Our meeting is the Bridgewater Township Zoning Board of Adjustment regular meeting for Tuesday, July 8th, 2025. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with the open public meetings act NJSA col4-6 specifically on January 15, 2025. Proper
notice was sent to the courier news and the star ledger and filed with the clerk of the bridge order and posted on the municipal bulletin board. Please be aware of the zoning board of adjustment policies for public hearings. No new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10. If you're able, please rise
for the salute to the flag. 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.
All right. Good evening, Maria. If we can have a roll call, please. Chairman Fouse here. Mr. Widell I here. Mr. Sweeney here. Mrs. Amen. Yeah. Um Mr. Barno, he's not here for the
record. Uh Mr. Gayi, he's on his way. So we'll call him out when he gets here. As is Mr. Vesio. Mr. Fresco here. Mr. Kulak here.
Mr. Gabbot here. Um Mr. Alla, board attorney here. Mr. William Burr, board engineer here. And Miss Katherine Samard, board planner. Here. We have a quorum.
Thank you very much. Uh at this time, I'm going to open up the meeting to any member of the public that would like to speak on any land use matter that is not on our agenda this evening. You can come up. Come on up. You just have your name and address. Good evening. Good evening. Kevin Ainsworth. I live in Martinsville at 76 Hillrest Road. Mr.
Chairman and members of the board, I just want to describe very briefly a situation related to steep slope ordinances that you ought to take into account when somebody comes to you for a steep slope variance. About 10 years ago, you granted a variance, this board, I don't believe any of you were on it at
the time, uh, nine or 10 years ago, for construction at 78 Hillrest Road, which is just east of my home. That construction is still ongoing. perhaps in part because of difficulties with the steep slope. But about a little more than two weeks ago on the 22nd
while they were constructing what appeared to be the the sistns that were to catch the runoff water uh they have an excavator down the hill on this steep slope and they rolled it. It's treads are in the air. It's heavy end or top end is downhill. It's about a 40% slope.
They spent all day on the following Monday with two large uh what looked to be tow trucks for semi-tractor trailers trying to write this thing. They were unable to. I have not seen any effort in the last two weeks to write it. It's still there. Treads in the air. It may be leaking fuel. It may be leaking oil.
It's not made to be upside down. I don't know how long it's going to take. As I said, the construction's been going on for more than six years at this point. And so when somebody comes to you and says, "We want a steep slope variance." There ought to be some requirements on how to manage this type of situation so
it doesn't develop into further problems down the road. First of all, thank you for coming. Your address was 76 and construction's at 78, correct? Currently an overturned excavator. It's about 100 yards from the road down the hill. Bill, anything we can do about this?
I know the PD and the construction department are aware of it. Y I don't know what the current status is. Actually, I'm surprised to hear that it's still in that current condition. So, tomorrow we'll make some phone calls. All right. For sure. And not every town a steep slope ordinance. We're actually fighting to keep ours because other towns have have
lost in court. Um I I take it extremely seriously. I know other chairmen have have leaned on it as well. It's it's invaluable because the steep slope ordinance effectively decreases the size of building anywhere there's steep slopes. Um and I know this board, you know, we we really fight when people
come looking for those types of variances. And it's uh it's an important part of our toolkit as we'd like to say. So take this seriously. I'll look into it. I'll personally look into it. I'll make sure Bill follows up on that. And uh you know, we'll we'll let you know. Well, I I appreciate that. I hadn't heard that there were challenges that
these ordinance were falling away. Warren Township removed theirs about six years ago because they they lost a nasty battle in court. So they just got rid of it. And I'm not ready to do that. I I'm a lawyer, by the way. All right. And in the late 90s, I litigated up to the New York Court of Appeals, a steep slope
ordinance in a town in New York and then moved into this township in late 97. And there were a lot of variance applications over the years before this one was finally the case tonight actually has a steep slope component to it. Okay. So, you can if you want to stick around, you can listen to it. It's interesting. Thank you. I'm going to go have dinner.
All right. Good luck. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and and I will personally make a phone call in the morning and an email. Very good. Thank you. You got it. Good night, sir. Anyone else? All right, I'm going to close that portion of the meeting. We're going to adopt uh two sets of minutes. Let's do April
22nd, 2025. I know Mrs. Amin has given me some changes. I will pass them along to Maria. Anyone else comments or changes to April 22nd. All right. Can I have a motion, please? I move. All right. Second.
Second. Mr. Fresco. Mr. Widelli. Uh, yes. Mrs. Amin. Yes. Mr. Fresco. Yes. Mr. Gasi.
Yes. Let the record reflect 706. Mr. Gazi. Had to throw that in. Mr. Kulak. Yes. Uh, Mr. Gabbit. Yes. And Chairman Fouse. Yes. All right. Now we have May 13,
2025. Uh, I have again the changes from Mrs. Amin. I'm going to pass them to Maria after this is finished. Any other changes or comments? May 13, 2025. I move. All right. That was Mr. Wedelli. Move. Do I have a second, please?
Mr. Fresco. Mr. Widelli. Uh, yes. Mrs. Amen. Yes. Mr. Fresco. Yes. Mr. Kulak. Yes. Mr. Vesio.
Yes. Mr. Gabbot. Yes. And Chairman Fouse. Yes. All right. We have no resolutions. Do we have any anything we need to announce? I think we're good. All right. We're up to date. Good to proceed. All right. Bridgewater self storage 351
Route 28. Come on down. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. How are you? Good evening. Let me just collect my notes for a second, Mr. If I may, Mr. Mr. Chairman, just give the board a brief reminder about this continued application that was
previously before the board in March of an appearance for the record, please. Sure. Matthew Kapzy on behalf of the applicant. Thank you. This is a project site at 351, Route 28, and 322, Route 22, known as block 400,
lots 1 and two. It's an application for site plan approval and two use variances and a bulk variance as well as some site plan waiverss that seeks to consolidate these two lots into one new building lot
and redevelop the property with a self- storage building. We were previously before the board on March 25th of this year. At that time, we heard testimony from our civil engineer, Matthew Kunman and uh collected feedback from the board and from members of the public. Since
then, till now, we have supplied the board with essentially a wholesale modified plan set from both our architect, engineer, traffic engineer, and so forth. That revised submitt was filed with the board and on June 27th of this year. Uh and the main takeaway of
the revisions, Mr. chairman, members of the board was essentially re reduced the height of the building uh essentially took a floor off the building and amended the grading. So uh one of the conversations that we focal points that we had during the March meeting was how
did the building sit in relationship to the elevation of route 28. Uh and at that point in time we were uh essentially think about 45 feet or so from Route 28. And now from that vantage point it's been reduced by 10 ft. So
although we were not seeking a height variance then and we are not seeking one now as you look upon the building from Route 28 is now 10 ft lower in elevation. Uh by virtue of some of the adjusted grading that we made we were also able to uh increase the amount of
existing vegetation that could be retained as well as increase the amount of new vegetation to be proposed. We also changed the manner in which circulation is made into the site. We previously had some drive up um storage
areas along the front elevation along Route 22. Uh a majority of those have been deleted and the parking in the front yard has been deleted allowing for more green space and vegetation along Route 22. Uh so in all we believe that
we were responsive to a majority if not entirety of the uh board's comments made during that time. Also from the architecture perspective we added some glazing to both the front and rear elevations to have the building have a closer appearance to one that's more of
an office building type and some other modifications were made uh to the architectural components that the team will speak to this evening. And just by way of a summary of the relief that's required, uh again preliminary and final site plan approval, we are in a C3 zone
which allows for commercial uses. However, does not provide for self storage as a permitted use. So we need a D1 use variance to allow self storage at this location. We are seeking an F variance. the uh F variance that was
previously sought was at I just want to get the numbers correct was at 0.5% under the modified scenario it's been reduced to 44% a reduction of approximately 15,700 square ft of building area.
As far as the bulk variances, we require essentially one bulk variance as it pertains to the building. That's just the front yard setback along Route 22 where 200 feet is required and 100 feet is proposed. Uh the building as it presents itself to route 28 is
conforming. The side and rear yard set back is conforming. Uh the building height is conforming. Uh there are some variances relative to the loading area as far as number of loading spaces and the size of the loading spaces. uh that remain unchanged from the March
presentation and a variance as to signage which remains unchanged since the March presentation. And again, just if I uh to provide some additional context, uh we are also well below the maximum improved coverage. The
zone allows for 51.3%. We were previously at 36.2 and that has been reduced to 32.7% uh approximately 18.6 6% below what's the maximum allowed. And the building
height, 45 ft is the maximum allowed. We were previously at 36.54 ft. Under the modified building, we're at 31.6 ft. Again, that's an average building height calculation. Uh so, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, that's a summary
of the application. Uh we do have testimony from our civil engineer, architect, we have an operations person here with us this evening, uh traffic engineer and planner. All right, good stuff. Before we dive in, a couple things. Uh I know legally we received your plans before they were
due, but practically um you know, when we have people taking vacations, they're not able to write reports. So what I'm going to ask you to do tonight is anyone that does testify, they're going to have to come back at the next hearing. Um, I want this board and members of the public to have the benefit of our engineers report um, to ask those questions. So, you know, I didn't want
to cancel tonight's meeting by any stretch. Um, but we still have to afford this board and members of the public the the ability to read that engineers report and then question and cross-examine any witnesses that testified tonight. So, I want to make sure that's okay with you. Certainly understood. And, uh, every member of the team will be back.
All right. And I went back and I I watched the last hearing from March 25th on on YouTube and we finished up that hearing with Mr. Sweeney asking for some some renderings and I'm paraphrasing but and I agree with him is that we didn't really get a good feel of the project and I know it's changed since um but he
was looking for renderings and um I know we had talked about the other storage application on Route 22 West and Vosler where they did a real nice job presenting actual graphical simulations from different perspectives, different viewpoints that gave the board a very clear understanding. So uh I guess
that's the first thing we're looking for. Um, you know, we want to clean up the the business from the last meeting and Mr. Sweeney ended with that. And then the second was, um, I ended on the note. I wanted to make sure that you reviewed that resolution in that case and that on the record. You can confirm that and that our board attorney has given you that resolution.
Yep. I have the Chimney Rock resolution. I reviewed it. Um, certainly the conditions that were enumerated in there are similar to what we had discussed in March. And our operations person is prepared to make uh, many of those conditions part of her direct testimony. And we had a pretty full room that night. We have a
pretty full room this night. I don't know if you've met with the neighborhood or had any opportunity to get feedback, but again, I want to encourage that going forward that you meet with these folks. This is their neighborhood, their homes, and anything that happens here. You know, I think this would be a good place for them to give input. And you
know, if you want to have private meetings with the neighborhood, I always encourage it. I know that was a big help in the other storage case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As far as the renderings are concerned, I apologize we weren't able to get them in in advance, but our architect does have them for discussion this evening as exhibits and
certainly we recognize that we will coming back before the board at a later date. So, in the uh in the event that those need further discussion or to be elaborated one way or the other, we certainly will take the opportunity to do that as necessary. Appreciate it. Uh Mr. Chairman, if if it's uh I was
planning on having my civil engineer come up first, but if you'd like to dive into the architecture, we can go there. Your case, you pick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can have Mr. Kman come up and go through the revised civil set, please. Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony
you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. And your full name for the record, please. Matthew Ksman. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Cman, can you just give the board
the benefit of the preparation revision date of the plans that we're going to discuss this evening? Sure. The revision date is May 28th, 2025. Thank you. And on the screen there, we have a colorized version of your site
plan. Is that correct? Yes. So, I'll mark this exhibit in the top right corner. I think Matt, we're up to A4. Uh, I had it marked as A3 under my notes that this would Oh, I'm sorry. Next exhibit is A3. Yeah, sorry. I'm looking at A3. A3.
And just for the record, uh, Mr. Kunsman would just tell us what that is. Sure. So, I just marked this exhibit in the top right corner. A3. It is a site layout plan rendering um prepared by Bowler dated June 26, 2025.
And north is uh to the top of the page for your reference. So, this is a colorized site plan of our our colorized site plan that was just submitted as part of our application. Um it has the landscaping also superimposed as well.
So I'll just describe what we've changed from the last presentation. So u the major changes was adding a substantial amount of landscaping to this project. So we were able to accomplish that by uh regrading the proposed conditions of the
site. So in existing conditions um the eastern side of the site is much higher than the western side. And previously we had the finished floor of the building all at one grade. Now we're stepping the building. So the eastern side of the building will be at um one a higher
elevation 10 ft higher than the western side of the building. So two finished floors. So um that resulted in us being able to relocate the proposed driveway to the northwest corner of the site coming from Route 22.
Previously, this driveway was in the same location on Route 22 with the curb opening, but it wrapped along the fringe of the site towards the northeast corner. So that that had a um a two-way drive aisle associated with impervious coverage and less room for landscaping
um and also had more tree removal. So with this revision, we were able to eliminate that drive, provide more landscaping and um provide more trees as well. So with that um revision, we did have to
revise architectural plan which our next witness will get into. But just high level uh we relocated the office to the northwest corner of the building. So as you enter into the site, there are three parking spaces um located outside the
gates. Um then you have the office in the northwest corner. In a similar fashion, you would circulate one way around the site as well. Um the the site is secure with a gate on uh each corner of the building
uh which um people are renting in this facility. You have a code to access to similar to what was um testified previously. And then in the rear of the site along Route 28 as well, we did reduce the drive a width to provide some
more buffer and landscaping room um from the Route 28 frontage. We did also reduce the number of parking spaces provided. Previously we had parking um on the northern facade of the building um within the front yard
setback of 100 ft. That did require a variance. Previously we were able to eliminate that reduce the number of parking spaces and increase uh the landscape area as well. So we are complying with the number of spaces proposed of 15 spaces.
Um Since the building scale came down, what's the required number? Uh 15 spaces are required and 15 spaces are proposed. Thank you. Also, as mentioned before, we did eliminate some rollup doors from the
building. So along the northern facade of the building, we eliminated um some rollup doors. And also along the southern facade along Route 28, we eliminated roll of doors from the exterior of the building. And from that drive, those two drives on the north side and the south side of the
building, they do have grade change. So that's why we eliminated those row doors. Um they're climbing grade from the western side of the building to the northern side approximately 10 ft in grade change. Since we were able to um change the
grades on the site, we also were able to reduce the building height when compared to the Route 28 and Bogart Drive intersection that we were talking about previously at the last hearing. So the the grade at the road at this intersection at Route 28 and Bogart is
approximately elevation 128. um in the original application with the the top of the parapit elevation compared to that grade of the road was 53 and a half ft. Now with this revision with the revised grading we were able to reduce that to 43 feet when compared to that
intersection and the township code um for building height is 45 ft is what's permitted and that's when you compare uh the four corners of the building. So we are complying with the building height when um when compared to the four
corners of the building and also when you compare it to route 28 as well since we have to we reduce some of the the building we did reduce the F uh variance that we're requesting previously it was 0.5 and now we're
proposing 0.44 44. And then for landscaping, we talked at pretty great depth about uh tree replacement. So I am pretty happy to say we are complying with the tree replacement requirements um in this revision. So uh previously we were
removing 209 trees. Now we're removing 166 trees. So it's 43 less trees we're removing from the site. We are also um replacing the 166 trees with 262 new trees um which is nine
trees over the tree replacement requirement. Um when counting the existing trees on site, there are 365 trees and with the proposed uh trees that we're planting, there's going to be 461 trees on the site.
Then I believe Lastly, I did have a chance to review the the planners review letter that received today. There was a comment about the the buffer um along the route 28 frontage. So, as you can see in this
uh rendering here in 83, we are planting a substantial amount of trees in that area of the Route 28 frontage. Um on the western side of the site where there's a gap in the landscaping the eastern side of the site is the existing tree line. So we're maintaining the majority of
that. Um but we are requesting I believe it's a waiver for the the types of trees that are proposed in that buffer where the requirements 75% have to be evergreen and we have 44% evergreen. Um the town
requirement is that those trees be planted at 6 feet height. We are also planting them at 8t height. So a little bit taller at initial plantings as well. The evergreen trees that are proposed within this buffer are double staggered road which is which meets the township
code requirement and we didn't want to propose uh four rows of evergreens because when they start to grow they'll grow into each other and then less air flow they can introduce disease and stuff to that. So we felt that having a double row on
the bottom and also a row on the top of the site along the parking would provide a nice buffer to the residents across Route 28. So with all these revisions, we have increased the the landscaping substantially from what was previously
provided. Uh we comply with the tree replacement requirements. We're able to eliminate some variances as well. Can I ask you a question while you're on the landscaping here? Um, I talk about Katherine brought it up too. Is if I'm on 28 and I'm a resident and you're
heading east, you're loaded up at the west end and then again you're point move it over to where it's empty there. Why can't you put a double row in there? Because you're heavy loaded in on 22 where there is no risen. It's all just traffic.
Sorry. Can you describe again where there's no What you're talking about before C brought up in a report was that you have only one buffer of um landscaping on 28 going east. Okay.
Why can't you make that a double? Cuz you're heavy loaded on the west end where your pointer is right now and you're heavy on the 22 where it's all just commercial traffic. The residents are on 28 and you only have one line there. I know they grow and you're put
Oh, there sorry I could have described that better. This area right here right there that's existing that's existing vegetation that's going to remain. That's pretty heavy buffer in existing condition. We didn't want to touch that. Okay. So you feel that adding that row
there will be sufficient to protect the neighbors from Yes. and our architect will be able to show some cross-sections as well and um perspectives that shows what that buffer will look like. Okay. All right. Would you go back,
excuse me, to the beginning of your testimony where you talked about how the building itself was changed in such a way as to create two different levels. Am I repeating that correctly? Yes. I didn't understand what what's that's going to look like and how it
impacts either the way the building looks or the utility of the building moving forward. Can you explain that a little better or do you want to wait for your architect? I think our architect will be able to explain the how function internally better. Um
yes, I'll defer to William. Second question is, you talked about the elimination of some rollup doors, which means that some remain. True. That's correct. Okay. So, if I'm pulling in from Route 22, I make a left. I'm heading east and
I'm going to see some rollup doors there and maybe that's my unit. What do I do? Just put my car right in front of it, open the rollup door, and have access to the unit. In other words, I'm not really parking or I am parking. I don't know.
Uh at the rollup doors, yes, you could park right outside of it, but we have designed the drive aisles to be able to uh allow for a car to be parked there and another one be able to drive around. So, if I if that's my unit and my car, pickup truck, whatever is there, there's
sufficient space for somebody else to pull in and go around. Yes. Okay. And and it may be the perview of the architect, but how many of those rollup doors are going to be on that side of the building? He or she would know. Yes, they would know.
And similarly along the I guess the south side of the building and that got a little confusing because you said there's an elevation change as well and somehow that impacted the functionality of the rollup doors. Maybe I didn't understand it. So along
the the south side where my cursor is along the the portion of the building that's really like parallel to Route 28 that there's approximately like a 10ft grade change in that area. From where to where? From each corner of the building. Okay.
So it drops 10 ft from where your cursor is to the what I'm going to call the uh west side of the building. Correct. Okay. And similar on the north side as well. So those areas, how does that impact then and maybe I misurd you, but how does that impact the
functionality of those doors? Oh, there will not be rollup doors where there's significant grade change. Okay. And so that means that no rollup doors at all on that side or some rollup doors. Our architect will be able to show the elevations that have where those roll
there will be some. Yes. Okay. And because you're saying that while the grade change is significant, it's not consistent or it's not a gradual decline, so to speak. It's it's consistent, but then it flattens out as it gets to the the
corner of the building. So there there's opportunity to have flatter areas where the rollup doors would be able to function. And will there be testimony to describe how the rollup door units function in the sense of how long somebody's going to be
parked in front of their unit on average, how those units are used and accessed. Right now, it it seems to me with rollup doors and no parking and no sort of loading area, we've just got to rely on that the good nature of the one
car to stay close to the rollup doors to give room to the other car that might be driving by. We'll have operational testimony on that. Okay. Thank you. I have one one more question. Uh is route 22 higher than uh this property or
uh is it lower than this property? Both route 22 and 28 are lower than the property. So so the driveway that is coming from route 22 um give me the
how how much does it slope up or down or how many feet is it? Uh just open up my grading plan. The driveway route 22 is at approximately elevation 123
and I think I said the the intersection at Bogar is at eleation 128 but both roads do change grade um quite a bit. And the one the
western side finished floor is at 134 and a half and the eastern side's at uh 145 sorry 14 144 and a half so or 145 sorry.
So yes there is a 10 foot grade change between the two floors. Um, and yes, it is higher than the driveway at Route 22 by 10 feet roughly. And then the property uh is higher on
the east side and lower on the west side, right? Correct. Yeah. Okay. So, the water drains into that catching area. Yes. So we are um proposing a similar storm water management approach from the
original uh site plan. Um as part of this revision um we do have uh the grading um pitch. So the the perimeter landscaping uh maintains a similar drainage pattern where there goes to route 22 frontage or route 28. Um on
site the water is captured um through a system of inlets and pipes that gets routed to the infiltration basin on the western side of the site which ultimately discharges to the western side of the property.
Thanks. in the area that we have existing trees that are to remain on Route 28. Um do you know the approximate like tree canopy height that we currently have there and how does that compare to the building height that's proposed?
Yes, the architectural elevations that'll be presented will show all the the trees. Um we we looked at them uh to verify that the it's representative of the canopy heights. So some of those uh trees or those trees will be shown on
those elevations that we presented. Okay. And then the height of those trees are accurate. So it's actually there. Yes. Thank you. Just one question on the site plan. You're showing the emergency access for the fire department. That's correct. Sorry I missed that. So
on the southeastern portion of the property um we are proposing a fire access with grass pavers um to access the site from Route 28 uh to the the drive aisle in the northeast or the southeast corner of the building.
It's a similar location of the existing driveway that's there today that accesses the office building. That would be exclusively for emergency services. Correct. Thank you. the drainage system. I know you had just touched upon a moment ago, but how did that modify as a result of
the revisions we made to the plan set? Yes. So, one of the the recommendations from board engineer was to elongate the basin um rather than have it more rectang or square shape. and that uh helped us uh
maintain some of the existing vegetation in trees and reduce the amount of disturbance we had on the site for for tree removal. So uh we were able to elongate the basin from east to west um to reduce the amount of trees we're removing. As far as additional buffering, you're
now showing some solid PVC fencing along the west side of the site. Uh that is correct. So, the western parking spaces will have a solid PVC PVC wood or fence uh brown fence and then we'll also wrap around um the route 28
frontage um along the building. Thank you. And if you could just give us a review of the bulk table items that changed since the last hearing to today. Sure. While you're looking for those, can you
just tell me where your drainage basin is? That's where there currently is a home or a house garage there and so on. And then the um farm stand would have been east of that. I'm just trying to
picture it in my head. Correct. Uh it's generally in that location. Uh the house would be towards the left side or the western side of the basin, the southwest corner and the farm
stand would be where the basin access is. This dark gray hatch. Yes. That's approximately where the farm stand would would have been. Right. And those two structures will be demolished and replaced with your drainage basin there.
Correct. Okay. So, we reduced the maximum improved lot coverage um from 36.2% to 32.7%. The F was reduced from 0.5 to 0.44 44
and the maximum building height was also reduced from uh sorry 36.54 to 31.31. So imag for for the review of the record the D1 use variance and the F variants
what other bulk variances are required? Correct. Could could you give me a rundown of the other bulk variances that are required please? Sure. The maximum or the front yard setback required on route 2200 ft's required. We are maintaining 100 foot um
setback similar to what was previously proposed. And I believe that was the only other bulk variance. Let me just double check my other notes. Also the loading. Did you want me to get into the loading?
And that's unchanged since the last time. Correct. Well, the number the number of loading spaces is unchanged, but uh we did relocate the loading um the the garage or the interior loading spaces to the western side of the building um when
previously it was along the Route 22 frontage. So, we still need a variance where four loading spaces are required and we're only proposing two. Thank you. And the one variance as to the signage along 22.
Correct. That's remaining unchanged. We're proposing a 5 foot or the sign be set back 5T from the right away since uh the route 22 uh right away is rather large along our property fringe. uh any steep slope variances required by
this application? No. So, uh that brings up a good point. The we were able to eliminate the steep slope variance that we were previously requesting. Um it it was just a way of the calculation because the existing office building had like small knee
walls and the way our civil 3D surface getting very technical but interprets the those grades it it made it above the 30% but it's really not a steep slope. It was just a feature on the site. Thank you. I don't have any further questions Mr. Chairman.
All right. Board questions on engineering. All right. board professionals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I don't know if I have any questions necessarily for for this witness. Um, I will say I apologize for the lateness in my review
memos based upon when we got a big holiday last week. It's all right. I worked on it. Um but I I I will echo that they did um there is a reduction in the number of variances that previously were identified in my original re review memo largely based on the reconfiguring
of the loading space and the parking in the front yard. Um there were a number of changes you'll see in the review memo that I tried to highlight um for things that were changing. So I tried to make sure that um it was looked at. As far as the um landscaping, I did identify that
there was um relief at least at least a design waiver for the landscaping based on that transition buffer on 28. Um the the ordinance does require that the plantings in that in that buffer be 75% evergreens and they're only proposing
44%. Um it does that for a reason. Obviously, it's a separation between commercial and residential properties. Um, I will wait to hear from the architect because I did have a chance. I did get the the renderings electronically and I'm not sure if they uh if the site plan uh the 2D version
matches up with the 3D renderings. Um, and if I'd like to hear from the architect, the board has seen no renderings yet. Yeah, I guess you'll see them on the fly tonight. Um, but I I think that um if what the architect has proposed, I I will probably um look to see some some changes to the landscape plan, but I
want to hear from the architect first about that. I agree. If we get nothing out of tonight, I I want to make sure that members of the public have input on landscaping and and the buffer zone, the vegetative buffer, and and the board has input here because I want to get this right. Um, you know, we're losing a farm stand. a charming piece of property and
I want to make sure that what goes in here is reflective of what that neighborhood deserves. Yes. Okay. Um, one other thing just noticing from the existing area of the woods that are to remain from aerials for the engineer to sort of question there. There appear to be some dead ash trees from the
aerials. I wasn't sure if you were proposing to remove any dead trees from the existing vegetation. I would double check our plans, but if they're dead, we we would agree to remove them. Okay. I I didn't see them removed on there. So, I I do I would recommend that that be taken care of as
well. That's all I have for this witness. Thank you. Thank you very much, Bill. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am the guilty party of having vacation bill. So, I I I do apologize to the board for not having had a chance to review the
plans. I took a brief look at them before the meeting tonight. I have a couple of questions, but um would probably reserve most of my questions until after I have I actually think it's a good thing that we're going to have the hearing, then we're going to get your report. We can digest it. We can come back and we can have members of the public and the board
can look at your memo and and ask better questions. I think it's a good thing. Should I should I hold off or should I throw a few out there now? You should throw a few out there now and we we're going to reserve the right to come back and and cross-examine this witness. So, one thing, Matt, I just I just want you to go back to and I know we're going to hear from the architect,
but I'm a little I'm just a little hung up on where exactly the new rollup doors are located. Are they on the east side of the building on the upper tier? Is that where they're proposed? Correct. Okay. So, it's it's they're they're still going to line the east side of the
building and then there's going to be a few around the northerly corner and the southerntherly corner. Can you just can you show that for the board on the on the the the site plan rendering? Sure. I forgot I could zoom in on a PDF, but
these little rectangles here on the northwest corner of the building, those represent the rollup doors. So along this portion of the building, um the eastern side of facade, you can you see some of the rollup doors. So um there's
approximately five. I might be miscounting or architect can definitely give you a correct number. And then on the eastern facade, we also have rollup doors along most of the facade. And then similarly on the southern
facade, um we have rollup doors uh from the corner of the building to where where the it bends back uh on Route 28.
And do you know off the top of your head how many rollup doors there were compared to what there are now? I I don't have that number handy. Um I don't recall on the on the original site plan. Did that propose a similar
one-way circulation or was it two-way all the way around the the the previous building or the original plan? Just verifying uh but referring back this is was A2 that was previously presented at the last hearing. It was
one way circulation we we did flip the orientation of how uh um cars would circulate. So now it's going counterclockwise. I believe previously it was going clockwise.
Okay. And in the areas where the rollup doors are currently proposed, did the driveway width in those areas change at all compared to the prior version? I know you've heard some concerns. I think we've all mentioned the concerns about
how a vehicle is going to access and effectively use those rollup door areas. And I'm just curious if if the payment width in those areas has changed at all. Not where the rollup doors are. So we were we reduced the drive aisle on the
southern side along Route 28 that's parallel with the route 28 to 21 ft. But the drive aisle as you head more east around the corner of the building that portion of the drive aisle is 24 ft where the rollup doors are. So it
remains unchanged. Okay. You mentioned about the new fire access or emergency access driveway. Did that result in any additional trees in that area being removed? Is that
going to open up a viewshed from that I guess it's that southeasterly? Well, get my orientation here. Well, it's actually the the southerntherly corner of the property. So, answer the first part. It didn't increase the number of trees because
it's in a similar location to the existing driveway for the full tectonic building. So the the path's very similar. Um would it open up a view shed? I mean previously we did have a
landscape but now it's not. But you had to be standing at a very particular angle. I it'd be very difficult to be honest to see it from that curb cut or in that area because there are
where there is a break in the vegetation if you're looking there's at least four four trees in that corner and that's just at that one spot but everywhere else it's very heavily landscaped or existing vegetation. Okay. And I I know I see your plan shows
a swinging gate, a locking gate at the top of the driveway where it enters the the the the access drive. Is there also going to be a gate proposed down by Route 28 or is that going to be open access? We provide a gate or a breakaway chain
with ballards, whatever would be preferred um to prohibit someone from accidentally going on the the I think it would make sense to have some type of barrier on the 28 end of that driveway just to prevent somebody from mistakenly coming up the drive. I know
it's going to be a a grass paver type driveway, but we don't want to encourage any access at all. Um, wetlands. I know at the last hearing there was some discussion. I think your plan showed a couple of pockets of state open waters, maybe wetlands. I saw in
the new submission you guys produced a letter from I forget who it was from, but from a environmental scientist. Can you just talk to the board about the environmental constraints, the wetlands, open waters, if any, on this property?
Sure. So the western well the existing condition is there's two lots on the property. So the western lot we we do have a freshwater wetlands LOI um that indicate no wetlands presence absence but the eastern um portion of
the property we do not have freshwater wetlands LOI. Um so and since that was the case, we had a a wetland specialist um equal sciences um do a site visit and inspect the
property, do a three parameter approach to review the the wetlands and they determine um there's no wetland feature. Um we aren't we don't plan on submitting to the D. DP takes a very long time to
um issue an LOI. It could be a year, maybe two years sometimes. So um we submitted that supplemental letter um and investigate the property. And along those lines, you you already
have an LOI, correct, for lot one, correct? Is that right? And that's still active in good standing. Yes. That's only for the northerly or westerly portion of the property. That's lot That's the lot one side. Yes. So for lot two, well I guess I guess you
had the entire property looked at, right? With a focus on lot two to supplement the LOI. Correct. And everything came back with with nothing. Correct. Okay. Let me just see if I have anything else. any changes to the lighting plan that
was previously proposed or is it all in keeping with what the board heard at the last hearing? There there are minor changes, but it's generally the same design intent. Um we have the house side shields from Route
28 to avoid um you know light fixtures um from facing a residents. Um there's zero spill the property besides at the driveway on route 22. Um that's to provide safe lighting levels when entering exiting property. Um but
generally it's the same design intent from the last submission. Okay. Um two two more questions I mentioned about the fire access. Did you receive an updated memo from our fire official? Did he take a look at these
updated plans? I don't recall. I'm not sure. We We received a document. I'm not sure if that was the fire official's letter, but we had received a one-page letter with no header on it from the fire official. Okay. Just noting that it had been placed in the plan. If you can excuse me, I'm just
going to grab it. Was there was a memo. There was a memo. And just for the record, you're referring to the memo that's dated July 3, right? 20 25 five bullet points. I
I'd like something with a letter head. I think I think we need something with a letter head. Yeah. Okay. Can Can we work on that? Um while Maria's checking. Thanks, Okay. So, Marie, the first page is dated March 10, 2025 and the second page is
July 3, 2025. Yeah. So, what he did is he just made an update and added to his original March 10th memo and it says July 20 July 3rd. Okay. And I believe everybody has one in their packet.
We'll take we'll take a look at that and make sure it checks out. Um, last question, Matt. The you mentioned the steep slopes. you you relooked at your survey with your um your AutoCAD and are are you testifying that there are no
plus 30 slopes on the property or is it that you're not disturbing any 30% slopes? We are not disturbing uh over 30% slopes. You're not disturbing any over 30. Okay, very good. That's all I had. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Bill. All right, members of the public, uh, if you'd like to come forward and ask questions on engineering testimony only, now is the time. And you'll get another opportunity at our next meeting to cross-examine this witness on engineering testimony as well. You can come on forward,
Mr. Chairman. Uh, Ender Prepa 376 State Route 28, Bridgewater, New Jersey. So again, please. I'm sorry. Your name? Indepanga. Can you spell that for me? Sure. I N D E R P R E T. Last name Banga. B A N G A.
Thank you. I live directly across uh from the proposed property. And you're a member of the planning board, correct? I am a member of the planning board as well, but I don't believe there's a conflict of interest as it relates to this. Um, so a statement going into a question,
but more than nine trees have been removed or down since uh the tree count survey. Um, backho have knocked down even more during recent pit test for permeabil permeability data. I would like the board to request a revised um
tree count based on what was submitted previously. Um, the existing buffer as it was described by Mr. Kunsling uh Kunsman Kunsman uh is thin thin and decadent at best. Uh meaning a lot of dead trees. Uh
I think our board planner had mentioned this as well. Um as uh you know a lot of dead trees came from the lantern flies and the and the ash border. Uh so it definitely needs a lot more trees for there to be minimal impact. I can tell
you that during the winter season, you can see the building straight as day. Uh so a lot of those trees that are in the little buffer zone that you've mentioned so far, uh like I said, are dead. Um Mr. Banga, the light green on the plant
on A3, that's the area you're referring to. So it's the lower corner. Uh yeah, so the untouched area. Uh there's a single row currently being proposed. Uh but that definitely needs uh you know
bulking up. Um I did have a question regarding um and maybe this is going to be you know I think you said you mentioned uh that there's going to be some renderings that are going to show exactly what that looks like. Um, you know, I can tell you that, uh,
like I said, when I when I can see directly through with the current tree cover, you can see directly directly. So, I I would like to see kind of how that's going to look like with the proposed single coverage. Um, I I definitely think it needs at least a double coverage. Um, the question that I
had for you was regarding the screening. So I guess you know you use double coverage towards the bottom the bottom left. What what was the thought process on the single row
that is directly going to be impacting the residents on route 28? We wanted to maintain as much of the existing buffer as possible. Um this is a a recent aerial by the way in the background. Um, I believe it's from
2024 at a minimum. Um, and have you driven have you have you gone past and have you looked at it from Route 28? Oh, yeah. I I grew up in this area, by the way, in on Hunley Way, so I I know this area very well. Um but yeah, I I can take another look, but
we'll we'll have um renderings or perspectives that um took a photo of what it looks like today and uh superimpose um or proposed improvements. And those trees that that are being proposed right now are going to be eight
feet. Correct. I heard I heard the number I wasn't conf I wasn't sure if it was all the way around or The evergreens will be at 8 feet. The ornamentals and shade trees will be taller. Okay. And then with regards to the trees
that have been removed and the back ho uh that the other trees that have been knocked down by the back hose, are you going to are you going to add those back? Cuz you know from the count that was mentioned, I think you guys have uh made a couple of changes to add add back, but I think you really need to
consider those additional nine plus however other ones were removed. Our survey was done before that and where those you know the back hoe was that um those test pit locations would be in the basin footprint. So it would be part of our disturbance in the ultimate tree
calc or um requirement. So just to clarify, you're going to you're going to when you look at it, you're going to add those additional trees back. You're you're going to look at the ones that were removed in the tree survey based on today's date, not the one that was done previously
where the where the trees were so the trees were removed, right? Or were they they were they have been removed or they've been knocked down by the backhoe. I can't say that that's I'm not sure which trees. I I'm not made aware of which trees are being or were
removed if any. So I I can't say for certain, but I I believe you by the way. I'm just saying I I don't know exactly which ones you're talking about. All I'm asking for is that the trees that have been that were presently when you guys did the survey, those have been obviously removed or
based on what we've been able to gather and we're requesting that you know you take a look at those ones and based on the count that you are proposing now that that just is ted up to what the the actual I think Mr. Cousins's point was if they were not already
okay Okay, that's fair. Yeah, I think Mr. Banga has a good point. I've been up there. This is a ve very lukewarm vegetative buffer. I mean, and we're all fighting ashore on our on our property. This every property is getting
hammered. Maybe before the next meeting, you could look at maybe where you could fill some spots in and um you know, I I think we can make that more robust. Okay. Um, you said only one one question per today, right? Or you can come back and ask more
questions. You're going to have the availability of all these witnesses tonight at the next meeting. Got it. Thank you. Sure. Anyone else? just have your name and address. Brady, 351, Route 28.
Okay. Um, in regard to the decreased number of parking spots that came down to 15, how many of those are going to be used daily by employees of the storage
facility, which would render the available parking spots even less than 50? That's a question I I don't know if Mr. Kunsman gave testimony to that fact, but I think they're going to have an operations witness, Mr. Mr. Capes, is that correct? Yeah, that's something that I think you
want to keep that question in the bank for the another witness. Revised number of units. Our architect will be able to give Okay. give that information. I'm ahead of myself. No, it's okay. No problem.
Everything else can wait till next time. Thank you, sir. Hi there. Hi. My name is Deborah Curts. I live at 413 Route 28, about six houses up the hill from this. Um, and my
question is about the entrance to the the site from Route 22. Is that different now than it was on the original drawing or is it the same? In other words, is it using the existing driveway or is this like further west?
The curb cut location is very similar. We are making it slightly wider um than what is in existing editions. Uh existing it's only approximately 18 ft wide because the existing site utilized the driveway on route 22 and 28. They
had a driveway on each frontage. Um we're not going to have that. So we're just going to have the one driveway uh that has to allow two-way traffic. So, we had to make it a little bit wider. So, but it's it's in a very similar location to what's there existing. It just seems like it it has more of a
like where you'd have to make a sharper right turn to get into the area. Is that it would be it would be harder right turn out of the site but we have run truck turning
analysis for large box trucks um and they can make those maneuvers in and out of the site. Okay. The the reason I'm asking those is because to get on to 22 from that direction even if you're coming off 28 onto 22 it's a sharp hill that you're
going up. it's hard to accelerate. And so my concern is if this driveway is closer to the entrance from 28 to 22 or if this driveway is more of a right turn, is that going to possibly cause
slowing of traffic when you're trying to get on 22 if someone else is trying to get off into the facility compared to what we would have currently the way that Tectonic is designed. It's in a very similar location as Tectonic. Um
the benefit of this site is that there is a a pretty large shoulder to allow cars to be able to uh maneuver off, you know, into the shoulder and then make a make a right turn in the site or out. So, it does allow for a little bit more room, but it's in a very similar
location to what Tectonic had or has right now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public questions on engineering? All right. Oh, Mr. Banga.
Yes. Interre Banga here again. Um, sir, you had mentioned uh the building height. Do you know what the building height is um compared to surrounding residential structures? I I do not have um off-site topography
for um the residential. Okay. Because I think there is a residential home that is uh on the top. Uh if I'm looking on to the Yeah, right over there. I don't believe that's residential. That's a commercial. I mean, maybe it's
acting as a residential, but it's really a commercial lot with, you know, trailers and uh landscape equipment and stuff like that. Yeah. No, I I live right across, so Okay. Um I know people live there. Oh, they do? Okay. Yes, it there is a I believe it's, you know, like an apartment or something
along those lines. Um I think it's it's important to be able to to see like what what that um you know, I I know uh Chairman Fouse had asked if you talk to any of the residents. Uh you know, I haven't gotten questions specifically, but you know, that is going to be
directly impacted by this. So, I would like you guys to compare what the um the building height is uh as that is going to be directly impacted. Um will the facility be visible from neighboring homes and if so, which angles since you were on route 28?
Believe our our architect has pretty nice perspectives that that would give a better idea. So, we can come back to that one. Yes. Um, which exterior materials, colors, finishes are proposed and will they complement the residential character? Architect will answering.
I'll come back to that one. Um, regarding the emergency access, so I think you mentioned there's a chain. You guys were considering a chain. I've seen people take that chain down. There's two posts there currently.
Uh, it has been currently used by anybody who wants to take a quick turn if they don't want to make the I used it. Yeah. Went in there with my Jeep. It's not really It's not really um monitored. I know sometimes the police officers will go in and, you know, to to
kind of see if people are going too fast on Route 28, which that's fine. Um, would you guys be willing to consider a a gated fence? But what I what I can say about people coming through is there's also two more gates that a person would
need to go through if they came from that if they got through a chain there. There's a gate at the southeast corner of the drive aisle and there's also another gate when they have to exit the site towards the driveway. Um but I'm sorry. There's a gate at the very bottom of the driveway that's on Route
28. Is that what you're saying? No, no. I was saying there's a gate on the southeast corner. If if a gate's requested by the board, we can certainly provide a gate at that driveway, too. Well, I think people sometimes make K turns or or you know, they pull in and then they kind of pull out. That is a
huge hazard. I've I've almost seen I've seen nearly a few accidents that could have been fatal. I I can only propose something in in the property line. I can propose it right on the property line, but I can't propose a gate in the rightway. It's the DOT's. Mr. Mr. Chair, whatever the fire
department wants there, certainly we're happy to accommodate. So, the fire department's okay with the gate, we'll put a gate. Okay. Well, anytime the neighbors have input, I mean, I I want to kind of embrace the input and and come up with a, you know, a solution. Um, you know, I I know on the other side of town when
LCS constructed their their units, we we put in a gate there, right? How does EMS access that facility from Foothill? That that was that there is a gate over there. And um I know emergency services either have a key or a fob to get through it. They
they definitely have access through it. And the project we just did on 2026, we did a gate as well in between the two properties for the the the adult daycare. We did a gate there as well. I don't remember the how we resolved the details
of that other than to make sure that fire was happy with the access as part of the compliance process the perfection of the site plan approval making sure that the fire official was satisfied we did
so Mr. Bang. You want to see a fence? Yeah. I think you think that'll promote safety. I've seen, you know, people come in there, make a turn, make a U-turn. Right. I think it's a huge safety hazard. I've I've nearly seen a few accidents, you know, occur because when you're coming
down 28 towards Bogart, the slope is is, you know, accelerates very quickly. All right. Well, I would throw out the gate solution that we used for LCS. If you pull up Foothill Road, LCS is a a nursing home facility off of Frontier
and we wanted access off of Foothill. Um it's pretty inexpensive aluminum gating. I I think that might be a nice compromise if you're willing to if you want to look at it and let us know at the next meeting. Good with you, Mr. Banga? Yeah, great. I think that would help uh the safety. Um
and then uh perimeter fencing. Is there going to be perimeter fencing uh only around the the the actual property itself where the buffer where the tree buffer is or is that going to also go along Route 28 or is there is there perimeter fencing
around perimeter fencing around the whole entire building across like directly behind the curb of the drive aisle? Um zoom in a little bit for please. Sure. So you can see, it's kind of hard to
see, but there's this next to the trees, you're saying? Yes. So there's a fence a couple feet behind the curb line of the drive aisle that wraps around the whole site. And how how tall is that? Six feet. Okay. And what kind of material is going
to be used for that? Uh along Route 28 is a proposed 6 foot high brown PVC solid fence. Uh what kind of PVC? Yes. So not aluminum. Correct. That way it provides a solid screen. Aluminum typically not.
Okay. Oh, so it's going to be screened. Correct. Okay. And then um just with regards to um the rollup, so I think you had mentioned the roll-ups are going to be on the the top side, right? Yes. So when someone um if someone's on the
the souththeast, how are they typically going to access? Are they going to park their car perpendicular or parallel there? Typically parallel. So parallel. So the the the the headlights are going to be facing Oh, no. Sorry. If you they're going to
the headlights would be facing east east. If they're at these rollup doors on the southeast corner of the building along the eastern or south southern facade, yeah, they'd be facing more north northeast parallel with the building. Um,
and for the roll-ups, typically nobody perks uh like perpendicular, whereas they would back up their car, typically not. Okay. How how wide is that space? Is it does it allow for that? Like if I wanted to I don't have a storage unit, but if I if I had a storage unit, if I could back
my car up and just take out whatever I need to take out of my van or my truck or whatever. Yeah, that drive is 24 ft. Um, which is a allows for two cars. one want one to be parked there parallel one to go
around or a truck um typically it's not that way perpendicular perpendicular and that person is perpendicular they would be in their unit and not somewhere else on the site um there is someone in uh in the office as well um that can
assist if there's an issue but our operations uh representative can definitely answer more questions about how it's typically a customer typically uses a facility Okay. Um, just a question to our board professionals for the other storage units. Do we know how um
customers of of storage typically um bring in their cars to these types of facilities or do we have any indication of the other storage based on some of the other um applications? I believe we heard testimony from the operator at the last hearing regarding
that, but I one of my questions in my review memo was based on the revised drawings. What is has does the operational test operations change on the site. um as far as you know from what I've heard in other places and I'll you know obviously wait to hear from
their their um witness on it but it's that they generally people generally park in certain places near the stairwell or elevator access into the building and then we'll bring their stuff up. Obviously for those that have rollup doors they park right up. I think that's what we heard last time that
there's a hatched area for them to park. They're obviously going to it's only a 5ft area. their car is going to overhang, but they've testified that there's plenty of room for another car to navigate around it. But as far as the placement of parking spaces is one of the questions that I raised in my review
memo about is the parking adequate for for the use and how it's proposed. Obviously, we still need to hear from those witnesses. Okay. Um and then so I know and this might be for someone else but it's currently
being proposed at point 44 uh F and I think what is currently allowed besides the the zoning right because um D1 and I think C3 is is permitted um just kind of curious to you know on
the perspective of that being nearly double um you know why can't we shrink uh the size. Okay. All right. That's it for now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vega. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? Sure.
Um regarding the car sort of the parking by these garage doors. Um ha have you considered I mean is there any areas that are marked as fire lanes on this site? because I think without sort of the
context of this testimony, the fire marshall reviewing uh the documents, I mean, it's it's not clear that people would be parking, you know, on that 24 foot wide roadway around the facility. We can meet with the fire official fire
chief um just to clarify any concerns and see what sharpenings required. Okay, that I think that's definitely warranted because just looking at your turning analysis here on C302, drawing C302 here. Now, coming around that that uh
south uh east corner of the building, it looks like the the fire truck uses the entire roadway with. So, and that's exactly where you have those garage doors. So really uh you know potentially might have to mark the area you know where the the fire lane is or maybe even
have to stripe a shoulder where maybe parking is permitted. But I think there needs to be a little bit more structure here in terms of where parking is permitted especially keeping it open for the fire engine. Thank you. All right. I just last call for members of the public. Any questions? Looks like
we have one more. Just Mr. Brady, just your address again. 351 Route 28. Thank you. This is just a rebuttal to your comment. And if we could just get you in the microphone, that lady's question um regarding entrance to the site and you remarked there is a substantial shoulder
existing. There is not a substantial shoulder existing. Certainly not enough to accommodate the SU30 box truck you guys are referencing as the typical size vehicle coming in and out. Is it premature to talk about traffic or is that come at a later point?
Uh let's ask the applicant at DJ. It is premature and and you're really not here to testify right now. It's only questions of what he testified to. Okay. Okay. I can't rebut a comment if it was inaccurate. It you'll have plenty of opportunity to
do that. Okay. Or you can ask him a question about it. I see. But were you aware that there's not a substantial shoulder at the entrance of the proposed facility or or were you aware that there's not a um sufficient
acceleration lane for box trucks coming out? Council could object to the form of your question by the way, but you understand the question like what are you relying on to say that there's sufficient? I I agree there's no XL or diesel lane. But I I disagree about the the shoulder.
There's one there. Okay. But it's certainly not big enough to accommodate a truck or a moving truck or even a van. But Mr. Cman's not a traffic expert. I suspect that the Sorry if I'm premature. No, but I think to help your your line of question, I think there will be a traffic expert here at some point. This
may be a good question for them and you can really bore into that that topic. Sorry to be premature. No, no worries at all. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I I hate to throw one No, no, get in there. One more thing in just um related to the landscaping. I know, you know, a member
of the public came up and talked about it. I was just looking at something. I went to go review one of the questions and this did not come up in my review memo, but it is something I noticed. Um and I just wanted to make it aware particularly if the applicant is returning that they can address it possibly. um for the transition buffer
along Route 28. It notes that the requirement or the amount of trees that they are proposing towards that is based upon the linear footage, the linear length of Route 28. Um but they excluded the portion of wooded area. I'm not sure
that the ordinance or it's my interpretation of ordinance. It doesn't include any exclusions or any portion that's that's already existing that they're preserving. So I I think that calculation needs to be based off the entire um route 28 linear.
I agree. I think that vegetative buffer is dying. I I think that area is in need of a rehab anyway. Um I I think that shouldn't be given credit to the applicant here. I think the whole length of 28 should be in that calculation. And and the other thing I want to point out is they based their um
their proposal to meet that require as calculated based upon 86 proposed and 22 existing. I don't I I think maybe those existing plan sounds like the existing is less than 22 at this point. Yeah. And I think it's it's probably outside of that existing wooded area.
I'm assuming is what they're basing off. It's it's difficult to tell. So, if they could clarify that in their updates, if they could address it um more in line with what the ordinance, how the ordinance reads, I think that would be helpful to the conversation about landscaping and ultimately the end goal of what the landscaping buffer is there
for. Um I think that that would I would appreciate that. Good catch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify two points. So, that the SU30 is not the typical vehicle that will enter the site. It was there to show the largest possible vehicle that could enter the
site and its ability to maneuver around the property. Uh just to also respond to a question regarding building height and how it sits in relation to the residential dwellings along 28. Again, we're in a commercial district. The permitted height is 45 ft. We're at 31
ft. Your typical residential dwelling is around 30 feet. So by comparison, even though we're in a commercial zone, the height of the structure is comparable to one that you would find uh in a residential neighborhood. But again, it's apples to oranges because we
are in a commercial corridor. When you see the renderings, it's not residential in type uh not to so we don't it's we're in a commercial zone. The building designed to look commercial in nature. Um, so when you you see the renderings, that's why it's intended to look like an office building, which is a uh permitted
use in the zone. All right. If there are no qu further questions, Mr. Kunman, I can have Mr. McGreg come up and go through uh the architecture. Looks like we have one more question in the back. Get your name and address, please. My name is Kan Tager, Ad Sheer Road,
Bridgewater. Can you spell your name, please? K for kilo. E T for tango A N last name Ter T H A K K E. Thank you.
My question is why do you need access to 28? It was requested from the fire official to provide emergency access but it's not for uh customers or people uh visiting the site on a daily operation. It's just
for a fire truck. Okay. The chances are there they use frequently. Now I know you said you grew up in this town but if I want to make a left turn from Bogard drive in a peak
hours sometime I have to wait 5 minutes 10 minutes. Sometime from Bogart to Pcel traffic jumps up. sometime when you want to make a lap turn from Garrettson to 28. I hope you know that intersection. Do
you? Yeah, I I went to Bridgewire RA High School. I I'm very familiar with it. Yeah. So, when did you drive on a GTson road last time and made a left? My in-laws live in uh Pind. So, I'm over here all the time. I I know the area. Pin is 5 miles away.
I know. I I I'm saying I know the area. Yeah, you know the area. But we experience this every day. Sure. If I want to make a left from Bua Parkway to 28, sometimes there's a long wait. So my suggestion is do you have
alternate of not having a gate or access on 28 and rather manage have multiple access on 22. It was specifically asked by the fire official to have an access on route 28. That way in the event that there's an
issue on route 22, there's another um access point on route 28. So I originally we did not have on our original submission we did not have an access on route 28 um but we were requested to add one going to be installing a gate along Route 28
that will only be accessible by emergency services. That gate is going to be as close to the property line along Route 28 as is permitted. But who would decide what's the emergencies? If I'm if I am bringing my storage and if I
request can you please open the gate I need to get out on 28. Who would determine that? It's exclusive authority with fire department. Only fire department and police department can use it. Okay. All the trees you said you're
going to plant the trees. They all uniform trees from everywhere or it's various? We have various types of trees. Uh we're proposing different varieties. Okay. And the what is the building height going to be?
Get the exact number for you. 31.31. And do you know there's another storage facility on 28? Do you know their height? Sorry, could you repeat that?
There is another storage facility on 28 before Country Club Road. I don't have their the height of that building. So, I'm a commercial broker and many of the storage is not 36 ft or 35 ft
height. So and if you look at the residential area across the street is mostly 25 ft. They all twotory houses. So
each floor 9 ft and roof probably 20 25 ft. It's a time to ask questions only. You'll have an opportunity to make statements. Thank you. M Mr. Mr. Kinsman, you just stated that the building height's 31.3.
Yes, we had we had a a mistake on our bulk table like the um the number on the bulk or the the height, but if you look at the calculation, it had the correct calculation. It just we forgot to Okay. add it. Thank you. Just update that when you get
next set of plans. Thank you. Sir, your name and address, please. Hey, my name is Dan Whan, 445 Meadow Road. The uh trees you're putting in, how many were there? 200 something. Are you guys maintaining these so they don't die within a year? Because I don't think 8 foot trees are
going to cover much if they're all dead. Typically, we have to post a a maintenance guarantee for landscaping. And then 8ft trees don't cover two stories either. So, how long is it going to take to actually hide this place? Sure. So, I mean, a lot of these trees
we're proposing, um, they can grow, the evergreens can grow up to 30 inches per year. um in 5 years they they can be 21 feet in height. Um some of the ornamental or canopy trees
they they can grow 12 in to 24 in per year. Um and in 5 years they'll be 18 ft and that's with constant maintenance of them to actually get them to take because I mean I've been on projects where you plant 100 trees and they die within a year because nobody does anything. So what's the guarantee there?
Is it actually a long-term maintaining? Sure. our our operator and the you know property owner. That's that's typically there's a condition of approval placed in the resolution that requires the landscape plan and if the applicant fails to abide by
that condition by the township us okay that's all I got. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I think that's all the questions. Why don't we take a quick break, then we'll bring the next witness back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, it's 8:25. Why don't we come back at 8:35? We'll reconvene. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Mr. Widelli uh here. Mr. Sweeney here. Mrs. Amen. Here.
Mr. Fresco. Yes. Here. Mr. Bonjouro is not here. Mr. Gayi still here. Mr. CC cat is not here. Mr. Kulak here. Mr. Vesio
here. Mr. Gabbit here. Chairman Fouse here. And we have Mr. Aller here. Uh Mr. Burr here. And Miss Sharmad, sorry. Here. Thank you very much, Maria. All right,
sir. We're back. Mr. Chairman, our next witness is William McGver, our architect. Mr. McGver, would you uh please stand? hand. Raise your right hand. Sure. You solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. And your
full name for the record, please. William McGver. Thank you. Mr. McGiver, can you give the board a explanation of your uh educational professional experiences, please? Sure. Uh so I am a project architect over at Frank Ralph Architect located at
35 Pine Lawn Road in Melville, New York. I graduated Renelier Polytenic Institute in 2015 with a bachelor's of architecture. I received my license in 2021. Currently licensed in six states including New Jersey with a license in good standing. I've testified in at
least four or five different New Jersey uh municipalities in a situation similar to this for self storage facilities. All right. Great. We accept you as an expert in architecture, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh William, we have a set of floor plans and elevations for discussion this evening. Is that correct? Correct.
If you can just identify the plan set by preparation and revision date and the number of sheets for us, please. Sure. So, I have uh two PDFs to bring up tonight. Uh the first one is a combination of floor plans, elevations, and site sections. Just give me one second. I'm not sure
that's I figured I'd talk while that was coming up. Okay. Um so I is that not up yet? It's on our screens. Okay. Okay. Here we go.
Okay, so we have it up there. Um, so as I said, the first PDF tonight is the floor plans, elevations, and sight sections. Uh, it's a total of six sheets, three floor plans, one page of elevations, and two sight sections. And is this any different than the set we have in our packet? It should have been
the set that was submitted to you uh with the latest rendition. Then we're not going to mark it. Correct. Okay. Correct. And this is uh dated with the revision date you'll see in the title block on your screen of 62525. All right. So the the facility if I may get right
into it. Uh so the facility is composed of three sto three three stories. Uh three are exposed on the west side of the uh the site. Two are exposed above grade on the right side. This first floor plan you'll see is truncated in the middle due to uh
the existing slope of the site and the grade that we are working with. Uh from our last presentation where we had three stories fully above grade on all four sides of the building. We have sunk this into the existing earth reduced the size of the building by about 15,000 square
ft uh in reduction on this floor alone and that allowed us to lower the building to a more appropriate height for this site. Uh so the first floor here if I may zoom in a little bit is going to be like I said at the ground floor containing the office the auxiliary space is there for a break
room handicap bathrooms utility rooms u I'm sorry janitorial rooms my mistake and the interior loading two bay uh locations uh each floor will have the necessary egress stairs and elevators. You'll notice from the floor plan here that as someone enters through the
loading area then backs a vehicle in, they come right out the sliding doors right to an elevator for quick and easy access or if they park in any of the parking spaces on the west side that they enter through the sliding doors to the slight south side here and the elevator is not a far travel either. Uh
all egresses do exit to grade so everything is above code on that. Uh, as we move up to the second floor, which is a 10 foot 6 in height change, each floor is 10'6 in with 8ft tall units, which
allows for general coverage fire sprinklers throughout the entire facility. Uh you'll see that on the second floor we again have that elevator A on the west side, but due to the elevation change as Matt described as we traverse higher in elevation as we
travel east on the site, we do have uh walk-in access on the east side. So there are parking spaces on the east. Those parking spaces then provide access to this east entrance and elevator B right inside. Uh, a lot of questions
came up before regarding the driveup units. Uh, to speak to them specifically, on the north side, the northeast corner, there are five drive up units. On the east side, there are 14 drive up units. And on the south side,
there are seven. These driveup units are the exterior rollup door access units that were questioned before. Every other unit in this facility is accessed from the interior of the building. So, as Matt has spoke to previously, uh
we do have an average building height of 31 feet 30 31.31 ft. Uh we are exposed on the west side at 36.5 ft above grade and on the east side at 26 feet above
grade. Uh also as stated, we are well below the 45 foot maximum height for this commercial zone. Uh, speaking to the units before I get away, I did not mention this for the the ground floor. The ground floor has 156 units. This second floor on the screen
here, 251. And I'll show you the third floor in a second at 348 for a total of 755 units. Our previous application had a total of 835 units. We reduced the unit count by 80 with the loss of the
15,000 square ft. Um, and as as I move up to the third floor, you'll see that that increase in the number of units is not only due to the average size of the units becoming smaller, but also that loading area, which is a double height space to accommodate um the trucks and
any larger vehicles that want to pull in is no longer on this floor. It only takes up the first and second floor. Uh, this entire building would will be climate controlled except for the driveup units. Those are nonclimatec controlled units. Uh we do have and I'll show you on the elevations in a second
um parapets and guards on the exterior uh roughly about 3 and 1 half to 5 feet and we do locate all of our HVAC units at minimum 10 ft from the edge of the roof. Uh that way all of the HVAC units on these on the roof here will be
screened from view. Um, overall this building will be a state-of-the-art facility with key fob access or key code access for security. I believe our operations uh testimony will attest to that a little bit. Um, I mentioned overall that this facility will have two
elevator cores, two egress stairs. Uh, we will have access to the roof through a hatch out of one of these egress stairs. Most likely we would probably do it off of here, but again would not be visible from any of the surrounding sides due to the power pet. Um the overall shape is based on the setback
requirements which is why we do have a sloped or angled wall here. Um all right and uh as I move forward into the elevations on the next sheet. So okay uh moving from our previous
application draetta drawings to this one uh there was a significant increase in the number of faux glazing windows uh that were applied to the exterior of this to give this a more commercial business uh office space appearance. You know that the fact that we are in a commercial zone that does allow office
spaces. We're trying to mimic that aesthetic and give this uh desirable aesthetic that is inside of what is permitted in this zone. Um, so we do have the building mounted lights shining down, uh, providing the minimum requirement lighting for egress. Uh,
you'll see on the west facade. If I may zoom in here, we do have our office entrance opposite of parking. Uh, our fence would be in between the office and the loading doors, the these sectional overhead doors. Uh, and those are primarily solid
about a 60/40 split. Solid to glass. Solid which will allow will prevent the headlights from coming out for any vehicles that are either backing in or pulling out. Uh, glass to allow people to see if the location is occupied, then they pull into one of the parking spots and wait. Uh, we do have the sliding
door access which I described before. And this is a little tricky to see here, but due to the slope of the wall, there is the egress door at grade over here. Um, each of these faux glazing units here are either triple or quadruple pained
again giving that office aesthetic. And we do have true glazing uh of of the units to give a bit of an aesthetic appeal as you drive up into the site. I do have the renders as the second PDF which I will present to you guys shortly.
All right. As we go around the building, we have the opposite side here, the east elevation where we do have those drive up units. The the rollup doors are proposed to be white to match the aesthetic of the CMU so that they do not
draw any attention from any of the passing by vehicles or from the neighbors. I will mention that along the uh south facade here, although we do have a few, there is a 6 foot high uh brown PVC fence
solid that would block these from view as well as 8 foot planted trees in front of this as Matt just testified to. So, these doors will not be visible from the residential neighbors. These doors here would be slightly visible to the
commercial property to the east. And there is significant amount of vegetation that is rem existing to remain covering the east side of this north elevation. So these would be barely visible as well. Again, I have renders in a little bit which I will show you from all those perspectives.
Sure. I guess I'm the guy that asked for this stuff. this what I was hoping to see was something that I could get my hands around in terms of this is what people living on Route 28 facing this building
will see that's coming this is a very abbreviated form of what I was hoping to see I mean there's an elevation change there right from Route 28 to the to as I mentioned I'm sorry sir
there's an elevation change which is not apparent here at Oh, you can't see that at all. I understand. There's fences, there's trees. Yep. Where's all that stuff? That's in the second PDF I'll be presenting to in a few minutes. Okay. Thank you. No problem. All right. So, also in this elevation,
you can see how we are dropping the building a little bit below the grade by this dash line. This area here is all this ground floor below grade. All right. So before I move on to the renders, I do want to present our site sections
to show the relationship of the grades traversing the site. All right. So zooming in on our key plan here. So we're we're cutting this section here running in the north south direction
from Route 22 to Route 28. I can probably zoom in enough on this overall versus getting into the sec the secondary enlarged ones. Um, so as you can see from Route 28 on the left, excuse me, Route 22 on the left here to Route 28,
we have a significant amount of space in which we are having plantings on. We will have existing and proposed plantings on both sides as Matt just testified to. Um, we are sinking the building below the grade as I've said previously. so that we are minimally
exposed above the earth. So from our perspective here, you can see we have a proposed fence here. We are higher at elevation. So as we view up this 6-ft fence would actually block more than just 6 feet of the building. We'd be
looking at near 9 to 10 feet of obscured vision of the building. And as we look at it from Route 28, as Matt testified, the elevation of Route 28 at the intersection of Bogart is 128 ft at the elevation. Our first
floor being at 145 and our our seller plan, our ground floor being at 1345, we are significantly higher, giving that vinyl fence and plantings the ability to block more of that view as we are having neighbors
drive by. I will repeat again that I do have renders showing directions traveling east and west along Route 28 and Route 22. William, just for a moment, the the break line that you're showing on the right side of the image. Yes. What is that represent? Property line. I'm sorry. Property line.
And so that is a scaled representation of the 100 foot setback. Yes. Route 28. Yes. Thank you. All right. And then as I look to the other one here, I'll go to the key plan quick. You'll see that we're traveling east west along the site. So, here's where you see the significant grade change
from our commercial neighbor on the east to the intersection of Route 28 and Route 22 on the west. Uh, and again, the area in which we're cutting out. So, we do have, like I mentioned before, the three stories above grade to the west and the two stories above grade to the
east. I can tell that everyone's really looking forward to these renders, so I'm going to jump right to those. All right. just have you just tell us the number of sheets. Sure. Uh who who they were prepared by and so we can have it marked first, please? Absolutely. So there are five renders in
this PDF. Do they need to be marked individually or as a collective? You know, I think it'd be better if we did them individually so that you could refer to each page and we can follow that. Okay. What are we marking this as? Is it A4 or A5?
A4. Oh, that's tiny, but it's there. Okay. So, I'm going to label them as I progress through each of the renders here. So, this first view is the view of the entrance. As you enter the site, uh we are traveling east on Route 22. You'll see the existing vegetation of
the trees that are remaining uh as the fully grown mature trees as well as the in a large number of newly planted trees that are shown along the property line, excuse me, along the curb line adjacent to the building. Uh the in the back
here, you'll see that this is an estate fence shown securing the facility with a gate access over here. As Matt described, all of these proposed trees are shown day one plantings. Uh each of these trees, as Matt said, can grow in the neighborhood of 12, 18 or 24 in per
year. Uh and we are looking at an uphill view. So you can see that we definitely cover more than just the typical um 6 8 10t day one planting heights. So, we do have a material on the facade here of white CMU uh with blue uh
insulated metal panel with the faux glazing giving that bu that that office aesthetic with a tower element at the entrance corner for the office. As you can see from this view, due to the existing plantings, there is a fence back here and gate as well. Primarily
the in the loading area is already obscured from view. As you progress down Route 22 heading east, unless you look hard to the right as you're driving, which I really hope nobody does, uh you would not see the loading area. William, as far as the modeling, before
you turn to the Oh, yes. Explain how this model was created. Yes. So, we produced this model based off of Bowler's landscaping grading plan as well as a combination of our architectural elevations. Uh so this render has been bounced between Bowler Civil Engineering's office and mine uh
and to review not only the location of the planting shown but as well as the rendered heights of them as well. And as I mentioned day one plantings on proposed proposed heights and grasses proposed trees and grasses my mistake. Some of the slides that we're going to see in a moment show existing landscaping. Is that correct?
Yes. So some the mature taller trees are shown as existing. I will point those out on each render. Thank you. All right. So the next exhibit will be A5. Let me just copy this to save a little bit of time here.
So A5 here is traveling westbound on Route 22. You'll see the grass media in the middle and the building should be completely obscured pretty much by the existing plantings on this. Again, as you saw from the civil engineering um
what was this one that was A3 map? Yes, exhibit A3. There is a dense line of existing plantings that's remaining right on Route 22. That again, until you get probably about halfway down the building, you would not see this building without looking hard left. The building is in the background of
that. Correct. It is right behind here. If I could produce it behind here. Just want to point out you need to change the label to A5. Thank you so much for pointing that out, sir. uh
A5 and that. Okay. All right. As I move on to the next view. So this is the view driving east along Route 22. This will be A6. I think you just said Route 22. Route
28, you mean? Correct. I apologize. Yes, Route 28. Uh Bogart is a bit further down here on the right hand side. Uh but as you travel eastbound, we do have that double line of evergreen planting at the front planted at 8t height with a growth rate
about 30 in per year. Uh we have a group of existing uh trees here blocking again that loading area. You can see the existing trees further down which uh many of them based on our observation has been at or above the height of the telephone poles. And then we do have
those evergreens along the fence. And the brown fencing actually does wrap behind here blocking the uh f the parking from view which will also block the headlights to any of the residential neighbors. The next view here is from the
intersection of Bogart and Route 28. We mark this as what we A7. Yes. Thank you. A7 here has that dense plantings existing I should say existing vegetation along Route 28 blocking a majority of the facility from view. Uh
you can see in the distance from this view at day one plantings uh some of the loading doors are v visible again due to that height change that 6ft fence being at a higher elevation does block more than just 6 ft of the building. So, we're barely able to see any of the
glazing and definitely would be above the truck headlight level. Um, again, these plants here, the evergreens are planted at 30 inches per year. And I believe that some of the other ones, I have a list here showing between 12 and 24 in per year per year for the
deciduous trees. And then the last render is traveling westbound on Route 28. This will be A8. and working with the Bowler team, we counted over 70 trees that are currently existing to remain in this area. The
access to that fire lane is planned in between these two telephone poles and it should be fully screened from screening the building from view as you drive down the drive west on Route 28. The trees that are in this image, where where is that captured?
This image is captured from just uh standing just east of the edge of the property line between us and the neighboring property traveling westbound looking at about a 45 degree angle to the north. Is this something we grabbed from Google Earth or a photograph from your office
where the So we we've looked at Google Earth images from the area. We've looked at the Bowler planting existing planting plan, the proposed planting plan. It's a combination of all those. Thank you. All right. Uh so those are the renders. I just want
to take a look to see if there's any other notes I wish to mention before you leave. Before you leave the render, have you got one that purports to show what your proposed building will look like from a home directly opposite the
proposed building facing the proposed building on Route 28. The closest render we have of that is what is this intersection of Bogart Drive and Route 28. Those facil those vehicles leaving this neighborhood every day would have a very similar to view
from this on day one. And as I mentioned, all of the plantings that are proposed on the west side of this image where you have the most visibility of the proposed building grow at a rate between 12, 18 or I'm sorry, 12 24 or 30 inches per year.
It looks as though this rendering is is taken from or assumes ground level or ground level. It's meant to give it as though someone is standing on the sidewalk or driving a vehicle, right? And do you have something that will let us see what someone that's
living in one of those buildings up on the second, they're all two-story homes up on the second floor, what he's going to see looking out across Route 28 at your proposed building. I do not have a render view of that. Uh you're talking about someone that's roughly see two stories, 8 foot, nine,
so probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 15t off the ground. Is that correct, sir? If you say so. Okay. I think that we can produce one if necessary, but we don't have one currently. Yeah. I' I'd certainly like if we're going to get together again, I'd like to see something that gives us a clear
perspective or a clear view of what residents on Route 28 are going to see when they look across 28 at your building. And I don't think any of these do that. You need something that's taken after
you turn right on Bogart and you travel I don't know maybe a quarter a mile and you look directly across 28 at this proposal. Pretty sure if we were quarter mile down the road would be on our property limits. So I think well then that's too long. I'm just I understand but I think that the best way to do it would be almost as though
someone were standing say here but 15 feet above the the street. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Um, is it right if I jump I will bring the renderings back up if requested but mind if I jump for a second?
All right. So, I want to jump back to the elevations uh because I did not mention but should have um that we are only proposing one sign on this facility. Uh there are no signs facing Route 28. The only proposed
sign is at the entrance facing Route 22. It's roughly a proposed area of 75 square feet. Typically, the signage is smaller than that. Um, but without an exact operator at this time telling what the signage is going to be. I'm
proposing a less than um maximum size signage area in order for them to be able to put a sign application in later under a separate application. I have a question. Yes. It looks like brick face. What will be the color of the
It looks more like brick face. Oh, the the white here. The white would be solid uh sorry me split face CMU in a white color. So if I can go up to here. Okay. The material is planned to be a split face CMU by EP Henry with a color of you
know Flory F 500R is there where they identify but is a white splitface CMU. I don't know what CMU means, so maybe you can help me out. Sure. A concrete masonry unit. It's a the dimensions of it are 8 by6, 16 wide,
eight tall, um a textured surface. It's not like the uh simple ones you see at Home Depot where they're all gray and flat and smooth. There is a rock look texture to this to give it an upscale appearance. Give you a little feedback.
Yeah. Turn my microphone. I'll give you some feedback. It looks like a warehouse. So in the last case on 22 in Vosler, I coined a term and anyone's free to use it in the planning world. Katherine land
use arbitrage and and arbitrage. What I do for a living is I arbitrage prices between two different points and I take advantage of regulatory differences in different countries and I make money off of that. Um, I'm concerned that someone will take advantage of our land use
ordinance and basically you're in a middle ground between a warehouse and you're calling it a storage facility. But I tell you, it looks a damn like a warehouse and I don't know what stops a homegrown business from pulling up with their truck and taking out goods,
putting in goods every 2 hours, every 1 hour, every 15 minutes. And essentially, this is a warehouse de facto if someone wants to come in there and use it. And Mr. Vesio's point that I don't even know if this is legal from a a fire use
standpoint, but the CMU components, the the the the things that you're proposing are things that go on a warehouse. So, I'm very concerned about this outdoor accessibility to, you know, not only cause noise to the neighborhood, but frankly, it just
looks like a warehouse. And I think Mr. Sweeney was asking what are the residents going to see, but I'll tell you what I see on your elevations right now. It looks like a warehouse and those are prohibited in Bridgewater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sure. I believe that's everything that I would like to testify to at this point. Open to questions. Yeah, I have one quick question. Um, you talk about putting the sign up there. It says self storage. Is there any reason to even put up a sign since you don't have a tenant yet? Because you know they're going to come back and make a change.
Well, that's the whole point is the signage will need to be submitted as a different application. I'm just quoting that as the signage area. So that But you're not going to put anything up there right now. Without an application for a signage, no, nothing would go. Okay. I thought I misunderstood. No, it's just designating an area square footage space.
Okay. I have a question about the the units that have rollup doors. Sure. Uh when someone comes and brings their stuff, they can park at the rollup door and then put the stuff in.
That's correct. Yes. Is there enough space for them to do it is the question. Yes. I believe that Matt testified to the fact that we have 24 ft between the building and the curb. Typical parking space is a 10 by 20 space. So if they took up 10 feet, there would still be
14t remaining for a vehicle to pass by. Okay. You see on the uh uh engineering drawing there was a stripped area uh around. So that's that's where people will park the car and then the first five ft around the building in front of those areas I believe are
striped. Correct. Yes. Okay. That's good. Thanks. So how many outdoor units are we talking about with rollup doors in total? Currently 26. Our previous application had 76. So we reduced it by 50. So 26,
this is a 26 bay warehouse. That's what it looks like. Those are prohibited in Bridgewater. Warehouses. Yeah. Was you um have a breakdown of the the size of the units?
Yes, I do. You have 156 you said on the first floor. That's correct. And so they would be larger units. Are they of varying sizes? I mean, just give us an indication about that first floor compared to the second and third.
Sure. So, of uh so that yes, the the ground floor does have 156 units on it which vary from 200 square ft at a 10 by 20 down to a 5x5 25T unit. So 10 by 20 would be the
largest and be accessed via the rollup doors. Is that fair to say? So on the just want to make clarification the ground floor has the office and the interior loading doors. There are no exterior access unit on the ground floor. Okay. Because that's on the west side. This
first floor we're designating which is the level equivalent to the east elevation. Yes. Where those rollup doors are. Those units are either 10 by 20, 10 x 25 or 10 x 15. So 150, 200 or 250 square feet.
Thanks. And then as you as you go to the units that are in the upper floors, you have a variety of sizes as well. Yes, we have a varying sizes. As you typically go above grade access level, you typically shrink as I mentioned on the third floor. uh those units you'll
see take for example this block of units here has currently it looks like look at here 10 by 15 units when I go to the third floor we drop a hallway in it they're now a combination of 10 10 wide 5 deep and 10 wide 7 and 1 half deep so we
shrink the units as we go up thus the quantity increases but they all vary between that 10 by 20 to the 5x5 unit eyes. Thank you. You're welcome. So, can pull up the uh if you don't mind,
let let's pull up the the rendering, the one um from 22 uh at the entrance or traveling west. Yeah, let's get the the real, you know, uh the glamour shot. This one. So, you know, I'm in graphics. So I I'm
thinking right now my I guess my initial question is let me just preface it by saying my initial question is why the strong contrast the dark blue which I I'm a fan of the color but you know it is a big statement. Um, so I was going to say that, but then I start to think,
you know, you don't have an operator. So, um, if you got a national brand, um, this potentially could conflict with their branding, right? I mean, we already saw a case with a national brand. They have a color scheme. So I
guess if you can just talk to what the thinking was behind the color scheme, what likelihood you are to changing it if not for the board's sake or a brand who might ask, can you just Sure.
So to start with your first uh notion of how we came up with this layout was uh or this scheme of colors here was the fact that we are quite set back from the route 22 uh quite screened from route 28. We did want something that would be
slightly eye-catching as you go by, but not so much so stark that it would be like, oh my god, distracting to a driver. Um, we do have a whole bunch of plantings proposed here, which over time will grow. So, these contrast of the blue and the white and the gray awnings, uh, would give a little bit of intrigue.
Uh we also thought that it would also maybe as things degrade and the color starts to fade and dull a little bit kind of disappear off into you know sky color clouds so it's not again so distracting. Uh as far as working with a national brand uh I have done several
facilities where the brand comes in and we say take it take it or leave it. This is the color. This is what's approved by the board. This is what has been commented on and accepted. We can't change it. And if they want to change it, then we have to come back. And And were there other ideas or was
like you said there were no earth colors, brown? We we did look at into some earth tone colors, but we felt that that would actually mask the facility so much that nobody would know it was there once all the the deciduous trees and evergreens
plantings come to maturity. we don't have a huge uh breath opening after the plantings become mature. So, you're welcome. I do echo the concerns that the chairman has brought brought up uh and uh
the questions that you you just received. Um if this board would require that the the facility have earth tone colors, would that be something that you folks would agree to? I would discuss it with the owner and be able to get back to you.
Okay. Because it does I mean we I understand it's commercial a lot. I mean my impression is feels more industrial than sort of let's say office commercial type. Um and as you know the 22 there there's a lot more office. I think
there's Metife. Yes. Met life close by. Um so that's certainly something I'm I'm okay about. Regarding the storage, um, what type of materials would be stored here? Are there any ha special hazards
that would be permitted to be stored in the facility? There are restrictions on the lease which I believe are operational testimony will testify to. Um, the typical ones are hazardous chemicals, firearms, explosives, but I will leave the rest of the list to our
testimony from operations. and and you did a preliminary code analysis from an architectural perspective. Yes. Okay. Um what would be your occupancy category for this bu building? Occupancy category is S1 with a B1 accessory. Okay. And for the outside units, could
someone store their vehicle in those units? No. Okay. We only provide an 8 foot wide rollup door, which typically you would need something wider than that to fit a vehicle in. Um I think homes do come with 8 foot wide rollup doors. Then I would say then it would be specifically prohibited in
the lease as far as an explosive of gas stored inside. Anyone found would be rejected and removed from the property. Okay. In addition to gas, I mean I think batteries should also, you know, again, I I'll leave the list of things that are prohibited to operations testimony.
Okay. Thank you. There's no, and this is an operational question, there's no check and balance on these outdoor units. Someone pulls up, they pop their garage, they open their unit, they throw stuff in. At least on the inside units, I hope there would be some level of monitoring via,
you know, whether it's a camera or 24-hour person that could capture what was going into these individual units. But these outdoor units, I think this is a terrible idea. The facility will have security cameras inside and out.
It doesn't matter. that the fact that someone can pull their car up multiple times a day and load it up with whatever the hell they want. This is an operational risk. There's no check and balance to some idiot putting something in there that's dangerous to the community. There's none. At least when you walk in, there's the ability to
capture that person on a camera or hopefully a person that's working there walking the hallway can see someone physically bring a unit in. Um, and frankly also, you know, how much can you fit through a door versus how much can you fit through a garage door is a different calculation.
They look bad operationally. I think they're a risk. I think the fact that you don't have a nationwide tenant giving you a policy and procedure manual here, I think limits that. And that, frankly, that was the nice part about our last case is that we did have a national operator with a track record that had 26 facilities. They brought
their CEO in and he talked about it and they had no outdoor loading. everything had to come in through the doors. I think it's a risk. I think it's a risk that's manageable and frankly I think it's a risk that our our fire marshall is going to have something to say about.
Then our testimony from operations will be hopefully able to quell some of your concerns, sir. All right. Other board questions. I have a question for him. Please. How many total storage units do you have on all all three all three floors?
How many add or total? All when you add up all three floors, how many storage units are there? To total quantity of units through the facility is 755. Okay. So uh like you know if people come
there once a month, how many people do you expect them to be coming during the daytime? I will leave that to operations. I know that in her outline she is prepared to answer that question. Uh from my experience it is quite low,
but I'll leave the specifics up to our operations testimony. Uh can I ask you a question? Um, your intention is to build this building even if you don't have a tenant yet. Correct.
So, what if it stays vacant for 5 years? Once once we know where the direction the project is going, we're going to enter into a management agreement with an operator, but the the applicant's going to own the asset, right? But it could be years down the road. Won't be years down the road, sir. Once we know what we're dealing with as far
as what kind of building may be approved by the board, then we can go out to market. You're going to market based on whatever get potentially gets approved. Then it's not it's the chicken or egg scenario to go to go to a management
company to ask them to manage an asset that has not been approved is uh in our experience premature. Okay. Why did you feel the need to put those drive up bays? And the last application
that we approved, our understanding, particularly for the limited number of parking spaces and the limited use that was um articulated to us, those things were not necessary. So why are they necessary in this project? because they
do represent a very small number of the overall units that you guys have, which would almost seem insignificant compared to this large number of units. So, why even have them? We can have the operations person speak to that. Okay, that's fine.
And the only other question I have is what would this building look like if it actually conformed to the F in this zone? It would look like this as far as the volume. It's the fact that we have intermediary floors which puts us over the F. The volume is conforming. It's
the fact that we have a say a second floor on there that makes us over. So it would be story shorter. No, it would be actually the volume's Are you saying because you have a basement? I'm sorry. Say again, sir. Are you saying because you have a basement and it counts towards your F? No,
it's not. It's driven by the number of floors within the building, not the building height. Obviously, the building could be taller. You could have I don't think he's asking about the height. He's asking about the F. What would the building look like if it conformed to a point
three 36 right that's allowed in the and I'm saying that it could look just like this there just wouldn't be say the second floor in there I can still have a 20 foot tall ceiling height 21 foot tall
ceiling height I just wouldn't have that second floor in there the volume what you see on the screen is compliant just clarify From an F perspective, that could be true, although not likely to have a 20 foot ceiling in a self-s storage building. The building would be
about 40,000 square feet less. So, if if one of these floors is I don't know if they put the floor 40,190 ft per floor on this first and second. So, it would be one one floor of the units less. It would be approximately
would be 20 250 instead of 30 ft. But that's if you take off the floor. I'm saying the exterior wall the volume I understand. I But you wouldn't build with 20 foot ceilings, right? There's no
need for that. So if it was to conform, it would be a 20ft building. It would be the same. It would have the same footprint. It It could be reduced in height, but by your zoning ordinance, it wouldn't need to be. It could it could also be increased in height and shrunk in floor area. There are ways that that's what floor area
ratios are. Understand? No, I'm just trying to clarif it would it would look different if it was to function as a self storage building and be compliant. It would look very different from what's proposed. That's what would it would it look the
same? What would it look like? And we're saying it would look it would be about a 20 foot building. It look the same but same footprint but top off the store. Take off the storage. Right. Correct. Maybe for self storage but if you did a health club for example you'd have a
larger taller building at two floors. Right. But this is self storage. But we're talking about building massing not not use. I think he's about your application. I think he's asking for within the within the context of this application for this use not for a different use but for the use you that's being requested.
What would this building look like at a compliant F? And to to answer that question, it would not be a full 10 feet down. It would probably be a roughly about a five foot decrease in height. Uh because we have done, you know, four 14t ceiling heights and had lockers above the 8ft units. As
long as we keep it below 12t in height for the storage unit ceiling. So we could have an 8ft and a 4ft locker above. We can do that and we'd still have a good ceiling height on top of that. So it wouldn't be a full 10 feet off, but it could be five. All right. Anyone else? Word professionals.
Start. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I I do um echo some of the board's um recommendations in relation to the architecture. In my original review memo that was dated March 17th of this year. Um I did, you know, provide additional
recommendations about the building design. Um, I think that the faux glazing windows were added on, but not much else was changed or addressed as far as the commentary about it looking like a warehouse. Um, I do suggest, and I know that this commentary has been
provided for other reasons, but that the applicant review the detailed architectural changes that were made to the self- storage facility that was approved by use variance down on Route 22 in Donahghue because I think the board had very good input and the
applicant listened to that. And I I just I have them up side by side of my screen before the chairman even brought up a comment to see the stark difference in the building materials used. the massing of the building and how all of those all of those factors
um lead to the way the the building appears. Um and I do believe that as proposed in both the color, the material, um the architectural features, it doesn't do much to help with the building massing. um which I think in the context of the residences across
Route 28 and just the the actual um nature of Route 28 as well as this portion of Route 22. I understand that the intent is to make this building stand out from an advertising perspective, but there are
other ways to do that that don't have to include the entirety of the building. If you look at that other building that was approved, yes, it does have more visible exposure off of Route 22, but many self- storage facilities now will use colored signs or a brighter color sign. In that
case, they used yellow color um to contrast the the red brick. Um they used a parapit height that extended above the top of the roof line in only one portion so that that could be a place where the sign could be so it would stand out. um
those kind of shadow boxes of showing the unit doors behind it which have a color to them that might be brighter than the building stand out in relation to the more natural building materials. And I think all of those things need to be considered for something u
particularly in the context of this site. Yes, it's on it's in a commercial zone, but I think the fact that um you know our ordinances do describe the sensitivities between non-residential and residential zones, particularly when it comes to landscaping, but I think it needs to be integrated into the building
design also. Um, so I hope that the applicant will consider some of those changes that I had brought up in the original review memo that talk about how we can break up building massing and take the the board's commentary about materials and design seriously um in in
it in its um review of of the architectural design. Um, as far as the garage rollup doors, are those proposed to be climate controlled? No. So they will not be climate controlled? Um the rollup doors in my experience um
are more reminiscent of how storage facilities used to be. They were one story more garageelike. They had basically all of the storage units were outdoor um rollup doors and um were not climate controlled. And what you would
see in some of those and still see and I've seen it firsthand is those can be used for less traditional storage like um a homeowner or someone who's downsizing or just moving somewhere else and storing their things
or storing things for a loved one. And contractors, people plumbers, uh repair guys, uh businesses of that nature may store additional equipment. Is that is that proposed to be allowed or is there any way to
restrict that uh in this type of use or from an operational perspective? Can you clarify equipment please? That'll be something that our operator will speak to. Operations. Okay. Thank you. I'll take care I'll I'll I'll hold that question. Um as far as the um
the equipment for the um for the building, will it be roof mounted? The HVAC equipment? Yes. Yes. And is there um it's hard to tell from the architectural drawings. Is there
screen is the parapit proposed to screen that roof mounted equipment? I'm moving over to the elevations where I can zoom in on the heights. So
if you look over here, our roof deck to the lowest point of our power pet is 30 in. Uh we have an additional foot at each of these uh colored volumes. And as we approach the tower element of the corner, we have an additional foot, I believe. Uh being that we're set 10 ft
back and with the grade change, they should not be visible from the neighboring properties. Um but they are not required to be at a certain location on this on the roof. 10 feet is the minimum in order for uh for safety and maintenance. We can move them 20 feet in
uh in order to prevent them being visible. Oftent times these are only five ton units, not the massive HVAC rooftop equipments that you see on hospitals or schools or you know big old warehouses. Uh they're more five ton
residential condenser units on the roof. Okay. Can you go to the sheet following this one? Uh give me one second. Uh bear with me getting back to full screen here. Go ahead.
Can you describe the the different um the floor elevations um even just on any of them of the diagram showing the height of the roof deck to the parapit as far as going over these elevations here?
Correct. What's the what's can you just describe the what the roof deck is and what the parapit height represents? So the highest parapet point tower elements is 5t above the roof deck. Okay. So what you just described is one foot in the in the in the render the
colorized elevation. Is that another foot higher than that or is five feet the highest? I'm going to go back to the elevations where I can show that. Okay. Please. Thank you. So this at the office location is a pretty good representation of that. So
this elevation markers here mimic exactly what you saw on the previous page. If you go over this way, you'll see that the colored volumes are a foot down. The CMU is a foot down from the colored volumes. And I don't have the elevation marker there, but I should
have it on this one. And we're 18 inches lower from the highest power pet point to the colored volumes. So we're 30 inches from the CMU to the highest power pet and the CMU is 30 in from the roof
deck totaling 5T totaling 5T. Um our ordinance does require or only permit a three-foot parapit of roof above the roof line. So, I think additional variance relief would be required for the five- foot request.
Um, and that's that's under the definition of building height, I believe. Um, so I believe that'd be additional variance relief required. Is that an encroachment into the allowable building height or that's regardless? Regardless, it's just under the definition for building height. It's a
parapit is allowed up to three feet. Um, we just had a recent application for um, a Starbucks where they had to request the relief for a 4 foot parapit. Interesting. Um, and
um, as far as far as the um, layout of the units, I know that you described some of the typical sizes. There were some very unusually sized units, some triangular shaped ones that I don't think the dimensions necessarily
represent the actual like there's a 10 x five but it's triangular so that seems impossible. Um I is the the number of units described intended to be the maximum number possible um or is it um
representative of actually what some of these units might might look like? the I'm sorry. Are the numbers of the showing the size on the floor plan accurate to what the size of the unit is? Well, that for one um are those accurate? A 10 x5 triangular unit?
I'm going to zoom in on that one just to to address that first. And if you don't mind, we'll drive dive further deeper into your question. Sure. So, I think this one here is similar but slightly different. It shows a 5x5 triangular unit. Yes. Um that's because the area inside of this is 25 square ft. So marketing wise,
it's a 5 by5 25 cubic feet. Square feet. That's 25 square feet. Okay. Okay, understood. And I'm sorry, was the rest of the question you had? That kind of clarifies that. I didn't know if the breakup of these units was
meant to be more um demonstrative of how many you could fit in and in reality because they're so small or unusually sized that they would end up being kind of morphed into another unit. And the request was really a total number of units in line with the use variance
rather than maybe the actual that may be in the future if they got if they got merged together or something. Or is it our intention that this would be the layout? Okay. Okay. Um I don't think I have anything else for this witness at this time. Thank you. Oh actually no I do. I'm
sorry. Just I forgot my question from before to the to the engineer. Um, in looking at the elevation, the elevation, the colorized ele uh, rendering for the view looking east from to Route 28, I believe. Um,
yes, that one. Okay. the there was a number of questions about the landscaping the landscape plan um on the engineering set and I you know I know I raised a few questions and comments and recommendations to the engineer to look
at that landscape plan um but the landscape was this based off of um exactly what the landscape plan provided from the engineering site plan. Yes, this was a combination of creative using a combination of the existing tree plantings for those that are remaining
the proposed tree plantings and has been reviewed by Bowler's uh landscape team for accuracy. Okay. Um and I I think my comment before was the engineering plan looks looks very robust, right? the tree canopies are all meeting, the trees are all, you
know, like 10 10 20 feet on center. And these ones appear much more sparse um in comparison to the 2D plan. So, uh, you know, I think my comment still stands to the to the engineer and to the applicant that I I believe the the landscape plan
should continue to be looked at, particularly in line with the ordinance, but also um, in line with the resident's comments about the screening and what the, you know, the actual intent of the screening is for this property. I do want to address that and and reiterate that these are day one plantings. So
that each of the trees that are proposed have significant growth over the first three years. A 12T transited PL tree will be 15 feet in the first three years. Uh an 8ft evergreen tree will be 16 feet in the first three years. So
although yes, this is may appear sparse, you no one's going to plant 20 foot trees day one. We we appreciate the comment. We'll look at it. Yeah. And I I I ab I agree and I understand that those are these are when you look at the engineering plan, it looks like a wall of trees and it looks like you're fully buffered and you're not going to see anything. And
the reality is this is what you're getting. And even more so to Mr. Banga's point um you know there's a greenery area that you know is basically dead that I want to make sure you're not getting credit for. I think it should be the linear feat and not just the the what do you want to call it the greenage that's existing already.
Yeah. And I think my comments are also related to the the design of the landscaping. There's a small line of of shrubs right up to the evergreens. The ever so it doesn't look very natural. It looks Yeah. You you can always do more. And I you know I I think and I repeated this
at the last meeting. You get the benefit of our hard work of six meetings sitting with an angry room of people. And I don't know why you're not using that. Go back to that meeting. Listen to the six meetings. It's on YouTube. Listen to what these people said. listened to the the building materials
the board recommended. Katherine and Bill put together. It's a good application. It it started in as a bad application and it became a good one and literally at the last meeting nobody spoke. All the the the the neighbors were happy and that's a good project
when you coexist and you're a good neighbor. Frankly, I don't see it yet. I don't think you're there. I'm glad we have another meeting to work it out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sure. Sorry, a few real quick. Yes.
Can you go to the go to the elevation rendering that you were on previously? The 2D. The 2D. Go ahead. This may be a little nitpicky, but I just want to clarify on the south elevation on the
left side of the south elevation where you have the parapit height at 179. Is that a is that a typo compared to the roof height of 168? Yes, that that definitely is a typo. Yes.
Is that is that what should that be? The roof deck plus 30 in should be at was that going to be 171. You make a note to correct that. Absolutely. I will. While we're on that that rendering, I
see that you have a combination of in in this current design, you have a combination of faux windows and then display windows. Correct. Starting with the faux windows, are are they going to emit any interior light or are they strictly just a facade treatment?
They are a facade treatment surface supply to the to the building. Okay. So, nothing from the inside comes out of those. No wall penetration with the display windows though at the I guess the north end. Well, I guess it's at the it's at the the short sides of the building, right?
Yep. On the west and the east side. East. Correct. Okay. Those will emit interior light. Correct. Yes. So that they do have interior lights to illuminate those uh those display doors as the planner spoke to before about the other application. They
used color in the past. Um we are showing them here as as white. Um but there will be light inside of that. Yes. And will will those lights those interior lights have the ability to be dimmed after closing? They certainly can.
They can. Okay. I'm looking at my notes from the March meeting and I see that I wrote down that there was going to be with the lighting design now that there was going to be no exterior wall-mounted or building mounted facade lights.
Is that correct? Because when I look at your plan here, it looks like I see some wall packs around the perimeter. You are required. Sorry. Did you Did I miswrite something or or did I not recall what the testimony at that time was? I did not testify at that hearing.
Right. Um we are required to have uh emergency or lighting on the exterior for emergency purposes. Uh one foot candle all exits and to the exit of the property. Um I will confirm that with the uh lighting design of the property to make sure they coordinate.
Okay. And the only other question I have is to the street renderings, the 3D renderings. Yeah. We talked a lot about that existing buffer area that may not be in the best health that I think we also have established as mostly deciduous
trees. Do you have the ability to show what that that view or even from Bogart would look like in the winter months when those trees don't have any foliage? I can see what I could do. Very good. Thank you. Thanks, Bill.
All right, members of the public, you have questions. Hi there. Just get your name and address. Hi, my name is Christopher Bowden, BOHD, and I live at 18 Bogart Drive, obviously in Bridgewater.
Um, I live on Bogart Drive. That does not look like any office building I've ever seen in my life. That is a warehouse, as you mentioned earlier. That is a warehouse. Okay, this is what I got to look outside when I go to walk my dog every day. That's a
warehouse. Mr. Bowden, do you have a question? Yeah. My question is, is that ugly? You think that's ugly? I do not. Oh, okay. Well, I guess we we'll agree to disagree. Um, the other question is, as you mentioned at the last meeting
about reaching out to the the residents that live in the area, I haven't been reached out to yet. Be nice if that happened. Thank you. All right. Sure. Indepang 376 State Route 28. Um I'm
curious if you know the um the building that's on 390 US22. I do not. You don't? Okay. Let me I can tell you. It's a Sunrise of Bridgewwater. Okay. It's an assisted facil uh assisted um living facility. Do you know what the color scheme of that is? Um, I believe from what I've seen of a
Google Earth image, it's Earth Tones. Earth Tones? Yes. The current uh building that's on the tectonic lot right now, do you know what color that is? I do not. No, you don't. It's also Earth Tones. Okay. So,
um, you know what? What you have here is a monstrosity. Uh, it looks like a warehouse. I'll get to a question. um like you know our chairman has said and multiple board members I'm curious if um
based on not only the homes that are in the area but then also the assisted facility the assisted living facility as well as the building if if that was taken into consideration when you put this color scheme together. No, I guess I stated before it was
related to the being able to grab someone's attention driving by. These roads are, you know, 40 mph roads, 50 mph roads with limited sight lines. Um, and as well as, you know, blending into the sky as the dull colors progress
throughout weathering. Okay, I disagree. Um, the foliage that you mentioned on Route 22 and then also that is complete AIBS. I can tell you right this second by going on to Google
Maps. It is you can see directly through and a lot of those trees like I mentioned already are dead. Um I would request the board to mandate that they take a true imagery of actually what's on route 28 and then what's actually on
route 22 because when I look at this from Google from Google you can go on you it make it looks nothing like you're you're on street view. Is that what I'm on? Street view. It looks nothing like what was presented here. Nothing. So, I don't know what kind of like app
you guys use, AI, whatever it was. Huh? Google Street View. I don't think it was Google Street View cuz I used that. But again, none of those trees look exactly like that. Those are all healthy trees. They don't look like that. You can go right now on Google on street view. They don't look anything like that. There's fallen trees over. It looks nothing like what
you have on the screen right there. Okay. So, I would request that the board ask the applicant to actually make it true to life instead of what is actually being shown here because it's false and misleading.
Um, and it doesn't do justice to any of the the residents in the nearby area. Um, it was also requested or discussed that, you know, what is this going to look like from a second floor home? you're welcome to come to my house and actually take a picture or any of the
residents who are here. Uh again, when you can't grant access to the other residents, but but that's important that I took and I know that's why you didn't do it because you don't necessarily have access, but but why don't you guys talk after this meeting in 14 minutes and give them permission to come take a photo?
We are on an elevation. I'm surrounded by my neighbors. We're actually elevated from the street by about seven feet on a hill and then our home is actually right above that. And that's not just me. It's also my fellow uh neighbors as well. And they're going to be able to see this
over the tree line based on, you know, the renderings at least that that have been shown so far because the trees are dead. Um Indy, what's your address again? 376 State Route 28. So why don't we ask for a rendering from 376? Yeah, I think that would be fair.
Um, and I would, you know, ask any of my Bogart, you know, neighbors as well if if they felt it was um, like I said, I think the the AI renderings of the the the foliage are misleading, are very incorrect. Um,
so, you know, my request to the applicant is to make it true to form um, you know, based on based on what's actually there. Um, the other item that I wanted to ask on was
is the trees that are that were used in the renderings, are those all the ones that are currently there or are those also proposed with the exception of the ones that you planted? Um, I'm sorry. Can you restate the question?
So, so the the trees, you know, the the larger trees, the mature trees, right? Okay. Those are all the ones that are currently that that you guys have perceived that are currently there. Yes. And that are currently healthy. Yes. Okay. And
the one thing that I didn't see in the renderings which um Miss Armeck had had mentioned was in the 2D model, you know, and again it could be at the after three years or five years that they're they're squished
together, right? Um I mean I have I can tell you I have uh arbivites and what is the um uh you know what is the expected um width for the ones that are shown
right here on Bogart because I I I don't think that they're going to be able to fill that gap based on kind of like what was shown in the 2D versus what's shown in the 3D here. I don't have that information. I think that's really important for us to know because if we're trying to creep consistency based on the 2D rendering
that you guys should come back and actually be able to show us how wide these things are going to be, how tall they're actually going to be, and how long that's actually going to take. Are you asking for renders at say 5year growth rate? Sure. You know, I don't think there's any expectation if this was to to to get
past. What is that going to look like? I think in the very beginning based on what it's showing here, I don't believe h having my own arbivites that you're going to be able to fill a gap that's 4 feet on both sides. It's just not realistic. So, one thing that I didn't
mention the first time around was like we talked about in the route 28 buffer, whatever you want to call it, that has all dead trees. If you're going to be planting these trees on uh these ar what are they called? Uh what do you have? Arbades, right? Uh I'm sorry. To the west.
Yeah. Like what are those ones? You know why is a Oh, Leland Cyprus. It is it is a type of arbitey and and how long how tall does that get? Planted at 8 feet and grows 30 inches per year.
Okay. So, what's the what's the the total that it will be expected at at maturity? Honestly, I'm not sure what maturity is. I was provided information saying that about three years it should be 16 feet. About 5 years should be about 21 ft.
21 ft. Okay. And the building is Mr. Chairman, if we need to have the engineer come back up to answer that question, we can certainly do that. I don't think any of us are tree experts. I mean, we I I think he is an expert in architecture. He can take a ballpark. And I think Mr. Banga would
understand that no one's going to know how these trees are going to grow. But I think what the point that I'm getting to is if the building is 31, which I think you have attested to, right? if this is going to only get up to to 21 feet that there's still going to be significant visibility
based on which I think was counter uh counter testimony to Mr. uh to Matt to you know previously Matt did testify that the elevation of Bogart is at 128 uh our elevation I'm sorry where my note went but I think the elevation is incorrect
because that's actually on you know when you're actually standing on I think what you're not taking into consideration is the homes and the elevation of the homes so everybody looking from the second floor is going to be looking at this monstrosity yes that's a moving target everybody's homes
it's With all due respect, you're applying for a zoning which is not in the but you do need a variance to put your to put your warehouse here. intersection based upon a conversation we had in
March. I can apply to anything. We've gone out of our way to provide accurate representations. I can apparite where they live.
comprehensive. Now, now Indie, at the end of the case, you know this better than all of us. You can come back and present your own photographs and your own visual perspectives. Um, and you know, by all means, that will carry weight with the board as well, I think. Um no and I and I appreciate that and I and I appreciate you know
your sentiment. I think one thing that I I did want to um Mr. Kulak had had mentioned I you're Mr. Kulik right? No you're Mr. Gayeski had mentioned I I you know I would like to you know within the confines of this application again the F
is nearly double. Um, I think you mentioned that, you know, potentially it could be five or 10 feet lower. Uh, you know, based on, you know, what whatever that that dynamics needs to look like. I think, you know, based on what you mentioned about one,
the tree coverage, if it's only going to grow up to 21 feet, if you're at 31 feet, that extra five, that makes a difference. That it makes a difference to the c to the to the neighbors. it makes a difference to the overall community and especially it makes a
difference if we're not going to be not going to have to see this, you know, potential warehouse um from our from our front doors. Now, you could say, okay, well, I'm taking the vantage point from the intersection, but again, I would like to see an F
that's closer to or actually at F. Again, you are applying for a D1 in a C3 zone and that's a pretty big deal, you know. Mr. Chairman, I I certainly appreciate the member of the public's comment. Indeed, you got a question.
Okay. Yeah. Well, I'm done with my questions. Turned our way to summation. We I could go into summation mode, but nobody wants to hear me right now. And I understand where the case needs to go from a modification set. So, building mass itself, again, the building coverage complies, impervious
coverage complies, the setback on 28 complies, the massing of the building as it presents itself. the environment is not the issue. It's the number of floors within the building that's the issue. So to resolve the F could result in a
larger building or a smaller building. And as the chairman talked about economics in a comment he had about ways that we go to analyze things from a financial perspective. If the project gets to a certain point where it's so
small it's not economically viable. Then we look more intensive use group in order to make the project viable. So from our perspective, what we're presenting is the most muted form of commercially viable development for this
site. There are other terms of other forms of development that could be constructed on this property that would have a larger footprint, a larger masking effect, more trips, etc. Well, Mr. Banga knows that better than anyone. He was part of the the original
stop the quick check. I I mean we could we you know we can talk about you know what's permit in a C3 zone and you know we wouldn't be having this conversation today if that was the case but the architect didn't talk about that. So we're talking about architectural testimony and ask question
if the build if the project gets to a certain point then we have a conversation about a different type of devarian or going before the planning board for a different type of permitted use that's larger in scale. So I appreciate respond to concerns, but
they have to be practical in nature. I'm pretty sure everything that I've mentioned so far has been practical in nature, but I will yield for now. Free to disagree. Yeah, I'm just telling you that there's only so far the needle can move before it becomes impractical. Understood.
Any other questions from the public on the architectural testimony? Just get your name and address again for the record, please. Kan Takar Ada Bridgewater. My question is, how many units going to be storage units
total in the building? Mhm. No. Yeah. Total total in the building 755 are currently planned. 750. Okay. And it's 35 ft height or 30 ft height. So the average height as
calculated as per the zoning is 31.31 ft. Someone mentioned about anything hazardous material stored in and you may not have a monitor somebody what's going on. If
that 31 or 35 ft building goes on a fire, what do you think how long it takes to get to Bogart that fire? Bogart Avenue, Bogart Drive. I don't know. I'm not sure if the question you talk about as an occupant getting out of the building
building if your storage facility catch fire. Okay. Bogart Drive is less than 100 ft. Okay. So if that community catch fire and if wind is high there are 3,100
homes between vent and um 28 I don't know that answer that would be almost all those homes can catch that fire by building code any building that is separated by greater than 30 ft is not required to have a fire rating fire
rating on the wall we are greater than the 30t so none of the walls are required to be fire rated to del on some of the safety measures is built into the building. Sure. So, as I mentioned before, there is a fully operable fire sprinkler inside the building, wet sprinklers inside the climate controlled area and
dry sprinklers inside of the nonclimatec controlled area. Um, there are two fire egress stairs that run all floors and exit to grade with a fire rating around those as required by code. Um, all of our travel distances are less than the 250 linear feet that are
required by code. There are fire extinguishers, no great no greater uh travel distance than 75 feet from any point inside the building. Um fully annunciated fire alarm and there will be a BDA test to if there is a need for that uh which benefits the communication
of firemen when they're in the building that'll be tested during construction as required. But there are numerous fire safety requirements that would be met. If 750 units is occupied and rented and if 20% people using every day um that
would be 200 plus cars in and out every day 200 to 300 depending on a traffic. Um is that going to be any problem entering from 202 and exiting? The operational use will be testified to later, but the
use per day or the trips per day is much lower. We we have a traffic engineer, sir, that'll be able to respond to that question. I see. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Any other questions from the public? All right. It's 9:55. I think we're
going to call it a night. Um, what do we have next for you guys? Maria, what date were we thinking to bring them back? I think the next available date that we have is October 21st.
October 20. 28th. 28th. All right. Our next available date, October 28th, 2025. We'll see you then, Mr. Chairman. All right. Uh, Miss Mr. given the give the full announcement to the people in the public. So for the members of the
public, this meeting is being adjourned. It will continue in this room on September 28th at 7 p.m. I heard October I'm sorry. October 28th 28th at 7 p.m. Uh and there'll be no further notices from the applicant. Okay. And for this board, our next
meeting is July 22nd, 7:00 p.m. We have Germunk Oil first up and then we're going to do Cafe Amelia 7:00 p.m. July 22nd. This room a motion to adjurnn. Please move Mr. Welli. Second. And that was Mr. Gaski. Thank you
everyone. Have a great night. Okay. Do that first thing in the morning.