Morning everyone. It's 7 o'clock. We're going to come call the meeting to order. Bridgewater Township Zoning Board of Adjustment December 9th, 2025. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, NJSA 10:4-6. Specifically, on January 15th, 2025,
proper notice was sent to the Courier News and the Star Ledger and filed with the clerk at the Township of Bridgewater, posted on the municipal bulletin board. Um, please be aware of the zoning board of adjustment policy for public hearings. No new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10 p.m. If
you're able, please rise for the salute to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Good evening, Nancy. Could we have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Fouse >> here. >> Mr. Widley >> here. >> Mrs. Zamin >> here. >> Mr. Sweeney
>> here. >> Mr. Fresco >> here. >> Mr. Bonjouro >> here. >> Mr. Gies >> here. >> Mr. CCAT >> here. >> Here. >> Mr. Vesio >> here. >> And for the record, Mr. Gabbit will be
absent. >> You have a quarm. You can >> All right. And we got our board professionals here. >> Sorry, I skipped. Um, >> Richer, board attorney >> here. >> Bill Burr, board engineer,
>> here. Katherine Zarmmed, board planner >> here, >> and Maurice, traffic engineer. >> Great. Thank you very much. At this time, I'm going to open up the meeting to members of the public that would like to address the board on any land use
matter that is not on our agenda this evening. Good evening, Councilman Kersh. >> Good evening. Wow, it's great to be on this side. Uh, so I'm I'm Michael Kersh. My address is 25 Danbury Lane here in Bridgewwater and I am a a member of the
township council. Uh and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to open the compliment department. Can I can I do that, >> please? >> No complaints, only serve at your leisure. So, the microphone's yours. >> So, uh the reason I want to appear uh before you briefly is uh just to really
state my my appreciation uh to each of you uh and to your collective efforts both on behalf of myself and the township council. Uh I've often said that uh we need to be very careful as we uh adjust and reshape the face of Bridgewater. And that means on the
council, that means on the planning board, that means on the zoning board. I know each of you takes this responsibility extremely seriously, the preparation that you do, uh the time that you spend in this room, the care that you take with the various uh the various cases that appear before you. uh
this our boards have I believe a well a well-deserved reputation that applicants are going to have a uh fair uh thorough uh hearing and uh I just really want to thank you for doing that. You're doing a tremendous service uh for the residents
of um Bridgewater Township and um you know I know not too many people come up here and and and compliment in just this way. Um, you know, I I know that uh we talk about how you are a very hardworking board doing important work. So, thank you for that. Um, there may be
uh some changes in the um makeup of this board uh after the uh the township uh township council reorganization. Uh we're working through that. So for any who do not continue, I want to particularly thank you for your service and any who are going to be continuing
uh your uh commitment to our uh to our community is greatly appreciated and uh enjoy your uh enjoy the remainder of your hearing. >> Thank you, Councilman. >> Thank you. Uh just real quick, if tonight is my last meeting, I I want to thank you tremendously from the bottom
of my heart for your friendship, for your hard work. Um, if it's not my last meeting, I'm looking forward to another four years. But either way, I I've really enjoyed this and and I couldn't do it without you and thank you for the sacrifice for missing all the dinners and the family events to be here every
other Tuesday. It's tough sometimes and we've had some tough cases. Um, but I just wanted to say thank you. Happy holidays and uh, by all means, the mic is open if anyone has any other comments. >> I would like to compliment the chair, Mr. Fouse for the work that he's done
over the last several years. Um we hope that he is able to come back and continue to lead this board because I think he's done it with um with grace, with courage. I know he's always represented the people of Bridgewater and has offered safety as the guiding
light to guide this board. At the same time, there's a level of fairness here that applies both to the public and of course any applicant that stands before this board. and he's made sure that that has not only been the standard by which we operate but continues to do so. So,
thank you, Mr. Fouse. >> Thank you, John. Very nice of you, >> Jeeoff. I'll I'll just second that. Thank you, Jeff. >> Should we vote? >> All right. Any other public comment? >> I have one other comment. I'm sorry. I'm
waiting for the public, but I know Mr. Sweeney, I think this is the end of your term as well, and you've served the board a long time. I thought you might want to share some comments, but I would compliment you on your continued support for the people in Bridgewater, the work that you do. I know it, you know,
sometimes it's it's very difficult to take a position and stick to it and you always manage to do that. So, thank you for your service as well. >> We had Please come. Sorry. >> Hello. My name is Carol and Joya. I live
in Bridgewater, 1402 Paleley Court. Um, this is my first zoning board meeting. I'm more familiar with the council meetings. And I'd like to just follow on with Councilman Kersh's comments. Um, and also um, echo from now
having read a transcript from one of your meetings because I am a court reporter and I do love transcripts. You guys do a fantastic job and you don't let anything go unsaid. So, I'm very impressed and I'm very thankful to the court reporter who did a great job
with the transcript. Um, in so doing, the reason I'm here tonight is because I originally thought that the storage unit uh facility would be on the agenda. And to my chagrin, after calling many, many of my neighbors this weekend, I found out late Saturday
night that um it was postponed. However, thank you for offering public comment and thank you for also not cutting us off. I noticed you let people get what they need to say out. So, I appreciate that. Um, I can say I can't ask questions because they're not here
tonight obviously, but I can say one of the reasons that I moved to Bridgewater was because of the farms. If you go online and you say, "Is Bridgewater a good place to live?" It'll probably say three things. good schools, good commute
and farms. Now, originally I moved to Warren, I'll be fair. I loved Barty Farms. I loved Melangas. I was, you know, very happy. Then I moved to Martinsville just on the border >> and now I'm in Bridgewater, you know, as I'm kids are out of the house and have
downsized and I live pretty close to Melik's farm and I really, really, really love it. Now, it's not right in my backyard or front yard like some of the other people who've spoken. Um, I'm probably about a five minute drive away. I live in Beacon
Hill. However, I'm on 22 a lot and I'm on the roads around Melx Farm and that's what concerns me is really the traffic safety and I took time to go to the top of the hill and >> so ma'am I'm sorry but that applicant's
not here tonight and I don't think it's really appropriate to for the board to take any kind of comments especially on sworn testimony about an application that's pending. before the board, you have the right to
come up when that application is heard, >> but I thought it said things that aren't on the agenda. >> Well, technically, it is on the agenda and and they're not here and I don't think it's appropriate that we take that and it's not even sworn testimony. At the time of the hearing, I will swear
you in and you can make as long and detailed a statement as you would like on that application, but that would be the more appropriate time to do it. I understand that and I appreciate that. I'm not going to be here on the 13th, >> so I would just ask that you would allow me to ask if anyone knows
>> going to be heard on the 13th anyway. So, >> excuse me. >> The 13th is the reorganization meeting and they will be assigned a hearing date on the 13th. So, it's not going to be heard on the 13th. It's being moved to the 13th for the purpose of assigning a
hearing date. >> So, we don't have a date yet when it's exist. the board hasn't the the board has to reconvene um and restructure itself in January and adopt the new calendar. All right. So when that'll
happen first and then pending applications will be assigned out a hearing date. All right. And >> so after the 13th we'll get a new date. >> Correct. On the 13th. >> On the 13th. And that'll be on the website. It'll be announced at the
hearing on the third at this meeting on the 13th and then Nancy I suppose it would be on the website. Is that what you do? >> Yes. It'll be on the >> Yeah. So it So yes, >> on the agenda for the next meeting, >> right? >> Okay. In between now and then, I just
want you to know that Route 22 is a federal highway and you are you have access to a rural safety assessment that's free by the New Jersey Department of Transportation. And I encourage you all to use this extra time that we have to look into requesting one of those
free traffic safety studies for Route 22, a federal highway. Thank you. >> We'll see you on the 13th. Well, I might not be here, but thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments? Okay, we're going to close that portion. We're going to move
on. We have no minutes. I believe we have two resolutions. First up, we're going to do 756 Harding Road. comments or changes from the board, please. >> So, I have one um appears on page three. The word policy should be police. So, it
would be, you know, township police department, not the policy department. >> Other than that, there were no changes. >> All right. Motion, please. >> I move. >> Second. >> I second. >> That was a min was second.
>> What? Deli was first made the motion. Boost. >> Yes. >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zamin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sweeney. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bonjouro. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gayski.
>> Yes. >> All right. Next up, we're going to do Billy Holdings, uh, 21 Mount Pleasant Avenue. That's a dismissal without prejudice, right, Rich? >> Yes. Without prejudice to refile and no changes. >> All right. Comments or changes? If none, motion, please.
>> I move. Mr. Widley. Mr. S. Second was Mr. Bonjouro. >> Mr. Fouse. >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. Chairman F. >> Yes. >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zamin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sweeney. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Bjouro. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gi. >> Yes. >> All right. Now, we're going to get to applications. First up, we're going to do a residential case. Quiznik, 1065 Carter Road. Mr. Sullivan. Good evening, sir. >> Good evening.
Hi, my name is John Sullivan. I'm an attorney with the offices of Vastola and Sullivan. I'm representing John Quisnik Knight. He is the owner of the property at 1065 Carter Road. That property is located in the R50 zone and it's fully
improved with a single family dwelling um as well as a driveway and some and uh some uh typical um residential site improvements. Uh we're here tonight um seeking bulk variance relief. This would permit the
construction of an addition to the existing home. Um it's going to expand the living space, believe it or not, by only about five square feet. Um and what it will do is allow us to have a second car uh a second uh car garage. So we're
adding 274 square ft um to allow for a second garage space. The plans that we've submitted are the architectural plan prepared by Joseph Marches uh that's dated uh November of 2024.
We've also submitted a variance plan prepared by David Styer's Associates which is dated January 15 of 2025 and last revised August 29th of 2025. And we also prepare uh submitted the
survey prepared by David Styer's Associates and that's dated June 17 of 2024. As noted in your um staff report, there are a few pre-existing nonconformities for the lot in uh including lot area,
lot width, front yard setback. And in connection with this application, we are also enhancing um the sideyard setback. Uh 25 ft is required, 11.7 feet is existing for one sideyard and 5.8 8 ft
is proposed um in connection with the garage expansion. In terms of combined sideyard setbacks, 70 ft is required. 29.6 ft is existing and we are proposing 17 1/2 ft in
connection with that. Um so those are essentially the uh the variances and the reason why we're here tonight. In terms of witnesses, I have Mr. Quiznik. He's going to explain um you know a little bit about the property and what he's proposing to do. We have our architect
Joseph Marches and our civil engineer David Styers. And if I may, I would begin with Mr. Quiznik. >> I have a question. On the form, it says that these variances were previously approved. Um
can you explain what that's about? >> Uh that's most likely a typo. I don't know if there's been any prior approvals on this. Uh, as a matter of fact, we did an OPRA search and we did not come back with any um zoning prior approvals.
>> Thank you. Mr. Quistnik, if you would remain standing, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. >> Mr. Quiznik, you are the owner of the
property at 1065 Carterette Road. >> Yes. >> And how long have you owned that property? My wife and I purchased the property in uh 1978. >> And you continue to reside there? >> Yes. My wife passed in 2022 and I've
resided there by myself since that time. >> And that property is fully improved with a single family dwelling. >> Yes. >> And that is a one-story ranch. >> Yes. >> And it has a onecar attached garage. >> Correct. >> Uh but it does have a um a twocar wide
driveway. Correct. Yes. >> And you have a basement and an attic as well. >> Yes. Uh the basement's under the uh basically most of the home except for the family room. The family room is on a
slab. >> And you're proposed to construct an addition to the home in accordance with the plans that we've submitted? >> Yes. >> And um as I mentioned uh that's to add a second car garage. >> Correct. And um so why do you wish to do that?
>> I own two automobiles. Uh one's an everyday driver, a 2018 Audi, and I also own a uh exotic car, an Aston Martin 2007 Advantage,
and I keep it gared. I'd like to be able to also garage my driver, everyday driver. And um we're proposing this um if you're standing in the street looking at your property, we're proposing this of course
to the left side. Um the most obvious reason is that's where the garage is. Correct. >> Um but I wanted to talk a little bit about the the neighbor to your left. Um do you know approximately about how far away um your new garage will be from um
from their existing home? I know currently that uh there's 35 ft between their existing home or garage which is under their home and my property line. And I believe my
uh addition would be 12 feet from my existing building. >> Okay. Well, it's actually going to be just over five feet. So about 40t total separation between the two structures. >> Yes. >> Thank you. That's all I have for Mr.
Quiznik. >> I didn't quite understand that there's a proposed sideyard setback on that side of the house of 5.8 ft. Correct. >> Yes. >> Can you make it any bigger than that? I
mean, I drove around your neighborhood. I couldn't see another house that had a sideyard as small as less than six feet. based on the existing uh property lines and the addition of the garage.
That's where it places it. I guess we could downsize the garage somewhat. I'm not sure. Have to uh ask the architect that is possible. >> Are you aware of any other homes in the
area that have a sideyard less than six feet? I've never done any such of, you know, survey on my own. No, >> I take that to be a No, >> there could be. >> But you don't know of any.
>> It's not. >> All right. Thank you. >> No. Something that I know. >> I know there's properties that are very close based on the garages, but uh to the other property, but I don't know the exact distance. >> Well, let me ask you this then. Um, if
we approve your application, would you be willing to work with the board planner to find some kind of vegetative buffer that would enhance the distance between your proposed expansion and the
home next door? In other words, 6 feet is not a whole lot of setback. I'd like to find some way to improve that in terms of the impact on your neighbor. I've spoken to the neighbor and uh all
four of my touching neighbors basically who you know I can see when I open my front door. They all said they're fine with the with the uh addition of the garage. >> Right. But the question is um between along your property line,
>> would I be willing to >> plant some evergreen? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other board questions for Mr. Quiznik? Members of the I'm sorry, board professionals. Questions for Mr. Quiznik, members of the public. All right. Thank
you. >> Uh, our next witness would be our architect, Joe Marques. So, John, while he's coming up, I do I want to make a couple of announcements. I don't know if we have people in the audience for two applications that are not going to be heard this evening. So,
while he's making his way up here, let me do that now. So, there's uh two matters on the agenda. One of which is Bridgewater Self Storage. Um, Bridgewater Self Storage is not being heard this evening. It is being um adjourned until the board's meeting on
January 13, 2026. For the sole purpose of assigning that a um a new date, there'll be no further notices from the applicant. The application, as you heard me say before, that application is not being heard on the 13th, but a new date being assigned to it on the 13th. Um and
also application filed by Rockland APV Bridgewater Energy LLC is not being heard this evening. That too is being rescheduled to the reorganization meeting on January 13th, 2026. And again for scheduling purposes only. So at that
reorganization meeting that will uh be provided that will be up uh given a new hearing date. So again that's uh Bridgewater self storage rockland APV not being heard. Neither one of them will provide additional notices uh to the public. Okay. Thanks, John.
>> Yes. >> Chairman, I I I just want to clarify something before we go to this witness. On this variance tax block, it shows we're talking about lot 30. Why on here is it showing 30 and 31? Is there a lot
to the west of this? Because this basically backs up. This here also backs up to these lots here. But on here, it shows that there's another lot. What's not right? Because that would mean that garage is
basically according to this, it would be back. There's a house a lot directly to the west. exist. The west is the back of >> You're comparing it to page two of the planner and engineering report, correct? >> Yes.
>> Yeah, they're different. >> Yes. >> Right. That's also the location map as shown on this survey as well matching the the planners letter. >> So, is there a lot 31 or not?
According to the tax map in our survey, yes, there is. To the left of us would be lot 31. >> So this page, this page is incorrect. That varian plan page two is incorrect.
>> Let's ask Mr. Styer that same question when he comes up. Going to have a survey to present. I think it bears on where this if he's going to agree to vegetation, you know, basically the back of the lot or it's the side of a lot. >> Okay, fair enough. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. Would you please stand? Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> And your name, please. And can you spell your last name, please?
>> M. >> Thank you. You can say thank you. >> Uh, Mr. Marquesi, could you start by stating your qualifications for the board received my license? >> You know, I'm sorry again, but would you pull that microphone closer to you?
Thank you. received my license to practice architecture in New Jersey in 1998 and since then working with others I started my own practice in October and
>> and is your license still in good standing? >> Yes. And have you previously appeared before any um planning or zoning board um and been admitted as an expert in terms of architectural testimony? >> Yes. >> And you're familiar with the site and
the application before the board tonight? >> Yes. >> Um >> and just that license is with the state of New Jersey, right? Okay. >> We would ask that Mr. Marques. >> Yeah. If there's no board objection, this board accepts him as a professional architect.
>> And uh you've prepared the plans that have been submitted to the board. >> Yes. >> And can you describe the uh structure as it currently exists? >> Uh it is currently a singlestory frame dwelling basement under half of the residents
space and single car garage. >> Sorry, John. Is that microphone on? Green light is lit. >> You have a green light. Okay. >> Okay. Better. >> Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Marces. >> Okay. Single family frame residence
um with a basement, a family room on a slab and a and a onecar garage. And can you explain to the board the addition that we are proposing? >> We are doing a small five square foot
renovation of the master bath squaring out a little of a already can't levered section fitting under the roof current roof overhang. There will be no foundation for this. And then we are
proposing to add a second car garage uh to the left side of the residence. >> And that's about 274 square feet. >> Correct. >> And in terms of the facade materials, we going to be able to match what's existing?
>> We intend to match what is existing. >> Now, Mr. Sweeney had asked a question. Is it possible to um reduce the size to um enhance the sideyard setback? Is that possible or not? >> There is room to move the wall a little
bit. Um I'd be a little bit concerned about the interior space if he's going to be using it as a for a car that he wants to take care of. So you feel that uh what we proposed is the better alternative to trying to
reduce the size. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh thank you. That's all I have for Mr. Maresy. I don't think there's anything in the staff report that he needs to address. >> Uh I have a question. Um, I'm looking at
this diagram and it looks like lot 30 has a paved driveway that's almost up to the property line. Correct. >> Lot 30 does have Yes, it's a twocore
wide driveway. >> Okay. So, it's but it's right up to the property line practically. >> Uh, it's close. Yeah. >> Okay. So, all right. And in this picture where you have the Audi parked is where
you want to put the garage extension, right? >> Yes. >> These are your pictures. >> My eyes aren't as good as they used to be. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. So, I guess a point of information
to the board is that he parks the car there now. So instead of just having the car there now, it's going to have a roof and a side. I don't see a lot of difference. If he puts up some sort of privacy plantings, um I don't see much
of a change. That's my point. >> Thank you. >> Point of information. >> Any other board questions? >> Yes, I have a question. Did you look at instead of a double like side by side garage, look at a a garage sort of a
tandem garage where a second car could be parked if the garage extended to the rear >> in line in line. um looked at it, but what I was really trying to do is how would I really roof that other than
coming in with a reverse gable or something that I didn't want it to make the uh devalue the you know aesthetic of the house. >> If you use a microphone, you can Right now, my deck extends
right behind the existing garage. So, to make a tandem garage, I have to remove my deck. Any other board questions? Board professionals? Thank you. Um, so I think Mr. Sweeny's question to the applicant initially was
was a good one and a good, you know, a good uh way to mitigate any impacts from the setback because even if the neighbors today are are happy, you know, or or okay with it in concept, I think having extra screening from the street view for any future neighbors is always,
you know, a positive to help break up any of the impacts from a setback. So, I do I do agree and would appreciate working with the the applicants professionals if it's looked favorably upon. Um, I wouldn't necessarily say I think fencing if you put up a fence at that point, you might squeeze out the ability to do landscaping. So, um, I'll
I'll leave it to the board to what they want, but I do think a vegetative buffer is probably probably better as long as it's maintained. Um, this probably isn't for the applicant, but I just wanted to in conversations for when when this project was being put together, is the
initi is the original garage space um is it going to be the same size as the the the garage that exists right now, the proposed garage, is it going to be about the same? Is it going to be symmetrical to the existing garage? >> Yes.
>> And what what size is that garage? Is it 8 foot wide? Uh, it's 11. >> It's 11 ft wide. Okay. Um, >> and do you do you is that garage currently utilized for car storage? Are you aware? >> No, I don't believe so.
>> Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that the size of the garage that's being proposed is going to be large enough, right, to store the vehicles that it's being proposed to be used for. and that if the current space is not adequate for a car because it's too narrow or not deep
enough that what's being proposed will adequately capture what it's what it's being proposed to be used for. >> Aston Martin is a very small sports car. >> Well, I want to make sure you don't have to scratch it to get it in there. So, I just want to make sure the the garage has been sized adequately
>> for your architect. >> Yeah. So, what is going to be the um width of the garage opening? >> We have two 9 foot wide doors
>> and that's enough to get a car in and out without uh scratching it. Correct. >> Yes. The overall width garage and the cars. It is a little bit undersized.
>> Please talk into the mic. >> The garage will be about 22 and 1/2 ft wide. It's about 22 feet deep. Um it's a little bit undized based on uh
today's current um massive cars, but still decent enough. Undersized by how much? I'm sorry. >> Well, typical garage is 24 by 24 these days. >> So, by two feet in each room,
>> two feet. >> That okay, Catherine. >> Yeah. I just wanted I just wanted to understand, you know, the the parameters and and the dimensions because I do think oftentimes we hear, you know, not even just in this municipality about people expanding their homes for garages. And oftentimes we find
additional garages being added because garages are used for storage of things and I just want to make sure that this could accommodate a vehicle because it's important that if that's what what we're predicating the variance relief on, right, that that's what it's utilized for. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. But I just to clarify that the testimony I heard was there is a car in there today. >> Are we saying I think you just said no that there's not? >> I didn't. I'm sorry. >> So there is a car is Yes. You currently have and you'd like to put the other one
in there. Yes. >> Okay. Right. So the pictures that we saw here, you had both of the cars out just to show what the garage looked like. Right. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. We need you to use the microphone if you want to add that.
>> Amen. >> I previously parked my uh standard uh driving car, my Audi A6, in the garage prior to purchasing the Aston Martin. >> After purchasing the Aston Martin, my Audi no longer resides in the garage.
Aston Martin over. >> All right. Thank you. We're all good on this garage size. >> Katherine, you good? >> Thank you very much. >> All right. >> You describe how you're going to add this garage. I I can't get a mental
picture of what are you going to just build the roof and a side and a back? You're gonna tear down what's there? I don't I can't imagine what you're doing. I'm going to extend the front and rear walls
to the to the left side out the um 12 ft and it'll have a foundation a slab and we are going to align the roof line so there's no break and it's a continuous
uh set look like it was always there. So, just so that I understand, in this picture here that you looked at a moment ago, you're going to just take this wall out and extend it >> to the side. We're not coming forward.
We're not coming back to Yes. >> Thank you. I'm good now. Professionals, anyone else? >> All right. Members of the public, questions on architectural testimony. All right. Seeing none, back to you, Mr. Holden.
>> Thank you. Um, our third and final witness will be David Styers, our engineer. >> Mr. Styers, uh, 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? >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. And your name for the record,
please? S G I R E S. Thank you. >> And Mr. Styers, would you state your qualifications for the board? >> I'm a professional engineer and uh planner in the state of New Jersey uh since 19 uh 89 and my license is in good
standing. Would you like me to continue? >> I know this this board accepts. You've been in front of us many times. Good to see you again, sir. >> Thank you. >> Uh Mr. You prepared the site plan and drawings that we've submitted to the board? >> Yes. >> And you're familiar with the site and
the application? >> I am. >> And can you describe the site as it currently exists? >> Yes. So, uh, we're at on Carterette Road. We're approximately 1,200 ft east of Brown Road. Um,
excuse me. There's a ranch uh with a onecar garage on the south side of the house. Um across the street there is also a ranch similar to this one in nature with a twocar garage. There is one to the north
uh with a twocar garage, also a ranch. And then on the south side there is a uh split level with a twocar garage on the north side. So it's a side loaded garage. um slopes and grades generally slope
towards Brown Road. There is a uh swale. We're kind of on the uh upland side of this swale. It's just starting to be established. It runs down towards Brown underneath Brown and into uh Sunset Lake
and becomes Chambers Brook uh somewhere uh downstream of the subject properties. Um, again, there's a existing onecar garage. There is a uh width there as you
approach the uh garage on the south side of the property that uh extends so that there's uh pavement on the south side of the uh existing house. Uh as one of the board members had
stated, uh that area is paved and one of the cars is parked adjacent to uh the existing house on the south and uh in the general area where this proposed
garage is uh to be installed, which is the dark brown on the uh colored rendering. Um Mr. Sullivan mentioned uh pre-existing nonconformities. We have a 50,000 R50 zone. 36,500
square feet exist. 165 ft of frontage is required. 100 ft uh of frontage exists uh currently and that is uh consistent with a majority of the properties on Carterette. Uh they're
all uh rectangular narrow frontages with very uh long extended rear yards. Um the front yard uh setback is an existing condition 56.1 where 75 is
required. As you can see on the colored rendering, it is consistent with the adjacent properties both on the north uh the west and the east side of Carterette. So uh these these lots were probably created prior to the R50 zone
being put in place. Uh so there are uh a lot of existing nonconformities relating to those uh properties. Um >> Mr. Before you go forward, would you just mark that um exhibit as A1 with
today's date on it, please? And that is not a sheet that we have that you rendered. Correct. >> Okay. But it's a different sheet, right? Okay. >> Uh there was a comment in the uh professional reports about drainage.
Um so basically we talking about 280ome square feet of additional impervious or lot coverage. And I want to state on the record that that uh is a little bit in error. We did not include the pavement
under the proposed uh garage. So that number is closer to about 130 square feet, which is uh pretty nominal uh when you're talking about uh storm water and drainage improvements.
Um, but I would uh defer to the board and the board's professionals as to whether or not they think that uh the impacts uh would u require a dry well or some kind of pertinances for storm water
upgrades. The the flow of runoff basically runs uh Carter is slightly higher than the the existing house. Uh, and what happens is there's a swale that runs south and north, like I said, to Brown Road and it's behind the existing
houses and uh west of actually uh Mr. Quiznck's deck and runs down kind of the center of those uh properties on the uh on the west side of Carter. Uh again, we're up on the upland side of that
drainage uh feature, so there's not a significant amount of water or runoff in that location. Now, in connection with the proposed improvements, um are we proposing to remove any trees? >> No, we are not.
And uh I think there was also a question in the joint engineering and planning review report as to whether or not we have to make any further driveway improvements. >> Now the the way the driveway is in currently constructed, it does wrap
around and include uh where that uh or is in front of where that proposed uh garage door will be for the new garage. Uh there may need to be a little bit of a leveling course to get up to that finish floor elevation, but all in all,
the impervious coverage as uh currently exists will be what is required to get into that garage. >> And you would be able to work with the board professionals um to set up a um some plantings to provide screening.
>> Yes, we can do that. Yes. And um do you know if there's any what's proposed? M perhaps I should have asked this of Mr. Marches. Um are we proposing any additional lighting? >> No, we are not. >> Sure. Now I would just um in terms of your um
planning hat um if you could talk a little bit about um the hardship that um we are that we are um talking about here in terms of why we need the variances. >> Yeah. Well, again, you know, I go back
to the the lot width and the current zoning uh and the current lots that are uh that exist on Carterette. There are 100 foot wide lots. Uh we do have a garage on the south side of the property
or the house and we we propose to extend that. Uh Mr. Quiznik had talked about not being able to uh punch that garage through into a double garage as uh suggested by one of the board members. Um so in order to create that garage in
a proper location on that property, it it requires that 5 uh 8 foot variance on the south side of the property. I would state that overall the F is well within the uh the
zoning guidelines.16 is required and 0.043 is proposed lot coverage is well within uh the uh requirements 18% coverage is is allowed and we're at 11.1%.
And then you know with respect to a ranch you know heights can be up to 35 feet two and a half stories. This is a one story probably about a 16 18 foot high ranch. So from an air and light standpoint I understand Mr. Sweeny's
concern on the on the south side. But from an air and light standpoint, uh I believe that this this property still provides adequate light and air to the adjoining and neighbor neighborhood
>> and uh could you briefly address um C2 criteria? Uh, you know, as one of the board members mentioned that the the car is going to sit adjacent to the existing house on the south side of the garage or
you can enclose it and and put it inside the house and have less outdoor storage so to speak. So, I think the benefits of the deviation advance uh are advanced in this situation.
And do you see sub any substantial detriment either to public good or to the uh zone plan and zone ordinance? >> Uh no I do not. And given the fact that we will provide some landscaping on the south side to address uh the buffering
between the neighbors property and this >> Thank you. That's all I have for Mr. Styers. >> All right. Board questions for Mr. Styr's planning and engineering testimony. All right. Seeing none, uh, board professionals.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Sure. >> Dave, um, you mentioned that the existing driveway would not need to be modified in any way. >> That's right. >> Yeah. I just I just want to confirm. So, the driveway slopes down from Carterette towards the house and then I guess the
grade drops off behind the house, correct? >> It does. Yes. So, by constructing a garage on the left side, are you in any way going to block the flow of water that now kind of makes its way down the driveway to the rear yard or will that
just be swailed, you know, around around the garage edition? >> Yeah, the the the water generally goes south to north. So, uh, I think the, u focus will be to try to get the and and I think what happens with the current ex
situation is, excuse me, the driveway comes down to a point and then goes back up to the existing garage and we will continue to do that so that the water's not going in the garage. And I think the uh generally we're going to try to get
the water to the north and there'll probably be a little bit of it that will go around to the back of the house as well. >> Okay. >> And just just as far as I think you said a net increase of 130 square feet Yes.
of coverage this would result in. So your testimony is no no negative impact to any of the adjacent properties or downstream properties as a result of that. Correct. >> Yeah. And given the fact that that swale, you know, as it goes around the house, it it, you know, it extends out
to the west and away from that neighbor's uh physical improvements. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you, members of the public. Questions for Mr. Styer's planning and engineering testimony. You have a long walk from back there.
If >> we could just get your name and address, please. Kurt Lynhammer. I'm John's neighbor on the downhill side. So, the only concern I just had was more about I never saw the plans for it, but we do
get water runoff and comes down Carterette. uh his neighbor on the other side, both driveways, his and the other neighbors don't have any kind of uh Belgium block. So the water picks up speed, it hops the curb and goes down the driveways more at
a 45 degree angle. So right now I have like a little half wall between my house and John's to deflect the water to my backyard between us. But the only concern I have is this. If the other garage is there and water comes down, it
doesn't have a path back necessarily unless maybe some remediation was done to bank it. >> If we could kind of turn your statement into a question and direct it at the witness and maybe he can give you an answer there because it was a good question.
>> As stated, uh, what? Well, you know, the way the contours work, it appears that the water from the front yard goes around and in between the two houses and towards the west and all you guys need to use a mic.
>> John, can you give him the mic to use if he's up there? Thanks. There's a swale back in this area here. >> I'm sorry, sir. Can you back up to and use the microphone? Thank you. >> The way the uh with the extra dry um
garage though, there I'm assuming there would be some water that normally would have passed to the backyard between the uphill neighbor side >> in this area. now would not have the path which may would increase the flow of water cutting across
>> this way. >> Yeah. But how wide is that? And and and it's more of at an angle. So I don't see the water flowing back. I see it flowing towards the front of his and and still coming around the back between. >> So the slight the slight increase where there's no pavement would come around
this way. >> I can show you video of the water flow and it's it's a little river. So it's not like a minor thing. So when the water comes down the driveway, which it will do >> this this water, >> correct? It'll come down. >> Yeah, it comes down to a point and then
comes around. >> But there's also water that going straight back to I mean just gravity is downhill pitch to all the homes along the road on that side. So with the garage that's being built, I'm just asking what's to prevent an increase in
the water that's now also going to come along closer to its house and around joining the water that does cut naturally today around. >> Yeah. See that that's what I originally stated. We have about 130 square feet of increased impervious
or you know uh roof compared to grass right now. So there is a slight uh increase in the runoff uh from this proposal and I defer to the board professional as to whether or not he
thinks that's sign significant. I do not think it's a significant amount of runoff and um and and again from from the contours that we've pro provided on the on the survey you know the water does run
towards the back. I understand some of it comes around this and through here. >> Also, the neighbors run off from their driveway. You don't have on on your map there. >> Yeah, there's a there's a there's a >> twocar garage and a pavement paved area
that comes down. So, that's that's also flowing >> drops down there too. So, I'm saying that water may have dropped down and also >> one path. I just want to make sure that there's not going to be a problem there. there's a banking or whatever a little swale something that will guarantee
there won't be an increase in water. >> Yeah, I mean you know we can look at ways to to try and get the water. Did you say that also that some may be coming down Carter and through >> it's a bigger issue. It's just a
township issue quite frankly with the sewer drains and everything. I I literally have to go out every storm and go up on all the roads that feed down to Carter Red, clean them off myself. Otherwise, I might get water about this deep coming down and about, you know,
from here to the table wide and before my wall, it would come right up to my front door, which was about a foot and a half down. It would come right up right to the brim, right? >> So, it was pretty significant runoff. So, I just want to make absolutely sure that there's >> can't afford any more water coming. Oh,
I I hear you, Bill. On the 130 additional feet, is there something we can do with the plantings? While we're doing that, maybe, you know, incorporate a rain garden or some slight >> Yeah, that's you know, a couple things I was going to suggest. The plantings obviously will help. If we could introduce a swale or regrade a little
bit of that sideyard to make sure the water gets to the rear and not make its way across the front to the to the neighbor's property, that would help. Certainly, a rain garden takes maintenance, but a rain garden would be effective as well. So there's cost effective things that can be done uh to
help for sure. >> Mr. Sullivan, you're amable to that. >> And I would agree with Bill. I I think if you get the swale on that side on the south side of our property, that would also collect the pavement. There's there's more pavement on this area here because of the the turn turn in. So it's
like 35 ft of pavement uh behind those sideloaded garages. So if we can pick up that that area and force it to the back, I would agree we can do that. and anything that can be done that can help divert at least some of that because right now 100% of two homes for >> running around the front
>> line I have to literally have had to buy a >> okay we can work with >> that be great >> put putting swell in there though just to clarify would actually improve this situation that you have today what Mr. tires just saying. Yeah,
>> thank you. >> I think there was a comment made from our board engineer on a rain garden. I mean, I think we're talking about a sheet flow here. I'm not quite sure how a rain garden in particular would work where you have sheet flow. Um certainly
the swale would certainly be the way to go there. >> Missed the first part of the question, but yeah, you you know, you could you could certainly take the new garage and put it into a dry well. You you could point the swale to the rain garden as
well. There's things you can do. >> You're going to work with the applicant. You're going to make sure that this situation's improved. >> All right. >> All right. Any other members of the public? >> All right. Looks like that's it.
>> Yes. So, that uh concludes our um presentation in terms of witnesses and evidence. Uh we would ask the board to uh consider granting this application. Uh we feel that the it proposes an appropriate use of the property on an
appropriate scale and it continues to fit well into this residential neighborhood. The applicant does face several practical hardships uh which arise essentially from pre-existing conditions. Uh the lot is undersized in
terms of um of width in particular um but area as well and this contributes uh directly to the need for the sideyard setback variances. Um as Mr. Styers pointed out, I think it's important to understand, you know,
that we're still well below the coverage requirements and the F requirements of the ordinance. Um we do feel that there are some benefits. Uh it's a rather small home now. It's a single family uh ranch. Um the proposal still results in
a relatively modestsized home. We are creating the second uh car for the garage that will allow us to take one of the cars out of the driveway and put it into the garage. And there's really no other logical place to put it given the lot width in the fact that the other
sideyard is a tighter sideyard than this one. And uh of course the current location of that garage. uh we still that we feel that the site can still accommodate the use without any substantial detriments. So we would ask that you consider granting the
application uh together with the conditions noted um and the applicant certainly willing to um work on the drainage and the screening issues with chip. >> Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Uh let's open up to members of the public that would like to speak for or against this application. You could approach and use
the microphone. >> All right. See, now we're going to close that portion. Rich, why don't you take us through the conditions and we'll open deliberations. >> Sure. >> So, if there's a motion to approve the application, the conditions we discussed were adding a landscape buffer um at the
property line to the satisfaction of the township planner and providing a grading plan um to reduce the water runoff impact to the neighboring properties. That would be to the satisfaction of the township engineer. >> Right. Thank you. >> That was it. >> All right. Let's open deliberations. Uh
Jim, why don't you kick us off there? >> Um actually I have no problem with the application. I mean uh I drove past it. You have your Audi out there right now parked there and you just really said you're just really covering that. You're not really adding more space. As
long as you take care of the drainage and work with our um professionals between that and landscaping, I have no problem with it at all. >> Thank Jeff CCT. Good evening, sir. >> Hi. Um yeah, I have no problems with the application either. I I understand the need to want to increase the living
space or garage space in this case. Um I live in the neighborhood. I understand this. I had a small ranch myself and uh I wanted the need to increase it as well. So I would approve the application. >> Mr. Grasking. >> Yeah, I believe this it improves uh the
situation with the rainwater that's happening today. And again, you they're also going to be putting you won't have to look at that car, right? The garage is getting extended. Um, so now there'll be less to look at over there and I think look, it's a narrow there are very narrow lots over there and it's
difficult to do anything and I like having my cars in the driveway in my garage too. So I'm for it. Thank you, Mr. Kulak. >> I would agree. I'd support the application. I think it's consistent with uh many of the homes I've seen in the neighborhood. Exactly the same ranch
with a twocar garage follows the roof line. I think it'd be great for the applicant. I think it'd be good for the neighborhood and it would improve the storm water. So, I support it. >> Thank you, Mr. Bonjour. >> I'm in favor of the application. Um, I don't see much of a change happening.
Um, I just want to say congratulations on buying an Austin Martin. >> Mrs. Amin, your thoughts, please. >> It's a very simple application. Um, only garage is being expanded, so there's not
too much here. I'm in favor of approving it. Mr. >> Sweeney, >> uh, my only concern was with the size of the setback once this proposed garage is built, but it sounds as though the applicant's willing to work with the planner to enhance a vegetative buffer.
And I'm also looking at what is essentially a grossly undized lot, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to do much of anything at all without violating one standard or another. Uh, in short, I'm in favor of the application. >> Thank you, Mr. Fresco.
>> Yeah, I agree with uh with Mr. Sweeney. I'm not crazy about less than six feet uh as a setback, but you know, um >> I think uh I think we got a great team and it's going to work out fine. So, I support it. >> Thank you, Mr. Vessio.
>> This application is not a sort of clear-cut one. Uh yes or no for me. uh because there are hundreds of homes identical to this with very similar lot widths. So, you know, passing this application does set a precedent and I
uh I'm aware of folks that would would love to do this to their home that limited to one garage. Um now, I kind of have to weigh that with, you know, twocar garage, it's not a luxury nowadays, right? I think it's sort of standard living conditions. um and kind of looking at is it better
to have cars parked in your garage or or cars parked in your driveway. I think there is a benefit that folks can park their cars in their their garage. Um this is a very like I said typical typical home in this area. Um could set
a precedent but each up does stand on its own mers. But um I will fa I will lean towards favoring this application. >> Thank you. I I I'm in favor. Uh it's a clear hardship case. I I actually think this is one of those light rainwater storm water situations where a rain
garden can pick up a lot of the existing flow. Uh leaning on Mr. Styer's planning testimony. He clearly indicated that this was this project was not out of character in the neighborhood. So it's it's a layup. It's an easy yes. And I'll open it up for a motion, please. >> I move. >> Mr. Widley, do I have a second? There
was a motion to approve, sir. >> Yes. >> All right. Motion to approve. Is there a second? >> Motion to approve this. >> Okay. and a second by Mrs. Amen. >> Chairman Fouse. >> Yes. >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zamin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sweeney.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bonjouro. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gayski. >> Yes. >> All right. Good job, Mr. Sullivan. Good luck with your new car, sir. >> Have a good evening. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. And to just add on to uh Mr. Kersh's comments from earlier
today. Um, having appeared before this board a number of times, um, I find it to be a very sophisticated and reasonable board. Um, and and trust me, um, you know, I've appeared, you know, 30, 40, 50 different boards uh, in the
state. So, I for one, I hope you're all back uh, next year. >> Thank you, John. Happy holidays to you. Thanks, David. >> Thanks, guys. All right, we'll uh we'll dive in as soon as the uh last applicant's out of the way. Uh Cafe Ameilia, you can come up.
We have a court reporter, too, as well, right? All right. >> What? Been a while. All right. Good evening, Miss Jennings. Okay, good evening. For the record, I'm Donna Jennings from the law firm of Wen
Goldman and Spitzer on behalf of the applicant. As the board, we were here back in July, and the applicant is seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval, a D1 variance, a D4 floor area ratio variance, several bulk
variances, and design waiverss to construct a new two-story addition to the existing Cafe Amelia restaurant to add a banquet hall, courtyard, a closed rooftop bar area on property located at 705 Route 202 and 49 Charlotte Drive and
identified as block 163.02, lots 17 and 9. After the July hearing, in response to the comments it received from the board and its professionals, the applicant modified the plans to reduce the intensity of the development and to provide safer circulation.
Generally, as revised, the proposed restaurant and banquet hall will comprise approximately 10,337 square ft, reduced from the original proposal of 16,749. To accommodate the reduced building size, the downstairs bar was eliminated and the banquet room, enclosed rooftop
bar, courtyard, kitchen, and banquet room were reduced in size. The proposed seating for the existing restaurant, banquet hall, and rooftop remain the same because the applicant was able to redesign the site to eliminate features such as a dance floor in the banquet room. Additionally, the applicant
revised the site circulation to leave the existing depressed curve along Route 202 as is developed today. Access drives to and from Charlotte Drive east and west are still proposed, but have been minimally shifted to reduce the amount of impervious coverage and provide additional landscaping.
I this evening I'm going to have several witnesses testify. I'm going to start actually we have a new site engineer, Robert Michello, who has appeared before this board a number of times. He took a look at the plans for us and came up with some uh good modifications to help address the concerns expressed by the
board and your consultants. He's going to testify first. We have Craig Kalishan, the architect. We also have an acoustical engineer, Matt Morella, who will testify with respect to the noise. Jay Troutman, our traffic engineer, and Andrew Janu, our professional planner.
And just as a matter of recordkeeping, we are in receipt of eight reports, memos from the town. We have the planning department report dated December 5th, 2025. The board planner report dated November 11th, 2025. Board engineering dated December 4th,
2025. Health officer dated November 25th, 2025. Fire official dated November 21st, 2025. Traffic safety dated October 24th, 2025. Sewer utility dated October 20th, 25. And tax assessor dated October
10th, 2025. And even though the matter was technically carried without further public notice, we did renotice for the hearing because somebody was missing from the list. So, we got an updated list from the town and we did renotice for this particular hearing >> and I've reviewed that notice. It's in proper form, was mailed uh within the
proper time frames and republished. So, the board does have jurisdiction. >> Thank you. So, at this time, I'd like to have Mr. Michello uh sworn in and we can begin his testimony. >> I have a question. Did you mention that the proposed addition was going to be two stories?
>> Yes. Well, in in I guess the planning document, it says three stories. >> Okay. Well, we'll have uh Mr. Michelle clarify everything on the architect. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Would you stand, please raise your right hand? I'm going to ask our professionals
to stand. We probably got them at the last first hearing, but why don't we do that again and raise your right hand? I'll swear you in as well. Stand and raise your right hands. Thank you. 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? >> I do. And and for the record, my left to
right, just uh your names, please. >> Yes, it's Robert Moshello. M O S C H E L L Our R A C H >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Good evening everybody. Just for for the
record, u my qualifications, I've been accepted as an expert witness in before in front of this board on numerous applications. Good evening to all again. >> If your license is in good standing, we'll accept you as an >> It still is, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. Good to see you, sir. >> Good to see you all as well. All right. So, I have a couple of exhibits this evening I'm going to put up for the
record. I'm not sure what um number we're up to from the last meeting. >> I think this should be A4. I think we did A1 through three the last time. >> Yeah. >> Excellent. >> Nope. We did A1 through four. This is A5. >> All right. So, this will be A5 for the record. I'll just get this up here. So,
A5 for the record, and I'll mark it is a neighborhood aerial exhibit. It's dated December 9th, 2025. Just to give some context to the property in the surrounding um neighborhood. This is the 2021 state aerials that we're looking at
here. Up on the uh map um north being up on the screen, route highway 202 going in an east to west direction across the plan here. You have the township of Bridgewater where our property is located. And then just to the east um approximately 200 ft um to the east is
the municipal boundary line with the burrow of Raritin um that is that that is shown on the plan here in orange. You can see from the plan that we are in the R20 residential zone which basically encompasses the properties both to the west to the south to the east and to the
north side of the uh site which is on the other side of US Highway Route 202. Um, so just to give some context to the properties which are outlined in yellow, we are known as block 163.02, lot 9 and lot 17. Lot 9 is 0.54 acres
and lot 17 is 0.35 acres for a total of 0.89 acres. So, and the property is bounded on the west by Charlotte Drive West and on the east by Charlotte Drive East and the south by
residential properties and again the north by Route 202. That's just some context for the overall neighborhood. I'm going to talk about just the next exhibit I have here for the record will be A6 and that's entitled aerial exhibit also
dated December 9th uh 2025. This is a zoomed in version of the two properties outlined in yellow just for context for the record just to talk about the existing conditions on both properties before we go into the proposed application this evening. Route
202 of course is still on the top side of the plan here going in an east to west direction north being up. Um we have Charlotte Drive west on the west side and Charlotte Drive east on the east side. And you can see both properties outlined in yellow here as I refer to them. lot nine which which
we've talked about which I've referred to as the church lot um um in terms of the church existing church that's on that property today that exists out there and it's an existing just to get on the record here the size of that building is 1535 square ft existing
one-story structure and the lot coverage on that lot um with the existing house or building and parking in the rear is approximately 43.9% %. Then on the lot 17, which is known as the Cafe Amelia
lot, which is 0.35 acres, the square footage of that existing structure is 2796 ft. And the lot coverage on that lot, which was talked about at the last meeting, um, is actually 96%. And that lot is pretty much developed with the
parking and the building that's shown on there. It has access both from Route 202 where there's a drop curve where you can come in off of 202 as well as a drop curve that runs pretty much the entire length of Charlotte Drive east that gives you access to that property. There's approximately 32 parking spaces
on that lot. And you notice from looking at the aerial here, um there's an outdoor patio area in the back that was added um during COVID and that's used in the um summer months and and fall and spring months for um service back there. in terms of um out outdoor dining. Um
the the church lot or or lot nine has an existing parking lot with about 12 spaces on it. There's an outdoor shed and gravel area towards the back of the property as well. Um there's some vegetation or landscaping along the southern property line. U most of the most of that vegetation is on the
neighboring properties. There's a few existing trees that are right on the property line that border both the uh lot 9 and lot 17. I did go back and take a look at some of the historic aerials for these properties just to get some context as to the development patterns that have
occurred out here over the years before we talk about the proposed application. Um, looking at the the lot 17 site, I went back to aerials as far back as 1979, which showed that this lot was basically developed with the pavement patterns you see out there today and the
parking that's shown on there. Um, when I went back further into the early 70s and late 50s, uh, early 70s, um, and and mid60s, um, it was harder to tell the extents of the pavement on the property, but sometime between approximately 1959 and 1979, this property was built out to
the limits you see there today. Um, and actually when I went back and looked at the aerial mapping for lot 9, what was pretty interesting was sometime in the 50s and 60s and 70s, there was pavement and access off of Route 202 all along the frontage of this property. And
sometime between the late 70s and the um the '9s, this property was flipped and the parking and and pavement was put in the back and and landscaping was was done in the front. Um, so there's been development patterns that have been current over here over the last 50 or so years on these properties. most of which
you've seen on on lot 17 has been this way since probably the early early 70s um from what I can tell from looking at the aerials. Just to put on the record, there are no um environmental constraints on either of these properties as far as wetlands, flood planes, state open waters um go.
There's no D regulated areas that exist here. Uh both properties were serviced by public utilities and you know, we'll talk about that when we get to the proposed application as well. Um, but there's no uh there's no constraints that exist on the properties or even no steep slopes. The topography on both lots is relatively flat. The total grade
change from I'll say the northwest to the southeast is about 10 ft. Um, so it's relatively flat in terms of uh in terms of sites and there is no as of right now there's no storm water management on either of those properties. So the runoff from a site perspective just runs off the
properties today to the the existing road network that's there. There's no controls on any of that runoff that occurs on those uh on those properties. So, moving on to the proposed application. >> We're up to A7 for the record.
>> Correct. And this is entitled site plan rendering and it's dated December 9th, 2025. Um what I have here is a is a compilation of my site dimension plan and landscaping plan um just for the
purposes of and the and the 2021 uh state aerial. And I combined these all together for presentation purposes this evening. So it's a series of of my plan sheets put together for the purposes of the uh of the presentation. So, as Miss Jennings pointed out, we've
actually come and taken a closer look at this property to try to reduce some of the development um patterns that were being proposed under the prior application. Um the prior application had a larger building, approximately 16,000 square foot in size. And this build, this project now, we've reduced
the size of the building. Um we've also reduced um the impervious coverage on the property. I'll get into those numbers in a little while. Um, and we've also looked to modify some of the circulation patterns on the property as well to provide some better circulation
and also provide for pedestrian connectivity on the property where I believe before it was there was some concerns about um guests and where they would be um parking and walking to the entrances on the building and things of that nature. So, we've taken a closer look at um of the design and we've come
back and worked with the project architect to um reduce the building size and then modify the site layout um for what I like to say is a a better more efficient layout in terms of um site development and providing some more
green space on the property as well compared to the prior um application. So to get into some of the specifics of the proposed building and some of the dimensions that we're talking about here, the new proposed building is going to be a three-story structure. That was
mentioned previously about asking about that. It is a three-story structure and the architect will show you elevations of what is comprised of the building addition. But the first floor is basically the banquet the banquet space. The second level is a mezzanine and the third story is basically the rooftop
bar. So it is considered three stories from a zoning perspective but the overall height of the building complies with your ordinance. It's 29.7 ft. So overall heightwise it complies but it is considered a three-story structure and you'll see those in the elevations when the architect presents that a little later on this evening. Um but just
talking about the addi the building addition and how it's situated on the property. the lighter um building shown here on my plan is the existing two-story restaurant building that exists on the property today. That building for all intents of purposes is not being modified in terms of any in
terms of any expansions towards Route 202 or Charlotte Drive East. The modification or the expansion we're talking about here is the building addition going to the west um from the side of that from the west side of that building towards Charlotte Drive West. We have made some in modifying the
building. We have reduced the building footprint so that the back of the building or the southern side of the building lines up with the existing southern facade of the existing cafe Amelia building. So that that the bu this building will be no closer to the southern property line as the existing
building is today. And so that setback that's shown on the plan now is 59.9 ft at the I'll say the southeast corner and 60 ft at the uh southwest corner of that building. It's not exactly perfectly parallel to the lot line, but it's it's an extension of the existing building.
So, that building will be no closer than the current building to that southern property line. And then for the west for the dimension from the western property line, we're now at 79.9 ft. Whereas before the prior building was at 52 feet from that western property line.
So, we went from 52 feet to 79.9 ft for that western building setback line. And just for context, the southern property line, the building setback was 50.3 feet on the prior plan. And now we're at 59.9 ft, which matches up with the existing building um on that southern facade. As
far as the northern facade of the building goes and it se it setback dimension to Route 202, I do want to note there's a slight jog in the property lines there. the way the two lot lines are are config are configured along 202. So the front setback for the existing
um restaurant is 31.4T that's shown on the plan here and our setback for the new building addition is 33.2 feet as shown on the plan. So it it is set slightly further back but there is a jog in that lot line. And so if you would extend that lot line all the way out, it's actually a few more feet for f
further back where the prior plan was um at 28.9 ft was that original setback on the prior plan. So we've increased that slightly on the plan here. So overall the building square footages for this application, we went from over 16,000 square feet. We reduced the building
down on the first level to 6557 ft on the mezzanine level to 2550 ft. And on the rooftop bar, that's at 1,230 square feet. So overall total floor area for this current application now is 10,337
square feet, which is a 0.27 F ratio for zoning purposes, which is still in excess of your ordinance, but it's been reduced from the prior one, which was 0.43. The other major change that h that occurred with the reduction in the building footprint was the reduction in
lot area. So lot coverage under the prior application was at 88.9%. Um and for this application what we've done in terms of the layout here in in terms of in being able to um get back
some impervious coverage was of course one reduce the size of the building. Um, that's certainly helped. We reduced the size of the courtyard in between the existing restaurant and the new building addition. We have some more green space in there now. Um, we've also provided a landscaped area between the western and
southern side of the building and the parking areas that weren't on the previous plan. We've also provided for circulation on the property now sidewalks not only along the front which was generally there already. Um but we've also provided sidewalks on the
western side and eastern side of the plan um to provide access to the parking areas for for those days when we're not going to be having valet on site and people will be parking their own vehicles um on the property. Um we have those sidewalks to allow for that pedestrian circulation basically around the entire property now to get from the
parking areas to the front of the building. Um and then we provided some additional green space areas and some landscaped islands around the property as well. We also took the exist the proposed parking that was on the southern side of the site. The prior plan had it about 8 feet from the
property line. we moved it to 10 feet from the property line to give it an extra extra two feet of of area where we're providing um landscape buffering along that southern property line there um and enhancing the the screening that's along that property line with the residences. I'll talk about that a
little bit more um late later on. But with all these modifications, um, we're also providing a 24T drive lane both on the southern portion of the parking lot, a 24T drive lane on the western side, and we're doing an 18 ft drive lane, one-way drive lane on the northern side.
These are two-way on the southern and western side, but an 18 foot wide drive lane on the northern side, one way for for traffic circulation purposes. um and providing a a six-foot um stabilized turf area um for emergency vehicles if they need that for for for firet truck
um circulation. And I'll show you a circulation plan a little later on for firet trucks where that's not necessarily needed, but to comply with the request of your fire official to have 24 foot circulation around the entire site, we're providing that stabilized turf um for a firetruck if they need it. We've used stabilized turf
on a number of projects throughout Bridgewater. It's been accepted in the past for firet truck access and we feel that's that's that's um that's a suitable um area here instead of making instead of dealing with um adding impervious within the DOT rightaway where none exists today. We feel that doing stabilized turf there would would
um you know certainly work for a firetruck access in that area. Um, and then we're going to rem we're going to keep the existing pavement in front of the building that's there now and just have the ADA parking spaces in front of the existing restaurant where now there's about seven or eight parking spaces out there today that are used by
regular patrons. We're going to make those the ADA spaces and keep the existing pavement that's in front there for for circulation purposes. But this allows for um full circulation around the site both by fire trucks um as well as um delivery trucks on site. Um there
was some comments in the review letters about deliveries and how that was going to be accomplished. Um we do still have a loading area on the southern side of the building and that loading area is about 7 by8. It's a concrete pad um adjacent to one of the access doors on the building. It's part of the 24ft
drive lane that's on the southern side of the site. Um given the way the site's going to operate, the type of vehicles we anticipate for loading, which are typically going to be smaller box trucks and vans, um we don't anticipate a large tractor trailer type of deliveries for a
restaurant like this. Um we anticip we have more than adequate room here for loading purposes um for deliveries to the building. Most deliveries for a site like this occur during the week, usually between three, usually between 9:00 and 3:00. they don't deliver in the evening
hours when the restaurant is typically, you know, operating. Um so that's usually during the day that those deliveries take place. We feel there's adequate um circulation on site to allow that to happen um for those few minutes that those deliveries occur for each of those different types of of delivery
trucks that come to the site. As far as um trash refuse and garbage pickup goes, we are proposing an 18 by8 trash enclosure um on the southern portion of the site. This is generally where it was on the prior plan. Um that will be a concrete enclosed or masonary enclosed
um trash enclosure. Uh six foot high walls with gates on the front of it which will be able to house um dumpsters for both regular trash and recycling. Um and again from a a site circulation standpoint, um garbage trucks will be able to access the site from Charlotte
Drive or from Charlotte Drive West. East or west, they can come into the site. they'll be able to access the trash enclosure to pick up the dumpsters and um you know have trash pickup on on site and that'll be the architect can talk about this a little bit more but that'll be as needed for trash pickup on site.
It could be three times a week, it could be four times a week depending on how often it's it's going to be it's going to be needed. And I know there were some concerns um at the last meeting about trash, where it was stored on site, times it was being picked up, and and this trash enclosure will allow for it to be in an enclosed space typical to
what you would have on other sites throughout Bridgewater. >> Mr. Michello, excuse me. You've you went into some length about the reduced size of the current proposal versus the original proposal. um what's been done in terms of the
number of seats proposed for the new facility >> as far >> versus the old. >> As far as the seats go, it's still the same number of of seats. It's going to be 50 in the restaurant. The the restaurant will be reduced from I think it's 72 right now. It's going down to 50 in the restaurant, 80 in the banquet
facility, and then 30 on the rooftop bar. So, it's still going to be 180 seats. and the architect will show you on the plans how that's that's laid out in terms of the buildings, but the sea count's going to remain the same. >> So, in terms of the number of people who may be coming to the site,
even though the size you're proposing now is considerably smaller than originally proposed, likely to be the same number of people coming to the site, whether it's for the banquet hall or for the restaurant or for the outdoor
or the bar that's going to be on top. Is that correct? >> That is correct. And if you look at the parking calculations on the plans, um the calculations based on your ordinance requires 51 parking spaces based on 180 seats in the venue. That's that includes
the restaurant, the banquet space, and the rooftop bar. So we have 51 spaces are required and then we have 51 spaces um proposed. As a matter of fact, it's actually because of the state um electric vehicle credit, the number of required spaces actually reduced by 5 to
46, but we're still but we're still proposing 51 parking spaces on site that meets the ordinance requirements for parking. >> Okay. So, um in terms of the reduced size of this current proposal, how does
that compare with anything else in this neighborhood? bigger, smaller, the same. >> You're you're I mean, you're asking to compare a restaurant and banquet to a residential house. I mean, that's two completely different um things we're
talking about here. I mean, it's it's different in terms of size. It's, of course, one structure is the overall structure is 10,000 square ft. That's, you know, larger than any um existing home adjacent to it. So, it's considerably it would be considerably larger than anything else in the
immediate neighborhood, which suggests to me that might not fit in all that well. Is that right? >> I will say this. I mean, you say immediate neighborhood, I mean, again, looking at some of the surrounding area, there's some larger buildings across the street on Route 202 that that's an
existing commercial building. Um, >> let's let's limit ourselves to Charlotte Drive, okay? Because that's really the immediate neighborhood that we're concerned with. >> But going Yes. Going back to Charlotte Drive, um it is larger than the existing homes around it. Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Um so to continue on the cont the context of reduction of um the project size, lot coverage was another one that was originally at 88 um.9%. With these modifications that we've proposing, some additional green skate green space on
site, the reduction of the building, and some modifications to the parking layouts, we're now at 79.4% 4% lot coverage. So, we reduced it by over 10 by almost 10% from where we were previously to where we are now, which was a reduction of of almost 4,000 a little over 4,000 square feet of of lot
area on the site to take it down to 79.4%. >> And how does that compare with what's permitted in this zone? >> The permitted in the zone is, I believe, um, just one second. >> It's Thank you. 25%. I just wanted to
make sure I wasn't speaking out of. >> So permitted is 25. You're proposing almost 80% lot coverage. >> That is correct. That is correct. >> Thank you. >> And just for some context, the existing when you take both of the existing
um restaurant site and the existing I'll call church site for all intents of purposes. And you look at the comparison of the lot coverage on those two lots together, that's 64.4% for just those two by themselves. So yes, we're going
from 64.4% up to 79.4% um for this particular application. >> I go back to the the parking numbers that you you had mentioned 51 48 88 48 standard spots 3880
seats total. I just want to kind of think from more of a just realistic practical perspective here. I mean, I know the codes sort of lay out minimums and I mean, would you agree there are instances where minimums are not sufficient for a design that you you
would have to go above sort of code prescribed minimums or ordinances to suit a certain project. >> Um, in certain instances that might, you know, be the case again with with parking. And I'm going to defer some of this to the traffic engineer because parking calculations, you know,
sometimes go hand inand >> with with traffic. Um, so again, we're we're designing to what the ordinance standard says it would need to be for traffic is that it could be considered a minimum possibly. But again, it says what if I have 180 seats and I base it
on your ordinance calculation of.7 per 2.5 seats, I need 51, you know, on the property, >> right? Just kind of thinking from sort of just a practical perspective. This is a this is a busy restaurant. You have 50 seats in a restaurant. Let's take a Saturday night. They're pretty busy on
Saturday night. Then you also have people arriving for maybe reservations. Are they going to fill the banquet hall with an event on a Saturday evening? >> Well, I again if if business is good, you would hope that yes, you'll have a 50 seat restaurant operating, which typically on a in a restaurant, you're
going to have for a size like that, your restaurant is going to go from basically probably 6:00 to 9 6 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. is going to be your busy times on the restaurant. So, you're going to have probably, you know, a turn one single one main turnover of those seats at that time, probably around 7:30 or so,
depending on your reservations. Um, and yes, you could have the banquet facility, which could have up to 80 seats, but that could that could be slightly different in terms of its operating time. The banquet facility is going to be one event in the evening. You're not going to have two events in the banquet facility. So, that's going to operate slightly different from the
from the from the restaurant time, >> right? I mean, 6:00 to 10 would be if I'm going >> It could be. So those people are arriving before the restaurant or right around the same time that that it's occurring. So on on those busy nights, so let's say it's a Friday or Saturday night where you're going to have that the intent is to have valet service
manage the cars on site. You have to do that when you have this type of type of space here and the way it's going to operate because you want to be able to control your patrons how they come into the site. >> They they you know take the cars, the valet could control that and and park them on the site accordingly. So that that's you you know how that how we
anticipate this operating which is why we made this a one-way road. Um and we have the entrance over here which is basically split between the restaurant and the banquet facility where you could have a couple cars stacked here for people dropping off. The valet can then go and park them at you know as needed
as the event starts up separate from the restaurant. >> Right. So I mean it is reasonable to assume that this facility could be operating near its capacity um on Friday evening, Saturday evenings. busy times. I mean, you also have the employees as
well. You have employees, you have the standard, you have the restaurant, you have the bank banquet hall. So, those are those are those are numbers. I'm not sure exactly how you would staff a restaurant in terms of numbers, but I'm thinking the 2030 range of employees. Um, I mean, and then you have 50 spots,
right? So, with employees, you could be over 200 people. So, you're almost saying like everyone would have to come in a car of four people to have parking spots within this facility. >> Not necessarily. I mean, it all depends on how that's going to work out in terms of how people are coming to events, you
know, or to a restaurant to come out to eat. The parking numbers, and I'll defer some of this to our traffic engineer as well, do take into account employees as well. When you think about that, that 7 space per 2.5 seats, it does have a certain baseline for some employees that are in there. Now, in the restaurant
business such as this, um the way this site's operated and and the way the applicants can continue to operate it really has to do with how they bring those employees to the site. Um the way it was the way as it was explained to us in terms of operation is there's um some
employees will carpool, you know, certain staff does that, certain certain employees will drive themselves, and certain employees use um car services to to get there. So, you're not always going to have, let's say you've got 10 employees that are operating at the site, you know, on a on on a given day.
You're not going to have 10 cars that are going to show up there for for them to to come to work. That's not that's not typically the way it operates. >> So, you you mentioned valet. I mean, where would they valet the cars to? >> Well, the valet would use the typical spaces that are that are striped on
site. And I I to be fair to to to valet too, they can, you know, if they're parking cars and they control the cars, they can get if they can usually, you know, park them a little tighter than what the lines show on a plan as opposed to your typical 9 foot wide spaces for normal parking during regular times of
the week. Valet can control that and they can park fit fit a couple more cars on site. We're going to have employee parking that's going to be over here which which again we can you know valet can utilize fitting some additional cars where where they feel like they can on site. Again the intent is that we have
the 51 spaces to meet the ordinance requirement of of what's of the 51 that the ordinance says we need on site. >> Point of information do do you plan on having a backup site in case you run out of spots?
you have another, you know, a plan B. >> Let me get let me get back to the board on that one about that. I I will just let me check on my my client and I'll we'll get back to you to answer that question. >> I I have a question for Miss Jennings on this line of questioning. This board approved to the site to the east. I
guess it's a limo operation. I understood it's the same owners. Why is this restaurant never utilized that square footage for parking? >> I don't know the answer to that question. Are you going to have an operational witness that's going to testify to the number of employees that they're going to be car pooling and
taking car services? >> I think that would be helpful for the board. >> I think Rob was going to cover that in his testimony. He did touch on it already. >> I mean, yes. I mean, >> but he's not really qualified as a restaurant operator. He's an engineer. >> He's a very good engineer, but as far as his restaurant testimony, I'm not sure
I'm buying it. Rob, I >> I'll defer to the architect on the >> architect said he can handle it. He designed the restaurant and that's what he does. Well, things like garbage pickup, you know, those are things that an operator could fill us in on, you know, because there are neighbors and, you know, we certainly have had other
restaurants in residential neighborhoods. We'd like to, you know, qualify that. We'd like to have, you know, a time a day that that garbage is going to be picked up. Hopefully, it's not 3 or 2 in the morning. Those are things that an operator could testify and give some clarity. There's a lot of people in the audience that I bet would like to hear as well. Okay.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Somebody have a question. uh the uh parking spaces that are on the uh east side of the building, the existing building, they are so close to
the Charlotte Street or Drive when they uh have to uh come out of that space. Do they go into the street? Uh what will happen there? >> Well, those spaces that are to the east, um we have seven there now. There's
actually eight spaces there today. they've been there for almostif over 50 years um that they've been in operation those parking spaces we do want we are going to call them employee parking spaces um so that this way um employees would park there before they come into work and they'd be there for the for the
duration of their shift so they wouldn't be people wouldn't be coming in and out of them as often as let's say they're being used today by guests coming and going from from the restaurant. Um so that's the intent of of those spaces. Um, and if we don't need all the employee spaces there, then we can use them for valet spaces as well. If we
don't if the if we don't have seven cars for the employees there at that particular time. >> You think you're only going to have 10 employees in a a catering hall and a restaurant and a bar area? I >> I use 10 as an example. I'll defer to the architect number.
>> He he has the exact number for for what the employees are going to be. >> This >> Thank you. Other question I have is uh you know people who work there will they be allowed to park at all over there or um
they will be asked to park someplace else and then >> the intent was to use these couple spaces these seven spaces for employee parking. Yes. >> Oh okay. So, continuing along, um we talked about lock coverage. We talked about um
building size. Um I talked about site circulation and and and and parking spaces. Um we talked about um valet operation on site. Um I mentioned the trash enclosure that we have on the property. Um I do want to just talk
about site grading. Again, the site's relatively flat. It was only a 10-ft grade change across the site. There's no retaining walls um proposed here. Um, so the grades are relatively um I'll say flat as I mentioned already. Um, utilities, both buildings are serviced
by public utilities. Um, it's the intent that since we're expanding from the existing building, um, we'll tie in our utilities from that building for water, sewer, um, electric, etc., if there's any upgrades needed, we'll work with the township's professionals um, to to deal
with that. Um I know there was some comments about this from the sewer coordinator about coordinating a connection and some permitting which we'll certainly um address should the board act favorably upon the application. Um I do want to touch on storm water management for the application. Um this this project is not
considered major development um under the stormwater rule. It's not a quarter acre of new impervious or an acre of disturbance. Um but we are proposing a stormwater management system. There were Mr. Burr had reviewed that system. He had some comments in his review letter about how that system would would
operate and function and he asked if we can make some modifications to the calculations to show that we're going to maintain the existing rates of runoff coming off the property today which we will. Um it's going to connect into the existing storm water system in Charlotte Drive East. Um and I know there were some comments in his re letter about the
inlets maybe having been filled with some some sediment which we can certainly look to help address and clean up if the application were were to be approved. Um but the intent would be to put a new storm water management system in place that would reduce um and mitigate the runoff from the site to
deal with the increase in imperous surfaces that we are proposing on this property. Um given that there's no controls on storm water today, that would certainly be an enhancement over what's there um under current conditions. There is an existing sign proposed on
the application. There's an existing sign out there now, but there is a new one that's that's proposed. We're going to put it in the um proposed island right in front of the building here. Um it's going to be set back further from the road than where the current one is today. It'll be set back about 13 ft from the property line as opposed to the
5.2 where the existing sign is today. And then lastly to talk about um actually two additional topics um landscaping. Um we are proposing landscaping on this project. There's a series of street
trees and shrubs that and and screening trees or evergreens that we're proposing here. As you can see from the rendering, we've got a pretty thick line of of cypress um leeland shrubbery along the or evergreen type shrubbery shrubbery
along the southern property line. I know there was some comments in the review letters about how that was being addressed in terms of the landscaping and a proposed fence. Um, right now there's an existing wooden fence that that runs basically be between the
existing parking lot and the property line that's on the cafe Amelia side and then it then it kind of continues onto the church lot and kind of stops. Um, our intent is to build or construct a new 6 foot high solid um PVC fence that'll provide screening between this
property and the southern and the southern residential properties. Um, we had attempted to show that fence about halfway between the property line and the curb line and then and then show the landscaping between the fence and the property line. So, what we were trying
to do there was keep the landscaping as tight to the property line as we could and provide a fence about halfway between the parking lot and the property line. I know there were some comments in Mr. Burr's letter and Miss Sarman's letter about how that was really going to be um I'll say done in the field. So
I think it really comes down to I guess perception of what one would want to see along a property line. Would you rather have the fence right along the property line between us and the southern resident and the residences and then put the the landscaping behind the fence? or
would it be better to take that fence and move it closer to the parking spaces, maybe a foot or two off the parking spaces themselves, and then have about an eight foot area of landscaping where that where that where that shrubbery can grow up um you know, over time as well. So again, we're we're open
to I think either way is is suitable in this case would just be I guess preference of the board and and if there's any input from the residences on what may be better in that situation um in terms of where that fence would be located. >> Um so we did What you're talking about
the fence or the landscaping. You said the stop it there. The garbage thing is that's going to be 18 by 18. >> That's 18 by 18. Yes. >> Now me as a ne if you were a neighbor there with the landscaping and all that
put up or a fence. Is that 18 by 18 garbage going to look annoying to them from their house or can it be somewhere else? Uh it's it's you're really if you're going to have a six foot high fence and the trash area is going to have actually a six foot masonary wall around it, you're really not going to see what's inside of it
>> to the closest house though. >> Uh the closest house it's actually in the middle. The houses are to the south to the southeast and southwest. If I had to estimate probably about 75 80 feet from from the closest structure location
>> right in the middle is probably the best. If I moved it to one side or the other, it's going to be closer to one of those structures. It's hard to tell from the diagram exactly. >> Yeah, that there's one house here and there's another house structure here. >> Optically, that is good. But what about smell?
>> Yeah, it's it's a tra it's a trash enclosure. It doesn't have a roof on it. Um but it does have masonary walls around it, so it will have some containment. And there's going to be um there's going to be dumpsters in there. So, it's not just going to be trash placed on the ground. There's going to
be dumpsters for both recycling and um refuge waste which will have lids on them. >> So we could get an operator to testify that maybe they could increase their pickups that would reduce the smell. >> Sure. >> That's something that maybe we could get that information from, right? Cuz Rob, you're not an expert on that.
>> Not not on the trash pickup. But yes, it the dumpsters will have lids on them so that this way you'll have that opportunity and if the operator talks about number of pickups that could that could reduce that. Um but yes, we tried to center it >> now >> on the site. >> It's going to be the same. You have two dumpsters now.
>> I have I don't remember if there's two out there right now. Yes, >> they're on the church property. >> Yes, they are. >> Yes. >> Now they'll be enclosed in a masonary um enclosure as opposed to being out in the open. >> Mr. Michelle, you mentioned a PVC fence
along the southern property line. What color? >> Um, we we can we can say white, but it could be beige. It could be tan. We can do any color. >> You're flexible as far as color. >> Yeah, flex. I think we're flexible as far as color goes, guys. >> I'm against white. >> You what?
>> I don't like white. >> Can I defer the color to the architect because I'm not the color person. >> Let's hear what the audience has to say. So based upon, you know, that fencing and and and and screening there, we can certainly make some adjustments to that.
We are then also proposing shrubbery around the building. We've got shrubs on the western side, shrubs on the southern side. We've got pockets of shrubbery in the landscaped areas on the north as well as on the east, and then of course along the frontage of um Charlotte Drive West as well. Um and then we also show
trees on the plan um both on Charlotte Drive east and west and on some of the islands. I do want to point out that we did have some shade trees in the DOT right away. Um I'm going to say that if there's no if we get a letter of no interest from the DOT that those trees can can remain, but if not, then we'd
have to remove those four um trees in the DOT right away and probably try to adjust some somewhere else on site to make up for having to move those. >> Mr. Michelle, I'm going to hop in here. It's 8:50. Um we've been going since 700. If you don't mind maybe the 10-minute break,
>> I would actually appreciate that. All right. So, we'll come back. Uh we'll start up again at 9:00. Thank you. All right, it's 9:03. We're going to come back into session. Nancy, if you could call the role, please. >> Chairman Fouse, >> here.
>> Mr. Widley, >> here. >> Mrs. Zamin >> here. >> Mr. Sweeney >> here. >> Mr. Fresco >> here. >> Mr. Bonjouro >> here. >> Mr. Gi >> here. >> Mr. CCAT >> here. >> Mr. Kulak >> here. >> Mr. Vesio
>> here. >> Mr. Gabbit >> is absent. I'm sorry. And our professionals are all here. >> All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Jennings, for the break. >> Sure. So, we're going to continue with Mr. Michello. >> Great. Thank you very much. I just want
to um pick up where I left off and talking about landscaping. I'm still referring to exhibit A7 for the record. Just to go through some of the landscaping numbers for the project. Um we are proposing um actually just to go through your categories. Um tree plantings required per disturbed lot
area or 25 trees and we're proposing 25 trees to satisfy that requirement. Parking lot landscaping required is f is per space is five trees and 27 trees are proposed. So we we meet that requirement. um transition buffer plantings, which is the planting along
Route 202 frontage, um where 69 shrubs are required, and we only have 28 shrubs along the route 202 frontage generally um in the landscaped areas in the front of the uh building. We are not proposing any shrub plantings in the um route 202
rightway. Um and then foundation shrub plantings calls for 167 shrubs for the project. And that's around the entire that's supposed to be around the entire foundation of both the proposed and the existing building. But given where we have walkways and and such and access to the building and parking, um we only
have 76 shrubs are proposed. And then uh and then we again that's the uh five categories or four categories of plantings that are required per your ordinance. Um and then I do want to again point out that we have that, you know, 37 um evergreen trees along the southern property line which based upon
the layout of the fencing and where that fence ultimately gets located and even the height of the fence. The fence is 6 feet which complies with your ordinance. But if the board um feels that we can increase the height of that fence to seven or eight feet, which we have done on other projects for screening purposes
at the discretion of of the board um we could increase the height of that fence as as well. of defense on the southern property line between our development and those two residential neighbors. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Um in terms of the project's lighting,
um it it's pretty straightforward. We have a lighting plan that was submitted. There's um eight new polemounted lights um two along the southern property line. basically one for each parking area um with house size shields so that we can illuminate in towards the property and not have any lighting come out and leave
the property towards those residential lots. Um we meet the lighting levels um per your ordinance. Um I do want to point out that on the plans it said the lighting was going to be turned off um a half hour after closing. Typically in in in a restaurant environment and and um our architect can confirm this, we'd
like to leave the lighting on for one hour after closing um just so that the employees have a chance to clean up and then um and then be able to um you know leave leave the site a as well. So we'd like that to be 1 hour instead of a half hour because the plans did say a half
hour. Um, and then lastly, I'd like to I'd like to just go through the list of variances and design waiverss that are being requested on this application for the uh for the record. Um, so starting with the variances,
um, and and and these are in in no particular order, um, but I'll go down the list accordingly. Um starting with the use variances which are being requested from section 126-307 where the R20 zone does not principally permit restaurants and banquet hall uses
where restaurant use is proposed on lot 9. And then a use variance is being requested from 126-307 where again the R20 zone does not permit principal restaurant or banquet use where the expansion of the existing restaurant use is being proposed on lot 17. So lot 17
is the existing cafe ameilia lot. Lot nine is the church lot. And then we have a variance is being requested from section 126-313 126 attachment one which is schedule one where the maximum improved lot coverage for the R20 zone is 25% and the
application as it stands now is at 79.4% proposed. And a variance is being requested from section 126-313 126 attachment 1 schedule 1 where the maximum floor area ratio permitted in the R20 zone is 0.16 and this
application is requesting 0.27 27 as the F. And a variance is being requested from section 126-313 12 again 126 attachment one schedule one where the minimum front yard setback for the R20 zone is required to be 50 ft and
we have 24.6 is provided for the setback along Charlotte Drive East. That's an existing um that's an existing non-conforming condition that we're not or pre-existing non-conforming condition that we're not proposing to change at this time, but it is still uh we're
calling it out as a as a variance. Then a variance is being requested from section 126-313126 attachment one schedule one where the minimum rear yard setback for the R20 zone is required to be 20 ft for an accessory structure and we're proposing 9.7 ft is being provided for the
proposed trash enclosure which is technically an accessory structure. Then a variance is being requested from section 126-313 126 attachment one schedule one where the maximum number of stories for the R20 zone is permitted to be two and a
half stories for a structure and we are proposing three stories. However, the building height does comply with the required 35 ft maximum at 29.7 ft. So it's just the number of stories that is a deviation from the ordinance. And a variance is being requested from
section 126-171.1 where a minimum front yard building setback from route to route 202 is required to be 200 ft and 33.2 ft is proposed for the building addition. Then a variance is being requested from
section 126-171.1 where a minimum parking setback um from route 202 is required to be 100 ft and we have 4.4 4 ft is proposed. I just want to point that out on the plan so the the board is aware of where this is. It's the top corner the northeast northwest corner of the plan here where
that parking setback is at 4.4 ft from the uh from the 202 rightaway line. And then a variance is being requested from section 126-181D where a minimum parking setback from any property line is required to be 10 ft and 3 ft is proposed from lot 9 property
line that runs parallel to Charlotte Drive East. That's down here in the lower right hand corner of the plan here. This ex this proposed space adjacent to the uh eastern property line. I should note that under the existing conditions in that particular spot right
there, the existing parking is actually within the Charlotte Drive East right ofway. So, we're actually moving it out of the right of way and making it at least be wholly contained on the applicant's property and it's not no longer in the right of way. Um, there's
also six design waivers that we are requesting as part of this application. Um, I'll run through those really quick. A design waiver is being requested from section 126-168 where the minimum parking stall size is required to be 9.5 by 18 and we're proposing 9 by8 for parking stall sizes.
Design waiver is being requested from section 126- I77B where the minimum number of loading spaces required to be two. And essentially here we're we're proposing one loading space for the building. And then a design waiver is being
requested from section 126-I77B where the minimum size of a loading space is required to be 12 x 50 ft. And essentially we're counting the area of the the the concrete adjacent to the loading space as 7 and a half 7.7 by 18 as the loading space size. Um but again
we as I mentioned in my testimony there's ample room within the uh parking area for having a truck parked for delivery purposes. Um but this again the size of the space is not solely dedicated um for for loading purposes that meets the 12x50 requirement. Um then we have um um two waiverss for
landscaping purposes. one from section 120-191D1A where the front yard landscaping along Route 202 corridor shall require a minimum of eight shrubs per every 30 ft of frontage where the 69 where we have um 69 shrubs are required and 28 shrubs
are proposed as I mentioned previously and then a design waiver from section 120-191C5 where 10 shrubs per 20 linear feet of foundation is required where 167 shrubs would be required for the entire building and we are proposing 76 on this
application. And then the last design waiver from section 126-19511A where the minimum sign distance from any street right away for a sign with an area of 25 square feet or less is required to be 20 ft and we're proposing 13 in this for this application.
So that concludes the my direct testimony. Mr. Chairman, >> actually if you could just touch on outside agency approvals with those. >> Yes, thank you for that, Miss Jennings. Um, there are three outside agency approvals that are required. Somerset County Planning Board approval, which
was actually received, but since we've modified the site layout, we're going to have to resubmit to the county for an updated approval. Um, Somerset Union So Conservation District, we're over 5,000 ft of disturbance. We'll need to submit to them and we would take care of that, you know, as a condition of an approval
for the application. Um, and then we'll we have we will need a letter of no interest from the NJ DOT for the um access from the site um that we're proposing here that we're actually not changing the access for for the property and I believe that has been submitted
>> Miss Jennings I I just I believe so >> it has been submitted. So we're waiting on receiving that from the state. Um there was a comment in one of the review letters about I think it was from the sewer uh engineer about um possibly needing SRVSA approval for connections
which if that's the case we'll we'll we can address that as part of a condition of any approval if the board were to grant approval for that as well. >> And are the you had an opportunity to review all the uh review letters and memos issued by the board's consultants. >> I I did in regards to the engineering comments in the in the memos both Mr.
Burr's letter, Miss Sarammon's letter, the fire officials letter. Um, I I don't have any objections to complying with their with their questions as it relates to to engineering comments subject to whatever landscaping adjustments we may make along that southern property line um and the fencing that may go along
with that as well. >> Thank you. That's all the direct questions for this witness. >> There was something about uh health for uh food preparation and such. I'll defer that one to the um to the project architect since he's dealing
with the the kitchen aspects of the building. Um so, >> okay, >> I have a couple a question on the proposed driveways uh to access the parking lot here. Um I see you have access from Charlotte Drive and then
also from actually east and west, Charlotte Drive, east west. Um, did you look at introducing sort of a driveway access only from Route 202 to serve this facility? >> Um, we did not look at restricting access only from from 202. We we felt
that having the access points from both east and west, you know, provides for some some more efficient circulation for deliveries. Um, and and being able to move around the site, fire fire truck access as well. And then also allowing folks to to come in, you know, again, if
you're a I'll say a patron who might come to the site multiple times, you might use the west road to enter into the site. Um whereas if you're coming for the first time, you might use the east drive to come in and loop around into into the site. So we felt having the multiple access points was was makes
for more efficient um access around the uh around the property. >> The address for this facility be would be route 202. Um the access would actually be the way we anticipated. >> I'm sorry. The address would be 202. >> Address would be 202. Yes. >> Right. So the there would be no well
there there is an existing area. Um my other question so we're leaving like where the existing cafe Amelia is. We're really leaving that site in its sort of existing condition with kind of the asphalt just going right to the curb line. Drop curb all the way.
We're really we're really redeveloping this entire lot though. I mean is it worth looking at like the a lot you know holistically to see if there's any kind of further development that can be you know improvements that can be done because it's it's it's not sort of a
simple addition here. You're really transforming this site. >> Well, and we are and we have looked at not only the access from, you know, what's happening in the front here of the building, which is why we put the handicap spaces here as opposed to having the seven or eight existing
spaces that were there today. There still is access. We want to keep the access off of 202. Um, and that's there, but really that that that's kind of more secondary to where we're going to feel that people are going to come down either Charlotte Drive east and circle through the site or they'll come down
Charlotte Drive west and come into the site that way to get to the front for the valet when we have a busy weekend or just being able to come into the site and park when we're not using valet service during, you know, other days of of the week. Mhm. >> But by taking out those seven or eight
spaces here, we we reduce um activity right in front of the right in front of the building while also, you know, re reconfiguring the the access around the site. >> So, going back to my first question, um there's no you don't think there's any sort of benefit to looking at a sort of
singular wide driveway from 202 here and removing east and west access points. No, I I think in this situation I I don't think so because you you have this gives more flexibility for vehicles to move around the site. If we were to put a single access point in off of off of
202 and I'd have to defer to the traffic engineer on what that might even allow in terms of the access code because there's an existing point now and you've got two, you know, public roads on either side of it. So, I think the traffic engineer might weigh in differently on that, but I but having
the access points coming off of those side streets provides for, I think, better circulation around the property. >> Okay. My last question is on Charlotte Drive east and west. Um, is it possible to sign a public street to prevent business parking?
>> That would be a council uh issue. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Now, I I will say this. There was some comments in the review letters. I I I wanted to bring this up during my direct testimony. Um and and since you're asking about access, it's a it's a good point. Um we can put at both Charlotte
Drive West and Charlotte Drive East, we can put up some directional signage to, you know, tell patrons if they're leaving the site, um if it's not in a valet condition because valet would be on Friday or Saturday nights when it's busy. But during other times, we can put signage that would, you know, direct
people. If I'm leaving Charlotte Drive east, right turn, I mean, left turn to go out to 202. If I'm leaving Charlotte Drive West, make a right turn to go out to 202. We could put signage there to direct people back to 202. Um, and allow them to to to make that turn. Um, you
know, that's certainly something we can add as directional signage on on the site. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Michello. Um, the one thing that strikes me about the proposal or one of the things that strikes me about the proposal is that
it's big and it's quite a bit bigger than the existing restaurant. And you're also uh proposing to violate all of or not maybe not all but many of the setbacks that you're required to meet. Um, what
is this going to look like to the neighbors immediately adjacent to this property? >> I I think visually if if you're on the south, we're proposing some some landscaping there, fencing, and those those um evergreen trees in a couple years are going to grow up to be in in
in the 12 to 15 foot range. So, it's going to certainly, you know, there's going to be a buffer on the south side of the property. that building is no closer to the south property line than the existing building is today in terms of in terms of distance. Um, so I I I think from a southern perspective, the
impact is is is no different than the existing building that's there now. And with the additional landscaping and enhancements we're talking about, I think that's going to, you know, help that mitigate that that view um, you know, uh, from from the south. um from from the west you're moving the building
further away from the street than what's there today. The existing h the existing church building that is closer to the street we're moving us we're moving further away from that now. So we're actually getting further away from Charlotte Drive West with with this application. >> But that's also going to be a building
that's considerably bigger than the existing church building. Correct. it it will be a two well we'll call it a three-story building for because that's what the application says it is but the way this building's designed and I will defer to the architect to answer this um it the activities are contained within
the building the rooftop bar has also been modified now that and you'll see this on the architecturals that the walls on the south side and the west side are solid so that anyone who's to the south or west really won't be able to see any activity going on on on
inside of the building or on top of the roof of the building and the architect will show you that in the elevations >> and on the east side of Charlotte >> the east side this build this side of this facade of the building is remaining unchanged. >> Okay. Um would it be possible
to put together a rendering that shows from various sites in close proximity to your proposal what it looks like? >> Sure. >> Yes, we can do that. Yes. >> Good. Thank you.
Um, I have a question about the bar and the roof. Um, I'm assuming that this is going to be for aesthetic purposes that you're going to also want to have live music on the weekends. I know you haven't said that yet, but
that's my guess. And how would you mitigate sound and, you know, disturbing people with that? >> You have an acoustical engineer who will testify. can't hear you. >> We have an acoustical engineer who will testify to the noise concerns.
>> Okay. >> Can you talk about the um you call it a structural um stabilizing ground for the fire trucks? Let's make sure that the fire marshall is going to be all right with this. I know you reworked the entire plan. I know he had some concerns about the previous plan. Just put some stuff on the record about
how this is going to be good for the fire department to get circulation on the site. >> Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. So one of the comments was he was he want you're a town fire official and it's you know requires 24 foot wide fire lanes throughout the site. So we have certainly provided that on the south and
on the west. Um, on the north drive lane, we have 18 foot of pavement. And what I'm proposing to do is add six feet of stabilized turf, um, just going into the DOT rightway, which is still going to look like grass from any other person's perspective, but that stabilized turf is um, supported with a
honeycomb plastic structure that a firetruck can drive on. We did this on multiple other projects throughout Bridgewater. I know the fire officials familiar with it. Um, you and it's not something you drive on every day. It's just used for when that firetruck needs that extra little bit of space to
maneuver. Um we make we've actually done full fire lanes um where you don't have vehicle access out of this material and it supports the weight of a fire truck. I >> think we used this on a storage project off of Ocelor Lane where they had an entire strip and >> you might have and we're looking at that
for another storage. >> The fire marshall's okay with this. this is approved and it can the equipment that's in that firehouse is going to be okay to >> it can support 80,000 lbs of of weight and I actually used it on the um the LCS project in Bridge right over here in Bridgewater off um off of Frontier Road
for a fire lane as well and it was accepted. >> All right. And that was what 2019 2020 >> yes it was before Mr. Scalera, but I've talked to him before. It was his predecessor, but I've had conversations with him about using it on current. >> This isn't new technology. This is established and it's it's certified and
and the fire marshall is okay with it. >> This has been around for many years now. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> Other board questions. All right. Board professionals. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just one question related to that. Is there any
kind of special maintenance that would be required that the fire like if it became overgrown with grass or anything? Is there anything that it needs to be specifically maintained so that you can the fire department would be able to know that it's there so that they if they did enter the site they know that
they could they could hop on that. >> You you could when you get up close to it you could see the the um the honeycomb on it. Um, but if there's a concern about being able to see it, we might be able to do some, and I've done this before with just some ground markers to just designate the six-foot
width. Um, but it's it's mowed like just it's mowed like the regular grass. So, any maintenance person that's mowing the lawn would just mow it as part of mowing the grass. They wouldn't even they probably wouldn't even know the difference. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, as far as you'd mentioned that the, you know, the parking requirement is essentially
reduced from our ordinance requirement because of the EV space reduction that's permitted. Um, there is a impervious or improved lot coverage variance that's being sought. But if those additional five spaces were would were removed, would that have an impact on the on the
coverage? >> They're 180 square foot of space. You would, you know, lose, you know, probably a thousand square feet. would bring the number down. I don't know the exact percentage point, but it would be 1,000 square feet less. So, probably 2 and a half basis points of coverage would would be just a rough calculation.
>> And would that have any impact on the potential layout of the site or anything where those spaces would be removed or where it could add to, you know, better circulation? >> No, it really wouldn't have much of a an impact on the site. You still need the 24T drive lanes and you have the access.
So, I I think having the spaces is is more of a benefit than not having those couple spaces for the way the site is is is laid out with the c with the ordinance requirement. >> Okay. Um for the area in the front of the site where the handicap spaces are
proposed that that drive vial um kind of you know is partially within this property and then partially within the rightway property um as it pretty much exists today. Right. >> That's correct. Um is but right now those that goes directly into the
spaces. Correct. There's not a lane coming in from the other property towards it. Correct. >> Right. Correct. You come off of 202 and you can pull into those what seven or eight spaces along the front of the building. >> And so yeah. >> Yeah. My my question really is is do you
see any issue with the conflict of uh you know cars that could pull right into the site? Cars that are going to be circulating around the site coming, you know, from that drive aisle internally and then cars that are backing out of those handicap spaces and and you know specific emphasis on those are now
handicap spaces which may you know they may have more impediments to driving than than a than a regular driver. No, I I I mean really from looking at the layout and the way we've designed it and we've talked with our traffic engineer about this um you know ADA spaces
usually less um I'll say used less than regular spaces would be in that in that area. So by having the circulation go across the front. We do have a stop bar there um and and that would that you know can control some of the traffic as well. But there's adequate sight distance along 202. You can see cars
coming. um you know, there's going to be gaps in in in traffic because of the traffic light just right down the block. And again, I'll I'll defer some of this to our traffic engineer, but you know, we feel that there's there's more than um safe circulation that could occur, you know, in the in the front of the property there.
>> Okay. And and because of the way that that's designed, is there anything stopping someone who's circulating the site in that one-way drive aisle from leaving the site there and getting on to 202? Right now, there's nothing that if they wanted to, you know, just kind of make a little bit more of a sharp left
and stop right at that opening and then pull out. There's no signage that prevents them from doing that. They could do that now today if they wanted to um from leaving the site. Um but, you know, again, we would anticipate that they would leave the site out towards
Charlotte Drive east and then go across the road and then continue on to 202 um east from there. Okay. I I now there is another movement added there. That's where my concern comes in that if there is valet valet drivers who are trying to jockey cars,
if there are people trying to leave the site, if there are handicapped drivers trying to get out and then there's someone who cuts across to try and get out of the property because they've now there's no other way out from there with you get on to Charlotte Drive and then you have to make a quick left where that um exit lane is onto 202. So, I I I I
tend to think that this looks a little more complicated and potentially in a realistic situation could could lead to some conflicts, but I'll let our traffic engineer um weigh in on that when when Mr. Rashad has a chance to to ask questions. Um some of the things that we've heard and
we hear it a lot when there are use variances in particular, you know, a commercial um development in a residential zone is that, you know, the this is a residential zone. So the zoning standards, the bulk standards aren't exactly applicable, right? We we
hear that. And um given the zoning being residential, were there any um was there any review of the existing commercial zones in the township to be used as a basis for the appropriate standards to apply here? >> I I myself did not go back and look at
some of your other commercial zones, but I would defer to our planner. He may be able to give some more context to that to that question. >> Okay. So I mean the question was was any consideration given in designing the site about about kind of adhering to any
kind of bulk standards? Um I I think the consideration that we we focused on was was looking to provide the the um a parking plan that would meet the ordinance requirements while also providing circulation throughout the site that we feel would be adequate for
the the the um the restaurant use and and the banquet use um on the property. So, we we're working more towards the design intent of of the 50 51 parking spaces and and the building that we we have here proposed on site. >> Okay. I think um in light of the
improved lot coverage, I just want to note to the board that not a single zone in the township permits over 70% coverage. And the and the zones that do permit 70% coverage, there's two of them. And one of them is one property. It's the shopping strip mall off of
Prince Rogers. It's it's one property zone. And then the the zone on North Bridge right next to it. Um the properties there's a few commercial properties that permit and I think that they were probably zoned back into um providing improved lot coverage because they're already improved but every other
zone in the township permits only up to 60%. So that's just, you know, a comparison point, right? Um, and I do think that when you're looking at an improved lot coverage variance of this magnitude, especially in comparison to existing bulk standards throughout the
township, it's, you know, it it can call into question the other the other trying to trickle down issues, right? the landscaping, the rear yard setback for the for the trash enclosure, the circulation of the site, all of those things compound when you're looking at that because if the improved lot coverage was less, that means the
building would be smaller. That'd be that it mean there's more room for landscaping, etc. So, that's why I bring that up. If it was if other zones were utilized as a as a basis, I think that they that there would be less variances and less design waivers sought. Um,
one other thing that was my last I promise last thing that I have to bring up is that um the what was brought up in the review memo in regards to the fencing and the rear landscaping was not a matter of how it would work in the field, but rather that the fence and the landscaping in some places, you know,
the center of the tree is right on the fence post. So clearly that that wouldn't work. And so, um, obviously right now the the setback is is under 10 feet there. So, there's a 10-ft planting just under 10 foot planting strip and the fence is approximately, let's say,
four and a half ft. It's right in the center there. Um I I don't know um if you'd be able to plant on either side with with four and a half feet on either side of a fence, but I think that that would if that's what's being proposed, the most aesthetically pleasing thing to
do would to be ha to be to fit if it won't kill the landscaping, trees on either side of the fence, so that a white vinyl fence isn't glaring and that it has some natural, you know, vegetation that that kind of um softens softens the fence, whether it be board on board or vinyl or whatever. It'll
help soften that wall of fencing along there. So, that would be my recommendation if it's possible. Uh 4 and 1/2 ft is is tight. You know, for an arborite, you probably could, but I want to make sure we're not killing the trees by planting them too close to a fence or too close to each other as well. >> And there was two or three existing trees we wanted to try to maintain. So,
we'd have to work the fence around those those trees. But again, we're we're open to either scenario. And I think, you know, depending on the type of planting, we can maybe you make that work in that four and a half foot space. And if you stagger them on either side of the fence, at least it does soften the look
of the fence from the neighbor, but then you still get the intent of the height once those trees grow up over, you know, a two, three year period to to help um soften the uh the view from the south. >> Thank you, Mr. Michelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Good evening, Mr. Michello. This is a much better plan than the previous one, but it still has some uh significant issues. Uh let me start with an easy one. The trash enclosure, can we move it
instead of having it on the south side of the building to the west side and being on the west side, it will take two spots which would be recovered on the south side. and being on the west side will make it a lot easier to access from
a pickup uh perspective. The truck will come in directly, we'll pick it up and then would leave much easier than the existing locations. That would place it approximately 120 ft from the house on Charlotte West
and about 150 ft plus from the house on Charlotte East. But more importantly, that would make it far away from the whole backyard area from boss houses if you push in that location. Can you take a look and tell me if that's possible?
>> You just to point to the exhibit here, Mr. Rashard, you're talking about this area generally over here somewhere. >> No, right next to the building. >> Oh, over here. >> Yeah, a little bit up. A little bit up. >> Oh, right. Right in here. >> Yes. Right across from the entrance. >> Gotcha. I I think it's something we can take a look at. I just don't want to
commit to that exactly because now the staff has to have a longer walk to get to the trash enclosure, but I think it's something we can maybe consider. Ultimately, there's no loss of parking because it's going to take up correct other spaces, but that's something we can we can consider looking into. >> So, now we'll move to the corner of um
Charlotte Drive East and um and 202 and that's really a problematic area. But first, I want to inform the board that um if you're not doing any work within the state right-of-way,
there is an very high likelihood that you will not need to get a DOT permit. Are you aware of that? >> Typically, yes. >> Yeah. So, because the driveway that is open on 202
uh will not increase in any significant fashion, the DOT will write you a letter that says go ahead, proceed. You don't have to apply. We're not interested. Have you talked to DOT about this? Have you >> I'm gonna haveated that.
>> I'd like to defer those comments to our traffic engineer who's going to be able to talk in more detail about the DOT aspect of of the project. Okay, sounds good. So, in that same area, I have a plan of yours that uh I'm looking at a
submission and I'm looking particularly at sheet three of 11 and you have some red markings on the plan delineating the front driveway and you're showing an encroachment onto the state ride ofway
of approximately maybe five feet. I not seeing any markings other than the um the the uh stabilized turf that we're showing, you know, for the grass, but I'm not seeing any other
pavement markings in the 202 right away, unless I'm missing something. >> Well, we're trying to figure out, Bill and I, who gave us this submission, but it has lot. But anyway, regardless whether your plan has >> look really quicker. >> Yes. >> Whether your plan has the red markings
or not, >> the red markings actually delineate the space you need. >> I don't Yeah, I didn't do that. Okay. >> Someone someone marked that up and someone Okay. >> Yeah. So, but it makes sense because if you don't delineate it in that fashion,
the space that is left between the edge of the parking space and the right of way, I'm going to guess that is maybe 10 ft >> it's 10 11 10 11 ft between between the rightway line and the back of the um the ADA spaces.
>> So, you will be encroaching which is which is fine by the way. I'm not against that, but I'm just asking. So you will be encroaching within the state right ofway to make that maneuver. No >> no no different than the the encroachment that's there today already for cars pulling into the site from 202
backing up out of those parking spaces and driving across the front of the property. So they're doing that now. Okay, you know in terms of that in terms of that movement >> and and I'm not sure, Mr. chairman, how that would affect us and the board to approve an application where the
circulation is encroaching into a public rightway. It's a legal issue that we need to look at. But staying on that same subject, uh is there any possibility to go to the state and tell them, look, we're going
to close the driveway on Route U 202, which by the way, Mr. chairman will will not affect traffic in terms of uh Charlotte east and west because right now this design um will not generate much traffic at all
to that driveway on 202 we're talking probably less than a trip per hour. It's very insignificant. But if you go to the DOT and um give them an incentive and tell them, look, this is an open driveway. We
can close it if you can give us a little easement so we could use we can officially use part of the ride of way to do our circulation. And then we can open up that that bottleneck where you
have the star bar and allow for a two-way traffic so that these drivers driving the um uh the cars in the accessible spaces can go back in the other direction and don't have to negotiate that turn by two or two and
they don't have to go on Charlotte Drive and ending up going through the whole loop on Charlotte Drive. Is that something the applicant is willing to look at? >> I mean, I guess we'll look at it, but it's really more of the traffic engineers uh wheelhouse, not so much the
site engineers. >> Okay. >> Well, it's if you can chair whatever you're looking at, too, because for the record, we don't have what you're looking at. >> Understood. Yeah. I'm not sure who did it. That's how I received it. Okay. >> I didn't I did not mark that up, but I can. >> But M for the record, Mr. Chairman, the
plan I have has red markings that delineate the encroachment of vehicles in the front at the front of the restaurant, which you know helps the reviewer visualize the the path of vehicles um and the amount of encroachment.
>> Miss Jennings, is your traffic engineer in the room tonight? >> Get here. >> No, we had another hearing that was going to come. if you could get with your traffic engineer and maybe get a call between these two individuals to make sure that when he does testify, >> he has this information and he's ready to answer that question.
>> Great. We'll do. >> And that's all I have for now. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a a few questions for Rob. Um going back to the stabilized PA, Rob, for the firet
trucks, did did you guys account for that in your lot coverage calculations? Um, we we did not and it is actually over the rightway line so it wouldn't be calculated in lot coverage. I mean I could include that little bit of the strip that is between the mountable curb
and the property line which you know you it it is about 80% or 85% pvious. So it only be like a 10% coverage. Um but it would swing then it could swing it maybe a 0.1 or something like that at most. But I'll check it and get back to you with that.
>> Yeah. I just want to make sure we you have that lot coverage number nailed down in terms of what you're requesting. And then as far as the fire officials concerned, back to that issue in his latest memo, I is that the only issue,
the fact that you don't have technically a 24 foot fire lane in front of the restaurant adjacent to 202. Is that the only issue right now that you need to discuss with him as far as not being able to comply with? >> I I think from from his letter
perspective, um yes. Um I'm looking at his letter now dated November 21st, 2025. Um just to make sure he's comfortable with the stabilized turf, which would give him the uh the 24 ft. He does mention um something else in his letter and I'm going to ask him about this because I'm not sure what exactly
he means by it, but he says concerns power lines in front of building on Route 202. So, I don't know if he's he he's pointing out the fact that you've got a a main power line going across the frontage of the property. Um but there there is um an overhead line that runs
across the frontage of the property here. You can actually see it on the aerial. Um, so I don't know if he's concerned about aerial access if a firetruck were to have to park on 202 um or if a firetruck's parked in the site. Um, I'll talk to him about that, but I do want to point out that on Charlotte
Drive West and Charlotte Drive East, the power lines are on the opposite sides of the road. So if a fire truck did have to set up from an aerial perspective on the public road, there are no fire there are no power lines on those streets that would be, you know, in the way of of that aerial truck. Um, but I I'll talk
to him about that and see what his his concern is there. Um, but we can't do nothing about the power lines. That's where they that's where they are on on 202. Okay. And the but the main takeaway is that between now and the next hearing, you'll endeavor to meet or
discuss with Tom Scalera his memo, any of his issues, and make sure you you guys are on the same page. >> Correct. And we can comply with all those concerns in the letter. That is correct. as as far as the parking is concerned, your your earlier testimony was
I think 51 spaces being provided based on 180 seats in all of the uses. Is that >> Yes, that's correct. >> And and what you had testified though, and it you may have just misspoke. I just want to make sure it's clear. You had mentioned 80 seats for the banquet,
50 for the restaurant, and 30 for the rooftop. Did you mean 100 for the banquet, 50 for the existing restaurant, and 30 for the roof? >> Yeah, I don't know. I said 80. I apologize for that. It's 100. >> I just wanted to make sure I was 50 and 30. I was thinking 180 and I said 80,
but yes, the calculation is based on 180 seats. >> Okay. And I know we'll hear from your architect, but um can you answer is there still going to be outdoor seating? I know there's outdoor seating and you testified with COVID postco there was the the patio that was being used for
outdoor seating. Is there any outdoor seating being proposed in the new alignment or we want to defer to Craig later? >> The se the seating is going to be within the within the existing restaurant within the banquet facility and then you got the seats for the rooftop bar on top of the building. There's no seats proposed outside beyond that.
>> Okay. Okay. So, that patio that exists now goes away and everything is going to be internal moving forward, >> right? The building is going where the patio is. There isn't there is going to be a courtyard out here where people can congregate you know waiting for in the summer months waiting for a table um you know and things like that but there's no
seating out there. >> Okay. Um as far as drainage and storm water impacts are concerned this is a minor project. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Terms of the storm water control ordinance. >> Yes. But you guys on your plan are
proposing to construct looks like an underground detention basin in the in the rear parking lot. >> Yes. >> And that park and that that basin is going to capture runoff from most of the new parking lot. >> It's going to >> Is that fair to say?
>> The majority of it except for those seven spaces or so that are on Charlotte Drive that drain down there today. Okay. >> Um and and but for the majority of new impervious assets, it's going to collect that. And and it and it's also going to capture the runoff from the proposed
roof and the existing roof of the restaurant or just the proposed >> we're saying the proposed roof and we're going to we have to just take a look at the existing roof. The calculations included the existing roof but I have to make sure we can pick up all the uh the roof leaders. The intent would be to to pick up the existing roof as well.
>> Okay. So existing roof too. >> Yeah. And in your prior testimony was that in the existing condition today there is no drainage facilities at all. Correct. >> Right. There's no control drainage. >> No control sheets off the site. >> Yes. >> Okay.
And you had correctly raised in in my report we had a couple of technical comments as far as the drainage concern. You're you're going to address you're going to work to address those concerns before the next meeting or possibly as a condition of approval if it gets to that point. I I think we can do them I as
conditions um because it's just basically adjusting some calculations. It's not going to change the overall um layout of the property. It would just be if anything the underground basin might get slightly bigger. The outlet structure may get modified slightly, but it would have no no visual impact on the project.
>> Okay. >> And I want to I want to jump over to the discussion about the fencing and the landscaping on the southerntherly property line. Just so I'm clear, the question is not You only have room for either a fence or
landscaping. Correct. The question is the alignment or the arrangement of does the fence go closer to the property line and landscaping behind it or vice versa. It's not a question of is there room to accommodate both. >> That's right. We have 10 feet of space
there which is more than adequate for a fence and landscaping. It's just how we want that look to be along that property line. >> Okay. Very good. And um two more questions. As far as the lighting plan is concerned, it looks like you have
some some slight light spillover on that southerntherly property line. Can you make some tweaks to the shielding or to the to the to the fixtures themselves to ensure that there's there's no light pollution emanating to the to the rear? >> Yeah, I I know the ordinance says
>> I know the ordinance says you're not supposed to have more than one foot candle, but there is a slight leak uh slippage there. What we can also do too, Bill, I was looking at this. Um, we can reduce the heights of of those two lights. They were at 16 right now. I could bring them down to 14 or, you know, or 12 on the back property line.
We've done that before at close to residential zones. Um, and and to just kind of reduce that that spillage a little bit. So, that's something we could certainly offer up to to minimize that impact. >> Okay. And last question, sanitary sewer. Um, did you testify that you will be
able to comply with any of the comments in the sewer utilities memo? Yeah, that's correct. I just I at this time without an MEP engineer and and the kitchen being reconfigured, um I'm not sure exactly if we're going to need to come out of the building with a lateral to connect to the main or if we can use the existing lateral service that's in
the building now. So, that's just something we have to work out. But again, we'll comply with the comments in in in the letter. >> Okay. Very good. >> Thanks, Rob. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. >> Bill, you know, I don't know if I'm going to be here next year. Could you put down in your notes that when we're dealing with the underground retention
basin, maintenance becomes a huge issue with these things. And when maintenance fails, the unit fails. We've seen this in Martinsville happen numerous times over the course of decades. These things either don't get cleaned out or they're not maintained properly. There has to be a mechanism that if this thing overflows into the neighbors properties that the
Bridgewater, Township, whoever is able to go in there and clean this thing out. So, you're going to have to grant the township an easement. not required easement, but if they need to get access here because the owner at the time or an owner in the future is not making repairs, we have to protect the property
owners because this has happened in the past. It's happened in Martinsville. It probably happened in Bridgewater and other places. Could you just follow up on that? >> Yeah, 100%. And um that's a that's a really good point. One other thing that I I failed to mention is an operations and maintenance manual really is a a
must for for a site like this. They're going to have to prepare, >> but we need to go a step further because everyone agrees in these meetings. We'll do whatever you say and then there's no enforcement mechanism after this board is free and clear a decade from now. So, we need, you know, when this thing fails, you've got neighbors all around
this thing on three sides. And if the thing doesn't work, we need to be go in there and and take control. And it's happened in Martinsville. We we have a property owner right now that has a malfunctioning underground retention basin. So, just follow up. Thank you. All right.
That's certainly not an issue because part of the we can I I didn't see it in Bill's letter, but um it's a good point. We do need an operations and maintenance manual as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, and in that manual, it will give um we'll do through an easement or an access easement to allow the township if
the property owner doesn't maintain the facilities correctly to come in and be able to maintain the facility and clean it out, >> right? We're not required to maintain it, but in the event that there is a failure of maintenance, we can go in there >> and that on manual will be the mechanism to allow that to happen. And it it should be should be part of any
condition should the board look favorably upon this. >> Very good. All right. Uh so with that said, we have a few minutes left. Thank you for being patient. Um we're going to open up the uh members of the public to ask questions of Mr. Moshello. And it's very important we follow kind of the
standard operating procedure because this could eventually end up in front of a judge who's going to look at this body to make sure that we follow the rules. So in order for you guys to follow the rules, there's just one well two things. You got to talk into the microphone. Um and then you can ask questions on anything that Mr. Moello has testified
on. So he's a professional engineer. He's an expert in engineering. None of us are. I don't think any of you are. And if you are, please let us know. But please keep your questions to what Mr. Michelle has testified and you know we'll we'll hang around a little bit after 10 but we'll try and get in a few
but obviously this will go to the next meeting and you can continue asking questions. So whoever's wants to be first come on up and we need your name and address >> and I think Nancy has placed a signin sheet there. So if you would just put your sign your name there as well print
it please. Oh, and I should have mentioned after the applicant has pre given all their testimony and their experts, you will have an a time to basically say whatever you want as long as you want. You can speak for, you can speak against the
case at the end. Thank you. My name is Tom Horvath and for 75 years I've lived on Charlotte Drive. I've seen a lot of improvements over the years and this is one improvement I feel should not be approved. >> Mr. Horvath, um your address on
Charlotte >> 15 Charlotte Drive. >> Okay. And and this is time for questions of the engineer there as as the chairman said, there's a time when you'll have to come up and give us your opinion, but right now it's questions.
So my question is that the valet parking they keep talking about where will the overflow be accommodated? We were asked this question um about potential plan B that was mentioned and
we discussed this um be in the um time between um the uh the break that we had and there is an opportunity and our operational architect person can touch on this as well. There is an opportunity to have an overflow of between 10 and 12 cars where we could park them in the
property across Charlotte Drive East. There is that opportunity there for that, but I I'll leave that to >> Sorry. Uh, what property is that? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Um, it is the existing commercial property which is designated as lot one on block 163.01, which is to
the east of Charlotte Drive east. >> Okay. So, if we're going to bring in a different property into the application, if we're saying that we're going to use that for parking for this site, then I think we need to make that lot part of
the application. And it's a use variance as well, right? You can't you can't park commercial parking on another lot, right, for for this particular use. So, it's it's going to create a variance situation.
which is fine. I mean, I just think you have to notice it for the next meeting. >> We'll give it some thought because I mean, we meet your parking requirement. We were just trying to address in the >> It's not a bad idea, right? It's it's just the variance that we have to notice, >> right? Okay. >> Was asked about overflow. So, we >> uh and that might be a really good
answer, but >> but you know, just for protection purposes, I think that we need to notice that as a variance. >> Understood. My second question is how do you accommodate the overflow if both lots
are filled up? >> Again, we I talked about overflow for um the site, but again, we're looking at the site from a parking use perspective and we feel that, you know, the 51 spaces based on the ordinance and based on the uses and how the site's going to
operate is is going to be satisfactory for the for the project site. And as I mentioned in my testimony with valet, you can get a couple additional cars on the current property in depending on how you stack them and how you park them in in the parking spaces. So we feel that the site is adequately designed to
handle the the um seating that we have on the property. >> Thank you. you know, just to get back to that parking on the other lot. I think if you pursue it, you should be able to show how you're going to get the cars back to the site, right? Some
you know how you going to do that? >> Hi there. >> How you doing? My name is Daniel Gerak. I live at 9 Charlotte Drive and I think everybody here, one of the top issues is about the parking. Uh, currently I want to know how many spots you said there
was currently at the at the site. >> There was 32 spaces or existing and I think a couple of them are taken up by the uh the the the back patio right now. I think it's like 27 or >> I was going to say I I walked a lot and
it's 26. You could Google earth it right now it's 26. You could look at it. All right. How many uh what's the occupancy of the restaurant by the way? >> Inside there are se about 70 seats on the inside and I the architect will be able to answer that more more clearly.
>> So you put 70 seats inside and how many on the patio? >> 60 on the patio. >> Okay. And is there a is there an occupancy limit like a fire marshal occupancy uh limit for the restaurant then? It's 70.
>> I'll have to defer that to the project architect. that's interior to the building. >> Okay. And who do I contact when it's um o, you know, operating over capacity? >> I I couldn't >> I call the police, the fire marshal.
>> It would be either of those or the zoning officer depending on the time, right? So, >> it's going to be at night. >> Yeah. So, then police. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Hi, my name is Atul Dargy. I'm at Five
Charlotte Tribe property directly adjacent to this development. My question is uh regarding um your storm water handling, how what are the dimensions of
that uh underground detention basin? >> Um it's approximately maybe 80 feet wide by I'm sorry 80 feet long by about 20 feet wide just approximately 80 by 20 >> six feet deep >> um we had 36 inch diameter
hold on one second just to get the plan a 36 inch diameter pipe with stone so it's probably about 5 feet 5 and a half ft deep >> yeah so 80 by 30 something >> 80 by 20 roughly yeah >> yeah and and how close is it to property line to the south. >> Um we are basically
>> pretty much touching it. >> I'm I'm pointing to the plan. We're we're about we're 10 feet to the property line from the parking and we're probably about another 5t into the edge of the system. So I'll say 14 15 ft. >> Yeah. So, have you done any kind of studies to
show that that water seepage, which is coming, as you testified earlier, from the roofs, from the entire pretty much the whole lot, it's all going to go in there now, and it's not going to bubble up, go into the adjacent neighborhood.
>> Well, the the intent is with the design, we did submit a storm water report. Um, and and Mr. Burr asked us to modify some. >> You did some percolation studies. Is that what you did? We did not do a percolation study yet because the it's it's um it's not major to >> no studies. >> No, we did calculations. We >> did theoretical calculations.
>> We did calculations that are that are accepted by standards for designing the size. >> No actual percolation studies. >> We haven't done a perk test yet out there. But and I I'll say this, we are going to do one. Mr. Burr asked for it. Um but the requirement does not the the
calculations or I'll say the code doesn't say we have to do infiltration because we're not major development. We did propose some infiltration. If it doesn't have to if the infiltration doesn't work, we can just again design the system to hold the water. But, you know, again, if if if you're having an underground system and we could have
some some infiltration back into the ground, that's a positive from a storm water perspective. Um, so we can certainly um we're going to check those numbers to make sure um by doing some imperulation tests, but nonetheless, the system is going to be designed to reduce the runoff leaving the property compared
to what's happening under existing conditions. is putting it all underground in that detention basin. >> Putting it underground. Yes. Today just just >> And so are you guaranteeing that that is not going to go into the neighboring properties basements and they won't flood? >> Again, I'm going to say that that system is going to be designed to infiltrate a
certain amount of runoff into the ground. >> Into the ground right next to the adjacent properties. >> It's it's 30 40t away from the adjacent home. >> Okay. >> 80 foot by 34 foot by about >> 80 by 20 roughly. Yeah. So all that
water, imagine how big that is and it's not going to flood the neighborhood. >> No, this system will not flood the neighborhood. No. >> Okay. And in terms of the uh tests that you did, did you consider
any high water uh table tests? >> No. Like I said, we're going to do the um the soil testing um actually in the wet season in January and February um just to make sure um that we don't have any issues with groundwater. Um but again, based on the code and based on
the requirements, you don't have we don't have to do an infiltration system here. We're doing it because it it's it's it's part of providing some additional um infiltration and reducing the runoff leaving the site. We can take away the infiltration and just do storage and it would still have the same
effect um at the end of the day. So, so you're saying that the added discharge volume with the runoff is not going to impact the downstream neighborhood. That's what the testimony is. >> It's not going to impact the downstream neighborhood because by leaving the site
as it is today where everything just runs off the property, no controls. It hit ends up in the pipes the same time as the runoff from all the other properties. I go and put a storm water system on site. I control the rate of runoff leaving the property. I slow it
down and what happens then is during a storm event the pipes peak before the basin peaks and therefore the pipe system will have already started draining it will be going down when my basin will be letting out more water taking advantage of the fact that the
pipe system can now handle that runoff over the course of time. So because there's no other storm water detention systems in the area here and this would be right at the top of the run. This system will allow for reduction in rate to account for the increased impervious while also reducing runoff coming off of
the property today because it's uncontrolled today. >> Are you aware of any uh just go on to a different topic? Are you aware of any master plan or policies or other townships that promote banquet hall facilities or rooftop bars in R20
residential zones? I I'm I I can't I'm not aware of that answer to that. I'm not aware of that in any other towns. No, I don't not know the exact or ordinance of other towns that would allow that. >> So, this would be kind of setting a precedent probably for this town, right? >> Well, it's a you know, land use
applications really aren't precedential in that sense. They they don't set a precedent because every property is different and it's pretty safe to assume that no residential zone anywhere would allow the commercial use. But that's why they're here.
>> Now that how many variances and waivers are you requiring in total? >> I think I went through them. There were Give me one second. Just give you the >> 16. >> I think there were 10 variances and six design waivers. I mean some of the variances were basically because you had two lots for the use variance. So it's
it's it's doubled up in that regard. Um but yeah, there was 10 variances and and six design waivers. having so many variances for F impervious coverage uh buffering parking even the parking size uh of the actual
parking um uh stalls themselves does that signal a site that's actually suitable for this proposed type of monstrous development >> as you'll hear from our planner um again
because we're talking about an R20 20 zone here, a residential zone, and this was mentioned also up here as well before, your residential requirements for coverage and floor area are generally lower than a commercial zone. So while you have the issue where we
have a commercial use in a residential zone and these uses have been here for for a a a long time um residential zones tend to have lesser um levels of allowing lock coverage and F as opposed to commercial zones.
>> So having those lesser zones the intent is to preserve low density quiet residential character of a neighborhood. So this would augment that or detract from that? Again, we're talking about a use that's been on the property for over 50 years, >> right? And you're compounding it by
adding F to it. >> We're increasing the size of it. Yes. Because we're asking for for an F variance, but the uses the underlying use has been there for over 50 years. >> But making more intense use of it now, right? >> We're making we're making the building larger. Yes.
>> And intensifying the use. Is that correct? >> I'm I'm not going to say I'm intensifying. I'm making the building larger. >> But isn't the F I'm making the measure of the intensity. >> I'm increasing the F. Yes. >> Okay. So, we've increased the intensity in a low density neighborhood with quiet
character. >> What What are the assumptions that you had for the number of events for valet usage? We were essentially and again I'll defer some of this to our operational um architect expert as well but valet would typically be on the busier nights which would which would typically be Friday
and Saturday nights and depending on maybe Thursdays um depending on the the event space um that that would be occurring there. It's typ typical for valet. >> Okay. So are you the person to answer these questions or >> you probably if if they're operational questions you probably want to wait for the architect to ask him those
questions. Were your assumptions based on operational data or were they like theoretical just yeah you just assumed Friday and Saturday? >> Um our assumptions are on operational of how the site's going to operate how the how the applicant intends to operate the property
>> theoretically how they plan to do things. >> It's not it's not theoretical. It's it's a business model that they plan to to to implement. Yes. >> Models based on actual data. >> Oh, it's a it's a business model. Again, you you're talking about a business model for a a banquet and restaurant. There's many banquetss and restaurants
throughout the state of New Jersey. Sure, most of them operate in similar fashion. >> So, another variance you're looking at is uh how many loading zones are required for facilities this size? >> The ordinance requires two loading docks, right? For for the for a building
of that size. Yeah. >> So, we're not going to have two. >> We're going to have one. >> Correct. >> And even in that one, are you going to meet this size of the loading dock that it's required? As I mentioned in my testimony, given the type of building here, and while you may be saying it's a
large structure, it's it's it's relatively um in terms of catering halls and bank facilities, it's it's relatively modest, you don't need a dedicated loading space for deliveries because those deliveries occur off peak hours. They occur during the day, usually between 9:00 am and 3 pm when
your restaurant or banquet space is not in heavy use, typically during the week. And therefore, you don't need to have a dedicated space for a truck to park for what may amount to 5 10 minutes to unload and then and then move on. If it's there for a little bit longer, again, still you you have more than
adequate um circulation on site to account for that. >> Right. So, so that loading dock is actually shared with the parking space area there, right? >> Yes. It's a shared space. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, there's there's cross traffic that could occur. Is that correct? >> It's minimal during the day. It really
is. It's it's not an issue for a for circulation on site. >> So we we require two. You don't have to require the one even the one that you have is not meeting the size requirement. That's why you have the variance, right? >> So we're asking for the variance. Yes.
>> And it's going to be also sharing the same space as other parking spaces. >> It's not sharing a space. It's us utilizing utilizing that same space. Yes. Okay. All right. All right. So what's the square foot
um requirement to be considered a major development um 10,000 some odd square feet >> major storm water development um major stormwater development definition is an acre of disturbance which we don't have an acre of land here so we're under that
and or a quarter acre of of new imperous surface and in this case we're only increasing the impervious surface. I think it was the 4,000 plus or minus square feet on the site. So, we don't trigger either one of those thresholds. >> So, okay. So, including the other imprevious
service, how much is the total? >> Total on site, I think I said it was 30. Hold on one second. >> Square feet wise. >> Yeah, square feet. Just give me one second to find the chart. Uh 30,930 square feet is the total impervious
coverage. >> 309. Are you sure? 30,000 square feet. >> Wait, I'm sorry. Hold on. Wait. No. Yeah. 30,930 feet is the total total lot coverage >> for a major development. What's the square foot requirement? Major
development is a quarter acre of new impervious >> which is how many square feet? 10,000 >> 10,000 and change. Yeah. >> So a major development would be 10,000 square foot >> of new 30,000 new of new impervious >> of new impervious >> starting we're starting off with
>> so technically the new is not that much but the total is 30,000 >> but remember we're starting off with 25,000 square feet. The the way the rules are look written now written and looked at grant that start off with 25,000 square feet adding 4,000
square ft. That's the new impervious that's being added. I don't get penalized for what I have on site to start with. >> Nobody's trying to penalize you. I'm I'm just asking the question as to how we're trying to look at this. I would think that we'd want to treat it as if, you know, on the safer side to make sure
that we're we're treated as a major development versus something technically it'll be falling under that. That's that's that's a design choice and I understand. >> No, sir. It's it's 10 after 10. Our meetings typically stop at 10:00. If you have one more question, I'll I'll let you get it in. And you absolutely >> I have many more questions. I won't be
asking one. >> Yeah. >> So, if you want to stop, that's fine. >> I I >> I don't want to stop. I It's It's at 10:00. Our meeting stop. >> We We've been here. The entire neighborhood has been here since 7 probably even earlier. >> Yeah.
>> And this is the third time we're here. So I I understand, you know, the need to postpone this, try to wait us out, which is fine if that's what we want to do. >> I absolutely know what it's like to be on your side. I know it's frustrating,
but there's a set of rules that we have to follow and we're going to follow them. And you can >> continue this next time. >> Yes. And you you can be first up and you can continue right where you left off. >> I promise you. >> Thank you. Thank you for your time. >> All right. I appreciate. >> So with that, we're going to close
tonight's meeting. Our next meeting is scheduled for December 23rd at 7 p.m. Rich, why don't you talk about that meeting and that was held over for emergency situations? >> Yeah, the second December meeting since it was December 23rd was held for emergency purposes only for which we
don't have any. >> So the emergency is over. >> The there's right there's currently no emergency for that meeting. So uh the December 23rd meeting will not occur. >> Are you okay with this board cancelling that meeting December 23rd? I Yes, I'm okay.
>> Okay. And I would assume that the rest of the board, anyone against it, please. >> I move we cancel. >> All right. So, >> we hear anyone. >> Anyone against? No one against. >> Okay. >> All right. I >> for purposes of this hearing though, right, and this application, um this
hearing is going to adjourn at this point and it will um be rescheduled to the board's reorganization meeting on January 13th, 2026 at 7 p.m. in this room. Um really just for the purpose of appointing uh assigning a new date,
right? Yeah. So there'll be no testimony on January 13th. We're just going to assign a new date to this applicant to continue. Okay. Um and with respect to time council, uh can we extend? I don't know where we are on time, but just
through February. >> It's fine. >> Okay. So, >> so through February 28th is the extension. Okay. >> All right. That completes our 2025 calendar. Thank you everyone for helping out. Thank you for being here. God bless. Have wonderful holidays. Motion
to adjurnn, please. Move we journ. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You got a second on that, right? >> Hope that's not >> okay. What is the status of the request to reopen the 821 JCC?