Everyone, Bridgewater Township Zoning Board of Adjustment regular meeting Tuesday, November 25th, 2025. Time is 7:06. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with the open public meetings act NJSA 10 col4-6
specifically on January 15 2025. Proper notice was sent to the courier news star ledger and filed with the clerk of the township of Bridgewater and posted on the municipal bulletin board. Please be aware of the zoning board of adjustment policy for public hearings. No new no 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. I allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> All right. Good evening, Nancy. If we could have a roll call, please. >> Chairman Fouse >> here. >> Mr. Widley >> here. >> Mrs. Zamin >> here. >> Mr. Sweeney >> here. >> Mr. Fresco.
>> Mr. Mr. Bonjouro >> here. >> Mr. Geski >> here. >> Mr. CCAT will be absent for the record. Mr. Kulak >> here. >> Mr. Vesio >> here. >> Mr. Gabbit >> here. >> Mr.
>> Mr. Burr, board engineer >> here. >> Sarm planner >> here. >> We have a quum. You can proceed. >> All right. Thank you very much. At this time, I'd like to open up the meeting to members of the public that would like to speak on any land use issue which is not on our agenda this evening. You can come
forward. Seeing none, I'm going to close that portion. Uh we have no minutes for approval tonight. We have two resolutions. Uh first up, we have 14 Gates Head Drive. Looking for changes, comments. >> Good.
>> All right. Motion, please. I move by >> Mr. Widley. Second. >> Second. Mrs. Amen. Thank you. Mr. Fouse. >> Yes. >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zamin.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bonjouro. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gazki. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Kulak. >> Yes. >> All right. Second. We have 797 Country Club Road. Uh, we had changes today from board attorney that were emailed to
everyone looking for further changes or comments. >> With his changes. Yep. And there are a couple of others just a couple of th and that were missing that I'll put in but nothing that changes. >> Do I have a second please? >> Mrs. All right. Thank you.
>> Sorry. Who made the motion? >> Jim, >> Mr. Fouse. Yes. Fouse. Sorry. >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zamine. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bjouro. >> Yes.
>> Mr. CCAT. is absent. Sorry, I'm moving on. Mr. Kulac, >> yes. >> And Mr. Vasio voting for >> I will I will I'll abstain from voting on this one because I was not present at this meeting. >> I was going to say that's too many at
that point. >> Well, Mr. Gi voted no. >> Well, that's okay. >> I didn't vote. >> Just the yes votes who vote on this. >> All right. So, we're good. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Uh our application this evening is 821 and JCC
Somerset Hunter and Warren. Um Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kley. Good evening gentlemen. >> The chairman and the board Kevin Kley Connell Foley on behalf of 821 Bridgewater. With me is Howard Cohen on behalf of the Jewish Community Center of Somerset. And
>> Mr. Kley, with your permission, uh, at the prior hearing, a neighbor inquired about access to the emergency access in the event their property uh, was flooded or otherwise impaired. We have consulted with our engineers. We've consulted with
821 Bridgewater and we consult to the neighbor access onto the emergency access in the event of an emergency. uh so long as the design of the emergency access as identified in the exhibit and
evidence is not changed so that the point of access onto the JCC property would be as shown on the emergency access uh uh exhibit. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Co. And in in that regard, uh A21 as well
would work with the uh homeowners to the uh south of the project to uh uh provide them emergency access along the existing proposed emergency access way. And presumably if this were approved, it
would occur at the site plan stage. The details of that So, uh, this evening I I have two witnesses to be called, uh, essentially for cleanup purposes, uh, uh, for different reasons. So, it will be Mr. Keller, the traffic expert, who's
testified previously, and Mr. Ste, the planner, who's also testified previously. So, I'll be calling them for rather limited purposes. Um, the the other point I'd like to uh raise to the board is um do we how many members are
present who can or eligible to vote this evening? I know some are not. I I don't know what the numbers >> have signed affidavit. So, we have seven, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. So, with that, unless you have some questions,
I'd like to call Mr. Keller. >> Sure. Great. >> Eric, would you raise your right hand, please? Soly swear that the testimony you give to this board be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And for the record, your full name, please.
>> Eric L. Keller. Ke L E R. You've uh testified previously on this application before this board. >> I have. >> All right. And uh um in your November 12, 2024 testimony,
you stated that the proposed uh project would generate a nominal amount of additional traffic beyond what is currently generated by the farm stand. >> That is correct. that was in our report um
dated uh January 29th, 2024, revised October 9th of 2024 in uh what I believe is uh table two. >> All right. And uh you testified at that
time that the proposed traffic will not material impact the safety of the intersection. That's correct. The proposed uh roadway intersection with Route 202 206 would operate at an acceptable level of service. >> All right. And you did a site distance
study. >> We did. We worked with uh Mr. Michello's office. Uh they prepared the drawing and uh based upon our analysis of the roadway operating conditions uh and there is in excess of 600 ft of sight
distance in either direction from the driveway looking both to the north and to the south. And at the time you testified uh in 2024, Sergeant Hennessy had not submitted any
report as of that date. Um I don't recall. There might have been a report, but there was nothing of substance to my knowledge in in the I think there was there have been two reports from the sergeant. >> First one he said he had no comments to the application.
>> Right. Um and uh during the course of of the these proceedings, uh you did an OPRA, it's an open public records act request for traffic accidents between West Foothill Road and
extending extending southernly across the site frontage to Talamini Road. Is is that accurate? >> That is correct. We submitted it the Oprah request. It was received by the township police department on September 9th, 2024
and it was seeking accident reports from January 1 of 2020 to 9924 um from West Foothill Road um through the existing Farmstand driveway which is
south of the proposed road intersection and also the the vet hospital driveway. Right. And at and in 2024 when you testified, did you disclose in your testimony what the extent of of the Oprah was? In other words, did you
describe what you had opered? >> That is correct. It was it was contained in our in that same traffic report I referenced previously. On page eight of that report, we summarized it. Um, and
it had returned two accident reports, both of which were at the vet hospital driveway. And based upon reviewing the um statements within each of the reports, uh, those accidents were caused
by driver distraction or inattention and not due to um operating conditions or roadway conditions in that vicinity. Right. Did you when you previously testified and now do you consider the
scope of your Oprah request to be appropriate? >> Yes, I do. Right. >> Um and after you testified, Sergeant Hennessy of the Bridgewater Police Department filed another report on
February 18th, 2025. Is that true? >> Uh yes, correct. And uh um you you referenced uh that there were the number of accidents in your prior
testimony that you got as a result of your Oprah? >> Right. There were two. >> Okay. And um did uh Sergeant Hennessy uh submit an Oprah request? >> I don't think he has to submit an OPAR request to his own department. uh he was
able to collect the accident reports from his from the police department records um as part of his uh undertaking. >> Okay. Did he did his uh list of accidents coincide with your list of
accidents? >> Well, his report indicated there were 23 accidents. Um however, he covered a much greater length of roadway than we did. We were focused on where we were
proposing access. Um the u additional crash records that were reported by the sergeant. Um where is it? They encompass an approximately 1.4 mile segment from
Allen Road to the south to Heather Hill Way. Plus, there was one crash that was in that data set that was a corporate drive, which was another 8/10en of a mile to the north. So, it
was 23 accidents over a five-year period in a essentially a call it a mile and a half segment of roadway of a state highway. Um so it was there were many
more but it was because it was a greater distance. I don't think it in my opinion my professional opinion it doesn't change our findings. You know these accidents occurred at other locations and are not indicative of where we are
looking to create a new driveway access. >> I have a question. Um, does did your Oprah request and response include accidents on Talamini and any of the roads
like Foothill? We >> we included West Foothill, Foothill >> and Talamini. We did not include Talamini because it's a signalized intersection and it's at a greater distance from the site than we thought was appropriate for this proposed
access. So, no, we didn't include Talamini. >> I have a question for you. uh depending upon how much traffic is coming out of that housing complex uh if they are driving on 2026 4 miles
down 10 miles down if that uh increases the accident rate how do you look at it I mean it's not within 2 miles or 5 miles I mean >> well the amount of traffic generated by this site in comparison to the amount of
traffic already on 202 206 would not materially affect the accident rate because it's such a small percentage of the overall traffic. Traffic volumes by themselves do not um
relate to the rate of accidents. They're based accidents are usually based upon vehicle miles traveled. It's both vehicles and miles. This project generates such little traffic compared to what's already there. It does not
make a material difference. So, >> were any of those accidents with injury? >> The two that were that came out of my OPER request, no, it was property damage, vehicle damage, but no um uh
injuries. >> I have a question. H how would you feel about a condition for no left turns coming out of the development >> given the amount of sight distance there? I don't think it's appropriate.
>> Um would also >> Wait a minute. I'm sorry. You don't think >> I think you should be able to make a left turn? >> Absolutely. >> So you would be opposed to that condition? I would. >> Thank you.
>> Just a quick question about what you just stated that traffic volume has no impact on accidents. Is that what you said? >> Didn't say had no impact. >> What did you say? >> Said in this case, this project, the traffic from this project would not have
any material impact upon the types and number of accidents that would occur within this corridor. I heard that, but I thought you made also a statement that was more general about traffic volume not impacting an accident rate. So, if I
misheard you or you just threw that in as a filler, um your point is better stated as the let me see if I can reconstruct it for you. The amount of traffic that you anticipate being generated by the site would be incidental in the sense that it wouldn't
cause any additional traffic accident in your opinion. >> Correct. And also the fact that traffic volumes by themselves, >> that's what we're getting at, >> right? Traffic volumes by themselves do not create accidents.
It's the levels of service that are provided, the roadway conditions. It's not whether I have a 100 vehicles or 200 vehicles. Because I go from a 100 vehicles on a roadway to 200 vehicles doesn't mean I'm gonna have twice the accidents.
>> It's there's not a one to one correlation is what you're saying. >> But we all live in this area and we just drove here through tremendous volumes of traffic, some of which are affected by the holiday. You can't tell me that the volume of traffic does not have an impact on accidents. It does doesn't
compute for me. I appreciate your opinion. I'm just stating mine. >> Understood. >> On that point though, you said, so you're you're kind of looking at sort of just of the plus few cars, but you're
adding an intersection here. So, how does adding an intersection? So, a road like 202 impact roadway safety. >> That's why we look at site distance, we look at visibility, the operations, and the level of service. Those are the
factors when you design a new intersection that there you know you can't design for driver behavior in any road. You can't design for driver behavior fully. I mean you design roadways so
that they have the appropriate geometry, vertical geometry, sight distance. Um, but as I said, the two accidents that occurred at the vet hospital were caused because the driver was not paying attention.
>> How do you know that? >> Huh? >> How do you know that? >> It was stated in the accident reports as to what the occurren >> that was written by the police officer. He wrote, "They, your town, your police
officers do a great job of actually putting usable information into their accident reports." I don't have it with me. I don't remember the specifics, but it was clear whatever it was was that they were the driver was not paying
attention. They were distracted by something and they had an accident. So, did the police give you the police reports from the Oprah request? Because I have the I have the Oprah request. It doesn't say that they supplied you. >> No, they I have a whole stack of
>> actual accident reports. >> Mr. Kelly, I'm glad we finally agree on something. Our police department is tremendous and my hats off to them. So, all right. Good. Thank you, >> Chairman Fouse. Just so you know, the the report that um that the Lieutenant Hennessy had submitted that included the
actual Oprah as support to the to the map that showed where all them were, all the accidents were located. >> Okay. >> And I just want to clarify because >> I don't believe that that's an accurate statement that the driver was distracted. Actually, in one of the cases, the driver was distracted and that was noted in the accident report.
But if we're looking at the same one, which is number 17, which was the other one, um it actually noted that the driver uh had someone pull out in front of them and their view was obstructed and that's why they there was a collision. >> Well, I'm a customer of that vet and
yes, that happens there. >> So, I just want to make sure that yes, in one case, it was noted there was a distraction. In the other case, there was nothing. It says failed to yield to oncoming traffic, which is not a distraction, but rather a driver error. >> Mr. Keller, how did you pick in the Oprah January 1st, 2020 during COVID?
You know, and I hear your testimony about the number of cars is not correlated to the accident numbers, but you have to be curious that maybe in 2019, maybe in 2018 there were more accidents. I know there were substantially less cars and I can testify that my car was out on the road
for a substantial time during COVID and thus, you know, people not reporting to work and then and remote working, the traffic has decreased. I am curious but do you have an opinion on that? >> Generally we we collect data for 5 years. >> Gotcha. So you did it four years. >> It's always I mean it they were very
strange times. Um you know but I felt that that was representative and considering we got two hits that they gave me two accident reports that was it. >> You don't have any data for 2019 or 2018? >> I did not ask for 2019 or 2018. So it's
it's so it's a bit arbitrary in the selection of 2020 to 2024. >> No, I don't think it's >> You just testified that you typically pull five years. >> I did. I pulled five years. 2020 through September of 2024. >> Five years. It's less than five years >> by three months.
>> But don't testify that it's five years when it's only less than that. >> It's five years >> and eight months and nine days. >> Okay. So you don't have any 2019 data before CO? >> I do not. So in in your professional opinion when was the official dates of COVID when traffic was impacted
>> about the middle it was like March 17th March 20th something like that so we got two and a half months of 20 >> and following COVID have you in your professional opinion noted a decrease in traffic due to remote working >> sure there's there's been a continued
reduction in traffic volumes since co ended I mean as a pandemic. So you selected a time that not only has CO in it but has decreased traffic quantities due to COVID related office remote working >> traffic volumes are still decreased and
>> right just wanted to get on the record. Thank you sir. I have another question. >> I don't recall, sir. I didn't bring >> I have information that gives me time. >> You object to no left turn after.
>> Yes. an enforcement issue for your police department. There is no engineering reason that they can't make a left turn out of that. Make a left turn out of the vet hospital. Chairman Fouse has probably made that a 100.
>> No, I go right on Foothill. >> But I since you brought it up, I did go to the site today and I did try and make a left at Allstead Farms. Did any part of your traffic report And there there's a functioning farm stand there. I mean, it was busy today. I went at 1:00 today. I mean,
theoretically, could there be less traffic from this residential component than currently exists at Elstead? Yeah. >> Busy times around the holidays. I mean, Farms is well known. People like to go there.
>> Has anybody recorded this information? You know, I don't even know if this is an approved use because it's we're in an R40 zone and there's a farm stand there. But that withstanding, I mean, could there be less sight trips? It's possible. I mean, in our report that we
submitted last year, we used DOT data. We did not do a traffic count of the farm stand. I don't even know if it was open at the time. We did the traffic count. We counted at Foothill Road and we counted. We did a comparison based upon the trip
generation that the DOT publishes. We used DOT rates which are also much higher than we're now update for access. And you know the proposed development will generate
nominal amounts of how much based upon we had this debate last time. I'm not gonna >> I don't want to debate it again. >> I'm tired, too. >> I'm going to use market rate >> non-agger restricted town hall.
>> It's not my question. It's Mr. Bonjour. >> I'm just I I'm not looking at you directly, Mr. Fouse. Chairman Fouse, I'm sorry. Just in general. Um, so the DOT trip generation says there's
37 AM peak hour trips for 64 units and 44 PM peak hour trips for those same units. So it's less than one a minute. Um, and that's in two directions, both entering and exiting. Obviously in the
morning more people are going out and at night more people are coming in. So the um so that that to me is nominal. It's nominal to the DOT. Anything less than a 100 peak hour trips,
they consider that as no significant amount of traffic. >> So So um Mr. Keller, um when you testified uh about a year ago, you assumed there would be 60 units on this project. Is that correct? Correct.
>> And now the application >> I didn't assume. What was >> it? It was what? Yes. You based your testimony on 60. >> Correct. >> 60 units. And if I told you now that there was going to be 64 units with 13 one-bedroom affordable units, would that
change your your prior opinion about the traffic impacts of the project? >> No. And actually, the numbers that I just uh quoted to the board were for 64 units. You did it for 60 units, there'd be two less in the morning peak hour and
three less in the PM peak hour. So it is a negligible change and >> and when you previously gave a report you did you say something and I'm paraphrasing it that uh the proposed
project would generate a nominal amount of additional traffic beyond that which is currently generated by the farm stand. >> Correct. Correct. the uh we said table two
in our traffic report from last year showed that there were I compare the current plan 64 units to the farm stand there would be an additional 17
uh am peak hour trips uh and an additional six PM peak hour trips. Again, this is based upon data published by DOT. >> Okay. I don't have any further questions for the witness.
>> Board questions. Mr. Keller, >> question, please. So, Mr. Keller, you know, for me, you know, I think your data is is great. I like the data, you know, about the the volume, but you know what? data doesn't can't convince
me of is safety. Um you know uh there's a lot of intersections um where I sometimes pull in and I see somebody here and I see somebody here and I see a guy coming up behind me and then another person is coming out here.
So tell us where in the data it says that this is safe regardless of volume. Is it safe? 10 a 60. Gez, I'm I'm getting up there myself. Maybe I should go higher. Maybe there. >> Yeah, maybe I should go higher. Maybe go. >> You look like a child.
>> Yeah, thank you. Maybe maybe uh a 78-year-old person is going to be able to process the vet Foothill West Foothill. Are they really going to be able to process that safely regardless of
volume? Just safely. So volume is not as I said volume is not necessarily a function or a a causal factor safety but we looked at sight distance. There is more than enough sight distance
to see approaching vehicles along 202 206. We made the decision um the farm stand driveway. This came up in Mr. from Michelle's testimony at the last meeting um about the farm stand which is not
aligned with the vet hospital. We made the decision in looking at the plan that it is better for these two low volume uses to be aligned. There are design standards about separation driveways.
The proposed driveway and Foothill Road are separated by a sufficient amount of distance that if somebody is making a left out of Foothill Road, somebody makes a left out of our sight driveway, there is plenty of distance that they
can see each other and process that. Um, West Foothill Road is about 400 feet away. So that in my opinion does not even factor into the equation of how this proposed driveway will operate. Their part they would be part of the
through traffic on 2026 at the point they get there. The other thing that um we chose to do because the vet hospital already has a left turn lane into that hospital
into their driveway is that we would as part of our DOT um access permit would create a left turn lane opposite that so that the left turning traffic
into this site is not placed within in the through lane, the through traffic of Route 202 206, which is a safer condition in that you don't have to worry about who's coming up behind me because if somebody comes up behind you,
they're going to they're your neighbor and they're going into the same community. And there is enough width of pavement on 202 206 to just restripe that to get that left turn lane to take
it out of the shoulders which is what they did at the bed hospital. We do the same thing on our side. So that creates again a safe location for that to occur. Left turns out of side streets have the,
you know, there's a hierarchy. Through traffic on the main line is at the top. They don't have to stop. Left turns and right turns off of the main road are next. Movements from the side streets are
the last to make a decision. So that that's how we look at safety. How do you design an intersection to meet the design criteria of the state? >> But so volume you're saying doesn't have
a a factor but what about age? Age does, right? Doesn't it >> I'm just I mean the stats trying to be >> No, I understand but the stats in general, right? I mean, they do tend to indicate that there is a higher fatal
crash per mile rate based on age brackets. Correct. >> I haven't studied. I'm not an accident expert. Um, I know how to analyze specific data. I'm not I I don't look at broad demographic stuff. That's not my
area of expertise. Yes, as you get older, your reaction times do slow down. Um, and one of the things that we did is we typically design stopping sight
distance. And what stopping sight distance is is that I pull out of a side street, my car dies. Does that vehicle that's approaching in either direction have enough time to stop before I get hit? The answer is yes. It's a safe
intersection because that vehicle has time to stop. Now, any sight distance that we reference, we the traffic engineering profession that we reference and use from the uh
design guidelines, federal design guidelines is based on a wet roadway. It's measured on nights like this when the road is wet. Um, so if they can stop on a wet roadway,
we have enough. The comment we had received in the review was that we should use intersection sight distance for this location. Intersection distance is longer because what it presumes is that the vehicle on the main line does
not have to come to a stop. All they have to do is modify their speed by some percentage and that vehicle that comes out of the side street and accelerates away, they're not going to catch up to it. So,
I believe in in the sight distance testimony, the analysis we've done, because we more than meet intersection sight distance, that also provides that cushion that makes me comfortable that an older
driver has more than enough time to make a decision to either pull out or wait until that vehicle passes. >> Okay. What's the site distance that you're talking about? How many feet?
>> 610 ft. And that's based upon a design speed of 55 miles an hour. The roads posted for 50. The design guidelines say you add five miles an hour to that for um for design purposes.
>> You need 600 feet to avoid an accident. Well, to not have to slow down significantly as that car pulls out. I only need 495 ft to come to a complete stop on a rainy night like tonight.
>> I've been living in Bridgewater for over 30 years. And seems that people jump out of side streets and I got to hit the brakes almost quite regularly. So, I don't know what town you live in, but I
live in Bridgewater, and that's what I see. >> Well, I work in Paripany. >> Okay. >> I worked in in in Bridgewater for four years. Um I, as I said earlier, I can't, as a design professional, I can't account for
somebody making a bad decision to say, you know, I'm just going to pull out because I feel it's my time to go. and they pull out in front of you. >> Call it what you will. Driver in attention, driver error. That is a well
that too. >> Um dovetailing a little bit on that. You know, if we were to just have a you know, right only and we were to Mr. Michelle designed some curb cement like he did with the Starbucks
case. He's he's a talented guy. I know it's safe and I hear your testimony, but boy, it would really take away some potential problems that could creep up with drivers. I'm trying to be careful here that are in excess of 55 or
older that would be in residence at this facility. You know, this board I I think I've been on it since 2014. I think we have a track record of safety that's pretty impeccable. And I think when you can assure the board it's safe even though
it's not required. >> I think that artificially forcing somebody to do something that has is not necessary is going to create some other issues. You're going to get people that because the road is so wide
>> you can check >> I agree Mr. Michello is very talented. He can design it, but unless you put a barrier down the middle of the road, which the state will never agree to, >> I know >> you can't prevent somebody from making a left and then you're going to move the problem down to where somebody makes a
Uturn >> or I'm I'm not going to record. I'm just going to put on the record that if you had a right turn only to get onto Foothill Road, you simply go down not even a half mile to Allen Road and you're achieving the same result onto
Foothill in a safer situation. To go north on 2026, you make a right and then a right onto Talamini and then a right onto Country Club. Remember, three rights is a left. So, you go north on Country Club and it dumps you out right in the middle of Bedminister. Again, it's a safer result and a less traveled
road. I just think it's a good thing to do. Now, I hear your testimony loud and clear that you're testifying that it's a it's a it's a nominal increase in traffic, but to simply do this, and I don't think it would fall on the police for enforcement. You create some curb
that's designed to move the traffic to the right, put up a sign, and we hope for the best. And at least we are appealing to people's common sense to avoid making a left into a dangerous dangerous intersection. And I have offered up I have been a customer of the vet for a long time. I was there at 1:00
today just to kind of prove this point. It's a it's a sea level of service as you claim. It feels like an F every time I'm in there. To add to Mr. Fouse's point, Chairman Fouse's point, on the way here, I had to
hit the brakes real hard cuz somebody stopped trying to get into the onto Foothill Road with no notice. So that that area you do see people do that pretty frequently. you you just take away this the safety component that this board I think really falls back onto and you know to offer
this up and to tell residents, okay, it's going to cost you an extra 10 seconds to get on the foothill. You're going to have to go down to Allen. I think you could probably get up to Bedminister faster on Country Club than you can by making a left outright. Just throwing it out there, Mr. Keller.
>> Do that, but at other times, >> you're you're right. I understand position. This is mine as a professional having, you know, prepared traffic studies and done analyses for over 40 years. So, >> I I think a stoplight would be the best result, but you know, we're not going to
be able to get that from the state of Foothill Road. >> I know. I know. I hear you. All right. I wanted to put on the record if you want to ask your applicant if he's saying no. He said no to everything else. I don't know why he wouldn't say no to this. So, it's a no, sir. Okay. Thank you.
And I guess I'll just add to that a little bit that, you know, this board, we always try and find yeses. You know, I think that's our job is to work with applicants to find yeses, to find safe solutions. We've always tried to find yeses and every time you say no. So, you know,
I just want the record to reflect that, you know, for a year and three months we've been hearing this case. You've changed the number of units, you've changed the designs. Here we are a year and three months later trying to get to a yes. So,
>> well, I I would say that the generalization is in my opinion only not warranted, but I put that on the record. >> Certainly. >> Um, let me ask one question. Um, if you had a no left sign, would that have to
uh survive DOT scrutiny? >> Oh, yeah. What was the question? He >> said if you had a no left left turn, would DOT have to look at that and approve it? >> They're have to approve the the left turn into the facility anyway, right? >> They're going to have to approve the
access period, >> right? >> Every aspect of it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, any more questions? Uh, >> any more board questions? Port professionals. Maurice, good evening, sir. >> Uh, good evening, uh, Mr. Keller. Um, as
you could see, the um the board is very concerned about the safety of the corridor, the safety of the intersection and the driveway. You testified today that u there is good sight distance.
Earlier you said there is more than 600 ft and later on in your testimony you indicated that the required intersection site distance is 610 ft which is correct.
And then in your August 12 uh 2025 letter you indicated something along the lines that there is more than sufficient sight distance available. >> Correct. However, I haven't seen any plan that
shows that side distance to be available. The only plan that I've seen is one, and I'm looking at it as we speak, that says there is 542 feet of sight distance to the left and
only 500 uh feet of sight distance to the right. And at the last hearing, I asked the same question to the site engineer and we haven't seen any engineer document, any scientific proof
that the site distance is indeed 610 or more than 610. Can you help us understand this? >> Yeah, I mean I I read the transcript, a portion of the transcript from the August meeting when Mr. Michello uh
testified. I don't remember what exhibits we had when I was here a little over 12 months ago. We had prepared and I thought it had been submitted and I I know you weren't a traffic consultant at
the time. Um submitted a revised site uh profile document that was revised as of October 22 of 2024 that showed the intersection site distance that was required. I have a
copy of it. I brought it with me. Um, it's >> Can you tell the board because the plan I'm looking at is dated October 11, 2024. Um, can you point to the plan you're describing and read to the board the information
from that plan regarding the site distance? >> Certainly. Glad I brought it. So, this is a plan prepared by Gladstone Design. Um it's stated it's entitled site distance plan and profile. It carries a
date of October 11th with a revision to October 22nd, 2024. And it says revised per traffic engineers comments. So um from the site driveway looking to the north,
um we showed a sight distance of 671 ft. It actually is longer than that. It's about 800 feet to the crest of the uh vertical curve on 202 206 west of I'm
sorry, north of West Foothill Road. Um but we stopped at 671 ft because there was no reason to go further to the to the south. Um going down towards Talamini,
um we showed 610 feet of clear sight distance. Again, we could have gone further. Um but we met the intersection site distance of 610 ft, so we stopped. >> Can you >> I'm sorry, but I just want for the
record. Are you referring to A5? Is there a marking on that drawing? I just printed this out because I I I I >> What was the date of it? >> It's It's right. >> It's A5. >> It's A5. >> By date. It's A5. >> Thank you, Mr. Rer. I I swore that I
testified to it, but I testify so much I forget. >> I didn't have that in a year has elapsed. >> That date. So, >> you you testified November of 2024 on this. >> Yes. >> Gotcha. So if you look at that uh plan that is revised I believe you said October 22nd.
>> Yes. >> And um you look at the sighteline and then you look at the profile of uh the roadway or the area next to the roadway. At one point the exhibit shows a three
and a half foot distance between the profile and the sight line which is adequate. >> Correct. >> But then if you move to the right and you go to station 178 for example, you
will see that the distance between the sight line and the profile appears to be about 2 feet. Are you aware of that anomaly or that deficiency? Well, >> that's not a deficiency. As long as you have clear sight distance, you don't
need to maintain 3 and 1/2 ft. Driver's eye is at 3 and 1/2 ft. The object height is at 3 and 1/2 ft. And as long as there is no obstruction between those two points, 3 and 1/2 ft for the driver, three and 1/2 ft for the object and the existing roadway, then
that is not considered an obstruction. Well, that is not totally correct. If the U sight line and there is a certain tolerance that we need to adhere to. If the sight line is
let's say an inch from the U profile that becomes uh not a good situation. Um, you know, normally, um, we would like to see the 3 and 1/2 ft maintained throughout. What I'm trying to explain
here, Mr. Chairman, is that, um, as you're looking towards the oncoming traffic, and the plan does show, I haven't seen these plans, but I'm taking Mr. Keller's word uh for it
>> um that you do have 671 ft on one side. Um when you take the sighteline of the 671 ft, the pavement and the roadside features that are under that sight line,
they go up and down and at one point they go up little close to the sighteline. Um, which means that if there is a little mistake, if somebody's not maybe tall enough or or the car is
not high enough, that side distance could be compromised. Now, I have to admit that from what uh Mr. Keller testified to it, he does meet the standards. So I have to admit to that he does meet the minimum
standards but he does not meet the let's call it the desirable standards and the reason >> disagree with that. So >> and the reason I think we may need a higher standard here is two two folds. One
uh we do have a safety history along this corridor of the highway. Uh even though um like Mr. Keller said they don't relate to the driver location particularly or at least only two of the accidents do relate to the driver
location but we have a pattern of um a safety issue along this corridor. The other reason is that this facility uh is intended for uh people that are
uh older and older people they do suffer from um visual acuity. They do uh have a slower reaction time. So when we design for older people, we design to the
highest standards. Uh again, I don't want to mislead the board. Um what he presented to us does meet minimum standards. So that is um so I'm going to move on to my um second question.
If I'm not mistaken, uh Mr. Keller, the driveway u on Route 202 206 is in a 100year flood hazard area.
Um, if that's true, then >> that's a question you should have asked Mr. Michello. I I >> Well, may maybe Mr. Bur can help us. But that's when I looked at the plans and I looked at some um available plans
online. I determined um I'm not a uh water engineering uh engineer at all, but um I can read plans and I uh and I saw that the location is in a 100year flood hazard area, which makes the
installation and the operation of an emergency roadway very critical. And earlier this evening, we heard from your attorney that there will be provisions for an emergency access, but we haven't heard any details about it. Can you tell
us more about it? Can you tell us where it's going to be, how it's going to operate? >> We went over this last year. There's an emergency access between this project and the JCC. The discussion tonight was
about providing an accommodation for some existing homeowners who have, from what I understand, reading the transcript, have a covert that sometimes floods and this gives them, if this project is approved, a way to get out
and not have to cross that cover. There's always been I mean maybe not always but we agreed to provide an emergency access point between the JCC and this project
which would go to their site and out to Talamini. um having a driveway within a 100red-year flood. If that's is the case, is it 6 in? Is it 2 in of water? Um at some point when the flood hazard
area ends, you have only a little bit of water. Um I I don't know what that is. That's a Mr. Michello question, not a traffic engineering question. So, >> plus there's going to be,
you know, the road has to be designed to meet DOT standards as far as grades and everything else. So, that would be probably part of the design associated with that and maybe in the developed condition, the roads not in a flood
hazard area, but I I'm not the site engineer. I'm the traffic engineer. >> Understood. So, Mr. Mr. Keller, I'm going to give you one more chance to say yes tonight. Uh, so let's go over this driveway and the movements.
Um, >> let me just interject for a moment now. I >> if you could just talk into the mic, please. Thanks. >> I I talked uh to the principal of 821 and accepting as we do all of Mr. Keller's testimony,
we will agree to a left turn prohibition provided that it gets by DOT. Understood. So, Mr. Michello could design a curb like he did for the Starbucks case where we're trying to push the traffic to the right. I'm sure you recall it because we talked about it for a year as well.
>> Mr. Michelle will have to respond to that. >> He'll get out there with his tel and he'll start shaping it for us. >> All right. But the but the concept of of no left turns would be okay if as long as it's approvable by the by the DOT. >> But you're going to have to come back for a site plan approval if this is
approved anyway. So that you know that could be part and parcel of the next phase. >> Right. But again maybe we maybe we move along from this issue. >> I I'd like to move along too. Maurice, are you good with that? >> I'm good. Yes. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Ko. I appreciate you doing that.
>> And that's all I have. Mr. Chairman. >> All right. Thank you, Maurice. Uh, can I open up members of the public? >> All right. Uh, members of the public that would like to ask questions on Mr. Keller's traffic testimony, you can come forward now. >> He's not a engineer. He's not that type
of engineer. We We do have Mr. Michello here. If you do have a direct question, maybe towards the end we could do some house cleaning and we can ask that question to him. But right now, it's just for traffic questions. Hi there. Just get your name and address, please. Uh
>> Rob Espazito, 738 West Foothill. Um so the the dates that were given for the Oprah requests I have um January 2020 to September 24. Is that right? >> Yes.
>> 1120 and 9924. And you said two accidents um in that period. >> Correct. >> And then the police provided in fe February 1825 that there was 23 accidents. Correct.
>> Over a much larger length of uh analysis. >> Okay. Um, so do we have the like the distribution of those accidents were like how many were in the 2020 to 22 and how many were
in 25? I >> I from my report I don't recall um when they were they were spread out over you know I I don't have the exact dates. I didn't bring a copy of my entire report because my testimony here
was going to be limited. I had given extensive testimony on accidents and a lot of other things a year ago. >> Okay. Because I I suspect that majority of them might be in 25 or 24 that during
the COVID years maybe there weren't so many and if we had extended back to 18 or 19 I think the data could be quite different. >> The police went from 2020 as well. So I I don't know, >> but there were only two. So there's no
pattern to to analyze. There's no trend you can get out of two data points. >> Yeah. I I also don't know. I I personally know somebody that's been in an accident in that stretch. And we we submitted an Oprah request, too, and it did not come back. I don't know if it's
we're doing something wrong or if there's a trick to it, but I I don't know where those I think there's more accidents happening than are reported and I I don't know how to justify that. But >> all I can do is ask the police for the
for par I give them parameters and they gave me the reports and that's what I get. I rely upon that. >> And is it possible? I know you you typically do five years, but can we not go back to 2018 and maybe all all the way up until the present time because I
>> this request was done for a report that was written a year ago. So that's why the OPA request went to September of 24 because that's when I made the request. We could go back, but I don't, you know, I don't think that, especially given the discussion tonight,
and the fact that we're agreeable to right turnout only, that there's really any relevance to additional accident reports if they exist. >> I I think there is, not just for the the site driveway, but for the whole stretch. Um
>> well, like I said, I went from West Foothill Road where you live down to um the basically the culvert that's in front of the site because that's where the I wanted to collect any accidents associated with the All State Farm stand
driveway. I got two. That's it. >> Right. But but also during a as you said yourself a very strange period of time. I I don't know how we can't acknowledge that that
skews the data quite a bit. >> I don't it has an impact but I don't think it skews it that much. So that's my opinion. >> Okay. >> It's an appropriate period of time. >> Um the other thing I I also heard you
say that I'm not an accident expert. Is is there somebody that we could get as an accident expert to to do the type of analysis that everybody's asking for? >> Well, accident experts are reconstruction. Why? What caused it? I
can read an accident report. I've been doing this for 40 plus years. I've read hundreds of accident reports and I can pull out of factors, you know, was it a right angle? Was it a rear end? I don't need to reconstruct the accident to understand
is it a roadway condition or is it a driver issue. So there's you're not going to get any more information relevant to a land use application than than what I'm providing.
Okay. Um Okay. The other the other thing um you had mentioned that um the main car when somebody's pulling out it's the expectation is that the main car is going to modify their speed
to let that car out. Could you describe that how that factors into the numbers and and the the level of service? Because I it does I >> it doesn't at all. I mean, I I completely disagree with the fact that main cars modify their speed in any way.
If anything, I think they speed up because they're annoyed that somebody cut them off. They they didn't see them pulling out. And I I think that that statement it it doesn't doesn't make it safer. >> Okay. And
I for the record I I don't know if it goes on the record, but this this shrugging and and this this attitude of I don't care is >> it's not a it's not a matter of I don't care. That's your opinion. I it's not
mine people. And this is based upon, you know, reference manuals, things that we use to design roadways. It's right in the documentation that an intersection sight distance of 610 ft is based upon a
presumption that a driver coming along a state highway doing 55 miles an hour has somebody pull out in front of them knows that they need to get up to speed, they're going to back off the gas a little bit and slow down. It's not I
don't It's not that I don't care. I care a lot about what this is, what how we design a project, you know, >> many projects, my name's on these plans. In this case, it's not, but I care about what goes on these plans. It's my
license at stake. So, it my shrug is okay. That's your opinion. It's not mine. >> Okay. And so, everybody that's giving their real world, real life experiences telling you that people pull out all pull out on them all the time. I had to slam on the brakes and you are going
like this. What does that mean? >> As I said a couple of times tonight, there's nothing we as design professionals can do if somebody decides, as Mr. Bonjouro said, does something stupid. I can't design for stupid.
Okay. I I can't. We designed to make these intersections, these roadways as safe as possible to provide the drivers with the ability to make smart decisions. Somebody pulls out in front of you. Hey, look, I drive a lot, too. I
have people, you know, pull pull in front, you know, in front of me and slam on the brakes. I can't design to prevent that. >> Mr. Espazito, if I can help you out, you nor I are are experts. You know, even
though we drive and you drive probably more than I do in this vicinity. When a judge reviews this case, if a judge reviews this case, he's going to look at the expert testimony. And Rich, maybe you can chime in here. Experts, you know, on the hierarchy tree of valid testimony. They rank here.
Unfortunately, you and I, we're down here, even though we drive it more than these experts have been there probably in their entire lives. So our board has retained um Mr. Rashed Maurice from Collier's Engineering and he's basically described his opinion, his expert
opinion on the situation. So you know, as a board, we're just trying to get to what is safe. So it sounds like the applicant tonight offered up a right turn only, which I think is a step in the right direction. I'm thrilled to hear it. Maurice talked about minimum levels of service. These are things that
maybe you want to kind of get your questions focused on because you're going to be driving it. And unfortunately, even though we're there all the time, I'm at the vet all the time. I have a 12-year-old dog. We're not experts. >> I know. And that's that's kind of what I'm getting at is that there's the expert opinion that every you cross your
I cross your tees, dot your eyes, and you get approved. But the reality is something different. and resident to resident. Honestly, it's the most frustrating part of being on a a land use board is that we're not experts. That we just have opinions and trying to convince people about our opinions is sometimes difficult when people go spend
their whole careers working on something. You know, Mr. Kelly truly is an expert. I mean, he's in well regarding our board has retained Mr. Rashette and, you know, he's the counterweight to all this. He's the, you know, the check and balance to his testimony. It sounds like they both agree that it's safe. you
know, now the levels of safety. I'm not going to interpret. I'll let you interpret and let each individual board member interpret that, but um you know, I don't want to put testimony on the record for any more than things that I have encountered while being a customer at the vet because I'm not an expert.
>> So, if that helps. >> Yep. >> I think you're completely accurate. Everyone, including this board, would rely on expert testimony. So, as much as I say, you know, I'm very frustrated when I go to the vet. Sometimes traffic stinks. You know, I was there today at
1:00. Traffic was eh, you know, it's never good. But it does meet these minimum levels of safety that we have to interpret that, you know, a judge is going to say, you know, hey board, you know, you voted on this and you interpreted this, but you're not an expert. You're arbitrary. You're capriccious, etc. You know, it really
nullifies our power in this case. We really want to lean on what experts have to say. And I'll give you as much time as you want. if you want to question either one of our experts on traffic. >> No, I'm good. I mean, >> all right. >> Yeah. >> I hope that helps. I wish I could do more. >> Oh, that's good. Thanks. >> You got it. Thank you, Mr. Video.
>> Mr. Chairman, do you mind if I ask a question, Mr. Keller? >> Of course. Please. >> He had just said something in his response about, you know, only be being able to design the roadway based on, you know, its configuration rather than driver error, right? Rather than people driving stupid. I >> think he said you can't design out
stupid. >> Yes. And I just wanted to double check because I brought up the traffic report earlier about the details related to the one accident, the one incident that happened I think in 2024. It did include that there was a car stopped in the
northbound shoulder which caused a visibility issue when someone was making the left out and that's why the driver came around that car and hit the car that was making the left out of the vet hospital. And I just had a question I guess related to configuration about
is is the way is is there any issue with the configuration not noting that with the shoulder uh and and the additional um turn-in lane that's going to be reconfigured and restriped. Is there any is there are any concerns about
>> traffic in light of that? >> I I mean I don't recall the specifics. I didn't reread the accident reports that the two that they gave me for tonight cuz that wasn't I wasn't anticipating questions on that. But if there was a
vehicle stopped on the shoulder, you know, that um you know is not a normal condition. There's no parking permitted there. For whatever reason, that vehicle stopped. Somebody made, as I think you put it, Miss
driver error. they made a mistake. They should have, you know, been more careful in pulling out in that situation. But, you know, it's better to have a shoulder than not to have a shoulder. >> Is is there any significance to the fact
that there are there were two crashes and they happen to be exactly at the same driveway where it's proposed to be aligned with. Is that is there any significance to the impact on this project? >> No. No. Two accidents in five years? No, I just mean in relation to the fact that
you you saw an open request for different intersections adjacent to this property and they happen to be exactly where it's aligned with proposed to be aligned for this project. Is there any significance to that? >> No, I don't think so. >> Okay. Um, is there
any other have there been any other configurations of the driveway as far as moving it further south away from the foothill intersection? I I think that would be a we considered other options
and I think you know given the type of roadway we're intersecting with um and and trying to meet the required separation um and I don't remember the specifics moving it further south puts it closer
to the culvert puts it into >> I I I mean more um less less of the environmental concerns with the driveway. >> You can't you can't just say I'm going to environmental concern. >> I I mean >> it the best place to put this is where
we've put it to create two driveways that align with each other. >> This is the safest place for the driveway to be located regardless of the environmental conditions on the property. Okay. I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> I want to ask a question as a followup
to what is saying. If you move that driveway a little bit towards the south south, it would be similar to what we have, you know, on that property, uh, they have like a business there. They sell fruits and
whatever as plants and all that. And their driveway is a little bit to the south. And um, this would be something similar in that location. in the present location has a driveway that goes in there.
>> Would that help? Because, you know, >> I I I don't you know, just because the driveway is there today doesn't mean that it's in a good location. It's just that it's there. Um we try as engineers um when we design a new project, design
something new >> to look at it fresh and go, where should this be driveway be? I mean, in hindsight, their farm stand driveway should be where we're putting our driveway, >> but it's not. It's It's there. It's probably been there for 50 years. So,
yes, it's there today, but I don't think it's a good location. >> So, my question is because a lot of customers go into that that property because they then they slow down and go in in there. Um, of course, uh, and
during the daytime and you see quite a a few people go in there. So, so it would be similar to this people who are going into that property. >> I don't think that's a good location >> location driveway. I mean, yes, they do it today. >> It it helps because it's far away from
the veterans. you know, the driveway that goes into the veterans hospital uh is right across >> the farm stand was there before the vet hospital. I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling it was because that
property has been used as uh you know whether farm sand agriculture but the bottom line is the driveway from a design perspective is proposed best location This the safest location.
>> The safest location. >> Gotcha. All right. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. Member of the public, please just need your name and address. So, I understand that every the traffic is all going to be directed to the
right, which means that it's a lot more traffic, which is going to affect me. I'm two driveways away and I was wondering if anyone thought about the people who live along that road
>> and the impact >> to how many trips per day there's going to be here. I think you need >> per hour. >> Yeah. Um >> because right now it's difficult to get out of my driveway either to the right or the left and it's almost it's scary
getting into my driveway and there have been accidents a lot of accidents where cars have wound up in that creek while I've lived there. >> So could you just phrase that in a question for Mr. Keller? >> So has that been addressed?
>> So based upon the discussion tonight we had Um there will be 28 vehicles exiting the site in the morning and they will all be making a right-hand turn. Um
and which is 13 more than we had uh calculated in our report. Um and that is
about 3% of the existing traffic on 20220 206 today. So it's anything less 3% increase in traffic is nominal. Yes, I can understand you highway.
>> I live there, right? >> It's a busy road. Nobody's going to dispute that. Um there's going to be a couple more cars than what we had anticipated. >> Are you the resident that testified at the last meeting about the flooding that took out your axis? >> Yes. >> So you get some benefit here.
>> I can I thought I couldn't ask about the flooding. >> I'm just pointing Yeah. I'm just pointing that out that at Mr. Cohen at the beginning of the meeting offered up that they're going to allow you to use the emergency access that's going to be created with this site. So my property and my neighbors property is going to
hook into that that road. >> Sounds like from what Mr. Cohen said, it sounds like >> I'd like to see that because >> only only in an emergency, not on an >> I understand that, but I'd like to see how that that's going to work. >> I I don't know. >> Okay,
>> that's not testimony, but there is an exhibit. When we take a break, someone can find it for you to show you where the uh access way is proposed. Okay. Because I don't see I would like to see that during the break. >> Any more traffic questions?
>> Yeah. I mean, I'm concerned as a person who lives right next door to them. I'm concerned about getting in. >> This is questions only though, please. >> When you say next door, are you closer to Talamin Road or are you >> I'm in between where what was Linda's farm stand and
Gray's Florest. >> There's two driveways. >> I'm one of those two driveways. And there are a lot of accidents when people are when I'm trying to get into my my driveway. >> It's question time.
>> Well, I'd like So, that hasn't been addressed >> or thought of. >> What how it's going how the increase in traffic is going to affect the property owners >> there. Adding 13 more cars to the flow
that is already on 2026 is not going to materially change the level of service for you trying to get out of your driveway >> or into my driveway. >> Or into your driveway. Correct. >> I disagree. Okay. >> Anyone else questions for Mr. Keller?
>> All right. See none. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. A >> A5. >> Nancy, do we have a copy of A5 in the office? >> We must. >> A5 was marked at an earlier hearing >> in November >> or >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> If there's no physical marking on there, you can take that. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I heard it. >> We're good. >> Okay. Thank you. Sure. >> And and Mr. Kokley, you sent the letter to the board and we all have a copy of that and this testimony is related to
that letter. >> We sent a copy of his report that he submitted to the uh >> affordable housing court. >> Gotcha. So that's the October 22nd, 2025 letter. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Mr. Stick, um you testified
previously in this matter. I did, >> but I will swear him again. Okay. It's been a while, too. So, uh, Mr. Ste, would you raise your right hand? 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, please? >> I do. >> And would you state your full name for the record, please?
>> Uh, Peter St. SK. >> Thank you, Mr. Kley. >> Uh, Mr. Stick. >> And my license is still in effect in case you were wondering. >> Um, >> still in good standing, you mean? >> Yes. So when you testified previously, it was
regarding the use density variance application. Is that correct? >> Correct. There were there was a uh use question. Um there was a density there was an uh an F uh question also.
>> Okay. The use variance is the driving element of all this. That's it's kind of the parent variance here and it we were uh addressing a D1 variance for both the JCC as well as the townhouse proposal.
>> Okay. And uh at that time when you testified there was a 60unit plan that was being discussed. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> All right. And now the plan is 64 units. >> Yes. >> Of which 13 will be affordable. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> All right. Is there any uh change in
your testimony about the uh u variance or anything related to the variance based upon the changed number of units? Uh there is not the the the changes that have occurred. Uh the subdivision line
shifted slightly and again this is the bifurcated concept plan. subdivision line shifted slightly but three essentially three acres are going to go to the JCC with no change in intensity.
Uh again the number of units uh went up to from 60 to 64. The affordable units are now going to be built uh on site. Um so the density proposed uh now it was
5.03 03 and now it's I think 5.37. Uh the F uh went down slightly. Uh in my opinion, none of these changes uh compromise the testimony that I gave
last time that uh the variance requests uh meet the statutory criteria um or both the positive and negative criteria for approval. >> Um so did did you prepare a report for
the affordable housing court? I'm going to call it that. I don't know whether that's the right name or not. >> Uh I did. >> And what what did that report say as it relates to this property? >> Yes. Uh I was asked to address uh
Bridgewater's fair share plan that was submitted and uh in in short form uh the conclusions I reached is that um this site that we've been speaking about this evening meets the suitability criteria.
it is available, approvable, developable and suitable. Uh I also noted that um your fair share plan is required to reference uh developers interested in
producing uh inclusionary housing. Uh this development application was not referenced in the plan. Uh and also uh the property was not referenced as a uh potential uh site for additional housing
whether it's single family uh or multif family or town houses. >> So >> Mr. Kley, what does this have to do with this case? You know, I I understand where you're going with this. I just don't know how this helps the board come to any decision on any of the use
variances that are proposed tonight. And I know you filed suit against >> grounds of a use variance. I mean there are several grounds >> advanced but one of the grounds is that affordable housing is a community good. >> Excuse me, I can't hear you. Sorry. Yeah. >> One of the grounds that that has been
advanced in addition to the age restricted nature of the housing and in addition to the fact that uh uh this this use is uh particularly well suited for the site, but also that this is a uh affordable housing use which is by the
the law of New Jersey iterated over and over is a community good. And so he's basically putting forth to the board that this is a a community good. This site is a is available and and uh desirable. >> You're an aggressive attorney and I mean
that in the biggest compliment. I just wanted to make sure you weren't using this as a forum for your lawsuit against the township of Bridgewater. But but based on that explanation, I'm I'm willing to let this continue. Thank you. >> Right. >> So I I don't know where I interrupted you if I did. Uh I'll just repeat my
conclusion that from my initial testimony there were changes uh in the application. Uh I consider the changes uh not at all uh compromising my original opinion that the statutory
criteria are satisfied uh under the Medici standards for both the JCC as well as this development. uh and the negative criteria are fully satisfied. In other words, it can be approved without substantial detriment to the public good. That's things like
traffic and storm water runoff and will not substantially uh impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. >> Just be so Mr. Cohen doesn't jump up and pop me one. Um what would you say as to
the negative criteria as to the JCC use? Uh if you recall, we are going to be expanding their site by three acres, but it's not changing the intensity of its use. Uh its use has been recognized as an inherently beneficial use. Uh it
certainly stays uh in that category and uh if you review it either under the Medici standards or the SECA standards, in my opinion, it meets the statutory criterion. >> No further question. Thank you, Mr. Can I can I go back just for a moment to
what you were talking about the letter that you submitted that Mr. Stack re um produced based on the challenge to the housing the fair share housing plan that Bridgewwater has put forth. I'm still not clear as to the purpose of your
inclusion in that or is it just an FYI um uh challenging this use or is there a purpose that goes beyond that? No, no. Our our purpose here is basically to um explain to the board that we have an affordable use that's uh
uh highly comp complimentary to the standards of for affordable housing and that uh the board should take that into consideration in deciding this case >> and that request that you made or challenge that you made to the
Bridgewwater's fair share housing plan has not been adjudicated. There is not been adjudicated that. >> So you're hoping for a result based on your submission that you explained. >> Yes. >> And if that were resolved to be positive, then perhaps you'd have some
reason to um pursue legal action against the township. Is that true? >> No, we're not contemplating that at all. It would obiate the the challenge to the town's affordable housing plan. We'd have no basis to challenge it, no standing if
>> I'm saying absent a decision on this on this project. If in fact you were to move forward as you are progressing, isn't that the intent then to say that I'm challenging your fair share housing plan and as such I'm going to then sue the township and see what happens.
>> We have fi we have filed this action against the township >> challenging the affordable housing plan. and it had to be filed by August 31st as a matter of of law. And so we did that. Uh um there was a hearing uh held and uh
there were some questions asked and we were uh advised by Judge Miller who was handling the case to call him up after the next hearing and tell him whether we got the variance or not. So you're you're using >> I'm not using I'm just trying to
>> I'm trying to understand it. So bear with me. I'm not >> okay. I'm sorry. My I apologize. >> It's okay. We're just having a conversation right now and I'm trying to understand as best I can so that everybody here understands it as well. That's my intent. But it appears to me
that So you have this letter and you're letting us know that this challenge has been made. You're now saying that the judge is saying that if in fact the project were approved then the lawsuit goes away and it feels like you're leveraging this board inappropriately,
at least that way to me. >> I I I don't think so. I mean, we we had to file the challenge to the plan by August 31st. >> Yes. >> Which we did. um the judge Miller and
and his uh judicial apparatus there would like to see that case resolved. I mean that's my opinion that every case I'm in with affordable housing they want to resolve it. >> Yeah. I you know, John, >> I wasn't involved. I'm not involved in in that case, and Katherine's not the
affordable housing planner for the town, so I don't think you were there either, but um and I don't I'm not sure it was really a hearing as much as a settlement conference on your case, >> right? The hearing the hearing is scheduled for December 5,
>> right? So, so my understanding was that um since this matter was pending that Judge Miller just kind of called a timeout, if you will, and said, "Let's see how the case proceeds." Um and then they'll take some action based on what
the board does later. >> And um I think the lawsuit is to be included in the fair share plan. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Right. >> In a big general way. Yes. >> Right. I and my opinion is that I don't think
that that should have any bearing on the the board's decision tonight as far as what's going on with the affordable housing dispute resolution program. That's a separate >> that's why I brought it up. It sounds like Mr. Kley was just trying to get to the heart of you know, hey, this is affordable housing that that meets a lot
of the criterias. And then you brought up the inherently beneficial. I mean, I think we're we're eating up a little bit of time here, John. I don't want to step on your toes. >> No, not at all. I just wanted to understand I I do now and I appreciate your response. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And Mr. Ko is not using this as a forum
for his lawsuit. He's just pointing out that this is a inherently beneficial use. >> I mean, I would recommend if if this variance were to be granted, I would call Judge Miller up tomorrow and say we're withdrawing. >> Yeah. >> But I want to point out affordable
housing is not inherently beneficial. >> Right. The right JCC use is inherently beneficial and then the SECA standard would apply for that. But affordable housing is not. >> No, there are there are case laws about affordable housing senior projects being
inherently beneficial. >> Yeah. But I don't think that case says they're inherently beneficial. I think it says the opposite. >> I think it does. No, the case the case I'm thinking of it does. >> Yeah. >> But Mr. Ste, you're not testifying that the housing component is inherently beneficial of this.
>> The inclusionary component at the 20% level is not automatically inherently beneficial. >> Thank you. That's all I wanted to make sure. But of course, Mr. Cohen's >> postrip on that, but on a case-bycase basis, you know, the the court in the
appellet division has held just recently that the court should consider all of the elements of that presentation in deciding whether that use might be inherently beneficial. >> The big change was that we are now including
uh affordable housing units in the project. That's a major change which obviously has some public benefit to it. >> That was the one thing I was just curious about because I remember in the first couple hearings you were actually um very adamant that you were not
including affordable housing in this project and that you your preference was into it and you had no interest in affordable housing and that was a something that changed. >> Not not exactly. We were we were suggesting that we were willing to subsidize affordable housing, >> right? You didn't want to build any
unit, >> but we were willing to subsid >> pay for the subsidy. >> As the hearings went on, it became clear that that was not an acceptable answer to the board. >> Right. I just want to make sure it's clear there in the beginning and up
until I guess the last meeting or right before that there was no interest in this board has been advised and Rich Katherine please chime in here. We this town cannot accept cash in lie of actual housing. >> Yeah. Yes, that was my interpretation of
the ordinance as you know plain >> and our affordable housing attorney has advised us the same. >> Correct. >> Right. >> And here we are. >> All right. >> Mr. Koul, you good there, sir? >> Yes. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Any other board questions for Mr. Stepp?
>> I have just one question. Um, regards to affordable housing, there's 13 units proposed. Brings the total unit 64. Now just in terms of a planning perspective, I'm looking at the overall size of that structure with the 13 units and kind of looking at the remainder of the units. I
mean it's it looks like 13 units are the same sort of at least footprint area of five units that you're proposing in terms of affordable housing from a planning perspective. How do you kind of measure kind of the the size of such units with
compared to neighboring units? Right. U is there some sort of >> because this is age restricted. These are all one-bedroom units, so they're smaller. >> First of all, keep in mind this is a bifurcated application. So in terms of the details of the design,
>> not in cement yet. We are asking for the use and the intensity. >> Uh when we come back for site plan approval, you have the ability to u introduce your opinion about the arrangement of the units. Mhm. Okay. No,
I understand. But it also does impact in terms of the the variance you're seeking. You know, it's 64 units that would be approved as part of this. So, I think how you the the idea of, you know, you need the units that are one-third the size of a nonaffordable unit.
>> There are regulations that this will be subject to. They call them the U-Hack regulations uh about distributing units and that will have to be addressed uh if it's approved at this stage. Okay. And >> Mr. Vesio, just to, you know, give a
more detailed answer, the the current U-Hack regs that are in place right now actually do stipulate certain requirements for unit sizes as well as unit type. Right now, the plan that we have that shows the affordable units is not compliant with the U-Hack regs. It actually does require the same unit type
as the market rate units. So, if these market rate units are townous, then the affordable units also have to be townous. So, it does have an impact. You know, to your point, it does have an impact on how the site is laid out because those units will have to be distributed as townhouse units to meet the U-Hack requirements.
>> Yes, that's exactly the point I'm trying to get to is like I we're approving 64 units or that's what's being asked of is I don't really see much more open space here to put additional units. And if we kind of take those what I'm saying
equivalent of a five units and expand that to 13 units in sort of in area, you know, where does that go? Right. >> Well, this is still in in terms of your master plan and in terms of state law,
this is low density. You're under six units per acre. This is, you know, 5.37 units per acre. And again, the applicant has intentionally said, "We're only we're bifurcating the application." So the arrangement of the site, even though
there's some engineering things that won't change, we've already tried to demonstrate that that driveway is in the safest location. So that's not going to change. The flood plane area isn't going to change nor repairarian area, but there can be uh manipulation uh of the
of the site plan uh to uh accomplish mutual goals. >> Okay. I think part of the approval that's being asked for is the F is part of that approval, >> right? So that could not be increased from what is currently proposed.
>> It's subsumed. As you know, the F in your ordinance was intended for single family detached homes. So the focus of this is on the use variance and the other variance I would suggest are somewhat subsumed into it. You can say
oh 45% is so much larger you know than whatever 12% what it was. But again, your standard was intended for single family detached homes. And that's why the the parent variance here are the use variances for both JCC and this multif
family/townhouse development. >> Okay. But 40, if I understand this, the ask is 42% F. >> That's what the current plan shows. >> Okay. So, thank you.
Any more board questions? Board professionals. >> Mr. Vestio took my question. So, um I think that I have nothing nothing further for this witness. >> Thank you. >> Just have one one question, Mr.
Chairman. U Mr. Stack, you I think you hinted earlier that you may have only testified one time prior. You've been here twice, right? I I was I testified and then I came back for cross-examination. >> And when you were here in March, you testified to the 60 unit proposal,
correct? >> Yes. Well, actually, as you know, it it changed over time. It was 64 and 60. But >> and then when you were back in May, it was 52. Yes. >> And now tonight, back up to 64. >> Yes. But your conclusions, what you're
what you're testifying to is that you believe the statutory criteria is met for any of those number of units. >> That's that's correct. The the current 64 is the highest number of units that was ever proposed on the site if I recall. So I'm just I'm covering all
bases because at one time it was just 60 units. >> Thank you. >> All right. Members of the public, questions on Mr. STK's planning testimony. All right. >> Just get your name and address again, please, for the record.
>> Rob Espazito, 738 West Foothill. >> Um, I just had a question. I I was looking at the um the document where it describes the housing plan as being defective um for the the affordable
um application. And I was just wondering why why it was not considered initially. What makes it defective? >> I I'm not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by initially? When the when the application was filed
initially, it did not include housing on the site and there wasn't a a recent fair share plan. As this application proceeded, uh there were changes to the plan number one, but also the municipality filed its
fair share plan and the applicant uh exercised its its rights under the kind of the negotiation process in this uh affordable housing round. >> Okay. >> And so I was asked to participate in the
in the plan review. Okay. >> The the plan meaning the fair share plan review. >> Okay. And maybe it's the legal language that I'm not understanding, but I see the Bridgewater Township's 2025 housing element and fair share plan is defective
and that it ignores lots 45 and 46 and block 477 and its projection of the future housing stock. It ignores the interest of 821 Bridgewater LLC in providing affordable housing and it fails to recognize the 11.9 acre portion of the site as
suitable for the production of affordable housing and more specifically its suitability for age restricted affordable housing. So I'm I'm just trying to understand in layman's terms what that means. What did what was wrong with the plan? Why is it defective and why does it need to be
>> the the again this is different from the application but the answer is there are certain standards in the law about what should be in a fair share plan and for example you have to reference developers that are interested in producing housing
>> so did they not do that >> they didn't put the name of this developer in >> why there was no interest at the time >> again this has nothing to do with this application. So I think we need to go to your next question. >> It does though because it's being pitched the affordable housing has
shifted the whole the whole >> No, it hasn't. There was always affordable housing component with this project, right? It just was a matter of was it going to be built onsite, offsite or a contribution, right? So initially
they came to us and said 52 units or whatever it was and we'll build offsite. uh I'm sorry, contribute so that the town can then build offsite, right? We said we can't do it that way. They've eventually come back and said, "Okay, we're going to put the affordable units
in the same project, right? And integrate them in the buildings with the market rate units." >> So, what what happens if it doesn't get approved for affordable housing? >> Ask Judge Miller. >> Yeah. All right. >> Ask Judge Miller in Somerville.
>> Then they're going to proceed and try and get it into the plan somehow. Okay. But it doesn't change the board's vote, >> right? On the Okay. All right. >> Rich, I would just clarify that there
was always a requirement for some sort of set aside, whether monetary or otherwise. And and it wasn't until August that we saw a plan that showed a physical set aside of the units. I just want to clarify that. >> Thank you. Any other members of the public?
All right. Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Ste. Thank you. >> All right, Mr. Cook, I'm going to take a quick break before we continue. It's 8:46. Why don't we take five minutes? All right, we'll see everyone at let's call it 8:52. We'll reconvene. Thank you.
Chairman Fouse >> here. >> Mr. Widley >> here. >> Mrs. Zamin >> here. >> Mr. Sweeney >> here. >> Mr. Fresco >> here. >> Mr. Bonjouro >> here. >> Mr. Gi >> here.
>> Mr. Sik. >> Mr. Kulak >> here. >> Mr. I'm here. >> Gavin >> here. >> And I just want to clarify for the record, Mr. >> He's definitely been here. >> Definitely been here. >> Yes.
>> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Mr. Kley. >> All right. How about Mr. Cohen? Would he like to make a final summation? But we have to open to the public. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Mr. >> I said we have to we do have to open to the public.
>> Want me to do that now? >> Yeah. Okay. Then then they finish them. >> Members of the public that would like to speak for or against this case. I'll give you the microphone. If you please come forward. We got an about an hour left. So if we can get them all in tonight, that would be great. We just need your name and
address for the record, sir. >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. Mr. Chairman, uh, thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak tonight. Uh, my name is Peter Sakatelli. I live at 826, Route 2026. I'm the home
>> Would you raise your right hand, please? I have to swear you answer for your statement. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will make to this board would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you, sir. >> Uh, my home is 826 Route 202-206.
I'm the home directly across the street and one of the people most impacted by uh this proposal. I've lived in my home for the past 25 years and I'd like to think that I'm somewhat of a pillar to the community. I
own a small landscape design company here in town and we give back to this community as much as we as we can. A couple of quick examples. We've been cutting the grass for free for the Visions and Pathways Homes for the past
21 years. Uh we've been cutting the grass for free for the Green Rescue Squad for the past 20 years. Um they were really kind last year to put a note on their front sign for us, thanking us for our dedication to them. Uh we've been cutting the grass
for free for the Green Fire for the past 17 years. uh cutting the grass for free for the North Branch fire for the past 13 years. Um we're also involved with green care for troops. Green care for troops will call us when a local soldier
gets deployed overseas. We'll go in and we'll take care of that uh soldiers property for them until their safe return. Uh last this past year, we were taking care of taking care of two local soldiers properties until they got home
from uh overseas. My precious view is in jeopardy. Right now, when I look across the street, I see a beautiful wooded lot and a charming farm stand. Uh a charm a farm stand actually that has been part of Bridgewwater's history for the past 50
years. Um, maybe I'm a little bit impartial to the farm stand because it is across the street from my house. Uh, there's nothing better than being able to walk across the street and picking up some fresh produce for dinner. Um, not to mention that they make a really good
apple pie, but my actual favorite is their peach vinegrett dressing. Um I feel like the farm stand maybe it's not a very important point but it's to me it's an important landscape of
Bridgewater and I worry that Bridgewater is uh losing its charm from overdevelopment. It's really nice to drive down 20206 and see this. Um, also with the uh the thought of putting
in these 64 units, I'm a little concerned about the animals on the site. Um, I know I'm sure with my neighbors, my home has become inundated with with deer throughout the years and with the development of this 16 or 18 acres, I
couldn't even imagine um how many more animals are going to be living on my my front lawn. I I wanted to talk a little bit about traffic. Um I'm no traffic expert, but I do live on the highway and I've watched
and experienced the traffic there for the past 25 years. Um when they talk about 64 units, I would say probably with 64 units, you're assuming there's going to be two cars per household. That's 128 more cars
that are spilling onto this roadway on one small driveway. I know when I'm on my driveway trying to turn left, especially during peak hours, it could be frustrating. It takes time.
Um, Mr. Chairman was talking about they would be allowed to make a right, but that's going to make it even more difficult for me to get out of my driveway. Um, so I don't really understand when they say that it's only going to there's
going to be a nominal increase in traffic. The farm stand has eight parking spots. Most of the time those parking spots are not completely full. There's maybe four or five cars there. We're talking about 64 units with probably two cars in each driveway. So,
you've got eight parking spots or you have 128 cars coming out on the same driveway. It again, I'm no traffic expert, but it just doesn't seem to calculate well to me. Um, they did talk about drainage at some point, and I don't remember at what point that they
said this, but I thought originally they had the driveway a little further south, and then someone said that they were worried about flooding, so they decided to move the driveway a little further up north. so that it wouldn't be at the low spot. So if we did have a flood that
they could still get out of their driveway. Well, my driveway is at the bottom of this roadway. So if something happens and these 64 units start to flood the roadway, it's going to be me that can't get out of my driveway. Um, I
mean, and let's face it, you can only start putting so much black top and asphalt roofs uh without having enough green for uh proper proper runoff. Um, the site is not zoned for the use
that they're looking for. Um, I personally don't see a reason why the zoning should get changed. I know myself and my neighbors, um, this is our home. this is where we live. I'm don't feel it's fair that something should be put
here that wasn't zoned for this to begin with. Um, I want to thank you guys for the opportunity to speak tonight. I really appreciate it. And in closing, I just wanted to leave you guys with one question. Uh, if this was your home, if
you lived where I lived, uh, how would you feel? Uh, thank you. Thank you so much. Hey, thank you for everything you do for our town and visions and pathways was in front of our board and uh they're a wonderful part of our our township and we're lucky to have them and lucky to have you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um my my point was I just I
care about the community and we do everything we can to try to try to try to help out. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Hi. >> Just your name and address, please. >> Sorry. >> Your name and address. >> Lisa Ferrara, 788 Westfoot Health. >> Thank you.
>> Ferrara, would you raise your right hand, please? 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. >> Thank you. Um, I live near the proposed resoning site and I'm here to respectfully but strongly oppose the zoning change
requested by A21 Bridgewater LLC to the 2022 206 corridor. Um, this is not a minor adjustment. It's not simply age restricted town homes with a few affordable units turn in. This proposal would fundamentally alter the character
and function of 12 acres of R40 residential land. It represents a major upzoning that will permanently change the scale, safety, and future of the corridor. I'd like to focus on seven core points. First is traffic and safety. The area
surrounding this site is already congested and fragile. I live there. I experience it every day. Making a left turn is difficult and often unsafe. The JCC generates significant peak hour traffic from programs, camps, and services. Adding 64 residential units
plus an institutional expansion will push this corridor beyond its safe capacity. Everyone who drives this stretch knows how precarious it already is. Um, the second is inconsistency with Bridgewwater's master plan. The master
plan emphasizes preserving community character, limiting traffic growth in residential areas, and directing highintensity development to places like Bridgewater Commons and Chimney Rock. Nowhere does it identify 2026 as a location for multif family
housing. In fact, it recommends reducing, not increasing, congestion along this corridor. Reszoning must follow the master plan, not rewrite it for individual applicants. The third is the environmental risk and inadequate uh infrastructure. So the
site includes steep slopes, wetlands and a tributary of Petersbrook. Yet the storm water basins are designed with incomplete data and keyed groundwater and recharge details are being deferred to a later date. We can't approve first
and engineer later. Adding added density places new strain on older sewer lines and storm water systems in the area already well documented with flooding along 2026 and Foothill Road without um without major developer funded upgrades
which rarely occur. Um these costs shift to taxpayers and no independent studies confirming that the existing infrastructure can support the proposal. The fourth is significant wildlife disruption and loss of over 400 trees.
So, this property is one of the last intact wooded areas along this stretch of 2026. The applicants own materials acknowledge the removal of more than 400 mature trees. This has real consequences. Um, deer, foxes, other wildlife already
displaced by surrounding development will have nowhere left to go, increasing roadway hazards and residential encounters. Removing this many tree eliminates natural buffers that reduce noise, light, runoff, and
erosion. Tree loss directly worsens flooding and storm water impacts. Uh, and it's a problem this area is already struggling with. And once the habitat is gone, it's gone. So, Bridgewwater spent years trying to preserve tree canopy and protect open
spaces. Allowing clear cutting on this scale undermines that commitment and worsens the ecological stress. The fifth is irreversible spot zoning precedent. Approving this density increases sets a powerful precedent for every other
parcel along 202to6. Uh it says that the master plan can be bypassed that corridor zoning can be changed based on individual requests and that dense residential use belongs anywhere a developer proposes it. But once created, this precedent will be
cited again and again for future applicants and it cannot be undone. The sixth is no demonstrated community benefit. So although the applicant frames this as needed housing, there's no binding commitment to affordability, no demonstrated demand for housing at
the specific site, no walkability or transit access making it unsustainable, an unsustainable residential location, and no proof that community benefit outweighs long-term burden. This is not an anti-housing, it's just a
pro planning. And finally, improper bifurcation. So the multi-ousing the multif family housing and the institutional expansion are interconnected sharing access traffic impacts grading and infrastructure. Courts have held that when impacts are
so intertwined bifurcation is inappropriate. This application should be reviewed as a whole and rejected as a whole. So in closing the decision is about more than one project. It is about the future of one of Bridgewater's most significant
corridors, the safety of its roads, the resilience of its environment, and the integrity of its planning process. The master plan is clear, the infrastructure is limited, the environmental damage is irreversible. The benefits are uncertain. So, for
these reasons, I respectfully urge the board to deny the resoning request. And thank you very much for your time and considering the concerns of nearby residents. Thank you very much. >> Um, we also have a petition with over 600 signatures.
>> Can't really accept the petition. Sorry. >> It is validated with email address. >> Can't accept the petition. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Any other members of the public want to speak for against this case?
Rob Espazito, 738 West Foothill Road. Um, good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, I'm going to skim over some of the things I prepared because, um, it's either been mentioned
by myself or others. Um but um starting with traffic, uh back on August 12th, 2025, I had asked some questions about the impact of adding a driveway to an already difficult u difficult corridor, only to learn that my neighbors had
already asked the same questions a year earlier, uh November 12, 2024. Despite all that time, nothing really changed. So I'm going to bring up some of it again. Um, one of the things that Mr. Keller
mentioned uh, back in 2024 and again tonight I heard um, the word incidental. So 2024 he said um, that's a very good word to use incidental when describing the impact that this project would have on West Foothill in particular.
Um, and I respectfully disagree with that and I'll reiterate the example that I gave in that previous meeting. Um, a a driver turning right from West Foothill has to navigate turning right to go southbound onto 202 206. Has to navigate
cars coming over the hill, often well above the 550 50 mile per hour speed limit, and then immediately check for vehicles turning left from Foothill Road. And with this project, they would also have to account for cars entering and exiting the new driveway. All of this happens while trying to accelerate
safely up to a 50 mile per hour highway. Nothing about this sequence sounds incidental. I think it very much is related to the overall safety of the highway. Um I sorry I I had some some mention of level
of service here. Um, I'm going to skip over that because of the comment that professional opinions rank higher than the the layman's. Um, but I will say that um the level of service may look acceptable on paper, but anyone who
actually drives the area would not describe it as not frustrating. I personally found myself making choices behind the wheel I normally would not take simply to get through the intersection without waiting 5 minutes. Um, when turning left from 202 onto West Foothills, West Foothill, cars
constantly beep their horns as if I'm making an illegal turn and then aggressively and illegally pass on the right where there's no shoulder just to avoid waiting. So, what type of report is going to show these real world scenarios? Because this sounds more like an F than a C-level service to me.
Um, addressing u storm water and slopes. Um, basically the the point that I want to make is that the the board has has said in August that if this doesn't go well on a rainy day, this could be a bad situation for six
downstream properties. Um, and another comment was that this is not a risk the board and township can take. So, I just wanted to highlight that. And then um the township has already seen what happens when large numbers of mature trees are removed without fully a fully
understood storm water plan and what residents are calling tree gates. Somerset County cut down hundreds of trees in Washington Valley Park. The result was in Mayor Mench's words serious environmental damage and significantly increased adverse flooding dangers for downstream homes and
businesses. The mayor felt strongly enough about the resulting risk that he publicly encouraged residents to attend a county commissioner's meeting to demand answers. That situation involved a few hundred trees on gently rolling parkland. This application removes 407
trees on a steeper slope directly above existing homes with storm order report that is preliminary and incomplete. If the township is willing to take legal action, presumably with taxpayer dollars, over tree loss and flood risk
outside Bridgewwaterat's borders, it should be even more cautious about approving a private development that poses the same risks, only closer to residents and on far more vulnerable terrain. While the township would still have an opportunity to raise concerns if this project moves forward, the applicant is
putting the cart before the horse. By seeking zoning approval first, they create the ability to turn around and pressure the township later by saying, "We already have zoning approval for this project." Um, regarding the the unit change count, I
questioned previously how it went from 64 to 60 to 52 and the answer was quite vague. Um, the in May 26, Mr. chairman pressed for an explanation. The applicant admitted
that they reacted to the proceedings, but then tried to avoid stating what those reactions actually were. The truth, in my opinion, is that the board believed 64 units was too dense. But when the applicant later added affordable units, not because the land changed, but because the variance
argument needed help, the count went right back to 64 units. Nothing about the traffic changed, nothing about storm water changed. The only thing that changed was the applicant strategy. This is not planning. Um, and importantly, there's no demonstrated need for the project. A
board member plainly stated, "I don't know anyone who wants this." Another board member pointed out that other age restricted units in town remain vacant or unsold. When asked, the application's planner admitted that he did not perform a market study. He does not know whether their existing senior units are
occupied, and he cannot say whether there's unmet demand in Bridgewater. So, the applicant's own professionals cannot testify that anyone in Bridgewater needs or wants this housing. The board members have stated the opposite.
Um, put put simply, there's been things sugarcoating this. Um, whether it be the affordable housing, the land of the JCC, which I I love the JCC and I I don't
like that this is involved with it. Um um sorry, I'll continue. Um regarding the the age restriction, at a previous meeting, I asked if the age restricted communities ever get converted to market rate family housing, and the board said they're not aware of any cases and that
the applicant would need to come back before the board to make any changes. Um after doing some research, I it appears that age restriction is governed by federal HOPA rules, not zoning. So under HOPA only 80% of units must be 55 plus
to qualify and those occupancy rules can be changed by the future HOA or owner without needing a variance. We've also seen New Jersey's age restricted conversion law where whole 55 plus developments were legally converted into family housing without any zoning change. So while the board may not p
personally know of a case in Bridgewater, the legal framework in New Jersey allows for these conversions. That means all of the traffic density and school impact assumptions built into this application depend on restrictions that are not guaranteed and not permanently enforceable by the township.
Um so at the May meeting uh Mr. Chairman you said that if the public wants to speak I'm going to give them as much time as they need and I appreciate that. Um but I'm concerned that the public comment comes at the very end and the board is likely prepared to vote tonight. I respectfully ask that the
board take time to reflect on the feedback given and give the real world experience shared by the residents the same weight as technical testimony before making a decision that will affect the area for decades. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Anyone else? >> All right. Oh, >> Dory Marinoi, 809 Route 20220 206 in Bridgewater. >> Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> So, basically, um, I concur with everything that Lisa Ferrar said. She stated it perfectly. I oppose this project. I don't understand why the property can't be developed under the zoning uh
the existing zoning uh restrict. You know, I don't know how to say it, but I don't know why there are variances that have to be approved. Um I honestly feel that I am going to be negatively impacted as a homeowner. I'm worried
about the flooding. I think it's going to be unsightly and uh I really hope that it doesn't go through. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anyone else? Last call. All
right. I'm going to close the public comment section. And Mr. Cohen, you want to wrap up? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the board. Uh, the matter before this board includes an application for a D1 use
variance for the Shimone and Sarah Burnbound Jewish Community Center of Somerset, Hunter, and Warren counties, known as the JCC. The JCC is classified as a house of worship. the testimony by Laura Freriedman, CEO of the JCC, and
statements by the township planner, Katherine Sarmad, on August 13, 2024, confirm this in the transcript at pages 32 and 33. The zoning board chair, Mr. Fouse, reaffirmed this status also on
August 13, 2024 transcript at 33 through 36. A house of worship in this town is treated as a conditional permitted use so long as is as it is located on a state, county, or specifically
designated municipal road, township code section 126-353. In the case of the JCC, albeit in existence for 25 years and prior there too, it does not have frontage on state,
county, or specifically designated roads. Hence the need for a use variance. In this particular case, the specific relief here as to the JCC is focused upon the rear 3 acres of
block 477, lots 4 uh 45 and 46, which is contiguous to the existing JCC campus. This board has heard testimony from Miss Freriedman, the CEO and the executive
director of the JCC transcript August 13, 2024, pages 23- 43. That testimony included the JCC's intended use of the threeacre parcel for
religious, educational, fitness, social, day camp, and communitywide activities in furtherance of its Jewish mission and notably and importantly consistent with all activities presently occurring on
the JCC campus. Thus, in this particular scenario, as to this specific use variance, the JCC is not seeking a change in use. The only reason it is before this board is because the
ordinance requirement relating to state, county, and municipal roads requires a use variance for the reasons I stated earlier. The board has also heard statements from the township planner and the zoning board chair recognizing that ancillary
uses such as those engaged in by the JCC fall under the house of worship umbrella August 13, 2024 transcript at pages 30 through 36. It is also worthy to note that the JCC
has enjoyed an excellent relationship with the community and with the township. While it has a Jewish mission, its campus activities are open to all faiths and persons. The JCC has also partnered with the township in annual
community days. Further worthy of note is that neighboring property owners to the JCC speak highly of its reputation and relationship with the neighbors evidenced by among others testimony by Laura Ricky uh living at 771 Talamini
Road August 13 2024 transcript at page 27 and indeed Mr. Espazito tonight. Thus, the sole reason before the zoning board as to the JCC use variance application is whether it meets the standards set forth in a municipal land
use law governing a use variance. Let me speak briefly to that law as to the requirement that there be both satisfaction of positive and negative criteria to justify the granting of a use variance. First focusing on the
positive criteria. The positive criteria involve particular cases and special reasons. This is spelled out in the recognized legal treatise GAN New Jersey zoning and land use administration which states very specifically regarding positive criteria. The court has stated
that special reasons take its definition and meaning from the general purpose of the zoning laws enumerated in NJSA 405D-2 citing Burbridge versus township of minehill 117 NJ 376
and in Saddlebrook realy versus township of Saddlebrook zoning board of adjustment 388 NJ super 67 at page 76 where the court observed three scenarios in which special reasons may be found to
justify the granting of a use variant as the satisfaction of positive criteria. One, the proposed use inherently serves the public good. Two, the property owner would suffer undue hardship if compelled
to use the property in conforming in conformity with the permitted use in the zone. and three, the use would serve the general welfare because the proposed site is particularly suitable for the proposed use. In this particular matter, the special reasons just described to
you are met in at least two of those scenarios. First, the proposed use of of the JCC, i.e. the rear three acres, inherently serves the public good. The JCC is a religious organization serving
the needs of all who wish to join. The fact that the organization is of a religious nature makes it inherently beneficial. That has been stated repeatedly during the course of these proceedings and indeed this evening. Second, the use would serve the general
welfare because the proposed site is particularly suitable for the proposed use. The layout of the JCC campus makes it its parcel particularly suitable for the proposed use as it permits growth of outdoor experiences in the area where it
will be most useful to the mission of the JCC to which Ms. Freriedman testified and indeed during the course of these proceedings the inherently beneficial use has been re has been re repeatedly acknowledged
as to the satisfaction of the negative criteria the second arm so so to speak with respect to justifying the granting of a use variance NJSA4 55D-70D little one states that negative criteria
are satisfied so long as a relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without uh adverse impact with respect to the zone plan and the zoning ordinance. In
the case of the JCC, an inherently beneficial use as to satisfaction of negative criteria has been discussed in the well-known case of Sika versus Board of Adjustment of the Township of Wall 127 NJ
152 at pages 162 through 166, a 1992 Supreme Court decision. In that case, Sika identifies a four-step process that the zoning board shall use in determining whether an inherently
beneficial use meets the statutory criteria of negative meets the I'm sorry meets this the negative statutory criteria. That four-part test is one identify the public uh public interest
at stake. Two, identify detrimental impacts if any, which would uh result from the granting of the use variance. Three, determine whether there are any conditions that are warranted in the granting of the use variance. And four, a weighing test, a balancing test of the
positive versus ne and negative criteria to determine whether on balance the grant of the variance uh should should be should be uh satisfied. hear the testimony of Miss Freriedman, Mr. Ste, the professional planner, and
acknowledgements by the township professional planner, uh, the zoning board chair, and neighboring property owners collectively demonstrate that the JCC meets the statutory negative criteria test.
The 3acre parcel sought to be added to the JCC property is contiguous to the existing campus. There is no change in use. The JCC enjoys an excellent relationship with the town and with the neighbors. It provides services
regardless of of of religious persuasion. And it will not have any impact whatsoever on any of the properties in question given the nature and location of the 3acre parcel in
relation to the JCC campus. For all these reasons, the JCC respectfully requests that the board in its discretion grant a use variance to the JCC. I additionally request that the
board after the conclusion of its deliberations when voting, please vote upon the JCC use variance as a separate matter before voting upon the 821 application. Lastly, I have one additional observation
uh and is simply based upon my experience. I have been practicing law for in excess of 50 years. I have spent a significant part of my career handling complex land use matters and trials resulting in precedent setting
decisions. I am keenly aware of the significance of master plan and zoning issues. Having served as special counsel to numerous municipalities and special master to the court, I recognize that boards like this
necessarily have to balance master planning and zoning considerations when confronted with use variance applications to ensure maintenance of integrity of municipal planning and zoning. I trust that in this particular instance the will the board will find
that balance has been struck in relation to the JCC application and I respectfully request that the variance be granted. Thank you very much for your consideration. >> Thank you, Mr. Cohen. >> All right, the application portion. Oh, Mr. Kby, I'm sorry. Are you going to wrap up? I thought you were I thought
you were done. >> I thought I thought I got off easy. >> The microphone is yours. Thank you. Um, so I endorse fully what Mr. Mr. Cohen just said very well. Um,
and not often does a board uh get an opportunity in a single application to benefit three different properties in the context of a single application. But looking deeply, that's the case
here. First, um the obvious part that the the JCC is allowed to modestly expand, which is a an absolute uh sin quan of this application that that the
JCC gets three acres of property. Um secondly, that the uh need for age restricted housing uh is fulfilled. And I say say that because there's a whole raft of state federal
uh um litigation findings that that age restricted housing is necessary for for the people of New Jersey. It's been found by the legislature in the Fair Housing Act that was just adopted in uh last year.
um you know your census data reflects a growing uh uh cohort of uh age restricted of of people who need age restricted housing. So that that that comes out of this this application. And the third thing that comes out of it and
maybe it's a little bit hard to discern but you this property is a target property. What do I mean by that? What I mean is that the Mount Laurel doctrine is embedded in
our law. It's not going to go away. This property is an ideal property for housing. So that you you might decide not to approve this property for for a modest
project like this at this time, but it will still be there. And there will come a day when another board will be sitting here and will likely be facing a far greater project than than this one. This
is at a density of five units per acre. That's the minimum that uh the count the affordable housing uh uh advocacy groups will even consider. Five five an acre. But most most affordable housing projects are are 10 units or more per
acre. In fact, if you look at the uh uh developers who came along and spoke to the uh planning board with respect to uh their their fair share plan, they had huge numbers of density per acre. uh 10
may have been the minimum but they had 10 20 they even had 40 in some parts of of submitts by applicants to you know get get more density. So Mount Laurel is not going away. few years from now,
somebody will come by and say, "Gee, this is one of the last remaining properties, and we want to develop it, and we want to solve all of Bridgewater's affordable housing needs." And those needs are not going to because of the the nature of Bridgewater, its
prominence, its success as a municipality, its populace, all of the things that make Bridgewwater such a great town are still going to be there. and they're and people are going to look to build a humongous project on this property if if
it's still available. Whereas the opportunity today is to accept the most modest affordable housing project you could conceive of. And and that's that's a real choice. So it's, you know, do you do you make a choice where you preserve
what what's there now, preserve the trees or the vegetation when you know they're going to be gone in the future? that property is not going to be what it is now. It's time to to accept a choice for that property that will benefit the neighborhood in total. Because there's
lots of reasons why this variance should be granted, but the first one is take take a a modest property, a project like this, and run with it rather than turning it down and leaving it to another day. Yeah, there's lots of
properties over the over time that that get varianced and varianced. There's application after application. I've done several of them myself. Uh but you know, normally the board board has to think big picture and big picture is come up
with a an approval in a situation like this where you have a modest uh application. You know, you have three acres going to the JCC. How often does that happen? Um, you have uh 12 acres, it's only a density of slightly over
five units per acre. Um, you have quite a bit of space around the project. Uh, you know, you you have a lot of good things with this with this uh application. Um, my suggestion is don't don't let it go by because it won't come
by again. Um so um the easiest thing to do is to kind of think the existing condition can be preserved when you know in your heart it can't be preserved. It won't be preserved. time marches on and and laws
continue on and the and Mount Laurel housing is generating a whole lot of development in New Jersey and it will continue to do so because that's always going to be part of the law. It will never be gone. Anybody who thinks otherwise is is kidding themselves.
So, um you know, the JCC use variance was explained very well by Mr. Cohen. I won't won't try to uh uh uh elaborate on that. Um but there's three three grounds primary grounds for a residential use variance. First is the most obvious
which is um that it is a a uh particularly well suited use for this property. And why do we say that? Look look what's in this zone. This 202 zone, this Carter versus 287, there's 202. It's a state highway.
It's it's surrounded by nonR40 development. In fact, when was the last R40 development in this this that was actually built in this area? Look at all the uses. There's commercial, there's retail, there's there's large uh houses
of worship. Um there's all sorts of uses, but I I don't think there's any been any R40 for many many years. Um, so this is this is a proposed use that is modest compared with what's there already. Um, so I think that that you
can well see that this site is particularly well suited for this use which is much much less than what's being approved there been approved there for amp years. Um, secondly it's affordable housing. Now,
all the the courts of New Jersey have have, you know, taken on affordable housing. They've they've made it their poster child. New Jersey is a leader in the country for mandated affordable housing. Um, but
that has le led to judicial decisions, you know, and and in particular now there was uh the one I'm thinking the most of is is one where a board of adjustment turned down a use variance like this for a lowinccome senior
project. Sounds familiar? And in so doing, you know, the court said, um, we are convinced that the council's denial, and that was actually decided by a a city council where you could appeal appeal to the council from the board of
adjustment, not not the case in Bridgewater. We are convinced that the council's denial of a use variance was arbitrary and capriccious. In in we are in reaching that conclusion, we are mindful of our obligation to accord the action of the
governing body, not adjustment, the presumption of validity and to defer to its judgment and its knowledge of local conditions. Initially, we are convinced that a nonprofit housing project for lowincome
senior citizens inherently serves the general welfare. You know, we all know that in our heart. We don't have have to have judges tell us that. But projects for seniors, it's a good thing. You know, we all would
like to to probably live in one someday or have our have our parents or siblings live in one. We know that that can't be contradicted because it's the truth in our hearts. So, so that that's I guess the the
number one uh ground. Um, you know, it's it's an a a project that is um age restricted. It's 55 and and uh over. Uh it's uh no no school children. It's
good financially for the municipality. Um and it's one that that there's a ready market for that that uh um based on the all of the census data that's been provided. In fact, the legislature
in 2024 adopted a law which encouraged age restricted housing by by saying 30% of uh a municipality's affordable housing obligation could be age restricted. That's a big big
encouragement to peop to towns and developers who want to want to do uh uh affordable housing to give them a 30% of it can be age restricted. Um but courts have have said over the years you know that we that that there
there needs to be recognized you know is the situation uh such as this um you know so you know there's a case where called homes of hope which said that uh you know you can't use a flat 20%
u as the reason for a variance but you can do and you should do sightspecific analysis of an application and if and if the application is a good one and presents affordable housing that that that uh use
of the property is is sufficient to uh allow for a use variant. So, so I know the law may be somewhat in flux on that, but there is that that Homes of Hope case that's very very much on point with with doing a sightspecific analysis. And
I think again if you do that here you come to a conclusion this is a darn good site for af for for affordable age restricted housing. So what what are the other factors should come into into mind here besides your your gut reaction to what's doing
what's right. Well it's particularly well suited and and there are a number of factors here. It's isolated these streets of this R40 area. None of them connect into this property. they were it was developed over years with with streets that that simply don't
connect. So, you know, you can't readily create a neighborhood or a street here because it just wasn't laid out that way to begin with for some reason or people were were haphazard or not thinking of it. But that's that's one of the factors. So, that this development as
proposed here, you know, goes goes out to to uh the state highway 202. It's it's essentially a standalone neighborhood and and will have a lot of benefits to the to the neighboring properties including storm water and uh
and uh wetlands management and and things like that. But but it's unfortunately it can't be connected. But that's a reason why you should grant this variance because it's a it's isolated. You know the route 202 orientation. This is on a major state
highway. I know the town has an interest in this. I'm not saying they don't, but that that interest is is lessened than than the normal case if they were building this on a in a a a local neighborhood that didn't have a state
highway running by it. So, and and the orientation, I mentioned this before, of what what's out there on the state highway and what's been approved in this Carter. It's it's a dramatic departure from the R40 zone. It's almost it's been honored in its in the breach.
Um the JCC connection is an important element of this. The people who live here will will be benefited by and will benefit the JCC pro you know uh facilities and that's an important consideration. Um I mentioned the modesty of the
proposal. It's it's it's such a low density it's almost unheard of in affordable housing law. Um but you know that's that's because of the nature of Bridgewater and how how it's such a good place to to build the project even though it's going to be has has very
tight constraints and and uh uh very limited in in a sense of uh um being able to absorb this. But uh it's it's not uh it's not 10 acres, it's not 20 acres, it's just five plus acres d units
per acre. Um there's almost no disturbance that that wouldn't be present if you developed this property for R40 uses. You know, Mr. Michello testified that that it's it's essentially the same because you'd
have to run the roads out to 202 in either event. you know, it's just a different configuration. But you spread out uh our 40 homes throughout this 12 acres and you you put in the roads necessary, you know, it's it's gone.
It's gone. Whatever you're seeking to preserve is gone. It's not going to be there anymore. So re I think the best thing to do is to recognize that and try to come up with accept the idea that this low density project is a darn good idea.
Um, you know, there's certainly no financial uh disability to the municipality from this proposed project. You know, there's a lot of benefits to the municipality, let's face it. Um, and uh, you know, as far as the negative criteria, you know, you've done uh 10
times more in terms of your investigation of this property than than anyone would do on a on a simple uh, use variance. you know, use variance, you wouldn't have you wouldn't have all the testimony that's come into this case over the last 10 or 11 months. Um, you
wouldn't you you also have here this is a major DOT project. They would have to get a major access permit and uh and they need D permits for storm water, flood hazard, uh wetlands protection,
you name it. It's the g the gamut of de of D programs is is at work here. Um so you know to conclude this case tests your judgment.
When I say that you join the board to make important public policy decisions. This is an important public policy decision. Do you try to advance the general welfare as as the state has
explicated it by having a a uh a project that is modest and confined? Uh or do you take your chances and turn it down and see what happens in the future? And you know the only thing you could say for sure is going to happen for the
future. this project will happen again but only thing be a lot bigger and will be less good for the for the neighborhood than this project. So we ask you to consider this using your your good judgment
um but thinking of using that judgment in a in a in a broad way not a narrow way. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Mr. Kley. All right, Mr. Cohen. Um, upon your request, I'd like to break this up for
the board. We've had since August of last year, we started this case. It's It's been a long time. We've had different moving targets, and frankly, it's been a little bit confusing. I think you both did a great job summarizing for us. Um, as per your request, I'd like to break out the JCC
component. And what that means is the application component of this case is done. We're now going to open it up to the board deliberations on the JCC use D1 use variance that you requested. Um we both agree it's inherently beneficial use. You've granted the four ways that
this board can go about um reconciling that fact. Um board members and I'm just going to start it from my left, take it down to my right. Uh the vice chair and the chairman are going to deliberate last. Uh board members, you have board professionals at your disposal.
Um, and let's open it up. Let's go to Mr. Vesio. We're going to talk about the D1 variance on the JCC case. It's been requested. >> Yes. >> And please start us off. >> Uh, the 3 acres is being provided to the JCC for this to be used uh as part of
their facility uh and for religious purposes. I do agree it is a beneficial use. Uh, and we'll uh vote yes for this particular variant on this application. >> Thank you, Mr. Fresco. Yeah, I support it. >> All right, Mr. Sweeney,
>> I absolutely support the application with respect to the JCC. It's a wonderful worldass organization and anything we can do to help them, we should do. >> Thank you, Mrs. Your thoughts on the JCC D1
>> D1 News. Yes, I'm I'm in favor of >> for the JCC. Okay. Um, Mr. Mr. Bonjouro, >> I support this piece of the application. >> All right, Mr. Gayski.
>> I'm in favor of um the expansion for the JCC. >> Mr. Koulak. >> Yes, I would agree as well and I support it wholeheartedly. >> All right, Mr. Gabbot. >> I think that the JCC is an asset to the community. I love the idea of extending the open space. So, for that component, yes, I would be supportive.
>> Mr. Widley, >> I'm in support of the JCC. >> I am as well. It sounds like the board has unanimous consent. Um, open up the floor to any motions on this component of the case, the JCC D1 variance. >> I'll make a motion. >> All right, that's Mr. Fresco to have a
second. Mr. Bonjouro has the second. Nancy, could we call this is to vote on the D1 JCC use variance? >> Mr. Gi, >> yes. >> Mr. Vanjorno, >> yes. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Sweeney >> on the JCC use variance. Yes. >> Mrs. Zamin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> Chairman Fouse. >> Yes. All right. That takes care of that component. Thank you, Mr. Cohen, for
your service and for your help in this case. >> Chair and members of the board. >> You got it. All right. Rich, could you take us through what's left in this case, the 821? We have a D1, a D5 density variance, and a D4 F. >> And as I outlined in my uh memo to the
board, those there's only the three variances that are at issue with respect to this case for the multif family lot. It's just the D1 use uh to permit the attached multif family dwellings where um that use is not permitted. the D5 density variance to permit 64 dwelling
units. 51 would be market rate 13 affordable units and the D4 F variants to permit a floor area ratio of 42% um where maximum 15% permitted. Um
should there be a uh motion to approve that we discuss some conditions with respect to this application? Um I have six. So there would be uh all units would be age restricted at 55 and
older with no person allowed to live there younger than 18 years old. Um and there would be no 20% limitation. um provide a reciprocal emergency access easement through the JCC lot that would
serve both lots 45 and 46 and to which um would be made available to for use to the uh to the neighbors. Um, the applicant would also recommend to the NJ DOT a striped left turn lane at the
entrance and on 20220 206 north and um they would provide a 20% affordable housing set aside um and the affordable units shall be integrated um with the market units. So in other words, no separate um affordable housing building.
Uh they would provide the fire hydrants as requested by the fire department when preparing the site plan. Um they would comply with Bill Burr's report when preparing the site plan. And as we discussed this evening, there'd be no left turn out of the project onto Route
202206 provided that restriction is approved by NJ DO and the uh exit would be designed to prohibit left turn lanes with the curbing that was discussed. >> All right. And Rich, if favorable action
is voted on by this board, what would the next steps be for this applicant in terms of site plan? If and and with the JCC this is applicable as well right so this is only the use aspect um that's before the board if this application is
also approved the applicants and plural would come back to the board um for two things right one would be to subdivide the approximately three acres that would be transferred over to the JCC lot um
and also for site plan approval for Um uh for the A21 lot, I don't think there's a site plan needed on the on the JCC lot because we're not adding anything there. >> I don't think there's a need, Mr. But certainly will respect whatever the township professionals direct.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um we did talk about the possibility of a variance for the JCC lot as part of that um subdivision only because you have that barn in the front or something, but >> lot line was adjusted so that we're clear of the setback. Yeah. So, you
know, it's probably just the subdivision that then gets transferred over to the JCC and the preliminary and final site plan for um 821. >> Now, for members of the public, Mr. Aler, in the next phase, if this was to be approved, would the members of the public have participation in the next
phase of the hearing? >> The same Yes, it's the same procedure. So, um it'd be on notice. Both of those applications would be on notice to the public. um hearings would be held here and you can ask questions of witnesses and comment
>> and in your opinion would the negative criteria brought forth in this case be relevant and and be able to be effectively reopened in the next phase? >> Well, it doesn't get reopened for the use aspect, but it is applicable to the variances that are required. So, there
was some discussion about you know later bulk variances with respect to the 821 lot. So the the positive and negative criteria for bulk variances would be applicable to that. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> There's nothing further. Rich, let's
open it up. Mr. Vesio. >> Okay. Uh so this application has really two this variance um has two sort of components. One is the use variance allowing multif family housing and the second as I understand is the density
that's being requested. And Mr. Er, please uh jump in if there there's any part of my testim uh deliberations that is incorrect. Uh on the use variance um Mr. Kley, I I I do believe is correct to
say that this lot has been vacant. There hasn't been R40 development on this lot. So is multif family housing appropriate on this lot? Uh considering the location, I could say that yes, that's something I could support granting is
allowing for multif family housing. On the question of density, um this is where I do not agree with Mr. Kley. Um I seeing the last exhibit provided by their ARC their their their civil
engineer showing an affordable housing unit. I understand that those housing those units would be integrated with the greater uh units, but what is not clear from that site plan is how you would fit 64
units when the prior prior uh presented plan before this revision showed 52 units and somehow we get 64. So what I am against is approving 64 units for this site for your density
variance. >> Mr. Vesio, I do want to point out though um it would be incumbent upon the applicant at the time of site plan, right, to to fit 64 units integrated into however many number of buildings
integrated with the market rate units, right? They're not obligated to come back with 64. Right. >> You could go up to 64. >> I understand. >> So if there were environmental conditions, for example, that prohibited um them from being able to fit 64, then
conceivably they would come back with less. Okay. >> I understand the exhibit provided here is signed and sealed by a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. I understand this to be a professional document and they stand behind this. So
if this site plan is not possible, what is the purpose of providing the board this site plan that has a >> foot is an example of what could be proposed in a site plan? And during the testimony, I'll just remind you that you know it was um agreed that there would
not be one single building like right now that that example showed the um affordable units in one building. Right. >> Correct. And you know there was lots of discussion about not doing it that way and integrating the affordable units
into the various buildings with the market rate units. Right? So the ultimate plan would be similar to what they're showing you but different. So they're not married to that particular plan is the point. That's an
example of what they could do but will not do because of the conditions imposed now integrating the affordable units and market units. Okay. So I just don't want you to think that had to be the plan. It doesn't.
>> No, I I understand that. I when I see a presentation here seeing 64 units or versus 52 units and we're approving the density here. So what information can I use to judge?
So if I say that fine, I'm all comfortable with the use being multif family. But no, I'm not comfortable with this density. What is val what is valid to say that 52 units, okay, 64 units, no.
How do I make that determination that that would hold up in a court of law? So, you know, we're we're we're working off of what has been presented by the applicant as an example. Um, you know,
it it's the testimony um was that, you know, 64 units has a density of five just over five, I think under six per acre. Um you know
obviously 52 would be a even smaller density. Um you know the standard for the board is just not to be arbitrary in your decision making right so you know if you can look at their example and say
um you know you'd have to say I understand this isn't exactly what you're going to come back with because you know we've we would impose a condition integrating the units. Um, but you'll see something similar road configuration, maybe a few less
buildings, uh, maybe different size buildings to get you to the 64. Um, the the issue is is, you know, 64 is the requested density up to 64 is the requested density on the
property. Okay. And does that work for you? >> All right. So I will I will leave my deliberations at um in general the use of multif family I would support >> okay um you know it's funny um Mr. Kley
you said tonight you said that it was a modest application and and I remember the first I remember that day uh the first meeting where you said it was a quandry um you know I I disagree that it's a application and um although you're a pro
and I think you did an excellent job uh this was a great presentation and and it's a massive project that you know uh I bought into what you were saying you know maybe you're right maybe if it gets
turned down maybe in two years somebody comes in with 122 so I I commend I commend um your points um But I have to disagree. I I really do. Um it's it's
it's too big. Um it's the F is too high. The tree count is too high. The flood risk damage is too high. I mean, these are this is fact. This area has been hit with water issues, right? I mean, we
hear about it. We see it. Um it's a major DOT project. It's a D project. Um, and I think, frankly, I think it's irresponsible to to cut into 2026 at this at this location. Um, I think your
traffic expert, um, for lack of a a legal term, was wishy-washy. You know, uh, he's got data telling us that, you know, he's that there's a lot of volume and it's not going to affect us. I buy into that. I think these folks can take 13 more%. But
what I don't think we can handle is that intersection. We had testimony or I guess commentary from a business owner across the street who came in and I wrote it really fancy, but I'm just going to speak to you. He
came in and said, "Hey, I benefited from a driveway access and I appreciated getting it granted, but I don't even support this." Right? Mr. Chairman Fouse's uh vet clinic, I I forget the the owner's name, came in and actually
said it. He said, "I got it, but I wouldn't want it here. It's too dangerous." And that was my point to your traffic expert. It's not about the volume for me. For me, it's about navigating all of these intersections and just cutting into 2026 anywhere you
want. Frankly, to the residents, I am here right now because I was there. And for those of you that know my history, that's why I'm here, okay? Because it wasn't in my backyard and I did fight for it, okay? And the truth is, these guys are going to probably try to bring
this to a court and a judge. And I want to see a judge tell us that we have to accept 576 trees being gouged out of Bridgewater in an R40 zone. I'm going to leave it on
this. This project is perfect perfect for its use. If the guy selling the property to these gentlemen lowered his price, maybe they could still make money on putting in 12 houses. Maybe we don't have to cram 62 in. Maybe we can get
away with 12 and we can put a road. So, frankly, it's too big. I cannot support it. I just I'm sorry. I I I want to and I appreciate that you made concessions. I really do. I wanted to go with the right only, but I just can't do it. I'm sorry.
>> Thank you, Mr. Fresco. Mr. Sweeney. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I want to say right up front that this is one of the most egregious, flagrant examples of overdevelopment that I've seen in nearly 20 years on this board. But since
overdevelopment can mean different things to different people, let's take a look at some of the specific measures we traditionally use to get a handle on and to identify overdevelopment. One of those is density. Our land use ordinance stipulates the maximum number
of residential units that can be built on any property depending on the size of that property. In this case, the maximum number of units permitted on this property after 3 acres go to the JCC is
12. 12. The applicant wants to build 64 units. That's five times the number that's allowed. Floor area. Another measure we look at. Our land use ordinance spells out the
maximum floor area that can be developed on any property. In this particular zone, the maximum floor area allowed is 15% of the size of the lot. The applicant wants to build out floor area
that's 42% of the lot size. That's almost three times greater than what's permitted. Lot coverage. If this application is approved, then the developer will at a later date request a lot coverage
variance. The land use ordinance also spells out the maximum amount of lot coverage that can be built out on any property. And in this zone, the maximum allowed is 18% of the overall size of the lot. But the
applicant wants to cover almost half of the entire lot with paving and other imperous coverage. That's almost three times what's permitted. Now, these are specific metrics that let us look at
overdevelopment and intensity. And in this particular case, they tell us that it's too big, it's too massive, and it's just too much. And it screams it screams overdevelopment and over intensity
particular suitability. Let me touch on this for just a moment. The applicant needs a D1 use variance if this project is to move forward because the attached residential dwellings that are proposed are not permitted in this zone. One of
the proofs that are required if the applicant is to get the D1 use variance is called particular suitability. In other words, the applicant must show that the proposed use is particularly well suited for the site. I'm not going
to go into a lot of detail here because the Bridgewater Police Department did that for us and they found that the project's impact on vi traffic volume, congestion, emergency response times, and everyday
commute represent a potentially significant negative impact on the public good. The last thing I want to mention very briefly is buffers. Any applicant trying to get approval for a project of this
size will typically talk about buffers, the trees, the bushes, etc. that will tend to reduce the visual impact of what they want to build. Well, here's the bottom line on buffers on this lot. The applicants proposing to go in and
clearcut this lot, taking down over 400 trees and then paving over much of the property that's not built. In summary, if this project is allowed to build out, it constitutes a serious overdevelopment
that threatens a substantial detriment to the public good and it should not be allowed to move forward. I will vote no on this application. >> Thank you, Mr. Sweeney. Mrs. Amin, your thoughts, please. uh looking at the density and also the
floor area requirement I would go with Mr. all the suggestion that uh x number of maximum units and I would s if if I go with a yes vote I would
suggest that the number of units at the time of site plan approval should be reduced down to maybe like 30 units or 40 units between 30 and 40 maximum. um maximum if
I vote yes and then uh with that the floor area ratio will also go down. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> You know before we do that I just want to say to Miss Amin but that's not the application right so they're asking for
64 um >> but I would say >> right so as Mr. Yeah. So I think it was Mr. Fresco who basically said or maybe Vesio said you know the use is okay but the density is the issue. That's what you're saying.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you Rich Mr. Bonjouro. >> D1 D4 and D5 areas is pretty much the largest over what we allowed that I've seen on my five years on the board. Um
but stated by Shannon. This board focuses on safety, storm water management and inherent use of servicing the public good. We try to find acceptable yes to applicants because in
commercial developments like this, if we say no, we're going to get sued. Um, I listened and I heard the comments of the residents I regret the potential loss of the tree
environment. Um, I'd like to believe that the conditions we will impose will satisfy safety and storm management. One other thing I'd like to add to the condition is that they have stated only
one HOA, not two. As for the affordable housing mandates come from the state. We don't have much of a case to stop them. Um but brick water must provide a
substantial number of affordable housing units. take away. Um, the other restricted age development in Bridgewater that we approved two years ago, it seems to be on hold for various
reasons. One being that nobody wanted to buy them. So, um, I'm not sure how I'm going to vote on this. I still have a lot of questions and a lot of concerns um like the rest of the board members do. That's where I am right now.
>> All right. Thank you. I ask you. >> Yeah. I look I I think the members of the board have really nailed all of my concerns. Uh I mean I the challenge that the density is a a huge concern here. I think some of the things that are
playing into this too are there is an age restricted housing that's needed this desire for premium high-end really complicates it and I don't think that by adding that in it plays to all of the things that the
state necessarily is looking for. But that aside, I think that it it is definitely the density is much higher than I think I'm comfortable with and what this particular lot in this area can handle.
Um, and I at the m I'm say I'm not in favor of this application right now. I will say though to Mr. Kley's point and um the JCC's it is good to be able to have some say in what can be done there
and what will be done there ultimately. How we get there I don't think it's by arbitrarily picking 64 units and saying and then saying we're going to figure out a way to fit them in here afterwards. And I I think that that was the mistaken on my right now I can't
say I'm in favor of this. Thank you. >> A lot of the board members have made some really compelling points with respect to density, with respect to the impact on the environment, with respect to the concerns as expressed by the
homeowners. All those things are true. Where I differ is that the state has a very powerful tool under the fair housing fair share housing laws that it can use to impose development on sites
like this. And that's true statewide. We're surrounded by it and we're affected by it. And we have through our council and our mayor a plan and through our planning board a a way in which we can uh meet the obligations of the state. But the state can come in and
really um use their power to create a development that is far greater in scope and density than that which is proposed. The one which is proposed is a tough pill to swallow. Five units per acre still, as Mr. Kley points out, at the
lower end of the density of affordable housing projects. doesn't mean I'm in agreement with it, but I'm also looking to balance the scales by saying that if this were to be approved with the appropriate conditions, then the JCC benefits and
the community benefits from the JCC. The other opportunity is to fix a development that is lower in density than could possibly affect you in the future. The property at some point will be developed. The question is when and
how. And if it's developed in any way, whether it's for single family homes or multif family homes, it's going to be clear-cut. Period. That's going to happen. So, the question is, do you want to kick the can down the road? That the board can make that decision. And I
sympathize with the homeowners because I have been too in your seat and still am. And the density of the project that is near and dear to me is far in excess of that which you would be subject to. It's a tough pill to swallow. I get it. But
in this case, I don't know how we can balance it. And I can see where the board's opinion is. I just wanted to give you the alternative view. Thank you. >> Thank you, John. Mr. Gabbat. So, as I believe Miss Ferrero mentioned
in her uh testimony, um I too am concerned about the precedent it sets for future projects in sheer size, in density. Uh Mr. Keller also discussed at length the importance of data. Uh for my background I have a master's in communication information studies and if
there's anything I learned from that um educational experience it's that data is a phenomenal tool but data interpretation within the confines of a vacuum does not always properly incorporate all aspects of reality. So in summary u Mr. Kley kept using the
phrase you know it in your heart you know it in your gut. And in my heart and in my gut, I believe that we should do no harm. And I believe that this project as proposed risks harm in particularly to those who already live there. So I would not be in favor of this.
>> Uh yes. Um actually quite a bit. First of all, I really want to thank the neighbors for coming out. Um we actually do this. I've been the ones that live there and I need from you. Um, what I've been wrestling with for over a
year now on this project is I don't live too far from where the property is is at some point the property will be developed know whether it's now or five years or 10 or 20 years down the road. I
explain that to my wife a lot of times when she asked me how'd it go or this is coming down what I said. properties will be developed. And I'm not going to rehash um what Mr. Pres, Mr. I agree with a lot of what they said
is that we started out at around 60 units went down and I really wanted to go down more and we went the other way by adding affordable housing. So
I really think that I have a problem issue here. Thank you. Boy, this is a tough one. And um I I think first like Jim said, thank you members of the public for coming out. Um I know myself, I started this whole crazy involvement in politics
because I was sitting in your seat. I know how it feels to get the notice that the hearings are going to happen and to sit here for teen hours over the course of a year and three months. It's rough and I'm incredibly sympathetic. The reality is the new normal of New Living in New Jersey is affordable housing.
Whether you like it or not, this property is going to be developed. And if you've listened to any of the hearings in the last one year and 3 months, you've heard how incredibly tough I've been on Mr. Kley. What? At one point I walked out of here. I thought he was going to punch me. He
said, "I'm the reason I drink." Referring to be. That's a compliment. That means I've done my job. And um you know, I I I respect him tremendously. And I think in his summation, he correctly points out that
if you don't approve this, beware of what awaits your future. And you know, at 5.37 units per acre and an F of 45%, you know, Mr. Kulak can testify what's going in next to his house has significantly higher ramifications in terms of both properties uh residents
per acre and the F. So with this case we get to manage a very difficult decision. Um I'm in favor of it and I'm in favor of it for this reason is that this is the first phase. We're only approving the use variance. Whether 12 houses go
in or 64 town houses go in, those trees are gone. At least with this, there's another site plan hearing where you can go and talk about the buffering that you're needed. The vegetative buffer is so important to West Foothill. Um, we've gotten concessions out of the applicant
for a right turn only. That makes this inherently more safe. And trust me, I am there at the veterinarian hospital too often. It's a dangerous intersection in my opinion. The problem is my opinion doesn't mean much. I'm not an expert.
So I I I think the board is stuck on a couple issues and when this application started I always bring up the issue of bifurcation and bifurcation is complicated and there's a lot of case law that talks about bifurcation may be
inappropriate when a use variance and site plan issues are inexplicably interrelated. In such cases, it is better to consider both applications in a single proceeding. That may be the case here. I think this board would have been better served to have everything come out at once. It would have been a
longer hearing. We could have found out where the trees are going. We could have found out what the potential renderings look like. We could have had simulations. We could have had some better drone shots. That didn't happen here. They basically gave us the bare minimum. And I think the board has reflected that bare minimum. Do I think
it's enough to grant the Dvariance component? I do. Um, I'm going to be voting in favor of this. Um, and unfortunately, this is the new normal of affordable housing in New Jersey. The elections do have consequences and Trenton is emboldened
to put affordable housing onto all of us in the state. So, >> Rich, any further? No, I think there it's uh you know well well said by the board and uh time to make a motion. >> Okay, I'm open the floor to a motion,
please. This is on the D821, D1, D5, and D4 F variants. >> I'll make a motion to reject. I second. >> All right. So that was Mr. Fresco on a motion to deny and that was Mr. Sweeney on the second.
>> Okay. So with respect to that motion, if you vote yes, a yes vote is to deny the application, not approve it, but yes vote is to deny the application. Okay. >> Nope. >> Can I abstain?
>> No. >> No. >> No. >> Don't you dare. >> Yeah. Don't you dare. >> No. >> You can, but >> No, you can't. >> No, you can't. There's no You sat through the whole thing. >> Mr. Alter has spoken. You cannot
abstain. You have to vote. >> All right, we're gonna call a roll call vote, please. Nancy, >> Mr. Gi, >> wait, let's just review. A yes vote means to deny the application. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay,
>> Mr. Bondo. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes. Mr. Sweeney. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Amin. >> No. >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> No.
>> Okay. So, the motion fails. So, is there another motion? Um, a motion to approve. Shall I make a motion to approve? >> Okay. I Mr. Gayski making a motion to approve. Would you like to second that, Mr.
>> Make a motion to approve? >> Second >> with the the D5 density. If they can reduce the number of units during the site plan. >> No, that it's it's the it's only for 64
up to 64 units. >> Okay. >> Right. And there actually is a motion pending to approve >> the 64 up to 64 unit density >> that it's a motion to approve on the 64 units and >> F.
What other option is >> we're approve? >> Yeah, we're we're approving or denying his application for 64 units. >> That's the number. >> That's it. That's what you're going to get. the number. >> Do you think they're going to reduce it
after? You're kidding yourself. >> Yeah, >> we have a motion. >> They could come back and raise it and say that's a floor. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Why? They can Why? They can raise it, can't they? Right. That's They can come back to the to the next round and and
say we want 84, right? >> No. >> Oh, it's it's max 64. >> Maximum 64. >> It's minimum 64. >> No, max >> maximum max is 64 units. >> Good. Thank you. Good. Right. Fair enough. >> We have a motion on the 643 use the D1.
>> So Mr. Gi made a motion to approve >> that uh the 821 application for the D1, the D5, and then D4 variants. >> Looking to the board for a second, please. >> Is there a second? >> Yeah, I second. >> That's for 64 units.
>> Okay, you're seconding Mr. Gayki's motion. Nancy, give a roll call vote. Mr. Mr. Gi, >> yes. >> Mr. Fresco, >> no. >> Mr. Sweeney, >> no. >> Mrs. Zamin,
>> yes. >> Mr. Widley, >> no. >> And Chairman F. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, there's four yeses and three nos. So, the um motion to approve
uh does not pass because you need a supermajority. So therefore, the application is denied. >> All right. Thank you, board. That was a tough case. It was a long case. >> Our next meeting, uh Nancy, December 9th, we have a residential case. And
>> thank you, Mr. Kley, Mr. Cohen. Thank you, gentlemen. Next meeting, this room, 7 p.m. December 9th. Can you take us real quick through the cases? December 9th. >> Yes.
>> Have quite a few matters listed. We h we're >> Yeah, we have um homeowner. >> Yes. >> We have a carrying of the cafe Amelia application. >> Yes. The on 202 um we have
>> the Rockland APV battery facility. >> Yep. And we have the continuation of the Bridgewater self. >> Time to act for Cafe Ameilia expires December 10th. So we're going to hear the residential case and we're going to hear Cafe Ameilia and anytime we'll get
to the other cases. I doubt there will be much extra time. So with that said, happy Thanksgiving everyone. Thank you. >> I'm sorry. One other thing. Do you need Nancy? Do you need the board to act on the list of dates that you provided? I don't need them to act on. I just wanted them to discuss like two dates in
particular so I could get >> reorg materials ready. Takes a while. >> Okay. So, did anyone have an issue with any of the dates? Did you check for holidays? And >> there were no conflicting holidays. May 26th
is early voting and October 27th would also be early voting. >> Okay. >> Had some logistical issues because of that. So I didn't know if we wanted to eliminate, you know, as long as we have one meeting in May and one in October, it's up to.
So just something to think about and we can decide on the meeting on the 9th. >> Okay, we'll see everyone December 9th. You have a motion to adjurnn, please. >> All right, thank you everyone. Happy Thanksgiving. >> Thank you.