This evening's meeting to order. Today is Tuesday, July 28th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Bridgewater Township Zoning Board of Adjustment. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with the open
public meetings act NJSA 104-6 especially on specifically on January 28th 2026 proper notice was sent to the electronic news sources of record filed with the municipal clerk at the township
of Bridgewater and posted on the municip municipal bulletin board. Please be aware of the zoning board of adjustment policy for public hearings. No new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10 p.m. So, if you're able, I'd
like you to stand and join me in saluting the flag. >> Pledge 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. Miss Propes, can I have a roll call, please? >> May. Chairman Kak >> here. >> Mr. Woodelli, >> here. >> Mrs. Zamin >> here. >> Mr. Fresco >> here. >> Mr. Franco >> here. >> Miss Rose
>> here. >> Mr. Gi is not here yet. >> Miss Wisman >> here. >> Mr. Vesio >> here. >> Mr. Kawuchcci >> here. >> Mr. Mcnella >> here.
>> Richard Aller, board attorney >> here. >> Bill Burr will not be attending. Miss Sarmad, board planner >> here. And Mr. Klene, acting board attorney >> here.
>> Oh, engineer. >> Promoted him. >> You got a promotion. Very nice. >> I'm not sure that's a promotion. Oh, well, Mr. Klein, welcome. We appreciate you being here. Thank you. Now, let's see. We have um I'd like to open up the
meeting to the public to address us on any matters that are not on tonight's agenda. So, if you have a land use matter that you wanted to bring to our attention that's not on the agenda this evening, that you may do so. Seeing no one, we're going to close that
portion of the meeting. We have minutes that we wanted to adopt from March 10th, but we had a little trouble in the printing of those minutes. We're missing a page. And then later when we reference the transcripts, the reproductions of those transcripts
were less than perfect, let's say. So, we're going to try and redo all those things. >> Make a motion to approve. >> No, we're going to table it. I'd prefer that we table until we make all the corrections. So, Mrs. Amin, thank you for pointing them out. We were going to
approve them with changes, but we felt that given some of the missing items would prefer just to redo them and bring them to the next meeting. So, thank you for that. We have um at least one resolution that we'd like to um have approved. It's
application number 24-013-ZB. It's Sharief Shalabi, block 374, lot 9, 233 Shepard Avenue. This is an extension of our prior approval. I believe Mr. Shalabi was at our last meeting and his extension was approved and we have a
resolution to that effect. Mr. Oler, any comments about the resolution? >> No, it's it's accepted as have any comments. So, I will make >> Thank you, Mrs. And Mr. Oler, you have no comments? >> No other comments? No. Okay. Um, may I have a motion then to adopt the
resolution? >> Mr. Widley makes the uh motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Mrs. Amin is offering a second. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Kulak, >> yes. >> Mr. Wedelli, >> yes. >> Mrs. Zamin, >> yes. >> Mr. Fresco, >> yes.
>> Miss Rose, >> yes. >> Miss Wiseman, >> yes. >> Thank you very much. So that resolution has been adopted. Um the other one >> do I have the other Do I have another one?
>> I thought Roy resolution is good. >> Shalom. Right. >> Oh, was that is that the um Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So, you also have an additional resolution. This is for
Shai Amal Roy and Schumay Roy. Application number 2515 zoning board lock 164 lot 402 Edgewood Par Edgewood Terrace. So when I have a motion to approve this resolution >> I move
>> Mr. Widley has made the motion. Mrs. Zamin is second. Roll call, please. >> Chairman Kulak. >> Yes. >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Leamine. Yes, >> Mr. Franco. >> Yes, >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes, >> Miss Rose.
>> Yes, >> that's all. >> And do we have the application for CX Towers? I mean, the resolution. >> No, we haven't received that transcript yet. >> Okay. So, we'll have that hopefully soon and we'll be able to move forward on
that. Moving to the next agenda items. We have two items on our agenda. one of which um is just a essentially a revote on an application and having cleared up some
technical aspects to this request, we're able to now look toward making a motion to approve a new DV variance. So with that, we'd like to start with the SHA application. And this is the second hearing. It's application 25-017
ZB. And tonight we have on behalf of Mr. Shauna. >> Hi, Matt Flynn, professional planner. >> Matt, welcome. >> Thank you. >> Have you been here before? I think I have. >> I have. >> Very well. Would you share with us your credentials?
>> Yes. Uh, should I get sworn in first? >> Yes. Matt, 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? >> I do. >> Thank you. uh education comes from Rucker's master's degree in planning and public policy, professional planners license in
the state of New Jersey, as well as my AICP lensure, which is the national lensure for planners. Both are in good standing. Um I have testified before this board in the past, as well as over a hundred other boards across the state. >> Very well. We accept your credentials. Thank you. Tell us why you're here this
evening and what the what you'd like to accomplish. >> Sure. So, if the board recalls at the last hearing the applicant came with an a proposal for an outdoor patio um and at that time the board requested additional information regarding the
existing F of the um existing single family dwelling. So, basically, we're here tonight to provide that information um to remind the board at the original hearing when he got his approval for the home itself. Uh I guess it was uh there
was somewhat of an oversight and that these hillside development regulations should actually govern um which would uh modify the F calculation. So, we've done that calc um and I am here to present the the actual number to the board and
to provide justifications for that variance um as the board sees necessary. Right now, this may be beyond your area of expertise, but I'd like to remind the board that at the time we heard this application, um, we approved it and then
we found out there were some technical issues, one of which you referenced having to do with the F calculations and so we asked that we rehear this. We also had some what I'll call back office issues to correct with respect to the certificate of occupancy. Any other
issues that needed to be cleared and my understanding in talking earlier with Miss Sorad that those issues have been cleared um or I'm sorry with Miss Probes. Either way, I think they they have been cleared. >> Yes. >> Construction office
um confirmed by email. that they had resolved all the code enforcement issues with the CO. So CO had been issued. >> Great. Thank you very much for that. Mr. Flint, would you continue please?
>> Sure. Um so really the the reason the applicant came back here for approval uh for variance relief initially and by initially I mean at the the very last hearing that we had uh was for coverage related to the patio.
The board granted that variance again under a condition that we come back here to present the proofs for the F which I can testify to now is um given those hillside development regulations it would be 0.16 whereas 0.15 is the
maximum required and just as a refresher for the board the way that that works is on a normal uh uh a normal lot with no slopes the F require requirement is 0.15.
However, if you have slopes, basically that cuts into your lot area that goes into that calculation. Um so by taking into account those steep slopes and modifying the lot area, um we ended up with 0.16 which is again 01 over the
maximum of 0.15. Um I would note for the record that in my professional opinion this actually wouldn't constitute a D variant. it would actually be a C. Uh typically of course as the board knows F variances
are D variances. Um but in terms of the municipal land use law in terms of how these uh how F is defined um just to give the board the um the benefit here for uh in the MLUL 40 semicolon 55D 70D
um is what sets forth what a D variance is for F and it is quote an increase in the permitted floor ratio as defined in section uh 40 55. 5D4. So when you go to that definition, basically floor area
ratio means the sum of the area of all floors compared to the total area of the site. Um, so in my opinion, and I think we can we can discuss this, I'm happy to put in proofs for either D or C. Um, but just maybe for the board to to consider in terms of any future applications or
however the board wants to interpret that. Um, I would think that that modified lot area calculation would be would constitute a C variance seeing that it does deviate from the municipal land use laws definition of what constitutes a D variance. >> Okay. So, let's just pause there for a
moment. Yeah, Mr. Oler, from a legal perspective, can you make sense out of that for me? >> I Yes, I understand what he's saying. He's saying under the municipal land use law definition of uh what is a a floor area ratio it in the definition it only
includes the floors under roof is his argument right so the actually uh what I'm saying is that the definition of floor area in the floor area ratio in the MLU well is the total lot area rather and if the board if the town
decides to further modify that it's getting away from that definition. >> Okay. I was I thought you were going the other way. So, all right. So, um I can tell you in in Bridgewater, um we don't consider it that way. Never
have. If you want, you are welcome to pre present a brief that we can then discuss it and we'll go over it at another time, but I would suggest you just do the >> and that's fine >> for proofs. Um >> that's fine >> is we're not really
I don't see that we would uh proceed with that then >> and we we have a particular value that we place on the steep slope ordinance and calculation and so we we don't want that to be um eliminated from the conversation or the calculation. Um Miss
Armed, do you have an opinion one way or another? I don't want to put you on the spot but I just did. No, I know this is has been raised um outside of this application before I was here. Um I think it has been upheld in previously
and you know the municipality's right to local zoning which is constitutionally uh you know a power that the the municipality has means that um you know the definitions within our code and the requirements within our code that affect different conditions do apply locally
here. So I you know it has consistently been applied um and required a devariance as a result of the hillside development calculations and it's and its impact on the area on the um the lot area and so I would agree with Mr. Oler that it again be um the D variance be
sought as it's been applied you know to numerous cases prior to this one. >> Thank you. So with no further discussion let's go down that road. >> Absolutely. Um so basically when we're looking at a D4 F variance the test is whether the site can accommodate the additional building massing that we're
proposing. Um as the board knows the whole purpose of F in the first place is to provide a building that is proportional with the size of the property. It takes into account not only coverage or the first floor but it takes into account those upper floors as well
and uh and provides a requirement that puts that into proportion with the size of the lot. Um here I think when we're talking about whether the site can accommodate it, I would note for the board that we're talking about a dimminimous deviation from that 0.15. I
noted that it was 0.16 which basically constitutes 300 square ft over the requirement. Um on a compliant 40,000 square foot lot, you would be able to get upwards of 2,000 square feet over what we're proposing here. Um if the
board remembers, we're dealing with an already undersized lot. So, that's already an existing uh constraint on the property. If this were a 30,000 square foot lot, as it is now with no steep slopes, we would still be able to get upwards of over 700 square ft more than
what we have now. Um, so from a proportionality standpoint, the building massing that we're proposing clearly is not going to fly in the face of what's anticipated on a lot of this size. >> Just so we're clear, the building mass has already been established as the building has been built. The application
that came before us has no real impact on that. We're trying to do some cleanup, if you will, in getting the appropriate variances passed to support the building the way it is and to yet further uh approve as or reapprove, if you will, or reinforce the approval we
had made earlier for the application for the area um sorry for the coverage. >> Well said. Yeah, of course, the building is there. It got approvals. Um it's never good to have something that's not in the books. We want to have everything in record um both for the applicant's
sake as well as for the town's sake. Um if something is a variance condition, we obviously want to know about it um and have that clearly uh established. Um in terms of justifying that F, I do want to remind the board again that we are dealing with a building that is compliant in terms of all setback
requirements. So, no matter which way you're looking at it, if you're looking at it from his right neighbor, left neighbor, backyard, um you're not seeing a building that is overly intrusive. Um so, all of that I would say goes towards the negative criteria. The site can clearly accommodate that additional
300 square ft. In terms of the positive criteria, I think we can look to purpose a uh promotion of the general welfare. It's home improvement. Of course, the home's there. It's a beautiful house if the board has seen it. It's right on line with what you see right across the
street if the board drove by or saw pictures. Um, right across the street there's three very consistently styled homes. Um, purpose G, variety of uses in appropriate locations. This effectuates a permitted single family use. Uh, not only for this applicant but for any
future uh, homeowner looking to live in Bridgewater. Um, purpose I desirable visual environment. Again, this matches the aesthetic of what we have right across the street. uh purpose M is efficient land use and here again I talked about the fact
that on in a normal circumstance the building massing would be allowed to be substantially higher um and again when we look at what's happening right there we see something that is right on par with what's happening in the neighborhood um if the board remembers and I don't
know if I have to go into the proofs for the for the coverage I think that was put on the record at the last hearing but again just to re >> I think we subsume those two things together and that were not true. >> Well, no, but um we've already heard all the proofs for lot coverage and height,
so I think we're >> right. Yep. >> We're good there. >> Okay. So, I think that pretty much sums it up. I think this is an appropriate application. I know the building's there, but even if it weren't, and we were talking about this from scratch, I think there's a lot of things that the
board could look at in terms of what makes this building massing appropriate for the property itself as well as the surrounding area. >> Let me start with um Miss Armad, do you have any questions for our witnesses with respect to his planning testimony
and uh his request? >> No, I believe Mr. Flynn has put on all the necessary proofs for the D4 variance. Um I, you know, as mentioned, the first hearing really went through
the majority of what was actually applied for the D4 variance was something that ended up at kind of as a condition of that uh action by the board, which is still open as part of this case. Um, and it's it's unusual what happened, but I appreciate that the applicant has gone through the exercise
of, you know, calculating the FIR, showing it on the plans, um, undergo undertaking the hillside development calculations as required by our ordinance, um, and then coming and seeking the D4 variance as necessary. So, um, I didn't, if you notice my the review memo, the joint supplemental
review from Mr. burn and myself really didn't ask too many questions because I think this is really something that's already been hashed out at the first hearing and is just a result of them going through the calculation. We wouldn't be here if they had gone through that calculation and found out that there was no F variance.
>> Um it's, you know, it really is a function, I believe, of the hillside development calculations having an impact that may or may not have made it onto the plans um when they went to the building department. So, um I I appreciate that they've come back. I appreciate that they put on the proper testimony and that they're seeking the
appropriate relief. >> And I think from the point of view of all homeowners, when you have the opportunity to come uh before a board and you kind of clean up all of the open items that may impact your ability to improve the property in the future or transfer the ownership of the property
by coming to us proactively, even though it was in concert with making an application for some improvements, you really put yourself in the best position to do all those things. Any members of the board have questions for Mr. Flynn and his testimony.
>> What year was the home constructed again? >> Two 2022. >> Is the contractor in the audience tonight? >> Mr. Vio, are you done? Yes. Are >> you looking for something that I don't I
can't discern here? >> Um I certainly don't fault the homeowner uh for this and I think uh you know give them credit for correcting the item. >> Okay. >> Um with a home constructed in 2022, it's surprising that >> uh the law of coverage was exceeded, the
height of the home was exceeded and the F was exceeded. >> Um I think it's certainly the responsibility of the design professional. um to have not permitted that and provided a compliant uh design uh for this home.
So, and and we are um nonetheless talking about it as Mr. Flynn described a dimminimous difference, but it's best to address it now while we have the opportunity to do so. Any other questions from members of the board?
Uh, seeing none, I'm going to ask if there are any members of the public who would like to question Mr. Flynn with respect to his planning testimony only. And seeing none, we'll close that portion of the meeting. And Mr. Oler, you want to walk us through what is
required of us at this point? >> Yeah. So, I'll just remind the board that on we heard the first part of this case on March 10th, the board actually voted uh to approve the improved lot coverage variance and the height variance. And at the time, it was going
to be a condition of approval that the F be placed on the zoning chart and if if it turned out that you needed an F variance, you'd have to come back. before we adopted that resolution, um the applicant did the calculation and
said, "Hey, guess what? We need an F variant." So, as a result, we never adopted the resolution. Right. Right. So, this evening, what the board I would like the board to do is then just we're going to revote the entire application
for um improved lot coverage, uh the F variance, and the uh and the height of the building. And based on the testimony that we heard not only tonight but on March 10th and I'm just looking for the conditions just as a reminder the conditions then obviously the condition
with respect to F would go away. Um but the applicant would have to provide an engineer certification that no NJD permitting um is required for some of the activities that were on the site. Um there'd be no spotlights added to the
property. Um they'll confirm with the township engineer uh his satisfaction of the storm water management plan. Um they were going to provide a perk test and lo uh location of uh seasonal water table
prior to issuing the permits. Um although I think there are no that's wrong. >> Oh we're right. Okay. Right. Right. and you're going to add an additional uh chamber if required by the
township engineer. Right. So, those were the conditions. >> So, with that, I'd like to have someone make a motion to approve. Well, I should allow some deliberation. >> I'll deliberate. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. So, any board members would like to discuss this. We can do it in
order if you'd like. Why don't I start with Mr. Fresco? >> Well, interesting choice considering I'm one I'm the one nay on this, right? uh uh on this application. >> That's why I asked. >> Yes, thank you. So, uh I feel the same way. I really do. And I think that this brings to light what my concerns were
then >> uh that it's just a little too big and it didn't need to be that big. So, uh that's my feeling and just I'll I'll stay consistent. >> I appreciate you doing that. Mrs. Does that mean do you have any comments or >> Yeah, you know the uh difference between
what is required and what they have is only 265 square ft which is very small and in my opinion it should not have any impact on anything and I I'm in favor of approving this application.
>> Thank you Mr. Franco. Um I have no issues with this application. Thank you, Mr. Vasio. Um, I would support this application because, you know, the homeowner is coming here and um looking to kind of
write a prior wrong and I don't want to create a precedence that's sort of scarce away um residents from not uh going the proper path for for such conditions. So, we certainly want to encourage residents to go through the proper permitting uh process. I just
would maybe make a comment to our uh you know building and uh code office to really scrutinize any future designs submitted by the permit in this case uh to make sure they are truly code compliant inspections cover the same thing to the they they follow the plans
that are submitted uh because this is a very new home but I'm I'm in favor of it. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. McNa. >> Excuse me. It seems that we're just uh approving a uh uh well both the new project is is to me it's not all that
big that it's it's it's it's affecting the overall um look of this house on that property uh the proportion and uh we're correcting an oversight from the past that the the homeowner shouldn't be uh penalized.
>> Very well. Mr. Wisley, would you like to comment? >> Uh yeah, I have no problem with the application. Miss Rose, >> I have no problem with the application. >> Johanna, >> Miss Wiseman, sorry. >> I I do Thank you. I am concerned that I I feel that the builder did a disservice
to this homeowner by delivering this home that exceeded without warning the homeowner that they would face a big challenge with adding the outdoor thing. So that so I would not want to see that again. But in this case, because they've been so diligent and because it's a very small margin, I
would approve. >> Mr. Kucci, >> I'm glad with it. >> I too would support this application. I think that given the uh homeowner's ability to come back to come to this board and to try and clean up things that had been existing in the past along
with some of the new issues that we addressed at the last meeting and this meeting, I would support this application as well. So, I would like someone um to make a motion to approve this application. I'll make it. >> Mr. Widley to approve this application.
>> And Mrs. Aine is seconded. Um Nancy, may we have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Kulak. >> Yes. >> Mr. Woodelli. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zamin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Franco. >> Yes. >> Ms. Rose. >> Yes. >> Ms. We Wisman.
>> Yes. >> And Mr. Vesio. You missed Mr. Fresco. I think >> Mr. Fresco voted. Oh, >> you got Yeah, >> that's all right. Yeah. Well, >> since we had a No. >> No.
>> I'm apologize. Mr. Fresco's no. Okay. >> Everyone else is covered in terms of voting. >> Miss Wiseman, >> three, four, five. >> I voted yes.
>> Yes. That's seven. >> Thank you, board. >> Okay, I'll have that for the next meeting. >> Sounds good. >> All right. Have a good >> Thank you, Mr. Flyn. Appreciate it. >> We're going to move right into the next case. >> Yeah, >> we're going to be moving into our next
case. So for members of the public >> who are here for application number 24-029 ZB Rockland APV Bridgewater Energy LLC block lot sorry block 338 lot 9
otherwise known as 760 East Main Street. Um we're here to hear their continue their application. This is our third hearing on this matter and we'll be getting started shortly. You guys, if you need a few minutes to get yourself together, that's fine.
Is our applicant ready? >> Yes, we are. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Um, we appreciate your patience. I know that you're trying to get as much done as we are, so we'll move on. Mr. Oler, do you want to set the stage for us?
Um so the board has continuing jurisdiction since the meeting date was uh previously announced believe this evening um Mr. Pantel has indicated that he's going to do civil engineering with Mr. Styers and uh he has his fire safety
expert Mr. DNR >> the honor. >> Okay. Um and I think those are the only two subjects we're covering this evening. >> Correct. >> Right. I do want to point out to the board that there was a recent case about
two weeks ago called um Monarch Communities versus the Township of Montville which impacts inherently beneficial uses and the applicants making an argument that this is an inherently beneficial use. Um be tonight's not the night for that because
his planner is not here. We're going to get to that point. Um I prior to that will provide the board with a memo with respect to the Monarch case and what it says about um specifically referring back to the second prong of the negative
criteria and doing that before you start the Sika um balancing test. But I'll outline that for the board. I just don't need to do it now because it's not something that we're going to do tonight. >> Uh yeah, agreed. Yes. Needless to say, we're familiar with that case as well
and we will address it uh in due course. >> And that decision was a recent one. >> Yeah. Two weeks ago. >> Right. >> Right. Right. >> Thank you. >> Right. And just on that point, Glenn, I know you submitted a memo with respect to, you know, why this case is uh inherently beneficial. I don't know.
It's up to you if you want to supplement that as well. I I do intend to do a summary to the board, not just for your case, but just in general for all future um inherently beneficial uses and how the board should be addressing those and
specifically deliberating on those. >> Yeah. Uh no, I do appreciate that. We can certainly supplement the memo as appropriate, though the memo that we did submit goes to the notion of classifying the proposed use as an inherently beneficial use. It didn't it did touch
upon the criteria but the main focus was uh the youth should be treated as inherently beneficial which I think is still advantageous to an applicant but you're correct in light of this case uh we do anticipate that we would supplement what we did previously submit
to the zoning board. Yeah, because now we have to talk and look at the second prong and you know if if uh you know how what the impacts are to the master plan and the and zoning right before we even get to >> Exactly. And we're as I said we're not going to go down that road tonight. We
have a number of things to say about that as you might imagine but we don't need to go there this evening. >> Agreed. >> Okay. >> Very well. Mr. Pantel, I know you're going to be asking Mr. Styers to offer some additional testimony. Did you have an opening statement or something you'd like to share with the board?
>> Uh just very briefly u to refresh the board's memory. For the record, Glenn Pantel with the law firm of FA Green Drinker Bidden Reef, attorneys for the applicant, uh Rockland APV, Bridgewater Energy LLC. Uh so at the two prior
hearings you heard initially testimony from John Seeker uh principal of the applicant uh project manager regarding the nature of the proposed facility. U you heard how it ties into the grid various benefits it poses in terms of
utilization of renewable energy and increasing the resiliency of the grid. uh not a not a small benefit in the sense that this project is sizable enough to support 20,000 homes for 4
hours of normal electricity supply. Uh we also heard uh from Joe Brown uh with Trina Solar which will be the supplier uh of the the product here. Mr. Brown is very experienced and expert in the area
of uh energy markets, energy regulation and of course utilization of the proposed best facility. Uh he did touch upon some of the safety issues that had been questioned by the board including
uh the fact that uh Trina Solar has put in place some 250 comparable facilities uh without any fire episodes. But you'll be hearing tonight from uh Leonard Deionarine, assuming we get through Mr. Styer's testimony. Uh Mr. Dehonarene is
prepared to respond to the the first item that had been raised by the board with respect to fire safety. Namely, a question had been raised concerning incident that occurred in Arizona a number of years ago and he submitted a a report addressing that and
in distinguishing why it should not be problematic for this application. Just to interrupt you for just a moment with respect to his response to that particular case, >> the board and the public in general continues to read about similar fires in
a variety of locations, some of which are far more recent and far more local as in in New York itself, in the state of New York. So, we're not going to limit our inquiry just to that one. >> No, by no means. And in fact, your environmental commission raised a few
other incidents that we're in the process of preparing another report to submit to the board. So it's not going to I do not anticipate this testimony tonight will address those three or four other incidents raising environmental commission report. But in the interest of moving things along, in interest of
addressing the report which he did submit regarding that Arizona situation that was initially raised, he is prepared to address that as well as his emergency response plan which was submitted about a year ago uh to the board. >> Great. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh so that said, I'd like to start off with Mr. Styers and uh he has not testified previously on this application, so we'd have to him introduce. He's the project engineer. Of course, I know he's been before this board. Why don't we have Mr. Styr sworn
and he can address his qualifications briefly. >> Thank you, Mr. Sty. Would you please stand and 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? >> And your full name for the record, please. >> Thank you.
gonna have to talk into that microphone. I apologize. You'll have to share it. But >> share it. No problem. Uh so could you please uh summarize for the board your experience uh as a licensed professional engineer in New Jersey and including of course your experience in testifying in Bridgewater.
>> Uh I am a professional engineer in state New Jersey uh since 1993. I have been testifying before this board pretty much since that time dozens of times for various applications including
residential commercial um industrial facilities in in Bridgewater as well as throughout central New Jersey. >> And Mr. Styers, is your license in New Jersey current? >> Yes, it is. >> Thank you. >> Very well. We accept your credentials. Welcome. The floor is yours.
So could you please just the nature of your involvement in this application? Uh providing an overview of the application u the various variances that are implicated with the application uh and as well as addressing the reports and
comments that we've received from the township engineers office. Uh as far as uh my involvement in the uh application, obviously we're retained to do the uh survey and site plan for the application for the best system uh is the site plan
that you have before you. Uh we also did the uh limited environmental impact statement as well as the storm water uh stormwater report that was part of the project. Um, I can go just go right into the uh the
site itself. Um, it's located at 760 East Maine. Um, otherwise known as lot 9, block 338. It's on the southwest corner of East Maine in Paul Hemis. Um, that's right now is currently a U.
The entire tract is utilized for storage of um vehicles associated with Somerset County. Um there's a current currently a stone lot there. If you recall before that, it used to be a roadway truck
transfer station. So it was essentially it had uh loading docks on both sides and trucks came in and shipped from one side to the other. um probably uh substantial amount of trucks in and out at uh from that facility.
From that time, the county bought the property and is currently using it as uh as it is today. One thing to note also is when the uh Route 22 Chimney Rock interchange was completed
because Route 22 was cut off or the quarry more so was cut off from the uh the rail going into the quarry. What happened was they created this site um as kind of the um transfer of the stone
materials for the quarry. So what would happen is the rail would come in and stop at this point. They would unload the rail. The stone would be piled in the pretty much where the best system is proposed. And that's why you have the stone in that location. From that point, the trucks would take that stone into
the quarry and vice versa. So the stone would come out of the quarry into the into the rail and be distributed out off the rail. Uh the trucks came into the facility. The small driveway that goes up into what is shown as the best system
uh is where the trucks came in and out, loaded, unloaded. Um there is, you know, there's a 30-inch pipe that's underneath there. Uh that pipe took all that, you know, the truck traffic back and forth. Um and is still in good condition.
So that's kind of the >> the the current condition is that the rail line has been extended across 22 all the way up to the quarry. So the need to transfer the stone material is not present at this time. >> Right. Once the core once the interchain
was completed everything back to normal and what what is left there now is the kind of the remains of the loading unloading which is the stone >> right? And if you were to see the burm on the property, that is the uh the top soil that was removed to put the stone
down. >> So is there is there what will you be discussing this evening then? A plan um with respect to that stone, whether you've looked at it, evaluated it, and so on. Is that part of your responsibility this evening? >> As far as what
>> whether it's clean, uh Phil, whether it needs to be evaluated further. >> I don't believe that it needs to be evaluated further. It's it's just a material that was brought in and out and used as con construction materials. >> Right. Well, you said you're also going to be talking about an environmental
impact statement. So, >> I said we prepared the environmental impact statement. >> So, you won't be discussing it this evening >> unless there are questions about it. >> Okay. So, what I'm asking right now is the material which was transferred. Has
it been tested? Should we require it to be tested? Does D need to look at it? Because all of those areas, they were when Roadway Express was there, you had a lot of trucks moving in. You have dilapidated trucks parked on that site currently. There's an opportunity there
for some kind of seepage leakage and so on. So, I'm asking you if you're going to be testifying to any of those things or if that's something we need to do separately. I >> I am not testifying to that. >> Okay. You may continue.
>> Yes. Could you comment on the surrounding uses, please? >> Uh, the surrounding uses are obviously to the west would be the Somerset County Maintenance Yard. To the east across Polus is the PSNG substation. To the
south is um I believe it's um Joe her facility. So he he has uh you know I think it's related to the the truck and and dumpsters. Uh, >> I'm sorry. You think or you know?
>> I know. Okay. I just don't know the name of his his business, but that is his the immediately to the >> You're naming an individual. We can find out the name of the business or Mr. Pantel can find it out for us. And you're referencing that just to describe the site.
>> I'm describing what's around the property. >> Okay. Continue. Uh and then further to the south is uh there is a lagoon with uh contaminated material in it. And then across uh Bohemis is the truck or the uh
transfer station for the garbage. >> And that lagoon is part of the American cyanabid super fun site now under the management of Fizer. >> I don't believe so. It was it was in a cell that is was to the west of the
roadway going to New Jersey American water. >> So that was excavated out mixed with fly ash and put into this particular lagoon. >> Right. And I would I would ask somebody to perhaps yourself to validate with
American cyanid now being that site's being managed by Fizer as to whether that material is theirs or who is in who's responsible for it. We can we can address that at a subsequent meeting. >> No, I appreciate that. It's just, you
know, you're asking us to evaluate the entire project. You're describing the site. When Mr. Seeker was here earlier. He was describing the site selection process and every one of his criteria related to the efficiency of the operation, the profitability of the
operation, um how much easier it is to connect when you're close to a subsation. All of those criteria were read into the record, but not one of them um mentioned safety in any way. I know Mr. Fresco brought up alternate locations, and I think it was Mr. fresco
who asked him about the site selection process um and he was very forthcoming in his analysis but it didn't include the things I'm looking for or I think that the board is looking for in the whole so that's why we're bringing it up. >> Yeah, we can we can certainly respond to
that. Um I don't think we need to divert right now from M testimony but >> I just want to make sure we're being thorough. >> Mr. Steiners, you want to continue? >> I can't tell you. my understanding for that sort of not in sub not as a substitute for future of testimony but my understanding that what's been
alluded to um is not impacted and by the proposal and that's those situations are not controlled by this site and should not be affected by this proposed development but we'll have additional testimony on that not a problem
>> right because because it is a adjacent property a neighboring property um we have to look at what happens if scenarios and what happens if we've got a lot of complicated issues there. So, Mr. Styrers, continue please.
>> Okay. Can you discuss the characteristics of the site and uh its its sizing? >> The proposed >> the proposed site. Yes. >> So, what we're proposing to do is to subdivide the property um into two lots. Um lot 9.01 01 would
be 4.23 acres. Lot 9.02 would be um >> 902 is 2.89. >> I'm sorry. >> Yes, 2.89 acres. Sorry about that.
>> Maybe you could just restate that because we're having trouble following it. >> Lot 9.01 is 4.23 two three acres. Lot 9.02 would be 289 acres. >> Okay. >> And the the lot 902, the smaller of those two, is the lot on which we're proposing the development.
>> That is correct. >> Okay. >> And what's the minimum lot size required in this zone? >> 20 acres. >> I'm sorry. >> 20 >> 20 acres. And you're saying that the site as proposed is how many?
In total it's uh 7.13 acres. >> That's in total. And the site that you'll be developing is what size? >> 2.89. >> 2.89 compared to required would be 20. >> Yes. >> Okay. Continue.
>> Uh as far as the lot width is concerned, lot one would be 254t and 500 is required. Lot 9.02 902 is 203 ft and 500 is required. And again, what we're looking to do is
to subdivide the property and then lot 9.02 would be the the property is being developed with the best system. Uh the system would be proposed in the southernly end of the property. >> You want to point that out on your
drawing or maybe we can um see if that drawing has been admitted as an exhibit. I don't think it has. >> That's been marked as exhibit A3. >> That's been marked. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> This was on the computer I think at the last uh hearing, but we have marked it as A3.
>> It's the same as what was presented on the computer. >> So again, this is A3. >> Sorry, Glenn. So So the the face of that exhibit is has a marking on it as A3. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Again, this is the entire track is shown. You have East Main Street, Poheis along the bottom. It is uh 7.13 acres in total. We have currently the stone lot in the front which is where the the county keeps their uh vehicles.
The back half is uh um vegetation. This is the area that I mentioned uh in the beginning about this uh stone and the unloading and unloading. There is a burm here which was the uh top soil which was stripped to put the stone down when they
were doing that and ultimately like you said they completed the interchange and went back to uh what they were doing. There is a waterway that goes through the property and ultimately uh discharges into the storm sewer at the intersection.
We do have a um an approved LOI for that um drainage way. It was determined that it is a ditch, not a state open water. So they uh pretty much assigned a wetland
area in this location which is on the east side with a 50-foot buffer. And since the drainage way is considered a ditch with regards to flood hazard, there is no repairarian buffer.
>> So for the benefit of the board, you're using ditch as a technical term. >> Yes. >> Okay. And could you define that so we understand it? >> It's essentially it was man-made. So if the drainage way were considered a state open water, then it would have a
repairarian buffer associated with it. So the D categorized it as a man-made ditch and since it's not a state open water, it's a man-made ditch. There is no flood hazard repairarian buffer associated with it. >> And that ditch as you call it drains
into a storm sewer on which on which street? Pheus. >> Uh it's pretty much right the intersection of East Maine and Pamus. So this is where it's picked up. So, it's overland and picked up into a pipe >> and it's and it's taking water from the
site as it's currently being used by Somerset County and will be used by your proposed site as well. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Could you comment on change if any in the drainage pattern resulting from the development? uh the drainage pattern
would not change and in fact um we are removing a lot of the stone in the proposed best area as well as some stone that is in the front of the facility. So there's going to be a net decrease in impervious coverage
uh as far as the pro overall project. >> Uh what would that decrease be? Take a look. >> I believe it's about 30,000 square feet >> decrease in coverage. >> Correct. How do you know that's man-made ditch? >> Excuse me. >> How do you know that's a man-made ditch?
How how'd you come to that determination? >> The DP determined that. >> So, that's a D. >> They they did we submitted the or uh one of the uh our clients uh consultants submitted for an LOI, a letter of interpretation. They submitted all the documentation as
far as you know soil samples and things like that and they came back and the DP made the determination that is a man-made ditch. >> It looks um in the just orient me again which where is um Pheemus in this
diagram? >> Pheas Main Street is on the right hand side. So as that ditch drains you were saying it almost comes out to the intersection of Maine and Paul EMS. >> Yes. The >> Okay. Gotcha. >> Pipe where it goes into is right at the intersection.
>> Right. And so the area of that ditch that appears to be wider I guess that's at the um eastern end of the property >> right through here. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Can you estimate how big that is? this >> probably about 30 ft wide, maybe 75 ft
long, >> and that's still a ditch. It's not a pond. >> Well, they did determine this area to be wetlands. >> Okay. >> So, the flagging through here, that would be out when they delineated it,
they did determine this to be wetlands. So this portion does have a 50ft buffer on it. >> Okay. >> The drainage way through it is a ditch. >> Gotcha. >> So on on the top side there then I guess that's the west side of the property. See there is looks like a storm sewer
that drains into that ditch. I see a number of inlets coming off that as well. >> Yes. From the uh the county facility which is this is the county maintenance facility. So they have their improvements, the parking lot in the back and that would that drains into the
ditch and ultimately >> through there >> and there's no drainage above the county facility that's kind of making its way into that system. I believe that's the only thing because you have uh I believe there's another
roadway on the OP on the west side of the county facility that I believe picks up and probably goes towards East Main Street. You can continue. >> You comment on the uh the sideyard and
rear yard dimensions as well. >> 902. >> Yes. >> Okay. For lot 902, the front yard setback is 87.7 feet proposed and 150 is required. Sideyard
setback is 24.15 ft and 39.5 ft and 75 is required. Combined is 63.48 with 175 being required. And the rear yard is 41.23 and 100 ft is required.
Could you orient us as to the side, front, rear, etc. Because you have a corner lot there. Um, which makes it from my perspective a little more complicated, but maybe not. >> Um, I believe for a corner lot, it's two fronts. So, really it would have one
side. So, you have front. I'm sorry, this is not a front because it has the rail. >> Yeah, exactly. >> The rail there is >> If I could just for a second, not a corner lot because >> Mr. Fantel, would you speak into the microphone, please? >> Yes, absolutely. Uh, not a corner lot
because along Pole Hemis, the lot is separated from Pole Hemis by a feeowned strip owned a fee simple strip owned by the railroad. So, we do not actually have frontage on Pis.
Okay. Only street frontage that we have adjacent to the property is on East Main Street. So we have a front yard on East Main Street, right? >> And then take it from there, Craig. >> So that to clarify the the rail property
is in this location right here. So you have Pheem rail which is a fee owned as Glenn said and then our property. >> Gotcha. >> So that therefore it's not a corner lot. So we have front, side, side, and rear. Sorry about that.
>> Great. Thank you. Okay. Uh let's proceed. Can you tell us a little bit about the proposed operations of the project? Actually though before I do that, one point I'd like to make regarding the variances and obviously we'll be presenting testimony from a land planner on the variances.
But uh as we've heard this board address in context of at least one other application, typically the bulk bulk variances can be subsumed within a use variance if a use variance is approved because obviously uh ordinance
provisions weren't tailor made for and bulk provisions weren't tailor made for this specific use on the property. I almost heard everything you said, but you and I are the same in that we like to look at each other when we talk, but then we walk away from the microphone a little bit. So, I'm not sure that it was heard.
>> Okay. Sure. What what the point I'm trying to make uh is that I wanted to keep eye contact. >> I understand. >> But it's also mic contact about that. Um but in any event, uh as we've heard this board say, at least in the context of
one other application that we observed, uh it is consistent with case law to recognize that various bulk variances are actually subsumed within the grant if assuming it is granted of a use variance because ordinance provisions
addressing a use that's not a permitted use on the property typically are not uh tailorade or geared for that specific use. That said, we're obviously want to be completely transparent with respect to what's going on with the bulk provisions and we'll have planning
testimony that addresses that. Um, I think the point for Mr. Styers is that given the configuration and size of the lot as it now exists and then as subdivided, uh, can the lot safely and reasonably accommodate the proposed use
on the property >> based on what what is proposed on the lot? Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. So could you proceed please to describe the the >> I just want to give Mr. Oler an opportunity to consider what you said from a legal point of view. See if you have any questions.
>> I I do agree that in um many but not all instances um bulk variances can be subsumed within a D1 variance. And I say that because sometimes you know the bulk variance um would be applicable anyway
no matter the zone. But in this case, we have, you know, lot area, lot width, front yard, side, two side yards, and a rear yard. You know, to to me and um those are the types of variances that would be subsumed in a D1.
>> Thank you. >> Sure. So one one last thing with the um the the existing property is that we have delineated on the plans this dark line which is essentially this northeast corner of the property is the flood
hazard area. So that's related to the elevation of of the waters based on the flood hazard and this line is based on the current rules which is I guess implemented in 2023 because the other ones were retracted anyway. So
what it is when you look it up the D has a elevation uh for the Kokos brook and that is 45.4 and what the 2023 rules are, you have to add three feet to that. So that's where
this elevation of 48.4 is shown on the plan. So again, the project itself is not affecting that. Um we are removing some stone that is in the area of the flood hazard area, but
that constitutes a permit by rule because it's not we're not changing the grade. We're actually making things better by returning it to a vegetative state. And a permit by rule, you won't have to submit to the D. And there's a whole list of permit by rules and the
regulations. And we fall in that that one of those categories. Could you >> One of the one of the questions it poses for us though being layman um is does the lot flood because right across the street is the substation and they've recently made
application to elevate all of their critical infrastructure beyond the flood. That would be the PSSE and G1 across Bohem. So, I'm asking in practical terms, not in whatever you just said, but does the lot flood?
>> A portion of the lot does flood in in the northeast corner. However, where the facilities are proposed, they do not. The for example, the batteries are elev elevated well above that elevation. And then these are essentially like metering small.
>> Well, that's like two different answers. So, the batteries are elevated because water gets underneath them. If they're not, >> that the ground elevation is substantially higher than the flood elevation. >> Okay, go ahead. >> What is that ground elevation? >> I believe we're in the
>> mid50s in this location. And then the like I said, the flood hazard area, the three-foot buffer is 48. >> And you're you're speaking in terms of um the maps that were issued in 2022. Then you kind of digressed a little bit.
So, is that the most current one that everybody needs to adhere to with the 150 foot 150 year storms and things like that or is it something different than what we're used to seeing now? >> What was implemented in 2023 by the >> Are you asking me? Because I don't know.
That's why you're here. >> Okay. >> Implemented in 2023 by the Department of Environmental Protection. >> That's what you're guided by. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Fresco, did you have a question? >> Yeah, just to stay on that. So, show me the access road, the service road in
relation to the flood area. Where do those do are they near each other? Looks like >> the it follows on either side of the ditch in the in the location just below. So, this is the current stone driveway with the 30-inch pipe underneath it.
>> Yep, I see it. >> This would be the access to the to the system. That flood elevation essentially goes to that downfall the outfall of the pipe. >> So the road floods or it doesn't
>> does not >> and the point likewise does not. >> And the access point to the site does not. No. >> Right. The access and that's exactly right. That green box right south of your finger that big green rectangle is that the flood what is that big green? >> This line right here is the flood hazard limit.
>> Right. So, it's also in the it's near the entrance as well. >> Theoretically speaking, that is the number with a three-foot buffer. Um, I have um spoken my my brother has a facility on Avenue and I spoke to him
regarding this like for example, Ida and the intersection and there was very little flooding believe it or not in this intersection. I've also done some work for the u the former restaurant on the corner here. They said that there
was water on the property but the facil the buildings did not flood. So that kind of gives you a frame of mind and IDA was a pretty good story. >> You're talking about IDA. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Know I hear you. But I mean it's not hard to imagine that if that road
floods and something happens at the same time we might not be able to get a vehicle to service the units. I mean that's how these tragedies kind of happen. It's just like oh that happened then that happened then that happened. Just throwing that out there. That's what I'm thinking. But you know,
>> again, we're also talking about >> Excuse me for just a second, Mr. Snyers. Members of the public, there will be an opportunity, not just yet, not just yet, please. There will be an opportunity for you to ask questions about his testimony and probably in a short period of time, but if I could ask you to hold them
until then. >> Yeah. Thank you. That's okay. Continue. Um, we anticipate getting an easement over the remaining property which would get us to the intersect or uh the driveway for Somerset County which would
be further up above the flood elevation. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Are there Mr. Styus has been testifying. Did the board members have any other questions right now before we ask him to continue? >> That was all I had just because it was relevant.
>> No, I appreciate it. Continue, please. Yes. Can you proceed to talk about the nature of the operations uh on the site? >> Sure. um based on and again I think there's been some testimony on this prior um that the facility be 247
uh be ma manned remotely and it's expected to have roughly three three employees for maintenance purposes that would visit the site maybe once a month um just to um you know look over the equipment make sure everything's
functioning properly. Uh we have not proposed any type of parking. Uh what is expected is that the uh people that would come in would come into the the loop drive here and just park right on the driveway. Uh that way they're approximate to anything that they're
looking at and that needs maintenance. So there is really no dedicated parking per se. >> Uh can you address security please? >> It is anticipated while it the site is currently fenced. We are going to put new fencing up around
the best facility so that would be fenced individually and a gate at the top of the uh existing driveway and then the metering equipment would also be gated and fenced. The fencing out there would be removed and we would put the
fencing in similar to what is uh around the PS&G facility. So it's got a a thicker gauge and the think they're much smaller. >> I think they're going to be changing that as well under their new plan, but that's something to be considered
because they just were before the planning board not too long ago with the new design. Security of course on this site is going to be an issue because you have so many unfettered access points from the Somerset County uh parking or sorry, the transportation offices, the
ins and outs of the garbage facility that's back there. Um, if you put up a fence around the best containers themselves, that's a help, but I'm not certain that it meets um the needs, but I'm not sure that that's what
you're going to talk about right now. So, >> but again, it's it's the best will be in >> right. >> Yep. >> I'm thinking of of things that are more nefarious. um somebody entering the site
in a vehicle that just runs right through the fence, which is not a big deal to do. So, I think security is an issue that we need addressed. I'm not sure when you talk about um what you're proposing if it's adequate. Maybe we
need some additional information. I can't tell from what you said whether it'll be adequate or not. I'm not sure as far as the security of what you're asking. Is it is someone >> because people will have access to the site either from the Somerset County
parking or truck facility, transportation facility. There's a a garbage operator that has access to the site on the um it would be east of your property in the southernmost corner, southeast corner. Um
>> there's also a rail that >> right I'm not concerned as much about that although that's you're so close to the road that I w I could be concerned about that. Um >> then there's fencing >> right >> around the >> right now I could drive into the Somerset County Transportation Office
and walk all over the site. >> Nobody stop you. >> Won't they What will the fencing do though? Our fencing would prohibit access from >> right >> the main facilities. >> Correct. Um and when you say the main
facility, you're saying I can go up to the fence and look in and that's it. And I'm saying that if I'm driving a vehicle, I could knock down your fence. >> I'm sure anything's possible. >> Anything is possible. It's just we've had terrorist incidents on the West
Coast where they came into a substation and did exactly that. Just drove through the fence. The only thing that stopped them was they ran into a reel of wire that stopped the car. So today's world, we're security conscious. I'm just not certain that your fence is going to be
adequate. But we'll ask the board to weigh in on some of these additional questions and we'll get some additional information that we might share. >> Right. And we may be able to now that we're hearing this sort of concern and question, we may have some additional things, >> right? It's quite possible
>> we could in look look into that. Um >> let let me I'm sorry, Mr. Stars, you can continue if you if you'd like to. >> Yes. Yeah, please do. So, uh we did there were various questions that were raised uh in the reports that we received. Can you talk about the uh the
lighting? Um right now we show lighting because it's really a more of a checklist item as far as a site plan is concerned for you know in Bridgewater. Um if there are concerns with the lighting um the
applicant doesn't really need the lighting. So one we could remove the lighting or two we can put uh not even on timers but more of a switch. So when the uh someone needs to get into the facility and work on the facility, they
can literally just turn the lights on if that is a concern by the board of light spillage and what have you. >> Okay. So it was stipulate that we will be able to comply with applicable ordinance and spillage requirements. >> Yes. Because right now the only spillage that we have is really just in the
driveway. >> So in this area right in the driveway we could lighting and you know when they want it on. >> Well, I'm going to ask the board professionals to weigh in on the on the lighting specifically unless the board
members have questions. >> Sure. >> Any other questions? I'm not going to cut you off yet, but any other questions that have come up? >> Yes, chairman have one question. Um, it's not a fire question, but I
understand with battery fires, a large volume of water is generally needed to put out such fires. I guess we'll we'll ask it to the fire person, fire expert here. Um, but with a large, let's say, and we'll ask the
question to the next witness witness. um and whether or not that water would end up being contaminated or not contaminated after putting out a potential fire. We'll ask that question as well, but where would the water go at that point? Um the water used to combat
the fire, would that go into the ground? >> I think we should defer that to the fire expert and we can always have Mr. Styers respond further if necessary, but our fire expert has looked into that very issue that you're addressing. He's here tonight. >> Okay.
>> Because the question is more of an environmental question, not so much kind of a fire question. >> I think one of the things you'll be hearing is that this and and in consistent with the emergency response plan is that this is not the sort of fire you're going to put out with
thousands and thousands of gallons of water. Um but so that's why I ask that you just keep an open mind on that issue and hear from our fire expert and we can certainly come back to the sort of question that you have but it's really not one for Mr. Styers at this point. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> U tell us a little bit about site circulation. Uh some question was raised by that uh in the engineers report about adequate room uh to stop in front of the
entrance gate without pro having vehicles project onto Main Street and internal circulation as well for maintenance vehicles. >> Again um it's would be pickups coming to the site
back from the curb line. So you can almost put two vehicles back to back or side by side when they come in and still be off of East Main Street to open the gate. >> 24 foot aisle all the way to the back. Uh this loop drive is 20, but again it's
only for maintenance vehicles. And uh as far as emergency, they would come in. We're proposing a hydrant in this location and once the fire is out if the or controlled or whatever it may be the emergency vehicles can leave through the
the remaining uh county paral >> where they can back out onto right >> to main street right >> could they could that same vehicle that was exiting that way enter that way as well >> yeah well one thing we should make clear though about the access on the other
county road is that we we have no flooding Now, no flooding condition on our own driveway all the way from Main Street into the site. >> Correct. >> Correct. So, it's really is it really we may have discussions with county about alternate access, but it's not really
needed because you're not in a flood area for our prop currently proposed driveway. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Okay. >> And so, Glenn, can you clarify? >> Yes. though as it stands today with your current lease form, do you have legal access through the county lot?
>> No, right now uh we don't. We have just a ground lease for proposed lot 9.02. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh again, it's just based on discussions with uh some of the property owners and the the intersection has has flooded but
not particularly uh sub substantially. I mean it has not flooded to what this elevation is. So going west it it goes uphill. This is what the D requires uh as far as the regulations are concerned. This would be
the limit of it. So you can see from further west that continues to go uphill. >> Thank you. >> I have a question. You said there is no parking. If someone uh comes there to do
maintenance for the batteries, where do they park the car? >> They can park. There's no specific parking spaces. >> They do have parking on >> they can utilize this is going to be a stone area. >> Uh-huh. >> So they can
>> say this. What are you referring to? >> The front portion of the facility. >> Nice. >> So that a lot of that is going to it's existing stone right now. It's going to remain. >> So any air anything inside the fence they can park their vehicles. Mhm. >> But I would expect since they're working
or >> checking on the equipment, >> they would drive back onto this driveway, >> park on the driveway itself, >> get their whatever from the from their vehicles and check the equipment out. >> Okay. >> So, it's similar to parking on your your
driveway of your house, >> right? So, the only anticipated vehicular access to this site is expected to be two or three maintenance employees once a month. >> Correct. >> Correct. So, this is not we don't have a
typical parking lots etc for that because you have 20 foot driveways. Correct. 20 foot wide driveways on which the maintenance vehicles can easily park, do their job and exit. That is correct.
>> You talk about the address the height of the proposed fencing if we can come back to that for a moment. >> Uh I believe yeah I mean we can come back to it but it is uh anticipated to be six foot high >> right and the height maximum allowed is eight.
>> Yes. Okay. And the gates would remain closed and locked while the facility is not in use. >> Closed and locked. And they would be have NOX boxes for the emergency personnel. >> Okay. A question was also raised
regarding how the gates swing. Uh question was raised by the township engineer in his report. Can you comment on that please? >> It was anticipated that would they would all swing in. So they would swing come into the site coming through the u
where the metering um equipment is then I guess technically swing out but it's swinging into the site and then the same thing in the last gate be swinging in >> and is that an advantageous condition? >> Yes, because if they swung or swung the
other way they would the vehicle would have to stop shorter and be able to open the gate. So >> u question was raised uh by the fire official regarding uh access across Paul Hemis uh across the railroad. Can you
comment on that for a moment please? Again, you have a fee simple property where the rail is. So, we couldn't get the access across that that property. >> It's an active rail line to boot. >> It's an active rail. Yes. >> Right. Okay. And I think you'll hear too
from the fire official that that's downwind from the site generally. >> Yeah. The the prevailing winds in the area have are from west to east. So that the moons would be coming across the property on the plan from top to bottom
or towards Pheis Lane. >> So it's probably not a preferred location for fire access. >> Uh question was also asked about Ballards. Uh I gather that none are shown on the plan. Can you comment on
that and why they're not needed? >> Uh at this point again it was expected there would just be maintenance personnel with the uh the pickups. Um, I guess if ballards are really required or requested, we can put them in. >> All right. But yeah, I think that the
thinking is that this is not a public parking lot where you could have drivers having various issues that could necessitate ballards or one reads about those articles all the time. This is a totally controlled site. We'll have a few pickup trucks coming in once a month
or so. >> Correct. >> Okay. In fact, I've been saying once a month, but it's actually every three months. I believe that you would be expected to have a maintenance vehicle on this site. So, even less traffic over the course of
a year. So, two or three vehicles every three months. Uh so, no ballards are being proposed and certainly no parking lot. Um, in addition with respect to the fencing, uh, what other security are we
proposing, uh, on the site? >> Uh, it's going to be monitored 247. So, um, if anything should happen, it is u while it's remote, it is monitored 247 >> including security cameras.
>> Yes. Right. U you mentioned previously that we're reducing lot coverage by approximately 30,000 square feet. U not a small number. Uh can you go back to exhibit A3 and show how we're achieving that?
>> Most of the removal is this dark green area. removal of >> this the dark green area is currently where this the existing stone is. So that existing stone will be removed in these areas as well as in the front here
that would total the roughly 30,000 square feet >> and in place of that re stone which is being removed we're planting. >> Yes. >> Okay. So while we're talking about planting could you comment on the landscape plan? Uh we have uh currently
we are proposing evergreens along the easterly and northeasterly corner of the where the best system is and then also some uh landscaping in the front of the property. The one thing is we're not showing the or we're not proposing street trees because of the fact that
the existing lines are on on our side and those are high voltage lines as well. So what the landscapings that we're we are proposing is uh lower landscaping but trying to meet the
intent of u you know trying to landscape the frontage >> and will we maintain uh screening attached to the fence as you have on the site now to provide further screening >> we can yes I mean right now that with
that um the fencing that we're proposing the openings are much smaller smaller. You know, typically they're two by two. >> These would probably be closer to one or less, but if additional um fabric or something is needs to be part of that
fencing, we can do that as well. >> Uh question was asked regarding uh utilities. Uh no, it's true that there's no sanitary sewer or gas needed or proposed for the site. Correct. Correct. So it ba basically be uh communications,
>> right? >> Um and then also we are um based on discussions with the fire officials, we're going to extend a u a line into a hydrant and approximately this location right here, which is just beyond the
metering u equipment. >> Okay. Uh will there be a net export of soil from the site? >> I don't believe so. Um we're going to clean up the stone. Uh again, as I uh said that the the burm in this area is
the um the top soil that was stripped. So we can utilize that top soil to redistribute in the stone areas once it's picked up. Mr. Styus, when you remove the stones that it will become grass area. >> Yes,
>> completely. >> Uh there was comment was made as well about an operation and maintenance manual for the storm water system. Uh can you explain why one is not actually needed for this site even though it often is done for other commercial development? >> Uh so with regards to the storm water
since we're reducing the coverage we don't need to and also this is in a uh metropolitan area >> under the state >> under the state >> plan >> right so between those two or one or the other we don't need to provide groundwater recharge.
Uh second component is gr uh water quality. Since we're actually reducing the coverage, we don't need to provide water quality. The threshold is a quarter acre or more of new impervious above and beyond. So
that second component, we don't have to provide water quality. >> You say don't provide water quality, I mean water quality treatment. >> And then the last component is the quantity. And I have shown through the stormwater report that the um existing
and proposed or the proposed meets the existing uh both through the flows and meeting the hydrograph. >> So that when you say proposed meets existing proposed what meets what? >> Proposed runoff conditions, >> right? >> Meet the existing runoff conditions.
>> Okay. So we're not increasing runoff at all. >> Correct. So because we have there's no water quality, there's no water uh groundwater recharge and there's no facility for storm water management. There are no facilities. So there's no
need for an operation at maintenance manual because there are no facilities. Well, Mr. Pantel is composing his question there. My question for you is, so it seems that your testimony is you're doing the minimum because there
are things you don't have to do by the D regulations. Um, and so you're not doing them, and maybe that's okay. My question to you is, are there things you could do that would improve that site from a storm water management point of view,
which is an area that everybody, especially Bridgewater, is concerned about. Um, even though you don't have to do it, and you don't have to answer that right now if you want to consider it. >> Well, I don't think there's really any I mean, we are improving it just by
removal of the 30,000 square feet. So, that is a vast improvement. And a lot of times what they it would when it comes to storm water management, they would rather see you do something more nonstructural than structural. So rather than putting a detention basin in and
that ongoing maintenance forever, do something that is nonstructural that is more natural. So you're returning these areas back to a a natural state. So that is actually I think more conducive and more in line with this the the DP ranks
than anything else. Fair enough. >> And I think just the one last thing, it is a low area. So if we were to put a basin in everything, >> so we could drain a basin. I think what we've done here is the most
comprehensive. Uh you know, we don't it's it's not that we don't have to do it. We've met the regulations and I think that's really what they're asking us to do. >> Okay. >> How about some more trees? vegetation. >> We could do more trees. I think
originally what we did was some of these areas we kind of refrained from because you know with uh the flood hazard area and things like that. Again, you know, I hate to say it, but put a tree in it, they consider it. That's why we kind of stayed out of
flood hazard area. >> When you say volume, they consider it putting volume. The trunks would be hazard area >> which is regulated by DP. >> Correct. >> Right. >> So that's why we technically stayed out of in the especially in this lower area.
That's why we stayed out of the flood hazard area stone out improve the condition. But as far as putting trees, >> can you comment on the vegetation on the lower part of the plan around partly around the best facility?
>> Talk a little bit about the landscaping plan overall. >> I mean, this is primarily just the uh evergreens at this point. I mean, we could supplement this some more. >> What sort of evergreen is that? >> Um, I believe there were spruces or white
pines, but I mean, we could So, they're trees. >> Yeah. And again, the other thing is that this the area on either mainly on the southerntherly side of the ditch, there are trees in and around the ditch. So, you do have buffering that's in the
middle of the site. >> Where does the property end and the county property begin? This is the pro proposed line which goes pretty much bisects the well most of the stone parking lot area
stays with the county. The line comes and then kind of moves over in the ditch and then squares up around the uh best facility. >> So you can't really speak to what would happen in the rest of that green area because that's not part of your facility. Correct. It's still going to
belong to the county >> in the back. >> Yeah. still belongs to the county. >> This would be the county, correct? >> So, they could do something else with it and it could affect the runoff. Okay. >> They could plant trees, too. >> They could comment on outside snow removal.
Question was raised regarding how snow removal is implemented. Again, your town, Mr. Klein, raised that question. >> Again, I would expect that it would just be pushed to the outside. So, when they would come in, they'd push it to the lower areas. When they come into the uh
driveway, same thing. They would just plow it to the outside, make sure it's accessible. >> Excuse me. Is stone going to be removed or just redistributed? >> I would say initially redistributed and
then whatever is excess would be removed. >> Okay. Uh uh question was also raised regarding whether or not air permit would be needed for the facility. Uh can you comment on that?
>> Uh I was told that it does not. >> There's no regular air emissions from the site. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh question was also asked regarding a temporary uh
easement given to the town for installation of a sewer line in 1985. Can you comment on that please? >> So there is a uh easement we have shown on the easterly side of the property that is described as a temporary easement um
>> granted to Bridgewater Township. >> So this is the uh sanitary sewer main that was installed in 1985. a temporary easement was granted so that the sewer main could be installed, >> right? >> Um the reason it was shown is when we um
initially did the survey, we did an out the survey that shows all the title information. >> So that that was just we we were requested to leave it on the on the survey. So it >> it's not >> technically it doesn't exist anymore, right? >> It doesn't exist anymore. Okay.
Continue. sewer line was installed extinguish done >> right yeah by the terms of the easement that's what happened I'm trying to manage our time here so um when you're done with Mr. Pantel when you're done with Mr. Styers, we still
have to have him hear questions from our board professionals, >> of course. >> Um, and the public as well. And before that, we're going to take a break. So, >> yep. No problem. No problem. Uh, there was a question raised
regarding possible adjustment of the route of the fire service line. Um, right now we have it shown along the the side of the driveway into the uh the hydrant in this location which is just past the metering equipment. Um, I think
Jason said it might be too close to the uh the poles so we can adjust it over. That's not big deal. It's a water line, so it really could go into those. >> Great. Um, and all the electrical equipment, of course, is outside the flood hazard
area. Yes, correct. >> Okay. Uh, I don't have anything further at this point for Mr. Styers. Undoubtedly, we may have some additional points in the course of the hearing for him, but I'd be glad to turn over to questions for the board. >> Right. Um before we do that, we are
going to take a 10-minute recess and then when we come back and for members of the public, we're going to see if there are any additional board questions and we're going to ask our professionals to question Mr. Styers on his testimony and then at that point you will have the opportunity to question Mr. Styers about
any of things that he testified to. So just so you're managing your expectations as well. So with that, let's take a 10-minute recess. Roll call. See if we have everybody accounted for. Nobody's rowing out in
the parking lot. Is your mic dead? >> Yeah, it sounds like something. Okay. >> Chairman Kulak >> here. >> Mrs. Zamin >> here. >> Mr. Franco >> here. >> Mr. Fresco >> here.
>> Miss Rose >> Miss Wisman >> here. >> Mr. Vesio >> here. >> Mr. Kuchi >> here. >> Mr. Mcnella >> here. >> And our board professionals are also here. >> Mr. Oler is here. Thank God. So we have
them all. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Pantel, before we continue, um, and for the public as well, we're going to continue with open the floor to questions from our professionals first about Mr. Styer's testimony,
and then we'll open it to the public for questions about Mr. Styer's testimony. So, Mr. Klein, would you like to start? Yes, sir. >> Let me get the microphone near me because I know that's
critical. Um, good evening, Mr. Styers. Um, you were talking about impervious reductions and I hinted about this in the break. Um, according to you said roughly 30,000 square ft. I do believe it's a little
less than that. It's still a significant number. Using the numbers on the uh cover sheet of your plans, it comes out to roughly 22,000 square ft reduction. Um, and I also note that a big chunk of
the turning stone into grass is actually on the county property, uh, which they also will need permission for because right now that's off-site work. Um, I'm >> sorry. When you say they will need permission, who is going to obtain permission for what?
>> The applicant will need just how they said they would need an easement to go across the county parking area. If you look the dark green segment south of the best on that plan right there, that's county property even after the subdivision. So that's where a
significant portion of the reduction in impervious is coming from. And since that's going to be effectively offsite, they'll need permission for it. >> Understood. Um there's a discussion. I am glad to find that that burm that's there is the
top soil that was stripped off the property because a lot of times a a um something like that is spoil from the roads and will end up having contamination in it being top soil is a much better >> right that that's one of the reasons I was asking the question with respect to
the material the stone material which exists whether that would have to be tested um before it's trucked off site or >> yeah and Actually, thank you for segueing that way because there was a there's not going to be a cut or fill,
but a good portion of stone is being removed and taking taken out. That's a cut. It is good that the burm will be redistributed and that top soil will be spread. But there it does sound like that there is a cut going to take that layer of stone out of the out of that
area. Would you agree with that, Mr. Styers? >> Yes, to an extent. Maybe few inches. or so. >> So, and clearly the the typical procedure for that if you're exporting material from a site would be to have it
assessed for any contamination. Is that correct? >> I think that's typically >> standard procedure, >> right? >> Especially if you need to actually take it somewhere, they're going to need lab testing to be a to be willing to accept it. >> Yeah, exactly. The exporting company,
>> the material which is being taken off site will be tested. What about the material which remains on site? >> Mr. Styers has offered testimony in that respect. Uh the board can accept that or can require testing if they if they want
further support. >> So it would be required to be tested. >> The board's within their rights to to require it. >> Yes. >> In well in my opinion. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um talking about snow removal uh just because that was one of the most recent
things. Uh I think there's a problem pushing snow which may have road salt and such in it into a wetland. Um and you also want to avoid pushing it against the perimeter fence of the best um wherever necessary, but there is some
clearance at least on the west and south side of that loop. Um and then to go in another direction, Mr. styers and this may not be you. Is there a circumstance that you can see where a firetruck accessing the site would have to
actually go around that loop within the fence around the best? >> No, but and further testimony we'll give by uh Leonard. >> Okay, that's the bulk of my comments unless the board wants to talk about lighting because that was a >> Yeah, lighting is an open question and
maybe Miss Sarmad will have some some thoughts about lighting as well, but the now Mr. stars, if I understood you, the facility itself doesn't require any lighting per se. Um, and in the event it's serviced, then there would be lights that could be used if the
conditions are such that would require lights and those lights could either be controlled remotely or manually. So right now we have an open question about lighting and it's part of it has to do with the unique nature of the site and the other part has to be with what we
might as a board and what our professionals might be comfortable with. So I'm not certain how to resolve it right now but I think we can leave it open so that the professionals could confer once we have additional information and then come up with a
lightning plan that's mutually acceptable to both parties and the board as well. before I hand off. >> Yes, please. >> My my thought was that having lighting on that site might actually add to the
security of it if you don't want to totally darken site. Just throwing that out. No, I appreciate the thought and I think it's an open issue because we'll be discussing a variety of things moving forward in
terms of security of the site and so on. That's a a relevant point, but let's hold that until we understand more because you could also argue that um if you light it up then everybody knows where it is and becomes a target. So, I'm not certain how to go. Mr. Klein, do
you have an opinion? Just I have a few be this is perfect to actually give some thoughts to the board for them to digest. >> Uh the light at the driveway whether it's moved slightly or not that's a minor spillage.
Lighting for work purposes they can do it by a switch or it's very common with uh unattended equipment industrial sites like this. You'll have a twist light that you turn. It's a timer. You turn it on so you work so you don't have a circumstance where the the the the worker left,
>> right, >> and the lights were left on. >> The other one the board may want to consider is motion activated security lighting. >> Mhm. Because agreed, you don't want to draw attention to it. But if someone
walks on or you know, bolt cutter to the gate or something, motion detector pulls on for that and and kind of it has a deterrent effect. The board may want to look at something like that. And we also have residential um
buildings that are very close to this facility. So we want to make sure that any lighting that's proposed doesn't interfere with their quality of life as well. >> Right? >> So we really have to strike a balance here on and we would need something to respond to something definitive to
respond to once we've had an opportunity for the professionals to discuss it further perhaps. >> Yeah. And a lot of times you end up not putting motion detector security lights on a on a unmanned installation because you'll have animals that will trigger it. But the way this is set up, you probably aren't going to have too much
of that. But that's those are the things that the board can balance and I wanted to just put that out there. >> Thank you, >> Miss Armed. Did you have questions for Mr. Styers? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Um, and just um, one thing I wanted to address
uh, that wasn't necessarily Mr. Styer's testimony if I could, but something Mr. Pantel had had mentioned. >> Yes. um you know he had included um an aside about the bulk variances being subsumed under the Dvarian right I don't
think he necessarily gave any citation on the case law that would that would um support that >> but nevertheless there there isn't that much case law so I can pinpoint that the the most recent one a few about 20 years ago um the Paleo case
um included the language I think that is relied upon and we've seen in certain circumstances and it and it notes in that case that generally generally that a C- variance and D variance application you know don't exist together and that they can
be subsumed and cites an example of a gas station in a residential zone >> noting that you know the gas station use couldn't be put under residential standards because the residential zone doesn't contemplate a service station so how could it comply with those with
those bulk standards and I think in in this case for two reasons. One being that most of the v bulk variances that I included in my review and that have been cited on their plans are all self-created through the subdivision, not the use variance. Most most of the
the bulk variances are related to the lot configuration which is a direct correlation to the way it is subdivided from the current lot as it exists. So I just wanted to make that clear that my opinion and I know it differs from Mr. Oler and I talked to him at the break to
let him know is that my opinion is that those bulk st bulk variances are related to the sub or some of them are related to the subdivision which would be separate from the use variance. >> Yes. >> Contemplation, right? And then the the other kind of uh piece of that is that
this is not a non-industrial use in an industrial zone. It is an industrial use. I think we've heard from the applicant themselves that they that they believe the only difference between this being permitted and not permitted is that it's not a public utility. It's a private utility. Yes. So the the the zone
>> has contemplated a use of this nature, right? Industrial or a utility use of some sort, right? Or a infrastructure use. And so I would say in my opinion the bulk variances are separate from these variants. They're not subsumed. Um this is an industrial zone and this
isn't you know a particularly industrial use. >> Mhm. Um, so that I just wanted to set that up for the board as my opinion relation to what Mr. P. >> No, I appreciate you doing that and I thank you for that. The when I look at the the site and how it was subdivided
and there are um I'm certain that the the two parties, the county and the applicant have come together in a way that created that subdivision based on their requirements for the site. And as such, they've
created their own limitations or the county and they agreed upon certain limitations that in many ways, in my opinion, benefit them because it relieves them of some obligations that might they might ordinarily have, but I appreciate your view. Mr. Oler, did you
want to comment on that as well? No, I think Katherine raises a good >> I think Katherine raises a good point that the use arguably is permitted if it's a um public utility which the applicant has argued um in its uh brief
filings and um you know under Pulio truly that's if it's you know a non-permitted a truly non-permitted use versus a permitted use in a zone. So I think those are some good points to that. But yeah, I'd like to make one point though in response to that is that
the ordinance does recognize essential services as a conditional use I believe in all zones in the township. We've acknowledged this is not a essential service as defined in the ordinance uh because the operator will not be a government or public utility at this
juncture. Uh however uh the physical use will be the same as we've as you've heard in prior testimony to essential service use and the conditional use section of the ordinance 126-350 which allows essential services in all
zones specifically does state that there's no specific regulations governing it i.e. bulk standards. So the or the township ordinance I think acknowledges that you do need this vast degree of flexibility when it and
doesn't prescribe bulk standards for uh essential service as a con in in all zones in the township. So I I don't think it's fair to say that um you know because this is an industrial use and an industrial zone that we should or
necessarily subject to all of those setback requirements and the like because the ordinance does recognize that essential services would not be subject if they're allowed as a conditional use would not be subject to those sorts of requirements. That's section 126-350.
>> Uh and just so the board knows the M2 zone principally permits essential services. So I think that's a moot point. It's it's principally permitted in the zone. It's contemplated by the zone >> and understood. But throughout the the township, but again throughout the
township where they are allowed, you don't have the township has allowed this degree of flexibility. So I think that's your main as well. I understand that it's permitted in this zone. Uh but again for essential services uh where they are allowed throughout the town the
town has imported you know an unusual degree of flexibility. I don't think that's irrelevant. >> Thank you. >> Thank you >> Mr. Styers. Um more direct questions for for your testimony. Um, in your capacity as a
site engineer, did you have any um any input on these the sighting of these structures and where they would be located? Was that driven entirely by the client or was it was some of your um engineering expertise involved in that? >> Uh, by the client.
>> By the client. Thank you. Um and additionally in the proposed subdivision, were you involved at all in this in the um you know the lot line uh changes to the subdivision or you brought in after that was done? >> Uh it was pretty much set I mean did
like I think maybe fine-tune the angle point over the over the stream but for the most part it was laid out already as well. >> Okay. And and is there or are you aware of or were you involved in any conversations about potentially utilizing the entirety of the property? >> No.
>> No. Okay. Thank you. Um the I know um Mr. Klein had had discussed a little bit about the coverage and the kind of particulars of the coverage reduction. Um, can you I know 22,000
square feet approximately in in some between the two lots is being um reclaimed from improved lot coverage to um pvious coverage. Do you know what amount of that um is on this particular portion of the lot? So, which I know he
noted that part of it is on the other remaining county lot. No, I don't know specifically what's in the back. I as far as >> I meant like what's on this portion of the of this the proposed lot where the best station is proposed. How much coverage is actually being reduced on the lot?
>> I I don't know specifically what this number is. So I can I can get that number. >> I I think it would be helpful, right? Uh I think it would be helpful. >> I also think that to interrupt you for a moment that it's it's very um helpful
for both you and Mr. inclined to point out that the when you were talking about removing some of the stone material and replanting grass and so on, I don't think the board received a clear picture that you were talking about the the property that is still owned and and
controlled by the county. So, in the future, if you're covering that, it would be helpful to us if you were more clear as to where the reduction in impervious coverage were to take place. And that's just my observation. So >> I did outline this is where the existing
stone is >> right and what I'm saying is that it gets blurred between that which is controlled by the applicant and that land which is controlled by the county. So even though your calculations are impressive, it's misleading to us to
think that oh well that's on the best site not on the county site. I'm not saying you intentionally did it. project subdivision. But >> correct >> on these properties
>> and the applicant is is requesting certain variances for their portion of the property which is to be leased. So, we want to be clear that we understand even though, as you're saying, you're looking at the entire site to be approved as part of the subdivision, it
would be helpful to us if we could be clear as to which part of the property uh was being improved by >> that number for you uh for the next meeting if >> Great. Thank you. >> Also, if I if I could, unless I don't want to interrupt your planner, you have
more questions. >> I do have more questions. >> Yes, sure. I'd like to come back on a point of clarification or two, but go ahead. >> Okay. And maybe this has to do with your question, but it just came up from Mr. >> Mr. Styers. On the cover sheet of the plans, it says the applicant owner is Rocklin APV. Is the county also a
co-licant to this application? >> They have consented to they've they've consented to the application. Well, they've consented if there are there improvements or changes proposed to their site that would require them to be co-licant or or
>> to be co-licant, but they have consented to in to the entire application. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Mr. S, on the colorized plan, it shows where the best units are in the back there. Shows green
underneath them essentially. Is that going to be a grass area? Because on the site plan, it shows something a little bit different than I there's a lot of line work on the plans. Um it show on sheet four of 10. It's
showing a hatched area approximately under half of them showing edge of stone. It's Yeah, it's late. >> Yeah, >> that is the uh inside the the where the best system is.
That's showing where the stone is to be removed. >> Says install 6 in th dense graded aggregate. What does that mean? >> In this inside the the loop. >> Inside the loop. That' be stone inside the uh
inside the loop. loop drive. >> So, is that area considered improved lock coverage that should be included in the calculation and has it been or >> I would say no that it is should not be because it was it would be it's not something that's going to be driven over. So, it'd be almost more like
decorative of stone. So, that >> I believe our ordinance would would require anything that's um anything that's not basically natural to be considered coverage. I can look into that, but I don't know if uh it's always been my understanding
if if it's decorative stone, for example, if it's in say if it was in a garden area, that would not be counted as improved coverage. >> Under whose rule? Is that a D rule? >> No, that would be the township, but we can look into that and clarify it.
>> I think that would be helpful. And if there are any other areas like that um that are proposed to be reclaimed from the existing stone but with new stone on top whether it's decorative or whatever. I think that would be really important. I think right now that the
colorized exhibit is not exactly um >> well we can get that number along with the number that the chairman is looking for. >> Yes, I think that'd be helpful. um on that same sheet or I guess generally because I I'm not following there there
is a fence proposed um and on sheet four it shows proposed 6-in chainlink fence around the middle of the site there and it seems to end >> in the middle of the site >> in the middle of the site >> that that goes down the property line.
>> It goes down the shared property line with Yeah. the proposed property line. >> Right. And then it just past the uh the metering equipment it stops. Right. >> Yes. >> Right. That's the intent between the two properties. >> Is there an openness between the two
properties that there is access between the two? >> Yes. >> So, so there's no fence. There's a fence only around the best only around the metering facility and then it's completely open to the county portion of the property. Correct. Yes.
>> Okay. >> Is there any is there any reason why the site's not proposed to be fenced? >> Uh we contemplated closing it off, but with the ditch in between, we didn't want to put a fence across the ditch >> because you're not allowed or because you didn't want to try to seek those
permits. >> I don't think it would be practical to put a fence across a drainage ditch. >> Okay. >> If I mean, if we could elevate it so that the flow goes underneath, it's a possibility. But the reason that we did not put the fence there is that reason
and that they're self-encclosed on either side of the ditch. >> It looks like there's some access I mean there's existing stone. It looks like there's some access and I'm just bringing this up because the chairman has raised questions about security and the security of the site and I think right now this is another this
potentially is another access point because the county site isn't um you know overly secure I'd say. Um and so it prov it does provide another point of access. So if security is a concern, this would certainly be one weakness of, you know, any kind of security plan.
Um a few things about the EIS that was provided. Um page two does note that this is a permitted use in the zone. So I would just request that that be modified because clearly it's before the zoning board for a use variance. Um,
additionally, page 11 includes um a section on the wetlands and notes that a stream exists on the site as well that flows from east from west to east and collects all the storm runoff from the existing site. Is that
the one and the same with the ditch? >> Yes. And that would need to be updated because that this was prepared before we received the LOI. >> Okay. Okay. And it it also notes this stream will be utilized for the proposed discharge. Is that still still what your testimony was previously that
it will be utilized for discharge? >> Yes. >> Um where does the ditch flow to >> uh it flows to the intersection of East Main and the and Pohemis Lane. There's a
21 inch pipe at that intersection is where it goes from surface flow to a pipe flow. >> So it will go directly from the surface flow to a pipe, not to another body of water or directly to another stream, not to the Cuckles Brook, none of that. >> Cuckles Brook goes actually goes behind
that former restaurant or call it. It actually goes behind there >> and then across the portion of the PSNG. >> Yeah, exactly. So there's no there's no chance that if there is any kind of contamination or runoff or you know battery leakage from the site that it's going to go into directly to another
body of water. >> Not overland. No, >> not overland. Okay. >> Um and if it is flowing if there is any kind of contamination that flows off of um the use for whatever reason, if there is a leak or a fail um what is the consequence if it goes into a storm
water drain into a pipe? Is is there any chance that that goes into has any has any consequence. >> Uh I mean it would flow to the Kok's brook if there was something in in that waterway.
>> It eventually would go to the Cuckles Brook. >> Yes. >> Okay. And if there was, let's say there wasn't anything catastrophic that happened, there was nothing that was detected, is there anything that would um you know raise a question about water contamination? Is there anything that
that would how it would be detected if it was happening slowly over time? >> I can't answer that. >> Okay. Um I think that's that's all I have for Mr. Sty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you very much, Miss Arman. Um what I'd like to do now is open the floor to the public to pose any questions to Mr. Styers about his testimony. So, I know there are a couple members of the public here. If you'd like to step up, introduce yourself, and just make a
comment or ask any questions about his testimony. You're not obligated to, just so you know. Would you come up to the podium, please? We're all friends here. You don't have to be apprehensive. And please tell us your name and
address. Jim Gamco, 744 East Main Street, Bridgewater. Can >> you spell your last name, please? >> Uh, G A M A T K O. >> Thank you. >> Okay, James.
>> And your your address was >> 744 East Main Street. >> And how close are you to the subject property? >> I'm next door neighbor. >> Next door neighbor. >> Yeah. Right next to me is Somerset County. >> Right. And then this property they're talking about on the end down by uh Paul
Hume's Lane and East Main Street. >> Right. >> Very well. >> Yeah. >> So your questions for Mr. Styers or comments on his testimony? >> Excuse me. I think this is only questions at this point. Right. >> It's only questions of his testimony. >> One question that's all. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. It was my main question was about the water that that intersection floods out. Like today it's raining real hard. Yes. >> If you go there with your car, I don't think you're going to be able to get through. Excuse me. Now we're getting into comments from >> I think he's leading into his question.
>> Well, he said I could ask a question, so if they're aware of it, apparently they are. >> Well, I think it's a good question. I think that um the the way in which you posed it, you offered a little additional information, but your question was that in was about the
intersection and it flooding, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And Mr. Styers, you acknowledge that that intersection floods. The question for all of us though is um here's a resident who lives there. How far does it flood? Does it cover all the way to the former Club 21 to go does it
go across Main Street? Does it go in the um easterly direction? And does it continue on Paul Hemis as a as that does that roadway flood? That's I think where we're going. >> Yeah. Well, if you're coming from Boundbrook, you like come like downhill
to the intersection of Paul Humeis and Main Street. The water gets maybe about a foot deep, sometimes a little deeper and it'll stay there for maybe 2, three hours. Then if it stop raining, it'll settle down and the water goes into I
guess that drainage pond. You want to ask him if he's aware of that condition. >> Are you aware with that, Commissioner, sir? >> Yes. I I believe that's consistent to the questions I've asked for like for example the uh person I work for that you that owns Club 21, he did say the
intersection floods, but he said that the the buildings did not get water in them. So >> well I didn't say the buildings >> what he was saying is that one foot deep that makes sense. >> Okay. >> Yeah, because it's like a hole right there main street. >> Okay. Did you have additional questions
for Mr. Styers? >> No, that's I'm good now. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Styers. On the basis of that question though, I understand what you're saying that it's consistent with what you anecdotally interviewed people in the area and got an got some indication as to what that
is. My question is does it continue on PESUS in a way that would impact your site? >> No, because PES goes up up gradient as well. >> But I mean either way, we're talking real life conditions. Yeah.
the the DP regulations way. So we have mapped what the DP requires, >> right? >> So as you as you can see >> if you continue up Pis is the the limit of the line right here, it continues to
go uphill. Eventually you get to the top of the hill and then you come down the hill towards the sewage authority. >> Yes. >> If you make a left, you go down towards the the water u >> water treatment. Yeah. Okay. >> You're It continues to great until you
cross the railroad tracks. It >> and I appreciate that. It does appear though to my eye and we'll get some additional insight perhaps as you as we continue that you're like really threading the needle there. There's not
a lot of margin for error. Is that true? I think if you look at a plan view, it seems like there's not much margin, but you also have to realize that the grade slopes up, >> right? >> There there's essentially like a a hill right here,
>> where the best system is. >> Yes. >> Okay. I appreciate it. >> It does look expansive, right? >> Take that into account, too. >> Thank you. Um, board professionals, additional questions. We're good. Public is good.
>> May I ask a question? >> So, we can conclude. Oh, I'm sorry, >> M. Mr. Chairman. >> Go ahead. >> Do we know if the runoff from these two lots uh contribute to the flooding at the intersection of Main Street and Pole
Hemis, or does it go into that 21in pipe before that? I think anything that drains to that area technically would contribute to the flooding, but you have to keep in mind the Klesbrook >> comes all the way from Route 22. >> Yeah, we can
>> goes all the way through the the apartments uh you know all the again all the way up to Route 22. So, relatively speaking, this has very very little to do with it compared to the Koksbrook. And is what we're doing on
the site does that in any way increase contribution to >> uh No, we're actually again, you know, I I made the mistake of the 30,000 is 22,000 square feet, but we're still reducing the coverage which is improving the condition.
>> Please, >> forgive me if this is part of your fire testimony, but on that site if you had to have a fire truck on the site where they go
fight number one. And then Craig, number two, if they're fighting it with foam, where is the your question? Where is the foam going? >> Yeah, I think the questions about foam that that first of all, that presupposes there's use of foam. We we really have
to defer that to our our fire expert >> assumption. >> Yeah. But I wouldn't I wouldn't assume I really don't think it's right to assume that. Okay. >> Do you think fire >> the fire truck to get access to the hydrant? You can point that out. Correct. >> Yes. So and Leonard will give you the
testimony substantiating but the process or the thought process on our side is that to to stay 200 feet from the facility. That line is approximate from the best facility is approximately in this
location which is just before the metering. Uh we have put a hydrant at that 200 foot point. So a fire truck would in stay state stay off of East Main Street stage next to that proposed
hydrant and if any water M Mr. Chairman, I >> I think it might be prudent to potentially have the uh civil engineer >> come back after we hear the fire testimony because there might be new information that is provided to us.
>> I think that's reasonable. Mr. Pantel, do you agree that once we heard your fire experts testimony that if Mr. Styers is required to provide additional insight um as to the site engineering to accommodate some of his things that we can have him come back? >> Of course.
>> Okay. Very well. Then with that, are are we done with Mr. Styrers this evening or do you have something else? >> Sorry, I just have >> Oh, Miss Sarmat has a couple of questions. >> Mr. Klein might too. So, not >> Okay. >> Myself. Um just to make the you know I think Mr.
Styers has provided a little bit of anecdotal knowledge right about particularly about the flooding so I just want to make it more complete so I can understand it better. Mr. Styers you referenced the former restaurant kind of kitty corner to this property um a few
times which is your client. How long has your client owned that property? Uh, I believe it was four to five years. >> Okay. And um are those are those buildings currently um inhabited?
>> Uh to my knowledge, no. >> Okay. Thank you. Um one other question and I I apologize for not bringing this up earlier. The um the fencing that is proposed is internal to the site. There is an existing fence around the perimeter of the county facility. Is
that per perimeter fence proposed to remain in place? >> I think during the process and the discussions going forward is that that fence would come down and we would put up the new fence that would uh again mimic the uh the PSE and G fencing.
>> Okay. Because right now I think they have a fence with some sort of like screen inlay, right? It's got a green. >> It's almost like a panel system. >> A yes, it has like some sort of paneling. It's not interwoven or anything, but um I just wanted to make sure that that's understood as well
because right now it goes around the entire perimeter and that would be, you know, changed >> and we we would love the opportunity to revisit that fencing simply because what exists today is an eyesore at best. Um maybe dangerous. I'm not even sure. But
that's something we would like to revisit. >> Mr. Klein, did you have something you want to add? >> And I just one more. >> No, go ahead. In line with that, it's my last one, I promise. The um I think the landscaping plan was was brought up earlier. I think Mr. Styrus has answered that some of the constraints on the
property uh make it difficult because of wetlands and whatnot to do plantings. But I would say that um right now the the current landscaping plan leaves a lot to be desired, you know, considering and I think I raised it in my review. I think any kind of embellishment to the
landscape plan that helps visually screen the site um and and provide, you know, an improvement to the conditions there are today would be welcome. >> I think it's fair, Mr. Pantel, to ask if your client would agree to any additional improvements to the
landscaping plan as a conditional of approval if it should come to that. >> Yeah, I was taking careful notes in response to that last comment from your planner. So, yes, obviously, we'll take that under advisement for sure. >> Thank you. I'm sorry. So, Mr. Klein, did you have a question?
>> Yes. And I I feel better than Miss Sarmad also had a recross. So, I feel better. >> That's right. Go right ahead. >> Um, we had talked about uh storm water and major development uh quantity quality recharge. Um, didn't have any problem with uh his stance on those, but
also with major development, there's also requirement for green infrastructure. Um, I did speak briefly with Mr. styr about that during the break. Uh that that will be required. Um I just basically wanted to put it formally on it's in it's in the report. >> Yes. >> Um and there was also we had a brief
discussion. When I did a site visit, I found a a flag and what looked like utility markout in the stone area. Uh I took pictures of and it's in my report. Uh I was clarifying that with Mr. Styers that they need to I don't believe that
they've investigated that thus far. But they should and I assume they will. >> Yeah. I misunderstood his statement. I thought it was a mark out for what where the system is going to be. >> Yes. >> And it's Trinity, right? >> Yeah. It's Trinity Trinity.
>> Standing. So >> Trinity Subsurface LLC is the name on the flag that had a paint stripe under the flag that's in the stone right now or well several months ago. >> Utility we have to look at. So you but between the two of you should be able to resolve that and report to the board as
to what's there and what needs to be done. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Fair enough. Um I think that's I think I'm done sir. Thank you. >> One followup >> please. >> Question.
Miss Sarmad did ask Mr. Styers about whether or not he had input into the sighting of the best facility and the overall subdivision configuration and generally he had did did not other than some refinements to the subdivision
line. But notwithstanding that my question for you uh is delay does the layout that was proposed and is now on your plans a viable layout for this use on this site? >> I believe so. Yeah, I mean it's it's
it's a low low volume, I guess you could say, u usage, so doesn't need much area to to work properly. >> And your engineering that you've that you've implemented for this for the
project is consistent with sound engineering practice to accommodate this proposed use on the site from a civil engineering perspective. Correct. >> Yes. >> Great. Thank you. I'm sorry, we were just having a sidebar conversation, but I appreciate your
statement as well. And the the objective obviously that we have in mind is to create um a degree of safety in this project and we're trying to learn as much as we can both from an engineering perspective. Uh we've heard how the the
facilities will operate from the um representative Trina Solar. Uh do you want to move into transition into your fire safety testimony? >> Yes, we can do that. >> Let's do that. >> What is your uh policy and practice on t
overall timing for this evening? >> The microphone is eluding me there. So if you can get a little closer to it. >> Yeah. Uh what's your practice or policy on timing for this? >> Uh well, we're not going to be able to get through a lot, but we can um
>> Mr. Wley 10:00. >> 10 o'clock. That's our goal. >> That's your goal. Understood. Okay. No problem. >> And we don't want to cut him off mid-sentence, but >> of course. >> Okay. So, I'd like to have uh Mr. >> Sir, would you stand and 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 swear. >> And your full name, please. >> My name is Leonard Ganesh Dhonorin. >> Thank you.
>> Certainly. D E O N A R I N E. >> Thank you. Uh so could you please describe for the board the nature of your qualifications and experience and your involvement in this project and
with reference uh to your resume if you would please and we'll like to mark uh Mr. Dhonarin's resume as exhibit A6 with today's date and then after his testimony I'll provide that to you.
>> Is his resume in the response plan? I don't think so. Right. No. >> Okay. Okay. >> Well, good evening. Uh, my summary of my qualifications I can give you very quickly, then I'll go into greater detail. I'm a firefighter. Been a
firefighter. Took my first oath of office in 1974. I've uh been a fireman in large departments and small departments. Small departments being eight active people. large departments being career outside of Washington DC with 1500 men and women
as firefighters. I've been in the fire responsibility as a volunteer career person, sometimes both at the same time. Uh many years, firefighter, EMT officer over the station all the way up to deputy chief over training and
operations and career department. Uh so a lot of experience in going to fires, specialized in industrial firefighting for about 10 years doing refineries and terminals and ports and rail cars and pipelines and uh now even do some of
that internationally which I'll cover in a minute but a lot of experience in active firefighting. Uh my background currently I work full-time for organization known as Jensen Hughes. It's a private corporation. Uh, and basically it's the world's largest fire
protection engineering firm. It the closest thing to us is about 17th our size. We have 1,800 scientists and professional engineers basically serving in 100 offices around the world. within that organization. I'm a senior director
of emergency management and uh my office is in Chicago, but I live in Fort Worth, Texas and basically work out of my home and travel. Uh from a training standpoint, uh numerous years of training and providing training to firefighters to prepare them for what
they do. Uh firefighting is my calling, not my occupation, not my advocation. It's it's truly what I live and breathe every day. very concerned about the protection of firefighters. From an educational standpoint, I have an associates degree in fire protection.
I have a bachelor's in fire protection from the University of Maryland. I have a master's in emergency and disaster management for the American Military University. I served for about six and a half years in Texas in the Texas State Guard responding to disasters at the
direction of uh Governor Perry now Governor Abbott for a while and also serve as a adviser to the state of Texas on disaster management. I do carry a certification a certified emergency manager. It's an international certification and I do work
internationally. That's my CM certification. I also am a certified uh in there's an organization called the board of professional certified engineers. They certified me in instruction and in health and safety. Uh and I was in the military. I achieved
the master level in emergency management while in the military. Uh served as an NCO uh staff sergeant. Uh, one of the things I also want to point out for about 11 years I was a director of emergency management for a
healthc care corporation in which uh, about nine different states, 72 hospitals, 300 other buildings. I supervised disaster management on a large scale for them because I think one of the things that'll come up tonight potentially is about protecting a
hospital and its air intakes and such. So tremendous amount of uh fire department experience and what I bring to you today in training and education and experience is a passion for emergency response. And my involvement
here initially with this organization was to come in and prepare a plan for emergency responders going to this specific site. And that phrase this specific site is what's unique. I've done emergency plans for a number of
data centers and for other battery energy storage systems throughout the country. Uh I have a Fortune 100 companies to retain me to do plans they'll use for 72 different sites. So a lot of impact uh in this area, a lot of interest across the country in doing
this well and of course from my perspective doing it so the operators and emergency responders are protected. Uh with that I'll ask are those qualifications adequate? Did I miss anything? >> I think that's good. So, we would ask that Mr. Donarin's qualifications be
accepted and that his testimony be admitted as expert testimony in the field of uh fire safety, firefighting, including, of course, specifically industrial situations encompassing the proposed best facility that's before you this evening. Well, first let me thank
you for your service as a firefighter and someone who has a passion for it and for keeping people safe. And to answer your question, yes, we accept his qualifications as an expert in this field. >> Thank you. I'll I'll provide his resume to Miss Propes.
So, could you please proceed to describe uh for the board an overview of the proposed facilities and your conclusions as you go through the process? Um, I know we want to touch on your emergency management plan, but before you get to that, could you give an overview uh to
the board? >> Certainly. So, this particular site and its emergency planning process is designed to meet certain specific regulations. In New Jersey, we have New Jerseyy's edition of the International
Fire Code and the New Jersey version of the International Building Code. In addition, the National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, has published standards. They're non required standards have to be adopted by local companies, local organizations such as
yourself has communities have to adopt it. But they wrote a standard called NFPA 855 which addresses uh all the features for such battery energy storage sites and how to be done safely. So, as we looked at what to do here to make
sure it's done right and done safely, we took in those building codes, fire codes, and even consensus standard codes. And as we looked at the equipment specifically that was given in testimony for Joe Brown, he took his equipment and
subjected it to Underwriter Laboratories UL standards. I believe it's uh 9540 and received a certification of the equipment under 9540A. The equipment is certified. So it's it's gone through a safety standard and
safety testing. I'll talk about that a little bit. It's not the strength of my expertise is how these things were tested, but they were torture tested equipment. So once again, specifically to this site, which will be different if I go next week to testify for another board, I'll speak just about that
equipment, its testing, and its performance under stress. Would you like >> Well, you're while you're on that that reference point to the specific site and the specific equipment and the testing, you mentioned that it was tested um and
received a rating of some kind. I think you mentioned a UL rating. The testing was done here in the United States or in China. I'm not sure where it was done and which agency then would issue such a rating or standard for it to adhere to.
>> So I'm not able to give you sworn testimony regarding where they conducted the tests. I know it meets that standard and was certified under UL underwriters laboratories. And is the UL then a an agent a certifying agency that's domestic a domestic agency here in the
US? >> That's my understanding. I can look over my shoulder and look for a nod from someone in the audience if that will be acceptable. >> You can do that. Sure. >> Yes. >> And and the value of that UL rating
on which we might be relying. How would you describe that in layman's terms? a little bit beyond my scope of practice, but almost everything in my house, my toaster, my coffee maker, everything I have is UL labeled on the
court itself. To mean is going through testing standards for that particular piece of equipment, the microwave, etc. And here what we're seeing is on an incredibly expensive testing system, this equipment has been tested and meets the UL standard. That's but all I can say. I can't >> That's right.
>> more than that. It's been around for decades. As far as setting the standard, >> there are standards. Obviously, those standards differ from your toaster toaster to your coffee maker to something as advanced as a battery energy storage system using brand new
technology. So, we still have uh yet to really grasp the the magnitude of that um rating other than that they observed or evaluated the results of the testing and it met their standards. >> Yeah. So,
We do have uh copies of the of the applicable UL certifications that have been uh obtained and we can provide those. >> And I'm looking for something a little more from your expert. >> Yes. We solar we had Trina Solar compile
those for us >> and we can provide them to you. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, yes. And it is more than just your toaster. >> Exactly. >> So, please continue. So, one of the uh standards we used here
was the NFPA 855 standard for such specifically written for this type of installation where we're going to get the energy pulled back out to reduce energy costs and give it reliability even during storm situations where that battery will continue to power up things
when the substation goes offline because of a storm. So, we've seen that and 855 is one of those key standards from the National Fire Protection Association. For me personally, I looked to the NFPA as being one of those knowledge sources which is a compliance uh consensus
standard. It gets voted on, it gets reviewed. I like it very much. So, in the writing of the emergency plan to protect the firefighters, protect the public, I look to 855 to gain ideas and standards and recommendations. And then you'll see as I go forward that we went
beyond that and we took and installed greater distances for protection, greater advice for the firefighters. And I'm going to have a chance to talk to you about the suppression tactics for such a fire. We'll get there.
Features about this particular site I know is still in discussion as far as fences and gates. I will tell you for access to the facility there's going to be gates. the gates will be locked. What we typically use in the fire service is
a type of vault to put in keys. We call made a company called Knox just like Fort Knox would be. And inside we put the keys so in case there's an emergency like a medical crisis inside the fenced area when the fire department or ambulance responds they can unlock that
vault, get out the keys and gain access. So it'll be gated. >> That was commonly referred to as a Knox box. >> Yes. And that's a trade name. Uh there are many different vault types in this one and this plan we put in the Knox box and that's what they'll be providing. And those gates are are nice and wide
for ambulance traffic to get in. As far as suppression, this is where it gets interesting. Everyone's worried about a fire involving lithium-ion batteries, and they should be worried. I'm not worried
about the uh devices I put in my ears has lithium-ion batteries in that. It's the AirPods. I'm not worried about my cell phone has lithium-ion batteries in there. I'm not worried about my drill at home has lithium ion batteries in it. My lawn mower is a lithium ion battery
powered lawn mower. But I'm not worried about that because the instance is low and the consequences. I need to be concerned and protect myself. don't sleep with the lithium ion battery underneath my pillow where my phone is. I take precautions. This situation with
these batteries is rather unique when it comes to suppression because it's monitored. The battery is being monitored remotely. They know is it performing, not performing, is it charging, is it discharging? What's the percent of the charge on the battery right now? And they're tracking what's
going on. Is it hot inside the containment? Uh the vessel contained looks like the back of a tractor trailer to me. Is it getting hot in there? They have an air conditioner they put in. They're using a glycol water mixture. It's like I used to put in my radiator
in my car as a as a medium for absorbing the heat. So far as suppression, the opportunity for a fire is low, but has to be respected. I will tell you that they took at least one of these tiny batteries that makes up the module,
makes up the the set, and they exposed it to temperatures that were extreme to see if we couldn't get it into what we call thermal runaway, which means for lithium ion batteries, and they're using a particular chemistry that's different from what I've seen before. It's a lithium ion phosphate base, and they
expose that little battery to temperatures 243 degrees C. I put in my notes that's 469 degrees Fahrenheit. My rough calculations. So that little cell and a
wraparound heater was put on it and exposed it to that much temperature and they got it to go in the thermal runaway where it drives its own heat d its own smoke but it would not flame. Then they took it and put in a cluster of batteries and they exposed those heat to that cluster to the module. They took
that up to 500 degrees Celsius, 932 degrees Fahrenheit. By some calculation, they got some of the cells right next to it to also overheat, but no flame, no propagation throughout it. And I was
truly amazed at h how did you do that? Why don't I see that all the time when I study the battery chemistry? Turns out these people that Trina that designed this put in an absorbent layer, a thermal absorbent layer inside the equipment. I said, "Well, that's that's
very, very smart. That's what I would want if I was going to be right next to this facility. If I'm going to live nearby, I want to make sure each and every module absorbs heat and does not propagate, does not make the flame go bigger and bigger and further and further. We get this chain reaction. We don't want that. Want that at all." So
the fire testing was extreme to get the UL listing. They even took an entire container once again got into the process as best they could to overheat the entire container, get it to burn. Really unusual circumstances for the entire container and they couldn't get the next
container to catch fire. the the one of the questions and you had made reference to it briefly has to do with thermal runaway and thermal runaway before we see any flames creates a a mixture if you will of noxious gases
that I wouldn't want to be exposed to nor would I want anyone exposed to not a firefighter not a resident not someone who lives within 200 feet of the property so I'm concerned about that and you can do all the testing that you'd like to make flame. But what do we do
about that? >> Excellent question. You're you're taking me in in the direction I want to go in. So I pulled the studies from Mr. Brown's company from Trina Storage and they asked them, "When you were doing all these different tests, what's coming off? What are we generating?" And they
gave me a list of gases top to bottom. What's the most prevalent ones? The top three were carbon monoxide, toxic. Got to be very very careful with that with generators in the home, with fireplaces in the home, anything with open flame, carbon dioxide, uh carbon dioxide, which
exhale. And then hydrogen, uh simple elemental hydrogen. It's a lighter than air gas. Uh we expect that to dissipate very quickly. I asked Trina, "How close can I be unprotected to one of your containers?" Just in a casual sidebar
conversation, they said, "Don't be any closer than 50 feet." Okay, 50 feet. We had two PhD scientists within our organization at Jensen Hughes do me an exact plume study. It was paid for by the client.
How far do the gases go? And they said, "Well, we'll take a a reading from projected reading using computerized modeling from zero feet up to 10 feet in the air." And they said 61 feet was a result they came back. If you're within 61 feet of that container, it's burning.
Worst case scenario, then you're going to be exposed to what be unhealthy levels of off gas. Now the national >> and before it before it goes into flame, we've got gases coming out. >> Gas is coming out. No flame yet. The
worst case scenario, uh 61 ft is what they came up with. And I believe that report will be made available. Am I right on that? >> Okay. So >> part of part of my concern and I know you'll have some more information to share with us. The testing that your
firm has done was paid for by the client and we know that a lot of research today is paid for by clients who are seeking a particular outcome. So, we're I'm questioning the integrity of the research being done based on who's
paying for it and what the endgame is. So, I'm as a firefighter, as a professional, I'm asking you, why should I believe it? >> Well, first and foremost, because it's published and as it's submitted to you becomes part of the public record. What
we're doing is we're putting the entire Jensen Hughes Fire Protection Organization, the largest in the world, on the line. The reputation is there. The professional engineer that wrote this has a PhD. When he was done writing and developing it, he sent it out to another PhD to verify the information
based on the data we have. It's computer modeling, not actual fire testing. Fire testing was done by Trina. We're taking that information and saying how far does it go, how bad, how toxic would it be? And that's where we're getting it from. So everything is based on other bits of
data but uh the integrity of the entire organization the largest fire protection organization in the world says this is the approximate area where from 0 to 10 feet you'll be exposed to levels of gas which will be unhealthy and they
actually describe that in the report >> but you're still relying on data that you obtained from Trina. >> Yes, that is correct. we can't do uh the independent studies they have done at the level they have done which is incredible. I will say that the NFPA in
their standard excuse me uh >> you don't know what that is but continue >> it's a bug. So in the 855 standard it says 75 ft. What we put in the emergency plan was
200 feet. You hear them refer to that over and over. Why 200 feet? Because that too is a recommended distance for evacuation of the general public. They should not be within 200 feet of that. We said, "Well, if the general public should be back 200 feet, I want my firefighters back 200 feet." Now, if
they want to go closer, be my guest. But I want you wearing full protective gear top to bottom and self-contained breathing apparatus. That's positive pressure because we're going to treat them like anybody else as far as their lungs or their opportunity exposed to these gases. Now, some of these gases
are lighter than air. They're not going to travel very far as far as impinging at 200 feet or being a concern at all, but we're still going to protect them. I will admit that one product, hydrogen, that will be given off is a gas that can be ignited.
Hydrogen, we even some cases are powering up buses and other tools, other vehicles with hydrogen gas is a flammable gas. However, they engineered into a system, a detection system within the container units. They put in heat sensors, smoke
sensors, and gas sensors. And when those things get activated, what happens is they turn on exhaust fans. So what we're trying to do is make sure we don't get enough gas collected to have any kind of issue. In other reports I study about fires that occur in best containers. I'm
seeing a buildup of unburned gases and then an ignition. Here the engineering is such that they're looking for that. So as time went on, they got better and better and better. They engineered some of that concern and reduced it. So, I'm very impressed with the engineering on this.
>> You had mentioned that you wouldn't want a firefighter within 200 ft of this and if they were, they'd have to be suited up appropriately and so on. We have people here who live within 200 feet. They're supposed to suit up when there's a problem.
>> Well, what happens? Well, we looked at the distances and I put it in an emergency plan as far as who's close by and we found no homes within 200 feet were probably and I could actually pull the manual and look some of the distance
were more like 650 ft from the best site >> from the actual best facility. >> Yes. >> Right. Not from the subject property but from the best facility itself. >> Right. which I'm sure was uh cited where it is so that you can meet that uh standard.
>> Yeah. The greater the >> we have a we have a standard to protect the safety of our citizens and we're looking at this site specifically as you are and asking ourselves is it safe for
them? Is it safe for a community in an area where we have infrastructure uh that we all in the entire county rely on? and just as and we will ask you to continue and give us some asurances.
Um, but we we look at this site as particularly questionable as to whether it should be evaluated as a potential use for this. That's where that's where I'm at. I'm not sure I won't speak for the other board members. They're entitled to their
opinions, but I know that if you can provide some additional insight into that, that would be helpful to us. Thank you very much. Distances and I looked at the PA stand coming off of this. Same thing I would recommend to them when it comes to
fighting a structure fire should not even get a whiff of the smoke. Now that's good for you and we more and more and more cutting that out completely 200 feet. What it would like to do is transition into strategy and tactics for firefighting. Is that acceptable? May I
trans? >> Yes, please. >> I I have one question. Um the the battery technology that you assessed here that was the lithium iron phosphate. >> That's correct. lithium phosphate as they have constructed their units
>> and how they put them together and the case they put them in all that was considered. >> Okay. And then should I be looking at other BESS systems with lithium iron phosphate to be sort of comparable systems and their real world application?
>> Yes. And that you made an excellent point. You're stealing some of my information. I've looked at other best fires because it's always I said, "Okay, now what was the chemistry of that particular battery? How was that module installed? Tell me about the
building. For example, we had firefighters that were injured in Surprise, Arizona." Horren want that. What happened? That type of facility was you could walk into and the battery units were inside a building you could actually physically fit into. The
batteries overheated. They were generating uh smoke containing the hydrogen gas. They waited. They opened the door. It provided oxygen to situation and the gas ignited and
they were injured. These containers we're looking at, as I said, there's no space for you. So, if I was saying your lithium ion battery in your laptop computer was catching fire, you can't put your hand inside your laptop computer. There's no space. It's all
wires. It's fans. It's cooling systems. It's electronic reporting and monitoring systems. It's batteries modules themselves. There's no space for a person to fit in there. And if any smoke >> they get to those issues secondarily.
The fact is they want these batteries to make money. They want these batteries to take in power when it's cheap, put it out when it's more expensive, we have a peak demand. What I'm seeing here is they're tracking each and every battery how it's performing. If it's not performing, if it's overheating or it's
just not taking charge or some issue, >> they don't want that in their system. They're going to pull it out. >> These things have a really good life expectancy. So, the next maintenance cycle be turned off remotely. They can come out, pull that good in there even before it goes bad. I will tell you with all the electronics I have and all the
batteries I have, I put it on the charger, I walk away. I don't think about monitoring remotely. I don't think about testing the air above the charger for my lawn mower battery. This is what's going on here. So, I find it be
very comforting, but we still need to be over protective as far as the procedures for emergency response. >> Did that satisfy? >> It does. Are you familiar with the Warwick fire in New York?
>> I am not familiar off top of my head with the Warwick fire in New York, but I'm going to look to my notes. >> Yeah, though, as I said, we've submitted a report addressing the Arizona fire. There were a few others raised in the environmental commission report. We're
preparing a separate study on those that we will be providing to the board and to which Mr. Donarin will be testifying. >> Okay. So, I bring that up because that was a lithium iron phosphate system. >> Yeah. >> And we just a note for our time
schedule. >> We wanted to accommodate your witness. Um, and we appreciate your testimony. >> I would want to set a time limit here of 10:15. So, if we could go to that, you may have to come back, but it seems to me you're clocking the frequent flyer
miles trying to get on the docket as it is. So, if you don't mind, we'd appreciate that. Could I ask a question, >> please? >> Would you be comfortable having your mother's mother at a uh
senior citizens facility that's about a quarter mile away if this were to go into catch fire or to take your kid to a baseball game at a minor league park a little further down the road? Personally
speaking, answer is yes. It's a it's a big hypothetical. So, I'm the father and stepfather of seven and grandfather to 10. And I would tell you that I don't have any major issues with visiting some of the nearby facilities here. There's like active disposal down to the south.
So, if we were going to take a tour of that or the Somerset County facility and there was an incident there, we might watch and I'd recommend, you know, there's nothing to see here. But I'll probably be more worried about the ball game example of I have one or more
uh electric vehicles on fire in the parking lot where I'm I wind up being close and they are exhausting a lot of uh toxic gases, a lot of high heat and such. And as we look at other lithium ion battery situations which do not
equate to this particular situation, we've had car fires at I think a parking garage for an airport in Florida in which it just took off and they lost most of the parking garage. A lot of cars were burned up because of the amount of heat coming off of the
automobile lithium ion batteries which don't get all the protective measures, aren't protected from impact, aren't protected from being overcharged. in the Warwick example. I know we'll probably get into that in future testimony. I would let you know that that was part of
that is caused by water intrusion. And here we've been talking about elevation. We've been talking about drainage. And the Trina once again, they put legs on the containers. The containers don't sit on the ground. They actually have a like a pipe type of leg underneath of them
once again to prevent water intrusion. And the containers are watertight just like you'd have a tractor trailer going down the road. it rains, we not worry about the contents of the tractor trailer getting wet. >> Water happens to you on the air conditioning heating system. What happens to the battery?
>> Well, everything gets shut down. Yeah, there's a a water sensor been built in here. As we tore at this to look for problems, uh we kept finding that the engineer had gotten ahead of us in the design of the equipment. Now, we'll keep poking, keep looking, but I want more
systems that are overengineered to be used in general. I look back to a lot of the different situations and see engineering problems. Now, we've advanced. Even the New Jersey code is more advanced in the codes that were used at Surprise Arizona in which we're
six, eight years more now more advanced and we're getting tighter and tighter and different states have also very tight regulations. So, I digress to talk about regulations, regulation development. I'm going to touch on firefighting and then we probably run out of time. So,
here's my advice to the firefighters. Arrive on scene, open the gate, hook up to the hydrant, get a lawn chair. That last part was very important. I'm I'm sorry for being a little bit flippant. The batteries are designed to
burn out. It's going to get hot. It's going to overheat. the fans will come on. They even have a a built-in suppression system. If it wasn't the battery, let's say it was a fan or fan motor or some other piece of wiring and it burned. They put inside the container a aerosol firefighting system called
Statex. It's uh non-toxic. It's very very effective for putting out fires. That system will fire off and any kind of wiring fire is taken care of. Remotely. They will see there's a problem and they'll turn off that unit.
So, why would I want firefighters to get up close? Because getting close does not fix the problem. Spraying water on the container, which is an insulated container, will not cool down the batteries. Spraying water in the air on adjacent containers in the full scale
fires that they built and purposely overheated. When they burned one container, not enough heat generated to set off another container. Flowing water will just give us an erosion problem. So, I'm telling them in their plan, do not fight the fire. Show up. Make sure people are back. Like I
said, get your lawn chair out. Do not be flowing water. Now, I agree in firefighting foams. Have a lot of experience with that from industrial firefighting in chemical plants and refineries. I was responsible for 38,000 gallons of foam concentrate. And we mix
it at about a 3% concentration with water. Great for flaming liquid fires. For these fires, that water will never touch the battery because it's inside a watertight container. So, the spraying is mainly for public appearances, but you should not be making strategic and
tactical decisions based on what it looks like. It looks like we're doing something. They shouldn't be doing that. They should maintain their safe distance. The number one response to that site will probably be something where a slip, trip, and fall, stung by a bee, something like that. Worst case
would be a brush fire or grass fire. But I as I hear the civil engineer talk about they're getting rid of the grass being up against these things. They have crushed stone underneath. It's really taking away a lot of my concern for what could go wrong, what could happen. Uh in
respect of time, I'll I'll take whatever questions you may have. >> Sure. All of our firefighters in Bridgewater Township are volunteers. Uh so there are no paid professional firefighters when you go beyond the scope of
Bridgewater because there's cooperative agreements among the fire departments to support each other. I'm sure you're familiar with that. They're also all volunteers and all volunteer fires departments are there to serve the public. They want to protect the public
to the best of their abilities and we're asking them and they volunteer to run in or toward the fire as we learned in incidents like 9/11 while everyone's running away. Um so when we ask them to
come and you're telling them to sit back that's their natural their natural inclination is not to do that. So the question becomes then who's responsible for a training them b the expense for
training them and then c for ensuring that they behave appropriately to that training. >> You're exactly right on the aggressive must do something must extinguish attitude of firefighters and that that's a blessing really fantastic. We need
that during structure fires or any fires where there's occupants inside and they're going to take great risk. I would ask them be risk evaluators to begin with. What they paid for is for me to study the situation and write them a book and then share that book with them.
And then I've already met with a group of fire officials that had lots of concerns and I sat down and said, "Okay, I hear your concerns. Let me show you what I recommend you do." I know that from interviewing Mr. Brown who's sitting back there that they provide training prior to commissioning of the
equipment. Basically, if you wanted to put a stipulation, it's your right and privilege for training to occur before that you want a mandate. Great. Or annual, great. Love that because there's turnover in the fire department. But I
agree with you, training is essential for the protection of the firefighters. We need to make the manual available to them, which they've had for over a year now. We need to have on-site training and repetitive training to make sure we protect them. I would also point out there's a substation just off the edge
of Bohemoth Lane right there. If they ask me, "What do I do with that?" I would say, "Got your lawn chair. Do not flow water on the substation. Do not flow water on the high energy power lines. Do not flow water. That will burn out. Let them kill the power. Let cool down the transformer go out. Do not
attempt to fight a transformer fire." I'm off topic, but I think some of the training aggressive tactics and sometimes we have to use really the logic part of our brain and say this is one of those situations where we protect we stand back protecting even our fellow fire
>> and I I appreciate that view I will say as well that with respect to two things you mentioned one was the meeting that you had with some of the fire officials that's been a sore topic for us because we none of our board professionals were privy to that meeting so some of our
questions may be those questions that you had asked and answered previously, but we want to make sure that we have the benefit of that conversation and that's why we may pose some of those questions. The the second thing is that with respect to the substation which is
right across the way and will be a point of discussion in the future, we are dealing with a public utility there that has a much higher degree of regulation imposed on them and a whole host of government agencies that they need to
respond to which will not be true in this situation and they are providing us a higher level of security as a result. Um, but with that, we're just about at the end of our a loted time this evening, so I'm going to pause um and
look for some additional time for us to meet. Miss Propes, any ideas? >> I'm sorry. You said September, >> October. I see. And October 27th is would be next available.
>> October 27th. >> So is is uh anything else scheduled for that evening right now? >> Not right now. No. >> My best guess is we need a whole night for him and and honestly maybe two. Um
just anticipating the questions that are coming at you. So, we should do our best to try and keep it for the whole night. I know we tried to do that this time. Sometimes things happen and you know that we had to fit that in. It was half
an hour, but we stayed an extra 20some minutes and so we kind of made it up to you. So, >> right. So, maybe we could just try and mark that to keep that for the whole night. >> Right now, they are the only application. >> Yeah. um is really up to the board and
their discretion as we have applications that continue for the next few months. So I we will leave it open as best we can, right? So that they are the only applicant. If anyone else makes that request, it's up really to the board, the chairman >> to determine if they want to allow them to split the night. Get this request all
the time. Right. >> Right. I know. >> We will we will try and keep it. >> Yep. >> We can get through it. We will. >> Okay. So um for purposes of the public, this meeting is concluding now. It will continue on October 27th at 7 p.m. in
this room and there'll be no further notices from the applicant. >> Okay. >> Okay. Let me >> always check with Nancy though. >> Okay. >> Any housekeeping matters? We all set. >> Just would like to ask Mr. Pantel if he
would extend time to October 31st on the record so we don't have >> just let me just check that October 27th date for a moment please. Sure. >> We're good. Sorry, we should have checked with you.
>> Okay. One thing I do want to add is that that meeting that Mr. Donarin alluded to, attendees did actually include Bridgewwater's deputy fire official Xavier Alvarado, your director of
municipal services Tom Goenova, the Finder and Assistant Fire Chief Tom Rousetta, as well as um Somerville representatives. >> Yeah. And I know your letter Glenn said that >> run around uh anybody and it was arranged through your office of the
zoning board with invitations to Mr. Scalera as >> Yeah. And I know your letter indicated that Maria did it through the zoning office, but I understand she's Mr. Scalera's secretary and it was really set up through his office, not so much
through through the land use department. >> Nonetheless, we have him here. We're going to go through all those questions, memos, reports, and you're going to have the sec the meeting a second time. Okay. >> No problem. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Then can I have a motion to adjourn? >> Chairman, if I could just >> No, please go ahead. journ um any resubmissions you barring the 10day statutory requirements for something
like this where we want to give everyone adequate time to review. Can we ask um or we would ask that every anything that's being submitted for review would need to be on file at least three weeks prior to hearing?
>> We can't require it, but we're requesting it. Understood. >> All right. And and a transcript. >> Uh yeah, we've been providing the transcripts. >> Yeah. Did we get one from the last hearing? Do we have >> Yes, we did provide one, I believe. So, yeah.
>> Okay. Can you send it to me because I only have the first one? >> Yeah, we'll get another one from this meeting. >> Okay. >> Not a problem. >> So, we're >> You don't have it either. >> Oh, not Okay. All right. So, together we have the whole thing.
>> Exactly. But we're going to journ till October 27th with no further notice. >> No further notice in this location. >> I Yes. The announcement's been made. You then verified you're available so I didn't have to do it again. So yes. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Good. >> We'll take a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> And motion is carried. Tell me about