Tuesday, May 13, 2025. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, NJSA:4-6. Specifically on January 15, 2025, proper notice was sent to the Courier News in the Star Ledger and filed with the clerk at the Township of
Bridgewater and posted in the Municipal Bulletin board. Please be aware of the zoning board 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. If you're able, please rise for the salute to the flag. To the flag of United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Good evening. If we can have a roll call, please. Mr. Widow. Uh, here. Mr. Sweeney.
Mr. Amin. M. Sorry, Mr. Fresco. Here, Mr. Bouro. Mr. Gi, Mr. SecCat, Mr. Kulach here,
uh, Mr. Vesio here, Mr. Gabbit here, and Chairman Fouse here. Oh, and also I should Mr. uh Aller I'm here, Mrs.
Samard and Mr. Bur here. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. We're going to open up the meeting to members of the public that would like to speak on any land use issue which is not on our agenda tonight. You can come on forward and use the microphone. Seeing none, I'm going to
close that portion. Uh we've got some minutes for approval. We have the February 11th, the March 25th, and April 8th from 2025. Uh let's take them each to go oldest first. February 11, 2025.
Comments, changes, please. The first one. Yes. February. Yes. What do you got? Okay. Uh I think I'm fine with it. Okay. Have a motion, please. I move. Mr.
Widley, do I have a second, please? Second. Oh, wait. Mr. Fresco, Mr. White Ali. Uh, yes. Mrs. Amen. Yes, Mr. Fresco. Yes. Yes, Mr. CCAT.
I I'm sorry. I I just walked in and I'm not exactly sure what we're voting for, so I don't know if I voting on the February 11th minutes. Yeah. Yes. Mr. Kulak. Yes. Mr. Vesio,
yes. Mr. Gabbit, yes. And Chairman Fouse, yes. All right. Next up, March 25th, 2025. comments or changes please. Uh you know on page two when we go to the
resolutions he says yes right by all 11 members are yes so I said um Mr. SAT Kulak West and Gabbert should move to ineligible ineligible. Ineligible
because you can't have all level members voting. Yes, Rich. So there would only be seven um yes votes or seven votes in total. Gotcha. So those would be the only seven
to show. So members 8 through 11 would go to ineligible. I wouldn't list them as ineligible either. I would just show the yeses. They're the only ones that are Got it. So So we're going to strike members eight from 11 under the yeses. Got it. Seven. All right. How about the
next application? 24-011. Okay. The next one is fine because there are one, two, three, four people who are not voting ineligible, right? Yeah. There's seven up there.
The next one is fine. Change. Okay. A motion, please. What the changes? I move a second. I second. All right. Mrs. Amen. The second. So, Badelli and Amen. This is for March 25th. That's correct.
Mr. White Ali. Uh, yes. Mrs. Amin, yes. Mr. Fresco, yes. Mr. CCAT, yes. Mr. Kulak, yes. Mr. Vesio, yes. Mr. Gabbit, yes. And Chairman Fouse, yes.
Okay. Last up, we have April 8th, 2025. Comments or changes to the minutes, please? Okay. Same thing. Same same thing. Page two, you know. Okay. We'll we'll carry forward the seven affirmative votes. Names are there for yes vote. Okay,
we'll make those changes. Ineligible should be put in there. The their name should be because they're present. Yeah, they're all present. That way. Okay. The remaining four. No, he's got them right. So, uh not
voting then were Sikat, Kulak, Vesio, and Gabbot. The ineligible. Okay. in both places. In uh two places, so the next one on page two, right? Okay. Anything else?
Sorry, what was the correction? I'll give you a copy of this. Okay. Okay. Have a motion, please, with the changes. I move with the changes. You have a second, please. Second. This is a second. Mr. White Deli. Uh, yes. Mr. Sween, I'm
sorry. Mrs. Amin, yes, Mr. Fresco. Yes, Mr. CCAT. Yes. Mr. Kulak, yes. Mr. Vesio, yes. Mr. Gabbit, yes. And Chairman Fouse, yes. All right. Next up, we have
two resolutions. Let's do uh visions and pathways first. And anyone that doesn't have it, there's a copy, hard copy on the deis for you. So, there were a couple of just as you're looking at it, there's a couple of uh small changes at page three, paragraph six, one, two, three, four,
five, six, seven lines down should say each resident will 30% of their income. And then also at the page 12, the whereas paragraph should refer
back to April 8th, 2025, not May. Anyone else? Visions and pathways. Can I get a nomination with the changes, please? I move with the changes. All right. Second. Second. All right. Mr. Fresco. Second.
That was Videlli and Fresco. Thank you, Mr. Widelli. Uh, yes. Mrs. Amen. Yes. Mr. Fresco. Yes. Mr. CCAT. Yes. And Chairman Fouse. Yes.
Right. Next up, we have 75. I think Mr. Voting on that I thought Mr. Sweeney was absent that day. So, Mr. CCAT voted. Sorry. Who did you think was absent? Sweenie. I don't think he was here the
last and you were a Yes, right. Mr. Cat. Yes. All right. She had Maria had it right. That sounds seven to me. All right. Next up, 756 Windgate Drive. It's a residential comments or changes. So, there is one on page three. That
paragraph references paragraph nine references um Mr. Rutzmacher in two places. It should be referencing Mr. Any other changes have a motion with the changes please. I move with the change.
Mr. Widelli second please. Yes. Mrs. Amin is our second Mr. Widelli. Yes. Mrs. Amen. Yes. Mr. Fresco. Yes. And Chairman Fouse. Yes. All right. Moving on to our land
development applications. We have two cases tonight. First up is going to be a residential case. Uh you 859 Brown Road. Come on forward. Check notice and swear them in. So I did review the notice on this application. It was um in proper form.
It was published timely and served timely by certified for it does have jurisdiction over the application. And who do we have? Um, Mr. Chairman Dave Styers. I'm representing the uh client, Mr. U. He is
here tonight. Um, we don't have an attorney. I thought he was hiring one, but he hired one just for the notification. And uh so I'm standing in uh I'm a consulting engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey. I'm told the microphone handheld works. I know.
Microphone. Yeah. Yeah. And Mr. Styers, let me just swear you in first, too. Would you just raise your right hand? The red light. Got it. Okay. Thanks. Youly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So I I do.
Again, Mr. Styers been before the board. Mr. Styers knows his way around this room. I think you're an attorney by now, too, right? No, no, thank you. All right. Um, so the application is for 859 Brown Road. Uh, it's for a lot coverage
variance for a patio in the rear of the uh single family home. So, the the property is located uh if you come in off of 2026 past Hillside School and you uh kind of enter that bend there going
up the hill. He's just to the the property is just to the left. Uh the property is severely sloping. There's about 140 ft of elevation change from Brown Road up to the back of the property. And as such, the uh hillside
development ordinance uh severely um reduces the amount of buildable area. Um so uh by way of history, Mr. for you. A year and a half ago, uh unbeknownst to him, he he required a
permit to take a deck down and replace he was replacing that with a uh patio and uh in Bridgewater Township, decks don't count towards lot coverage, but uh patios do. So, we exceeded the uh uh of
allowable lot coverage. Just for a bit of history, the lot is 57 59,535 square feet. It's in the R50 zone and based on the hillside development ordinances, the allow uh buildable area
is then reduced to 8,760 and then the uh improved lot coverage is 18% of that and that takes you down to 1577 square feet. So, uh, in in my
opinion as a, uh, professional engineer, you can't really build a single family house and the associated site improvements, uh, with that kind of square footage. Um, so, uh, there was a couple questions
in the, uh, the report from the, uh, town in uh the the board planner and board engineer. Uh, one had to do with the size of the proposed patio. The the patio is actually smaller than what the deck was. Uh, we have uh some prior
surveys and the uh the patio is roughly 15 by or 25 by 15 and the former deck was 35 by 15. Another comment uh arose relative to the location of the
retaining wall. The retaining wall was also replaced when they uh improved the patio which is behind the the uh the the uh single family house and that uh stone wall was basically replaced in kind. And
I think what Mr. you did was uh he added a little bit of stone behind that wall in an effort to uh redirect some of the runoff away from the back of the house and around the uh sides of the
house. Um I think I you know in my op my professional opinion I think it's a hardship variance. Uh the hillside development ordinance severely restricts the amount of uh developable property. I don't think the uh the plans as
presented are uh extravagant in any way. It's it's a relatively small patio. Uh the deck was actually bigger as I testified and um from a um point of view relative to the surrounding
property owners. Uh the deck and the patio are are virtually the same in appearance and uh you know consistent with single family living. David, were there safety considerations
here that led to them taking action before they had all the necessary paperwork done? Um he did talk about uh there was rotted uh deck planks that needed to be replaced. So yeah, there was I would consider that a safety
issue. Okay. And has an engineer looked at the retaining wall that's in there? Cuz when you drive by your view from the street is you can see the retaining wall. It's quite a slope that's it's holding back. It Yeah, it runs from two to about four feet. Yeah. And he does
have a a large amount of clean stone behind it. So the water runs down and then I guess around either side of the uh retaining wall. So, in in your professional opinion, it's a safe I I would say it's safe and and typically
anything under four feet doesn't require building permits because of the height just straight up the the mountain that's kind of holding Oh, it's it's Yeah. Yeah. Like I said, 140 ft from the brown all the way up. Could you give just a a little bit of testimony on if this was a flat lot, what
the relief needed would be, if any? There would be no relief. Uh there's 18% allowable coverage if it was a flat lot. Uh before the the patio was installed, it was at 6.81 and we're at 7.78. So
less than 50% of what would be allowed if it was a flat lot. And in terms of hillside development, the ordinance itself, I just like to put this on the record each time. Um it's designed to protect tree canopy when people are looking up at a hillside. Was the tree
canopy affected in any way in this case? No, it was not. And and that's a good point. The the other thing and I I represent the board in Wong and we see a lot of these as well and a lot of uh consideration is taken by the board as
to where the proposed improvements are going. And this was in the 0 to 10%. It was not in the severe slopes. And again, like you said, there were no trees impacted by the uh the swamp from the patio from the uh deck to the
patio. I don't think it's said in the memo. I'm I'm referencing the the May 7th, 2025 uh board professionals memo. What variance relief is required here? Is that a Dvariance? Page four. Page four. It's just It's a C. Yeah, C. It's just
the maximum coverage. Gotcha. All right. All right, board questions. Board professionals. Um, just just two quick questions, Mr. Chairman. So Dave, I think I heard you. Your testimony was in replacing the wall and replacing
the deck with a patio. There was no plus 30% slopes disturbed. Everything was contained within the 0 to 10. Yes. And and the wall was right up against that 30%. Um but my client replaced it in the same location. So there may have been a
little bit of impact to put that stone behind it. Okay. And from a drainage perspective from converting from a deck to a patio, any negative impacts to the adjacent properties, the downhill properties? No, it's a small increase
and I I believe a majority of it would be going uh from that wall towards the uh southeast, so out towards Brown and away from the neighbors. Thank you. Thank you. I just uh I don't know if it
came up in the memo or came across in the memo. I just asked for a quick kind of summary of um how the variance became um maybe notified that there was a variance on the property, how how he ended up here at the board. I believe he had a uh subsequent to the installation
of the patio, he did have a zoning uh violation issued and then they hired us. Uh we examined the property and then found the uh the lot coverage issue. Okay. Thank you. And and I think, you know, this is a extreme case of the
hillside development calculations. I think we haven't it's an incredible ordinance provision. I think it does its job in most cases. I legitimately texted Bill and I was like, I think I'm calculating the hillside development calculations wrong here because it does have such an impact on this lot. This is an absolutely extreme case of that. It's
the reason why the variance is there. You asked a very good question about would they need a variance if it was a flat lot. Absolutely not. Um I love the hillside development ordinance. I think it's important, but this is, you know, kind of the the roadkill of it. This is the unfortunate consequence of it. And I feel bad when residents get caught up in
it, but we want to protect our trees. We want to protect our hilly landscapes. You know, Wang uses as well, the water running down the hills, beautiful area you want to protect. So, all right. Um, members of the public, questions on Mr. Styer's testimony.
All right. Seeing none, you want to just wrap it up? Um, we I'm not an attorney, but we would success uh request a uh positive uh res outcome uh from the the board and
for consideration for the variance. All right. And as Rich mentioned, it is a C variance. It's a C1. Yes. And there's no other conditions other than our normal conditions. Do you feel that the the threshold of testimony for a hardship type variance was was given for a C1? I
do. in light of the uh the steep slope that the applicant has in the reduced building area that results in. All right. Very good. Then let's open up to members of the public uh that would like to speak for or against this case. Now's the time to approach. Make your comments. Seeing none, we're going to
close that portion and uh Mr. Styrs, thank you. We're going to open up for deliberations if you're okay with that. Yes. All right. Great. Um let's start down to Mr. Gav. Good evening, sir. Your thoughts? Good evening. Yeah, that that area it's hard to do anything in the back uh because of the slopes. Uh to the
point several people have raised now, if it was a flat lot, there would be no nothing needed. I don't think anything was harmed by this. Um I think it's a reasonable request. I'd be in favor. Thank you very much, Mr. Kulak. I would agree as well. And I think there's very minimal impact. Plus, we're
really trading the deck for the patio. So, we're not increasing anything except under the technicality of our own ordinances because we don't count decks and we do count patios. But I think this won't do any harm and I think we should approve it. Thank you, Mr. CCAT. Yes, I
also agree. Minimal impact and I understand the hardship. Um, I would support the application. Thank you, Jim. Uh, I have no problem. I'm all for it. Mr. Vio, good evening. this. It's a simple variance and it's because of this steep slope and I'm in
favor of approving fresco. Yeah, I'm fine with it. I agree with everybody. Thank you, Mr. Yeah, I'm I'm for um approving this uh variance. Um it's an existing law with this existing steep slope condition. You
know, sometimes, you know, there's not one size that fits all in this case and uh I'm okay with itarians. Thank you. Uh, I'm in favor as well. And uh, with that, I'll give a motion. Yes. All right. Mr. Wedelli is the motion. Do I have a second, please? Mrs. Amen. You're
a second. Thank you. Mr. Widell. Yes. Mrs. Amen. Yes. Mr. Fresco. Yes. Mr. CCAT. Yes. Mr. Kulak. Yes. Mr. Vesio. Yes. And Chairman
Fouse. Yes. All right. Thank you, David. Thank you, Mr. you. Good luck. All right, next case. Uh, Germunk Oil, 24 Finderan Avenue. Everything's got to be on a microphone. We've got a matter which one. It doesn't
matter which one. This one. This one. Hi, good evening. So, before we even jump in, you have a tank on your property. I was there today. Uh, it says stamped 275 gallons. And I I don't even
want to put anything official into into the record. Happened to be just coincidental. Mr. Burr, our township engineer, the hardest working man in the township was there. Bill, why don't you tell the board and the applicant and the attorney what you saw? And um keep in mind, we're going to reference a letter
from our zoning officer. I think it was point number five that mentioned these criterias that needed to be satisfied before this hearing was to take place. It's the last bullet point. And one of those points mentioned is a safe
environmental and an operating condition. Just so we're clear, Mr. Chairman, the zoning violation after number it does list five particular points and then thereafter says property owner has responsibility to maintain the site clean, safe and sanitary condition.
So I want to talk about the safe condition and I want to talk about the tank that was stamped at 275 gallons and I'll hand it off to you. Yeah, m Mr. Chairman, um I did happen to to visit the site at the same time that you did as a coincidence today. I was
looking through my notes from the March meeting and um there was a commitment to actually visit the site by me and report back to the board at this meeting. Better late than never, but um I was out there and made a few observations. It it did look like uh a new fence was
installed around the um location of where the building is proposed. So, there was a a chain link fence installed. Uh, and the the previously installed rebar was capped, so you no longer had the exposed rebar. What I did
notice though, um, two things stuck out to me. Um, one is the lawn was still largely unkempt. Uh, it looked like it hadn't been mowed in a few weeks. And I know that that was an issue uh number five that was raised on the zoning
officer's violation from January. Um the other issue that I noticed that wasn't raised was it looks like there is a spill containment tank. Uh almost when I first saw it, it it looked to me what like a tank that's usually
used for storing pesticides. Um it's in the lawn area adjacent or behind the the fueling station uh along Third A. And it it struck me as odd being in the the lawn area. I don't know
if what what that tank is being used for is the way it should be used for spill containment. And I suspect we're going to hear from the applicant about that. Um, but I I I was not uh excited about the location of it, for
lack of a better word. If it's used for spill containment, it shouldn't be in the lawn area. Bill, did that containment have a valve at the bottom? It did have a valve at the bottom. Um, for sure, Mr. Chairman. Um, could a valve condition, but I can't speak if
it's leaking or not. Okay. Yes. And it was a the tank 275 gallons. It was about half full with fluids. Uh and as I understand it's it's when um if there are small overflows or etc. during the
the the major refueling operations that's used um you know as a secondary containment. So I think there needs to be a discussion on that. Those were really the two issues that I happened to notice was that tank and then the unkempt nature of the lawn area and you
know just generally the you know the site as a whole. I will mention though um you know a short while ago actually Maria showed me that the zoning officer did the township zoning officer texted Maria and said most if not all of the
issues on his prior violation have been addressed but he didn't have a chance to issue anything in writing in advance of the meeting. So, um, you know, I I think I can I can agree that that several of these issues have been addressed, but you still have the lawn and that that
storage tank, right? Well, I I do recall the March meeting very clearly. I did ask the tank to be moved. I don't know what's in the tank. The tank has a valve at the bottom. It's a green field site. The site slopes, and Bill, you can correct me if I'm wrong, slopes from west to east. Um, so if this tank was to
be inadvertently opened by a child with a soccer ball, football, etc., you're going to be leaking at least about 150 gallons of whatnot onto that property. So, as I see it, and I'm going to put this back to our board attorney, um, the
safety criteria is is up in the air. I feel that this is an unsafe condition. Bill, what's your your bottom line answer? Is this a safety issue on the site based on what you saw today? Yeah, based on what I saw today, it it should not continue in the location that it's
currently existing. I agree with that. And and counselor, I didn't catch your name, by the way. There's John Kaplan. I'm from Herald Law in Warren Township, New Jersey. On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Kaplan. Yes. I don't know how we can continue because most applicants when they come to this board, they listen to
us and they take action and they do things. Unfortunately, by virtue of us being here, by virtue of things being in the wrong place, by virtue of your applicant not paying any mind to what I said at the last meeting about moving this tank, I think we're past that that phase. So what what's your
recommendation here on how we go forward being that there's 100 some odd gallons of assorted material on property with a valve at the bottom that could be open tonight and leak and flow from west to east into the residential neighborhood adjacent to your client's property.
Our intention this evening was to start with the applicant himself, the owner operator of the property to go through the zoning violation that Mr. Bird just You have a safety issue. So, why don't we start there because we don't have to hear your case unless you address all the safety issues. I do have the
applicant here to address the tank, why he has the tank, why every gas station has a tank like that. If the tank needs to be moved, needs to be put on something else. We would like some guidance from the board as to where you want it because right now we don't have a building. We gave you the guidance in March. I told you to
move it. You didn't move it. And here we are. And I even did you one more favor is I had Rich contact your office and said, "You should really fix this and not come tonight." Which you didn't want to do either. So before someone gets hurt in the neighborhood and you have 100
gallons plus of chemicals that are flowing through this neighborhood, Mr. Kaplan, what's your plan to fix it? Our plan is to fix it, but as I was trying to say, Mr. Chairman, every gas station has one
of these tanks. Currently, without an approval to reconstruct a building, to put it behind a fence, we don't have anywhere to put it at this moment. Why would you have a tank with a valve at the bottom that could be open that could flood this neighborhood with chemicals? What? It doesn't make any sense. So
whether or not that this is I'm not an expert on on gas station operation, but why would you have a storage tank with a valve at the bottom that's not locked and can be opened? Would you like to see the picture that I took? I I have a picture, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. I have
a picture, Mr. Chairman. There it is. Valve at the bottom. So what are you going to do right now to prevent this from leaking in the neighborhood? Mr. happen. We would like to put it in a place with a fence around it if possible to secure it, but at this moment we
don't have any approvals to construct anything on this site. So, when you put a fence around it, how do you prevent the valve at the bottom from leaking 100 plus gallons of material that are in the container? I myself am not an expert in gas stations either. I do not I can figure
out how to plug the tank. I'm not sure if it's legal. I'm not sure the proper way to Why didn't Why didn't your client move the tank like he was asked and instructed by the board at the March hearing? He was under the influence that he was just remediating the zoning violations that were issued to him and
it's our understanding, aside from the length of the grass at this moment, that those were remediated. Was your client in the room at the March meeting? I believe so. Did your client hear the board ask him to move the tank? I don't know. I can't ask for that for him. Okay, Mr. Kaplan, we're going to ask for
an extension and time to act on this hearing so you can find a way to remedy the situation. Are you going to grant this board more time? Rich, why don't you take it from here where we're going with this? Right now, we have time to act through May 30th, I think. 31st of
May. So, we would have to look at when the matter could be heard and have some grant of an extension past that date. That would not be a problem. So, just so we're clear, when you leave tonight, what's going to happen tomorrow on
site? Not on Wednesday, not on Thursday, not on Friday. What's going to happen tomorrow, Wednesday, May 14th? With your guidance, we will find a way to secure the tank with without the valve on the bottom being operational. I'm not an expert. Well, I think your
engineer and the board engineer, township engineer could come to some agreement on how to safely secure that tank and where. That's fine. I just need an understanding whether it's just a fence, just a valve, both. Mr. Burr, what are
your thoughts here? My thoughts at a minimum are that that tank needs to be relocated up onto the paved area where the fueling operations take place and it needs to be fenced off in a secured area so it can't be
tampered with. I have not seen an arrangement like this on other sites. I'm used to seeing something that is more permanent in nature in terms of spill containment. So I haven't seen a tank like this. If this needs to be in
operation for the time being to allow the the the fueling operation to continue, it has to at least be located up onto the paved area and placed in a secured location off so it can't be if the contents are flammable and we're back into, you know, that's an operating gas
station. I I I just don't know what to do here. We're not hitting the safe criteria that, you know, it's point number five in the zoning officer's letter. If I may, the reason it is where it is is because of the guardrail that's there, which is actually protecting the tank from being hit by any rusty,
deteriorating guardrail. Correct. Correct. Okay. Well, it sounds like your engineer and Mr. Burr need to just come to some agreement on how to properly secure the tank and where. And Bur is suggesting he
moved to a paved area. Isn't the the building area secured now by a fence? Yeah, that that's the one area that I was thinking. Um I don't know what condition it's in because it had been excavated for footings and it has partial rebar, but
there has to be a spot in that area that's already fenced off that that maybe that can be placed in there. But got to get on site and look. I don't want to complicate things, but I do have one question and that is do we know what's in the tank and is it labeled
appropriately? I don't know what's in the tank. I suspect it's not labeled correctly. If you take a look at what the tank um now I don't I don't have because I looked up the label. I looked
up the label and it's some chemical solvent that's used to storage tank which obviously is not fuel right or gasoline. So So we don't know what's in it and we are pretty sure it's mislabeled.
We can find out. Do you guys know if it's mislabeled? Not necessarily mislabeled. It might just be a reused tank for that purpose and previously it was used for something else but it is a mixture of gasoline and water. It's a mixture of gasoline and water. Correct. Okay. So the labeling it appropriately
would be not only recommended but required and useful if in the event the fire department had to arrive and wonder what it is that they're trying to put out. Um, so mislabeling something that's flammable and that puts the neighborhood
in jeopardy is something that just can't stand. So it's got to either be labeled appropriately, uh, located with the help of Mr. Burr and protected, and I'm sure there's some kind of lockout valves that can be constructed as well in terms of trying
to create a safer environment. also an agreement that this must be a temporary uh solution stop gap measure. I'm not sure what to call it because if you go beyond that and look toward the uh safe operation of the gas station in the
future and if the applicant's request is approved then what provisions have been made for the storage of those materials? I don't recall many being in the plans. It's pretty much a convenience store. So, I don't know. I'm not going to ask you to answer every one of those
questions, but they need to be answered um as part of your application. That's understandable. We will find a permanent location for the tank with the help of Mr. Burr that it is a safe location and secure. So, we're not even going to discuss future dates until all five points on
the on that letter are satisfied. Um I don't want to take a date away from a resident that's trying to do an addition or another case because you're not in compliance. Can I have a date for scheduling purposes? You can do that. Okay.
So, what time how much time do you think you'll need? So, what I would suggest is give yourself some time to be able to relocate this tank safely. We'll give you a date where you would come back just to get a new date
for month. The client says he can have it completed within a week to 10 days. So, the earliest we can get in for a a hearing a hearing so that we can get a hearing date at the earliest would be fantastic. If it's in two weeks, that'd be great.
May 27th. They want to come in and prove that they satisfied it and then we can give them a date from there. I'm I'm willing to do that. So by our next meeting is May 27th. Remember you have Memorial weekend right
before that. So it's not a full two weeks really. But um but if you think you can have that relocated and be ready to proceed and and that's only going to be a meeting where I'll put you first up. You're going to give us a status update. You're going to prove that this is safe. Mr. Burr is going to come in
here and say it's safe. And then at that point we will grant you a a night where we can hear this case and continue where we left off. Understandable. Is that okay, Rich? Yep. Mr. Burr, are you okay with that? Yes, I am, Mr. Chair. All right. Any other board comments?
All right. Okay. So then for purposes of the public with respect to the um Germunk Oil application, this matter is concluding for this evening. It will be rescheduled for May 27th um in this room at 7 PM. And as you heard, for the sole
purpose of scheduling a new hearing date sometime after that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Before everybody leaves, we have one issue that we have to handle and that is going to be our 2024 annual report of which you should have a copy. I know Mr.
Fresco had a comment about some fees. Maybe a good place to dive in very quickly. Andy, what were your thoughts there on page six? Um, you know, I I guess uh I was I was sort of confused about it. Um, but I I
think I understand. So, I don't know. Maybe you could just Yeah. Like a Catherine was kind enough to put this together. Great work. I mean, it really we had a good year, heard a lot of cases. Thank you for your diligence on this. And why don't we talk about the $75? Sure. So, and I I have one more
followup after that. Um, just so I don't forget. So, um, we have what's called, and it's very I'll say it's very unique to Bridgewwater. Not many other municipalities have it, but we have something called a simple variance application. So there's a full-blown application when you're coming in for a
site plan, you're coming in for a use variance. The simple variance allows that the and they all have fees attached. There's a fee schedule for each of those types of variances that add up so that there's an application fee for processing that goes to the township and then there's escrow fees that pay for the professionals and
consultants that are reviewing these applications. The simple variance application allows a resident who was coming in under particular circumstances like um what is it like a a deck setback um without like an uncovered deck.
There's like a pool. There's like f five scenarios and they're very limited. The thing is that it ends up having to go to the board regardless of being a simple variance. It's not administratively approved. And so whenever you get to the board, you've got at least two professionals looking at it. You've got a meeting night. You've got a completeness review. you've got all this
stuff. And so it sounds great in theory, but what happens is we wind up having to replenish that escrow account a lot. And that resident who thought they were coming in with a very low fee ends up getting hit with all these charges. Not in no way, shape or form can we avoid it
really. We try our best to try and limit as our billing on those um because they are simpler and because we can get through them, but procedurally it ends up adding up. And then again, it's just it's like walking into a situation thinking you were going to be able to get through this at a very easy cost and then getting hit with all these fees
later on and it kind of dupes. So, we've been having discussions, administration has had discussions. It came up kind of as a point of this zoning board application as well that it would be a way that we could also address it to make the recommendation to the governing body um potentially if we thought it was
okay. It's really in fairness to the residents to say maybe they should know what they're getting up front. Um the thing about escro fees is that they get they get um returned if you don't use all of them. So sometimes it's better to get it up front and know what they're getting into so that they want to start the project. But the worst thing that we
find out is that app especially residential applications get into it and they think why did I even start this process? This is not what I thought it was going to be and now I have to pay all these fees and I'm I'm already kneedeep in it. So um we we'll figure out the fee schedule. We want to make it fair to residents, but we think that
getting rid of this upfront would probably be helpful to Right. So, removing it because I because I read it a few times and then, you know, reached out to Jeff about it and I'm I wasn't sure what we're recommending. It's the board recommends the mayor revise, but it's not really we're not actually saying what they revise it to. It's just
you're saying now remove it. Remove Yeah, I'd say there probably remove that. I think we need to revise our fee schedule anyway. Um, we probably need to look at that. Um right now there's that's a separate issue but um that that alone I think should probably be removed
and we can replace it with something that's more fair that's better thought through. Talking to residents especially obviously the residentials I there is a little bit of buyer remorse like what have I got myself into? I think sometimes and maybe when they have a higher threshold of filing which
includes a higher fee, maybe that would give them kind of the impetus maybe to make different avenues or different conditions instead of just going for the variance which they think is $75. You know, sometimes they alter the plan to conform, right? I I know, you know, Nancy has given people advice like,
well, you know, you can move this around and try this and maybe you don't need to go to the board. Maybe we can give some incentive to make that happen because you know that's one thing about 2024. We were very busy. Were by the same token though we had a a case recently a residential case where there was a
dimminimous expansion of 200 or so square feet. The I think the applicant ended up paying something like between 7 and $9,000 in total escore. I don't know what they're going to get back but it was aggressive. And like I said, we don't differentiate between our bulk
variances and our devariances. Like the it's the same cost. When I said that we need to revise our fee schedule and it's a separate issue. It's because we have some things lumped together that should probably be separated out that would make it more fair particularly to the smaller applications. The res should the board be thinking about making a
recommendation to the township council and the mayor about treating these differently than we're treating them now? The the case we just heard like you know, right? and the 200 foot deviation we heard, you know, a C variance versus a D variance is a massively different
case. It's 20 minutes versus sometimes two or three hours. We our fee schedule presently does not different. I I think we need to to make that change. I think that's something we should recommend to the governing body. No, Mr. Gazki is not here, but he mentioned that you feel strongly about it. He bound Brooke had a
something when he was on that board that allowed people with these dimminimous types of um I want to say almost technicalities that triggers the kind of various requests that need be made. They had a way of treating it differently. And I and I think
um that's what our fee schedule needs to reflect. Like I said just from the from the outset like one simple thing to see is that a C variance and a D variance are exactly the same cost. that shouldn't that really shouldn't be the case. Um so abs I think I can absolutely revise this just to say generally the
fee schedule should be revisited by the governing because they adopt it by ordinance. So it should be re and just so the record is clear we're not advocating for any increases we're actually advocating for separation of fee so a more granular type fee structure. I think that would be I would recommend that as well. All right any
other board comments? Mrs. Isn't it? I I have you know um I want to compliment Christine for this great report. You know I went through it on the computer very fast and I'm saying no
one has done so much of analysis in the past like you have done with all these tables and everything. It's really a very nice report. I really want to congratulate you for that. Thank you. The bad news is we have 21 and 22 and 23
to still do. And um I was working with Nancy. Unfortunately, she's out right now on leave. Um we will get to working on those. I this was easier for me because I was a part of it. I will definitely get into those as well. Um so we can get those done as well. So we are
all cleaned up on our They're coming. So members of the public, they're coming. All right. Um and I only had one change. Um just one minor error on page two um on the bottom where that it's a section on the application summary. The total
number of application variance requests was in the in the narrative says 48. It should be 44. Um and it's comprised of 29 C variances and 15 B variances. I was just a little off. My table um in my Excel sheet was a little bit messed up.
And then the table below that because that only shows the approved ones in the table. The table does not include all of those variance requests. It should be 22 C variances and 8 D variances were approved for a total of 30. So just a minor update on that. Rich, do we need
formal action on this or can we just Well, what Well, you could adopt it with those changes and make the changes and then it gets sent out. Okay. Sure. And what we'll do is we'll probably have it published on the website. We'll put it on the website and that goes down back to the township council and we'll talk
to them. Yeah, we can bring it up to them. Okay, great. Then uh I'll seek a a motion to approve this with the changes that we've mentioned. Mrs. Amin was the motion and Mr. Wedelli was the second. You can do all in favor. Yeah. All in
favor? I I Any opposed? Seeing none. All right, that was quick. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Katherine. That was good work. Uh, our next meeting, May 27th, 7 p.m., uh, we're going to hear the Germunk folks uh, first up, and then Rich, do you know what we have that
night? I do. We have, uh, Belly Holdings, um, the JCC mattered at 821 Bridgewater matter, and it looks like a residential matter, initial hearing for Mr. Shad
single family home on a vacant lot. All right. So, we'll have a busy night May 27th. Everyone have a wonderful Memorial Day. Have a motion to adjurnn. Mr. Rodelli. Second. Mr. CCAT. Right. Second. Great. Have a good night everyone. Thank you. That's going to be a wild meeting.