22 in front of
the the uh restaurant site um with the balance 25% exiting left onto Morgan Lane to then turn right on 22 and I'm assuming you base that on the trip
pattern on the highway between 22 and and 287 right and yes and recognizing as I said earlier we counted the split um of eastbound traffic that continues East or goes to uh 287 and it's it's roughly 50/50 okay okay that's all I have for
now Mr chairman all right thank you Maurice all right we're going to pause here we're going to pick it up here at our next meeting um thank you for accommodating us with the split meeting I know it's inconvenience but why don't we get with Nancy and get you another date I when you can come back are we
finished with this witness I don't think we are I think Katherine Bill well Mr chairman because we i' I've already noodled out with the client and the engineer we probably will have Miss Dolan available just to address the fact that we are making some modifications
they will have hope positive positive impact but all right so we will bring her back Nancy what's our next available date to continue Starbucks May 13th Mr chairman May 13th Mr chairman if you
would be so kind as to announce that yep yep so for members of the public this uh this hearing is now concluding for this evening it will continue on May 13th at 700 p.m. in this room and there will be no further notices from the applicant okay all right we're going to take a
quick break one me come back Mr chairman I'm sorry oh please because if we're going to do this I have to have Mr Toby available and he's going to be out of the country is there another date maybe into June or I'm sorry but no no no problem so
don't leave yet don't leave June 10th June 10th are you going to be [Laughter] back well no no no that was being does the 10th work June June 10th we're we're checking on right now you're [Music]
available we're all good then if you could re announce for yes all right so again for for members of the public this hearing will continue on June 10th at 700 p.m. in this room with no further notices from the P from the applicant all right thank you Mr chairman and board members just so you know I am
retiring fully on April 1st so my partner Mr Chang will be taking this application to through wow but I'm I'm done uh best to you in retirement and uh thank you for all the collaboration over the years last year but I was cajoled
into seeing if I could get get this one across whatever you choose to do golf grandkids whatever godspeed and all the yeah good luck thank you and Henry I just want to add the profession will miss you you're an excellent attorney that's nice thank you all right
we we're gonna it's 8:38 we're going to come back at 8:45 and we're going to continue stretch my legs e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e e
e e e all right we're going to come back in session the time is 8:48 see if we can have a roll call please chairman fous here Mr Wiley here
Mr Zin Mr Sweeney here Mr Fresco here Mr bonjourno here Mr gesi here Mr secat here Mr kulak here Mr vessio here Mr gabbit here thank you Mr cley good evening sir good evening good evening Mr
chairman members of the board Kevin kley Conor Foley on behalf of the applicant so uh we were we were here initially in August and then we're here again in November and just to kind of refresh your recollection I'm sure it's not
necessary but in in August you heard from uh Miss Laura Friedman who's the CEO of the Jewish Community Center and uh Rob Mello who is the uh site engineer
um Mr michello then was succeeded uh in November uh by Eric Keller the traffic expert who testified I think persuasively regarding traffic uh uh concerns tonight we'll present Mr Peter
St the applicant planner who will go over the criteria for the use variances sought by this application just to to forecast the future a little bit although sometimes that's a dangerous task but Mr Michelle
is uh will come back at sometime in the future to go over the how the plans have changed in um several material ways uh from what was originally introduced uh back in uh July or June and then after
Mr michelo testifies um Mr Cohen uh for the JCC will give a summation for the on behalf of The JCC and I will give a summation on behalf of the applicant I would expect that when he returns um at some
future date Mr michella will address the uh uh recent letter from uh the board engineer U Mr Burr uh concerning uh storm water management so that's what the past has been and the future if you have no
questions I'll move forward I have a quick question I I watched the November 12 was our last yes meeting 12th I I watched that you know it was an interesting hearing um our planner had asked about distribution to the board of
an Oprah that Mr Keller had referenced in his testimony and I know you had provided that to the board and I want to make sure that all the board members saw that Katherine that's where we left we actually ended on that question do you have any questions pertaining that Oprah and is there anything that you want to
follow up with Mr kley or Mr Keller on no I appreciate them sending me that I actually didn't do the follow-up work to that bill I don't know if you want to do you want to sure sure Bill did some follow-up work on it after we received that yeah it's where we left the meeting off and you know I had some
questions because frankly you know in my opinion I thought the Oprah was very narrow to only include that in in the request and yeah wondering what your thoughts are no Mr chairman that that's my exact thought is you know after the meeting Mr cley's office was kind enough
to provide the results of the over actually what was initially requested and then the information that the police department provided um but my initial thought was exactly the same it was the question of why was the request made
that was so narrowly scoped to the subject property and why wasn't it expanded um you know a th 2,000 feet beyond the limits of the property to get just to paint a clearer picture of how that Corridor operates so I had I had
the exact same question and I think um Mr Rashad agrees with me as well okay your thoughts Mr kley well Mr Keller was here he explained why he did the Oprah that way uh it was certainly the the
most uh critically adjacent stretch of roadway that that applies to the site and um no one questioned him about it actually he didn't have it we didn't have the open he testified exactly about it sir he testified that's incorrect I
watched that hearing today and and he did not provide the board with that op transcript and he testified exactly where he what he OA he testified that he o that he to the Oprah and he showed that it was an appendix to the that the actual
documents the police reports that they received were an appendex to the traffic report the Oprah was not but we because we didn't even get the Oprah the actual Oprah request document till after the board hearing that was an indication that that it was still an open-ended item in my in my eyes um and that um we
never really got to respond to what the actual points were we had the police reports from what they did Oprah but we didn't have the actual request to see what the police were responding to okay and we have that now the board has that now we do and we're not able to question Mr Keller because he's not here tonight
well Mr Mr Keller has testified for three and three hours plus he was testified exhaustively and and the the uh the board engineer also gave testimony to the board as well yeah that was last year though the board has
a new engineer so we'd like to give Maurice an opportunity from col your engineering who's now been retained by this board to to question Mr Keller on his narrow Oprah request and we also have a police report which you should have right well we don't have that police report so that's a
2825 you can have my copy if you other than Mr Keller's police reports no we have Bridgewater Township Sergeant Dan Hennessy you're you're Mr henness he did not bother to attach what that to his his letter at least not that we got you can have mine okay thank
you Nancy the applicant didn't get that I think there's some confusion over the Oprah was for police reports that's the um report from the police the memo just as the other internal memos such as
Catherine's and bills that were sent over to Starbucks so the police department's review memo yes they were sent with the other review memos right we got the memo from Sergeant uh eny Hennessy but we didn't get any uh Oprah
that he submitted or any Oprah response okay so you have no comment on Mr Hennessy's letter we haven't seen it oh his his letter all of those points were addressed during the testimony the exhaustive testimony and presumably persuasive testimony Mr Hennessy's quote the
addition of 60 units in the area will inevitably lead to an increase in traffic volumes as it stands the current infrastructure is already strained during peak hours I mean Mr ke Mr Keller's opinion was that there was nothing in that report that needed further elucidation on but if his if his
opinion was predicated on a very narrow Oprah search you've heard from two board professionals and maybe we can have a third board professional Maurice weigh in that the Oprah maybe wasn't adequate for his three hours of testimony I think it was a little less than that but well it was it was certainly uh adequate
enough at the time that nobody uh asked any questions or suggested that he should do a greater opar so because we didn't have the Oprah I never saw that Oprah it was in it was in the record I mean I just want to clarify that the police department's review memo included a check of motor vehicle crash data from
2020 until now showed 23 accidents in this stretch of roadway which is an indication that the opah request because it's it was located at intersections not the whole stretch of roadway there are actually additional crash data so I was assuming Mr Keller was coming tonight to
respond to this memo as was I exceed the number of crashes that and police reports that were part of the initial traffic report what we got of course did not indicate what stretch of roadway was looked at by Mr Hennessy Sergeant
Hennessy okay we'll leave that open and the board can weigh it as they will Mr any of it Mr Mr Keller was not available this evening so that was another another issue okay um so I'd like to move into evidence uh
two documents R4 which is the engineers uh set of plans and and uh Aerials and R5 which is the site distance study document uh that Mr uh Keller
utilized Mr K we're using a just as applicant but but um A4 again just describe what A4 is it's a four four-page set of documents prepared by Mr michello's firm that has the the site
layout uh aial photographs that that sort of thing four documents it's called the called the engineering documents in the in the a um discussion and A4 and a A5 was the scyth
distance study that Mr Keller utilized if you recall he had a a document that supported his uh 671 foot or more site distance [Music]
okay so sorry but I have a a I'm just looking at what we already marked so I have A5 is this what you're referring to that Mr Keller used yes that looks like it so I had that marked already as A5 we've marked them but not moved them
in evidence and that's what they've both been supported by testimony of in one case Mr Michelle the other case Mr Keller okay that's acceptable thank you okay all right so I'd like to call Mr uh Peter St I'm going to allow Mr St to have the
podium and I will get out of the way a little bit so Mr stack if you would raise your right hand please and you know what we haven't sworn in uh Mr rashed since he's our new engineer to this application one you stand as well I'll swear both of you
at the same time okay you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you got I do I do and your name for the record please Peter St s c k Maurice
rashed r a c h e d thank you very much gentlemen Mr St am I piic being picked up here um Mr Z what is your profession um I'm a planner in New Jersey all right are you licensed yes I was licensed in
1976 and still hold that license and uh do you have a a master's degree in planning yeah I have a a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's in city and Regional planning from ruers okay and uh just what's a give us a thumbnail of your career
purpose of qualification um in the past I've worked for two consulting firms uh Malcolm castler and Associates and Alvin gersen and Associates I was the planning director for the township of Montclair uh for about nine and a half
years uh for the last over 20 years I've been self-employed as a community planning consultant uh testified in approximately 230 municipalities in New Jersey and been accepted as an expert planning
witness in those jurisdictions as well as in Superior Court and tax court and have you uh worked for as a planner um municipalities yes I've worked for several municipalities
uh and uh more recently now uh I guess my uh practice is split between uh developer in some cases and neighborhood groups in other cases the board I believe I've
appeared here before you're good we we we accept you as a professional planner thank you thank you so um Mr St um what is your purpose here this evening uh my purpose is to um analyze the variances that are being
sought as part of this bifurcated application maybe we start with if you would enumerate the variances um yes use variances um so as the board is aware um we are
separating the subdivision and the so-called C or bulk variances um as a future issue and right now we are seeking uh D variances so uh
one of the variances is that uh The JCC uh which was originally a permitted use in the zone a number of years ago became a conditional use that didn't meet the conditions uh and you can look at that
as uh a D1 variance because it's it's not fully a permitted use um you could look at it as a a a a D3 variance in that it's a uh conditional use that doesn't meet all
the conditions uh but in any event it's a it's a d variance because we don't have the status of a outright permitted use if we had uh Frontage on Route 202 206 we would meet all the conditions and
would be considered a uh a permitted use but we don't do that the uh townhouse the age restricted townhouse portion uh in clearly involves a D1 variance so-called medich case and we
are also seeking a floor area ratio variance um and a density variance so those are the D variances that are associated that's why we're here before this board uh that's why we need five
affirmative votes in order to uh secure approval if we get that approval as the board is aware we will return um with site plan subdivision and any bulk variances C variances as the second
phase of a bifurcated application right would you say uh that the uh density and the F variances are resultant variances in other words result from the basic use variance s
right the I would I would say the parent variance is the D1 use variance because it's a an R40 Zone that doesn't permit uh attached housing and the standards that were cited in terms of density and
F were intended for single family detached houses uh so we did site them as relief that's needed but in my view they're simply linked with the fact that we're proposing a use that wasn't permitted in
the zone and that density and F standards were intended for a permitted use a detached single family homes now let's just address The JCC use variants first of all why is the JCC
entitled to use so um it is in my opinion a inherently beneficial use um this municipality has um addressed it in the past as under the
category of a house of worship and and indeed there are U religious aspects to components of it uh but it is a charitable institution um while there again some uh religious Services associated with it
there's daycare um there is Rec recreational opportunities as you know it's a regional organization uh handling uh several counties so um my view is that it should be judged as an
inherently beneficial use that is expanding uh by the addition of three acres that would be incorporated into the parent campus and as you know from the past testimony uh it's not that new buildings
are being proposed uh we're going to use uh one of the dwellings that's on that 3 acres to be subdivided as an office um there is open space you know storage associated with it so it's going to be incorporated into the into the campus uh
but without necessarily new construction the only new construction which is significant as you know that as this uh application evolved uh we're going to have an emergency connection uh between
the JCC campus and the proposed townhouse project and that's mutually beneficial uh that means that that uh each development even though as you know even though the rsis would not
require a second means of access from the townhouse development uh to enhance the uh Public Safety and protection uh we are going to have a road uh connecting the two campuses uh that will be gated but available for emergency
services so U let me address the the legal test here for this this use variant Mr kley can you put the microphone a little closer thank you is that a bit better so what is the Sea Test do you know so uh
as the board is aware there are a number of uses that are called inherently beneficial uses which means by their very nature uh they promote the public welfare uh houses of worship are one of them uh daycare centers
uh and so there's a as the board is familiar I presume there's a four-step pro process uh the first one is to judge the magnitude of the public benefit uh some inherently beneficial
uses like a head trauma center are more important to the public welfare than like the storage of school buses so the first one is is what what is the public good that arises from this use and Again by The Very nature of the
applicant uh the Jewish Community Center of Somerset Hunton and Warren counties uh this is a regional U uh facility uh that provides social and recreational Services uh tax exempt
organization uh it's been treated in the past uh as in in the general category of a house of of worship so the first step is What's the magnitude ude of of the public benefit number two the board is
to uh say um what are the negatives that arise from this expansion uh is there more traffic more light more noise the third one is to say are there reasonable conditions that you can Envision that
can be imposed that would lessen those negatives that arise from this uh expansion and then the last stage of the Sea Test is to conclude on balance uh whether the negative criteria are satisfied given that there are
public benefits that arise from this so as I uh look through this this is a a major regional organization that has many social benefits it is well used uh both for cultural reasons uh it is not
restricted uh to members of the Jewish face any body can belong to this but it's been treated in the past under the general category of a house of worship but it is a charitable institution and provides in my opinion a significant
public benefit uh not only to this municipality but to a three count uh region uh we're expanding the campus by three acres that would be finalized in a
future future subdivision and uh that uh activity we are not building new construction there we're converting uh the house to office use there's going to be storage there but not many changes so the existing
activity that occurs on the campus while technically we're increasing by 3 acres the campus area the the level of uh land use impacts is simply going to be dis
first a little bit into those 3 acres but not intensified so if you stood at the driveway um uh on on this facility uh essentially you won't see any difference uh before and after because we're not uh
increasing any programming uh this is just to expand and spread out the the campus area uh it is it's been here a long time again it was a permitted use Mr St why are we talking about this inherently beneficial use that's
ancillary to the housing is the housing inherently beneficial that's being proposed so why are we spending so much time I don't think there's a board member on here variances we want to put the proof on the record that there's II this board is not in the habit of denying inherently beneficial uses we we
did a case in an hour recently so you're spending the the majority of your limited time in front of this board where you you know have canceled meetings in the past we're trying to accommodate you tonight why wouldn't you spend your testimony on time of the primary use if the housing's not inherently
beneficial we're not going to deny inherently beneficial use to a house of worship it's confusing I mean you have limited time you're free to use it as you wish well we appreciate the guidance we'll move on yeah thank you all right
so um moving on Mr St to the uh the variances uh related to the uh town House Development what what are the applicable legal tests for those variances so this is a um a D1 medich
case uh because it's a use uh that is not permitted in the zone which is only a single family Zone uh again it was intended uh the density would only permit if these were single family homes
12 dwelling units we're proposing 60 dwelling units and there is an an F issue that that we exceed um and again it was designed your .17 F was designed for single family
houses you didn't want a a big single family house in a traditional single family neighborhood and that's why the F was there uh your ordinance also applies them to non-residential uses which is more typical um but as I mentioned
earlier the density in the F were intended for single family detached homes and and obviously that's not what this this application is about um so
um looking at the residential use does that residential use satisfy the purposes of zoning under section two of the ml um in in my opinion it does so we're talking about the med decision I have to
show you I have to demonstrate to you that there are some purposes of the municipal land use law that are Advanced that the use is particularly suited to the property and I have to show that it meets the negative criteria under the
so-called um inherent um under the so-called enhanced burden of proof so uh I believe the board has a report that I produced October 11 2024 and and I listed a number of uh
purposes uh before I get there I just want to let me just stop here for one second does the board have his report in front of them we do okay I'd like to have that marked uh Mr oler is A6 cor
A6 just to lay uh some Foundation um on the uh fourth page of my report which is A6 um I had
um a plate plate four that shows the existing land use pattern and the existing zoning and and one of my observations is that this is in a a corridor uh sandwiched between uh 287 which is a
controlled access Highway and the State Highway 202 206 and if on the right hand side if you looked in the zoning in that portion of the zoning map all you see is single family zones but as you can see from the
color coding um the area is quite different from uh what you would think of is a solid single family area and I depict the range of land uses um that are in that existing land
use diagram and and I went further than that on the next page I looked at the whole Corridor and uh what I want to emphasize is that there's a lot of different uses in this Corridor
um there's a mixture of some single family areas now we have a single family area uh to the south and north of us but they weren't integrated you know to north of us is uh um West Foothill Road
and although that was a culdesac that was extended there was no stub street that was supposed to connect to our property so we can't go north and integrate with that neighborhood and to the south of us are three flag Lots
again uh without any way to integrate uh our property uh with that area so our property is really oriented toward the state highway uh and as the board knows it's Farmland
assessed with a a commercial Farm stand in front and and two dwelling units in the rear um part of my analysis was to um not only look at the surrounding area and as you know there
have been a number of changes over the years uh mostly in the northern end you've had new relig houses of worship come in uh you've had uh multif family in in the corridor but uh when I address the
negative criteria I'm going to have to talk about your master plan because I have to show that it is not doesn't substantially impair the intent and purpose of your master plan master plan is different from the reexamination
report as you know your last master plan uh was done in 1990 uh which is uh a long time ago uh your uh 1990 master plan uh looked at
this neighborhood that this property is in neighborhood C and said uh in the short term uh we want it to stay single family so it's true uh your master plan didn't
say put tow houses here it said in the short term uh that this should be a single family area we don't want to change it is that a quote it says shortterm in our master plan yes it's in the title of the whole paragraph has there been some some
more recent reviews of our master plan Katherine there have been a number a number so we're not working off a 1990s data no there's been a number of Master Plan reexamination reports and then there have been a number of uh elements to the master plan like a circulation
element housing element land use element most importantly uh and I I I mean I was going to wait till Mr St finished but Mr St is framing a 1990 dated document but that's not the reality it sounds like No And and actually some of the documents from 2010 2014 2005 included uh
recommendations that no new master plan should should be uh conducted you know which is more recent than the 1990 uh with the 2014 master plan including that uh a new master plan is not warranted at this time recent master plan elements of
recreation Economic Development circulation have been adopted in the Township's continuing effort to address the commitment to the goals and objectives of the 1990 and 2005 master plan chairman I appreciate your Vigor but interrupting his his testimony but he's giving incorrect information that I know is incorrect and I want to make
sure the board has the proper information to audiate your case in the most efficient manner and members of the public also are entitled to hear when a when a witness says 1990 that's not the reality plan was in 1990 that's a fact M Mr fo I have no
problem Mr SE fin the testimony and I'll address all of this finishes thank you so the last comprehensive master plan at least on your website is the 1990 master plan uh that was prepared uh you know a
year before and and actually for example uh it that depended upon the last census Was 1980 U and I'll address this later but in 1980 uh the portion of your M your population that was 55 and over was
about 177% uh in the last desial census 2020 uh that is 31% so Market change in the composition
of your population uh since that time um the title on the 1990 master plan said that it was a short-term recommendation to keep the single family um since that time when that was adopted
the cycle for updating the master plan was six years now it's 10 years but the answer is it's been 34 years since that comprehensive master plan was done your most recent reexamination report which is not the master plan not the test of
the negative criteria says that you need need a new master plan the 2022 reexamination report says you need a new master plan now I know you're apparently working the planning board's working on it now but the last comprehensive master
plan that specifically addressed this area uh is the 1990 master plan as I reviewed it so um in my opinion um there are several purposes of
the Miss Banus law they're Advanced by having this age restricted housing and again uh while the federal law allows 20% to be non-ag restricted uh the applicant has invited a condition
that all of the units would be age restricted here so there there must be a householder uh that is uh 55 and older and uh there cannot be residents that are uh 18 and under school age
children um let me just stop you there for one second Mr kley in my notes there was something in some prior testimony about the age being 62 did you guys say that at some point that you would age restricted at 62 I
understand that but there was some discussion about 62 is are you saying that the condition that you're proposing would be at 55 yes okay um let be 55 it would be schoolage children period mhm and it
would not have the 80% limitation okay that you have in federal law so it would be a a true age restricted development without on the edges okay um so just to um address also the the
um some of the uh criteria I I mentioned in my A6 report uh several purposes the munal luse law in uh njsa 4055 d-2 and I I referenced a g h i and
m and and the language is included in my report on on page five uh in terms of a and promoting the public welfare um I'll emphasize two things part of this project um is to uh transfer 38 acers to
The JCC which is in my opinion an inherently beneficial use so that part of the application clearly benefits uh The JCC uh as I noted uh the last time there was a comprehensive master plan uh there
was really not a lot of attention paid uh to uh age restricted housing it wasn't really popular so popular at that time but because of the population shift in my opinion it does um promote the
public welfare um by providing this type of housing which is clearly uh is a greater portion of the population in Bridgewater than has historically been uh the case uh Mr SE did you do a study
of the population in Bridgewater to determine what percentage of the population is would be eligible for this type of housing yes so uh based on the latest census uh there's a total population of
46,000 79 and 55 and over is 14,835 one% of the population uh compared with in 1980 it
was only 17 all right so I show you uh a uh bar chart did you prepare that I did and uh what does that show uh that shows just what I said although it breaks it down into the smaller age categories but
uh it it documents the uh percentage that I get indicated all right we've marked this as A7 we'd like to distribute it to the board yeah I'm sorry just describe what A7 is again it's a Bridgewater Township New Jersey population by age group bar
chart and where did you get that uh this is from the US Census website and it's it's um as of what dat let me just verify this is the uh the 5-year estimate from
2022 can I ask a question sure while you're on this page page number five somewhere you say that uh multif family density could you talk into the microphone could you use the
microphone where recommitted between five and uh 10 units per that's what it I'm sorry I I can't hear your question okay I've asked Mrs am to use the microphone that's best I can do
okay see in this uh on this uh page five Yes somewhere down at the bottom you see the subject uh the multif family densities were recommended to range between 5 and 10 units per acre
right am I looking at on this page page five that's a different exhibit so uh I'm happy to answer questions about that location Madam I'm going to pass out the exhibit he's talking about now I'm happy to answer your question
but we probably should get this exhibit distributed on the population first let's hand that out and let's make sure memb of the public and get a copy as well give M me go left and right here this page five is
Chris you just make sure memb oh never mind thank you uh so let me uh guess continue through some public purposes well why don't you just finish up talking about the the the what do what are the principal showings of the the answer is
that I would expect because of the Aging of the population uh in Bridgewater that there would be a need and a demand uh for age restricted housing because it's such it's almost a third of
the population is eligible for this type of Housing and again it's it's dramatically different uh from the characteristics of your population when the last full comprehensive master plan
was done and and specifically talked about uh this area I I recognize there have been uh amendments in terms of like warehouses and other things but that 1990 document was your last comprehensive master plan as I looked at
your website did the 1990 master plan indicate anything about uh multif family housing built being constructed along busy roadways or to that effect it it did it said that um as part of its policy that multif family housing should
be located on the busier streets uh the state highways and again uh this property happens to be on 202 206 so there was it didn't say specifically on this property but it said at a planning
principle uh multif family housing and it considered the density range is 5 to 10 units an acre in that document it said it's uh a good planning policy to
locate that on the busier uh highways such as 202 and 206 was referenced and what's the density for this proposed townhouse project it's 5.03 units in acres so we're at according to the master plan we're at
the low end of the density all right um you want to finish up on the the how the project meets the purposes of zoning right uh purpose g talks about providing uh sufficient space in an appropriate location and as
I indicated uh there's a wide variety of uses in this Corridor uh we do have access to a state highway uh there's been extensive uh traffic testimony uh about that we are
isolated from the residential uses if the subdivision to the north would have had stub streets that stopped at our property I probably wouldn't be here tonight because that showed an intent to kind of integrate us this single family
Zone with existing development but that's not possible because of the way uh the ab budding land uses have been designed um it's also an appropriate location uh partly because um we're in a position to help
JC expand their campus but we're in a position of having a joint uh connection for Public Safety and I think that uh relates to purpose H which talks about the design of Transportation routes that
uh promote the free flow of traffic etc etc I think there's a public safety issue there that's uh promoted purpose I talks about encouraging senior C Cen community housing construction under the municipal land use law that's 62 and
over they Define seniors as 62 and over this is 55 and over but in my experience many of these occupants will be um 62 and over uh as they age in place um and
it's again a major part of the prop your population that's 62 and over um M talks about uh encouraging the coordination of various public and private procedures uh to lessen the cost
of development and efficient use of land again this is a good location it happens to be uh happens to AB but a major regional uh Recreational facility um this is a a convenient area
uh being on a state highway it doesn't um interrupt um other local residential streets um and I believe because of the range of land uses here and the fact that uh we can position these houses in a way that
preserves the environmental sensitive P portions of the site um that it is an efficient use of land again there there's a wide variety of uses in the area um and um Route 202 206
uh again is designed intended for major uh major activities in terms of traffic um excuse me Mr stu um what were your what was the last sentence about preserving environmental blah blah blah
I'm saying that that the as shown on the conceptual plan we are respecting um the wetlands and the reparan areas those are cut off we're not intruding on those uh we're only uh proposing the town houses
and the properties that the partion of the property that is very buildable aren't you going to go in and pretty much clear cut the property where these tow houses are going to go up we're going to remove the trees how many where the tow houses are going but
in terms of the how many uh I don't know that I do 576 according to your documents that's how you're going to preserve the environmental status of this property the we're preserving the areas that are
recognized at least in state law as needing preservation in terms of the wetlands in this in the Stream Corridor but there will be trees removed a couple yeah um I want to in my opinion it is
particularly suited again because it's isolated from the abing residential areas um we happen to uh because of our location uh be able to assist the JCC in expanding their campus
um and because of again the whole array of land uses that that characterize this Corridor uh and again there are commercial uses nearby uh at at the corner um there's a u Landscaping
gardening business a veterinarian across the street this is not if you looked at the zone or and you say it's a solid single family area that's not the case um I want to uh that is that all demonstrated on plate plate six of your
report yes that's that shows the character of some of the larger properties in the area on the corridor um are they both are they business properties there are Office Buildings there's retail hair salons
there dog grooming places there are major corporate campuses uh there's a whole range of a wide range of land uses that characterize this Corridor as well as uh significantly
sized U religious institutions that are some of the more recent developments in the corridor um in terms of the negative criteria we are at the low end of multif
family density we're 5.03 dwelling units per acre and uh you have many zones that go up to 30 multif family 35 units an acre 16 units an acre we are at the low end of what your ordinance uh and master
plan calls for where where are those located higher density in some in your multif family zones you have 10 units an acre eight units an Acer are they most of your are they in proximity to this project no thank you
um there is a benefit in my opinion to having age restricted housing and and some of the reasons are obvious that you don't have schoolage children which tends to be uh you know the biggest hit on the budget uh but also uh the it
shows that the traffic generation per unit is substantially less than housing that's not age restricted uh that's in Mr Keller's report uh also statistically
although there's not a lot of data available of this the the Peak parking demand is less and again it makes sense to you these These are smaller households uh because there are no children there um and a lot of traffic
nowadays is associated with having kids uh traveling to and from activities etc etc um the again I think in terms of the negative criteria um we do uh again we have a
fairly detailed plan in front of you that's a concept plan but as you know it's fairly highly engineered um so uh we can demonstrate that we can meet the required setbacks of the units now there is a unit in back
um you know by the 3 Acre piece that's internal to the project but in terms of uh the housing that's either north or south of us uh we comply uh with the setback requirements and I think we can demonstrate that uh by virtue of the
level of detail of the site plan Mr ster you are you about finished or do you have anything maybe I should just recast and summarize yeah that would be a good okay so um apparently the it's it's the burden of proof is on
the applicant and uh um in my opinion we meet the sea standard for The JCC um and I think I've talked about the details of that and is certainly under
the um the four-step seeka standard uh in terms of the townhouse development um in my opinion there are several purposes of the municipal land use law that are Advanced um that it is particularly
suited uh because of its location and its ability to benefit The JCC um I do believe that we satisfy the negative criteria because of the and again we're not at the final site plan
stage yet that potentially is another stage but but because of the location of this property um the fact that we're at the low end of the density um the fact that we do comply with rsis in terms of the road system
and on top of that we're going to have a mutually beneficial connection uh to JCC for emergency purposes um and because uh you're doing a new master
plan but because of the age of your last comprehensive master plan uh am I a factor that could be considered and my conclusion is that not only is this particularly suited to the property but
it can be approved without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance well thank you Mr St that's all all right uh board questions under the circumstances can we have the board
professionals comment first before the board questions do you mind that sure I don't mind at all I think just because of the issue um unless somebody objects to that yeah no problem sure I have no problem with that thank you um thank you Mr St I have a a quick question about
I'll Focus first on the 1990 master plan because that seems to be the focus of of your testimony and um and what you gleaned from the master plan uh did you have a chance to review um the statement of objectives in the 1990 master plan uh I did when I looked at
it is there any statement of objective related to providing affordable housing uh for for the township um I don't if you Mr chairman I object to that question anything to do with the granting of or
not granting of a use variant I just question of a I have a question I just have a I'm getting somewhere if you if you allow me I mean again just be aware that Miss uh uh that mrud already put in her report that this is a matter up to
councel I actually only included that if a payment in Li is is what this board approves as part of the application that then the council would then determine or approve that decision essentially because that's
just call Quick Time Out Rich want you put on the record what the issue is just on the payment and L Issue my opinion that this board doesn't have jurisdiction to determine that uh a payment in Lee would be appropriate I think if there's an approval there would be a condition that the applicant would
have to go to the Town Council to get an agreement to make it a uh a payment in LI or the units to be on site right totally agreed agre totally okay and and that's obviously part and parcel of the
nature of this application we are uh uh complying with your ordinance that does require a component uh which is either onsite or a payment in lie so our our planner has a question on that I I think it's applicable especially since you just agreed to the
condition we've always agreed to that condition I suggested that first I've heard of it Katherine sorry to interrupt you that's all right uh well I'll move on from that we can get we can get back to the affordable housing stuff at the end um the 1990 master plan you you've
captured the [Music] um the recommendation of the the master plan specifically for the land use plan element within the the 1990 master plan as no master plan change proposed retain
existing low density residential zoning as a short-term proposal correct yes are there any other categories that show up in that Master Plan uh related to the topic area related to which area to the to
this to the subject again this was this was I I in my judgment it's uh appropriate to look at the more specific regulations in a plan rather than the townwide goals and this was neighborhood
C uh that was specifically commented upon in the The Matrix in the plan you hadn't in your report you actually hadn't previously looked at that I had raised that on in my report um and I only asked that because you've couched as a short-term proposal but the master plan which I don't think everyone has in
front of them has categories for each policy so there's a policy that brings up some a topic area a short-term proposal related to that a long-term proposal category an evaluation and then imple implementation so I think it's a mischaracterization to call it a
short-term goal but rather how they address that policy it was termed a short-term proposal that's where it is in the in the the chart is there a long-term proposal for it there's uh I don't recall of one that was specific to
this neighborhood is there an evaluation in that uh I I don't recall the specific wording but I it's blank it's blank I'll give you I'll give you a spoiler earlier it's blank so there are no long-term propos I would appreciate if if the questioner did not constantly interrupt
the witness well he was he said he didn't remember the wording and it was blank you never give him a chance to answer so it's hard to I'll repeat that and when I review a master plan you know a lot of people kind of look to the townwide
categories uh and that and you do have policies that say where there's multif family it ought to be you know on a state highway but I it's my practice to look at the more specifics and that neighborhoods C specifically showed this
property and that's why I I referenced the fact that there was a short-term proposal here so that tells me that that things could change and one would think that after 34 years a lot may have
changed okay so we'll move we'll move on from the 1990 master plan because that's a really good segue um did you review I know you mentioned that the other master plan reexamination reports talked about wehous and things of that nature did you have a chance to review any of the master plan not only reexamination
reports but land use element amendments that were done since 1990 um I looked at everything on your website if there's something not on the website I didn't look at it but those other um plan elements talked about Route 22 there
wasn't one that I saw that specifically addressed this neighborhood so I mean and and it and just to make sure it's clear the fact that there's a re-examination report that's only tangentially relevant in terms of
the negative criteria because the negative criteria have to do with the uh master plan itself rather than the reexamination report did you happen to read the 2005
master plan Amendment and reexamination Report um at one time I did there there is an actual reference to the route 202 206 Corridor and senior citizen housing did you happen to remember what what was
included uh I don't remember but I looked at all the documents on the website so the in the in the 2005 uh master plan reexamination report and Amendment it included that in the 1996 master plan reexamination report this on page two it was recommended that senior
citizen developments including nursing homes assisted living facilities Continuing Care retirement communities congregate care facilities be permitted in residential zones when lots have Frontage on 202 Route 202 206 or Route 28 the development of senior citizen facilities along this quarter has been the subject of a master plan re-examination report adopted in in
Spring of 2004 as a result of a shift in policy the master plan reexamination report eliminated these us um so there was an actual it might not have been specific to this property but it's definitely speciic but it did it didn't talk about age restricted housing it was more be a nursing home
senior C citizen development included well this again this is 55 and over it's not technically 62 and over on page nine of that same report it is a reexamination report so it re-examines the 1996 reexamination report and specifically limit the development of
any additional high density multif family housing developments unless such are dedicated for senior citizen housing but the the reexamination report is not the master plan it's a different section of the municipal land use law under the extent to which there have been significant changes in assumptions and policies which I think is important for
this board to see how policies were viewed it included that Bridgewater has several nursing homes within its borders and describes them also has numerous CI senior citizen projects 62 years and older including Arbor Glenn Center Bridge 1 Center Bridge 2 Autumn Woods Avalon Brandy Wine wood m one in Four
Seasons and several senior group homes including Y and one on Chimney Rock we recently approved one on Chimney Rock so so it says uh that this is this is great that they're able to age in place so I just wanted to make it noted that there was an acknowledgement of the same use
throughout the township so because we you had mentioned that the re-examination reports were limited to other categories I do think that there's pertinent information in those reports uh that should be gleaned and should be talked about because they were interim to 1990 and present
day um you've also mentioned that there are other multif family zones that allow higher densities uh in within the township correct and I believe the chairman asked yes uh I think that's a good that's a good point for the board
to realize that this Township has contemplated zoning has contemplated different where appropriate density should go through the master plan recommendations has have implemented that over time uh whether they'd be senior citizen developments or they'd be highdensity multif family
um I appreciate the the uh census data chart that shows the age of population 55 in older Bridgewater um and I I my questions related to this are
um one are there other senior developments that exist in Bridgewater that that address the population that you've uh brought the Census Data out on there are existing um
age restricted communities but my point uh is that um almost onethird of the population uh uh in Bridgewater is is eligible there's been a a significant
expansion and um in my opinion uh that's why this applicant is uh feels that there is a demand as well as a need uh to provide this type of housing because there have been such a dramatic increase
in this uh cohort of the population do you do you have a the change in population percentage from the from this is AC data I guess from a 10 year from the ACs the 2012 ACS or 2010 census do you have a change in in AG in 55 and
older population for what census let's say the 2010 let's say the the last I I looked at the the I looked at the the the latest statistics is the fiveyear estimate from the community
survey um and I told you that I think I already said what that year was and again I went back to the last comprehensive master plan which didn't have the 1990 data available at the time so they
relied that plan started being crafted in uh in 1988 and the only Census Data then uh presumably was the 1980 census and again that's simply why I went to the 1980
census where only 17% of the the population was 55 and over did you look at the changes intermittently from the no I didn't because I didn't think it was uh helpful so even though the township has built senior citizen housing and age
restricted and assisted living housing over the last 40 years you didn't think it was important to look at the change in the gaps over those decades no I don't think that's I think what's relevant is what it is today and and clearly uh it's not that every 55 and
over person has to be an age restricted community but there's been a massive increase in the number and the uh my client has has um made a a marketing judgment there is a significant demand
for this type of housing okay um do you happen to did you do an analysis of the number of units the age of the units the number of communities that are age restricted or assisted living that serve the population that you've brought the data out on no do you think that would
be helpful to ascertain rather than just the portion of the population that we have that's that's aging uh I suppose if I'm requested I can do it but I would suspect that again there's not a onetoone relationship not everyone over age 55 wants to be in an
age restricted community but I would suspect the the that air that portion of the population greatly exceeds uh the number of units that are built uh that are age restricted now in
Bridgewater okay thank you um I believe that it that the data on its own doesn't serve the doesn't serve the argument of saying that there is a growing need unless we look at the actual number of units we have if we had none I'd say you know absolutely but the over time these have been and the master plan has
acknowledged that there have been a number of them and that's why they were but the master plan doesn't quantify it and and again my my the reason I'm talking about that is there's been a dramatic shift in the population based
on what the Crafters of the 1990 master plan had in mind yes and I I and my opinion I'm sorry I should make it more clear my opinion is that the master plan has acknowledged that since 1980 or since 1990 a number of these developments have
been developed to address that and that's why the policy shift was to to not promote that or encourage that anymore because because they were meeting that demand so that's my opinion um the the final um topic I want I want
to address is that um your report had noted that age restricted housing generates lower land use impacts I think you touched upon it maybe as far as traffic is there is there any data to support that there yes it's in the the the Keller's report
uh docu doents the uh I'll tell you what the numbers are if you're if you recall uh this in in it uh the latest uh document category
220 is multif family housing lowrise the uh for 60 units the um average daily total was uh 4113 trips
and for category 252 which is uh senior adult housing attached so tow houses same 60 units the average daily traffic was 216 so it's roughly half in terms of the traffic
generation um the the uh fifth edition of it in terms of parking Peak parking generation uh there's not a lot of data but it has the same ratio the the the Peak parking demand is you know maybe
only 60% of what it would be if it was it didn't have an age restriction and again the obvious one is that it's they they tend to be ratables rather than deficits on the municipal budget because they are no schoolage
children thank you very much for recapping that for me um unless the board has any questions or wants to clarification or anything I'd be happy to answer those question but I have nothing further for this witness all right thank you very much Katherine um let's finish up with our other board professionals I'd like to get members of
the public on the record they came out like we have a good number of people here um and then we'll talk about our next meeting so Billa Maurice whoever's ready I I have just a couple of quick
ones Mr chairman thank you um for for Mr St here so I think after hearing all your testimony you concluded that the variances could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good
correct yes and again recognizing this is a bifurcated application and that if the D variances approved we have to come back again with a site plan and address the more specific issues that might change the
plan we don't know understood um earlier tonight and Mr kley is introdu tion we heard however that the site engineer will return at some point in the future as I understand to discuss subsequent or
future plan revisions some of which may include addressing my comments related to storm water management I think we've also heard ongoing concerns about traffic traffic impacts the level of service of the
driveway and that corridor history of of traffic accidents in that Corridor uh a newer um Memo from the the police Traffic Safety Division we've also heard questions about the lack of
amenities being proposed on the current plan um you've heard is there a question for Mr St there is sounds like he's getting a one you've heard concerns about um the 500 and some trees that are going to be removed there were prior concerns about
lack of landscape buffers um we've had discussion about an emergency access driveway which I think was mentioned by Mr kley at the prior hearing but we haven't um been presented with that plan that I recall um we've heard concerns
about steep slope disturbance D potential impacts that would require permits so I'm just curious um and I may not have touched on on everything we heard your testimony about the F variants which I think you're proposing as part of this project three times
what's Allowed by the ordinance yes were this a single s were this single family detached homes yes correct and and if this was single family um you're I think o over two and a half times what's allowed with the lot coverage or
impervious coverage so I'm just curious you know in my mind as as I run through some of the list of concerns that the board and the board's professionals have put on the record previously how you could conclude that these variances
could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good well um a two-fold answer number one the plans that you have in front of you are more than just conceptual plans they've been fairly detailed uh from an engineering
point of view um and that gives me confidence that uh when the final site plan and subdivision is proposed there won't be sub substantial changes um that level of detail I think uh
allows the board to make a judgment on the bifurcated application and as you may or may not be aware we're not home free when we show you the detailed if if the the detailed engineering site plan and any
modifications that might be done uh you still have a handle on the negative criteria but I'm telling my opinion is what is before the board uh this evening uh allows me to make that conclusion Mr St did you disagree with anything Mr bur
just said in terms of negative criteria because he he he rattled off in a long list do you disagree with anything that he said I he I he had a list I I don't think he opined that we didn't meet the negative criteria would you like him to read it again he he asked he asked me
whether given that if I would you know still maintain my judgment and the answer is I do okay he he's a professional he's an engineer and he asked you do you feel that this the the the the criteria can be met given all these certain circumstances and the answer is yes okay do you disagree with
any of the points he just put on the record he well he I want to make sure that you heard them because they were fast and there was a lot of them I'll stipulate we heard him thank you sometimes in the transcript the materiality of what said is not not
accepted is that your opinion as well Mr St that's a legal opinion the answer is I heard what he said and in my opinion I have enough information that I can render a planning opinion on a bifurcated applic disagree with anything Mr bird just said pardon you don't
disagree with anything that Mr bird just said you're you're distorting what he just testified to why do that I don't know if that's a compliment from the master distorter but nonetheless you know Mr burrr gave you a list and you're not disagreeing with
it it's not for me to agree or disagree I'm I'm telling you that I heard the list and that because of the high level of detail that is presented I can render in my opinion uh that as a planner that this application
meets the statutory Criterion all right Mr Burr please continue I have nothing further Mr chairman chman in terms of questions I I I raise those points um because they have been brought up previously both written and verbally um and I just
frankly find it a little surprising that we're concluding that these issues frankly an issue without substantial more substantial engineering having been completed testimony provided to check those off the list that's why there's a
disconnection and and the Distortion comment goes to the fact that okay these this is your time to refute all of these things Mr bur just said these are engineering here are engineering comments I'm not the engineer but they're negative prongs to your testimony but the the answer is the
municipal land use law allows bifurcation the applicant has gone in my opinion a great distance in providing many more details than would normally be required on a bifurcated app is there a chance that 5 76 trees won't be removed
on the second leg of the bation the answer is can the app more material than having housing for seniors that need it well our planner just testified we've been building these like crazy the only thing A7 going senior population has been going up by crazy
that's the only thing that and that's why they sit unsold on Chimney Rock Road all eight of them that we just approved for over four years four years all unsold now I can't speak if one sold today so maybe I shouldn't put that into testimony but there's for sale sign on
eight Lots on those senior houses obviously this applicant believes he can Market these he's marketed them all over New Jersey and I wish him the utmost in success but still going back to Mr Burr putting all the negative prongs you have a planner that basically is just
ignoring it and asking the board to ignore it I don't think it's appropriate for fair fair enough I'll respect that and I'm not going to argue this so Maurice do you have any questions for sir you you've got it I'm let us know when you're
ready you all set all right sorry Maurice Mr chairman I don't have any questions uh there was no traffic testimony tonight so I am at a disadvantage not having heard any traffic testimony or additional answers to the questions that were raised in
Prior hearings so at this point I would have to say I don't have any comments or questions all right thank you very much sir I'd like to open this up to members of the public I know that the board has questions but the the hour is late we typically stop at at 10: o'clock on the nose we're going to make accommodations there's a number of people here and I
want to make sure if you have questions now is the time to come up and ask the Planner on his testimony Mr St can we have your name for the record please Lisa Ferrara and spell your last name please f e r r a r
a okay and it's questions only there'll be a time for statements later okay um is there anything that will prevent these units from turn not becom like turn someday not being 55 it up no we'll deed restrict these units they'll so they'll always be they'll be deed
restricted and you would have to go to court to try to get it removed it's permanent and and that means that anyone that buys a unit is notified in the deed that it's 55 and over and only one
person though has to be 55 That's the Law yes okay so you could have a 320 or yeah you just we are going beyond the law saying the law is that the a householder has to be 55 and over but we're also saying that
applies to all of the units and we're also saying that there are no schoolage children that reside here okay you have to just everyone else just has to be over 18 is that right uh yes you could have a let's say a divorc 56y old mother with a 25y old son
that's my question okay um and then the the volumes you quoted about um cars you said there was like 200 yes that was based on Senior Living no not not 55 that that was that was Senior Living although I'm not
sure that the it uses the municipal land use law standard of 62 and over they might because that's like Social Security so um that number might be slightly modify
but it's very clear in my mind that the traffic generated per unit is a lot lower because you don't have kids to but for senior living is it the same restrictions where you could have 18 and over but just 62 and up has to live
there or is there different rules for senior living in my in many cases someone that let's say buys a unit it's 55 and over and they like it there they're gonna age in placees they say so
they'll be 62 etc etc but there are because people are living older like me um I would expect that a good share of this of the firsttime buyers here would be over 62 yeah my question was just about the
number of people that are allowed to live there under 62 uh that would be again no schoolage children and the health code would uh limit the number of people so so you could have you know four
people between you know 19 and 25 and let's say u a parent who's over 55 um another question you just mentioned that the seniors need homes but I thought you guys didn't have any
numbers and as far as the number of senior live or 55 and up living how do you know that there's not enough homes the well the applicant does this for a living he does a lot of these communities and uh he's made or
it's because it's a corporation it has made the Judgment that there is a strong market for these types of units but you don't know how many there are I'm I'm not the market person I don't know okay um and then you mentioned that was it 576 trees will be cut down I didn't
mention that but I think one of the board members there actually 560 60 okay do you know how many total there are no it's in it's in the records because there it it's part of the submission requirements and again we've gone a lot further than just a concept
plan they've they've done a lot of engineering on this a lot of surveying are you cutting trees on the wetlands uh you can't do that okay what portion of the 15 do you have like a a map of where the wetlands are there it's on the site plan they show where the wetlands because they
it's the state has already certified the limits of the wetlands exib okay yeah and that's not really the planner's testimony that sounds like the engineer will be back at the next meeting you can ask him that though yeah that's all I have y thank you thank you
anyone else questions all right well I think that Mr kley this is our chance to get out of here at 1010 no no oh oh I'm sorry sir I'm sorry come on down it's kind of a repeat of the if we can just get your name name and address
sorry Rob Esposito um uh 738 West Foothill um so it's I'm kind of repeating the same question about um if these are being sold the it's being sold to over 55 or it's 55 or 62 well it's
it's uh 55 and over for the head of household so is there and I know you said they'd have to go through some legal proceedings to get that changed but is has that ever happened in Bridgewater where some development has been pitched to be sold to only over 55
and then for whatever reason it does not I'm not aware of that being relaxed it would be really difficult they're going to deed restricted that's a challenge for them to do rich yeah it would be really difficult to change that once it's in place so no loopholes like
that's never never I'm not aware of any that where it's ever been uh changed okay after has been built and deed restricted these doc okay not these [Laughter]
documents right um and then similar question and I know it's it's already been brought up but the the need for these is there any study like any tests or surveys that could be done to to see if we actually need these and from what
I just I heard from Mr chair that we have these and they're not being sold so it seems obvious to me that that's it's already been done but I I one has to look at the nature of of the product that's being proposed here these are kind of highend three-bedroom units and
so uh you know these are likely to be people that let's say have other homes in Florida in in our judgment that's the market that he he thinks uh he's addressing with these units is that comparable is that comparable to the ones on Chimney Rock or u i I'm not
familiar with the price points again so how can you make that statement that these are different when they could very well be the same it's rare to have age restricted housing with three bedrooms this is this these are bigger units then uh I and I but I would suspect are going
to be higher PR price points simply because their size okay I I would like to see data I I'm I guess I'm getting into a statement now it's not a question but I I believe that you would like to see yes I guess the question is are you going to produce
any Market studies to establish that there's a need for senior housing and Bridgewater I'm not the I'm not a market expert so the answer is I I've done enough research that I think from a planning point of view supports my opinion Mr Esposito if you wanted to do
a quick lookup and use your statement at the end of the meetings to put that on the record by all means you could do that okay yeah I was going to ask about like um like looking into facts like anything that's been said on on the record we love
facts if if if I find anything I I put that on record in a future yeah I'll give you as much time as you want end of the meeting you can speak for or against this case and you can put facts as long as you can document where they're from by all means we we would love to hear your comments thank you and in another meeting right on the future yeah we're going to get to it tonight where the
next meeting is you never know when these are going to wrap up um but we'll let you know and we'll make sure we put it on the website hopefully a couple days before and you can look up my last name is fous you're welcome to email me and uh you know I can let you know Nancy's also great she keeps us all
in line all right appreciate it you got it thank you thank you U Miss Franco I thought I saw you in the back row good evening and your name for the record
please Kathy Franco um so a couple of questions um you said that you brought up the sensus of people over 65 years old um I I quoted statistics for 55 and older 55
and older okay did you do anything in relationship to the income of those individuals 55 and older no and did you look at 65 and older yes and how was that different what percentage of the population was over 65
we over 75 or over 85 or uh so from 55 to 59 it's uh 3578 or
7.76% of the population 60 to 64 is 2,993 or 6.5% 65 to 69 2341 uh 5.08% of the population 70 to 74
1,731 or 3.76% of the total population 75 to 79 1,65 3.48% 80 to 84 1,213
2.63 85 and over I guess we don't care about older people no I do I do 1,34 42 or 2.91% of the population postcript on and say what what what were those percentages as as
to the total 30 that was the 2022 5year uh estimate from the US Census Bureau American Community survey and you didn't look at the incomes of those groups I didn't address the incomes okay all right um and I I think you said
you're not necessarily aware of what senior living communities have been built since the 1990 um full full uh master plan I looked at the zoning and I've looked I actually I in in the housing that's near
this Corridor I compared uh a 1995 aerial with the 2020 aerial so I know like the Four Seasons that are there I've doc i' I'm aware of the ones that have been built uh in the
corridor I have not exam the other ones that are outside of this so you're not aware of the CCRC what used to be Arbor Glen it's now being run by lifeare Services I I I know them only through the zoning there are zonings that are specifically for age
restricted typically at a at a higher density than we we're proposing oh okay and and the assisted all the assisted living communities that have built well this is not a a different time no no I I I understand that but generally Assisted Living caters to a senior population
typic Al yes yes you know and even long-term care facilities which may have added beds to their census unless someone's injured in rehab they're a senior citizen oh okay I just want to be sure that you know we're taking that all into consideration when we're talking
about the number of people over you know over a certain age and where they may be residing um and also what the income is of this population because as Mr kley said these may be at a higher price
point because they're larger units um so as we're designing for seniors um and this probably is outside of your ballet wck because you're a planner um you know is it I guess I should hold it because I don't necessarily think that two-story
units are appropriate for seniors but um also are you aware of the fact that in Bridgewater there was an age restricted community that did change and became non-ag restricted because it was unable to rent or sell those units uh I'm not
aware of that I know at one time and maybe it was I don't know 20 years ago there was um a short time where a project that had started under construction uh you know
could got to get a second bite but I'm I'm unaware of any Community uh where the age restriction was dropped okay was probably under a different law that allowed you to do it at the time because of yeah it was a special legislation the collapse of and it was a short time window when you could do that and it
didn't apply to everybody I think you had to have your project started but not finished something like that okay and then just one question from your background and experience is um how often do you work with age restricted communities or senior living communities
as far as in your planning of um the last one I did was in uh Clifton it was a uh independent living next to um an assisted living okay so would that account for 10% 20% 5% of your
practice or um I I I don't specialize in that as okay okay um and I don't know that you I think you touched on um a little bit about how much traffic comes in and out because of the age restriction but with
age restriction there may be less traffic from the resident but is anybody looking at the increased traffic from deliveries from Amazon from meal preparation places from from housekeepers from uh caregivers from
those individuals my understanding is when the uh Institute of Traffic Engineers counts traffic they count all the vehicles that come in and out yeah but Mr St just just to clarify you're not a traffic okay no no and I wasn't sure so thank you very much thank you
for your answers thank you all right I I think with you want to go real quick all right yeah come on up uh Dawn Marinelli so these units could be three
bedrooms correct yes okay and only one person has to be 55 and older correct so you could have 75% if you have four people living there 75% of the people would be under 55 there'd be a lot more
cars a lot more traffic well there could be more people but the statistics show that there would not be more traffic than a non-age restricted community how could that be if 75 there aren there aren't kids to shuttle around
if there is someone kids who are 19 20 21 25 they go out all all the time they come in all the time there's a lot more traffic and you could have one person over 55 living there in in an individual instance in one unit you could be right
but statistically there is less traffic and less parking demand I don't want to agree but okay thank you Mr gaski had a question yeah the question I guess pertains to some of what I was hearing here as well if you're saying that 30%
of the population uh is aging and that 55 and older and that's part of2 32 and that's part of the positive criteria because we have an an aging population doesn't isn't it important to understand how many of those 32% could actually afford these homes so we actually know
what what yes uh these are going to be I I believe higher price point units that the applicant thinks uh there's a market for so that number at 30 at 32% isn't really 32% subsidized housing
right just want to make sure I understood what the actual percentage was and all the factors that were in there because it seems like it's not actually 32% I'm not a market person uh but I'm aware that the
applicant has done enough no that's fine I just you're using the 32% number if I understand were you using that to say there are 32% of the population in Bridgewater would be eligible they would be eligible because of the AE at the age at the age but that's not the only qu
right so I was just trying to understand how many what percentage of the population would actually be eligible for and I don't know the answer okay so that 32 is just people that were 55 period you got to have got to be 55 and over to live here okay thanks all right
we're gonna this is 25 minutes past our bedtime here so we're we're going to call the meeting I apologize but I think Mr kley can make arrangements for Mr St to come back we we can finish up some questions um at our next hearing um Nancy could you provide us with a date next available date for
821 to pick up where they left off tonight May 13th is available May 13th Mr kley hi there were two dates discussed in April um one of which I was April
7il April 8th is uh Paul Miller and visions and Pathways we have two applications that evening the reason I asked Mr chair is I will be out of town of time trying to that the hearings were done
Mr Co we we want you here and you're obviously part and parcel to the application but I I will say that there's been cancellations in the last minute Nancy has assembled packets we've had people here ready we've had members of the public here and there's been a cancellation within 24 hours you know at a certain point we're trying to
accommodate everybody it's an incredibly challenging process but but you have canceled things in the past well we we've had scheduled hearings with packets in our hands walking in the door door and this hearing didn't happen Okay well whoever was behind it
for better for worse it happens it's part of the business but but it sounds like your April meetings are not available one is an inherently beneficial Foster and orphans case am April 29
May okay so what's available it we're going into June at that point because May 8th is Paul Miller visions and Pathways I'm sorry April e April 22nd is Rockland Self Storage plus one residential was added probably
since I had spoken to um Mr cley's associate a couple weeks ago so 610 is uh 610 is the primary yeah is the primary so no no no 61 is not available it's a primary date Tuesday
there'll be machines in this room 527 is belly Holdings which was adjourned from tonight um n see what just pardon my stupidity what date is available do you want to try and put them on
527 we'll stack the cases and we'll do tonight we'll do split hearing is Bell the only one on the 27th Bell's the only one on the 27th yeah I am available okay all right Rich take that date okay
you're good with that date y okay so for members for okay for members of the public this meeting is being adjourned now it will continue on May 27th um at 7 pm in this room there'll be no further notices from the applicant thank you members of the board
all right and our next meeting 7 PM two weeks from tonight who are we hearing rich good question and then I know what I do with my list Nancy who do we have in two weeks permu oil okay
andge Bridgewater storage great