Good evening everyone. My name is John Kulak and I am the chairman of this zoning board. Um I want to welcome you all and open today's meeting. So let's call the meeting to order. And I just have a few things that I have to read, so bear with me. Adequate notice
of this meeting was provided in accordance with the open public meetings act NJSA10 col4-6. Specifically, on January 28th, 2026, proper notice was sent to the electronic news sources of record filed with the
municipal clerk at the township of Bridgewater and posted on the municipal bulletin board. Please be aware of the zoning board of adjustment policy for public hearings. No new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new
testimony will be taken after 10 p.m. You can read the paragraph on hearing assistance in case we need to provide that. But if you're able, I'd like you all to stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> And Nancy, would you have um take us through a roll call, please?
>> Yes, I'm here. It's okay. Take your time. >> Mr. Widelli >> here. >> Mrs. Zamin >> here. >> Mr. Franco >> here. >> Mr. Fresco >> here. >> Miss Henderson Rose >> here. >> Mr. Gi >> here.
>> Miss Wisman >> here. >> Mr. Vesio >> here. >> Mr. Kuchi >> here. Mr. >> Mcnella >> here. Mr. Aller, board attorney >> here. >> Burr, board engineer, >> here. >> Sarmad, board planner
>> here. And we also have a >> Ben Mueller from Oster Guard, our acoustical engineer. >> Great. Thank you everyone and and to the members of the public and the people
seated around the room. Just a a quick couple of comments before I open it up to the public for other matters. But you can see the board has be been reconstituted. So some of the faces that you're looking at are different from the ones you saw back in I think it was
December the last time we got together. Um, but rest assured that everybody here on the board has been brought up to date as to the materials. They've either played the YouTube videos. Um, and some of us have watched it more than once.
And the objective is to have everybody on the same page as we move forward. So, you have my assurance and the assurance of everyone here individually that we are well prepared to continue the hearing as we move forward. For the moment, I'd like to open the
meeting to members of the public who want to talk to this board about land use matters that are not on the agenda for this evening. So, something that we're not going to be discussing um when we open the case. And seeing none, I'll close that portion
of the meeting. We have a couple of minutes that we have to get through for approval. And Mrs. I mean, as being diligent as she has been, has made a few edits. While they're important for context,
they're not substantive. And so, as a result of that, I would like to have someone make a motion to adopt the minutes. >> Yeah, I'm going to move it that we do it with Mrs. A >> motion to adopt. >> Mrs. Amin is making a motion >> to adopt the minutes with corrections.
>> I'll second it with her motion. the corrections. I I will give you the correct copy to >> And can we do them, Nancy? Can we do them both together? Do we have to do them individually? >> No, there's different people eligible to vote um from that meeting since it was from 2025.
>> Okay. >> If you don't mind, I'll read off who's eligible. >> Yes, please. >> Motion and who can't. >> And you're going to start with the October 28th minutes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Mr. Wedelli, Mrs. Amin, Mr. Chairman Kulak, Mr. Gaeski, Mr. Vesio and Mr.
Fresco. That's it. >> Okay. So, do you want to take us through a quick roll call and we'll say yes or no or how do you want to do it? >> I just need a motion and a second from someone in that group. I'm making the motion and >> can I second it with the changes from Mr. >> J second?
>> And just for the record, those changes I've reviewed them and and they're not substantive to the to the minutes. >> Okay. >> Chairman Kulak. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wedelli. Mrs. Zamin, >> yes.
>> Mr. Geski, >> yes. >> Mr. Vesio, >> yes. >> And Mr. Fresco, >> yes. >> Thank you. So, now moving on to the minutes of January 27th, 2026. Similarly, there are some minor edits
that affect the context but don't affect the substance of the um of the minutes as written. So would someone like to make a motion to adopt? >> Make a motion to approve. >> So Mrs. Amin is making the motion. >> Second with her changes.
>> Right. And Mr. Widley has second it. >> Mr. Kh chairman Kulak. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wadley. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zamin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Franco. >> I wasn't sure I was eligible for those. >> You were present January 27th. So you
are >> okay. Yes. Mr. Fresco, >> yes. >> Miss Wiseman, >> yes. >> Mr. Ves, >> yes. >> Mr. Kuchi, >> yes. >> Mr. Mcnella, >> yes. >> Great. Thank you. Uh, moving forward, we
have a a a resolution that I would like to read because it's something that we need to adopt as an updated designation of the way in which we communicate the board meeting dates and the information associated with them.
The township of Bridgewater's zoning board of adjustment hereby adopts the following protocols for legal notices and advertisements in compliance with S4654P. L22025C10.
I hate reading those. And pursuant to NJSA4053-1 and the modernization requirement of S4654. So primary electronic designation of information sharing will be the tap into the breeze. And for those of you who
have the resolution, the website is listed there and is hereby designated for the year ending December 31st, 2026 as the official electronic news source for the provision of notices and other me matters under the open public meetings act. Furthermore, the zoning
board of adjustment recognizes tap into the breeze as an eligible online news publication pursuant to the criteria set as dictated in what I read before for the publication of required legal notice summaries and supplemental advertisements.
The township of Bridgewwater's official website, and you can read the website there, but it's bridgewaternj.gov shall serve as a primary platform for public notice. The township clerk will maintain a hyperlink on the township's
homepage directing the public to a dedicated page for legal notices, maintain an online archive of all legal notices, and submit the township's legal notice hyperlink to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the statewide central directory providing updates as
necessary and for the duration of the 2026 calendar year. provide an advertisement at least twice per month on tap into the breeze. Now therefore be it resolved that the zoning board of adjustment of the township of Bridgewater that tap into
the breeze and the township of Bridgewwater's official website are hereby designated as the official electronic news sources of the zoning board of adjustment for 2026 and are authorized to receive all notices of zoning board adjustment meetings as are required under the open
public meetings act. This board's resolution dated January 13, 2026 entitled designation of 2026 official newspapers and resolution dated 20 sorry January 27th, 2026
entitled designation of 2026 electronic news sources authorized to receive all notices of the zoning board of adjustment are hereby revoked and superseded by the terms of this resolution. So with that, I'd like someone to make a motion, please, to adopt this
resolution. I move >> second. >> We have a um Mr. Widley and Ms. Rose. >> Nancy. >> Chairman Kak. >> Yes. >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zamin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Franco. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes. >> M. Rose. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gi. >> Yes. >> Miss Wisman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Vasio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kuchi. >> Yes. and Mr. McNell. >> Yes. >> Great. Thank you everyone.
Moving forward, there's a section on land development applications. I think everybody can read that for themselves and see what the process is and to contact the planning department as described. So, we're moving moving on to our third hearing. The application is
number 25-00001-ZB Cafe Amelia. And we have some returning guests and probably some new faces as well. We'll see. >> Yes. Thank you. Good evening. For the record, I'm Donna Jennings from the law firm of Wen Skullman and Spitzer. On behalf of the applicant, I would just as
a matter of recordkeeping want to indicate that I did receive uh right before the meeting a February 24th, 2026 memo from the environmental health officials. So, I just want to acknowledge receipt of that. Um, and then of course I brought our site engineer back, Rob Michello, and we were
in the beginning of the cross- examination from the public. So I think that's where we would begin. >> Very well, Miss Jenny. Thank you. And Mr. Michello is here. Um, Mr. Oler, do we have to swear in Mr. Michello? Again, >> I will. I know he was sworn at the last
last time he testified, but it's a new year. Bob, would you uh raise your hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. And again, the record, just your full name. >> My full name, Robert Moshello, M O S C H
L O. And the business address is 265 Main Street, Gladstone, New Jersey. >> Thank you. >> And my license is still in good standing. >> Thank you. >> And do we need to go through his credentials again? >> No, his license is still in good standing. He was previously accepted by the board on this application. >> Thank you,
>> Mr. Michella. Welcome. And I know that we were in the midst of people, the public asking questions based on your testimony on at the prior meeting. So, uh, we can pick up from that moment in time. I know it's a little hard. Maybe
there's a little disconnect, but Mr. Michel is the engineer representing the applicant and his questions um sorry his presentation had to do with the engineering of the site. How what the thought process was behind that and some
of the factors that had gone into providing um as much relief as the applicant could with respect to things like storm water and setbacks and things like that. So if that helps you um hopefully that it did. If not, um, just
play along with us as we go forward because I'm sure you'll learn more as we do so. So, with that, I'd like to open the meeting to the public to pose questions to Mr. Michello, but limit it to his prior testimony. You can come up and just a couple of of
rules that we would like to follow. So sign in please with your name and address and then identify yourselves similarly. Good evening everybody. My name is Britney Wheeler. I am not a resident of Charlotte Drive or Bridgewater Township.
I'm a resident of Bedminster Township. However, uh my parents, Laura and Roy Wheeler, who are here tonight, uh have lived on Charlotte Drive, the neighboring community of the applicant for
37 years. Um I'll sign the paper. I'll sign in. >> Yeah, that would be before we get there. Would you spell your last name for me, please? >> Certainly. It's wh first name Britney Ty.
Correct. >> Um, Miss Jennings, her parents live on the street. She doesn't. Do you have any objection to her asking uh questions? >> No, that's fine. >> Thank you, >> Miss Wheatler. >> Thank you. So, so forgive me. I'm far
from a subject matter expert as it pertains to to engineering or municipal land use. Um, but is it true that the courts require enhanced quality of proof for use variances um because they fundamentally alter zoning?
>> Um, so he's an engineer, not the planner. So that would be more >> going to be testimony from the applicant's professional planner perhaps tonight. Um, and you can ask their professional planner those types of questions. >> Okay. Right now, all we're doing is
asking their engineer questions about his testimony. So, I didn't swear you in because we're not taking your statement right now. When we get to that part, I will swear you in if you have a statement to make. You're certainly welcome to do that. Um, I'll swear you
in for that statement, but right now, we're only asking questions of the engineer. There's going to be additional witnesses this evening presented by the applicant. You can ask questions of those witnesses as well. Okay. So, um I'll skip ahead a few bullet points then. Okay.
>> Um how many variances just for the record because again it's been a couple months since we've last met but how many variances are there? >> When I went excuse me when I went through the record the last time we have a total on my cover sheet of 10
variances and six design waivers that were being requested. I believe in in your testimony last time, sir, that um part of the variances is a landscape design variance per section 120 191 D1A. Um I believe the
current ordinance requires eight shrubs for every 30 ft of frontage. Is that correct? >> Just checking the notes here. Hold on a second. Yes. And it's a design waiver and it's eight shrubs for every 30 feet of frontage along the building. Correct.
>> So that would mean that you that the applicant would be required under the current ordinance to plant 69 shrubs in front of the building. Correct. >> Correct. Based on 257 square feet of frontage. >> And the applicant is seeking a variance
proposing 28 shrubs or 68% less than what is currently required. Correct. >> That's correct. And and forgive me, this is where I don't know where the line is with respect to your testimony or somebody else's. Um, but can you explain the community benefit or special reason
for this variance? >> Again, that would be the planner that will testify at the end. >> Understood. Okay. So, so moving forward, um, again, sticking to the landscape design variance. Um again I I believe the current requirement would be per the
ordinance is 10 shrubs for every 20 ft of foundation. Correct. >> Yes. Correct. >> So that would mean that the variance you're seeking is for 60 76 shrubs um
per per the the public application when one 67 are required. So that would be a 55% less than what is required by law. >> That's correct. >> Okay.
And what is the current um lot coverage of lot 17? >> The the current lot coverage of lot 17 it's 96%. Existing lot coverage is 96%. I believe at one of the prior meetings
that chairman um Fouse had requested the applicant to provide documentation as to how the lot owner received 94 98% lot coverage. Do you have that documentation?
>> I I testified at the last meeting that I went back and looked at the aerials of the property going back to the 1970s and it appeared to be pretty much paved over back to that time. Now, I'm going back to an aerial from 1970s, which was a little grainy, but it looked to be pretty much paved over. Now, I can't say
if it was 96% to the current calculations, but it was certainly developed at least at least 50 years ago, if not more. >> And just for the record, I did not one, but two over requests. The township has no documentation on record. >> Thank you. Is there a record as to when that
project was completed or when that pavement was when it when it went from whatever it was before to 94%. >> Again, I went back to as far back as the 70s and it was paved over. Again, I not getting into the dates of the municipal land use law when the when the township
adopted their zoning ordinances, but the indication is that this either predates it or it was around that time that ordinances were put into effect. I when I went back to the aerials from the 1950s, they were grainy and I couldn't tell exactly how much pavement versus what was grass on that property at the
time. Um, so it was a little harder to tell if it was 96% back in the 50s, but it definitely was very welldeveloped in the 70s. I I think it's fair to say that the applicant and their representatives have made a good faith effort to identify the history of the property and
then Miss Jennings pointed out that she made at least two Oprah requests and we just in Bridgewater Township was not able to produce any records that would validate that. So, um and and Mr. er, you will correct me if I'm wrong, but usually in cases like this, because you
have a both a pre-existing use and a ongoing use of of a particular business, then that gets quote grandfathered into um the use moving forward just for that lot.
>> Well, it's not necessarily grandfathered in. Um, and I think where >> wrong term on my part, >> this person's trying to get is it at 96% impervious legally, meaning was there a prior
approval from the board from the board or um did that pavement um percentage exist prior to the res the ordinance saying that it had to be something less than 96%. And they don't really have
proof of that other than historical photos which are are typically when you go back that far are really not very good you know but you know his testimony is what it is right >> said >> to we have no way of putting this to
rest. How do we put it to rest? I guess >> well it's part of this application. So if this application were granted at the um Mr. Michelle, what's the percentage we're seeking here? >> 70 79.4%. >> Right. 79.4%.
>> Both lots. >> That's the combined new new lots together. 79.4%. >> Right. So, if this application is approved at 74.9 >> 79.4 >> 79.4% for the combined lots, then that's it's going to be reflected in the
resolution and that's what's going to be approved by the board. >> Right. But as far as the the 98% and how we got there, there's so fine. There's no photos of it going back, but is there ever a time where the burrow acknowledged that it was at that
particular coverage previously? >> Well, the the burrow um in their Oprah requests, right, also didn't show any violation notices for the property indicating the violation >> that Right. Right. there's no violations
and there was nothing granting the ability to do that. I'm just qu just curious if we ever acknowledged if you had asked or found anything where we acknowledged that that >> Well, I think their argument is going to be the mere fact that it existed since 1970s >> with no violations,
>> right? that kind of speaks, you know, to the percentage. Just >> But I think the real the the >> more important part is that if this application's approved and that's the
percentage 79.4% then you're kind of legalizing it now. >> Right. Right. So >> have any idea of when the existing building was was built? >> Do we know that? I went back to the 50s
and the building was there in the 50s on the aerials that I looked at. >> I don't know. I don't know the date before that. >> Katherine, do you know the date of the first zoning ordinance in this town? >> It's pro the planning act was like 1954ish.
>> A lot of towns is they're not somewhere between 1955 and 1970, >> right? So, you know, I it's a fair assumption that the first ordinance is probably in that range, right? So,
>> so it's a closed matter, folks. >> Yeah. Well, but when you went back to the 1950 historical aerials, um, did it show a building on the lot? >> Yeah, there was a there was a structure on the lot. >> I can't say if it was exactly the footprint that's there today, but the structure on the property. >> Yeah. I I've looked at historical photos
going back that far for things and they are um very difficult to to read. Yeah. >> So, there's a good question. Thank you. We've we've pulled the experts. >> Yeah. But the real point is that that's why they're here. It's part of why
they're here and this application would quote legalize that percentage that they're asking for. >> Right. >> Thank you. Do you have other questions for Mr. Michello? >> Uh, yes sir. Thank you. I I know in previous um meetings there's been
discussion with respect to valet parking and another adjacent property that would be used for parking. Is that something that the applicant is seeking? >> No. As I mentioned or we mentioned at the end of the last meeting, we are not
seeking an application to park on an a different lot than what's currently shown on the plan here. >> Is there any design in the plan for a valet station >> for where the valet would take place? >> Again, I I some of that will be talked
about this evening by our architect, but there's no station proposed. Again, given the size of this building and this site, it would be our intent is to, as I testify to, have the operation in the front of the building along the drive aisle here, and the valet would just basically be staged out by the entrance there. There's no there's no structure
or station that would be put in place for them. >> There's no tandem parking identified on the >> correct. Right. >> If you do valet parking in front of the building, would that not create additional traffic issues? No, I don't
believe so. >> Off to also have a traffic engineer that you probably be more appropriate to ask them. Question. >> Thank you. >> Um, is the Are you aware, sir, of any other commercial property in Bridgewater that's been granted over 60% lot
coverage? >> Over 60%. I'm >> correct. >> And And do you know what the current requirement is? >> The current the current Excuse me. The current coverage for the zone, I believe, is 60%. Um I I can tell you that. Give me one second. >> Sorry.
>> Um just want to make sure >> the current actually I'm sorry. The current improved lot cover maximum improved lot coverage for this zone is 25%. I'm sorry I was mixing that up with a different zone. 25% for this zone, but I do know there are properties in Bridgewater Township with more than 60% lot coverage. I know I've done one or
two of them myself. Um you know, as far as applications go. >> Are they for restaurants and banquet halls or commercial? For >> commercial properties. And >> I believe there's two zones that allow 70%. >> Miss Jennings is correct. There there's two current properties that allow for
70% that are both commercial properties, not in residential zones. Um, is it your opinion, sir, that granting the 79% improved lot coverage would create a precedent for other simile situated properties in the township?
>> I'm going to defer that question to our planner. Okay, that's all the questions I have for right now. Thank you, sir. >> I'll be back. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> I want to um remind the public that as we go through this, it's important not to be redundant in the questions that
you pose. so that the questions that um Miss Wheeler uh posed and the answers that she received and if you need clarification that's okay but we want to continue to be in the in an an effort to both be fair to the public and the
applicant try and keep the questions moving and see if there are different questions as we move forward. So is there anyone else from the public who would like to pose questions to Mr. Michello about his engineering testimony? Welcome. Sign in.
>> Good evening. >> Please tell us your name. >> My name is Terry Black. I reside at 10 Charlotte Drive. >> And black as in Bla CK. Is that what you said? Okay. That was an easy one. >> Yeah. Um the LA the last meeting it was
mentioned also about um the highway opening on 202 the curb opening. I don't know what you call it. >> Depressed curb. >> What the press curb? Okay. Um
and the the right of way and then also about the lot coverage and it not being changed. I do have a picture of um the front of Cafe Amelia with grass and I believe there was a curb and this
was during the beginning of CO 19. >> So >> So right now we're just asking questions of the site engineer and testimony we had. He didn't testify to that picture. >> We can take that picture when you come up later to give your testimony and your
statements. >> Okay. I just wanted to correct because he said there hadn't been any changes in >> Yeah. >> or whatever. >> You're you're asking him is he is he aware of any curbing uh along the
highway frontage in the early 2020s, right? >> During co he's talking about the coverage of the lot. It was always like 90 something%. And I I'm here to dispute that >> because he did say that it hadn't been
changed. >> Okay. And believe you can testify to that. Yes. When >> when they finish with all their witnesses and and it's your turn to come up, I will swear you in and you can give us testimony to all of those things.
>> Okay. Can you tell me if the curb was recessed? >> How would you would it be legal to just recess the curb? >> Well, let me let me back up for a second. Number one, I'm going off of the survey that was prepared for the property that shows along the frontage
pavement. That's what's there. And I'm going off of um the aerials that I've presented which are from the the mid to late 2020s that show no cur that show no um grass or anything along the frontage here of Route 202. So that's what we pre that was we prepared our plans based
upon a survey that was done within the last year year and a half. if there was some type of grass or something out there before that, it's not represented on the aerial mapping that I have here in front of me and it's not represented on the survey that was done on the property that says there's 90 96% lock coverage out there now. So, if something
was changed, it was changed and it predates the work that we prepared for this application. >> Okay. But when the board was talking about um is it legal and was it this was changed? There's nothing that was found because it was just done. Well, again, I said I went back and looked at the
aerials and it appeared that there was pavement on this property back then. I have not seen the photo. I can't comment on it. I'll be happy to go back and take a look again at more closely to see if there was something else out there in the past, but I'm going off of what was the survey that was prepared on the property. >> Okay. I just wanted to get that in there
because that was the discussion that was being um discussed by you guys. >> Yeah. No, it's helpful earlier. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. So Rob, just to stay on that point for a second, when when I look at your plan, sheet three. >> Yes.
>> Right. Okay. So that's your site dimension plan and it shows an area where you say depressed curb, right? And it's a little darkened. I know, right? That that line is is is it just that area that's the depressed curb? that
darkened line >> just for the just for everyone who's looking at that. Um I can probably point to it on here a little bit better on my plan from about this point where I am here my pointer along the entire frontage of 202 that that's the the depressed curve that's being called out on the plan there. >> Okay.
>> So yeah, and it stops basically just a little bit past the um I guess where the property line would split would split the uh the site because you have two lots there that exist today. >> Okay. So that darkened line on sheet three is not really representative of
anything that it just happens to be darker. >> It's representing the depressed curb. It's the cur the curve is shaded in where it's depressed. >> Well, that's my question. Right. So it's it's just that area where it says depressed curb and then you go back to a regular curb until you come around the corner. >> No, it's depressed curb the whole the
whole way around. >> Okay. So my first question, why is that line darker then? So we can we represent it differently than regular height curb. >> Okay. So just to the right of that darker line, right? That's a regular
curb or a depressed curb because it's not darker. >> I'd have to take a closer look at >> because when I looked at the plan and it said depressed curb, it looked like it was just that area, >> which I I don't remember what the scale is here, but >> yeah. >> So maybe 30 feet. It could be it could
be a small section in there that's maybe not fully depressed. >> I know cars can drive off of off of the off of 202 into the uh into the parking lot there. >> Okay. So So roughly where it says depressed curb at the top of sheet three
from from where that darkened line is from there all the way around to Charlotte uh drive east past your entrance the proposed entrance on Charlotte Drive. That's all the press curb. >> I'll have to double check that, Mr. Ola,
just to make sure because I'm looking at a smaller plan here. >> Yeah, it says it on the Charlotte Drive part, but I wasn't quite clear that it said it on Route 202. >> Yeah, I mean, it looks like based on this, and I'll have to go check the the other map, it looks like there may be a section of raised curb along the 202
frontage in there. >> Yeah. >> The height of it, I'm not 100. Thank you. It's just later when we see the picture. I expect we'll see that picture later. You know, I want to be able to relate
that photograph to sheet three and see what was depressed. >> And thank you for the large size plan, Miss Jennings. Um, just to clarify. Yes. And I got to stop looking at 11 by7 plan sheets. Um, it is depressed from the left side of the plan for about maybe
25 ft. Then it goes up to full height curb and then it goes back down again to depressed curb along Charlotte Drive west. >> Okay. So roughly 25 ft is where it's depressed. And you're not planning on changing that, right? >> Correct. We're not planning on changing any of the curbing that's along the frontage of the property or onto
Charlotte. >> All right. So if someone came in off of 202, they would come in through obviously that depressed curb area, right? And then park. Well, no, they wouldn't, right? They You're not suggesting anyone would come in through that depressed. We're still keeping the entrance on 202 because you do have the
couple of ADA spaces here that are in front. So, you could still pull in off of 202 and park here in the front. The intent here with the design um is that you have an entrance on Charlotte Drive West, you have an entrance on Charlotte Drive East, so that we anticipate that um patrons will either come in on
Charlotte Drive West, pull into the property, and then queue in the front for valet, or if they don't come in on the west, they'll come in on Charlotte Drive East and drive around the back of the property to the front where they'll be queued for valet as well. >> Okay. But but you're not suggesting that
someone would come in stop for valet, right? And then the valet, sorry, let me rephrase that. The valet would not then take that car and go out on 202 and make a right on Charlotte Drive. >> Now, the intent would be that we'd valet them in in in this section of the plan
here. That's why we have it a oneway there. And we want to have a valet um location um that would be by the entrance here to direct those vehicles that way. We don't really want to valet them right in the front here by the EDA spaces. We want to keep that open for circulation purposes so the valet could
take the cars and drive them around the property to park them. >> Right. So when they take it and drive around the >> the building as you just said, they would not go back out on 202. >> No, no, they would stay on the pavement in the front here and then go on to Charlotte Drive east and then drive around to the back.
>> Maybe partially in the 202 rightway because you' probably have to go off. >> It is It is a shared way. >> Technically in the highway, >> correct? We don't want them going back in the highway, right? Okay. And you have a traffic engineer. >> We have a traffic engineer. >> You can't testify tonight. >> Uh, no. I don't think we're going to get to it.
>> Okay. And I do want to point out one thing just to be clear of how the lot coverage is calculated for the board and for the public who's asking this question. Lot coverage is based upon the area of impervious within the limits of the property itself. So when we do that calculation, we use the property line
limits for that. what's in the right of way of Route 202 is technically the right of way. And while it may be paved, there's pavement there. If there was some type of a landscape feature there at one time, that wouldn't have counted towards the lot coverage on the actual
property itself. >> Understood. >> It would be within the DOT right just like on the front of the church lot. There's grass along there and that's it's within the state right of way. >> Right. So just so the record's clear, the property delineation is the yellow line
all around and everything on the top of the yellow line is 20 actually the rightway. We don't own that. >> Correct. >> Any other members of the public who would like to address Mr. Michello specific to his engineering testimony?
And please sign in and then tell us who you are and where you live. Good evening. John Andrew Kinsey, resident of 11 Charlotte Drive in >> Could you please spell your last name for us? >> K I N S E Y. >> It's always so easy when you say it.
>> I'm sorry. And your address again, please. 11 Charlotte Drive. Thank you. >> Hi. Um, are you being paid for your opinion and testimony this evening? I was hired by my client for this application. Yes.
>> So the answer to that question is yes. And what financial arrangements? Um >> Mr. Kinsey believe that's bias and credibility. >> Two things. >> If you if you speak into the microphone then it'll be recorded and that will help us in the transcripts and so on
later. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Then secondly, I couldn't hear your second question. The f the first question um he's hired by the applicant, >> correct? and provide his professional services to the applicant, >> right? >> And then pro and then present to the
board what his opinion is and what his findings have been, right? >> We also have um an engineer of our own >> who will be able to ask additional questions at the appropriate time. >> Okay. So my questions are geared toward bias and credibility which is relevant
to any hearing. >> Well, I think everybody knows that the cl the all of the people representing the applicant are paid consultants. So that's a given, >> right? >> I don't think we need to get into any more of that. The board understands. >> I don't think it's relevant as to how much he's getting paid. I mean, the board has its professionals. Those
professionals are paid by the town. So, you know, any anyone here who's a professional either on the applicant side or on the township side's being paid to be here. >> I would I would point out, by the way, that none of the people sitting up here are being paid. Just so we're clear.
>> And right, neither are you. >> Right. So, what's your fee? irrelevant. We're not going to be answering. >> Yeah, he doesn't have to answer. It's not a relevant question. >> Is it sustained? >> It's not a relevant question. He does not answer. >> What's in the record now? My next question is, are you being paid a bonus if the application's successful?
>> Again, objection. >> Yeah, he doesn't have that objection. >> He doesn't have to answer. He doesn't have to ask. >> Correct. >> He doesn't. >> He's a professional engineer. He has signed and sealed the plans and he's here explaining that signed and sealed plan to the board, but it's not relevant to the board's consideration.
credibility is relevant. >> It does not go to his credibility >> and you don't think a success fee is is relevant. >> Correct. >> How much have you built so far? >> Again, >> again, it's it has to do with the engineering testimony, none of which your questions are. So, if you have a
question about his engineering testimony, we'd like you to ask it. But if not, we would ask that you hold those till you the end of the hearing completely when you have an opportunity to express your opinion about the project and anything else you wanted to say.
>> Yeah, I have no further questions, sir. >> Thank you. Anyone else who would like to address Mr. Michello and his engineering testimony? And remember, please to sign in and then tell us who you are. And it's helpful to me if you spell your last name because either my hearing's going or I don't
know what's happening but >> first name an >> okay >> last name Grace. >> Got it. >> And your address. >> Always asks me if Grace is my first name. So >> 42 Charlotte.
Um I hope these questions are relevant and can be answered. Um my first question is what is the height of the current um location of cafe Amelia? The >> height of the building. >> Yes.
>> Um I think we had it on the plans. >> Well, we are going to have the >> actually we had it as two stories on on lot 17. Um 22.2 feet is the number we had on the plans and I know our architect will will be up to testify as well about the building. Well, I'm
asking that for um the new location. What is the height of that over on the church property >> of the addition? The new the height of the addition is >> me very top >> 20 based on the ordinance calculation 29.7 ft. >> Okay. So about 30 feet
and that's where the upstairs bar is going to be the outdoor bar. >> Well, it's been it's been modified. So the architect will talk about the actual bar itself, but it's it's on this side of the building. Yes. Correct. >> Okay. And what is the width of that new building? >> The width of the new building,
>> how many feet? >> Well, again, it's going to vary because it's two separate pieces to it. So, it's it's anywhere from this this section of it's about 71 feet wide. This section's about 56 feet wide. And then we have another probably about 3540 foot connector in here. The architect can
talk to more of the specifics of the building. The general dimensions >> about 110. >> Yeah. Yeah. from from the existing building where we're connecting here over to the end of that building. >> And the original cafe Amelia, what is the width of that actual structure?
>> I'm sorry, it's not dimensioned on the plan here. It's probably, if I had to estimate the front width of it, and I I'll defer to our architect on exact dimensions, but the front width is probably about 4550T at most. the front that fronts on um 202 and maybe this
section here is about about 55 feet in this dimension as well on the Charlotte east side. >> Okay. So if that's about 100 let's I'll just say about 115 feet wide
um what is the width of that lot the lot and block of the church? It's church lot. The width church lot. >> The front the front width of the church lot on Route 202 is about 157 feet based on the survey.
>> Okay. So we have um about 115 feet for that building. >> Yes. doesn't include sidewalk or shrubbery or anything. Again, don't forget >> I guess they're going to have landscape around there. >> Yeah, but don't forget the building is also being improved on the Cafe Amelia
lot as well. So, the church lot's 157 ft. Cafe Amelia is >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. I guess maybe you misunderstood me. I was just talking about the particular lot of the church. >> Yeah, church lot's 157 feet wide. And the building, the portion of the building on that lot, again, estimating
about 70 feet wide on the church lot. So 157 foot wide lot, 70 foot of building addition roughly. >> So you're only going to be 70 feet into the 157 ft.
>> Yes. >> That's not the way we originally understood that. I think >> that's the way it's shown on the plans. >> And then how much um area do you need for parking and landscaping above and beyond? Okay, let's say it is 70 feet.
Um, and that leaves you with um the width of the building is 115. How many feet does that leave you for parking and landscaping before you hit the yellow curb, black curb, short curb, whatever you've been calling? >> Well, before you hit the property line
as we we refer to it. So, again, it just >> No, the curb. >> Well, I I have dimensions to the property lines is how I measured it on the plan here. The dimensions from the building to the property lines. and I believe I testified to this previously was about 30 33 feet to the front lot
line, 79 ft to the western property line and 60 ft to the southern property line. >> How many feet to the left side? You said >> 79 79.9 ft to the west or to the left. >> 80 feet from the side. But there's not 80 feet from the side of that building
right now. >> The building doesn't exist yet. building is closer to Charlotte than the new building is going to be. >> I think for the purposes of our discuss when you're looking at the plans that
Mr. Michelle was saying, they're going to be further augmented by the plans the architect is going to show you and that might give you a better visualization of the building on the lot. But as you can see, the two buildings become combined into one entity surrounded by parking
and accessways and so on. So, as it appears to you on that picture, you can see that to the left of the brown shading and the green outline, all of that is still the church lot and it's all dedicated to parking and right of
way. Does that help you at all or no? >> No. >> No. >> So, that green line on the left side of that brown building, >> this current Cafe Amelia building right there. >> Okay. So, that's what I'm saying. How do
you get 80 feet? You're saying there's 80 feet from that the new building. Yes. >> To the curb. So >> the property line, there's even more distance to the curb. >> To the No, I mean to the Charlotte Drive. West. East. >> East. No, you're talking about west. You
keep talking about west. East is on this side over here. >> Okay. So, there's 80 feet to the side. Okay. That's the side I'm concerned about. How many feet is it from the side of the original building to the curb? >> The curb? Well, it's again, it's
measured to the property line on my plan here. And it's 24 and a half ft on on the east side of the project from the building corner to the property line. >> And how many parking spaces will be around the whole building? >> Around the old building >> around the
>> Well, the whole project is 51 park 51 parking spaces. >> 51. Okay. So, how many parking spaces are around the current building? >> Current building, I believe I had testified to that previously. It was just to make sure I had the right number here.
There are 32 spaces around the current building and there's five that are not in use right now due to the outdoor patio that was there. So, 32 existing spaces >> and there's a hundred new seats going into 100 seats. >> Those will testify to approximately. >> And how many are in the original
building? I forget the exact amount. It was I'll have to just defer to the architect on that one. Um, but it was over it was over 70 seats, I believe, in the existing building. >> So, you're talking 170 seats. This is the point that I came here to make. You have 170 seats and
32 new parking. I mean, I have no idea how you will even do that because the current building that's there right now overflows into it's not my side of the street. It's my neighbors. We've they have taken pictures. I've walked around
the block hundreds of times 17 to 20 cars down that side of the street because of the overflow of the current space. All of those cars are parking up and down and when this I want you to pause
for just a second. >> Oh, because you're going to >> Mr. Oler, is he getting it to the part where she's testifying? In which case, tell me. >> Are you leading up to a question or >> because we understand that you've witnessed this condition? Are you are you saying that is a preface to a question?
>> It's an engineer question. I >> What's the question, please? wondering how they're going to fit so many people into um a building where they like are they going to show up in a jity coming are we going to have a jity in Bridgewater now >> I understand your question you want to
know if the parking that is proposed is sufficient given the number of seats in the combined two build is that it >> and Mr. Michel will tell you that. >> Yes. So, to answer your question about the parking, it's it's 180 seats that we're proposing in the building. That's
between the existing cafe building, the the the the event space and the bar. And the architect will talk to the he talk to the seats in more detail, but based on the ordinance that the township ordinance is set up for, we're required to have, and I'll go back to the number again, required to have 51 parking
spaces. And we have 51 parking spaces on site. So, we meet the ordinance requirement for parking. That's based on the township's requirement. >> Bridgewater Township says that you can have a hundred >> Yes. >> seats. >> Yes. 180 seats and the 51 spaces are required per the ordinance.
>> That's very interesting. Now, how many feet is the uh rooftop bar? >> Again, I'm going to defer that to the architect for the dimensions. He has it on his plans. >> Is that an open air space? >> Yeah, I'm going to defer to him for how that's going to operate. It's the it's that's architecture, not site plan
engineering. So, he'll be happy to answer that question. >> Okay. Um All right. So, um my final question is when there's a big party and everybody shows up like as usual, two people in a
car, one person in a car, like coming from one of the Johnson and Johnson events that they have, you know, a party. This is going to be a very popular place. I think I think it'll be a successful business not for the residents but for the people. >> So
>> is that a question? Are you asking? >> Yes. Uh the question is where will the cars go for when when there's 150 seats in this facility and everybody
goes out to dinner that night, you know, one and two in a car or one when they leave from work. What happens? That's my last point. >> Thank you, Mr. Michelle. >> Anybody could even add. >> I think you again your your your your statement as about, you know, number of people in a car and how that functions
and operates. Again, the or the design is based on the ordinance standard, which is basically three three people per se, three seats per car. Again, how the site's going to function and operate in terms of different events is is going to be dealt with um by our architect. They'll talk about different um aspects
of the site, but the way we have it designed is to function based on the number of seats that's allowed by ordinance. Now, that doesn't mean that you're going to have all 180 seats occupied at one time because you have different events going on at different times. And we're going to talk about that in terms of operations because you can have a a people eating in the
restaurant. You may not have a a party going on in the event space and therefore you're not going to have 180 seats full at that time. Well, being optimistic, I would say that a bridal shower or a baby shower, I don't know too many people who say, "I'll pick you up and pick you up." You know, usually
one person comes and they park a car. >> And if you're doing a bridal, if you're having a bridal shower, >> at the most, too. And I think this facility is going to be geared towards bridal showers, baby showers, communion parties, graduation parties, weddings. It'll it could be fantastic. I just
think it's in the wrong spot for people who have been living behind that area for such a long time quietly. >> I think the board will hear from our architect who's going to talk about how the spaces are going to operate and function, how some will operate at the same time and how some will operate at
different times given the type of events that will occur. So I think I think I think you'll hear that when you when he test >> do you know how it's currently operating? >> It's a restaurant. >> It's very very secure. Here's where we're moving away from questions and moving into testimony, but you'll get a
chance to to do that at the end. Thank you. >> We have someone else who would like to speak and sign in, please, and tell us your name and spell your last name for us. And if you need to, you can adjust the
mic so that it's comfortable for you. Thank you. First off, I'd like to give a little clarification to >> Oh, your name first. >> Tom Horbath. >> You spell your last name, please. >> H O R V as in Victor. A T H.
>> And your address? >> 15 Charlotte Drive. >> Thank you. Point of clarification for the board because earlier was stated that they were looking at photos as to what was there and the four buildings that were
originally there in the 50s. The church was a delicateestant house combination. The open lot between that church and Cafe Amelia was the original home of Country Hills Fire Department.
Cafe Amelia was known as Hammer's Tavern. >> So, Mr. Horvath, we're really just asking questions now and you will I promise you will have an opportunity to come up. I will swear you in so that we can take sworn testimony and you can you
can give all the history that you're aware of, which I'm sure will be very helpful, right? But right now, we're only at the point where we're questioning the engineering testimony. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, if you have questions for the engineer based on his testimony, please
ask. >> Okay. On December 16th, which was a weekday, there was uh I guess you would call it a holiday party and people were parked on Charlotte
Drive East. When the people were leaving, I asked one of the attendees that why were they parked that way? and they said that somebody from the cafe had told them when I guess they were
making their arrangements to park on one side of the street which is which most of the people did. Now December 17th which is a Wednesday and our recycling
day on Charlotte Drive there was another party and people parked on the right hand side of the street. So what happens is that the impact we have for mail delivery,
recycling pickup, and >> so again, Mr. Horvette. >> No, I'm getting to my question. >> Okay, it's a long prelude. Go ahead. My question is when whoever at Cafe Amelia said to park on
one side of the street, was any consideration given to the services that Charlotte Drive residents received for services that they've come to expect?
>> I can't speak to what the restaurant had told their patrons where to park. Again, that's that's I'm not part of that daily operation that occurs there. So, I can't speak to why they were told to park on one side of the street or the other. >> And I I also think that we've asked Mr. Michello about the parking and he's his
answer has been that there are 51 spaces and that's what the township of Bridgewwater's ordinance requires them to do. So, that they're not doing more than that. They're not doing fewer than that. They're staying right with what the ordinance requires. And at the end
of this um presentation and when we hear from the architect and the planner, that's when you'll have an opportunity and any other member of the public who wants to offer testimony as to experiences that they've had or how things might be improved for the future.
If there's some um relief that the applicant can provide, you'll have that opportunity as we discuss it with the architect and then later when you offer your opinion. >> Okay. One final mention was that most of the
conversation centered around Friday and Saturday, but I also wanted to make people aware that they do have weekday events that do have an impact on Charlotte Drive's residents. Thank you. >> And we'll have an opportunity to explore that as well. Thank you. Any other members of the public listening to Ask
Mr. Michello? Just be mindful of u the questions that have been asked and be mindful of testimony versus questions. And with that, you can sign in and then tell us who you are.
My name is Daniel Gerlac. Ge Ra. And I live at 9 Charlotte Drive. And I my question right now isn't for Mr. Michello. I guess his name was. Is that right? >> That's his name. And that's what we'd like your questions to be addressed.
>> He said he's doing what the minimum is. 51 spaces. >> Yes. >> For 180 people. >> Well, no, that's not what he said. >> 180 seats. >> I think he said 150, but correct me if I'm wrong. >> 180 is the 180. >> 100 in the building. 15. just wanted to
point out and I wanted to ask the board um that at least 20 of those are going to be for employees >> to run this event. >> So it's not >> not to mention the caterers, the photographers. >> So Mr. Gerlac, the board
doesn't create the ordinance, right? That that comes from the council. >> All right. I'm just >> And when but I just want to explain when the council >> for 180 people. >> Yes. And when the council creates its parking requirements, it takes into consideration that there will be
employees in the facility. >> It doesn't sound like they did. >> Well, but this board has to go by what the ordinance says. >> Okay. >> Right. And and we'll hear and you can ask our engineer when we get to that part, too. Right. Did Did they calculate
it correctly to the ordinance? Right. That's our charge. >> I believe he is. Yeah. He's he's going he's playing by the rules. That's not what I'm saying. >> But I'm saying as they're constructed right now, what everybody's complaining about is it's not enough. >> I think we understand >> using our street as their parking lot.
>> Yeah, we understand the complaint >> and they're going to validate their cars right down our street. >> And I'm just >> We don't we don't know that. So I I appreciate your view and you have an opportunity to say that again at the end because you live there. You've experienced it and you'll be able to testify.
>> I experience it every week. >> Right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> We have some additional questions. >> Try to be on point. >> I have four three questions. >> Your name and address? >> Roy Wheeler. Wh2
Charlotte Drive. >> Wheeler. >> My one question is, do we know what the exact width is of Charlotte Drive East? >> The exact width of the pavement? I I don't >> the street, right? >> Yeah. No, I don't have the exact width on the plan.
>> Does the township know? >> Wheeler, could you speak into >> Does the township know that question? >> So, Rob, I would point out that your plan says it's a 50-ft rideway. >> Yeah, I think I thought he was referring to the width of the curb. >> No, no, the actual pavement.
>> The p That's what I mean. The pavement width. That's >> Oh, from curb to curb. I just don't have it dimension >> on the drawing. Yeah, we only have the right away with >> Yeah, >> we don't know. Is that >> Is that the average for a street in Bridgewater? Is it below average
>> for a residential road? It's probably average. >> Probably. Okay. Um the current plan I I know you addressed this >> again. Speak into the microphone, but you're doing fine. Just wish I had one. I could just walk. >> Yeah, I know, right?
>> The current plan you talked about um staging area for parking >> the valet. >> Yes. >> And could you just show that again what your your thought might be? What that's >> the the idea and maybe you weren't able to see what I was pointing to, but the idea is we have a one-way drive aisle in
the front of the building here on 202. So the intent is that the vehicles would circulate around either from the entrance on Charlotte Drive east or from Charlotte Drive West and we'd quue them in the front here for valet purposes. So you have that that that roadway along the front of the building there for for
staging for for valet. >> Right. So I'm sure all the residents know that currently traffic comes like you said in off 20 uh 202 into the parking lot. It sometimes drives right through the parking lot and
pulls right out into the street. If there is oncoming traffic, and this has happened to me many times, if I'm coming off of 202 onto Charlotte, I can be encountering a car coming right out of that parking lot. And that's dangerous
>> because again, we're deal however the situation is now, the purpose of the plan here is to try to improve that situation. And why we're what we're doing is providing an entrance off of Charlotte Drive West. So that this way those vehicles that again once people get to know the property and see the new configuration, maybe they're not going
to pull right off of 202 anymore. The intent is for them to come off of the come off of 202 Charlotte Drive West and pull into the property here. If they miss it, now we'll have the entrance off Charlotte Drive east where they can circulate around as as opposed to what's there today. >> Okay.
You also testified that uh the adjacent property, the limousine, we'll call it the limousine property because that's what being parked there. Now, it's a third property that's owned by the same owner as the restaurant. You're testifying that there will be no overflow parking into that parking lot. >> That the testimony is that's not part of
this application and we're not proposing any parking on that property, >> but it could happen. >> We're not proposing any parking on that property, >> but it could happen. >> We can't say that. Honestly, you can say it, but we can't say it could happen. That's not definitive, >> right? And I appreciate what you're
saying, but at the same time, we're we're really bound by what we call a quasi judicial process. So, we're trying to keep the questions on point with the engineer, holding your testimony till the end because we do want your opinion and your experiences, but it's just not
appropriate now. So I don't want to discourage you from having those thoughts and ideas and I do want to encourage you to come back at the time when the presentation is done and we have an opportunity for the public to offer more broadly their comments and
experiences and observations. I appreciate that. >> Thank you. I just want to have one last follow-up question on the size of the width of the street. You say it is average for a residential street in Bridgewater.
I in conferring with Mr. Burr, it's it's probably average. There might be right ofway or pavement widths that are larger or smaller than that. That's why I said probably. I I don't have an exact, you know, analysis, >> but for a commercial commercial property in a residential
area, are there any uh variances, changes that that need to be approved or or not? on a >> I think I think it I don't want to interrupt your your thought process but what I what I would like to offer is that each property is unique and the board has to make a decision based on
the parameters of that property. >> So whether there are other average size roads or they're not is irrelevant to us in making this decision. Right. >> It might be good information but it it can't affect our decision >> but it'll be part of the decision I would imagine. Sorry. >> It it would be part of your decision
when you not on other properties, not on other sites. We're looking at this site in this >> based on their request. >> Right. Okay. Great. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. Can I please I just ask a question? I guess >> with their questions and my confusion,
uh, where are these cars going to be valet to? Are they going to the rear lot and double stacked or >> Well, the intent right now is they would be valet on onto the property. That's that's what that's >> I understand. But you've got parking spots back there. >> Yes. So, >> but but the only way to valet a large
number of cars would be to double stack them. >> Well, the intent here is that we meet the or I said we meet the ordinance of crimes before. >> And I I understand the ordinance, but we bring up >> val we would park them in in the in the stripe spaces on the property. That was that was the intent of of the valet. So,
this way at least patrons will be valet into those spaces. They won't have to park there themselves and come to the come to the um entrance, you know, during the busier times. If I may follow up on that, having been a person who's just listened to both meetings, somewhere in those two
meetings, someone um mentioned that they would um valet into the additional lot on the other side of Charlotte if necessary. >> We when I remember my testimony correctly, we talked we talked about
that as something that might be able to happen, but then we changed our we changed our discussion and said it's not part of this application. not proposing to do that. So, it was it was a question that was brought up. We said, "Oh, yeah. You know, maybe that was an option to do that." We talked about it and then came back and said, "We're not doing that as part of this application."
>> That's well, I've got the microphone more or less. >> Um, how are you planning to keep cars from exiting on 20 that have driven around the building and decided that they're going to go out on the 202 out on either Charlotte?
Well, we don't we feel that the way the traffic circulation is going to go here is that in the end of the evening that they'll be able to pull out onto Charlotte Drive east and and drive across this intersection right here and then head out onto 202 um what's that eastbound. So, they they'll be able to
do that. Then, we're not going to have them pull out directly onto 202 here. We're going to have them go back out the the exit lane here on um Charlotte Drive East. >> What is your plan for preventing them from being able to do that? >> We we we don't want to prevent them. And we want them to actually do that when they leave at the end of the evening.
>> But to that gentleman's point, you're exiting into oncoming traffic. If I'm now entering Charlotte East and you're now coming out as I'm coming in, >> you're setting that up for a >> Well, there's also too there there's there's adequate sight distance when
you're looking at 202 coming down the highway there. And there's as I and our traffic engineer >> and our traffic >> Wait a minute. I get to do that. But kidding aside, we just want to have an orderly conversation. We want to be courteous to our guests, both the
applicant and the people who are presenting. And I'm sure you can appreciate that as well. Thank you. >> And our traffic engineer will speak to the the traffic flow and um how there's there's going to be gaps in traffic because of the traffic light that's just down the street. So on and so forth. So, I don't want to get into traffic
testimony, but he's going to talk about how they'll be able to make that movement and go back out to Charlotte to go back out to 202 in an eastbound direction. >> Yeah. And I think it's appropriate to wait for your traffic engineer to discuss that further. >> So, with that with that said, I'm sorry. Did you have more, Miss Rose?
>> Just to be clear, the plan is for people to come in off of 202 spots in the front of the restaurant. And those that come in off of 202 that are indeed wanting to either park or valet are driving around the building to
the front of the building. >> That That is correct. If they if they missed if they missed Charlotte Drive West, they would drive around the building and then come in on the on the back side. >> Yes. And your testimony is that valet parking will occur in the slots um on
the west side of the building. >> That that's the intent to use this this drive lane here to stage the valet car to stage the cars for valet when they come in >> and the valet parking itself will occur. They'll drop the cars off in the slots that are to the west of the building.
>> Well, they'll the valet would basically drive the cars around and park them in the in the parking spaces. pass >> to the west of the building. >> To the west and and and to the south in all the in all the straight parking spaces. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. So, with that said, we have a
patient member of the public waiting to introduce themselves and ask some questions. >> My name is Jill Ferrante. Fe r a n t and I live at 6 Charlotte Drive. >> Yeah, if you move that down, you'll be more comfortable and you won't have to strain your neck. So, >> and I'm sorry, your address again,
please. >> Six Charlotte. >> Six. Thank you. And your first name? >> Jill. >> Jill. Thank you. >> I just wanted to clarify, you guys plan on having 180 people in the building with 51 parking spaces.
>> We have 180 seats parking. Parking spaces. Yes. >> How many of those parking spots will be handicap parking? There's three handicap parking spaces. >> Okay. >> So, in the last meeting, you mentioned that even though there's only 51 parking
spots, when you guys do valet parking, you might park the cars closer than what the lines allow. How do you plan for other people's vehicles to not get damaged if you guys are parking them closer than what the lines allow them to? Uh, >> that is an operational item for the
valet to to deal with. And currently, right now, there's about a 40 foot snow bank that when it was plowed, if you only allow for 51 spots, where do you guys plan to plow the snow? >> Again, that'll be an operational item with the maintenance folks to to remove
snow from the property when they have events so that cars can park there. And >> so wait, I'm sorry, but on that point, are you um would you be agreeable to a condition that in the event well a condition that plowed snow could not
occupy any parking space? >> Yes. >> Uh you also mentioned that in the valet parking that they would be in the front and that's also where the handicap parking would be. How would you prevent any pedestrians or valet people from getting hit from any oncoming traffic going into the building to pull directly
into those spaces like people currently do now? >> And the what people currently do today is not what this plan represents tomorrow. Remember those spaces that are in front of the building are regular parking spaces right now. So people can pull right off 202 and pull into those spaces which is probably what they do today.
>> They do. >> The purpose of this plan is to change the way it's being it's being used and operated. So, is there going to be a change in the curb there so that people can no longer pull in directly that way? >> We're not changing the curb because again that's regulated by DOT and and it's exists today and we're leaving that
curb the way it is. But the way it's going to function and operate is going to be different now. These spaces are going to be handicap spaces. They're not used as frequently as regular spaces. Number one. Number two, to to answer your other question, we've got the ability for valet to to walk around the property. We've got sidewalks both in
the front of the building and on the side of the building so that the valet can can work in a safe environment and be able to have people come out of their cars, walk onto the sidewalk, get into the building, they can get in those cars and drive them around the property and park them where they need to park them. >> Okay. So, if this building is going to
be as as big as you say and there's a fire on the all the way to the west side of the building, where would you anticipate for an ambulance to get through with all the valet parking or a fire truck? Again, if there's a fire, that's going to be an op that's going to be a a a safety issue for the fire department. Cars are parked in parking
spaces. The parking lot's designed to allow a firetruck to maneuver through it. >> Valet will have all the keys to all of the cars. >> And if there's and if there's an incident that occurs, the valet will if there's a cars lined up here, I'm sure the valet will move those cars if there's an incident where a fire department is arriving on the property.
Keep in mind, too, that if if the fire department's called, if an ambulance is called, they have response time they need to get there. there'll be an opportunity for the management to deal with moving any vehicles in the front of the site and be able to accommodate things accordingly. So, it's not as if all of a sudden the building's on fire
and that they can't move cars in front and that doesn't usually happen that way. There's a there's a timing and operation to things and they'll be able to move cars. If there's cars lined up here, the valet can move them. The site's designed so that fire trucks can maneuver around the site so that this way if they need to get on the property, they can do that.
>> Do you know where the closest fire hydrant is to the building? >> I'd have to look at the plans. is I don't have it right. >> I'll tell you where it is. It's right in front of my house and people park right in front of it all the time. So, I don't understand how you guys plan to get fire trucks in there if people are parked on both sides and you can't even get to the
fire hydrant. >> Again, I can't speak to why people are parking in front of a fire hydrant. >> It happens all the time. We call the police >> testimonies for another time. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I have a followup question. >> I I need to be very clear about this.
Um, are you saying that valet will be using the fire fire access aisle for parking cars? >> No, I did not I did not say that. I said the valet would be using this drive lane to stage cars while people drop off and to be able to get in and out of their
cars and take them and park them on the property. So, they they're using the drive lane to stage. That's typical of of any type of of any type of restaurant that has valets. They do that. They stage in the front of the of the building. >> Okay. So only for that very temporary condition,
>> right? When when for example a party's going to start at let's say 7:00 and again into operations, but people are going to be showing up before right after it starts, that's when they're going to be pulling in there. But then after that, the cars are parked and you know it's it's pretty much open at that point. >> Okay. Sorry, your testimony got me a
little nervous there because let's say there's a fire where all the keys are being held. I mean, how you going to get the key? >> No, no, we're not going to be parking cars in the drive lane here and then you can't get around the building. Thank you. >> Are there other members of the public who would like to address Mr. Michello
and his engineering testimony? >> Sharon Barnes. >> I'm sorry. You're going to have to say that again because it the microphone didn't pick it up, I don't think. >> Sharon Barnes. B A R N. >> Right. And you could adjust the mic so you don't have to do the limbo there for
yourself. Yeah, I'm getting I'm shrinking with eight >> and and your address, too, please. >> Um 38 Charlotte Drive. >> Thank you. >> Okay. I I don't think it was mentioned before, but it kind of goes along with this
whole traffic flow thing. Um is did anybody mention about putting um signs like when you're coming and going from the east and west like behind the building or um where you're trying to drive around it to do
the parking that when you're coming out on the east side there would be a sign that says no right turn. you know that you can only you can only go towards the highway and then when you're coming out the west side no left turn. So and then
when you the coming into Charlotte Drive on either side no through traffic signs so that the whole you know Charlotte Drive isn't bombarded with people going all around the block you know if
they miss where they're supposed to be. So that might control the traffic flow a little bit better. >> Mr. Michello, so you heard the question. Yes. >> And I'm not sure if in your previous testimony you had mentioned anything about specific signage, but is that a question you'd be able to answer from
Miss Barnings here? I >> I I thought we might have talked about this at the last meeting. Um, but we did mention that we could, and it's not something that we had um decided upon yet, but we could do a a a no right turn restriction going to the east and then a
no left turn restriction going to the west. So that this way people leaving the property would be directed back to 202 and not, you know, for argument sake turn and go around the neighborhood. So yes, I think we did mention that we can look into doing that. And then on the streets the the entrance into the street
themselves um for people who don't do valet parking put no through traffic signs so people don't think oh I'm going to go out and I'll cut through to get to >> so we can't put any signs in the street. You'd have to go to the council and ask them permission to do that. We can only
put signs on our own property. >> Okay. >> We can restrict the turns. We can restrict things coming out of our property, but we can't put signage on the local streets without council. >> Okay. >> Approval. >> And then I did need clarification because you were right at the end of one of the meetings. It was left, it was
close to the end and it came up that oh because you know there's bound to be overflow. We have this other lot. And it was like kind of left because it was near the end that it said oh well that changes everything. We got to reook at the whole
the whole application because now we might have a third lot in the picture. And that's what I thought we were going to come in here and hear about how that third lot was going to help with the parking. But now you're saying you never even >> Well, no. We we talked about that, but we let at the end of the last meeting we
said that that was we are not that lot is not part of this application. I I my takeaway from that meeting was we're going to address it and oh you did a taxi thing. >> No, I think the issue that was raised is
if we were to use that other lot, it would have to become part of the application. You'd have to renotice for it and it's another use variance. So it was a legal issue and uh we're not going to do that. We don't want to expand the application any further. >> Okay. So then really then we still just
need and it may not be right now but at some future or whenever the I don't know whenever we do it again at another time. Um they you never did answer the question about the overflow. What is the
procedure for when you do have overflow? How is it handled? So, I know you didn't answer that, but maybe my question to the board would be is how do other Bridgewater um commercial peop, you know, or
companies or restaurants or whatever, how do they handle what is the procedure that they have to follow in Bridgewater? If they followed the ordinance and it's 50 parking spaces is enough, what do other
places do to control overflow? Are they required by an ordinance to say if there is an overflow they turn people away or they take the valley parking off site or what is Bridgewwater's ordinance for that? So the ordinance is just the
number of required parking spaces based on seats here, right? There's no ordinance that says if you overflow, you have to bring it someplace else. So and and this board um doesn't produce
witnesses to say what's typical or what's done elsewhere, right? the applicant is presenting their application and they are um um advising the board as to what their procedure will be. >> Okay. But since we kind of all know
there's going to be overflow. I mean it's just a given because there's overflow now and then if you're multiplying it by >> Well, I think there there you're testifying as well. So that >> you know you can you can pose a question to Mr. Michelle that might say something like if there is overflow do you have a
plan to address it and then that'll either be he can either answer it or defer it but you might want to pose it that way. >> Question for along those lines was have you in your planning considered doing the valet parking over at the Wegman's
like that big commercial high-rise building that nobody ever parks there. Have you coordinated with them to do your valet parking there? Oh, >> we have not coordinated with any third-party um sites for off-site valley parking
intent to park on site. >> Would you consider that as an option? >> We don't think it's going to be necessary and we'll have our traffic engineer and the operations person go through that and why we don't think we need it. >> Okay. Well, I think the traffic when the traffic engineer comes there will be a lot of questions for him. >> I'm sure. I guess my other I think my
other question was is and this is probably for him as well is the I don't know if um it's hard to explain but the Wegman's light there helps with the flow because it um it stops the traffic from
202 to going towards the circle. But the people on Charlotte Drive, it could take five or 10 minutes to get out of the road. Um, if you miss that light or if it's a busy busy time, rush hour, you could wait two, three light cycles, five
minutes easy >> to get out of Charlotte Drive. So, I would really am interested in the traffic engineering their study done to say how is that not going to back up
202 I mean and the valet parking the flow of that when I mean that it's just a to get on and off of 202 is um how do you prevent the backup? So that's just >> and I think our traffic >> engine
will answer those questions. >> Yeah, give him a heads up and then um let's see. Well, I I think other people want to talk. I have a whole bunch. I I guess the last question is
if 79.4% if we make that the precedent then does that mean that every time somebody else in the future comes in then they have a more likely chance of
being approved for that same variant. So that >> no it would not set a precedent. every property is unique into itself and each application is is looked at that way. So it's not really precedent setting. >> But I think somebody had said one of the
meetings that nobody has ever asked for this many this much of a a var like a ratio variance before but >> I I think that I think I recall something like that. But it's mostly
posed so that the applicant can justify their position as to what their plan is. So it's more a rhetorical device than it is an actual statement. >> Yeah. So, and then the other the maybe the other thing would just be um the
height of the trees um on the back the back thing >> they had mentioned they were only only going to be like six feet but between the noise and the light and the smells and stuff.
Couldn't we make it so that they come in at at least 12 feet? enough so whatever would block from that rooftop thing would block the you know it not going into the kids bedroom at night.
>> We were proposing them between six and seven foot high initial planting height but then in two to three years they're going to grow to probably 10 to 12 foot >> height two to three years the kids could be and live growing up with that for two to three years if you're a kid that's not right. You should make it so that
it's at least 12 feet right off the bat and then maybe it'll get higher from there. And you're going to be making money. So make them higher trees. >> We can take a look at the landscaping and see what we can we can do there.
>> You are you serious? You kind of didn't sound serious. >> Well, now you're now you're veering away from your questions, but we do appreciate your questions. >> Okay. So consider that as an out of >> the applicant will consider it. He's just >> The applicant will consider it. Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thanks. >> Welcome. And please state your name and address. My name is Robert Schwarzoff. I don't actually live on Charlotte Drive. My mom does live there since uh 1969 at 45 Charlotte Drive. And uh my spelling is s
W A R Z K O PF. K O B >> E as in Peter Epson Frank >> P. >> Saying that out loud. >> Any relation to the general? No, I'm just kidding. >> Same spelling. Norman >> and Miss Jennings. Same question as our one of our first. >> No issue. That's
>> okay. Thank you. >> When you're seeking 10 variances and six design waivers and you're funneling traffic onto Charlotte Drive, you have potential overflow of parking. I was
wondering if you could list any of the positive criteria for the residents of Charlotte Drive that this proposed project would uh bring. >> I think I think as we started off that would be a question for our planner to answer as the positive criteria. >> Planning question. >> Correct. >> And all traffic questions like a DOT
permit. >> We have a traffic engineer. Yep. >> Are there times when you would actually design more parking spaces than what the ordinance would require? and it goes back to what we're trying to
accomplish for a particular project. So again, every project is different. >> And you know, Mr. Schwarzoff, when when an applicant designs more parking than what's required, then there's other >> issues that um could be raised like additional impervious coverage and
drainage. And >> so, you know, it's a little >> I mean, if there were more space, do you think you might include more spaces? every, as I said before, every site is you is is different in the way you design it. So, you try to tend to work with the the the room that you have in
terms of what you're providing. >> That's all I have. >> Thank you. >> Are there other members of the public? Somebody's waving at me, so please come on up. >> Name and address. And if you're comfortable, you can move the mic so that you're ready to talk.
>> Good evening. Uh my name is Agnes Kashmanovska. I reside at 47 Charlotte Drive, which is adjacent to uh the church uh property. >> Okay. Would you spell your name, please? First and last.
>> First name, it's a G N I E S Z K A. last name S Z Y M A N O W SK K A. >> Thank you very much. >> We still won't be able to say it, but thank you. And I'm Polish, so I don't
know. >> Um, just wanted to ask a few questions and if you're not the correct person, forgive me, but um, in terms of, um, landscaping, >> yes. Um, currently there's a very mature
tree uh right about on the border of um or on the property line I would think uh between me uh my property and the church's property. Uh what's the what's the plan for this tree?
>> Is your property the property immediately to the south? >> Uh >> you're adjacent to this >> adjacent right. So I'm on the Charlotte West. >> Is this is this your house right here? >> Yes. Yes, that's Yes, it's down right there. Yes. >> Yeah. >> I'm just looking at the plans to see
there's a couple trees that are identified right on the property line. That's Are you talking about right in this corner right here? >> Uh a little bit to the left. It's more uh Yeah, it's right where if if I may go over. >> Yeah, point it out.
Mr. Michelle, if you share your mic with her, that might help us. >> Um, so the tree that I'm referring to is currently not shown on the design plan right here. Uh, but there is a very mature bushes right here, which um, you
know, partially overflows to the church's property as well as mine. We have been maintaining the dose for >> 11 12 years since we've been living there and as well as the very mature tree which is residing right on the
border of the property line. Um which again it's probably 50/50 split. Um I I would hate to lose that tree because of the three stories proposed uh rooftop
bar which the tree will provide me with some noise blockage and you know it's just I would hate to lose a mature tree that's also provides me with with shading etc um you know and comfort um to my living.
>> Mr. Michelle, are you familiar with the trees that the um or how's it how's your first name pronounced again? >> Um you can call me Agnes, but it's Agneska. Yes, but Agnes is fine. >> Okay. So, can you talk to her about her
trees that were on the property line or close to it? >> I'm looking at the survey to see if the trees were located or identified along that property line. I don't see any on here. That doesn't mean that it's not there. Again, we didn't do the the original survey, but what I will offer up is we are proposing some landscaping
along their evergreen trees as the other person asked me about, but if there's a tree that's right on the property line, and we'll call it a 50/50 tree for that matter, if it's sitting right there on the property line, we we're going to want to take another look at that and if that tree can be saved, we want to save that tree. I don't think we want to if
it's a large enough tree, if it's a nice tree, we want to keep it. If it's into our property seven or eight feet and it's on our property, that's different. We're going to probably we're going to remove that tree for the development. But if if you're telling me that there's trees right along this property line right here and you're maintaining them and you can see them in the in the
aerial imagery that's on the plan right here. And if it's right on that property line and there's a way we can keep that tree, I think we want to work with the applicant to work with I'm sorry, work with the resident to do that. I don't want to take the tree down if it's a nice tree and it's providing you screening and buffering. It's not going to be that tree is not going to impact
our construction of the building. It's not going to impact our construction of the parking lot. But if it's right on the line, I want to keep that. So, I I I I would offer to take a look at that and see what's there along that property line and confirm that we can keep that those trees that are I'll call them the 5050 trees that are literally right on
that property line. >> And um just for my own clarification again, um what criteria you would look at to make that decision if the tree stays or goes? >> Well, where the property line is in relation to the tree, the actual property line itself. So, I I I think
there might be a corner marker out there. I don't remember, but we would look at the exact property line location and see where that tree is. If it's on your property, we're not touching it. It's your tree. We're not going to >> touch that tree. But if it's on our property, if it's a few feet into our property, it's probably going to
>> it's probably going to have to be removed for our construction. But if it's right on the line, we'll look at that, assess it, and if we can keep it, we want to keep it. >> Okay. Um, and as far as the fencing, is that the question for you as well, or >> fencing? were proposing fencing along the property line and I and I know there
was some debate about where the fence was going to be located. We talked about either putting it right on the pro right now. We show it kind of in the middle between the property line and the curbing. There was talk about whether we should push it closer to the curb or push it right up against the property line. Again, that's that could be flexible. We could adjust that
>> depending on what's the vegetation that's there and how that affects your property since you're right next to the property line. >> Right. So I I again I just wanted to ask that question for my own clarification whether you know how closely because I do have a fenced in backyard. The front
yard is not fenced in but the backyard is um you know is how close is it going to be um to my current uh fence and also is it going to be fenced in your
property all the way down to the curb. The intent was the intent was to take the fencing just past the the curb line here so that any cars that are parked there would would be blocked by by the fence. So if your fence is >> maybe it's I think that might be your fence right there on the plan right there.
>> So your fence stops here at the corner. We wanted to continue our fence down just past this parking spot. So you had additional screening of the parking spaces to your property. >> And in terms of the height of the fence, I think it was the average is 6 feet. I believe >> we're proposing a sixoot fence. Um, is
there any way to have a variance for that? Actually, I'm proposing to have it higher. So, it would provide me with uh more blockage to the noise and I have a testimony for when the testimony time is here. Yes.
>> Um, regarding um the noises that has been going on for years from the property. >> Right now, um, Mr. Michello will comment on the fence heights. Um, but he'll also I think that you were talking with our
planner or perhaps our engineer about not having finalized the design for the fence and the shrubbery that was either going to be in front of it or behind it or sandwiched it. I I be honest, I wasn't sure myself what you came up with. >> I don't I don't know if we actually
settled on a final conclusion as to where we're going to put the fence versus the landscaping. if you know, we tried to we tried to do something where we're going to try to split it in the middle and have the fence set a little further back from the property line and put the landscaping in front of the fence. Um, but I think we were going back and forth on what would be the best
way. I think we might have settled on, if I remember correctly, the fence would be on the property line and the landscape would be behind the fence and ultimately that landscape would grow up um, you know, higher, you know, higher to be above the fence. >> Right. >> Understood. >> So, we heard your request.
I'm certainly Mr. Michelle will consider it um and then we'll have to talk to our professionals as well to see if it can be done legally and then we'll move on from there if that's acceptable for now. >> Understood. Okay. Good. >> Thank you. That's all for now. >> Yeah. And and just on that point, I can
tell you that the board um in conjunction with the applicant could agree that the fence would be higher. It's another variance, but it doesn't have to be separately noticed. It's already in their notices. So, you know, it's for discussion with the board. >> All right.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Are there additional members? Did you have an another question that you wanted to ask? >> Yeah. >> Black 10 Charlotte Drive. Did you just
say that the fence is going to go to the cur? Did you just say that the fence is going to go to the curb? >> No. No. Oh, I said the fence was going to go past the end of the curb just so we can block those vehicles that would be, you know, pointing towards her her home. >> So, the fence is going to be on the property line.
>> The fence is not going past the property line. >> Okay, that's okay. Thank you. >> It's not going to the curb line if that's what you were asking. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Welcome back. >> Further testimony, I think I understand uh your >> I'm sorry. For the record, your name again, please. >> Britney Wheeler. Sorry.
>> Um, so Mr. Michelle, I just want to >> give you kudos. I think you're doing a tremendous job trying to fit a a square into a round hole. Um, my questions are the third story. Can you just explain the variance that you're doing? I guess
it's currently two, it's 2.5, two and a half. I mean, I think I I think I testified to the ordinance requirements 2.5 stories and because of the way that the the definition is the the it the building is three stories in in in terms of the number of height in terms of the height.
>> So, you're seeking the the third story for the rooftop bar. >> Yes, that's Yes. >> Is the rooftop bar functionally necessary or is it for economic optimization? You >> know, I'm going to defer that to our architect who's going to talk about operations. Is it functionally necessary?
>> It's part of the application. >> Yeah, I don't think that's a question he can answer. >> Not site engineering. >> So, um, somebody mentioned earlier about snow shuffling. If it's not going to be pushed into parking spaces, is it going to be pushed on to 202 drive east or should I drive west?
>> No, we we did not state that. We said we would agree to a condition that the spaces would be made available after snow. So that the snow would typically in a case like that, they're going to have a a maintenance crew who's going to have to remove it from the property. >> And when it's removed from the property,
where would it be transported to? >> It would be removed from the property. >> Okay. It would it would be moved on to Charlotte Drive West. That's where it would be transported to. >> It would not be put on a public street. >> I did not say that. Um, going back to some of the other
variances, um, the trash enclosure, I I believe the current ordinance is 20 ft from a property line. Is that correct? >> If that's what the ordinance if that's what the request was, I I'll I'll agree to that. Yes. >> Your request, I believe, is 9.7 ft.
>> Yeah. The ordinance may be 20 and the the the setback is 9.7. Correct. >> That that's what you're requesting. >> Yes. >> From a residential property line. >> From a property line. Yes. So, my neighbor who just testified earlier that her property is to the back. Can you please point on that chart for me and
the board where the trash enclosure is set to be 9.7 ft away from her property line? >> The trash enclosure is shown right here on the plan. Yes. And I believe there was some questions at the last meeting from the traffic engineer about possibly relocating the trash enclosure to a different portion of the property. I think he was talking about it in this
location over here. And and while we we we've taken a look at that, we think that might be a feasible alternative that we can certainly explore. >> I would just implore that it be further than explored. It would be exercised um on behalf of our neighbors. If members
of this committee haven't already, um I believe it was the first hearing. Um, when this applicant this application came up, uh, Chairman Jeff Fouse uh, had been to the property earlier that day and noted a horrific smell that was
emitting from the trash and requested that it be cleaned. So, I I just want it noted on public record that you guys don't have, not you, sir, but the property doesn't have a good track record of keeping the trash clean. And when it's 100° out in the middle of
August and you have fish from that restaurant 9.7 ft away from a residential property, I don't know how this >> Well, you want to pose that as a question differently or >> so, so my question and this might sound like a ridiculous one. Is there any
studies with respect to smell? >> Again, we don't do a study for smell, >> but you do one for sound. We I don't do ones for sound, but we do have a sound. >> There is a So, is that for your sound guy? >> Yes, the sound. >> You don't have a smell guy? >> We don't have a s not a smell guy as far
as we know. But I I I I don't want to speak out of term, but I think that there was some discussion about increasing the frequency of trash pickup on the property that the applicant was willing to either do that or consider it. So that's something that we might revisit at that point and make it a
condition if this were to be approved that that be picked up and then we'd have to choose a frequency that would be acceptable to both parties and that would help attenuate just you know garbage sitting there so to speak. >> Absolutely. Um and then a couple other
points. Um, my father previously brought up the the measurement of the street for the township engineers. And the reason being is 20 years ago our street was paved. 25 years ago was the last time our street was paved. And I was a little bit
younger then, so I don't quite quite recall. But I believe that there was notification provided to residents that the town uh was seeking a variance or I don't know the language, forgive me, but you guys can go back and look, but it was the streets actually smaller than what's
required by the town of residential streets and and I don't have it now. I'll bring it back for the board at the appropriate time. But when you hear people talking about double parking on the street, sir, and and that's why my dad was asking whether or not it was reflected on the chart, I I think it
should be taken into consideration in your planning if this is true that it is a smaller residential street than required. I don't know how that doesn't factor into your plan, particularly with the traffic and the new traffic patterns and the circulation. So, I I did want to flag that um for the record.
>> I think Mr. roller also referenced that there exists a right of way that the township maintains with respect to streets. So the amount of paved surface can be less but can't be more than the right of way. And so the paving that was
done however long ago may have been done because it was a less frequently traveled road. I I can only speculate but the rightway exists and that's 50 ft Mr. Is that what you said? >> It's reflected as a 50ft rideway on the plan.
>> The plan doesn't show the the paved area, only the rightway. >> Right. >> Okay. But wouldn't wouldn't that be part of of the calculus with the square footage and the traffic? >> I think it has less to do with the applicants um calculus and more to do
with the the residents who live on the street. I mean, they also quote live on the street and so they would have to seed that right ofway if they were encroaching on it. So, you might want to ask them a question like, "Do you encroach on the right of way?" >> I think we already know the answer to that one, sir.
>> So, Miss Wheeler, though, is that street um alternate side of the street parking or is it just double side parking all the time? >> If you give me one second, I can pull up a picture and give you guys copies. >> Uh, no. I don't want to do that right now, but >> I said I'll wait uh for the appropriate
time, but there are dozens of of pictures of double parking. School buses can't get through. I tried to open request a 911 call where cops couldn't get through or I'm sorry, an ambulance couldn't get through. I was denied that request by the by the police department
and I understand why. But um there are records that exist with respect to emergency vehicles and school buses not being able to get through. Um, and then and lastly, this is not so much a question, but I urge everybody on this board in your free time before our next meeting to go to this property and
witness it for yourself. And um, I'll leave it at that. >> I appreciate the suggestion. It's it's a common practice for board members to visit the property, so we don't want to put anybody on the spot, but everybody usually gets out and visits the property.
>> And one more question. Um, I mentioned earlier about the the shrub requirements. Would would more shrubs on the property not be beneficial to the applicant with
respect to the noise from a third star, a third story uh bar with live music. >> Well, shrubs are 3, four foot high. It's not going to have any bearing on a a a bar that may have music going on. And again, I'll leave to the operation of the bar and music and so forth to our
architect, but shrubs around a foundation of of a building is not going to affect the uh the impact of of noise. >> And they're going to have their acoustic engineer address us as well. >> Excellent. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. So, we're getting it's about 10 minutes to nine, give or take. Um I
would like to take a 10-minute break and reconvene. Can Mr. Michello Well, let me just ask the public, are you done with your questions? for Mr. Michelle or you want to squeeze one in real fast because everybody's dying to go to the bathroom. >> Mr. Chairman, can I Mr. Chairman, can I
squeeze one question in? >> Oh, sure. Sure. But >> yeah, so that Mr. Michelle doesn't have to return. Oh, I'm sorry. You have Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Aesh Kashimanovska coming back to ask uh more questions in regards to the garbage
disposal. Yes. Um it's been um horrendous this past >> Yeah. I have to just stop you for a second. We've acknowledged that there is an issue and that the applicant has tried to or is discussing ways to mitigate that issue. I think they were
talking about the location of the of the trash containers and that Mr. Michello, correct me if I'm wrong, you said that you would be consider moving it from where it's proposed, which is, I'm guessing, right next to your property. >> Uh, yes. >> Yeah.
>> To a different location. >> Yes. And also I I have to say that the applicant had increased the pickup. Um however the pickup occurs at 2:30 in the morning. >> I'm sure that can be addressed as well by the applicant.
>> I mean >> okay I heard I just >> Yes. We can impose a condition on >> pick I mean anything past 6 a.m. will work. >> Mhm. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So I'm sorry Miss Armad you had a question. I just had one question um for
Mr. Michello. Mr. Michelle, did you undertake a title search for the property by any chance? >> No, we we did not. I just bring that up because in the chain of title in in some of the previous deeds there is um a reference to um a restriction or
inclusion of part of Charlotte Drive East and the right of way and then a a restriction in a deed which I can't locate. Um it's on file with Somerset County. um seems to be from a long time ago, but there seems to be some sort of
restriction. And I and I would like to ask you if you could look into that to figure out what that is. >> Do you happen to know the deep book in page? >> Sure. It's it's book N-24. >> We go ahead. >> Page 207. >> We'll see what we can find on that. >> Thank you. >> Yes, >> Katherine. That was M as in Mary.
>> N as in Nancy. >> Nancy. Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Seeing no additional questions at the moment. We can we conclude that we're Mr. Michello is done with his testimony. >> I'm going to say yes, we can. Miss
Jennings, you agree? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. So, we will take a 10-minute break and then we'll reconvene shortly. Thank you. >> If I actually got it right. Right. So, thank you everyone for indulging us
during the break. Would like to reconvene and Nancy, may we have a roll call, please? >> Here. >> Uh, here. Here. >> Here.
>> Here. >> Here. >> Here. >> Here. >> Very well. Thank you very much. Welcome back members of the public or applicant. Miss Jennings, I'm going to turn it to
you. And we are going to be introducing >> the architect. >> The architect. >> Yes. Craig. So, maybe we have him introduce himself and get him sworn in. We can begin. >> Uh, please stand and raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. >> And your full name for the record? >> My name is Craig J. Calatian. K A L A S H I A N. >> Thank you. if you give the board the benefit of your background and qualifications. So,
>> I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey and several other states. I have a practice in Chester, New Jersey, not far from here. Um, I've recently testified in front of uh multiple boards including Mount Olive and Morristown as well as other boards all across the country. >> And your license is current?
>> My license is current >> and with the state of New Jersey? >> Correct. Thank you. >> Boards accept his qualifications. >> We do accept his qualifications. Thank you. >> Thanks. So, just for the record, your office prepared the floor plans and elevations. >> Yes. >> And if you could um let's You've heard a lot of uh questions that have been going
out and we keep saying the architect will answer that. The architect will answer that. So, why don't you uh >> Yeah, if we could bring everybody back up to answer the questions. Love that. Um so, just a quick background and introduction about my firm and experience. I'm a hospitality design architect. Um most most of my projects
focus on restaurants, resorts, hotels, banquet spaces. So, this is my particular area of expertise. Um, and then just for context, I also own and operate a restaurant in Chester, New Jersey, and own operate various hospitality businesses throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania. I mentioned
that because when everybody's saying I'm going to speak about operations, I want you to know it's from personal experience. Um, and I can speak to the way that the building is designed, and that's largely what I'm going to talk about. um a lot of the speculation and things that I've heard. I want to respond to some of that just to kind of clarify some of the points that have
been brought up. Um and I appreciate all the public testimony. Um it's certainly very helpful in understanding um you know what we're trying to solve here. Uh so just kind of very briefly um I've been working on this project
since 2022. Um, and it took us a couple of years to work with ownership on a proposal that we felt improved the site. As everybody knows, there's two separate structures currently on the site. Um, one of the things I want to mention is that it was
previously testified that the church site has 12 parking spaces and that currently the Cafe Amelia site has 27 parking spaces. Uh what was not brought up was that the existing church building has signs posted inside um for an occupancy of 100 persons, 70 upstairs,
30 downstairs. I believe they had a daycare downstairs and that the Amelia site has equal occupancy inside and outside. Uh it was also questioned under previous testimony um about the outdoor dining seats which were um made permissible during uh the
pandemic and memorialized in a um in a in a ruling in a a bill signed by Governor Murphy in November of 24. So in that bill any outdoor seats which were granted during CO were memorialized as allowed to be permanent. Um, as it was
previously testified, we lost I think it was five parking spaces for the outdoor seats. But I say that only to say that the current occupancy of the site and I use occupancy other than seats because really the code stipulates occupancy of
how many persons can occupy a building. We don't have fixed seats in the buildings. So we don't I don't go by seats, we go by occupancy because that's how we calculate um egress width and fire life safety requirements. But currently the site has an occupancy
of 242 persons allowable with only 39 parking spaces. The proposal that we're advocating for at present is a site occupancy of 180 persons with 51 parking spaces. So I believe the question came
up that we're proposing a more intense use. We're actually trying to decrease the intensity of the site by >> just just from my understanding, you're combining the what you talked about being the church um occupancy and cafe Amelia's occupancy to get your 242.
>> Correct. >> Okay. And then you're talking about the current proposal which would include the restaurant and the new banquet facility at 180. >> Correct. We're trying to consolidate the two assembly uses into a less intensive overall. >> Yeah. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Yeah, I just want to clarify that because I know, you know, obviously visually, um, you know, there's a lot of speculation about what's going to go on there and I'm going to talk about the building, but from a from a pure number standpoint, our goal is to get cars off of Charlotte Drive by increasing the parking spaces. If you guys want to
allow us to have more impervious coverage, we'd love to have more spaces, but that's um, you know, our goal is to try to balance the two. And so I just saw want to say that um the some of the variances we're asking for drive the other um waiverss in terms of things like landscaping. Obviously we could put
more landscaping um but that would then potentially allow us to lose parking spaces. So it's all kind of a push and pull. Um but our overall goal is to decrease the intensity uh of the site, get more cars off of the street and um and manage the overall site more
efficiently. Um that being said, um >> when you say site, you're talking about the new site, not >> the combined site. Yes. >> Combined sites. >> Yes. >> And that the church is currently being used today. There is an intensity and a
use there at all. >> The church is currently vacant, but there's signs in the church from the previous tenant that allow the amount of users I said. So, it's not but the church is not contributing to anything happening today, >> but it could >> but it could be leased tomorrow to
another group who occupies. >> When's the last time it contributed to something in that in the area? >> I believe it was occupied last year. >> Okay. Just curious. Thank you. >> So, your your 242 existing that's based upon square footage.
>> That's based on allowable occupancy. So, for example, in a church space, the calculation allows for um concentrated tables and chairs of 7 ft per person. So, just let's say it was 700 square ft inside the church. That use allows for an occupancy of 100 provided the egress
requirements can be met. >> Okay. >> And then you're comparing that to 180 seats >> occupants. >> So, that's the occupant load, >> correct? >> Maximum occupant load. >> The occupant load. Correct. because the the use of the use of any
assembly space is flexible. So, for example, you might have a banquet room that's set up for a trade show and there might be 12 tables and a bunch of people walking around. You might have it set up for a lecture. There might be fixed tables and chairs. You might have it set up for a social function. So, you can't go by seats because the seats always
change. So, you have to go by allowable occupants. All right. Um, I'd like to talk a little bit about the design. I've handed out some um some plans that we've prepared that show the program of the building. >> I don't know if those were previously
marked into evidence. So, we were >> I think >> is that what's on your easel? >> Yeah, it's on the easel. I saw some You guys have them up there. >> We have a We have a plan uh starts with sheet A1. 0, >> correct? And then A20. >> 2.01. Right.
>> Those are the plans. Yep. >> Yeah. >> I've also handed out copies to the public if that's okay. Just so everyone's looking at the same thing >> and it's has a 10125 date, right? >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, that's the plan we have and
that's what's on your easel. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, we don't have to mark what's on the easel. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Do you guys have the same ones? I'm looking at the 10125. Um I also want to note that we've modified these plans from the original application. Um after our first meeting
we reduce the size as and this is testified previously. We reduced the size of the building. We increased the um we decreased the impervious coverage and we decreased the size of the courtyard between the buildings. Um I
also want to point out that the building is designed to support um the operation of the facility as a whole. Um and 60% of the building are what we call support spaces. They don't have any occupancy. So things like
restrooms, coat room, elevator lobby, stairs, elevator, back of house, banquet service, storage. All of these spaces aren't intended to house users or occupants. They're meant to support the operations of the building. So there was
some questions previously as to why is the building so big or, you know, why does it have to be this size? It's this size because it's it's designed to support the operation and the operation is not intended to try to just cram as many people in the building. We're
trying to, you know, run an efficient business here. Just by comparison, the building was called large at a previous testimony. Um, compared to most banquet facilities, this is actually quite small. Uh, for example, the only other banquet facility in Bridgewater, which
is the Bridgewater Marriott, has over 18,000 square ft of meeting space, we're proposing about 2,000. Um, their largest ballroom is 8,500 square ft. Ours is 2100 ft². So, as far as banquetss facilities go, this is actually quite
small. Um, and we've, like I said, we've reduced the size compared to the original submission. I don't want to interrupt your flow, but did you take a look at the Bridgewater Manor as well as banquet space or did you not include that in your reference? >> I did not include that in my reference.
>> Thank you. >> I didn't I wasn't able to get the data on those rooms, >> but I suspect it's larger than 2,000 square feet. >> I wouldn't comment either way. I just wanted to know whether you included it. >> Sure. Um
and as I mentioned the banquet space is intended to be used for a variety of functions. The need for this space actually um is driven largely by requests from corporate clients. It's been supposed that the need is going to be mostly social, but we actually anticipate the bulk of the use to happen
during the day from business clientele um who currently are clients of Cafe Amelia and and have stated that they would welcome a larger space to hold training and things like that. So, the bulk of the thing driving our desire to build the space is really from local
corporate clients. Um although I'm sure there will be some social business, it's not really the main driver for the project. Um, I also want to point out there's been a lot of questions about noise and noise um, pollution. The entire um, plan south of the building.
So, I guess it would be the kind of bottom of the plan, those are all support spaces which have no public occupancy at all. So this idea that there's going to be people kind of partying along the bottom side of the plan, what you have along the bottom
side of the plan is the kitchen, which will have five people at max maximum working in it, the staging service area, the elevator lobby, the stair, and um and the elevator. There are no windows on the south side of the building. So any opportunity for there to be open
windows, noise, loud music, um that's just not currently, you know, as part of the plan. the there is no rooftop bar. After our first application, we removed the rooftop bar and made it an enclosed space and and similar to the other floors, there's no windows or any sort
of openings on the south side of the building where the bar is intended to go. The bar is on the north side of the building that is closer to Route 202. So, we don't anticipate any noise filtering. There's also no space planned for live music like a band or anything
like that. If you look at the plan on sheet 202, you can see there's just a bar, some open space in front of the bar, and then uh an outdoor terrace, which is also blocked by the elevator and the elevator machine room, but is more intended for a small number of
occupants, not uh kind of outdoor gathering space. So, I just wanted to state that as well. Um, in terms of the design, it's our intention to utilize the existing Cafe Amelia building rather than demolish it
to propose a new building. Um, we we obviously think this is a more environmentally sound practice to reuse what's there. And we're using the style of the Cafe Amelia building um to drive the architectural language of the new building in the kind of European stucco
terracotta roof design. Um on the last page of our presentation, you'll see the original intended rendering um is shown with these four arches and big windows. And you can see the new revised exterior rendering is much smaller and ties into
the existing Cafe Amelia facade that's to the left of that arch. Um it should be noted that Cafe Amelia has been there for 26 years. Um in my opinion does a really good job of maintaining the building. I think
someone else from the public stated that they're very successful. I think they I don't think anybody appreciates how difficult it is to run a restaurant for 26 years and be successful. Um I think that's I think that's a testament to the kind of discipline that they have for
um you know for what they do and and if and getting to know the team at Cafe Amelia, you might be surprised to find out it's the original chef and the original cooking team from when they opened. So this is not a high turnover business. This is not, you know, a
revolving door of of um of staff. I also want to speak a little bit to the question about parking for staff. The current cafe Amelia staff is about 12 people. At any given point, there's seven to nine people working there. The only two people with cars are the chef
and the manager. Everyone else is given a ride share stipen to get to work. That is what currently happens. That is a fact. And that is what is planned to happen in the future. should they have to expand staff. Um, so there are not currently a lot of staff parking spaces
needed. Um, and then I'll also speak a little bit about the future staff plans as it relates to the way the facility is operated. Um, with respect to the bar on the third
floor, it's intended to serve as an amenity for the banquet space or the restaurant, but not compete with either. We're not trying to operate three separate venues. Um, if you go to a function, sometimes there's a cocktail hour or a pre-unction before the function. That's the intention of the
bar. Um, or if in certain winter months it's really slow. Um, they might just operate one one outlet, you know, without the other two. It's not the intention that we're going to be running three outlets concurrently. In fact, if you look at our plan, you'd have to go through the banquet space to get to the
elevator to go to the bar. So there's no way you're going to be serving uh you know a banquet group and then having the public trapes through there to get to the bar. It's just not the way the building is intended to work. Um, >> as as you're describing the way the building functions and the way it was
designed so that you have the, as you said, the southside with no windows and more meant to be space that's utilitarian and not an additional benefit perhaps is that it doesn't transmit any sound or the sound would be
reduced there. Is it possible for you to point to some of the things that are on your drawing as you do that so we can follow along? You're referencing the rooftop bar and how it functions and so on. >> Sure. Um, so this is what I'm referring to as the south side of the plan. The
shaded building is Cafe Amelia. Someone asked how big Cafe was before. Uh, the actual building dimensions I have right here. It's basically 55x 45. It's a regular shape, but it occupies
that footprint. Yeah, it's 59 feet 5 in on the longest side and 48t 9 in on the other side. So, this 50 595 dimension and then left to right here is 49 489. It has a total square footage of
about 1,900 square feet uh which is almost equal to the proposed size of our banquet space. Um, in between Cafe Amelia, which is here, and the proposed addition here, we have a courtyard, which is intended to be a singular point of entry uh to to
both spaces. Um, we had a larger courtyard, which resulted in a longer building before, but we shrunk it down. The idea with the courtyard is that if people need to go outside to smoke or vape or whatever people do that they're not in the sight or sound of the
neighbors. So this this connector building which is the the kitchen and a corridor that goes from one building to the other serves as a buffer between the neighborhood the residential neighborhood and route 202. It should be noted that the building and I think our
acoustical will testify to this. building will act as a buffer between the residential neighborhood and route 202 um to have at least some visual impediment as well as some auditory impediment to the traffic of Route 202. Um but that any people who are
congregating in the courtyard will not be seen or heard by the um by the ne by the residential neighbors. Um we have support spaces which is what I was referring to before. There's restrooms, there's a storage room. So,
for example, this particular layout you see here is 12 uh 72-inch round tables. Each one seats eight people. This is showing a potential setup of 96 people. But when those tables are not in use and those chairs are not in use, they need to be stored somewhere. So, we don't
want them stored, you know, in the back parking lot or anything. So, we need to make sure we have adequate storage space. Um there's going to be a variety of operational needs that a facility like this has. So, we want to make sure we have adequate storage space throughout. Um, so that program is is here on the left.
That under previous testimony, it was requested that we include a walkway from the back parking lot to the front so that people didn't have to walk through the parking lot. This hatched uh walkway here allows people who may be parking along the southside to be able to
>> having to be in the way of vehicular traffic. And of course, we will accommodate for valet during periods of peak use, but we don't anticipate peak use happening all the time. It's not every day that a banquet space gets rented. Um, if it was
rented, you know, maybe once a week, that would be great. Um, but overall during times of peak use, valet is something that we would definitely plan for. Um, but that most of the time these 51 parking spaces are going to serve the restaurant, which currently only has 27
spaces. So, So, if the restaurant is currently overcrowded with 27 spaces, uh it's our belief that with 51 spaces, obviously less cars will end up on Charlotte Drive. >> When you were considering your design and I can see from or I can hear from
your testimony that you've been listening to some of the concerns that were raised from earlier meetings. >> Yeah, I agree with most of them. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. So I can see that that's reflected in your design and the way in which you created those
spaces that would really in some ways shield the adjacent residential properties from what might be considered the noise making part of the the business. And there has to be some noise inside. And I know we're going to hear from your acoustic engineer as we move
forward. I lost you a little bit with the rooftop bar because it's open. It was closed. It's >> so yeah, originally we did not have >> stairs. >> Yeah, >> originally we did not have a roof on the third floor. >> Um this I think somebody asked about
this two and a half stories versus three stories. The the second floor is not a whole floor. It's just a mezzanine. >> Mhm. >> Um let me go to the second floor. So this plan here is just a mezzanine which is used for staging. And by say
staging, what I mean is if you have audio visual, if you have um you know a guest of honor that you know needs to make an entrance, this area is just intended for staging that has a staircase down to the main floor. So we don't have a full second floor. We have what we call a hospitality suite which
is labeled as a dressing room. So oftent times when you have corporate events, the event planner, one of their requirements is they get their own room. So they don't want to be in the meeting but they want to be on premises. So we don't want them hanging out, you know, in the restaurant or the bar. So we have this hospitality suite here. We have the
staging area on a mezzanine level. Um and then as you can see the stairs and the elevator and there's more storage here as well. So again like programming storage is essential for you know an operation of this type because you're going to have a lot of glassware, you're going to have a lot of linens, you're going to have a lot of tables, but this
is not space that contributes to parking needs or occupancy. It's just space that contributes to support. So the second floor where the mezzanine doesn't really have any significant occupancy and so the elevator and the stair go up to this this third floor. I
should also point out that the height of the building does comply with the ordinance. We're not asking for a height variance. Um so we're not building the building any taller than is allowable per the ordinance. But upstairs we just have um a bar. You can see that there's
there's a wall around the bar. So again, there's no noise or or even visual leakage onto the adjacent residential neighborhood because the whole bottom part of the plan is solid. Um and then the other half of this piece is for
shielded mechanical rooftop. So one of the things that we want to ensure is that any mechanical equipment that's used to heat or cool the space is not visible to the adjacent neighbors or anything like that. So, we have this mechanical rooftop where we anticipate placing the bulk of the mechanical
closer to the 202 side. Um, and then there's a wall along the south side again that shields the adjacent neighborhood from that. Um, but this bar here is only meant to house 30 occupants per our application. Um, and it's meant to serve mostly as either a pre-unction
or a cocktail hour type of space for events or just separately groups >> and I'm not sure but it it does not open to the mezzanine. It's separate. >> It does not >> separate from >> correct >> and it's completely enclosed.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Um, someone at a previous meeting had asked, and maybe you'll be getting to this, if when you're showing your actual artistic drawings or renderings, if you would be able to show them from different vantage points.
>> Yes. Um, as an example, if I'm living behind the property, as some of the members here are, or across either street um, from the property, what am I going to be seeing given the architecture, given the potential
plantings and things like that? >> I I actually brought an exhibit in case that came up. I brought a rendering of that backside, which I can hand out to everybody. I don't know if we want to enter this into the record. Yes, that's going to be um I think I'm up to A8. >> A8.
>> Just describe it for the record. >> A8 is a rendering of the proposed view from Charlotte Drive east of the rear of the property. >> And if I hand out some copies to the board, >> it would be acceptable. But is that the only one you have? Just so we clear. >> Yeah, that I mean that's a view that
shows what the the back view would look like, which >> Okay. Okay. >> Supports everything that I've just testified to. >> Yes. >> Uh building elevation is colored drawing, right? >> Correct.
>> Which side of the building is that view? >> Front of the building. >> A9 is Yeah. Right. That one. >> So I believe you're looking at the original submission which just has a big rendering. The revised submission from October shows the original rendering and
then the revised smaller building. >> Um here. >> Yeah, we have that one. >> I I'm looking at that rendering and I'm having trouble looking at that and kind of matching it to your plan. >> Okay. >> Do you think at the next meeting you could have a rendering that better reflects what you're showing in your
plan? >> Sure. I can do a more photorealistic rendering of the exact plan. What you're not seeing in this rendering is there's another window behind this arch. >> Okay. The plan shows four windows, three in the main banquet space and one in the storage room. >> Right. Right. It also shows like the courtyard being more open in the front
to the parking lot versus a door. I can't really figure out kind of where that is. >> Yep. >> Um and then a ramp and a stair on either side of the entrance there. Okay. >> Yeah, there's a ramp that goes up to that level from the handicap spaces. But yeah, I will make sure we have a
photorealistic rendering that's exact to the plan. Can you confirm the uh maximum maximum improved lot coverage and the floor area ratio? I want to make sure that I'm looking at the right numbers. I can refer to the engineers plan. I
believe he had those on there. Uh lot coverage. The proposed lot coverage is 79.4% 30,930 square feet. in the F >> uh F
floor area ratio proposed 27. >> Okay. In the design of your of in your design, was there a reason why you opted to require additional floor area ratio? Why you couldn't bring the floor area
ratio into the to the ordinance? >> I think I mean obviously we started with a larger footprint. We reduced it to try to meet this uh you know we had a larger ideal headcount but really in order for this to be viable for the like I mentioned the corporate use we're trying
to get a room that can fit 100 people. So that's really the driver for the square footage of the main space. >> Um and what would happen if you if you took 4,000 ft away >> 4,000 >> square feet away. What would you lose? >> Well the building footprint itself is
around 4,000 square feet. We have a total of 8,300 square f feet in the three levels. >> The F that I'm looking at is 10,337 square ft. >> That includes the courtyard space, which is >> that includes the courtyard space.
>> Correct. >> Outside. >> Yeah. And we could take away the courtyard space, but again, as I said, it I think it's useful from a a design standpoint and b to provide a buffer for those outdoor spaces that we want to keep from the residential neighborhood. understand that. But you're also making
a big building um for the residents to look at. So if you took let's just say you took out the courtyard. >> Sure. >> Does that bring your F? >> I mean if we if we replace the courtyard with completely um pvious surface green
space and things like that it would potentially reduce it. Yeah. >> Potentially reduce it. Well, I when you get a moment, I'd like to know how what changes you can make so that the F is not a variance.
We can certainly study that. I just also want to reiterate though that the design of the building is meant to function to minimize any disruption to the adjacent neighborhoods. So, for example, if we reduce the size of the building, we reduce the storage spaces,
we have to shrink everything together. Um then you know if we don't have enough outdoor space then people start leaking on to the adjacent properties. They go out into the sight of the neighbors. Uh if stuff can't be stored in the building then it has to be stored elsewhere. We have to have you know we don't want to
have to do that. So what we want to do is be able to give the operator the you know the best possible scenario that minimizes the impact to the neighborhood. >> Well you know what I'm going to let the neighborhood decide whether or not they want a big building or a smaller building with storage elsewhere.
Okay. >> I'm not I'm not a I'm sorry. I'm just not a person that likes F varian. >> No, I I can appreciate that. >> When you when you've done the F calculations and you look at the new building
footprint, does the the way the mezzanine function andor rooftop bar have any impact on that calculation? >> Yeah, it does. Um, and I, you know, and I think obviously we want the building to be welldesigned.
Um, well designed obviously means trying to meet, you know, the code where, you know, where we can. >> Um, and I think that what we're trying to do here is juggle a lot of different requirements, right? So, I I hear what you're saying and I appreciate what you're saying. We'll certainly do what we can. Um, but we also want to make
sure, you know, we're improving the site. We're adding as much landscaping as we can. We're adding as much parking as we can. we're doing all those different things. So, >> I think part of the part of the F calculations or the as we interpret things would would lean it would lend
itself toward the size of the building, obviously the visual impact, but also how it's utilized, how the space is utilized. And here the space is utilized in a way that's sufficient for the business you described. Um and yet at
the interior it's not an intense use beyond the banquet facility itself. >> Correct. >> Is that fair to say? >> Correct. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can I can I ask a question at that point? Um you had mentioned that the banquet space is going to be a multi-purpose space. So it could be used for u multiple functions, corporate
meetings, things like that. >> Sure. >> Town hall. Um under IBC you've got fixed seating and open seating. Can you describe? So fixed seating is 15 square feet per occupant. >> Tables and chairs is typically 15 square feet per occupant.
>> Um but that'd be 140 occupants. >> And what about uh non-fixed? >> Non-fixed like a lecture uh seven square feet or five square feet from standing typical. >> Yeah. So our intent is to design this for 100 occupants. >> And so everything has to be designed
proportionately. the size of the kitchen, the size of the storage, everything like >> Well, the occupancy load based on that would give you 300 occupants. >> Understood. But the posted occupancy doesn't have to be the maximum occupancy. >> Understood. But >> so our design intent is for 100 occupants, 180 on the entire campus.
>> Okay. >> That's what our application states. Um we don't have any fixed seating. So we don't have any banks or booths or things like that. >> So it's always going to be flexible. >> So you're going to post that occupancy in the building. >> In my experience, mentioned in the
church they have posted occupancy signs that say per the Bridgewater town official the occupancy is something >> that's usually based on IBC >> I've seen it both ways um I also just want to stress when you're talking about design um a lot of
times like a house of cards you change one thing everything else has to change right so we've studied this building as I said for a number of years and we're we've come back and and reduced the size of the building because we want to work with the board we want to work with the neighbors Um, but ultimately if we just say we're just trying to cut square
footage out of the building, then it changes the whole program and how the building functions. So I just want to state that because I'm sensitive to it, you're sensitive to it. But like I said, almost 70% of the building is support space. We're not trying to cram, you know, hundreds of people onto the site. We're trying to, you know, design a
business that works, that gives the operator a chance at being successful. Um someone had said that you know they are successful but as someone who owns a restaurant I can absolutely tell you the landscape for restaurants has changed between delivery apps you know between um various economic factors cost of
things it's very different so from the outside it might perceive like oh these people are just printing money or that it's super easy but but it's not and I'm sure you guys also see a lot of restaurants going out of business so we're trying to give the operator a chance to be successful and in doing that every piece of the design has been considered
>> well it's just how it impacts the neighbors. I mean, >> 100% >> they're they're going to come back at the end of all this and give testimony that, >> you know, and they're probably going to photograph all the cars that are parked on the on their >> but that's the current condition with 27 spaces, >> right? >> So, what we're saying is that most of the time we're still going to be
operating the same restaurant but with 51 spaces. That's what we're saying. >> Okay. >> Question. How how how integral to the plan is the bar? >> How integral to a restaurant is a bar? this plan.
>> Um, I mean, we could potentially take the bar. In our original plan, we had the bar on the ground floor. I don't know if you recall that it was in the space between the buildings when bigger. Um, we've just relocated it because I do believe a bar that has a liquor license is integral. If you have a liquor
license, why would you not use it? >> And with the the terrace that's shown on the map on the plan, uh, the the current >> on the third floor >> on the third floor, >> right? um that's open to the outside. >> That that's just Yes, it's uh I believe it's let me just correctly say the
number of seats. >> Um looking at >> uh 1 2 3 4 6. We're showing soft seating for 12 for people who need to go outside to smoke because if someone has to smoke, you don't necessarily want them going back down through the elevator in the building to go back out to the courtyard.
>> Does that count to the F the >> It is included in our F area. >> What's the occupancy load of the terrace and the bar on the on >> 30? Our application states 30 for the bar, 100 for the banquet space, and 50 for
the Amelia restaurant. >> So 30 for the bar and the terrace combined. >> Correct. >> You're really married to the courtyard, right? I mean, if you courtyard out, how does that affect the F? I mean, I can't imagine you have those numbers handy,
but >> Yeah. So, the courtyard is I do have the numbers handy. The courtyard is currently uh about 1300 square feet and then we have 1300 square feet of walkway, >> right? We've seen these hybrid surfaces. I
mean, is can we can we >> like a grass pa kind of thing? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I mean, is this an option? >> Sure. >> Okay. I mean, because you're basically It sounds like you're saying it's just a place for people to vape and smoke, right? I mean, it's just a it's a buffer between the two spaces. So, it seems
like that might be a good place to start. >> Sure. >> Although I I think, you know, it's a nice design. I mean, it makes sense for what it's worth. >> But it is big though. Um, so yeah, I mean, it also provides circulation to both buildings without having to have
separate entrances, which can be confusing. Um, so we're trying to create a singular entrance to both spaces, but yeah, we can certainly look at changing it to pvious surface. We can use a hybrid paver. All of those things are options. So I have a question regarding the courtyard. Do we need that
courtyard? The building can be moved more closer to the existing building. >> Well, I think if you know if you were having a function in there, you probably want your own entrance. Um, as not to be confused, you don't want your guests walking into a restaurant by accident if they're going there for a different
function. So it creates a little bit of separation that helps with um, you know, what we call pre-unction, checking people in, receiving guests, things like that. If you slam the buildings together, it might be unclear when you go through the door which way to go.
Um, any other questions before I move on? >> Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify one thing because I think there was some confusion. I think um, we heard some testimony about the F and the courtyard being included. Yes. And I don't think I mean if the site if the plan as it's
shown not the rendering is open that the courtyard is is contributing to impervious cover but not floor air ratio if it is open. So it won't have any impact if it is reduced unless it's enclosed on the floor air ratio. Flora ratio only includes the um interior of
the building less um staircases and things like that. And I just want to make that clear because the testimony about the courtyard being included doesn't comport with the numbers that are on the site plan. So I just want to make that clear that 27 is more clearly stated on the site plan
application that includes both the restaurant and the building footprint. I believe and I'd like the applicant to clarify that because um I don't believe the architectural plans include the square footage of the restaurant in the calculations of all the floor areas um or the areas on the property. So I just
want to make that also clarified that um we're that there is a restaurant area in addition to that would contribute to the floor area ratio. >> That's correct. The floor area ratio on the engineers plans include the existing restaurant >> as it should. >> As it should.
>> Yeah. Thank you. But so you testified that the the outside area of the bar you did include in the >> No, the 10,000 foot number that was quoted includes Cafe Amelia, but not the >> No, no, but I'm talking about that upstairs at the bar. You've got an
outside area. You noted that that was included in your F. >> I thought you meant No, the bar is included in our F. Sorry. >> Just the interior. >> Just the interior bar. Yeah. All right. Um, if it's all right, I'd like to talk a
little bit about density of occupancy. Um, because again, I think there's some confusion over seats and occupancy. Um, so their industry standards basically say if you have a table of four, which the the current interior of Cafe Amelia
is all four tops. If somebody comes in as a two top or a single person, they might occupy a four top and those other three seats go vacant. It's very unusual that you would have all the seats in the restaurant at every table occupied in full because you don't just get a bunch of four tops that all come in at the
same time. So um while I understand that they've had events and things like that which has created an intensity um the rule of thumb would show that if you know for 50 seats uh based on current uh industry standards the amount of spaces
used would actually be less than 30 because either most people come together or most tables are not fully occupied. So again, I just want to reiterate that the bulk of the use of the site having 51 spaces over the current 27 would be more relief than what's currently there. And a lot of the testimony you've heard
is people reacting to the current situation, which we agree is underserved. So the last thing I want to respond to was someone said, you know, what are the benefits of this plan? Um, one of the things that's not talked about is that we're going to be losing the outdoor
seats that are currently there. So, currently there's, you know, 70 seats outside, um, which are all going away. So, the new design reduces those seats. It also reduces the adjacent neighborhood's view of those seats and the noise that they create. Um, I fully
support the previous comment about relocating the dumpster to the Charlotte Drive side. I think that's a good idea. I think it'll also open up that back parking lot a little more. Um um the new design also reduces the amount of parking in the front
setback which I think is safer. Um and then the new design also reduces a lot of the unsightly views from the residential area per the architectural buffer that I previously described as well as additional landscaping. Um I support the idea of adding additional landscaping. I just don't want to
compromise the parking numbers that we're aiming to achieve. Let me see. I think that adequately describes um the ex the proposed building. With respect to the current operations, as I mentioned, the core team at Cafe
Ameilia has been there for a quarter of a century. They obviously operate the place really well as various uh residents have testified. You know, they're very successful. Um if we were to build this addition, we
don't anticipate a huge spike in staff requirements. And the reason being is because the kitchen team would remain the same. The new kitchen is located between the two uh between the restaurant and the banquet space. So if there's a banquet going on, the new
kitchen can serve that. Um, if it's just the restaurant, it can serve that. Um, but if you had, for example, a social gathering of 12 tables, as we're showing in our layout, um, typically you would need a total of four additional servers to serve that. Um, the uh, they don't
want to just hire temporary staff to serve banquetss. They they pride themselves on having a core team that they that they use um, consistently and work really well together. Um, someone had mentioned something about catering and additional consultants. All the catering would obviously be handled on
site. There would not be outside caterers coming to the banquet facility. So, we don't really anticipate a huge spike in in staff needed. Um, at most, I think they would just utilize their full staff um, you know, at at peak times and then manage uh, you know, the valet at
peak times as well to mitigate any potential overflow of parking. >> Very well. I just have one one thing. I'm looking at the December 4th, 2025 um engineering report number two, I guess it is.
>> It says under uh technical review site layout parking traffic comments item three. Given the size and use of the banquet hall, the applicant should commit that the banquet hall will not be used concurrently with regular restaurant operations unless parking demand and supply are clearly
demonstrated to accommodate both. A share use parking plan or restrictions should be provided to prevent overflow. Continuing comment, there has been no written commitment or operational restriction provided to restrict simultaneous operation of the banquet hall and restaurant. Given the limited
parking supply concurrent, use should be limited or otherwise justified by the applicant. If somebody could speak to that at our next meeting. >> Yeah, we'll have our traffic engineer, but again, we meet the township's parking requirements. So, for both the uses. So, I'm not really sure the intent
of that question, but we'll have our traffic engineer address it. >> Um, I'd also like to mention as a point of note that when um the facility contracts with the corporate clients, a lot of their a lot of their staff are usually from out of town and they arrange transportation via coach or bus.
So um so the team at the at the facility plans to continue that practice and try and coordinate busing people in from off-site corporate campuses uh as much as possible. >> So is the applicant also willing to restrict the type of use for that
banquet hall. So it wouldn't be wedding showers etc etc. It would just be for training. >> I don't I don't think the applicant's willing to do that. No. >> Can I just clarify? So, the rooftop or the rooftop bar and terrace,
>> the third floor bar, >> right? You've eliminated all windows on the west and south side of the building. >> Correct. >> And um the rooftop terrace is actually buffered by the elevator and the elevator machine room. >> Correct. >> And then on the east side, you've got
mechanical. Is that elevated to the same height as the bar? How is that buffered from the terrorist? So, there's going to be a parapit between um between the terrace and the mechanical
with a screen above it. Uh like a decorative screen wall. Um and then we anticipate the bulk of the mechanical will be towards the north side facing 202. >> That was going to be my next question. Um, so if you're going to put up a
screen, um, the resident to the, um, east side, that'll act as a buffer for them. >> Well, on the on the east side of the plan, there'll be like a proper I'm just going to hand these out just so you could see.
Sorry. This is A8. If you wouldn't mind just passing them. So, in this proposed view, you'll see there's a solid parapit wall that would screen the um the mechanical equipment from the east side residence. And then
you could see the roof of the adjacent bar area is higher than that parapit. >> And then um okay, that was my question. So it does create a visual buffer >> correct >> from any especially from their second floor. I know there was concern bedroom
windows and things like that. >> Yeah. >> You know it it blocks light. It blocks the view. >> Yeah. >> Our goal is not to have any light or sound trespass to the existing neighborhood from >> in this um up on that upper portion of the bar. Is that a wallpack light
fixture? >> I believe we will have light fixtures on that side for safety and security. Yeah. >> Okay. Because I know we talked I or we didn't talk at the previous meeting. They talked about lowering the two light fixtures in the back, the beat lights down to 12 ft from the 16 ft
>> to help create some shield. Um but you've got this wall pack almost 30 ft. >> Yeah, we would remove that. >> Yeah. So I mean if the wall packs I should hope to be much lower. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> I apologize. I missed that in the
rendering. >> Well, you also have a door. You're also showing a door there. I don't see a door on the >> We have a loading dock located on the south side, >> right? >> Right off of banquet service. That's what that double door is. >> Yeah. But here you have a door here. >> That's the existing door,
>> right? And it's not I don't see it on the plant. >> Yeah. I mean, it's going to go away. I just made a collage from the existing building in our proposed way. >> Okay. >> So, the existing building you see there on the right hand side. What are you going to do with the existing kitchen if
you're if you're creating a new kitchen? >> It's going to become storage of, you know, pots, pans, dishes, things like that. >> There's also a small basement space that currently has storage that we'd prefer not to use as much. >> Which door is going away? >> The one on the right next to the blue
van. >> That one's going away. >> Yeah, that that actually was a a photo from Google Maps that I just used as the basis of my collage. What are the peak hours of the restaurant? >> The restaurant is currently open
weekdays uh uh 11:30 to 10 p.m. >> Um obviously lunch and dinner are the peak hours and then on weekends I believe they're open 3:30 to 10 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. >> So Friday evening, Saturday evenings >> probably for the restaurant business. Uh
I would say yeah. I mean they like as has been mentioned before they do a good um corporate business for lunch often and they'll host a lot of corporate events there for lunch and things like that on Wednesdays apparently. >> Right. Um from your testimony I almost
have this sense um they're saying that kind of when you have the banquet hall busy not so much the restaurant. At least that's my interpretation of your testimony here. Um, do you I mean do you not see this banquet hall being used on
>> you know I think I think based on the size that it is it's not obviously going to be for weddings. Most weddings in New Jersey are over 100 people. Um so it's probably as someone referenced you know sweet 16s and smaller events like that. So, you know, obviously if they have 40
people in there for a small social party and, you know, 50 people in the restaurant, that would be similar to I mean, if we're designing the site to accommodate 180 with parking that meets that requirement, I don't see how that would be a problem. >> But they would be they could be both
operating at pretty full capacity. It could and as long as we're in within the occupancies that we're planning, we meet the parking requirement and it should not be an issue with respect to traffic overflow. >> I mean, again, I think if you have a well-designed kitchen and you have
well-designed staging space, you have well-designed storage space, it makes operation a whole lot easier. If you saw the kitchen that they're operating out of now, which is incredibly small with a basement storage unit, it's incredible that, you know, that they're able to do what they do with that. I think the goal
of this whole project is to design something that makes the operations flow smoothly and keeps the disturbance to the adjacent neighborhood as minimal as possible. >> End of our time. I'm sorry. Do somebody >> What's the current occupancy of the
restaurant right now? Currently 72 seats, 24 in private dining, 42 in the main dining room, and six at the bar. >> How about outside? >> Same. They were granted equal amount of seats outside during CO. >> So there's potentially >> 144 current available occupants
and we're reducing that as I mentioned. >> That's typical though. >> Depends on the time of day. It depends on what the weather is. It depends on a variety of factors. I mean, nothing is >> something that would spill into the neighborhood typically. Like, how many people does it take? We've heard a
number of people um raised concerns over parking. >> Yeah, there's 27 current spaces. There's two staff that currently use spaces on the regular. So, anytime there's 25 more than 25 cars, it's likely to spill out into somewhere else. >> But how many people does that typically
mean are in the restaurant? Um well I would say if it's lunch business with corporate you're talking um a lot of corporate clients come separately. They drive separate and meet there if you're meeting for a business lunch or something like that. Um so 25
so 25 cars by industry standard would essentially equate to 45 people roughly. Um but again if the if the private see right now there's no flexibility of use. there's a private dining room and if that private dining room is rented out by a group of 10 then they lose, you
know, 14 seats, >> right? >> Um, so it it's really there's such a variety of use that it's really hard to state that there's predictable patterns. But but what we can say is that there's only 27 spaces currently and that the restaurant would benefit from the
additional 24 spaces under the new plan. So, it's closing time as we like to say, but before before we announce that, there are a few things. One is we would like to pick up Mr. Calatian's um testimony with questions from our board
professionals who have yet to speak. I've almost forgotten what they sound like, which they've been so quiet, but we appreciate all the public input as well. If that Miss Jennings that he will be able to come back and u entertain questions first from our professional
staff and then from the public as well. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. And in terms of scheduling the next meeting, I'm not sure how we're going to do that, but I leave that to better minds than my own in terms of scheduling, but you have some flexibility in terms of what you might
be able to do, I'm guessing. >> Yeah, but I think we kind of spoke already. Okay. But so Nancy, the next available date. >> Okay. So May 26th. So for uh purposes of the public, this meeting is going to conclude for now.
And we'll continue on May 26th at 700 p.m. in this room. And Miss Jennings, what um additional witnesses do you anticipate? >> Uh well, obviously we'll bring Craig back. I have the acoustical engineer, the traffic engineer, and the
professional planner. >> We were hoping that we would get that night to ourselves because I think we'll use a >> Yeah. So, I think Nancy, we could book that whole night, right? Yeah. So, you have the whole night. >> Okay. And then then the matters carried without further public notice. >> Without further notice to the public.
Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. >> So before we before we bring the meeting to a close, I just want to know if there's any Nancy any unfinished business that we need to attend to. >> No, if I could just ask Miss Jennings before we adjourn, are you okay with
extending time through mid June? >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Send me a form. Sure, you got. >> Great. Thank you. And thank you to the members of the public. Somebody would like to make a motion to adjurnn. move. >> Second.
>> Great. With that, thank you everyone. >> Yes. May 26th. >> Yes. >> Good night.