And so each corner there's two revision clouds. So in the prior revision where my mouse is on screen that butts the route 28 uh corner of the building, there was a gap in the landscaping uh
due to basin access location. Um we since revised the basin access to be on the north side of the basin towards the route 22 side and not towards the route 28 side. And therefore, we were able to add uh six additional evergreen trees
um in that corner to provide more of a buffer and fill in that gap along the route 28 frontage. >> Thank you, Mr. Cman. And you believe that will achieve the creation of the buffer the board had discussed in a in January? >> Yes, I do.
>> Thank you. I don't have any further questions, Mr. Chairman. Um, can I ask you a question about that because that was a issue when we were at January's meeting was you didn't know because of the grading and everything if you could do that but you'll be satisfied that
that will be acceptable. >> Yes. >> But you showed a gap on the simulation pictures that you had and there's a gap and that's where this came about. So you're happy with the way the grading will be that these additional ones will
solve that issue? Yes, I am. I we were able to reposition some of the trees to really uh push trees towards Route 28 to provide more screen towards the residents um south um near Bogart as well. And then uh we were able to add
six additional trees beyond what we previously had. Um so yes, >> yeah, because some of the neighbors had concerns about that also. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um any board members have questions for Mr. Councilman,
how about our professionals? And um Richard, I don't know. We haven't sworn them in tonight. Do we have to swear them in as well? >> Sure. They were previously sworn, but we'll do it again. Right. Stand to please raise your hands. You solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. >> And again, just uh for the record, your acknowledgements, names. >> Thank you. Thank you. So, board professionals, do you have any questions for this um witness?
>> Mr. Chairman, I have just one point of clarification for um the applicants engineer. So, Matt, on your revised exhibit where you're showing the additional landscaping in exchange for removing the previous basin access
drive, the remnants of that driveway is still shown on your exhibit. I assume that's going to come off in a future revision and you're going to nuance the grading in that area. >> That's correct. >> Just want to make sure. So there's not going to be a basin access from the south or from the Route 28 side. It's
going to come from the 22 side. >> That's correct. >> And the plans will be finalized as a condition if if this application's approved. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Amen. >> No. the landscape plan addressed my
comments at the last hearing by moving that stabilized turf area. They're able to kind of fill in that gap. Um so it it's addresses what my concerns. >> Okay. Thank you very much. So with that, I'd like to um open the meeting to the
members of the public who have only questions related to Mr. Ksman's specific testimony this evening. He's already been questioned on his other testimony. And we would ask that you not um repeat a question if it's already
been asked. And in the interest of both being fair to the many num members of the public and the applicant, if we can manage this process, it'll give us an opportunity to answer the questions we need answered and to move on with new testimony. Any members of the public
wishing to address Mr. Cman's specific testimony? and please sign in and tell us your name and your address. >> Jim Brady, 351 Route 28 Bridgewater. Um, regard to the uh testimony in the
last meeting, it was stated that the applicant could not meet the 75% evergreen standard that was requested by the board. They said it was something like 51% is what they would adhere to.
And the rationale was, "Well, we don't want to destroy, mature, non-evergreen trees along the Route 28 neighborhood border." >> I'd like it to be relevant to his testimony tonight. So adding six trees,
>> yes, >> I think is insufficient. But I want to know with the addition of those six trees, are you anywhere near approaching the 75% evergreen standard requested?
No, we'll still be deficient of that standard be slightly higher, but um heard previously we we've added a double row of evergreens on the bottom of the slope on Route 28. And then additionally, there's a row of evergreen
trees along the site um drive aisle as well. And then that corner um where there's no existing buffer vegetation, there's a double row, even potentially a triple row of uh evergreen trees and deciduous trees. So I I believe this
buffer is sufficient and meets the intent of the code. >> Great. Thank you. >> Am I allowed to present an image that can be no thrown on? >> Not at this time. All right. You will at the end. I'll >> do it in the public comment section. Okay. But briefly,
>> not briefly. We really have to confine the questions as testimony. You'll get your chance. >> Okay. So, it's not meeting this the 75% standard. That's all I wanted to clarify. That's the answer. Right. >> That's the answer. Yes. Thank you. >> Any other members of the public wishing
to question Mr. Ksman on his specific testimony this evening? Seeing none, Mr. Capzine. You prefer kapzy. Cape. Which would you like? >> Cap is fine, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you.
>> William McGiver, our architect. Mr. Chairman, >> would you raise your right hand, please? You solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. And your name for the record, please. William McGver. >> McGver. Uh, Mr. Mcgever, you were um
accepted by the board as an expert in architecture previously. Has, um, anything changed with your license? >> No, my license is still in good standing. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McGiver. We had supplied the board with an updated plan from your office as well. Is that correct? >> That is correct.
>> And that plan was revised as of March 25th of this year. >> That is correct. >> Thank you. Uh is that the plan you have >> broadcasting on the screen? >> That is correct. >> Can you take us through the revisions, please? >> Sure. At the last hearing uh it was asked of us that by the board planner as
a recommendation that the uh the two-tone uh EP's coloring the horizontal line between the darker and lighter colors be raised up higher. So if you can see from these clouded areas, we have raised that approximately 3 feet to
align with the loading door canopy. So we have a nice alignment with that. Um it is still a significant amount. It's closer to a 50/50 split of the two tones at the highest side of the building which is the west. The other comment was
uh coordination, better coordination of the wallpack lights to clarify that along the south elevation we do have no wallpack lights and that the civil plans identify that uh pole lights will be provided to shine the light towards the building to make sure that the lighting
is not shining towards the residential properties to the south. >> Thank you, Mr. McGiver. As far as the material and their true representation, do we have some samples for discussion? >> Yes. So the two colors that we have proposed onto the building are natural
white and van dyk. >> We just our last exhibit was A17. So why don't you just tell us which one you'd like to >> A18, right? >> A So this will be A18. >> Yes. >> So we'll mark the uh the natural white color sample as A18 and the Van Dyk as
A19. Would you like me to write that on top on each of these? >> Yes. So these are samples provided by the manufacturer of the actual colors. >> If you can just remind us the material again please. >> So the material is a drive stucco e
system which is exterior insulation facade system. >> And is that color true throughout the material? >> Yes. So that color as you can see between in the elevations the the na was it the natural white would be up top with the van dyke down below.
>> Thank you. >> We're going to be circulating the materials among the board members just so they can see them. Um as we conclude that if you want to continue speaking with us or is that the end of your testimony? >> I don't have any further questions for him Mr. Chairman. So, I'll pause for a
moment and ask the board members if anyone has a question for Mr. McKver about that which he's testified tonight specifically about the color changes and the way in which he's brought the color up um higher to that point that was
requested by Miss Sarmad. >> Um Mr. Chairman, I had a question. Um, one thing that we brought up previously was the 3'6 in parap pit that it doesn't meet the regulation and I was understanding you were you were going to address that.
>> Um, it was my understanding Mr. Franco that the regulation has a maximum height which we're well below and that the parapit limitation is an exceedence of the maximum allowable height. So this zone allows 45 ft plus a paritine if you can
address that. Remember the issue of the parapitic came up at our last meeting. It's 3 foot six. I think we have a three-foot limit. >> There is a three-foot limit. It's under the definition for building height. Um, and it's not it's it doesn't matter if it's over the building height or under
the building height. Parapit is a separate calculation. There is relief required. I don't know if it's changed. I I'd like to >> as my understanding should be relief required or reduce it down to 3 feet which reduces the building height to the view of the residents. >> Well, so the we're already at I think
we're at 31.2 ft where we're allowed 45. So if a variance is required, we'll request one. I think the intention of the ordinance is to allow a three-foot invasion of the maximum building height to allow up to 48 feet. really just looking for any way that it limits the
visual impact to the residents. >> Understood. I think the modifications we've made to the plans have done that. >> You still have the 3D renderings that you've done of the various locations because I know a lot of these people hadn't seen those. >> We were really respectfully lucky not to go back in time to the January to
discussion. Uh but we certainly do have them if a member has a question on it. William, as far as the parapit height at its present location, I know you were wanting to keep it at as we had designed it to shield the mechanicals and for other
>> shows the mechanicals and the aesthetic of the design would be diminished a bit if >> well the mechanicals are set back on the building visually with the height and everything. You wouldn't the sightelines unless you did a sighteline analysis of it, you shouldn't be able to see the mechanicals. >> Correct. And >> far enough away. So the parapit
shouldn't impact at all. >> Correct. that that that statement is true. But >> William, as far as where we are with the design, do we have any wiggle room to bring it down a bit? >> I don't believe aesthetically we do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> On the power, uh, do you have equipment
near the edge of that that would then require some sort of like fall protection for workers requirements >> feet back from the edge to not require that so that we don't have to provide a 42 inch guardrail height at that point, >> right? And that's kind of what your parapit height is. So you don't really
you don't really need that height for let's say worker safety per OSHA regulations. >> Correct. >> Strictly aesthetics. >> Okay. >> Other board members questions for Mr. McKver specific to his testimony this evening.
>> Uh yeah, I have a question. The the color on the That's okay. We can wait. >> Yeah, please. So, while we're waiting for that, Katherine, the question on the parapit, if it's in the definitions, is it really a variance
or is it a design waiver? I mean, it's not in the zoning ordinance. >> It's an interesting question. I think we we've previously treated it. >> Sorry. Um I I don't remember how it's been treated previously. I think it they
the previous application where this came up. It they did seek a variance for it. Um it's a good point. It's not in the zoning ordinances very generally applies to building height and parapit allowances. Um >> yeah, I mean if my opinion is if it's
not in the zoning ordinance, it's not a variance, right? It's a design waiver. >> Yeah, I think that's I mean >> right. Yeah, I think it can it can be it is a deviation. I think I think a design waiver is probably appropriate because it doesn't appear in the zoning. >> It makes sense to acknowledge the
deviation, but in my opinion, it's insignificant in the overall scheme of the building and does not exceed the building height and so on. So, I think we're if it's appropriate, we can just deal with it, Mr. Oler, that way as a design waiver. >> I think that's the right way to deal with it.
>> Mr. Capesi, >> I would be in agreement. >> Very well, >> Mr. Mr. McGiver just had some additional testimony just to explain uh the aesthetic impact if we modified the parapit. Could you elaborate please? >> Yes. So to to clarify to Mr. Franco and talk about with the aesthetic. Um, bear
with me. Get the zoom in here. At the west south, what is this? The northwest corner closest to Route 28, we do have this tower location which identifies the office as a as a call to action with our display units. If we
were to lower the height >> 22 or 28, I'm >> apologize. Corner of to 22, my mistake. um loing this is where we would have that height differential or the height requested to be lowered to the parapet because the roof height across the top
is more or less uniform with a tapered insulation roof. So lowering that limits our signage location as well as breaks up the ratio of the brick around in framing this makes it very thin on the top and I don't feel that that
aesthetically is appealing. I think that the height giving us allows us to have the adequate signage necessary as well as is appealing to keep the ratio. >> More importantly, William, the area where we need the waiver is on 22, not 28. Correct. >> Correct. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Board professionals, were there additional questions that you had for Mr. McKver relative to his testimony this evening? Again, similar to the landscape plan, the applicant has addressed the request made
or the recommendation rather made to um redesign the building facade to help with building scale. Um and and did that in a way that was kind of how I had recommended it. Sorry, the microphone seems to be low. Um but other than that, I don't I don't have any questions. I
think this this most recent elevation worked off of the um the last draft um or the last concept that was provided. Um and so I I think that there's not much else. I I we haven't seen updated renderings. I think the last time we saw
renderings with landscaping and the building, the colors were still uh the color scheme proposed was a bit different. Um so I don't know uh if that's something the board won't want to see. It might be warranted. You're you're referencing the pictures we had seen last time. >> Yes.
>> And the so they don't those pictures would not reflect the change in the bringing up of the darker color and so on. I'm I don't know. I'll pull the board and see if that's something they would need to see. But given the pictures we're looking at now indicating
the improvement consistent with your request, personally I don't think I need to see them. But let me ask the other board. >> I had a question before. Um, >> well, let me address this first. >> Well, it's about the color. >> It's okay. It's the same. We'll we'll get to it, but I'm asking the board if
they need to see additional renderings or if this will suffice given the changes that were requested and made. And my my personal opinion is I don't need to see new drawings. >> Need to see it. >> I do not need to see them. >> So, generally, we have a kind of consensus now.
>> Well, Mr. Mr. Chairman, the only reason I brought it up is, you know, one of the things I was concerned about is the visual view of the U eastern portion of the building, which is still just pretty much a blind wall. >> Yes. >> As opposed to bringing the faux windows all the way into that portion of the
building. So, it still gives that kind of warehouse effect to it or a flex building where you've got warehouse and then you got fabrication. And you're talking about >> I believe the intent was to create something that would give you the the visual concept of an office building.
>> Um I don't know what the possibility of carrying the faux windows into that >> given the grade at that point and the landscaping that's proposed that elevation wouldn't be visible which is why >> that's why I wanted to see the 3D >> we pres we discussed that in January
>> understood but then we made the change. The change was only to the break point in the material. The material is the same. >> No, the faux windows became part of the change. The renderings that were given before had just the blue and white. >> That's not that's not correct. The
presentation that was in January. That's why you only have one sheet because there were no changes to the building other than point materials. There have been no additions or deletions to the faux windows. >> I'll take your word. So we can reference we can reference those drawings.
>> Yes. >> And have what we need. >> Very well. Thank you. So with that Mr. Sorry, Mrs. Amin did you have a question please? >> On this drawing you have the east elevation.
On the east elevation the face of the east elevation you show something. So those are lights mounted on the >> Yes. So those those lights in the side of the rev cloud, rev vision cloud are just showing that those were just slightly relocated to coordinate with
the location shown on the civil plans. >> What's the height of those lights? >> Uh give me to zoom in here. Bear with me. >> Matt, it's okay. See the question I have is you don't have lights on the other sides of the building only. So to answer
your first question, those lights are roughly at 20 feet above the adjacent grade or the asphalt. And bear with me here. You'll see that we do have those lights on the other elevations on the west where we have the loading, but we do not
have them facing the side of the residence. As I stated before, that is polemounted lights that are shining towards the building to prevent light from expilling towards the residence. >> That's where you have the 10 parking spots on the west side. Yes. So, the parking spots are along the west side here
>> and they're along the east side as well, which is why there are additional lights in that side. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. >> Yeah, unless you do have a question, Tony. >> Yeah, unless I'm missing something. The samples of the colors that we have don't
appear to have as much contrast as is in as as is in the drawing uh that we have right now. Is there going to be a visual break point between those two colors as depicted in in these drawings or is it going to be much more subtle?
>> Each of these horizontal and vertical gray lines are roughly a 1 in x one inch reveal. So if you assume the surface one in x 1 in cutin and then that would be the break point between the two colors. >> I'm I'm I'm not following that. I mean the the the colored samples that we have
don't appear to have as much contrast as in the drawing is what I'm saying. >> Okay. >> Is that is that the the color that we have then is not really consistent with what's in the drawing is it? >> The reason for the samples is because
there was question about how accurate the representation was between the screen the print these screens. >> Okay. So then this is not that accurate. what you have sir is accurate. Uh can you clarify what the samples that were passed around are the true >> are you are you asking though whether
the drawing you have in front of you is an accurate depiction of the color and the answer to that is no. Um it is representative of the color contrast. The materials that we were handed would actually show the degree of contrast between the two colors. Correct.
>> Is that a fair way of putting it? >> Yes. >> Okay. And I got to be honest myself have a little trouble telling the difference between the two, but I always have had a color issue with this. So I'm not voting on this part. But maybe Miss Sarmad,
would you want to look at this and determine whether you think it's appropriate an appropriate contrast? A darker shade. three pair of khaki pants that are all the same shade, but everybody tells me they're three different shades. So, I
don't know. >> I'm not the guy. >> I'm gonna I didn't see before I made any comments. Uh, and this was I think something that came up at the last hearing, so I probably should have uh waited to ask questions or provide comments until I saw this. Mr. McNell
is, I think, accurate. There's there's not much contrast between these two. Certainly not as much as depicted in the rendering. Um, which was something that was brought up at the last hearing, mostly because how it appeared on the screen and in the PDFs and in the
printed drawings was was why it was brought up really. >> Yes. >> Um, >> we we can swap out the Van Djk for this color which has more contrast. >> Right. >> So, wait before that happens. We're going to mark that. I think we're up to
20. >> What color was that, William? >> S. >> I don't remember the color. >> No, I'm sorry. Pearl ash. >> Pearl. >> Pearl ash. >> I'll circulate these back. >> And Katherine, in your opinion, that new
contrast is more consistent with what you had requested or envisioned for the the building. Certainly what's represented on the PL, it's more accurate to what's represented on the plan. I believe the pearl ash that we just received to look at
definitely has, you know, darker tones um that do provide the contrast. Um I think the the natural white color that was brought up the last hearing, there were questions because it appeared on the screen is very very bright. Yes. >> Um uh and and I think the sample
provided gives it shows that it has a warmer tone. It is still pretty white, but um I think with the with the updated renderings that show more of the darker color, I'm more comfortable with it than what it previously was. Um but certainly whatever second sample was just
provided, the pearl ash is certainly an improvement and certainly more representative of the drawings. >> And Mr. Eer, is there some way we can insert the appropriate condition that the color contrast is approved by someone other than me?
Well, I was just making a note to uh have a condition to use the pearl ash and natural white colors, right? You agree correct with that? That's what you're proposing? >> Yes. >> Everybody okay with the color discussion on the board's end?
>> Yes. >> Yeah. I'm going to pass those down. Thank you. Um, let me take a moment to open the um, floor to the public who might want to ask questions of Mr. McKver. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Mr. Burr, please.
>> Real quick. Thank you. Um, William, just a question on the the wall packs real quick with the lighting. >> Yes. >> I Your testimony was you removed the wall packs that were previously proposed from the south elevation, which is what faces generally Route 28
>> to an extent. Yes. removed in the sense that we as the architectural firm and architectural drawings showed them civil had already previously changed them to the light posts. So we missed the coordination on that. >> Okay. So go ahead. So on your new
exhibit they were removed to match the >> correct. Yes. The one question I have though is it looks like you added wall packs to the western elevation, which is the elevation that could be seen from both 28 and 22, and I'm wondering why
that was since there's already parking lot lights proposed as well. Is there a need for wallpack units on that west elevation? I think there's two shown and they weren't previously, so I'm just wondering why they got added back in. I would have to confirm and double check
with civil on this, but I believe the depth in which the light would have to be thrown from the parking lot end of stalls to the building might have exceeded the beam spread of the posts. >> Okay. I just want to be sure that with
the elevation of the building and where those wall packs would be mounted, it's not going to give the appearance of a spotlight. I can understand that those those lights are shielded lights. So the light is directed straight is downward. So they're not directed out of the property
line. >> Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Bur, does that answer your question in terms of the change made and the impact? >> Yeah, it they they absolutely need to be downshielded and cut off and we'll make sure that the plans show those details.
um with the landscaping that's proposed and the fact that these really do kind of hug what I would say the 22 side. Yes, I think it works. But um I think there there was discussion of a condition that post construction
sixmonth inspection be done >> with particular focus on the lighting and if there are any lighting issues they certainly can get resolved at that point as well. >> And Mr. Kapzy was that something that we had previously discussed or is that a new uh condition that we're discussing now?
>> We had offered that in January and that can that >> okay >> continues but I just want to make sure everybody's in agreement. >> Certainly. Yes, that's fine. >> Thank you. So with that, I'd like to open the meeting to the public who have questions specific to Mr. McKver's testimony this
evening. Anybody have questions for our architect? And please sign in and then tell us your name. >> Good evening. Carolyn Joya, uh 1402 Paleley Court. Could you spell your last name for us, please?
>> Sure. G I O I A. >> Very well. Thank you. >> My question relates to a storage. Well, it relates to your design of this facility. Um we're talking about the colors, we're
talking about um the trees. We have um a prime storage facility on Route 28 already, which has uh looks um has an appeal that looks much more residential. And I'm wondering if in your analysis of how you wanted to
design the exterior of this facility. Did you look around our town and take a look at what >> I'm going to have to just ask you to pause for a moment >> like >> because we would like him to address like you to address his testimony this evening. His prior testimony has already been questioned,
>> right? And in the in the interest of time, we want you to focus on what he's spoken to this evening. >> Right. Well, it has to do with the color scheme and things that he um >> you can ask him about the color scheme. >> You might want to put that in the form of a question differently
>> than you than you have been so far. Did you consider the color scheme of other storage facilities in our town when you selected the colors that you wanted for this particular facility? >> I did not look at other storage
facilities in your town. I looked at adjacent properties which had earth tone colors and went with an earth tone palette. >> Would you be willing to take a look at that facility and see if you could more appropriately match it to what you were considering doing?
>> We're going to stay with Okay. Thank you. >> I would say that thank you that the color scheme as it's been proposed is the color scheme they're presenting to us this evening. >> I understand. I just was wondering if he had any interest in reevaluating it. That's all. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Anyone else with questions specific to this evening's testimony for our architect, Mr. McKver? And you've signed in before, but remind everybody your name. >> Jim Brady. >> Jim.
Does the lighting proposal you just mentioned with the directional placement and baffles? Um, decrease the foot candle power down to the required 1.0
from the 2.6 previously proposed at the building perimeter. >> That would be a question for civil as they did the phototric lights, not the architect. You were just talking about the lighting and how it was going to not affect the neighborhood, but that's a really quantitative question that I think should be answered at some point.
>> We are not seeing any waiverss from the >> So, you'll be in compliance with the ordinance. >> I was 2.6 candle powers in compliance if the requirement is 1.0. >> Well, he's going to be in compliance at 1.0 at the property line, right?
>> Yeah. >> Right. And there's no documentation that exists to to verify that. >> It was discussed in January part of our >> discussed, but was any evidence presented to verify that? >> Yes, there's a lighting plan as part of the engineering
>> and they've agreed to comply. Thank you, >> Mr. Kabzy. Our next witness is Paul Ricky, our planner. So, Mr. Ricky, we're gonna ask you some questions. >> Well, it looks like your attorney's asking questions, so we'll wait. >> Sorry.
>> That's okay. >> So, would you like to introduce him, please? >> Always a last minute huddle about something. >> That's okay. No matter how much you prepare. >> Let me swear first. Would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, help your God. and your name for the record,
please. >> Mic's off. Uh Paul Ricky, RICCI. >> So, you should have a green light on, and if it is, then you can talk directly into the mic. >> It's now on, so I think I'm good. Thank you. Um, my name is Paul Ricky. I'm a
licensed professional planner, been licensed since the year 2000. I'm also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I have a master's degree in city and regional planning, which I received from Ruckers University in 1997. I'm currently a municipal planning consultant to seven
communities. Uh I testify regularly in front of boards. I've been qualified in over 250 towns including Bridgewater on several occasions. >> Could you spell your last name for us? >> R I CCI. >> Thank you. Um just a little microphone tip for you. If you if you're going to
be facing the board and you're moving your head, you're moving it away from the mic. So move the mic the way you want to point your face. >> Thank you. >> I will do my best. Mr. Ricky, can you tell the board your involvement with this application?
>> Uh, sure. Um, I've been involved in this application since its inception. Um, as part of that, I've been um several team calls. part of this process through through the beginning. Reviewed the uh various iterations of of the plans
documentation, reviewed your master plan, went to the site on on several occasions uh and formulated a planning opinion as to the appropriateness of this use in this context. >> Thank you. If you can take us through your analysis, please. >> Sure. Do I need to repeat the variances? Are we are we sure on that? Do we want
to go? I >> I think it's a good idea for you to do that. Yes. Uh, in terms of the relief that we're requesting, I think the board is aware a D1 use variance as self-s storage facilities are not permitted in your C3
zone. A floor area ratio variance to permit a floor area ratio of of 0.44 where a maximum of 030 is permitted. Front yard setback variance facing the route 22 frontage. uh 200 feet is
required where 100 feet is proposed and again that's the additional standard that's placed on the 200 on route 22. Your schedule of bulk regulations has a 100 ft requirement um in the C3 zone to allow two loading spaces where four are
required um and to allow the freestanding sign with a setback of five feet um versus uh 30 feet. Um, in terms of relief being requested, I I know the board is aware of the relief for the D1 use fence, we have to show the site is particularly
well suited at this location and that the variance can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good, namely the surrounding property owners without a substantial impairment of your zone plan. And that's with the enhanced burden of proof to reconcile the emission of this use from your your
master plan and in and zoning ordinance. Um the floor area ratio variance has has a lower burden. Um uh the focus on the positive criteria is to demonstrate that the site can accommodate the problems associated with the increased F and that
the site is still appropriate in this context given its exceedence and with all variances they all we always have to demonstrate that they can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good in zone plan. I do note I'm not sure how Mr. older fields. But when
there is a use variance, the use is not anticipated in the zone. And under previous case law, the Paleo decision, those variants are usually subsumed together and a board looks at an application in its collectivity because there aren't specific standards for
self- storage facilities. With that mentioned, I am going to discuss the um the suitability and I'm also going to discuss in the context of this application the appropriateness of the variances as well. But I'm just putting it out there that traditionally it's these applications are reviewed in their
totality uh for the reasons that I mentioned. >> For the most part, I agree with that, but not every time, right? and and in your case um the size for example of the loading spaces I don't think that's
subsumed into it I think the setbacks are because you know you have the the required setbacks in the zone and the zone doesn't contemplate a warehouse so in that sense that type of uh deviation is subsumed but again not all >> okay and I'm I'm going to touch upon
everything and I'm going to try to be direct uh concise but still thorough enough to to address the uh the criter criteria here. Um, from my observation from a planning standpoint, I I saw this in as a town planner as well, I saw this
application as really an opportunity for a site that is um, lack of a better word, failing miserably. It's a it's an abandoned property. Uh, I do a lot of uh, formal redevelopment work. This property, I think without question,
would f would qualify as a formal area needed redevelopment. There's broken windows. the the site is essentially an abandoned property at this point. It doesn't exude a positive influence on the area. Um this is in your your C3 zone. It fronts on a federal highway and
also the other main roadway is a state roadway. This is an economic development area of the township where through the township's master plan, it looks to reinvest and to um for this to be an economic driver for the township. This is an economic development area um in
the township. Um regarding some surrounding land uses, I know the board has heard this um right joining us. I my understanding that that's a it's a landscaping business that's operating with a lot of trucks and uh outdoor storage occurring. Um you
also have the the the car facility, the assisted living facility. There's a I believe it works as office space, but it's a fragrance company. And then on the opposite side of the road largely and then some extent on the same side of Route 28, you have single family homes.
And well, I'm going to talk about this through my testimony. And that's one of the reasons that the use that we're proposing here works really well is because while a commercial use and in commercial zone, it's one of the least intensive land uses of a commercial
nature that really exists. As a planner in communities that I represented, I actually recommend this use adjacent to residential properties because of its passive nature. Once these facilities are filled, there's very little activity that occurs during them. And I think I
testify for another self- storage facility uh in town. Um but another portion of town in that I've literally been on self- storage sites elsewhere. Um, I do some work for the wireless companies and they were looking to uh
build a a wireless tower, been on site for several hours and and have seen like one or two people at these facilities. So, they're very passive facilities um once they're operational. In terms of permitted uses um in your C3 zone, um it
allows for a full range of office uses, essential services, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, medical and dental offices, research laboratories, and research activities. also allows
health clubs, wellness centers, day spas, and gyms, indoor commercial recreation, adult medical daycare, and medical support centers. Um, in in my review of the the characteristics of of of Route 22 in
this area, uh, approximately uh, 37,000 vehicles travel past the property uh, daily. Um the site is clearly designed to accommodate non-residential uses with strong vehicular access uh and visibility. Again the condition of the
site um is in a state where it its redevelopment I think should be prioritized um in this context. The site is conforming in area. It's 5.3 acres where 5 acres is required. And in my review, the site plan and its
configuration and frontage allow for the building and circulation to be accommodated while maintaining buffering and substantial open space, which I'll discuss in a second. You've heard from the architect, the height and the mass of this building where the height of this building, let's start with that, is
at a scale of residential nature. It's actually lower than what single family residential homes are permitted in Bridgewater Township at 35 feet. And again, I believe this is a highly appropriate transitional character use.
Um, these are low occupancy, low noise, low traffic commercial uses. And for that reason, it functions as an appropriate uh transitionary use of a commercial property to residential land uses. It's also has compatibility with
the surrounding pattern of development. you lie in your route 22 corridor containing office, institutional, commercial and service uses. Uh and here um in terms of the design that this facility is being um delivered as um you
have a professionally managed commercial use that I believe fits in the corridor context uh in in a better fashion than uh permissible uses uh in the zone because of the lower intensity uh associated with this use. I I I did look
at um office vacancy in the area um in the upper 287 corridor vac uh corridor which Bridgewater is associated with third quarter of 2025 there's a 16.6% 6% vacancy rate for
office. So there is not strong demand to build an office use uh in this location and there is need u for self- storage facilities uh in this context. um reviewed a report prepared by as part
of our team that indicates that the Bridgewater trade area has only two self- storage facilities in a threem radius totaling 130,42 rentable square feet which equates to 2.7 square ft of storage per capita
which is below the national average of 510 square ft and the national average of 7.75 square ft. Um the population in the trade area is projected to grow modestly from 48,15
individuals in 2025 to 48,574 by 2027 which will slightly increase demand as well. >> Mr. Ricky, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I just wanted a point of clarification if I may. >> Yes.
>> You're using the radius of how many miles around? >> Three mile radius. >> Three mile. But you're asking, but you're using the entire Bridgewater population when you're describing the current need or am I misunderstanding it? >> Um,
yes. And this was taken from a a re a special uh report that we had prepared that was meant to demonstrate need. I'm I'm providing some of the summaries of that report. Mhm. So what you're saying is that the the need in this area is based both on the immediate two or three
mile radius that you quoted and the entire population, but there are other self-s storage facilities in Bridgewater serving the wider population as well. >> Yes. But the the demographic analysis suggested that there's a significant under supply and the main issue the main
point that they use is based on population and rent leasable square feet and the number that I gave to you indicating um of 2.7 square feet of storage per capita is well below the the 5.10
and the national average of 7.75 suggests that there's significant uh demand for this type of space in the area. Thank you. >> You can continue. >> Um, and I know at one point there was a um there was an an objector down the
road. I'm not sure if that objection has has gone away, but what the data suggests is that even after this facility is built, there would still would be additional need for self-s storage facilities based on on on the projections. and that this is not a
situation where somebody in retail which often occurs where a user comes in and out competes another user which is commonplace because they think they can capture that market here there's there's enough rentable leasable area for for everyone based on these numbers and I
think that's something that uh is a is an important distinction to to be made um so what we have is is an efficient use or efficient reuse of an underperforming site. Uh I believe as a planner that
redevelopment of existing corridor properties is a legitimate planning objective. I'm going to skip over my outline and and move on and come back to something. Um there's consistency with modern market and land use uh realities.
Um again uh the market for traditional office use in this card is weaker than when the governing planning documents were prepared. Um, at the same time, there's been increased demand for for this type of land use. Uh, I did review you have a uh extensive
master plans here in in Bridgewater. And the the master plan that that most relates to the Route 22 Carter is your 2010 master plan element, an economic element for the Route 22 quarter. I'm also going to talk about the intent of
the zone in the C3 later on that was created u first when I reviewed it in 2004. So some time has passed since um the original intents of these areas were were developed. But in terms of advancing objectives from that corridor
master plan u that master plan indicates uh these following goals. Enhance and increase tax ratables through diversity of high value uses. support economic anchors and encourage reinvestment into existing facilities. Adjust to the
contemporary needs of commerce and Bridgewater residents. Encourage long-term sustainable site planning. Enable more flexibility in development context and promote economic activity in appropriate locations and offer building
design guidelines where appropriate. So, I think those really resonate with what's occurring at the subject property. Um I also believe that this site has the ability to accommodate the increase floor area ratio without having
uh negative influences. Um floor area ratio is really from a planning perspective is used twofold. It's used to uh limit the intensity of a property and it's also used as a goal of limiting mass. So, a site does not um
um have mass in a manner that that makes it look out of out of context and and and the property would not would be out of character with with the area per se. Um I believe that and I've already mentioned this in terms of intensity
which I've already discussed. Um we have a low practical intensity of self- storage use because self- storage involves low employee counts, low customer occupancy at any one time, low parking demand, low trip generation,
uh limited utility demand relative to office or medical uses. Uh and for these reasons, limited noise and external activity. Uh in comparison to um similar square footage used by general office,
medical or indoor commercial uses could impose substantially greater real world intensity on the site than the proposed self storage facility. Uh so in this case this facility not would would not increase result in increased intensity. it would be the
opposite. It would have decreased intensity. Um um in in terms of of how this building presents itself on the site, um the R3 zone allows for impervious coverages up to 60% on the property. Um the applicant
is proper proposing an incurious coverage of of 32.7%. In this regard, 67% of this site approximately would remain as open space in on an economic development property. I think that's a substantial finding is
terms of of the the limited amount of of this large property is actually being used for commercial purposes. Um, also I know the board has worked with the architect and your planner and engineer have worked uh together with them to
propose a facade in a design that would emulate an office building. And and while I'm I'm going to talk about this more a little bit later, I mean, the reason in my review of your master plan documents is that a use like this was not originally prepared because in 2004,
uh, when the intent of the zone was created, u, and I'm jumping ahead a little bit, self- storage facilities were of a completely different character and type. Um they were the phase one design facilities that were largely you see these around still and in Bridgewater uh single family uses with
the orange doors uh and they were industrial in character and they weren't an appropriate match in an office type zone. Um and I think you've seen from the architecture that that has changed significantly and is now a use that that
that does fit. And the applicant has presented this in a manner where they've been quite sensitive uh to the the residents on on Route 28 on the planting of of numerous 8 to 10 foot tall trees that are going to grow very tall over time where this is going to be a
facility that's ultimately going to have really no visibility over time from from those areas. Also, the the elimination of that driveway except for emergency purposes from Route 28 uh is also I thought was a nice touch to reduce
impacts um to that residential area as well. But with the scale of the building that is being depicted around 31 ft uh or so well under the 45 ft requirement while we are over your floor area ratio were
well under the height that's permissible and the context of spreading the building out and rather than going taller. Um and because of the intensity of this use is is so much less like by way of example if this was a medical office building um this site uh would
require approximately 48 excuse me 480 parking spaces. So that's the magnitude of difference that that we're talking about and that this type of facility uh brings um for consideration. Um
so it it's my finding overall that although the storage building has a higher F than permitted, it imposes less practical intensity on the site than other building types that can occupy similar floor area. Therefore, the requested floor area
ratio can be viewed as a numeric numerical increase in enclosed floor area but not a proportionate increase in the kinds of impacts the ordinance is designed to prep prevent. Um, regarding the bulk variances, um,
uh, the subject properties on an existing lot of record that requires the front yard setback variance to allow 100 ft facing Route 22 where 200 feet is required. Um today the front yard while the building is smaller the front yard
setback is 10.6 feet. So a substantial improvement uh is occurring. And again I mentioned that in your special case regulations uh for your R uh excuse me C3 district the standard is for 100 ft. There's just
an additional standard buried in the code elsewhere that requires that uh additional 100 ft. we meet the core minimum uh for other properties in your C3 district. Despite that, there's a particularly wide right of way. So,
while there is foot setback, this building would still be 175 ft from the Route 22 cartway. Uh otherwise, we exceed the required rear yard setback. Um, the way it works is I don't think
our our plan shows a sideyard setback, but the sideyard of the building moving in the westerly direct direction is over 500 ft from the property line. We exceed the rear yard setback. So, there's a lot of setback occurring on this property uh
as well. And once you combine the setbacks on this property because of you have the the 28 set route 28 setback, the route 22 setback and the rear yard setback. What is left on the property is the ability to and this is my
digitization of the plan of approximately 8.6% of the site remains that could be developed. Um, and this is an area that anticipates an economic development zone up to 60% of the site. So those setbacks
on a conforming size lot heavily impact the ability to develop the property. Regarding loading spaces and I thought I mean I'm not sure if this is in terms of the loading spaces I thought the design now is a a tasteful design where the
applicant is now has two loading spaces that are interior. So that takes away any potential for for visual impact. It helps regulate noise and the like. And in my opinion, the two loading spaces are appropriate based on the operational
testimony of the applicant knowing the needs that that this facility requires. Requiring more loading spaces just creates the additional for uh more activity that's that's not needed. Um additional area that need would need to
be enclosed and screened. Um, so in this context, I believe that reducing the number of loading spaces as delivered represents a better zoning alternative. Regarding the sign setback, despite not meeting the 30-foot required front yard
setback, because of that right ofway, the sign that is proposed is approximately 75 feet from the edge of the highway pavement. Anyone driving by does not recognize that the right of ways is just so wide in this area. So
despite the fact that we need this variance, I believe it still results in in sound land use planning um and meets the intent of the ordinance regarding signage. So for all the reasons I mentioned, this application
advances several purposes of miscellane use law. Uh purpose a because the site is particularly well suited. It promotes the general welfare. We've demonstrated that we have need uh for this use. So provides uh sufficient space and appropriate locations to meet the needs
of commercial users. Purpose G I believe even though we have um uh setback variances here. Typically I would not say that adequate open space uh light air and open space is being provided in this context though due to the high
amount of um or low amount of imperous coverage on this site and um being almost half of what's permissible or close to half of what's permissible. I believe that this application also advances an appropriate amount of light air in in open space
which is purpose C. Um, regarding the negative criteria, I believe the variances can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good in zone plan. I've touched upon a lot of the aspects here. We have a functionally extremely low traffic
generator with extremely low activity levels. Uh, we have a high degree of perimeter landscaping that's been touched upon. I think it's close to 160 trees or 160 180 trees just on that on that route 28 side
that are 8 to 10 feet in height. Uh again there is a project that is less intense than other permissible uses namely office and medical uh office uses and I'll try not to be repetitive but these type of facilities are far fewer in peak hour trips than these other
permitted uses. Uh and we're avoiding commuter surges associated with office. If you have a recreational uh office recreational facility, excuse me, if you have an indoor recreational facility uh at 45 ft tall, that's usually a one-story facility. You could have a
much more massive facility. Those facilities at times have large runs of people coming in and out of the site um during different games and league events and the like. We've heard testimony on on the lighting uh that it will be compliance with the
ordinance. No impacts to community facilities or schools would occur. Um a low noise generator. Um uh as well regarding the intent and purpose of your zone plan. Uh this is from your 2004 master plan and and if
it's okay with the board, I'm just going to read it into the record. I don't have a specific objection, but you do know that the master plan has been updated as of last year. >> I I I know and it's it's reconciling with the intent of these earlier provisions of the plan and saying
whether these provisions are valid. Okay. >> This is where the intent came from um that that speaks to and it's still the standards that are in place today from this 2004 uh provision that you'll you'll you'll hear me read. >> Very well. Thank you.
Uh the office service district uh C3 and C3A is intended for intermediate scale commercial office uses on larger parcels with direct highway access. It be no access to on local roadways except for emergency services. The districts
corresponds to the C3 and C3A zones and is concentrated in the route 22 corridor within the regional center with the exception of several out parcels located on route 28 Miltown Road and Route 22 at the municipal border with the township of Greenbrook. It permits a broad range
of office uses for banks, professional and service uses as well as research, medical services banks and financial institutions and assisted living facilities. These are the uses that are permitted today and it shows that this is when the intent was created. It was
over 20 years ago. Um the primary difference between the C3 and C3A zones is that banks and financial institutions are not permitted in the C3A zone. Retail activity is conditionally permitted as an accessory use only provided as part of a larger principal
office use that still exists today as well. The bulk standards encourage low-rise campus style development with a minimum lot area of 5 acres that remains today. Lot coverage of 60% remains today. F of30 that remains today and a
building height of three stories 45 ft. So the intent of this district was was created a long time ago. Um, I've already indicated how since the 2004 you had your 2010 master plan that specifically looked and addressed the
the goals for the Route 22 corridor that this project uh advances. Um, regarding reconciling this use from your municipal master plan, um, the only area in Bridgewater where self- storage facilities are permitted are in your MIB
limiting manufacturing district, which allows the facilities on on two acres uh, in area. This is largely uh, a manufacturing and industrial district. Um, and just want
to see one thing here. Um, and in my opinion, um, in my review of your master plan, they were placed in this district because of that 2004ish phase one type of facility that didn't lend itself well to other areas of town. Um I think it's
clear that self-story facilities have significantly evolved of land use over time and that the phase one facilities uh had many exposed bay doors and the like that didn't uh exude itself as an office type building which is being uh
developed by the applicant. Uh the modern buildings are no longer industrial in nature but can be designed to resemble office buildings with similar HVA systems. These aren't these are climate controlled buildings now. They're not just you put your stuff in a
a one-story building with a orange door that's not controlled anymore. Um and the like. Um so it it's my it's my opinion that there are changed circumstances since when these facilities were originally uh
contemplated uh decades ago where um these facilities were more industrial in nature. uh they've evolved and also we've demonstrated that since many years ago significant need has in chief uh there's been significant need since then
that helps reconcile that while office space is no longer needed like it was 20 years ago now self- storage facilities are and that's the change circumstance that we'd like the board to consider as part of this application in terms of design waiverss under the Garalo case
they simply have to be reasonable under the facts presented with some level of impracticality. You've heard the testimony from the previous witnesses. Uh we believe that their testimony uh should suffice uh in regard to the design waiverss. That's my direct
testimony. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Ricky. What I'd like to do first is ask if the any members of the board have questions specific to Mr. Ricky's testimony this evening. Mr. Fresco.
>> Uh thank you, Mr. Ricky. I I um I think that was excellent testimony. Um you know, about uh eight years ago, um I was an advocate against a town project. Um, and at that time what I didn't understand just just being a resident
was that where I lived was in a zone, you know, and I think that we've got so many concerned residents here. And and what I'd like you to do for me, if you can just just speak to this zone because
I think really at the heart of it is we all love Bridgewater and we all want to have a nice wonderful place to live, but this zone had an intention. So, if you can just spend just one more minute just as plainly speaking as you can explain
where exactly this is and why uh and and why this isn't a quick check, you know, and why this is maybe better than a quick check. >> Well, the zone and I spoke to the intent of the plan. It was it was largely intended to be an office zone and allow
assisted living facilities, uses of that type, right? And and one of the reasons that we are here is that you know there really limited opportunities in this zone from a planning standpoint in that this site has sat the way it has because
you know no one wants to build office space today and that's how we got to to this point in time right because you really don't build new office space when there's existing availability of office space unless you're Apple or somebody
that's going to build build office that's for a specific use that you would need to build something that's not available in the marketplace. Um but the zone is intended to be um an economic driver in your town. In towns as a planner when we master plan like the
zoning board doesn't anticipate or doesn't consider fiscal impacts, right? But when we master plan um we have areas and communities that uh we zone for for economic purposes and that there are areas that we zone and look for
preservation. There's residential areas that are more intense than other areas. Um from master planning standpoint, this is an area on a federal highway and a state roadway uh that was intended for economic development purposes. With that said, this applicant is trying to
deliver a product and a product that I think is the least intensive commercial use. We can't place residential here. I'm not sure if anyone wants residential, but we couldn't place that there. So, we've essentially selected the least intensive commercial use that
other than if you want a cell tower, that's a passive use, right? This is a lower u more appropriate passive use um that that there is uh need for in the area today. >> Does that answer your question sir?
>> Yes that's great. Thank you very much. >> Mrs. Am you have a question? Uh as a planner, do you know if there is a demand for these kind of uh spaces, self storage spaces in this area or um
how much of that space will be utilized and will there be lot of empty spaces or or we will get tenants to use it? That's the question as a plan. >> I am really sorry I'm having a hard time um hearing the full question.
My question is uh is there a demand for that kind of uh self storage units in this area in bridge order? Um, yes, there's there's strong demand and and the operators, I mean I mean I presented
some of that testimony, but operators don't make this type of investment uh unless they know that they can they can lease these spaces. They would they would go out of business, right? So they they look at the demand very closely. But here um even after this facility is
built, there still will be additional demand. Why I think that's important is that the local other providers in the area, we're not looking to out compete them and they offer the one down the road. I saw that at the bay doors and the like seems to be offering a little bit of a different product than than
this facility would offer as well. So, um there's there should be space for or opportunities for everyone is my point. >> Okay. >> Question. Um you said that a medical office building would require 480
parking spaces. How big would such a building be if it were in that? >> Well, I just compared it to a building this size to give you a magnitude of um the building likely I agree with you would likely be smaller because you would have to provide parking for it
likely. But this facility requires what do we have 20 15 parking spaces? >> 11 are required 15. >> 11 are required 15 are provided. a similar sized office building um would require you know what I said 480 parking
spaces that's an indication of just from an intensity perspective between the land uses >> and are medical office buildings maybe I don't have my microphone on are medical office buildings in demand at present >> um there there is there are uh I do see
medical office buildings being built yes >> so really >> or or I don't say built but occupy buying vacant spaces. >> So if you were to put a medical office building, which there is some demand for in that space, how much more traffic would be
generated? >> Uh significantly more. And I'm part of just to clarify my testimony is that um you have a high degree of vacancy already. So there's space for those medical offices to already go into. and
you're and you're um in the Bridgewater corridor, it's slightly lower than New Jersey as a whole. So, you wouldn't build here an office space. If someone wanted to occupy an office space, it's already available for you. I can't give you exact I'm not a traffic engineer,
but as a planner, uh I represent a number of towns as I said and I've testified at multiple occasions. I can tell you that office traffic is significantly higher just based on the parking demand. Right? If you had 400 if you needed 480 parking spaces, that
means those cars are going to be coming to the facility, right? So that of itself speaks to the the additional type of trips and in in terms of increased traffic as well. >> But with a building this size, you wouldn't be able to fit 480 >> um
>> parking spots on on this lot, would you? I I would defer that to our our site engineer. I I would say that we are close to half of the impervious coverage. I'm not sure if we can fit 480, but we could sit significantly more parking than what showed on the plan today.
>> I think the the purpose of um Mr. Ricky's testimony was to talk about the intensity of use as it compares to what is proposed and what um other types of facilities would require. He's not suggesting it's practical to build it
there or even suggesting that somebody contemplate that, but using as a point of comparison. >> That's what I was trying to get a comparison so that I know what would be permitted >> and what would be >> fair. When Mr. Ricky offered that comparison, it was a discussion about
the F and what the F intends to control that being intensity of use. And just to illustrate the F not being necessarily one for one here because of the low intensity and the way that he illustrated that was just using a
parking ratio as an example. Uh and just to go back to your earlier question about trip generation just to remind you of what Mr. going testified to in January the trips of the existing tectonic facility and the existing farmstand those existing uses generate
more trips than the proposed self- storage building. So everyone's familiar with the size and scale of the those two buildings in comparison to the size of this building and yet that the trips would be less under the proposed uh scenario.
>> Mr. Vesio, you had a question. >> Couple questions. I think the the number in the parking um definitely good point there. So the currently you have a F of 044 correct and then.3 is the allowed
zoning. Okay. So if you were to build a medical building that conforms that would be about 2/3 the size. Would you would you say that's accurate? Would it be accurate
say then okay then 2/3 the parking 2/3 of 480 would be kind of what you would what this site would generally need to have for a conforming building >> because it's a ratio. Yes, that would be approximate. Yes.
>> Okay. Um, regarding the occupancies, um, this occupancy type, is there anything inherently, um, less safe about this type of occupancy versus if it was an occupancy that is permitted in a C3 zone?
>> Um, that's an operational question. Um, I I would say that I know that these facilities are are heavily monitored >> um through cameras and the like and I just know from testifying on these and being a board planner that there's great
sensitivity taken to that because um they they monitor what's coming in and what's coming out. One of the things that I know it's even there's concern about like movement, right? If somebody's like would try to move in or something. So they're they're monitored
very closely. Um it's really an operational question. That's all I can say is that that I know generally as a planner. Um but I I think with any type of land use there's always you know there's some type of inherent risk
associated with it. If I had an office building out I mean could someone bring in something in or do something? Of course, >> there is a a lease there will be a lease provision prohibiting any storage of hazardous materials. Uh obviously no outside storage, no material storage
outside. Uh and the staff would be policing what's being brought into the facility to ensure that the requirements of the lease are being met. So nothing that would be stored here that you wouldn't find in your home. Uh with the exception obviously of no petroleum products. Mhm.
>> Are you aware of any sort of um safety issues or crime associated at other facilities of this type of occupancy? >> I'm not sure if I'm I'm the best witness for this. Of my general knowledge, um I represent one town that has I don't
know, seven or so of these. Um they've done expansions. Um, I've never seen a police report from the community saying there's a problem that they would like to see addressed as part of the staff review. Um,
so I not to my knowledge. No. >> Regarding noise pollution, would you think this would this be generating more noise or less noise versus a an approved use on this facility? I believe once
these facilities are are occupied um as I said previously my my testimony I've been on another facility for for multiple hours in the Morristown area because I was doing um a drone test of the area and I saw one vehicle in two
hours come in the facility. So there'll be a ramp up period where the facility would be occupied here. The loading would be internalized to the building. There's no outside doors that those have been removed. It's all internalized, right? So there's not a lot of outdoor activity occurring. There's no boat
storage or any outdoor storage occurring here. So everyone's confined to the building. So the noise is the car coming in once in a while. Um so and once it's occupied, if there's very little activity occurring, there's very little
noise associated with it. >> Two more questions. One more. uh regarding environmental hazards. Do you do you have any concerns about this type of occupancy with environmental hazards versus you know an approved user >> in in what sense? like somebody bringing
an oil or petroleum product in and it >> the type of Yeah. the type of general use you would have for this type of agreement. You know, I know it's not a no hazardous materials. Is there anything less sort of environmentally um unfriendly with this type of facility versus, you know, another facility?
>> There's a prohibition on on those type of materials being stored on site. Correct. >> Yes. So is the question is if someone illegally brings in a prohibited uh substance what's the liability for that is is that the question or >> my question is more about kind of
does this building generate any more envir you know more performed has more damage to our environment versus let's say another building that could be put in this site. >> I mean I'm not sure if anyone on the board has has used these facilities. These are people moving, don't have
enough space in their house. They're storing general household items and a like historically is is what's occurring here. >> Okay. >> An extra bed and extra TV. And that's that's what you're talking about. >> All right. And if we went with those one of those other uses, do you envision that? I know we're about half the law
coverage. Would be what would you say in terms of existing trees, would there be a lot more removal of existing trees with those other uses on this lot compared to what we currently have? >> Um well, if if they expanded the amount of impervious coverage, there would be more sight disturbance. Clearly, um I
can't speak to how many additional trees, but if you're going to disturb more of the site, there's going to be more >> um you know, need to treat storm water, uh potentially replant um you know, overall there's a greater
environmental impact because more of the site is disturbed. >> All right. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board as I'd like to get to our board professionals? Um, Mr. Armad, do you have questions for this witness?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Ricky, just a few questions. You were mentioning kind of the I guess it was like a market study or a demand study. Did you say that there are two facilities within Bridgewater? >> No, I I believe there's more, but in the
trade area I was speaking to, >> what is the trade area defined by? >> Three mile area. So, how could the trade area only the radius outside Bridgewater or does it include the interior of Bridgewater? >> It the trade area was drawn based on my
review of a threem radius of the of the facility. >> Of just this facility, not of Bridgewater as a whole. >> No. >> Got it. Okay. Understood. Um, so so the trade area might not include appro other approved self- storage facilities like
the one you alluded to your involvement with that. Um, and that facility was never it's not going to be built is my understanding. I I spoke with the the the applicant. I don't think they're going to build it. >> Understood. >> At least they told me about several months ago. They were not. >> Understood. And and any other pending
pending self- storage facilities that might be proposed at this time. Those are not included either in that demand study. >> Um, I would need assistance in answering that question because I wasn't the original preparer of the report. >> Okay. >> That's fine. Um,
as far as the U master plan, I know you relied upon the 2010 route 22 element of the master plan as well as the 2004 master plan. The chairman had also mentioned that the township had updated its master plan just last year in a comprehensive review of all elements.
Um, and I don't know if you had a chance to review that at all. >> Uh, I I have. Yeah. Yes. Did you were there any recommendations that you noticed about the C3 zone in particular that were included?
>> Um, did I miss Let's see. Did I miss something about the C3 zone in the current master plan? There there was a recommendation under the land use element of the comprehensive master plan that um included that the township um in the western portion of Route 22 and the C3 district to the east of Route 28
intersection should be evaluated for broad spectrum of permitted uses that consider the adjacent residential neighborhoods as well as the highway quarter doesn't specifically note this use which I was going to question if you know how you reconcile that the master plan specifically talked about this zone but didn't really include this use
despite kind of the modernization of the use the use popping up in other places for use variances um etc. If if you could reconcile that. >> Um first of all I believe what you said is that the master plan has suggested that this area be evaluated to include
additional uses. Um what what I did was um uh looked at um more specifically when the master plan recommended like the core uses right which still have not still are
largely intact and and have not changed and also when it specifically looked at the route 22 corridor specifically. The reason I did that is because um when when you look at the Medici criteria
um you have to evaluate whether the conditions have changed and here the condition has changed as well as you're saying in the most recent master plan to evaluate a diff different uses and when the uses were really put on paper in terms of not actually having specifics
that was over decades ago and now you're still saying that decades later to consider additional opportunities or uses. Uh I think this is a use that that makes sense for the reasons that I mentioned. Um and since there's no
really formal recommendation uh and there is significant need was my point that those are the change circumstances here. >> Thank you. Um and I just wanted to clarify that the the I know you talked about the kind of core original purpose
of the zone. the 2010 route 22 master plan element did specifically talk about the C3 zone did talk about adding complimentary uses did make recommendations specific to it I I don't think you covered that I just wanted to include that so the board is aware um and additionally in regards to the
demand I think you'd answered one of the board's questions and responded and saying that you know the operator wouldn't have made an investment I I'm not sure that an operator has been identified um you know throughout this the course of this whole process so I don't know if that's changed if there there's an operator associated with this
um or specific user uh business. >> There has not. No, >> there's not. Okay. >> What Mr. Rick is just referring to that the team behind the project wouldn't have noted the site and uh prosecuted the application if there wasn't >> understood. I took it in a different way that an operator is kind of jumping at
this opportunity. But I I understand. But there's there were team members I think to be fully clear that that work in this industry and worked for um numerous self- storage facilities that that understood >> you know what what these facilities look
for to design so that somebody would be a shovel ready project uh and be attractive to a user. >> Thank you. Um I think Mr. Mr. Mcnella from the board had asked kind of an alluding question that you'd covered that office uses and office vacancies um
and how they relate to it being a permitted use in this zone, but there are other uses um that are permitted that you didn't really cover nursing homes, assisted living facilities, adult medical offices, research and lab. Um, and I don't know if you had any insight
on kind of how those industries are doing and those uses are doing in Bridgewater specifically or, you know, more generally. >> Um, I I did not reach out to the nearby medical facility to see um if there would be looking to expand. It wouldn't be an adjacent site. There's a site
between them, per se. Um, conceivably, you know, there could be um a nursing home facility on the property. I'm not saying that any other use is is um is would not occur here. Um the
primary driver that we historic he historically saw and was the primary use in this zone was really was office and there I was pointing out that there's no demand for that. Um and I was pointing out there is demand for this use.
>> Thank you. Um just one I guess one final final um question. the Mr. Kunman, the engineer uh for your team had mentioned that uh upon a question about not meeting the buffer requirements for the evergreen plantings
that the landscape plan um he felt met the intent of the ordinance requirement. And I bring this up because specifically the landscape requirements are related to buffers uh for non-residential uses and residential uses. Um so there are
specific landscaping requirements. I guess the intent really is to um provide a sufficient buff buffer between those two uses to make sure that they remain compatible. Um and in this case, evergreen plantings likely because they retain, you know, their lushness
seasonally um and wouldn't create an exposure in a in a season where they lose their leaves or things like that. Presumably that's the intent of the ordinance in having an evergreen requirement. Would you agree? >> Uh I I do. I thought the landscaping proposed was significant and and the
height of planting as as well as 8 to 10 feet at time of planting would show a significant impact to the site. I thought >> impact in a good way. >> I think the landscape plan is is is well done. I'm just asking to reconcile the specific requirement as it relates to
the proposal um in being able to meet a certain requirement of the zone in relation to um the other relief that's being sought. So um really my question is you and I think you kind of answered it is do you think the landscape plan is sufficient and how do you reconcile the
ordinance requirement specifically you know specifically requiring a number of evergreens and not meeting that? Well, again, I didn't provide the landscape testimony. Um, it's my understanding that the applicant went at great lengths
to to maximize the the buffering uh in that site. Uh, at certain point in times, you have limitations in site parameters that don't allow for plantings to a certain level, which I believe is occurring here. Um, also I
think that the board can evaluate the lack of access that's occurring from Route 28, which my understanding is that there's no prohibition on that. So the applicant is giving back access to their site from a state road as part of this. That also influences the buffering onto
this property, traffic on local roads, and that collectively this represents a better zoning alternative uh for this site. >> Thank you. A final question. Um there was a conversation I guess a little bit about F and um kind of its impact or you
know how it relates to the use itself. Um the the F permitted because this is still a commercial zone is one of the higher FS. I guess it's you know it's it's higher than the residential zones. It's kind of middle of the road as far
as F in all the zones across Bridgewater. the highest permitted in Bridgewater really is point4 um and that's even being exceeded by this um by this proposal. So and um and additionally the township does have
hillside development calculations which reduce kind of the yes >> the uh allowance based on the amount of steep slopes and you know sensitive areas on the property. So, um, just a question how you reconcile the requested F in relation to the fact that it's not
just the C3 zone, but pretty much townshipwide that you're still exceeding even the most allowed F in any zone. >> Okay. I I think I was clear regarding that the first prong is to demonstrate that the site can encourage
the problems associated with the increase F. And I talked about the intensity of the use. I think I was pretty clear. I talked about the massing of the building in terms of how um the the mass of the building was was lower than a single family residential standard in a zone that allows 45 ft. Uh
so I think it was pretty clear that how the product was being delivered was not being overly intensive. Um despite the fact that we we do exceed your F. I also pointed out that the impervious coverage on this track is is woefully less as
well. So the applicant is giving back substantially amount of impervious coverage that would occur in intensity of another use. Um this to some extent the F at some point I know it's a number. Um but when you look at this
site in it its totality in terms of the height of the building the amount of open space that it's provided uh it's still clearly despite the fact in my opinion results in sound land use planning. Um, and while that number is a number on paper that we're exceeding,
uh, when I look at the actual attributes of how this is being delivered, it doesn't result in, in my opinion, substantial detriment to the to the surrounding property owners and in an economic development area of a town that allows for for 60% impervious coverage
and is trying to meet certain economic development objectives. I'm not sure how we're not meeting we're impairing the intent in that aspect as well. So I looked at it more collectively, not as just a static number in that regard. >> Thank you, Mr. Ricky. Further,
>> Mr. Armed. Thank you. Mr. Bernie, do you have questions for Mr. Ricky? >> I do not, Mr. Chairman. Not at this time. Thank you. >> Um, yeah. What I'd like to do now, please, is take a 10-minute break and then we'll resume with questions of Mr. Ricky with the public at that time. So,
let's break for 10 minutes. conversations that needed to take place uh away from the meeting. But we're back on track now and Miss Propes is going to take us through a roll call so we can account for everybody and get started. Here.
>> Here. >> Here. >> Yes. Here. >> Here. >> Here. >> Here. >> Here. >> Thank you very much. So, we are now
going to continue. But Mr. KBZ, did you have some remarks first or are you okay? >> Nothing dead at this time, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. We're going to continue with our session, but we'd ask at this time that the public pose questions again specific to the testimony of the planner
if you have any. So, just his testimony as you heard it this evening. And if you have questions, now's the time to pose those questions. Same rules apply. Come up to the podium, tell us your name, etc. If you haven't signed it yet, do
that. >> Welcome back. >> Thank you. I'll try to make this short. Um, >> oh, sorry, but your name just >> Oh, Carol and Joya. >> Thank you. >> G I O I A. Um, Mr. Ricky, thank you so
much for coming tonight. I was expecting a planner. We were promised a planner on January 27th and then it got postponed and then you're here. So, thank you for coming and I appreciate you wearing the hat of traffic engineer and the whole team um operator and planner. Um I
believe our planner had asked you about the Chimney Rock facility, Chim Chimney Rock Self Storage that you were a planner for also and you had commented that it was not going forward. Is there a reason it's not going forward? >> Not relevant, right? Why is that relevant?
>> Well, he said it's not going forward. I was wondering if there was a demand reason why it wasn't going forward. that's relevant. >> Um, all I can say is that if you know I'm not the operator. Um, the operator said to me that um, >> I guess based on I guess their cost and
the like that it didn't make sense from a financial standpoint. It wasn't based on demand. >> It was not based on demand. Okay. Okay. Um, my next question is um, you had said that the facility would be on a federal highway. Is that correct?
Um, yes. >> Okay. Are you familiar what the speed limit is generally on a federal highway? >> Um, I don't know the post. >> I'm not sure where you're going with the speed limit. >> Yeah. Speed limit. >> Hold on a second. >> He called it federal highway and you asked him if it was going to be on a
federal highway. That's appropriate. Not sure where you're going with the speed limit relative to his testimony because he's not the traffic engineer. >> I know. And I you'll see later I'm going to request the traffic engineer return because there are some serious questions about the speed that's going to take place in front of this facility. So
since the traffic engineer and the operator aren't here, >> his testimony had been concluded and to my knowledge he has no intention of coming back at this time. >> I understand it was sort of a common sense question. You you know the speed limits 55 to 65
miles an hour. Uh I I mean I I didn't recall the posted speed but generally it's 55 on the road of that. >> Okay. And then there are >> ascertain the speed limit. I'm still waiting for a question. >> Well the question was did you know that the speed limit is >> Oh he does.
>> Yes the answer. Okay. All right. So are you aware that there are traffic lights on Route 22? >> Okay. And there's spaces in between where sometimes there's a chance to accelerate and then there's spaces where there's a lot of lights. You don't go >> just have to stop you. I'm not sure how
this is relevant to his testimony. >> Okay. Well, I said it's really not. But the traffic operator is >> Don't ask it because you'll have an opportunity. Okay. >> To testify later, but I want to confine the questions as the hour is growing late so that we have more time for public comment.
>> Okay. I'll move on to you said there was a need for self- storage, correct? In this area. Yes. >> Okay. Are you aware of an April 15th Wall Street Journal article entitled Self Storage at a Tipping Point? >> Um I I'm not aware of that article. The
numbers that I base were were based on a local need, not just a general tipping point of the Wall Street Journal. I know the article, but um a specific analysis was done for this area. >> Okay. And then in that article, it talked about some units are using remote
observation. Are you planning to use remote observation in your facility? >> I don't know. It's an operator operational question. >> Okay. Again, I would request that we have an operator appear in front of the board at some point before any vote is taken. >> Mr. Chairman, we >> go ahead.
will be at the property on Saturdays. As far as remote observation is concerned on camera, >> thank you. >> Okay. on the agenda for tonight, not
hearing Solar Landscape LLC, they're putting um solar panels on top and you talked about alternate uses in your space. Is that something your storage facility would consider doing and generating solar power for our community? >> I don't know.
>> Okay. I thought that would be a planning question, but I'm not sure. It's not. No, >> it's operating. >> No. >> Okay. Um, you talked about need and you said that our 2.7 is much lower than 5.1, a national 7.5. Do you think that could be because this
area is primarily single family homes that have garages and basement for storage? >> Um, the need in terms of how it's generated, it's it's a pretty simplistic calculation, but it's it speaks to need. People with single family homes as well
um have need for self-s storage facilities. maybe not at the same level as somebody in an apartment potentially, but they have needs as well. I have a single family home. Um, I live with another individual and we have a self- storage facility.
That's one example. >> Well, I'm with you. I had self- storage, too, when I first moved to Bridgewater. Um, in 2020 during COVID, I had to sell that because I kind of lost my job. Um, and I looked for ways to save money.
Today people have higher health care, higher gas prices. Do you think people are going to be willing to spend money on a storage unit in these current economic times? >> Well, I mean again I mean this is the risk that an operator takes when they they build something. They've done their
analysis. They believe the need exists. They believe they can build or or sell this and it could be it can be built. I mean that's why I mean that's a risk a developer takes in in any context. at any time a market could change or there could be a change, but that's the risk
that they take. >> That's true. Um, my last question, you talked about um the facility and use for that area. You talked about redevelopment. Um, are you aware there's a farmhouse on the property from the 1830s? >> Uh, I don't know the date, but I'm aware
of the Milik farm on the property. >> Okay. And are you aware that there might be an underground oil tank on the property that needs remediation? Uh I'm not but I mean that's a site engineering question. I know that you know any of those issues have to be reconciled as part of development. So if there's an
oil tank that would have to be capped or um go through the protocols with D to make sure that that's addressed. So uh I really should defer that to someone else but um that's just part of development. >> Okay. >> I think Mr. Kapzy would agree that if there were such environmental issues,
they would be resolved to the satisfaction of the township regulations and ordinances. So I don't think that's a problem. >> Okay. Would that be before or after the variance is granted? >> After after >> after >> it's not within the jurisdiction of this board. >> But regardless of that, I'm not aware of
any oil. I've been working on this property for several years. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, those were all my questions. Thank you. And I do ask for an operator to come back and present to the board. Thank you. >> I think it's I think it's important, Mr.
Oler, to note that a an operator is not required if this board decides to approve or even not approve the application. >> Right. That that's very true. And we did hear some background on, you know, basic operational uh testimony from others.
>> Mhm. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who have questions specific to Mr. Ricky's testimony regarding planning? Come on up and please sign in and then tell us your name. We may ask you to spell it.
>> My name is Phyllis Colbeback. >> And we're going to ask you to spell your last name. Phyllis, we got >> K A L M B A C K. >> Very well. >> And your address, please. >> Uh 531 Route 28.
>> Thank you. >> I think most of my questions have been answered overall, except as an urban planner with a master's degree in all of Bridgewater, can you tell us
what the need is? number of storage units. >> I cannot because it's I base my testimony on a on a report that was done by by someone else. Um, but that numbers are it's it's it's a very simplistic equation. It's it's
essentially it's the amount of space that exists as it relates to population. And sometimes that trade area may change from three. I've seen it from three and I've seen that at five miles. I mean, that could be based on maybe the size of the building or the facility or the like in terms of what they're trying to
capture, but um I was on the uh Chimney Rock application as well. Um that's located several miles away from here. Um during that application, there was testimony as in that area of town of significant need as well. So, at least
in those two instances, um that need seems to be overlapping. I don't have a I don't have a number for the entire town. >> Okay. Where did you get your report from? >> Um, it's I don't know the exact consultants. Can you help me out with the consultant? >> It was just internal conserv.
>> Yeah, but there was a written report that you're >> No, no, there's a written >> Excuse me if I don't wholeheartedly understand that because >> you're consulting a study. Now you're telling me it's conversations within a team. >> Has there been an official study done?
I I reviewed paper documentation of I I had I reviewed paper documentation of of her findings. >> Is there any of that on file on record >> with respect to the study? Just his testimony and whatever documents he may have prepared, but we don't have a copy
to my knowledge of that study. >> Is that inappropriate to ask for that? Because it seems like Bridgewater is right for a booming storage industry. >> Well, it it's not inappropriate to ask. They may not be able to present it, but his testimony was that his calculation
that okay, but his testimony was also that it was based on a study. >> Correct. >> So I just would like to know who did the study. >> That's a fair question and so far we don't have isn't there >> an answer beyond >> here. I would think that's very important for everybody planning in this
town. >> Yes. >> Especially in this day and age. >> I'm sorry. I don't I don't get the day and age reference, but I do understand the importance of questioning >> real turmoil in the country right now and I don't think a lot of people are going to be able to afford storage units.
>> Okay. Well, >> as that young lady pointed out, laid off in 2012. >> Now you're veering into testimony. We prefer you confine this section to questions for the planner based on his testimony. >> This isn't a question, but this isn't comment.
>> Well, the comments can be reserved. >> Okay. The comments can be question. >> No, I'm sorry. This gentleman insulted me. >> He insulted you? >> Yes, he did. >> I'm sure he would apologize as such. I will apologize on his behalf. >> Okay. Well, it they were were they not
encouraged to come out and speak with the neighbors because I work at the farm stand. >> Sorry, but we really can't do comments now. You're welcome to do that when we get to that point, but right now it's only questions about what he testified
to. >> Okay. So, are you saying that the current business that's there now is not an economic driver for this town and specifically the community in the area? >> When I spoke to the property overall, I was speaking to the tectonic building
that was in significant state of disrepair. Do you agree with me on that? The tectonic building >> is in disrepair. >> Yes. um the the Milk Farm building clearly that that's not the case. Um that's operating in my opinion more as an accessory use of the property on on the
Route 28 side and the like and that appears to be um I would in in that context in my review of that facility I don't visit it but it seems to be clearly a viable use of that end of the property.
>> You could ask a lot of these people here whether it's viable or not. and it is an economic driver and it's something that we don't anywhere else in town >> later. Thank you. >> Later. Thank you, Mr. Ricky. Thank you.
>> So, let's have additional questions for Mr. Ricky based on his testimony this evening. >> Good evening. My name is Chris Field. I do not live in Bridgewater. um a uh self-s storage consultant representing the Bridgewater United folks.
>> So, do you have a formal relationship with whatever Bridgewater United is, which we haven't determined yet? >> Uh the the town's people reached out to me. >> Okay. Are you an attorney? >> No, I am not. >> Well, then you cannot ask questions on their behalf. >> Okay, fair enough. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Additional questions for Mr. Ricky based on his testimony this evening. And please have us give us your name, etc. >> Uh, Nikolai Timq. Do you need me to misspell both? N I >> Sorry. Go ahead. Sorry.
>> O L A T Y M K I W. >> Um, >> I'm sorry. But give me your last name again, Spelling. >> Tim Q. T Y M K I W. >> Okay, thank you. >> Oh, uh, 3610 Riddle Court.
Riddle. RI DL E. Um I just wanted to ask if you knew um the occupancy rate of the uh storage facilities that are currently operating in Bridgewater. >> Do not. >> So the I believe the national average right now sits at about 70%. Northeast
Corridor I think is 76%. So I was wondering now you're testifying though. So if you can you asked him if he knows what the current occupancy rate is. He said >> well those are national. This is in. >> No, I but I have no way of verifying your sources right now and you're
testifying. If you were testifying, then we'd have to swear you in. >> Okay. >> So, we're just asking you to ask questions. You asked him if he knew what the occupancy rate is. And your answer, Mr. Ricky, was >> I do not. >> He does not. >> Okay. That's that's it then.
>> Thank you. Other questions for Mr. Ricky? and welcome back. Jim Brady, thank you. >> Jim Brady, >> um before I ask my question, can I be sworn and give testimony on
>> at the appropriate time? Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. I know you were the planner in the Chimney Rock um project and so maybe you're familiar I'm going to ask a question, please. You may be familiar with the uh operator, his
name Michael Lang, testified that 10% of the unit occupants visit daily. So if we extrapolate that to this project or even that project, that's 75
cars a day. So how is that insignificant traffic increase? >> So do you have a copy of the transcript from that? >> I do. I have the resolution >> uh >> in present not with me it's sitting on my desk but I did use Oprah and procure it. >> So I just want to caution the board that
we really can't just accept that as truth. We would need a copy of the physical transcript because he did testify under oath. Right. >> Right. So if you wanted to quote what the testimony was as part of a question, you could do that. >> But I'm just letting the board know. We
don't really know that to be accurate. Okay. Okay, >> I'd be glad to provide that along with some other statistics once I'm sworn. Um, okay. So, where do I start? >> Reference, there's going to be a question referencing the Wall Street
Journal article from two weeks ago. >> It called storage units in America dead zones, economic dead zones. So, how do you see a storage building that you say has no activity
um an economic driver? Like what do you think once they come visit they go to Starbucks and that drives the economy in a community? Well, when I speak an economic driver, I'm speaking about the replacement of the the tectonic building um that you
know represents a fairly small percentage of the site and replacing it in an economic development zone with a building. That building whether it's occupied or not occupied would be taxed by the township and that would provide it economic ratable to the community. >> Okay? So it's based on tax ratable not
creation of jobs or employees or anything like that. >> Okay. >> I base it on the the tax rate of all these facilities. You know there there's very few people on site associated with >> okay once sworn I'll give provide the testimony from the chimney rock project
that says there are people on site 10% which of a unit of this size. >> Maybe you should just wait till that. Okay. It'll just be more effective. Let me get to the next question then. Um, you had just meant in your testimony said that the architecture has
significantly changed as a response to the board and the public input from the last meeting. Tell me how you justify changing it from a blue and white metal box to an earthtone and white metal box. And how
is that architecturally significantly changed other than a color scheme? >> I think the removal of the the rollup doors from the exterior of the building where the project started um was a significant change that allowed the building to transform to more mimic an
office space rather than um largely an office building with those doors. So I thought that was a significant change. over time the the loading that was now brought inside the building. Um so it wouldn't be visible. You don't really see too much loading like that
associated with an office building. So, I thought those were significant changes that made it more acceptable uh to emulate an office space and and to I mean I think the goal here and I think the board's goal was um whatever that was going to be voted on would be the
the best product and I thought that a lot of sensitivity was was given to the neighborhood. I thought the landscaping that was provided. I thought the use is a very good use for commercial use that adjoins residential. Um so I guess
that largely answers my my question. >> Okay. Thank you. Um public input related to the architecture and there's going to be a question was requesting that it maybe this design maybe mimic an adjacent property the sunrise senior
home. Does these does this developer have any intention of, you know, adding a gable, adding a sophet, make it blend in to the adjacent properties, or is this pretty much what we're going to get? A a metal box of varying tones?
>> Mr. So, there's no going to be any modification to really represent the neighbors wishes as far as the architecture. Okay, that's clear. >> I I don't think I'm going to let your statement stand on its face because the applicant has made some changes to the
facade, some changes to the placement of faux windows and so on. Has additionally um in many ways re rellandscaped aspects of the property in response to that which was requested by the neighbors. So, if you're going to make
assertions, let's make sure they're accurate. I will. The only reason I I mentioned that is because he used the term significant changes to architecture and I didn't feel that changing the color >> your opinion was significant. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So, addressing your claims of that there's no negative criteria associated with this particular usage and you you cited no noise, less traffic. Okay. So, this is an operational
question. So tell me if we have to wait till there's an operational representative here, but are you aware the noise generated by trying to heat and cool 102,000 square ft and the tonnage required and the decibel
level associated with that tonnage? >> There are certain requirements that we have to meet >> which will be met. >> Okay. But no, >> those are questions for the architect asked I thought that was an operations
question because it's related to the operation. >> They have to comply. If you were a resident >> and you felt that noise exceeded if you felt the noise exceeded a state requirement, you could make a complaint and that could be studied. It would have to be fixed.
>> Okay, >> that was the case. >> Do you think it would be prudent to ascertain that now as opposed to after it's in place? Um, I mean, I'm not the person to answer that, but these facilities are designed with with that in mind because they know they have to adhere to state requirements. It's it's
a it's a practice of of of of >> they just have to meet those standards. So, they've stipulated to meeting them. They must meet them. And if they don't meet them, then they have to go back and make changes so they can meet them. >> Okay. The reason I ask is I'm reminded of the fiasco at the Miltown school down
the road where the all the HVAC units had to be removed and shrouds and noise protection put on the roof due to residents complaints after it was built. So that's why I think it's a it's a pertinent question to ask at this. >> It's a pertinent question, but the answer is
>> they're going to do it. >> Yeah, they have to do it. >> So I Okay, I have to accept that. The tonnage required to do that generates like 95 dB. >> Okay. It's not time to test. >> Okay. All right. I got you. All right.
Let me question his expert in relating to his uh testimony. Um so if he's the only one here, then there's no traffic expert, right? So any traffic >> traffic expert had previously testified,
>> right? I know but there's no going back on any any information that was ex before tonight. >> Correct. But you can at the end offer your comments relative to those things that you you have observed. >> Okay. Thank you. I I certainly will. Um
so just any other questions for Mr. Ricky about his planning testimony? >> Yes. >> With the knowledge that there are other people who would like to ask questions. >> Okay, I got it. Let me just make sure I ask anything. Okay. All right. It'll all be done then in the public comment
period if he's not able to answer any of these questions. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Other members of the public wishing to question Mr. Ricky on his testimony that which he's given tonight. >> Welcome and tell us who you are and signed in as you can move that mic down
by the way. >> Yeah, I'm a shrimp. Michelle Glick, G L I C for Sterling Drive in Bridgewater. And as I'm sitting there, I'm thinking when and if this does go through and
they take over, what what's the chances of them changing what the building is supposed to be? Is that something that can happen >> in terms of the appearance of the building? >> No. The the whole setup of the building, it can it become something else? >> No. is when this board approves the site
plan and the floor plan, we have to build what we say we were going to do. So, um if if that occurred, um just say the only thing that could occur is something very minor that could be done administratively like we're talking about if you couldn't
I don't know just say you couldn't get a type of tree that was an evergreen maybe they would swap out to a comparable tree but anything significant would have to come back to this board for approval. >> Okay. I'm just talking about the whole operation itself. >> Right. I think that's the important
where you're getting at with your question. Can they change the purpose of what they've built? And the answer is they cannot unless they come back to this board for the approval of their new proposal. >> Okay. And also, it's hard to tell from the picture far away. They have these
large bays, tall bays. Are those for tall trucks coming in and out? Really tall. >> I'm not sure if I can answer the question. I I didn't >> box, >> you know. So, not tractor trailers. They're not tractor trailer. >> No, not those, but box trucks that might
have a few items on them that somebody's transferring. Let's say they're moving from one location to another. They want to put some excess materials in there. That kind of thing. I think that's, and correct me if I'm wrong, that's the kind of truck you're looking to accommodate. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. and sign in if you would and then tell us your name and your address. My name is Stuart Essum. I live at 23 Purscell Road. My last name is spelled Y, pardon me, U Sm.
Uh my question is at the beginning of your testimony uh you had mentioned the deviations or exceeded isn't it true that the deviations and exceedences especially of the floor area ratio wouldn't exist or be as severe if the
building the applicant proposed was smaller. >> I agree. Thank you. Uh my only other question regards the study that you testified about. Obviously you testified as a planner uh
because either the information affected the positive or negative criteria. >> I testified yes as >> but that but that doesn't exist >> that report. >> Uh it has it's it's not an official report but it's not on file. Correct.
>> Thank you. I'll have a comment about the fact that it doesn't exist even though the planning testimony was given as affecting the positive or negative criteria. >> Okay, that's fair. >> Thank you. >> Do you have additional questions or >> That's it. >> Okay, thank you.
Does any member of the public wish to um ask Mr. Ricky any questions regarding his testimony tonight? Welcome. Tell us who you are and your address, please. >> I am Dan Whan. W H A L E N at uh 445 Meadow Road.
Just give me one second. You brought up um the the imperative impervious cover. Did anyone look at the fact that there's an unnamed tributary there dumping into a C1 river? And does that have to go through NJ for any further studies or water runoff
solutions? We did analyze that in our civil engineer. >> Oh, did I? I'm sorry. I wasn't missed that part. I It's the only question I have then. I guess that was for another part. >> No, it's we're asking questions of Mr. Ricky only on his planning testimony. They had testified previously to the
condition that you were talking about and that was done at a prior meeting. So, you can get that information, but it's not something we can question them on this evening. >> Okay. I thought that was part of the impervious cover. Never mind. >> Thank you. Members of the public, additional
questions on Mr. Ricky's testimony. >> Welcome and sign in, please. And then tell us your name. My name is Lisa Espazito and I live at 454 Lenipe Trail in Bridgewwater. Um, so I have a question semi-related to I think what
Miss Glick had asked previously. Um, I understand what you said about if this is built as a storage facility, it cannot just be changed into something else. But my question is, is there any kind of restriction on who is allowed to
store things there? For example, like could Amazon not use it as a warehouse, but use it as a storage facility or Wayfair or Walmart.com like they do at the one in Branchburg? Is there any kind of restriction around that? You mean as a warehouse?
>> Yeah. There they'll if this is approved, there'll be a condition that this building cannot be used as a warehouse, >> but not as a warehouse though. But could it be used as a storage facility for Amazon or Wayfair or any of the big box stores? >> Okay.
>> But it doesn't matter who who rents those units. That's my question. Could Amazon rent a unit? >> I just say like this. You have to look at it. Look at it from perspective that these are very small. >> I have I have 8 by 8 foot.
these type of spaces to begin with aren't attractive to people like those because you know they have massive they use fortunately this would be something like I'm just telling you as a as a city planner in
other towns it's just not attractive if if Amazon wanted to store some of their office boxes or something in a in a in a office space or something in a couple boxes or something, but they wouldn't be storing product or thing
like that. It just doesn't make sense for them. >> So, there's um a location that's across um from Shopright on Route 22 East. So, it's technically in Branchburg, but it's right on the border. It used to be a miniature golf. It used to be Miniature
Golf. Then, it was um bought and built as a storage facility, and the occupancy was low. So it was now renting space to Amazon and to Wayfair. So those trucks are going in and out of there all the time. So my question is what would present prevent that from happening
here? >> I think the board could put a condition against that happening. if uh that's not the intent of this facility and I'm sure that's a short term if that's happening that's a shortterm type of situation because it's just I mean at one point
there was an a time where warehouse space was at a where you couldn't build enough of it that's no longer the case that that's I I know this because I'm a city planner in the city of Lynon that has tremendous amount of warehouse space I I I prepare redevelopment plans for
them we have Amazon and other type facilities. Um, so I I think that's a a rarity that you're talking about if that's the case. Um, and it's not how these facilities are designed. That's not what they're looking for. If they're using it, they're very desperate. I
>> mean, may not be what they're looking for, but it's happening right down the road. But anyway, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other members of the public with specific questions to Mr. Ricky and his planning testimony? And please tell us your name and sign in.
Enderbanga 376 Route 28 Bridgewater, New Jersey. I hope the board will allow me some extra time. I was actually across the way at the BOE meeting. So, I can question Mr. Ricky here.
Uh, Mr. Ricky, so are you the same planning professional who who prepared or supported the chimney rock self storage? >> I am. >> Great. Uh, is it accurate that the chimney rock application is being withdrawn or no longer proceeding as a self- storage facility?
>> I'm sorry. What was that, Mr. I >> I gave I'm objecting to the question, but it's not relevant. >> Then you should make that statement so that everybody can hear it. >> I just All right. Thank you. >> You're responding to it so you heard me. >> I didn't hear it. All I hear was mumbling. What are >> you responding to? >> All I heard was mumble. >> If I may, gentlemen. Um.
>> All right. >> Your question was, "Is he the same planner?" And he said he is. Correct. >> This your next question. I'm sorry. asked if he knew that the self storage for the chimney rock was being withdrawn. >> Uh so first of let let me just address
that there's very limited relevance with respect to another application and I can also report to the board that the attorney for Chimney Rock contacted me yesterday and today in anticipation of their filing an application for an
extension of their approval. It is not as far as I know right based on that conversation not being withdrawn. Okay, fair. So if that's the position that we're going to take, I would like to ask the
planner regarding the basis for concluding that the self storage is particularly what what makes this specific tract um that self storage is particularly suited for this property under the Miji?
>> Um I I mean I gave significant testimony on that. Do do you want me to go through all my testimony again? If you can just summarize, I I apologize. I wasn't here, so I would I would like you to indulge me. >> We don't want him to really say his testimony. >> I just said summarize.
>> Yeah, but there's no no purpose for that. We've heard it. >> We've heard the the testimony. I'm sorry you weren't here, but you can ask another question because we're asking you to ask questions relative to his testimony, and you'll be able to offer public comment later.
>> Uh Mr. Richi the applicant uh obviously as you know submitted a winter condition rendering from Bogart Drive. Are you aware of that? >> Um from who? >> From from the Bogart Drive. So on the route 28 side looking at the
>> subject property >> been some time but yes. >> So the rendering shows a significant building mass visible above the proposed landscaping. Do you stand by that rendering as an accurate depiction of the visual impact?
>> If that's the rendering that was presented by this team. Yes. And those trees do grow over time as well. So that just lessens over time. >> If you can help me out, what is the assumed maturity of the planting shown
in the renderings and how many years post planting does that represent? when I when I spoke to the architect and >> I believe that I believe that question was previously asked at a previous meeting in terms of the maturity of the trees and somebody made reference
earlier today to being 8 to 10 feet upon planting. So I don't know if that helps you but >> yeah I appreciate that Mr. >> Relative to his test. >> I wasn't here. I just got I just got here at 9:30 so I'll take your word for it. uh the M1. So,
has any view analysis been conducted from route 28 showing the rear elevation? And if not, why? has been done. >> Okay. Um this is a question for for our planner. Um if the sport conditions
approval on meaningful rear facade treatment facing Route 28 enhanced landscaping guarantees, would the applicant accept those conditions? >> All right. The reason being there's noar. >> Okay, understood. This is just being
about a good neighbor. But >> neighbors. >> Sure. Thank you for that. Um, this is for the planner. Your own market study. Um I think you had quoted and this is uh just something that I that I had heard from one of my fellow residents uh that
the square net rentable square feet per capita was uh around three three feet. Is that correct? 2.7 >> 2.7 okay um so I think we we have other numbers and I'm happy to provide that to the
board um that show within 5 miles is around 5.52 and 6.11 what does that do to the uh economic viability um based on your numbers and um you know if it's if it's north of 5.52 for this
project >> I would have to review your analysis to answer that question to see if it's accurate. >> Okay. Uh just to follow back on one of my um one of our residents questions here and specifically, you know, I'd inquire to
ask the board this, but uh you know, obviously last mile with Amazon and others, uh you know, do demonstrate a uh clear and really dangerous precedent. I think >> Mr. >> Yeah, maybe he's leading into a question
though. >> I'm going to lead into a question. Thank you. So, the question is, will the applicant uh, you know, have a condition that they will not rent out to, you know, potentially retail and or e-commerce uh, type sites for um, this
self storage? >> I'm not the applicant. >> Well, I can't tell you. They they've already indicated that there and would agree to a condition where there would be no retail out of the building. There
would be no um separate employees working out of any of the spaces. So the only way this building gets used is by someone coming with their own vehicle to drop off or pick up. Right? There's
no one in the building that's, you know, then handing them a package. Okay. I don't know if that helps you, but there's there's no separate business being conducted or to be conducted in the building. >> So, for example, and and just indulge me
if you if you don't mind, a potential person coming from, let's just call it e- retailer drops a package in said facility, another employee of that same company, goes to the same unit, picks up that. that would not be allowed in in
what you just mentioned. Is that >> No, what I'm saying is they would not be able to have an employee working physically working, you know, a nine-to-five job from the facility. So, no one is is parking at a desk or
otherwise in any of these units. Okay. I think I understand what you're saying, but um I won't probe any longer. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other member of the public questions for Mr. Richie about his testimony?
Seeing none, let's close that portion of the meeting. Mr. Capzy, you want to summarize for us where we are? >> We don't have any further witnesses at this time, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, we reserve the right to call a witness should it become necessary in the future? >> Yes. >> But I think now depending on where we
are with the time, what the board wants to do to hear public comment. >> Right. >> So, Mr. roller. Given the lateness of the hour, does it make sense to start public comment and then >> Well, I mean, we have 15 minutes. I would start. >> Okay. >> Right. >> So, we're going to open up the floor to
members of the public who would like to express their Remember, you're not asking questions now. You're just testifying to whether you approve or don't approve of this proposal. And we're going to limit your testimony to three minutes. We have a number of
people. if we were to get through everyone would be here till midnight. So, we're probably going to have to continue the public comment and we're certainly willing to do that. But we're interested in your opinion, your observation about the business
that's been presented to you. And if you can combine your remarks to three minutes, it would be appreciated. So, is there someone who would like to start? So, we can use the time to have somebody else start. >> We'll still use the time until you're
ready. Give you a little time to get acclimated to the we do without the sound just right now. You were here before, but please remind us please of your name. >> Sure. Dan Whan when >> And I just want to say I'm against this. I'm
>> So, wait, Mr. Mitt Whan, I'm sorry. Just no problem. >> This so this part is sworn testimony. Okay. Okay. So, anyone who comes up is going to be sworn in to to give testimony. So, would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth? So, help you God. Thank you. And your address again, please. >> 445 Meadow Road. >> Thank you. >> And I just want to say I'm against this. My father helped build the Shade Tree Committee. I'm uh sorry he passed away so I'm a little uh we're third generation here and we're about to have
a fourth generation on Thursday and congratulations. >> Thank you. I don't want to see this built. Bridgewater has always been beautiful. I'd like to stay here. I really don't want to see it ruined for my kid and everyone else's generation. That's all I got to say. >> That's fair. Thank you for for sharing your opinion.
>> Caroline, >> do this in three minutes. >> Is it okay? I have several residents who have yielded me their time. So, it would be about >> There's no such thing as yielding your time. We're not on the floor of Congress. >> Why don't we get started and see how we do? Let's Let's >> Yeah, we won't cut you off if you're okay.
>> Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. And your name, please. >> Carolyn Joya, 1402 Paley Court, Bridgewater. >> G I O I A. >> Yes. Everybody knows now. Okay.
>> I wrote it down. >> Okay. I am here to specifically address address traffic concerns. I was here for the traffic engineer. I questioned the traffic engineer. I followed up with the police department. Um I have done additional research on my own that I
would like to share with the board and everyone in the room. It includes a video and several photos. Okay. I think what this will prove is that the applicant's traffic statement statement not study is not adequate and that the
applicant needs to do a supplemental enhanced boots on the ground study to analyze the traffic safety that will be affected by putting this unit in on block 400 lots one and two. So, first I'm going to I have the video all lined up.
>> Okay. So, before we do the video, is that what we're doing first? is the video. Yeah. Okay. So, >> uh just for the record, we're going to mark this video as exhibit 01. Okay. >> And can you tell me when this was taken?
>> Yes. Um this video was taken. It's a 33 second traffic flow video that I took on Saturday, November 8th, 2025 at 3:49 p.m. >> Okay. >> Okay. And you took it?
>> I took it. Okay. >> And what are we going to see? >> Okay. You will see that I took a video from the front of the proposed storage facility site. Towards the end, you will take note of the Lowe's and FedEx 18-wheelers traveling nearly back to
back at highway speeds just feet from the proposed dual entrance exit lane of the facility. While the video was taken on a cloudy Saturday afternoon, just imagine what would happen on a clear day at rush hour with a sun glare blinding drivers as they exit the facility from
the west. Disruption of traffic flow right there is a recipe for disaster. I will show that this location has no direct access from Route 22 west, forcing commercial vehicles onto a confusing and accidentprone turnaround.
Missing just one of the multiple turns forces travel onto residential streets. This location has no acceleration or deceleration lanes off a single sloped shared entry exit driveway. This driveway has dangerous visual obstructions, including natural brush,
sunlare, and possible snow piles in the winter, which inhibit safe entry onto an active and already dangerous section of a federal highway. This location is also densely populated with deer that creates unpredictable and
uncontrollable road hazards. >> So when you're looking when we're looking at the screen and you put it up there so we're all looking at it. >> Okay. No. >> Um so from the as the screen as I look at it from the left to the right >> I'm standing on the site.
>> I believe you. I'm just trying to explain myself and the audience. The left of the screen I'm looking at is west. >> So, >> correct. And the traffic is heading east. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Here we go. >> Got it. >> Right.
Okay. So, your testimony is that you took this video and the observation that you made was and we're going to see more. >> Um >> um my observation is that it's unsafe to exit the facility
>> in your opinion. >> I'm asking for another traffic study to be done so that an expert >> But you're asserting your opinion that you're saying it's unsafe and >> I'm asserting my opinion. this video evidence that you're presenting >> meant to support your position? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, um without having the board having to sit through a variety of videos and given a limited time, is there something you're working toward that's going to be critical to your opinion? >> I'm requesting that the board
>> heard the request. You're requesting that the board is asking is that we ask the applicant to bring back their traffic >> to do an enhanced traffic study. >> And so far and so far we heard you. We haven't made any decision about that. >> That's okay. >> Okay.
>> If they don't want to do it or can't do it for some reason, I would ask the board to encourage the township engineering department to do it. I spoke to uh traffic sergeant uh Florac and he said that um they are within the purview to do that. I spoke with commissioner Sarah Suie. She said the county has done
traffic studies multiple times and they might in this case be available to assist. >> And it is I think for important for you to know and for the public to know that given the limited intensity of this project and the limited amount of traffic that it might generate. It's not
required to do a full traffic study. So, what what we're saying is we have a difference of opinion and we're you're asking the board to help make the decision about that difference of opinion. That's really what it comes down to and that's what we're here for. >> Okay. Well, that brings up the next
point about this traffic statement. You're correct. It says that there will be less cars going by. However, it does not talk about the type of vehicles that this storage facility is going to um attract, and that would be box trucks. That would be U-Hauls driven by people
who don't know how to drive them. They are going down a slope driveway. There is >> sunglare turning left. As you're trying to get on to 22, you might not be able to see. There are visual obstructions. So, the problem with their study is they don't include the types of vehicles that
attract or that storage facilities attract. And I think that needs to be included. It's very significant. the ability to speed up or slow down is going to be way different for a regular person driving than an ox truck where there's no acceleration length. >> And I believe you and now we're really
stretching the limit of time that you have allotted. >> All right, then I'm just going to show the other pictures I have. >> Okay, we don't have to go through another 30 seconds though, do we? Watching cars go by. >> I have just for the record, the one that's up there now we're going to mark as O2 and
that's the one with the truck, right? Okay. >> Right. >> This is a Google map showing the only way to access the unit is from 22 west is to go on 22 east and take a rapid crazy turnaround. And if you miss your
turn, you're on residential roads on Bogart and other um streets. I did an OpER request for all accidents in the surrounding area. There were 80 or so over the past 5 years. Many of them were due to deer and many of them were on
Route 28, Bogart, Buena Parkway, Meadow Lane is documented. I just need to say that this video was taken, it's only three seconds, it was taken in the front of my development off Vander. I was on Miltown Road. I saw a truck, a box truck trying to go under
the underpass at Miltown Road. There happened to be a police officer there. He was signaling turnaround. I said, "This guy's going to shoot down Vander." I went to my house. I stood in front of my entrance and this is what we saw. For the record, we're going to mark that
04. >> The speed limit on Vander is 25. >> Okay. >> I I can appreciate what you're saying. Go ahead. >> This is just a broken guard. >> Okay. 05. You can describe it. Exhibit 05. Um, this is a guardrail that was
taken out at the 2228 ramp. Um, that one for the record was taken March 2nd, 2026 at 111 by Enderbanga. Gotcha. Looks like somebody hit the light pole there. >> Yep, somebody knocked it out. Same part.
2228 uh ramp. Very dangerous. This image was taken March 4th, 2026, 2020, sorry, 2:20 p.m. by me. Okay. >> And that one then is 06. Okay.
This is right before the driveway of the proposed storage facility. Some people say it was a car fire. >> Car fire. >> Um I know that one of the gentlemen who spoke here lives very close. He went over took this photograph for me. Uh that was taken March 12th, 6:32. There
was a long line of cars backed up from the accident. Obviously, the ramps were backed up. Um he testified to me that uh when he arrived, he saw a white vehicle being taken away from Tectonic. Um you can look at the front fender, the
bend, whatever they call that thing. >> Well, I don't want us to draw conclusions about Yeah. still photographed. >> It looks like an accident. neither you took nor any of us could have possibly seen. If you don't mind, just summarize what you're trying to tell us. >> Okay, here's my summary.
I hope you all take into consideration as you continue your due diligence on whether this applicant has met the burden to prove that this self- storage facility is a benefit to the community in the location they are proposing. Lives are literally at stake here and no stone should be left unturned to protect
the residents of Bridgewater. So, I respectfully request you deny the variance and at least and until a more in-depth on-site traffic study is conducted either by the applicant or the township and I thank you for your time and attention to my concerns.
>> Thank you. >> So, we're getting close to our timeline. We are getting time to have somebody else ask a question or >> Yeah. Let me allow please if I may for at least one more person from the public
to pose qu to pro sorry provide testimony regarding their opinion on this project and what their feelings are. So and tell us your name after you sign in and where where you're living. >> There's not a >> not a pen.
>> Somebody stole a pen. >> Oh, there's one right here. But >> okay. If not, I have one I can lend you. Uh, my name is Hers Admulum. I'm at 497 Miltown Road, Bridgewor, New Jersey 08807.
>> Would you spell your last name for us, please? >> Alpha David, India. The first three letters. Mary, Umbrella, Larry, Alpha, Mary. >> Gotcha. Right. Uh, Hersith, Henry, Umbrella, Ryan, Sam, India, Thomas,
Henry. >> A lot of names. Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Great. >> Um, so just my general concern as a resident of Verdor who's been here for
20 years. Um, I don't think this storage facility should be built or even approved by the town or by the zoning board as yourselves. um mainly because it provides uh well it doesn't provide a lot of safety reasons and it's going to be a lot of traffic issues you know and
just we need to bring more awareness to this and more you know research and more look into this um and as just a general safety awareness like being being that it's a facility on 22 and 28 um you have a lot a lot of
high-speed traffic going anywhere around town if if you're going down towards the circle, going towards Shopay or towards Chinamoon where that little strip mall outlet is. Um or towards a general neighborhood where I live. Um it just it's a lot of, you know, kids in the
neighborhood, drivers that are driving around. So just I just want to make sure that you are all aware of this and that, you know, it shouldn't be brought to, you know, being approved. That's all. >> Thank you. Let's see if we can squeeze one more
person in tonight because we will allow for additional testimony, but it's getting late and we don't want to stay later than we have to. Please come up. >> Hi, my name is Garrett Fakone. I live at 386 State Route 28. >> You spell your last name, please.
>> Uh, that is Fone F as in Frank. A CC O N E. Um, I just wanted to state that I oppose this storage unit being built as a direct neighbor. That's it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. I have to sign. Sorry. >> Yes, that's quite all right. So, we're going to conclude the public
remarks right now. And I wish we had more time this evening, but uh we don't. So, we're going to have to continue this meeting to another date and we're going to have to discuss when that might be. The public would be invited back to finish their testimony. If you've
already testified, by the way, you will not testify again. Um, and we're trying to manage the time as best we can to afford the applicant the appropriate courtesy that they deserve, not only for the work they've done so far, but um,
every time they come back, it costs them money. So, we're mindful of that. So, with that, Mr. Capzy, >> uh, Mr. Chairman, I had spoken to the board secretary briefly during the recess about available dates and I I understand it's a pretty full calendar
the board has and that the earliest date was sometime in August. Uh my calendar in August does not seem to align with the availability for the board's dates at during that time. Is there any opportunity for a special meeting date so we can finish up public or perhaps
sneak me in on a upcoming agenda just to deal with public comment so the board can finish out the public comment deliberate and vote so we can >> let me take the matter off the board's calendar >> something that maybe we can look at all right on uh on June 23rd right we have one application that's
going to to not occur and then we have two applications that will are scheduled for their uh first hearings Right. So, what if we continued this for that night? Those other two people can be told in advance that they're welcome
to come and sit and if we get to them, we get to them. Or they can save themselves that grief and give us an extension of time until the August meeting. >> I just think it's more appropriate to finish something we've started. It's it's this has been going on a really
long time and you know August and now sounds like September you know listen I've been doing this a long time and I know most boards don't like doing special meetings in the summer right so >> there are there are a number of meeting nights upcoming where there's only one
application on right there's a few of them now some of those applicants chose those nights thinking they were going to be the only application on I don't know how much we have to honor that as the board handles its own scheduling. Right, Rich? So, um there is an opportunity for
at least at least two two dates, one in end of May, one in June, and one in July that have just one application on if the board would want to end. >> Yeah. And and just to talk about what
those are, right? Please >> for those purposes. So, uh May 20 26th uh June 9th and then July 14th. >> Correct. All >> right. And I guess the other one's u July 28th. Although that one's I don't
think you'd want to be here when >> 25th the 8th and what was the other one? >> Yeah, it's the the May I'm sorry, May 26th, >> right? >> June 9th, >> July 14th. Those are the three dates you're talking about, right? Okay. So on
on May 26th is at Cafe Amelia which is what their third hearing. >> Only night that I'm available is July 14th. >> Okay. >> The other two I'm already booked in other municipalities. >> Oh the only one you are available is July 14th. >> Correct. >> Okay. So and that that's one that may or
may not happen. Right. >> That actually but either way they're they're a bifurcated application that's had a meeting already. So there's a potential that they would also only need about an hour and a half. >> Yeah. So, that might be a good night to try and do both. >> Yes. >> All right. With this one going first
because I really think it deserves, you know, attention. Um, it's just been ongoing for such a long time. >> So, uh, would July 14th work then for your team? >> Yes, that that's fine.
>> Okay. July 14th. >> Yeah. >> All right. So then, so then for purposes of the public, this um this hearing is going to conclude this evening. It will continue on July 14th at 700 p.m. in
this room and there will be no further notices from the applicant. Okay. With the very strong goal of trying to finish that night. And >> Mr. Chairman, certainly the applicant gives the board an extension of time through July 14th to render a decision
on In fact, I'm going to ask you to go through the July 28th meeting just in case. >> That's fine. >> Okay. So, >> through July 28th then? >> Very well. >> Okay. >> So, we're in agreement. >> July 14th. >> Very good. >> Okay. >> It'll be heard first, correct?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you all. Have a good night. >> Thank you everyone. >> Um, Miss Propes, is there any additional business we have this evening? >> Okay. Thank you. So, I'm going to adjourn the meeting. Sorry if I may. Uh >> I have like three minutes. So
everybody's >> I just need 30 seconds. Uh this was prepared by our professional Chris Fields. This is a a report called uh Route 22 self storage. Uh I would like permission to present this to the board uh as evidence and we can prevent provide this to the applicant as well.
>> Sure. Give the applicant the >> economic applicant a copy and give uh give Nancy a copy. She'll distribute it to the board. Okay. >> Okay. So, I will provide it with to Nancy and then she can >> and to the applicant's attorney. >> Okay. I only have one copy. >> Well, then give it to Can you just email
it to him then? >> Do you have an email? >> I can provide it to Nancy. Sure. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> I don't even know what it is. >> Right. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thank you.
>> We have a move a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll second it. All in favor?