Specifically on January 15, 2026, proper notice was sent to the newspapers of record filed with the municipal clerk in the township Bridgewater and posted on the municipal bulletin board. Please be aware of the zoning board of adjustment policy for public hearings.
No new application will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10 p.m. If you are able, please join us and stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. 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. >> Anything yet? N >> and Nancy, would you please do the roll call for us?
>> Chairman Kulak >> here. >> Mr. Uh here >> Mr. Franco >> here. >> Mr. Fresco >> here. >> Miss Rose,
>> Mr. Gi, >> Miss Wisman >> here. >> Mr. Vasio >> here. >> Mr. Kawuchcci >> here. >> Mr. Mcnella >> here. >> Mr. >> here. >> Mr. Burr
>> here. >> Miss Sarm >> here. You have a quorum. You can proceed. >> Thank you very much. >> At this time, I just want to open the meeting to members of the public who would like to address this board on any
matter, sorry, on any matter that's not already on today's agenda. So, if you would like to address us, please step to the podium, state your name and address. Seeing no one, we'll close that section of today's meeting. We have no minutes,
Nancy. >> Not this evening. >> Okay. Resolutions. The only resolutions we have are the designation of the 2026 electronic news sources um which is in your packet and uh the
appointment of our traffic engineer. >> I make a motion to approve >> approve the resolations. Do we need to approve them? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Can I make the motion? >> So, Mrs. Amin is making a motion to approve the resolutions. >> I'll second it.
>> Mr. Widley and second. >> We need a a separate roll call vote for those resolutions >> for each one, please. >> Okay. So then first on our list will be >> the designation of the 2026 electronic news sources authorized to receive all
notices of the zoning board of adjustment. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Amin is making the motion. Mr. Widley is a second. And we're going to have a roll call vote. >> Chairman Kulak. >> Yes. >> Mr. Widley. >> I Yes. >> Mrs. Amin. Yes,
>> Mr. Franco. >> Yes, >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes, >> Miss Wiseman. >> Yes, >> Mr. Vesio. >> Yes, >> Mr. Kawuchcci. >> Yes, >> Mr. McNella. >> Yes. >> Okay. Our next resolution is appointing
Mi Maurice Rashad PE as the zoning board of adjustment traffic engineer. May I have a motion to approve? Mr. Rashad, >> I move >> Mr. Widley has made the motion. I have a second. >> Second. >> Mrs. Amin is the second.
>> Nancy, >> excuse me. Chairman Kulak. >> Yes. >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zamin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Franco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes. >> Miss Wisman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Vasio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kuchi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mcnella.
>> Yes. Okay, moving forward, we're going to be um having our applicant come forward and we're going to be addressing Bridgewater Self Storage LLC, block 400, lots one and two, otherwise
known as 351 Route 28 and 322 Route 22. >> And Mr. Chairman, while they're getting ready, let me just jump to the next one. That is 1,200 Route22 Land Investors and 1200 Route 222 LLC Holding. >> Yes. >> Uh announced for the public that that application will not be heard this
evening. Um it is being adjourned till April 28th, 2026. Correct, Nancy? That's the date. >> Correct. >> Um it'll be heard at 7 PM on April 28th, 2026 in this room. Uh there'll be no further notices from the applicant.
Okay. >> Thank you. Good evening, >> Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Matthew Capzy. On behalf of the applicant, as the chairman noted, this is a project site. It concerns two lots within Bridgewater, block 400, lots one
and two, 351 Route 28 and 322, Route 22. This is an application that seeks to consolidate these two existing commercial building lots into one new building lot. Remove all the existing improvements on the property which uh
essentially include the tectonic building and the Kaiser Farm property just for ease of reference and to construct on the consolidated building lot a new self- storage facility and associated parking field. The application was before the board on two
prior occasions, March 25th and July 8th of 2025. And we're back before you this evening discussing a submitt that was made to the board on October just want to get the exact date.
October 17, 2025, which included uh updated engineering plans that involved an updated landscaping plan and an updated tree inventory as well as updated architecture plans. Just for a little bit by way of history, understanding the board had a recent
reorganization and we do have some new members. The initial application, some of the changes that have been made over the two prior hearings that I think are noteworthy for this evening. Uh the initial application uh proposed drive up units along three elevations of the
building which have been eliminated. The initial application proposed parking in the front yard which has been eliminated. The initial application proposed a drive aisle off of Route 22 that entered along the westerly side and meandered along the easterly side to an
entrance to the building. that has been eliminated and we now have a just a direct route from the westerly side going up to the main entrance of the building which provides for a larger opportunity for landscaping along route 22 and less tree removal along Route 22.
Uh the 20 8 landscaping has been significantly upgraded. When we were last before you in July, there was a conversation about the adequacy of the existing vegetation along Route 28 and whether a portion of that area was in
decline. We went out and assessed the existing vegetation that we had originally slated to retain and are now proposing to remove what I believe is about 300 linear feet of existing evergreen vegetation. and we're going to be replanting that with new, more robust
landscaping to help provide a full vegetative screen along Route 28. There was never access on Route 28. There is no access proposed along Route 28 under the application that's before the board this evening. Also noteworthy, uh,
approximately half of a ground level was removed. So, we took about 15,000 square feet out of the project. We eliminated the drive up units and we also reduced units within the building itself as a result of losing that approximate 15,000 square feet.
By losing that half a floor, we were able to also bring the building down 10 ft. We were never seeking a height variance. The maximum permitted height in the zone is 45 ft. Under the original filed application, it was 36 feet. Under the proposed form of application, it's
around 31 ft. uh from an average grade perspective and that results from the modification I just mentioned a particular point when we were before you in July there were conversations relative to how the building presented itself to Route 28 uh understanding that
there's a residential corridor to the south of the site and at that juncture the the building was approximately 53 or so and 1/2 ft from the intersection of Bogurt and 28 to the parapit of the proposed building. And
when we modified it, we actually brought that scale down 10 ft. So now we're uh 43 feet. So again, the maximum height in the zone is 45 ft. We don't calculate height in the manner I'm now referencing, but just from a visual
vantage point, the as you're traveling along the 28 corridor looking up at the parapit, you're now at 43 feet. uh the variances that are required, the relief that's required by the board of course is a permission to consolidate the two building lots as I mentioned uh
preliminary and final site plan approval. The although we are in a commercial district with the sites in the C3 zone which allows various commercial type uses, it does not permit self storage. So as a result of that we do need a D1 use variance to allow the self storage
facility at this location and the building does uh exceed the maximum allowable F. So we have a D4 F variance. The C variances or bulk variances to the building themselves are quite minimal. Uh we do not comply with the front yard
setback requirement along Route 22. 200 feet is the minimum required and the building is proposed to be at 100 ft. There is a minimum loading space requirement of four spaces and we are only proposing two. Again, the four space requirement is designed for a
warehousing type use and and this is not analogous to that which is why we think the two loading spaces is more than adequate. Uh and there are certain dimensional requirements associated with the loading spaces to which we do not meet and a variance as to signage. We
have a signage along the front yard of Route 22 that is supposed to be 30 ft from the property line and we're setting that sign at 5 ft. Those there is no signage proposed along Route 28. U also just a note about changes to the
application. When we were here in July, there was u some thoughts on changing the facade color to more earth tone. That has been incorporated into the plan set and a request to consider if we can add additional faux glazing. And so now the building, especially along 28,
includes a significant amount more of additional faux glazing to give the building a closer appearance to an office building. So, Mr. Chairman, I I appreciate you giving a moment just to give a summary of the application uh for this evening. Matthew Ksman, our civil engineer, will be here to testify to the
landscaping plan and tree location plan. And then William McGver is our architect. He'll go go through the revised architecture plans. And then Paul Going, our traffic engineer, is with us this evening also to go through his traffic report. Each of the witnesses will touch upon briefly some
of the salient points from the prior two meetings just to set the context for the board so everybody appreciates uh what we were initially proposing in a high level perspective and where we are today. >> And prior to bringing up your first expert, you said no access on Route 22.
There is emergency access plan. I'm sorry, Route 28. There is emergency access planned on Route 28. >> That was a request of the fire department. >> Yeah, >> that is going to be a chained off access point that would only be accessible by EMS of the municipality and it does not
have a madam base area. It's a grassy pa uh access way. So uh but yes there is that limited point along 28 but all customers and deliveries anything traffic assoc any vehicular movements associated with the self storage that
are non EMS related would be from 22 and >> I appreciate that and I just wanted to make sure for the record that we had that access for emergency purposes and it will be limited for those emergency uses only. Um, from a big picture perspective, in addition to the
witnesses that you've outlined today, um, do you anticipate additional experts or witnesses that you'll be bringing later or at a subsequent meeting? What's your game plan here? >> Uh, my thought, Mr. China, if we were able to, you know, get through the three
witnesses I have this evening, that would be certainly very appreciated by the applicant and then come back at a later date for operations testimony and planning testimony. >> Okay. Thank you. So, you may call your first witness. >> Thank you. >> And Rich, do we have to swear him in
again? Find out who he is. >> Oh, yes. Get comfortable. Ready? 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 your God. I do. >> And for the record, your name. Spell your last name, please.
>> Matthew Ksman. K U NS m- an Okay. So, I am a senior project manager at uh Bowler uh located in Warren, New Jersey and um I oversaw preparing the site uh civil
plans. >> Matthew, your license is still in good standing. >> Uh yes, it is. >> And I know this board had previously accepted you as an expert in the field of civil engineering. Anything changed with regard to your credentials? >> Uh no. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Matthew. I had mentioned the two updated sheets from your office. Before we jump into those or if you want to use the landscaping plan as a reference point, just to kind of reorient the board to the site and some of the particulars. >> Sure. Um I'm just going to >> refer to what's just came up on the
screen. >> Yes. >> Right. So that's not marked as an exhibit yet. Is that right? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So I think we're up to A9. You agree? That's why I had >> correct. >> Okay. So A9 and um Mr. Kamindu, would
you just describe for the record what A9 is, please? >> Yes. So this is the site layout plan prepared by Bowler. It's dated uh January 26, 2026. Um it is a colorized rendering of the
site plan that was submitted as part of this application and it has the landscaping uh superimposed on this plan as well. And just to orient the the board to the site um you have route 22 along the
northern frontage, route 28 along the southern frontage of the site. Um as mentioned before there is the one access point into the site. So you have the driveway off Route 22 is a right in right out driveway. Um that is the only
driveway and access for uh customers and employees to utilize. And then as previously mentioned, there is an emergency access driveway on the southeast uh corner of the lot that would be used for the fire access or emergency services um off Route 28. Um,
>> if I if I may interrupt you for just a moment and for the benefit of the public and the board members themselves, we have reorganized. We have some new board members. Some of us are in new roles. So, there may be times where we're going to interrupt your testimony just for clarity, ask a question, and the board
is free to do that. Later, we'll invite the public to ask questions specific to your testimony and limited to your testimony, but that will be after you've concluded your presentation. Understood. >> Thank you.
>> Um so once you enter into the site from the route 22 driveway, there is uh oneway circulation in a counterclockwise direction um to provide full circulation around the building. Um, and the office
location is located in the northwest corner and the loading area that's internal to the building is on the western uh side of the building as well. Um, as mentioned previously, the site does have
uh quite a bit of slope a grade change. So the eastern side of the site is in higher elevation and it slopes to the the point of the site on the western side. Um so there is quite a bit grade change and as part of our application uh the original application had the
finished floor all at one elevation. Now what we did since then um which was previously submitted and testified to we uh split the elevations of the building. So there's u two finished floors. There's a finished floor on the right side of the building and on the left
side which has a differential of approximately 10 ft. So, we're able to lower that uh grade or the the peered uh building height um for the structure. >> That which appears on the right side of our screen
is a is usable space or is just there um to hold up the other two floors so to speak. So on the the ground floor the ground floor um on the western side you wouldn't be able to access this this
eastern side of the building but I'll let our architect touch on some of those more >> great have a cross-section Mr. Chairman that illustrates how the various floors are utilized and I may be best to have the architect speak to that. >> That'd be great. Thank you.
Um we we do provide parking as well u that's complying with the amount of parking space required uh with an EV space and ADA space u to meet the state codes as well. On the western side of the site um we have a above ground uh
basin to manage the storm water for the site. So we comply with the storm water criteria from the state. Um, and I believe those are most of the highlights. Do you want me to anything else? >> You could just give us the offsets of the building. Just let us know where we're meeting the required setback and
where we deviate. >> Sure. So, uh, we are compliant with most of the the setbacks um, from the bulk perspective. However, there is a setback of 200 feet required from Route 22. Um,
where we're only proposing believe it's 100 feet. Let me just double check. Yes, 100 feet from the Route 22 frontage. Um, as you can see, the the property line along Route 22 is set back pretty far from the the shoulder and the
travel lane. So, that that makes that set back uh that much more challenging with this lot shape um to be able to develop this piece of property. All right. >> Everything else is conforming, man. >> Uh yes. As >> far as the building is concerned,
>> uh yes, besides the the F, >> but as far as the all the setbacks are being met with the exception of the setback along 22, >> correct? >> As far as the building height, I know you just mentioned about some of the grade modifications. Can you tell us what the average building height is and how the building height compares itself
to the intersection of along Route 28? Sure. So the approximate grade uh elevation at the intersection of Route 28 and Bogart which is um towards the center of our frontage on
Route 28 um where I'm pointing on the screen that elevation is approximately grade 128. So the top of the parapit that we're proposing now is at elevation
171. So uh when you take those those uh difference it's approximately uh 43 feet which reduced the building height from the original application by 10 ft. >> Thank you. I know what there was a change we had already discussed in July
but just for some of the benefit of the new members the access aisle changed to be reflected as you have it on the plan today. Can you tell us some of the benefits that were derived by orienting the drive aisle in this manner and what variances were eliminated?
>> Sure. I I also have the other rendering from the original application I can pull up. So this was exhibit A2. Um this was the original site plan application that was submitted and um just to show you what was originally submitted. So you can see we did keep
the route 22 driveway in the same location and it previously when entering the site to make up the grade difference from route 22 to the uh to the site it wrapped around the front and then came up in. So there was a lot more
impervious coverage that was associated with this. And by reducing the the building height and uh maintaining or trying to maintain the the existing grade on site, uh we were able to eliminate um a great deal of impervious coverage.
>> The parking stalls that were in the front yard, they've also been eliminated. Correct. >> That's correct as well. So we eliminated the variance of these uh four parking spaces located in the front yard along Route 22. >> Thank you. since we were last before the board in
July to today, can you tell us some of the homework that you've done in the updated plan submission? >> Sure. So, just referring back to exhibit A9. So, uh what we did was we had um a tree survey done. So, we had Eco Sciences,
who's a natural resource specialist, uh perform a site inventory of the trees and the condition as well and the species. And then we also had our surveyor uh pick up or do a tree survey and I locate those trees based off um
what our uh um tree specialists identify on the site. So with that, that's what's reflected on the plan in front of you and um that was what was submitted was landscaping plans. So with that, u we have a an accurate tree count now on the
site where there were 242 trees surveyed on the property as in existing today. Um nine of which were either deceased or in dying condition. So um in total there's
really 233 trees. We are also um revise our tree replacement plans and our landscaping plans. So we are removing 129 trees of those survey trees on site. So in total um
we're also proposing 294 trees as part of our landscape plan. So the total trees on the site will be 407 trees in proposed conditions compared to the existing of 242 trees. Um so some of the major differences as
mentioned before was uh this uh the route 28 buffer. So if you look at the prior exhibit and we'll pull up exhibit A2 again referring back to exhibit A2. You can see that um on the southern side of
Route 28, the existing vegetation was being maintained. So now, you know, after doing a site visit, having a tree specialist go out there, investigate the site, and working with your board professionals, we have revised the plan. So referring back to
exhibit A9 um and enhance that existing buffer um to supplement what's out there today and provide a much more substantial buffer from the Route 28 residents. >> Can you tell us how you achieve that?
>> Sure. So um we are proposing um sure the correct numbers. We have 108 evergreens proposed in that buffer area. So along the route 28 uh frontage to the 75 ft uh 108 evergreen
trees proposed in that buffer. Um we we are requesting a waiver from the board because 75% of the the landscaping proposed in the buffer has to be uh evergreen trees and we're
proposing slightly less um amount and um we the reasoning is is because we we want to maintain the the existing vegetation and planting too many evergreens. it' be competing and it'd be slower for those trees to be able to
establish um because it' be competing for water, sun, sunlight, stuff like that. So, they wouldn't grow as quickly. So, providing the double row of of the evergreens would provide uh a buff a buffer that would grow at a better rate.
the 108 plantings that you just mentioned, those are new since July of the of 25. >> Correct. >> Thank you. So, can can you just give us a a high level review of the landscaping plan in total for the benefit of the new members?
>> Sure. I I don't have the exact numbers how many trees were >> if you can just give us a general understanding about what's proposed there the height of the planting and things of that nature. >> Do you have that? >> Yes, I do.
Um there types of evergreen trees. So we have cyprress, nor spruce, douglas fur. They have a moderate growth rate. Um so at install or at install they'll be 8 feet
3 years. Um they can they can be up to 15 feet ideal conditions. Um, so the evergreen trees that we're proposing, they do have a moderate growth rate, um, and will fill in the
buffer pretty nicely. And there's also the existing deciduous trees, um, out there today. And then we're proposing some additional shade trees to fill in some of those gaps as well. And >> so the overall intention here was just to provide a comprehensive as possible buffer along Route 28. Is that fair?
>> That's correct. >> Thank you. Anything else to touch upon since we were last here in July from a civil engineering perspective? >> I think that's it. >> Thank you, Mr. Kman. I I have no further questions. Mr. Chairman,
>> let me open the the uh board to questions of our professional Mr. Ksman. If anybody Well, I should go to the professionals first, I think. So, Mr. Burner, Miss Sorland, any questions um for our experts here before we go to the
board? >> I do have a just a few questions, Mr. Chairman. Um Matt, I'm a few of my questions may be repetitive from prior hearings, but I just want to make sure with the revised plans, nothing's changed. Um at prior hearings, you had
testified that there was not going to be any steep slope disturbance, no plus 30 slopes being disturbed. Is that still true? >> Correct. Okay. And I think at the well, we heard earlier tonight about the emergency
access driveway off of 28 coming up to the site being only for emergency purposes, no public access. And that that entrance is going to be gated or chained off. Right. >> Correct. It'll be gated or chained off at both sides. Uh one from the the site
side and one on the Route 28 side. >> Okay. And then I I recall there being at the at the July hearing a question about the driveway aisles and circulation and you guys were going to attempt to reach out to the fire marshall and get his
additional comments on the revised plans that were submitted I think back in July. Do you know if that ever took place? >> I know the fire department did issue an updated letter. What was the date of that? October 23rd of 2025. So that followed
the updated submitt >> 25. >> Yeah. And that was essentially just confirming that their requests for fire hydrants and so forth had been incorporated into the plan set. >> Okay, good. Good. Um, from a storm water
perspective, I know that you guys had made a number of revisions to the to the plans in the latest plan set and address many of our stormwater comments. The only the only thing I wanted to ask you was as a condition of approval you guys have
asked for the storm water on and m the operation and maintenance manual to be submitted. Um I want to make sure that as part of that condition that you would also agree to an annual certification being submitted at the end of every year the beginning of every year that the
stormwater facilities are being maintained. Is that something that you would agree to? >> That's fine. probably more of a question for you, Matt. Okay. And then, uh, landscape wise, you had mentioned about the waiver. I think the the waiver from 75% of the
buffer plantings being evergreens, but you didn't say what what percentage you're actually proposing. Do you have that number? If it's not 75, what is it? 50 51.1%. Okay.
>> And then just just out of curiosity, you you had mentioned some of the the different plantings that are now being proposed. Are they all native and deer resistant to the best of your knowledge? If they're not native, well, we can revise a native. And
I I don't believe Norway spruce is native. So, >> okay. >> And deer resistant as well, but you'll take a look at that if they aren't. Okay, very good. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Sorry, Matt. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so I just want to update the board that at the last hearing we had on this application, um, which did not include this updated landscape plan. Um, there was a big part of the conversation was about their
previous landscape plan and enhancing it and adding more trees. Um, and so this is a huge improvement. um and it is now compliant with the replacement calculations where previously we didn't have a full tree survey. So there wasn't a clear indication of what the tree
removal was and therefore not a clear indication of what the tree replacement was. And now we have um both the tree replacement calculation as well as a full replacement that exceeds um the required tree replacement of 292 trees um with 294 being provided. So it is in
satisfaction of that now. Um so as I as I mentioned it is a huge improvement. Um, I will reiterate um or or at least follow up to the comment that was just made about the native species or deer resistant species. I believe that the the tree species they have provided, we
have a list in our ordinance under section 126-19 that does provide some preferred species. Um, it probably could be updated. There are some updates to spec to certain species of trees that are um more prone to disease recently in New
Jersey, but it does pretty much capture a very good um variation of trees. Not all of those species even on the township list are native, but we do I would recommend that as many possible be native species um of which I believe you
know a good number of their trees on their list are already. But um obviously if there are I don't I don't think we have a native alternative to a Norway spruce. And so there are some exceptions that can be made in order to to keep them. But um obviously um I'll take
another look at the landscape plan to make sure that that's all um that all the species chosen are are good. Um, >> and the applicant is willing to work with our planner to make sure that the species of trees and or either native or compliant in such a way as to provide
the best screening possible in a with a healthy tree environment, so to speak. >> We are, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. >> I have nothing further for this witness. >> Okay. Let me ask our board members if any of you have a question related to Mr. Tonsman's testimony specifically or
anything our professionals have just said. >> Mr. Chairman, am I allowed to ask questions on past testimony? >> Um, if if you're if Mr. Ksman >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Uh, hi, Mr. Csman. Um, I'm trying to
catch up a little bit. I watched all the testimony. I'm an architect, so a lot of my questions probably will lean that way. Um, but one of the questions I had was, uh, we're looking for variance on lighting. >> Yes. >> You're proposing 2.6 as opposed to 1.0
food candles. >> Correct. So, at the uh that's measured at the property line at the intersection of the driveway and the property line. And um we do comply with the the DOT requirement. I believe it's 0.2 ft
candles at the curb line. But as you can see, the properties the property line set back pretty far from the the curb line at the route 22 and we wanted to provide um more lighting um for that
stretch. So we are requesting that waiver um at the driveway location only. It's not any >> Okay. So it's not on the back. So on the on the 28th side of the building, >> correct? It's only on 22 side. Um, and I guess part of my question is we do have some residents that are on the 22 side
of the building that can view the building from across the way. Um, and uh, I guess my question is you've got um, I get it around the entrance having a little bit brighter right at the entrance. What about moving east on the eastern side of the building? You've got
uh, So I I >> Yeah, get it right where you have the tower. You're trying to get that that exposure >> is looking at the renderings that uh were presented. You kind of had one
quick shot and then it uh >> Sure. So the the 0.5 foot candle line at that corner like towards Route 22 and where I'm pointing on the screen, it's a it's approximately 10 ft behind the curb, probably right behind the mulch.
So it would be 0.5 foot handles and at the property line um along route 22 0 foot handles. Okay. So, where would the 2.6 be? >> It It's occurring at this point with my
mouse in the screen right at the intersection. >> Okay. >> The the driveway in the property line. >> And the uh the rest of the lights the light poles are on the perimeter. I I understand they're shielded. Um but will they be on sensors so that after 10 o'clock they're off?
>> I don't know if they'd be off. They would probably come down to maybe% >> because I I think um Bill, I don't know if you can on the uh Chimney Rock project, I think you had it that they turned off on sensors,
>> the exterior lighting. >> Yeah, I think yes. >> Yeah, the resolution stated that they would turn off >> security lighting, >> right? So it's sec So if there's any movement, then the lights kick on. We do have a drive aisle along the
southernly side of the building to have that. >> But after 10 o'clock, you said you're closed, >> correct? >> So, would it be possible to have those just on motion sensors only? >> Something to consider. I mean, the
lights are shielded. Um, >> they are, but the reflection on the building still makes the building very visible to the residents. Okay. And then I'm just going to ask you another question. It's probably more towards the architectural question, but
because you're the keeper of the grades, um Bogart is uh I think you said in testimony that that was elevation 128. >> Yes. >> Okay. And the top of our building is 171.
And um so for 128, I think there was a question of a resident if I'm on my second floor, which would be 15 ft. So 143 feet would be the visibility. And I don't know if the architect was going to do a rendering to address that. >> We we didn't analyze that.
>> Okay. Oh, there was testimony. >> It was it was a discussion point during that hearing, but it's just it's not practical for us to assess. >> Okay. All right. I think that's all I really have for this.
Okay. Thank you. Any other members of our board who would like to pose a question to Mr. Ksman regarding his testimony? >> Uh, sure. Sherman. Uh, I understand you you've lowered the building 10 ft. Uh, you have a partial ground floor now to
accommodate that. Uh, in terms of sort of site disturbance um from the previous plan, what changes have there have there been? Have we kind of respected the the natural grade more or are we uh bringing
fill in? Are we bringing more uh soil out of the site? Could you just talk about that a little bit? >> Sure. So, from the original application, we we will be reducing less um less impervious coverage on site. >> Um
I haven't pro uh prepared uh earthwork calculations, but I did look at the grading plan. Um, we probably will have to bring in uh Phil to the site, but I I don't have a calculation. >> Okay. So, but you've lowered the
building and you you have to bring in Phil, so we're probably reducing the amount of fill we're bringing in then. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Actually, I had one more question for you. um on the east side of the uh the building since it's just a one-way flow,
would angled parking reduce the amount of impervious >> or does that affect your turning radius at the corners of the building? It may it may well if you reduce the drive it may decrease it but you know
the customers are renting small U-Haul vans and stuff so you like to have a a larger drive out for people that aren't accustomed to driving it. >> Thank you. Any additional questions from the board? >> I have a question. I don't know if this is appropriate for >> Just make sure that you're speaking into the microphone that it's turned on,
please. I have a question. I don't know if it's appropriate for the engineer, but um I've heard about trees and lighting and driveways and parking spaces. Um and that all assumes that we're going to grant the variance from the C to the D.
Who can tell me why uh this use is particularly suited for this site to grant that variance? >> We will have planning testimony, sir, at the at a subsequent hearing. It's not it's not a a question for the engineer, but we will have a planner.
You'll be able to ask that question at that time. >> Great. Well, thank you, Mr. Ksman. Appreciate your testimony, Mr. Cape. Are you I'm sorry. >> Oh, hi. Sorry. Are there any questions from the public who u specifically for
Mr. Ksman's testimony regarding the engineering of the site? And now I'm going to open the floor to questions from the public just to Mr. Cman's testimony. Please state your name, your address, and also is there a signin sheet there in front of you?
>> Yes, there is. >> Great. Would you do that as well, please? I don't think you can do it all at the same time, so take your time. Okay. So, my name is Carolyn Joya. I live at 140402 Paley Court. And
the question I have specifically for Mr. gunsman is regarding the um egress and ingress lane and what type of slope is that and how would you accommodate for um ice, black ice, that kind of thing as
you're heading towards Route 22 and I'm we're obviously in the situation right now. So it comes to mind has any thought been given to that? Is there anything you can propose? >> Sure. So let me just
Is it working? >> Uh we have designed There we go. Uh we have designed the site uh to um to meet industry standards for slopes. Um the slope of the driveway is
approximately uh 5% um grade change which um is pretty standard for most commercial developments. >> So no risk to slide into Route 22 by
accident. Okay. can't say that there's no risk like someone's car tires are bald, they can slide, but uh it's not it's not anything out of a site like this to be designed with slope of the driveway. >> And perhaps the owners would extra salt,
extra care. Keep that in mind. Okay. And the only other thing regarding his testimony has to do with the image on the screen. I love the green part, but there's some gray and parts that are closer to 22. Um, I guess that's considered
natural vegetation. Is that in any way obstructing view views or have you incorporated that into your planning purposes for the oncoming traffic on 22 there? Is there anything that can be done about that area or is that a risk or a hazard?
So, just for clarity sake, you're talking about the space between Route 22 and the property line as it's depicted on this drawing. >> 22 to the left, the gray brush, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> That I don't know that they own that,
but I mean, would that be considered something to consider? >> So, we have met with the DOT who who owns that uh piece of the frontage. Um we had a pre-application with um with them. Our traffic consultants here can
speak more to that. Um but uh we are required to provide uh line of sights um that allow for cars be able to uh enter the highway um without people uh breaking or slam on their brakes and so
on. So um that has been considered as part of his design though. >> Okay, that's all I have for him. The rest are for my traffic guy. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the board. My name is John Kaplan. I'm an attorney at Herald Law in Warren Township, New Jersey. Represent.
>> I'm sorry. Can I have your last name again, please? >> Kaplan, I'm sorry. K A P L. >> Mr. Kaplan, please continue. >> I just have a couple quick questions. >> Mr. Kaplan, who do you represent? >> Arthur Self Storage. >> I'm sorry again. >> Arthur Self Storage. >> Arthur. >> Yes.
What's their address? >> Um, it's in Branchburg. >> 3421, Route 22. >> Route 22. >> And that's Branchburg. Yes. >> Correct. >> I just want >> So, wait, I'm sorry. Hold on. Let me
just get that. So, you know, immediately standing comes to mind, right? So, >> um just for the sake of the board, you know, certainly any any uh property owner in Bridgewater would have
standing, but once you get outside of Bridgewater, you have to be, you know, an interested person under the ML. Um I don't know how you are. >> Excuse me. I don't know how you are like how how can you just tell me how you
think your client has standing to appear? >> Well, not at this point they're not in the township of Bridgewater. They're on the border of Bridgewater and Branchburg. >> Mhm. >> Uh and I believe they do have an interest in this beyond just merely owning self storage. They do have an
interest in what goes on along Route 22 in the area. I think they have standing. I don't know if Mr. Kusi has a objection to a few questions. If you're a competitor, you don't have standing just for that, right? So, >> you know, you have to have some some
sort of uh interest, some property, right? You know, something that is associated to the property that impacts your client, right? >> They're within a few miles. >> Yeah, Mr. Certainly, it's the
applicant's position that this particular commercial business owner engaged in the business of self storage does not have standing to participate as an interested party. Their site is three miles down the road in another municipality
and beyond being a business competitor, they have no interests that are different than the general public on this application. So, I don't I'd like to like to hear Mr. Kaplan gives some specifics on why he thinks his client's right to use and enjoy property would somehow be impacted by this application
in a way other than economic. Certainly any traffic and any storm water along Route 22 can be an issue. There can be a number of other issues outside of mere competition to grant standing. And
as a business owner on the Route 22 corridor within the area, self storage or not, I believe they have an interest in this application. And just ask a few questions. is any property owner, any from the public, whether they're in Bridgewater or not, if they
have an interest in this Route 22 corridor within these three miles, whether it's safety, traffic, storm water, anything of like that, they're in the general vicinity, and they just have standing to ask a few questions. >> Yeah, I'm not convinced they have
standing, but I think um for purposes of just, you know, airing on the side of caution, Matt, I'm going to let him proceed. Um, I I I'd appreciate if the board would at least understand a little bit M Mr. Kaplan's client's operations
and what's motivating them to be here this evening. Uh, I I think the applicant's entitled to understand what kind of facility they're operating, how many units they have, what their vacancy rate is, if any. I understand
that they provide outdoor storage, which this applicant doesn't. there there are things that are occurring at the Arthur cell storage that are not proposed by this particular applicant. So certainly don't want to chew up a lot of time on the proceedings relative to what's
happening in Arthur cell storage. But I think it's important for the record uh for Mr. Kaplan to expound a little further on Arthur's business and and why he believes it would be impacted by this application.
concerns of traffic and storm water are not particular to Arthur's storage or affecting the general public. We've heard and rightfully so um paid particular attention to the residents of Bridgewater because they for example can
look upon the site from a residential standpoint being uh on the southerntherly side of Route 28. So certainly respect that position. This is something much different. I'm not convinced he has standing, but um it sounds like he does pass the site
regularly. He's within three miles on the same road, right? >> Correct. >> Yeah. Is he in what direction? >> In Branchburg. >> All right. So, >> I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said. >> He's in Branchburg. >> In Branchburg. So, you're west of the site, >> correct? >> By approximately how many miles?
>> Three miles. >> Three miles. Continue, Richard. I'm sorry. >> Right. So, I just to I want to move this along a little bit. I I look I would say um the the question of whether they have standing. I'm going to just put that
aside for now. I'd like them to proceed. Um I just want this to move a little quicker here. >> No, no issue with the board continuing over my objection. Understood. >> Right. All right. Go ahead. I just
wanted to clarify two things. The evergreen trees was the testimony that they were going to grow seven to eight feet in three years. Did we hear that current correctly? >> Uh, no. I said they're installed at 8 ft. >> I'm sorry. >> Installed install height will be 8 feet.
>> And how how many inches will they grow a year >> approximately? >> They have a moderate growth rate. They can grow a foot and a half to two feet. And a quick question about the ratio of deciduous to evergreen. I know you're
not getting into planning testimony and a planner. Is there an engineering reason why you cannot meet the 75%. When discussing with the the residents and the prior hearings, the idea was to uh maintain some of the existing trees
which are mature trees. So to meet that, we would have to disturb their roots, which would likely kill a lot of the uh mature trees on site, causing more disturbance. >> Are there any other members of the public wishing to address Mr. Ksman's
testimony? And please state your name and address. Sure. Good evening board members. My name is Inder Pri Banga. I live at 376 State Route 28, Bridgewwater, New Jersey. Uh, right.
It's I N D E R P R E T. Last name is Banga. B A N GA. Um I'm just here to question the engineering testimony uh regarding the proposed D1 variance. Um as you know our neighborhood is
defined by its natural topography and residential character, both of which are threatened by this application. So I I I do represent Bridgewwater Residents United which is a constituency of over 150 members in the Bogart
community. Uh and therefore I will be asking several different questions on behalf of my constituents. I know typically it's a few questions. >> That's okay. And you represent this group as part of sort of a membership group that you formed >> in Bridgewater, >> but it's not a legal entity, nor are you
acting in the capacity of an attorney. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. membership based uh on the community. >> I would ask Mr. Chairman that Mr. Bang supply the board with a list of people within the group so we avoid duplication. >> It's a fair request
>> and they can long as they're relevant as as many as wishes to ask just to avoid someone else asking the same question. I would like a list of the people that are part of this group. >> Would you be willing to provide that list? Uh, I'd have to check with the membership to make sure that they're
okay with that, but based on who's here today, uh, I don't think that that's going to be an issue. Mr. Kusi, >> very good. >> So, uh, I'm going to reference alternate landscape plan L101, revision 4. Mr.
Ksman, the re the revised landscape plan is labeled for exhibit purposes only. Can you testify to the exact number of mature trees removed from the existing wooded buffer between this three-story building and the residence on Bogart Drive in Kaiser Lane?
The exact number of mature trees. >> I I have to count them, so just bear with me. >> Take your time. within the 75 foot buffer. It's approximately 39 trees. >> 39 trees >> will be removed. >> Those are regulated trees.
>> Yes. >> Okay. And the plan proposes 2.5 in caliper replacement trees. I believe you had mentioned since the building is roughly 35 uh to 40 feet tall, correct? How many years will it take to replace
uh till it take the 2.5 in tree um to be 100% visual screening of the building's upper floors by my neighbors? 100%. The answer is never. You can say that. >> It's tough. It's tough to really answer that question. Every tree is different.
It's not guaranteed to grow a certain height. Um, >> just answer the question, will it 100% visual screening? >> Well, >> neighbors coming from Boar. >> There's no obligation to do that. >> Yeah. And >> I can't say yes because I'm sure if you
move over a foot in one direction, you might see it at an angle. I >> It's not a Mr. Chairman. We're striving to be as uh as generous as possible with the landscaping given the areas we have to work with.
>> I'm just giving the board consideration for the negative criteria which is the damage the product is uh this project will do to the neighborhood and the zoning plan. So >> I would all right this I'm giving my questions. Don't worry. I was going to say if you
pose your questions to Mr. Ksman and then just because we have an answer that may be unsatisfactory to you doesn't mean that he can't continue with his testimony. So let's have some civil dialogue between the parties and ask
questions because to achieve 100% visual screening is not an obligation that they have. Your point is well taken but let's continue. >> Sure. Okay. Let's talk about steep slopes. So, steep slope plan C304
and detail sheet C904. Sheet C904 requires backfill to be compacted to 98% maximum density. I believe you were calling out some of the back fill. Uh given that this site contains significant steep slopes, which specific vibration monitoring will be in
place to ensure that the heavy machinery required to achieve this comp compaction will not cause structural settling or foundation cracks in the surrounding homes. >> There there's not deep compaction
proposed u for the site. Um 98% uh compaction is typical for most construction or 95% uh compaction. Um I don't anticipate any issues especially since it's across Route 28. Um and our
disturbance has a 75 foot buffer from a route 28 site as well. Um I don't I don't see why that would be needed for this type of project. >> I believe there is a home to the east of this uh facility. Sure. >> So you don't anticipate that that would
impact >> no >> that home? Okay. In revision one from November 13th, 2024, a 6-in K5 sand layer was added to the basin.
Does this addition indicate that the native soil on site was found to be insufficient for proper drainage? >> Uh no. Uh what this is an infiltration basin so it's reg um the requirements regulated by the state NJP as part of
that sand layer is required so we're we're proposing K5 sand uh for that basin >> and if the sand layer uh fails or clogs where does the overflow go into the residential properties or towards Route 22? >> It would there's an emergency spillway proposed on the northwest corner of the
basin. >> Can you point that out for the board please? >> Sure. and it would spill into um where it's going today. There's a a stream um along the the western corner
of the property. Um so it would maintain existing drainage characteristics. As far as maintenance, uh as you heard previously, um we're going to be agreeing to supplying an O andM manual for annual maintenance.
>> Okay. Thank you. So, demolition plan C201 requires um I think there was a note of a monitoring well on site. Can you clarify for the board what that mel was want uh what that well was monitoring.
Was there previous contamination on the site or a no further action letter issued by the D? Can >> you point out where the well is on the the demolition plan? >> I I can't I can't I don't know where it
was. I'm just referring back to the document >> to my understanding. I mean, we did supply an EIS, environmental impact statement. Um there was nothing that was found. Uh this property has been for sale for or vacant for many years. It
could have been used for due diligence for a potential buyer at some point to understand uh what the soil conditions and the the water is on site. >> So you don't know what the monitoring well was used for? >> I Mr. I believe the monitoring well was
decommissioned. It may just be residual on the plan as part of the applicant's due diligence. groundwater samples and soil samples were taken in isolated locations that did not show any hot spots. >> So you said EIS, but you had a phase one done.
>> Not through his office, but yes. >> Okay. And did the phase one show any areas of concern? >> No. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh you said traffic and operation traffic, you're going to have a traffic engineer coming later. >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. So I'll hold on that one. Well, I don't know if this is maybe more for you or the traffic, but turn radius analysis for a WB62 large moving truck entering from Route 22. Can you testify to if that study was done? >> Is that for your traffic guy?
>> We did prepare a fire truck turning radius sheet seat 302 and an SU30 box truck seat 303. Um, a large tractor trailer. They don't just show up to these facilities. We've done I've done many self-s storage facilities just like
this. Um people don't just show up with a huge tractor trailer um without renting a unit first, right? You don't just show up and say, "All right, I'm going to deliver all my uh inventory here or you know, personal belongings." Um so that's
>> just cut in on there. So Matt, I I in my list of conditions when I went through my notes, we had some discussion at one of the prior hearings that there would be no tractor trailers on site. Is that the case? >> Yes, that's right. >> Okay. So there'll be a condition that
there'll be no tractor trailers >> and there will be a sign somewhere on the facility that does >> No. >> Then how will you be able to monitor that? And >> when they say tractor trailer is coming, they'll be turned away. Okay, thank you.
Okay, Mr. Ksman, uh, as an engineer, you are tasked with fitting a use into a space. Is there any technical reason why a 5.4 acre site cannot be developed into a permitted C3 use that would not require a D1 use variance and would require uh would provide more value to the
Bridgewater tax base than a passive storage facility? >> Mr. I'm going to defer that question to my planner. Yeah, it's a planning question. >> Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Members of the public wishing to
question Mr. Ksman. Seeing none, let's close that portion. And Mr. Kapzy. >> Mr. Chairman, you mind if we just take a quick two-minute recess, >> please? >> I appreciate it. >> Do you want a formal recess or you just want a little >> Well, let's make it a little longer than
that. And we're going to recess for let's call it 7 minutes. How's that? >> Wait long enough the clock will be accurate. I >> looked up and I said it can't possibly and Nancy, would you um do a roll call,
please? >> Chairman Kulak, >> here. >> Mr. Widley, >> here. >> Mrs. Amin >> here. >> Mr. Franco, >> here. >> Mr. Fresco, >> here. >> Miss Wisman >> here. >> Mr. Vesio >> here, >> Mr. Kawuchcci
>> here, >> Mr. Mcnella >> here, >> and all of our court professionals are still here. >> Very well, Mr. Kabzy. >> Appreciate the courtesy, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >> Uh, next witness is William McGver, our architect. >> And William, would you spell your last
name? >> Last name is spelled McGver. M Capital G E V as in Victor. E R. >> And would you stand and raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> William, can you remind the board of your qualifications, please? >> Sure. So, I work for Frank Ralph Architect, who has been designing self storage for over 35 years. Uh, I graduated RPI in 2015 with a bachelor of architecture. Uh, received my lensure in
architecture in 2021. My license in New Jersey is a good standing as well as all the other states that I'm licensed in. Thank you, Mr. McEver. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. McGiver, the plan set that we're going to discuss this evening, could you just tell us the last revision date on that set?
>> The last revision date is December 15, 2025. >> For some reason, we're not picking you up on these. >> Yes, I see that. Let me see what I can figure out my settings. See them. We can see if we can get you some
technical assistance if necessary. But Mr. Kman, you were connected, were you not? >> Yes. >> So, we have two issues. One is a microphone issue that we would like you to speak into. >> Understood. >> And the second is whether we can get you connected or not.
>> Yes. Um Matt's laptop has all but one of the PDFs that I was looking to p uh present tonight. >> You're up. >> Oh, I'm up. >> Okay. Thank you forever assisted.
>> I'm sorry. So, the date of the plan set you're going to discuss this evening? >> Date of the plan set is issue number three, October 15, 2025. >> Thank you. And how many sheets does that consist of? This consists of three floor plans, an elevation, and two pages due
to site sections. >> Thank you. As far as the big takeaway from July to today, can you give us a summary of some of the significant changes that you made overall and take us through the amended plan set? >> Sure. to give a quick synopsis of a previous uh submission. Uh originally
the application was three stories of a self-s storage facility uh which had a building height of about 36 and a half ft. I want to make clear that the building height versus the average grade height of the zoning are two different um calculations. Um the original square
footage of the building was 120,570 square ft of type 2B construction, not fire resistant. uh the facade materials there which were planned to be insulated metal panels with splitface CMU block. After receiving feedback from the board
and the neighbors, we made revisions to the building size, elevations, and appearances. The new building, as you can see on the planet on there, has been cut back on the ground level. As Matt testified to, we did change also the elevation at which the building begins.
So, we were able to drop the building about 10 ft. We cut roughly about 14 15,000 square feet out of the gross square footage of the building. Each floor to floor is still 10 foot six from top of floor to top of floor. Uh now because we are built into the grade,
there are three stories exposed on the west side of the building and two stories exposed on the east. Although the max height is permitted at 45 ft, we are clearly below that on both the average main grade calculation and building height for zoning as well as the exposed height of the building. The
>> so the the resulting square footage after you adjusted your your plan is >> the resulting square footage is 106,650 square feet. >> Thank you. >> So taking you through the floor plans that I have up on the screen here.
You'll see that we took out a good portion of the east side of the ground floor. All this level has all the amenities for the office, the interior loading, break room, restrooms, janitors, closet. Uh, this building will
be served by two egress stairs as well as two elevators. This floor plan, you'll see elevator A on the westand side here by the drive-in loading area. Elevator B is on the east side, but not going to access this floor as there is
no accessible usable square footage on this level. As I go up one floor, you'll see elevator B here towards the eastsoutheast corner area as well as in this area. Sorry,
get off the screen. There we go. Uh we have the incoming utilities. So the loading area is a double height space. This is why you see it boxed out here as open to below because these >> I'm sorry. And as you zoom in, if you
would just hold it for like a little second or two longer because >> kind of moving a little too quickly for our eyes to adjust. >> Understood, sir. Thank you. >> So the double light loading space is shown as blocked out on this area is open to
below. Otherwise, the entire floor plan is interior self storage units. Between the original application and this one, we have removed all exterior doors for exterior access storage units. Everything is interior. On the ground
floor, there is access on the west side, as Matt had stated. On the first floor here, you'll see that there is access on the east side, which corresponds to the parking that is also on the east of the site. The third floor is more self- storage
units. Again, a this one is accessed by both elevators and the two egress stairs. William with the floor plan for a moment. The Can you just tell us your your typical ceiling height in a unit? >> So, each unit is usually capped at 8
foot. There's either burglar bars or wire mesh over the top to prevent a max to give a maximum ceiling height for the tenant. >> Given the shallowess of the ceiling height, we wouldn't be using a forklift here. Is that correct? >> No. >> As far as the loading area is concerned,
can we go back to that briefly given the depth of that space? Also taking into consideration the location of the ballards, could you fit a tractor trailer in that area? >> No. What what's the tip? What's the largest vehicle that could be accommodated there? >> As you can see, the ballards are shown
off on the west side of loading area. They're roughly 5 feet off. So, we have 35 ft between the ballards and the front of the loading area to the doors. 30 feet is probably the maximum length you could have in order to have access behind the vehicle to unload it.
>> Thank you, William. So, in your prior iteration or drawing, you had as part of your design, what we were referring to, I think, as exterior roll up doors, and they've all been eliminated. >> Yes. >> And the exterior doors which exist today
are simply those to provide access to the interior units as you were describing in your loading area. >> Yes. The only other exterior doors would be either to get into the building for the sliding doors, the egress doors, or the office. >> Very well. Thank you. Thank you, >> William. As far as our unit count under
the modified condition, and I don't know if you recall what we were previously proposing with the roll-ups versus what we have now, if you could just give us that breakout. >> Previously, we had over 800 storage units, roughly 835. Our proposed count currently is 774
units, all interior. >> Thank you, sir. The biggest change we had on this was from the exterior elevations. Uh the materials, as I had stated before, were originally planned as insulated metal panel and CMU block. Uh we have revised
that. And I'm going to zoom in on the west elevation in order to work more with the earth tones of that's going to be fit into this neighborhood. The adjacent properties are also earth tones, but we also work to give it more of a business office building appearance, which is an
approved use in this zone. You'll see on the elevations, as Mr. Chairman mentioned, the overhead doors leading into the loading area, you know, roughly 60% opaque blocked with uh only a few pieces of glass, but above the head, the headlight height of a truck in order for
someone to see that that is occupied or not, so we don't have a jam up at the loading area. But all of the windows you'll see that are sitting up high are faux. There's no light coming out of them. They are simply there as an accent on the
building to give that office appearance. Over the office here on the left hand side of the west elevation, we do have the glazing of the office as well as glazing above which is typical display. Nobody walks in this area. It is simply showing a visual of a storage door which
is not usable. It is fixed in order to provide some marketing and advertisement as someone drives by. Looking along the south elevation which which faces the residence again it's a few you know good number of display not
display excuse me faux windows. No light penetrates out of these. They do not have any sort of visibility into or out of the building. Neutral tones within the earth family in order to blend in and to stay fixed to what the
environment is. And we have made up of eaves again an office m office building material and brick. We do play with the depth a little bit along Route 22 on the north elevation here where we do have a little step and play just to give some uh accent to the
building. But again, more of the faux windows. If we look at this frontage right near the office, you'll see that there are gray shown windows which are the faux windows and we have blue here which are the clear glass to show the display units and the lower one would be
the office. As I move to the site sections, are there any questions on the elevations? >> You can move to the section cross-section, please. >> Got it. So, this is a quick section that was previously presented to the board just identifying and showing that grade
change that Matt spoke about. We have roughly about 10 foot 10 foot six of a grade change between the east side and west side. And you can just see how we've also cut out the section of the ground floor that works with the existing grading.
So we all we also produced give a second to load here a key plan over the landscape plan of the different render views that were produced which I will get into next. So each of these views were taken and based on the landscape plan working with Bowler's landscape
team, their site visits and their observations on site, we work together to produce the renders which you're about to present to you. >> How many renderings are we going to discuss? >> I have eight renders here. >> So Mr. Aller, these will all be marked as exhibits and if we can mark them as
we go through them if that's okay. >> Yeah, we'll mark them as you go one at a time. >> Okay, >> I'm up to 10. Right. A10 is the first one. >> A10 will be the first. So, this is an updated render along Route 22 at the entrance. As you can
see, we do ramp up to the site, but we have a relatively office appearance on the building. We have a number of new plantings along that frontage as well with some existing trees to remain. >> This is illustrating existing and proposed vegetation,
>> correct? And the proposed vegetation, the planting height is as depicted on day one. >> Day one. >> Thank you. That would carry over for the other renderings as well. >> That will apply to all renderings in this uh set. >> Thank you. >> All right.
Render number two is traveling westbound on Route 22. >> So when you say two, it's A1. >> A1. You would like me to refer to it that way? >> Yes. >> Okay. So A1, render number two. The building is located behind these dense trees. taken as you're traveling west on
route 22. Building is barely visible and maybe even the access aisle would be visible from this side although there is no access. >> So from this vantage point am I east of the building approaching the building as I west? >> Correct. If I can bounce back to the render key plan I can show you where
roughly you can see it up in here at the top of the title block. >> We were off we were way off the site as we are approaching it. I'm not Do you have a >> I don't see it either. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. >> Rendered spot number two. >> Okay.
>> Are you showing that that >> I have a little dot on my screen, so I'm sorry you didn't see that. >> That pink triangle there. >> Yes. Yes. >> The circle is the location of the standing and the triangle is showing the viewshed. >> Very well. Thank you. >> No problem. Going back to the renders
812. Render number three is traveling east on Route 28. Again, a combination of existing and proposed vegetation. We're roughly about 100 uh 200 to 300 ft off of the intersection of Bogart Drive and
Route 28. A13 render number four is showing the Bogart Drive intersection. Same situation, existing and proposed landscaping. We do, as you see here, zooming in, a proposed fence perh around the perimeter
of the property which will hide the headlights of any vehicles coming onto or off of the site. And that fence does, I believe, carry through the entire southern uh line of the property and the drive aisle, excuse me.
We did show that here in a uh A14 render five as a winter view. Same view. Lost the foliage on the trees, added snow. Could be what happened last this week. A15 render number six is we're traveling west on Route 28. We are further down
the road. Um, but if you look off into the side here, you will see the beginnings of the the EMS or emergency access aisle. We will zoom in on that on the next one. again, I'm sorry, a winter view here, which is a 16 render number seven. Same
location in a winter view. And then showing that access and for fire and first responders uh along Route 28, it is gated off as Matt said, it'll be gated off at the property line, which is not at the street, but actually on the property line just inside, as well as
will be um fenced off along the property, the fencing at the drive aisle. But again, uh, existing and proposed landscapes shown on day one. >> I'm sorry, Millian. That's A17. That's number eight. >> Yes. I apologize. Yes. A17.
>> Thank you, Mr. McGiver. I don't have any further questions for him, Mr. Chairman. >> Are there any board members who have questions about the architect's testimony? Mr. McGver? Anybody? >> Um, yeah, Mr. Chairman, I I just uh what I want to bring up again is uh doing that cross cut from Bogart all the way
down. Um you've got um a 3 foot six parapit and a 5 foot parapit uh which are a variance from our codes. Three you've got 3 foot six rather and 3T is a maximum uh parapit permitted. >> We would definitely comply with the
maximum. If it's three foot it'll be 3 foot. >> Yeah. So so that was going to be again trying to lower the building especially for the residents. Um I'm assuming that all your drainage is interior. >> Yes. >> And um you'd mentioned HVAC equipment 10 ft away from the edge of the building, but that's OSHA.
>> Absolutely. >> So you could move that further in so it won't be visible. So you could probably lower that main portion down to zero. >> Just a straight edge and then pop up 3 feet for your for your corner details.
So right now you've got a separation of 3'6. If you reduce that to three feet and then the main body drops down to a flat parapit edge. >> Yes, we would have a tapered insulation roof on this that we
would need to account for. Um >> you're not you can't slope steel because you don't have the ceiling height for sloping steel. If I slope the steel, then it might make the HVAC equipment more visible because the center of the roof would be higher.
So, in trying to keep the HVAC equipment as >> you have to take a look at, you've got a 5ft parapit, you drop that down to three feet, you're going to have to drop this down to like a just a 1 foot6 parap pit. Then
>> again, we're going to we can definitely drop the power pit down. I typically like to keep a power pet from a waterproofing perspective. >> Um, but definitely it could be reduced a little bit. >> Okay. >> I I think you've done a good job of making it look like an office building. >> Thank you. >> I I I like the fact that you respected
the request to make it warm. >> Um, so it's I like that consistency. Um, my only other question is um your your elevations appear to have wall packs. >> Yes, wall packs on the building with a downward facing light. >> Okay. is I thought we had perimeter
lighting light lighting poles. Do we still need the wall packs? >> I would have to coordinate and confirm with Bowler on that. Uh previous application had wall packs and that's typical with self storage, but I would coordinate with them and make sure it's all
>> and that will go back to my question of having the lights go off after 10:00. Um the other question I was going to bring up was uh which I read in the report was 3,000 Kelvin for the lights. I see no issue complying with that. >> Okay.
All right. That's uh Oh, uh the faux windows spandro glass. So >> uh no, they're typically an ACM panel with aluminum as the frame. >> Okay. So it won't no light will permeate. >> Absolutely not. No light through.
>> That's that's only concern. So at night there won't be any lights to >> Absolutely not. The whole eaves would be continuous and then they would apply on the faux window over the eve system. Okay. All right. All right. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple questions, comments.
>> So, um, you know, I want to just go back to some of the, uh, the renderings if we will. I want to, um, if you can, and and I, I want to, um, I want to thank you for, for providing these, our former colleague, uh, Don Sweeney, was a big
fan and a big proponent of these types of of renderings. Um, and uh, so as a tribute to him, I I want to thank you for for providing them. And I especially like the fact that you were able to do winter renderings. Um, so can you just
just run through the 28 Route 28? I would just want to make sure the residents I want to make sure that um, our resident who is here on behalf of so many other residents gets photographs of the Route 28 ones, especially the ones with the uh, the winter view.
>> Okay. I'm going to go back. >> Yeah, if you don't mind, just real quick, I just want to make sure anybody has an opportunity from the public to see these again. >> You want me to flip through for them to take photos? >> Yeah, just showing. Yeah. And I want to see that one again. The winter one from Route 28. >> Right. That one there. So, this I I
think this is it's amazing. So, these these trees that we're seeing here, are these existing or are these new plantings? These particular the ones right in the front? >> I'm not 100% sure on that. I believe that they are existing because this should be off of our site.
>> Great. Okay. >> But I would defer back to Bowler who assisted with the landscape plan. >> Great. All right. If you could just jump through them again again. So, right, that's heading. Okay. Great. >> Excellent. Okay. Great. And I also um I
echo um my uh my colleagues uh comment about the the color. I think I think you did a a much better job. You guys took a lot of heat for the for the blue prior hearing. So, I think I think you did a nice job. Thank you. >> That's all I have.
>> Mr. Chairman, will we will we get these emailed to us? >> These renderings, >> can you Why not? >> If they're supplied prior to the hearing, then they are added to the material on the website and we distribute them. >> Okay. >> These were not given to us prior to. So,
>> but you will give them to us. >> Certainly. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Also, sir, we I had an opportunity. I looked at I brought the Chimney Rock resolution with me. Um, and just only because I'd like to resolve that issue with cooperation with the board. The the
Chimney Rock was talking about building lights along the Norley and Wesley, which I think were the wall packs, not sight lighting per se as far as parking lot lighting. and then lights within the actual corridors of the building where they you could see into the building.
Um, and again, I don't want to die on the vine here, die on the on this particular issue, but so certainly we can bring the site lighting down to a reasonable level, 50% and then no >> kick they kick on with motion. It it
would be on consistent at a 50% power level and then certainly no issue with the board maintaining jurisdiction for a period of six months to a year to review the site lighting as it's dimmed down condition. If and if it felt this adjustment was necessary, we would
certainly modify that. >> I think that's more than fair and if we can get feedback from the residents, I think that'd be great. Thank you. >> Certainly. I have a question with the uh your the Florida floor heights. Um, so this is a C3. Um, let's say if it's office,
um, your proposal has 10 foot6 Florida floor heights. You have a two-tory and a three-story area. If this were an office building, what would be like the typical Florida floor heights? >> For an office building, you would probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of I would say 12 to 13
feet. Uh typically you'd have eight to nine feet below the finished ceiling with uh plent above for steel duct work uh and different equipment inside of that. >> So overall we're saving about
2 feet of floor. >> Sounds about right. >> Okay. So bring the building down four or six feet overall in height >> compared to a typical office building. I would agree with that. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I had a quick I had a quick question on the um fence you were talking about. Is
that going to go all the way around the building or just on one side? >> I'm sorry. Repeat that again. >> The fence that you're going to put up to help get rid of the headlights onto the residence, is that going to be all around the building or just one side? >> The fence that is shown in the rendering, the brown solid fence is
primarily on the residential side. >> If I can jump back to that image, >> you can see it here. That one >> is along the residential side. I am not 100% sure. The fencing actually, excuse me. >> The fencing along the route 22 side
would be a state fencing. >> Okay. So, the brown fence is just over on the one area. >> Exactly. We wanted to make sure that we didn't have any headlights >> traver uh traveling into the residential across the way. >> Okay. I just wanted clarification. Thank you. >> Welcome.
>> Are there qu I'm sorry. >> The entirety of 28 So it encompasses the entire parking field and drive aisle, excuse me. >> And then the other fence will be >> that that same style fence is along the area approximate to the loading docks as
well as along the southerntherly property line. So it shields the drive aisle uh with that same style fence for that entire entire run of our southerntherly property line. >> Any other questions from our board members?
Let's go to our board professionals. Who wants to go first? >> I'll go first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I I I do agree with the board members that there are improvements to the architectural plans from the previous
iteration. Um largely the the color and material choice. So, I do appreciate um the resubmission including um some some different materials and colors. I will say that um I just had a
question. The the colors are showing up a little differently for me um on my own screen. So the natural white is appearing much lighter in on the on the television screens in the room than
it is it's a little peachier I'll say in on my screen and even in the in the printed versions of the plans it's almost like an off-white. So, I I'm not really sure what color that's showing up as, but um what I will say is that um regardless of of whatever it actually
is, um I think that in seeing the Can you go to any of the the um street view renderings to see it? That one's good. Yeah, that's that's a good one to have. So, the view from 22, I think that that color is
dominating the scheme a little bit. And and I say that because in the last iteration of looking at this building, a big part of the the interplay between the colors and the material and the size of the building was really that it looked massive. It looked like a warehouse. It
looked like it was missing a an element of scale. And that's the only comment I really have because I think it is a major improvement. But I think that if you bring up that warmer tone color and cut off because right now you have a lot of the same material, those big eaves panels and um they're kind of dominating
that front and you're even with the landscaping pulling up, you're missing that brick water table, you're missing that that warmer tone at the bottom. I think if you pull that up a little bit and I'm not trying to redesign this, I just think it will help with the scale and it'll make it look like a two-story building essentially um if you cut it
off. So, I think that that would be helpful and it's just a minor change. Um, that's my opinion. I'm looking at Mr. Franco, too, cuz he's our >> Yeah, I was just going to say, is it possible you can bring hard samples? >> Yes. >> Of the the drive it Yeah, >> we can submit those to the builder to see one up.
>> Yeah, I I agree. I think bringing that water table up, you know, it it it draws a better datim along this the size of side of the building. >> Yeah. And I think I think that corner um kind of lobby office area with the faux windows will still stand out will be a
good feature for the corner there. And it is a very like a column right now and it is showing a very distinct threetory but if you cut it off at the middle the rest of the building you'll it'll look like twotory. It'll really I think it will break up that mass and have more of that office building feel along 22 than
what what it currently looks like. If if you would >> if I could just ask for clarification. And you're talking and I'm going to zoom in here about this darker band of the eaves. >> Bringing that up. >> The van dyke color. >> Yes. Okay. So, you're looking me to bring that up. >> Yeah.
Right now, I think the the brick is the brick veneer is certainly getting lost because it's so low to the ground that you're not really going to get the benefit of that. But I do think that if if the eaves pro that color can be moved up at a minimum, that would be helpful.
>> I think we can make that change. Um, and then I just had a question. I can't remember which one it was. I think it was A14. I think it was the view on Route 28 where you'd shown the fence. You had highlighted that there
was a fence being put in >> this view. >> Yes. Can you just zoom in to the left side of the picture because um it's just one thing that stood out to me. Before the landscaping plan was um resubmitted and enhanced, there's always been this gap kind of
right there and it's actually the one of the bigger parts of the building. Um, and so if there's any way to fill in um some landscaping there, I think that would would do especially seasonally would do a huge service to actually blending in the building with um with
more of the landscaping. I know there is a drive aisle to the storm water basin. There seems like there's maybe >> there's definitely an access there from the storm water plan. Uh I would have to confer with Bowler about whether that's possible or if that's going to impede or be feasible with the slopes.
>> Okay. I think even even some some smaller trees or smaller shrubbery to fill in that kind of gap I think would would would be helpful. Um and then I do agree with the comment from Mr. Franco. There are portions of the building parapit that are even 5 1/2 ft. And so I don't
want to um I don't want to impede on the building design because the level changes at those corners do are helpful, but a variance would need to be sought and that's under the building height definition. Um it does restrict a parapit height to 3 feet. So um either
you can either seek the variance relief or amend the plans uh the the architectural drawings to to bring that down. We'll review that, Mr. and and let the board know. Typically, my experience has been that parapit limitation is if you're at the maximum building height, you can exceed that by another three
feet only for a parapit. And since we're so well below the maximum all height, I don't think there's a parapit limitation. Uh but regardless, to the extent we can reduce that and still have the building building function as intended, we'll certainly uh trim down the parap pit.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. I have nothing further. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Burr. Ju just a few. Mr. Chairman, >> so on on this William, on this rendering that we see on the screen right now, >> you had testified earlier about the faux
windows. >> Yes. >> And all of those exterior windows, correct, that we see on this this pictorial are faux, correct? With the exception of the far left side of the the building at the main entrance. Those are real windows, correct?
>> Yes. Uh to clarify, all of the windows that are split split strict strictly into quadrants are surface applied faux windows. No light penetration through it. >> The four pane, which I'm going to zoom in here in the corner, those are clear
glass display windows for driveby advertisement, but that's going to be all see-through to faux doors on the interior. >> And those real windows mirror onto the Route 22 corner as well. >> Yes. So, if I can jump to that uh that
render. >> Can you just call out the rendering we're on, please, for the record? >> Uh, so that would be what do we have? A A9 was the first render. >> The number of the rendering you had >> render one here. >> One I think was A10. >> A10. I apologize. The two at the corner
are true glazings with see-through glass. The faux applied windows are to the left in the eaves. We recess them in to give them the appearance of being kind of the same depth as these the storefront but although you know yet
it's a design style in order to give the appearance of a real glass but it is ACM panel aluminum. >> Okay. And um going back to the questions that Mr. Franco was asking about the lighting plan and the wall packs and the
fact that I think you're going to take a look at the lighting plan with Bowler and review that. But just as it stands today, are there wall packs proposed on the Route 28 side of the building or are they just around the 22 side in the rear
portion? >> There were a few towards the rear. We're required to provide a certain amount of lighting for egress and as we do have an egress door there, we do need to provide a certain level of foot candles on the path to get them towards the uh egress
of the site which would be along, you know, to route 22. >> Okay. But you're going to take a look, >> we will make sure we're coordinated, >> see how you can reduce the the foot handles. I think you're somewhere on the order of 2.6. You're going to see if you can >> The 2.6 Six, if I recall correctly from
Matt, was only at the property line of the access aisle up and nowhere else on the site. >> Only by the 22 drive. Okay. >> The the lights back here are strictly to provide the code required one foot candle for egress. >> And then you're going to have wall packs
over the exit doors, right? >> Yes. >> Uh last question, just one point of clarification on the overall unit count. I just want to make sure I understood. So your earlier testimony, I think you said 774
units are now being proposed. >> Correct. >> And when you were here in July, I think that number was testified at 755. >> And the original hearing, you were up over 800. >> Correct. >> So since you were last here, the the unit count, although the the building
footprint didn't change, did the number of units go up? There was a slight reorganization on the interior with removing all of the exterior doors. Okay. >> So that when we reorganized the hallway, we got a more efficient route and the
unit count may have gone up, but we divided a 10x10 into two 5x10s. We didn't change the gross square footage of the building. >> That's what I that was going to be my question. Okay. So the gross square footage stays the same. The footprint of the building stays the same. It's just
by virtue of removing some of the overhead doors, reorganizing things interior, you were able to maximize the number of units. >> Correct. Like I said, you know, interior might have changed the 10 x 15 to two five uh two 10 x 7 and a halfs. >> Understood. >> We just kind of cut the units up
slightly different. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Now, excuse me. We'll open the floor to the public who will have questions specific to Mr. McGiver's architectural testimony. Welcome. Please sign in with your name
and address and then tell us what that is, please. >> My name is Jim Brady. I live at 351 Route 28. You'll be seeing a little bit of me during this proceeding. I haven't been. Um, my question is, are the faux
windows you referenced, I know they said no light can come out of the building, but will they reflect light from the lighting on site? Does that reflect back into the Route 22 or the Route 28 neighborhoods?
>> No, they should not. The again, I will coordinate the lighting with Bowler. The wall packs shown on my elevations are below the midpoint of the faux windows and are all directed downward. The ACM panel that the material is made of has a
slight reflected. It's not like a mirror or a true piece of glass. It has generally a matte flat finish. It it would should not reflect anything beyond the property line. >> I see. So the only reflective surface are in the parapet windows where the
higher candle power you referenced exists at the entrance >> there. So I don't have actually I do have the site plan up here if you'll bear with me one second to be clear. This intersection here where this dotted
line crosses the the roadway is where that 2.6 foot candle occurs. >> Nowhere near the building. If you pull up the rendering that shows the the parapet windows, the large ones at the entrance. >> This one, >> right? Those are the are reflective surface though that we'll throw back
into the neighborhoods. >> They will throw back a little bit into the neighborhoods, but again, the light should travel through them for the most part. >> Okay. Um the winter rendering you showed from the Route 28 side, >> does that
>> reflect the reduced 51% evergreen coverage or is that this the proposed 75% evergreen coverage? >> These renderings uh are coordinated with the current landscape plan
>> which is 51% coverage of evergreen. >> I would defer to Bowler on that calculation. >> I'm sorry. I know I'm going back a little bit. Okay. Um >> I didn't step up in time to ask a question of the previous gentleman. Would it be okay if I asked a question related to the previous testimony?
>> Let me pose that to council. Are you okay with that? >> Okay. I'm not an arborist. I know he's not either. But those like that rendering looks nothing like what exists there now. And
those deciduous trees would take at least 10 years to grow to that height. So I think the rationale of the testimony from reducing from 75% evergreen coverage to 51% evergreen coverage was that oh we might disturb
some mature trees along that row. Well, in practice that area is what they call decadent. It's very unhealthy. There are some large mature trees, but the majority of them, and they can be classified as
mature trees, but they're only 10 to 12 feet high. So, and an arborist made the right uh classification and put the pink ribbon on it, but to say you can't disturb that area and put in evergreens
that will give you year round coverage because you might disturb some mature trees. you're you're disturbing matures trees that don't throw any coverage from the neighborhood to the building. And I know this kind of a statement and
not a question, but without that evergreen coverage, those deciduous trees, as we can see, only offer coverage for seven months out of the year, and the other five months, you can see right through them. So
>> So is there is there a question in there for us? I'm I don't want to interrupt what you say. I'm just curious as to where we're going with your question. Are you asking will there be more evergreens planted or well wouldn't it be prudent if the goal to is is to
achieve blockage to disturb some of the lesser mature trees and achieve that 75% evergreen coverage? I mean is that something that could be could be done? >> Mr. timing and we're not trying to achieve blockage, >> right?
>> The set back to 28 is conforming. The building height's conforming. It's it's well below. So, we're trying to be neighborly is is really the objective and to be responsive in a practical fashion. And I and I think we've done that. >> I think there's there there's a balance
that they're seeking to strike between keeping some mature trees that are healthy, >> Sure. despite the fact that they're deciduous because they exist and it makes sense to keep them because they're of a higher at a higher level in growth. And while they
may not give you the winter coverage that perhaps an evergreen might, I think the applicant is trying to strike a balance here. So, please correct me if I'm wrong or if you think that that would be reflective of your position. >> Agreed, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay.
>> Yes, sir. on the property. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> I say maybe we should reference the winter rendering that shows from >> Well, they do have one show. Yeah. >> Right. So that
>> Right. That rendering doesn't show too much coverage up next to the building. And although it's not a question, I just urge the board members to just drive by and look at that section of woods where they're showing existing trees because
it really doesn't look like that. Um, I do have one last question. Does the reduction in imperous surface due to the change in the driveway configuration, does that mean that the retention pond now has to have less
square footage? Sure. Matt Huntsman. Um that that is correct. It it it would be less because it's less disturbance. Uh but we are still still meeting all you know the state requirements and the local requirements for uh groundwater
recharge, water quality and quantity as well. >> Okay. But that retention pond square footage could be reduced as a result of the driveway change without violating any standards. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Just want to get that on the record. Um that's it for now. Great. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Any other members of the public who would like to question Mr. McGver with respect to his architectural testimony?
Even though you're returning to the podium, please announce yourself and your address. We have you signed in >> already. Yes, I did sign in. Indepanga 376 State Route 28, Bridgewater, New Jersey. Uh, so just want to remind just for
clarity sake, you're speaking on behalf of a larger group this time or yourself? >> Myself. >> Okay. Thank you. I just do want to remind the board as we do have new members that a D1 variance requires the applicant to prove the project won't cause substantial
detriment to the public good. >> So we are going to be hearing from their planner at some point in the future. I'm not certain how that applies to the questions that you have for the architect. >> I'll get there. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Mr. Uh, McGrevy >> McGver >> McGver, thank you. Uh, can you confirm the maximum height of the building's parapit from the lowest grade given the steep slopes of the site with the uh, perceived height from the backyards of Bogart Drive and Kaiser
Lane actually exceed 40? >> You're asking me to speak to the grades of the neighboring properties, >> correct? >> No, I cannot. >> Okay. noted for the uh >> the board. Uh your plans show an
unbroken horizontal wall stretching hundreds of feet. Um have you considered incorporating building stepbacks for the second and third stories to reduce the ver uh visual height of the structure?
>> No. The plan set that we have in front of the board is what we're asking them to consider. >> All right. Have you performed a shadow study? >> No. >> Right. Of course. >> Uh, do you know the sunrise of Bridgewater building?
>> No. >> Okay. Have you driven past this uh area? >> I have driven past the site before. >> Are you I'm sorry. >> I have driven past the site before. >> Okay. And do you have you recognized any of the uh facilities that are adjacent?
As far as which facility? >> The Sunrise Bridgewater facility that's right next door to this facility. >> I did not notice it on my drive. I did notice it from a Google Earth view. >> Which way did you drive if I may ask? >> I drove westbound on 22.
>> Westbound going towards Branchburg. >> I'm not from the area. I do not know which way Branchburg is. >> Okay. Uh >> Branchburg is west of the site that >> was the site on your >> I left on your left. So, you didn't turn around and go back the other way.
>> No. >> Interesting. >> Well, our neighbor at 390 US22 Sunrise utilizes pitched roof lines, gables, and residential siding to blend into the Bridgewater landscape. What does your
why does your design for this site utilize a flat roof industrial box style instead of the residential scale architecture already established next door? >> Our site is in a commercial zone which allows an office building. So, we designed for that aesthetic.
>> We're not. >> You're pretty close. Pretty close. You're within a mile. Actually, >> next door. We're not next. >> Okay. So, while Sunrise is a large facility, but it does use architectural breaking
to look like several small buildings, your north elevation is a single massive surface. Is there any technical reason why this facility couldn't be redesigned to match the tone neutral residential aesthetic of Sunrise? >> Sunrise is intended to be a residential
appearance. We're a commercial zone. We designed for commercial aesthetic. Okay, looking at the material schedule A-200.00, you specified bare metal and specified panel colors,
what is the LRV of these colors? >> I believe you're referring to an old elevation. We have no assumed uh enslaved metal panel on this proposed design. >> I thought you were talking about bare metal previously. I was stating that that was on the previous application. The current application has EFS and
brick. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh I'm curious. I mean um you know I understand that you were able to adjust the color palette slightly with the uh what was it? The white
>> natural white in Van Djk. natural white, which still sticks out like a sore thumb. Uh, you know, especially given the size of this building. Does the proposed color scheme prioritize receding into the landscape or maximizing visibility for customers
driving on Route 22? >> Neither was considered. It was entitled to be earth tone. >> I'm sorry. >> The desire was for it to be earth tone in color. >> So, you consider what was it again? off-white to be earth tone.
>> Natural white and van dyke. >> Natural white and uh van dyke to be earth tone. >> Can I ask my uh board professionals is say that again. >> Uh van van >> van dyke >> and >> natural white. >> Natural white considered to be earth
tones. >> So the van dyke color does look like an earth tone. The natural white as I mentioned is showing up differently. I think Mr. Franco's request for a actual sample will help verify what it looks
like in person, but on my laptop it looks it looks it has brown tints to it. It doesn't look it looks white on the screen over here. So that's my issue right now is figuring out what the actual color looks like because the rendering does look much different on
the screen here in this room right now where it looks very white which is much more stark against the landscaping is less of an earth tone obviously is colder. >> Um and uh so I think what I would recommend maybe is in addition to the
products to making sure to having the product sample is to actually um hone in on what that color is. Um it would be really helpful because um like I said the renderings look different. They are going to be uh amending the plans. It sounds like they're agreeing to revise them and so I would hope that when they
do that that there's some clarification. >> In general practice is off-white considered a earth tone. >> Considered an earth tone. Mr. McGver, sorry if I mispronounced your name, has mentioned this multiple times that it's considerable an earth tone and I'm
questioning the validity of that statement. Mr. Chairman, if I may, having the public questions professionals is a little unorthodox. Certainly >> it is. And I think we should just put that whole issue aside until we have the
samples and then we can see what colors we're talking. >> Okay, fair enough. All right. So, um, where is the light, uh, security lighting mounted again? >> Where is it mounted?
>> Security lighting. >> I am showing it on the building. >> On the building. And um I assume that the uh the um the coverings uh prevent light spillover from glowing at the top of the tree
line. >> Correct. They are directed downward for the light illumination. >> Thank you. And then looking at the ground floor plan, the loading area is partially exposed. Is that correct? >> On the west elevation. Yes,
>> the loading area. Yeah. So, um the sound transmission class rating of the building exterior skin, is it sufficient to contain the clanging of the metal rollup doors and the echoing of the truck engines? I have not performed an
STC rating calculation on this, but it should be sufficient. Once the vehicle goes inside, it is to shut off as well. >> Will the doors be closed as well? >> Yes. >> All right. I have no further questions. Thanks. >> Thank you very much. Any other members
of the public wishing to question Mr. McGiver on his architectural testimony? And even though you signed in, please remind us of your name and your address. >> Sure. >> I'm Carolyn Joya still 1402 Paley Court. Just a clarification. McGrever >> McGver
>> Sorry. No problem. >> Did you say that the properties were both commercial? You mentioned it was commercial. >> The the property is a commercial zone. >> Okay. Um I'm not sure. Can I get clarification? I'm looking at lot one as a residential property and lot two is commercial. Has something been reszoned?
>> They're both in the C. >> I'm sorry. What? They're both in the commercial C3 zone. >> Okay. Can you >> The house is a non the the dwelling on is a non-conforming use. >> Can you just take a quick look at this
for me? >> Thank you. Sorry for an Ivote. >> Thank you very much. Additional questions from the public on Mr. McGiver's testimony. Seeing none, let's move on. Who are we hearing from next?
Our traffic engineer. Mr. Chairman, Paul going. I I guess we have to swear Mr. and get your name again because it was >> Raise your right hand, please, Mr. Going. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And for the record, would you state your
full name and spell your last name, please? >> Paul Going, and the the last name is G O I N G, just like the word going. >> Thank you, Mr. Going. Could you give the board the benefit of your professional and educational experiences, please?
>> Sure. I am uh the chief engineer at traffic planning and design incorporated uh located in Warren, New Jersey. I am a 1993 graduate of the Cooper Union for the advancement of science and art where I earned a bachelor of engineering
degree in civil engineering. Since that time, I've been working as a traffic and transportation engineer. I'm a licensed engineer in New Jersey as well as Connecticut and New York. and I have been accepted as a traffic expert at numerous land use boards across New
Jersey, including nearby Hillsboro, Bound Brook, and Manville. >> And is your license current and in good standing in New Jersey? >> Yes, sir. >> Have you appeared before this board before? >> I have not. >> Welcome. And we accept your credentials. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Going, can
you tell the board your involvement with this application? >> Sure. Uh we prepared a traffic statement which is uh the traffic report that was submitted as part of the application. Uh it's dated September 16th, 2025 and last revised June 25th of 2025.
>> Thank you, Mr. Going. Can you take us through your assessment, please? >> Sure. Um I don't want to go over a lot of the stuff that was already discussed, but the we've got two lots, lots one and two. Uh, lot one
fronts along Route 28. Um, that's where the Melik Town Farm Market is and the single family home that was recently mentioned. There's one full movement driveway along Route 28 that serves lot one. Lot two fronts along Route 22
uh that has an 8,000 square foot office building on it. There is a right in right out driveway on US Route 22 which is divided and there's a full movement driveway for lot two on route 28.
So uh both frontages uh the route 28 and Route 22 frontage they're about 900 ft long. Um so they're they're substantial in length. Uh in the proposed condition, the two
lots would be redeveloped with a 106,654 square foot self-s storage facility. Access is proposed at a right-in right out driveway along route 22, which would be approximately where the existing driveway is located.
The site would circulate one way counterclockwise around the building uh with keypad a keypad access gate to enter the east side of the building and a keypad access gate um to exit on the north side of the building. Uh we're
proposing to close the existing Melik driveway on Route 28 and to reconstruct the existing office building driveway on Route 28 as an emergency access driveway which was requested by the fire
department. And I just want to mention um in the prior testimony um by Mr. Reg, he showed you um renderings and uh where he showed the curb cut on Route 28 for the emergency access. I just wanted to
point out that the DOT is going to require us to have a a 4-in curb reveal there. Um it's not going to um look like a driveway. It's uh the 4-in curb reveal can be driven over by by emergency vehicles, and that's the uh the DO's
requirement for an emergency access driveway. Uh so we will need uh a new DOT access permit for our our proposed changes on Route 22 as well as 28. And uh we've got a proposed parking
supply with two loading stalls and 15 passenger car stalls. So, as you describe the 4inch curve that you're that's really meant to disguise that a access way so it somebody driving by doesn't think, "Oh, there's a
driveway I should pull in." Is that a fair statement? >> The DOT requires us to have that 4-in reveal curb there. Um, and I'll say the access code doesn't say why, but I agree with your assessment that it's so
someone doesn't drive in there accidentally or so somebody doesn't drive in there intentionally either. >> Very well. Thank you. >> Um, so, uh, the proposed use is a very low traffic generator. Um, traffic engineers
typically use a publication of the Institute of Transportation Engineers or IT called trip generation, which is a compendium of data observed at various land uses around the country, including self- storage facilities, office
buildings, um, and and numerous other uses. New Jersey DOT has its own trip generation equations but has adopted the IT data for many uses including for the use uh land use code 151 which is mini
warehouse which is self- storage uh and DOT has adopted New Jersey specific rates and equations for small office buildings and farm stands. So we calculated the the pre-existing
and proposed condition site generated traffic for the weekday morning, weekday evening and Saturday peak hours using the DOT data. The the existing uses the the combination farm stand and office
building generate 32 weekday morning peak hour trips, 49 weekday evening peak hour trips, and 56 week Saturday peak hour trips. And that's that's the total trips entering and exiting in each of those peak hours.
Uh the self- storage facility we calculate to generate less traffic in each peak hour. 21 weekday morning peak hour trips. Again, that's that's the total entering and exiting. 21 weekday evening peak hour trips and 33 Saturday
peak hour trips. So in the busiest peak hour for the proposed use, that's an average about of about one car entering or exiting the site every two minutes. An increase by fewer than 100 peak hour
trips is not considered significant by NJ DOT. Uh the proposed project is expected to result in a net decrease in site generated traffic. So uh per NJ dot we could have a 100 additional trips
compared to what's existing but we actually have fewer trips um than the existing. So it can be concluded on the basis of that analysis that the proposed project will not have an impact on in area traffic.
Um the >> so the trip data you're coming you're referencing that comes from the IT correct. Well, uh, it comes from the IT, but then, um, the equations and rates that the DOT dictates we use
>> local data. >> Correct. Correct. >> Um, so the project does require use variance, but in this case, the use itself does not create traffic issues um because it is a low generator. We we
compared that the proposed use to traffic that could be generated on the site for permitted uses. And permitted uses include a health club, an athletic club, a recreational center, a daycare center, medical
office, medical clinic, and a research and development center. those uses would all require more parking than than the self- storage. Um, so for the purpose of calculating traffic generated by those permitted
uses, we assumed a 25,000 square foot development. And when we we we calculated the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hour trips for those uses, and they all exceed the uh the
self- storage trip generation, some by over over 100 peak hour trips. Uh there's only there was only one situation where we had fewer trips generated, and that is in the Saturday peak hour only for research and
development center. So the the proposed use um it's a low trip generator and it's also a lower trip generator than than permitted uses in the zone. Um, I mentioned earlier we need an NG
DOT access permit for the project and we we need that new permit because even though we're generating fewer trips than the existing use, we're proposing physical construction in the DOT rightway. Our that's to uh close the existing Malik driveway to modify the
existing office driveway and 28 to be emergency access. And there's some slight geometric modifications to the uh the Route 22 driveway. Uh so we do need a new permit and we haven't applied for that permit yet
because because the project requires a use variance. Um but we did have a pre-application meeting with the DOT which Mr. Gunsman had mentioned in his testimony tonight. Uh that meeting was on Thursday, October 23 of 2025.
And the the DOT comments on on the project were uh that we would have to provide a copy of the township fire department correspondence requesting the emergency access on Route 28. that we would trim vegetation along US
Route 22 on the eastbound approach to the site driveway, that we would show the Route 22 site triangle on the plans. And just going back to, you know, how much vegetation we would trim, I we agreed that we would show a certain
amount to be trimmed and put a note on the the plan saying to be um you know, trimmed to the satisfaction of the DOT engineer in the field, you know, just so there's no question about um how much is
enough. Uh they also wanted us to show the vehicle turning templates. In this case, it's it's a fire truck. Um as the largest vehicle uh accessing the site and then the largest typical vehicle of 30foot
straight truck. Um it was earlier mentioned whether or not there would be WB62s uh coming into the site and for self storage it's it's much more unusual for a site to accommodate tractor trailers
than not. Um, so a person looking for a place to uh rent self storage and needing to access it with a tractor trailer would be certain to ask the question of whether or not a facility accepts that
kind of vehicle. Um, most of them are not designed for for tractor trailers. Uh and then the last thing the DOT asked us to do was um they wanted us to install curb along the entire route 22 frontage including depress curb at the
route 22 driveway and to replace any existing type E inlets along there with type B E inlets. In other words, the uh replace the flat inlets with the type that has the curb piece and that curbing
and those the change to the inlets that's not on the plan yet. Um but that will be added when we apply to DOT should the board vote favorably on this application. Uh the next topic I wanted to get into is parking.
Um, the closest used in your ordinance uh to the proposed use is wholesale establishments, warehouses, and furniture stores. The town code also in indicates that parking
standards published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers or IT may be used in unique circumstances not otherwise addressed in the off- streetet parking requirements section of the code provided the data is deemed acceptable by the township engineer.
Um so we we did calculate the parking demand for the proposed use using the sixth edition of uh a different IT publication called parking generation. Uh the average maximum demand rate for
land use code 151 mini warehouse is one stall per 10,000 square ft. So on that basis the 106,600 and change building would generate demand for 11 stalls where we have 15
proposed. Um in summary uh the prop the proposed project generates very little traffic demand. It meets the IT parking demand standard um and reduces the overall
number of driveways uh by eliminating the existing mel driveway and converting the existing office driveway on route 28 to emergency access. And that completes my direct. Mhm. >> And you're you're comfortable with the
turning radi as they apply to the fire engines that are required through the emergency access. >> Yes. >> Are there any other limitations of the plan as it might affect circulation around the site that you can see as an objective observer?
>> No. No, sir. >> Thank you. Are there other members of the U board who would like to ask questions specific to Mr. Going's traffic engineering testimony? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Oh, yes.
>> You had the the the numbers that you're using for your basis for your study kind of you're calling it as a sort of a a mini warehouse. I see >> that's that's the the name that the IT uses for it.
>> Okay. I see in your report here kind of has self storage in parenthesis. Is that something you add or that's the way the DOT identifies that use? Uh I believe >> I just want to ask because when I when I when we say warehouse to me it's part of
some sort of a supply chain right it's commercial use and self storage I can kind of see is more of a retail establishment if anything >> the self storage in parenthesis is added by the DOT >> that so the DOT is identifying that as self storage. Okay.
>> Yeah. And then in terms of the so okay so that would be I agree that would be appropriate. Uh in terms of the parking spots you're you're using a warehouse occupancy to calculate the number of spots.
>> No I'm I'm using the IT uh requirement for mini storage or self storage. >> Okay. So that specifically has parking >> that has a parking. Yeah. And the parking ratio is is one per 10,000 square feet.
>> Okay. Um in your study here, did you at all consult with like uh operators of self-s storage facilities to see kind of the numbers that you currently they they generate for let's say an x number of units. You know, how often are uh the
patrons accessing their units? I'm not sure. Did you look into >> Well, I I've worked on numerous um probably two dozen self- storage facilities. Um and the the parking needs are very low.
Um, I myself uh rent a self storage a unit a self- storage unit >> and uh 90% of the time there I'm the only person there >> and the other times there have been as
many as four. Um that's that's my personal experience. My office has also conducted counts uh parking demand counts at I think about 10 self- storage facilities um in New Jersey, New York
and Pennsylvania. And based on our studies, the average maximum demand is also 11 vehicles for this this facility. Um so that's consistent with what we've what we've seen. Um uh in speaking with different operators
I I know some would suggest even fewer stalls are needed >> and I but I think the 15 is a is a a reasonable number. >> Okay. And you kind of see this in real world applications with real traffic. Okay. Great. And Mr. chairman, we did
have the Chimney Rock self storage um application in front of this board and I they they presented a similar conclusion of fairly low traffic counts. >> Very well. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Are there other board members who would like to pose questions regarding the
traffic testimony? >> Let's move on to our professionals. Mr. Burr, would you like to begin? >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um Paul, so it sounds like um you had received some
favorable feedback from DOT at the preapp. Is that fair to say? >> Um yeah, I mean it wasn't anything we weren't expecting, but >> yes, I I would I would have uh no
qualms, you know, submitting the application. We're just holding off while while the use variance works its way through. And that was going to be my next question is in your experience on these types of applications or based on some of the feedback you were provided
is there any reason to expect that you would not receive that access permit from DOT >> you know to address the the the comments that they had provided? >> No, we we um I don't believe there are any waiverss
we would need. Um, as I said, we have a tremendous amount of frontage on on each side of the property. Um, and we we are willing to uh curb the Route 22 side and and the other things that the DOT asked
us >> and um given the existing conditions on Route 22 with the shoulder uh the fact that you guys are going to be introducing I think I think the plan called the SU30 vehicles. Is there any cause for concern with larger box trucks
coming in and out of that Route 22 entrance? There's sufficient room for for vehicles to merge on to 22. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> Because you've got a nice shoulder there as you mentioned. >> Right. >> Okay. Um you had given a little overview
on your trip generation comparison from the existing uses being the existing office building and farm stand. Yes. compared to the proposed use. In your analysis, it actually was the original proposal, which I think was 120,000 square foot building. That's since been
revised down to 106,000. Is it fair to say that? >> My my report was revised. It was >> So, it is my report. >> So, the numbers you gave us are the accurate numbers. Correct. >> They weren't based on the original proposal. >> Correct. >> That's what I wanted to clarify.
>> I think that's all I had. Thank you. Excuse me. >> Thank you, Mr. Burton. Mr. Armed, >> thank you. I just have um I guess one one question. Um one of the board members had asked the um civil engineer if the drive aisles could be reduced.
And the drive aisles right now, even though it's oneway circulation for the most part, are anywhere from 21 to 24 ft, which is larger than than a usual drive aisle, right, for one way. Um, previously the the proposed building had
rollup doors and there was a question I believe at the first hearing about how those would be accessed, where people would park and I believe they would park kind of in the striped fire lane around adjacent to their unit essentially. since those are no longer there. Um, is
there still a need for the um wider and I believe the civil engineer did respond to this, but I just wanted your opinion of the of the drive aisle with um now that there's no kind of intermediary access on different parts of the building to to access those doors.
>> I think we still have the the um the fire truck that we have to accommodate. Uh we we can take a look to see if there's any areas where there could be a little less impervious, but I um I think that's really what's the the critical piece right now that's that's driving
it. >> And for um not for fire trucks, but for typical um the box trucks that are going to be coming in and out um for moving vehicle size box trucks, right? Is that a
typical um drive aisle width that's necessary to accommodate them? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's certainly um typical. >> Okay. Um as far as the I know one of the waiverss or variances being sought is
that uh is for the the loading spaces. They are located interior to the building. Um, in your experience, is that adequate to um accommodate the um vehicles that that and the volume of vehicles that come to this type of
facility? >> Yeah, that's that's uh pretty typical. Uh many locations will not have uh many self- storage facilities will not have the the uh the ability to accommodate
that size vehicle. um you know mo most of the demand is um is passenger cars. >> Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I have. >> Thank you. Uh let's open the floor to the members of the public who would like
to specifically address Mr. Going's testimony as a traffic engineer. And once again, you are >> waiting for Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. Carolyn Joya 1402 Paleley Court.
Uh Mr. Going um it seems as though Oh, you know before we I go on as I'm speaking I have specific questions but if you have your phone and want to go to Google Maps right now and put in 32 322
US22 that's the location of the storage facility. No matter what we do from this location, from an eastbound, a westbound um location time for questions and I'm going to instruct the board not to go to their
phones >> unless they want to leave their phones here as evidence. So So if you want to bring a picture next time that you're talking about, that would be fine. We can accept that when it's time for testimony, which I think will probably be the next meeting, >> right? But but for the board's
independent use of their phones to find out, no problem. Not going to do that. >> You're exactly correct. Um but I can assure you that the only way to get there is by from westbound is not going on route 22. You have to take the local roads. So that being said, I'm happy
that the DOT has agreed with some of my um concerns about the vegetation and that that will be trimmed. Um I have my question. I need to set the foundation. Uh it is based on prior testimony from transcripts and my personal video research. I went to the site and
videotaped. Um based on this, I feel the shoulder is not substantial. I don't know if you've actually been in the shoulder. I don't feel it's a substantial shoulder. Uh there's no acceleration or deceleration lanes. There's a shared ingress eress lane which
>> those are questions for him, right? Are there acceleration lanes and deceleration? >> There are no are there are there acceleration and deceleration lanes? No, >> no, thank you. Um, is there a shared ingress egress lane?
>> Uh, I'm not familiar with that term. >> A shared ingress egress lane in and out of the facility. >> It's uh there's a driveway. I'm not >> You go in and out in the same lane. Is that correct? >> No. Well, in the existing condition, I
believe it's a little overgrown, but I think there's one lane in each direction. It's intended to be >> okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's not a bifurcated >> right on 22 east only. Okay. All right. Um,
in my opinion, this would cause significant disruption, unpredictability, and danger to traffic flow on route 22 that could result in significant traffic safety hazards for our community. >> Asking him a question. >> My question is >> his opinion. My question is, what
additional safe traffic safety studies and/or precautions will be undertaken to ensure that Bridgewater residents are not put at serious risk of harm and or fatal injury on Route 22 and the roads surrounding the facility proposed by Bridgewater Self Storage LLC. Now, I
know you did a traffic statement. How does that compare to a traffic study was another question I had. Well, a traffic study would be to um analyze the the pre-existing and proposed conditions,
you know, with um with traffic analysis software to get uh a sense of the operational effect of of the project. In this case, because the project results in in a reduction in trips, it it
wouldn't it wouldn't be there wouldn't be any findings from a from that study because the the the proposed condition would only be better. >> So, was this study based off of data in a computer and a formula applied or were
people put on the ground in the cars as they were approaching the site? This is a a study that's based on um equations and computer uh modeling. >> Okay. Would you consider doing some real life research on the traffic patterns
that would result from people traveling westbound to to an eastbound located location which would require them to exit Route 22 which Mr. Gver did not get to do, but you go under an underpass on Garrison Avenue and do the turnaround
figure 8 to get on to 28 to get on to 22 east. And therefore, it's quite convoluted. Um, and I know because I live here, people who are driving U-Haul trucks and renting U-Haul trucks to go to this location might not be familiar
with it. Are you willing to undertake um an exercise like that to see what it would feel like at rush hour? I I uh don't think that's necessary because again the proposed project generates
fewer trips than the existing uses. The >> trips on Route 22 or fewer trips on our local roads, >> fewer trips on on both the what you're talking about where the the traffic has to turn around and go the other way. That's um that's ubiquitous
in New Jersey. That's uh >> Is it safe? >> Is it safe? The in the >> tractor trailers and not tractor trailers, but trucks and people from out of town come with all their stuff. >> People People from out of town don't rent self storage. That's like not not close. >> You know where the cheapest rate is.
Okay. Um I will let you off the hook. Um when you were entering um Well, no, I already answered that. The peak hours that you were discussing, what month and season were you talking about? Was that during summer? Was that during school hours? This is these are peak hour
volumes based on on calculations. Calculations are based on data that's been collected at numerous locations. >> Can't pinpoint an exact month. >> No, because there's there's going to be data from different months involved.
>> It's an average. It's um I guess you could say it's an average, but basically the the we're using the data that the DOT uses to assess these types of projects. >> Okay. >> Because it's on two DOT roads. >> Yes, it's a federal highway actually,
650 miles from Cincinnati to New York. It's a federal highway, Route 22. All right. Um have you consulted with our local PD about any accident data? Um, you can exclude my daughter's accident she had on Garrison Road making that left turn.
>> Uh, we we we have not consulted with the with the local police and again because the project generates fewer trips um than than the existing uses. >> Would you be willing to do that? >> The police department has reviewed the
application on three occasions at least. >> I'll be following up with them. Uh the turning radius you reference is that um assuming a certain speed is that someone who's turning at a traffic light or is that someone coming 50 miles an hour on Route 22 towards the facility?
>> The the turning radius it it assumes a decelerated vehicle. That's >> about how many miles per hour? >> Mr. Kunsman off Mr. Kunsman's office prepared the the study. I'm not exactly sure. It might be five miles an hour.
>> Might be. Okay. Um I'm almost done. Um do you think in your estimation that um coming out of the facility a driver could be distracted um to the point where for instance you're leaving, you're
perpendicular with 22. You look to your left. Oh, there's another vehicle coming to the storage unit. with that vehicle perhaps block my view, distract me, make my timing go off or whatever as I'm exiting
the facility. Could there be a potential for distract greater distractability? Uh the way that the exit is situated? >> I I don't think so. This is a very typical type of uh layout for right in
right access along a divided highway. And as you're looking left and the sun is setting, you've got sun glare in your eyes. No problem getting on to 55 mph truck zooming by. >> The again this the driveway there, the both
the existing driveway and the proposed changes to it are under DOT jurisdiction and we're going to meet all the requirements the DOT has for us. >> Okay. Thank you. Those are all my questions. Obviously, I have traffic safety concerns.
>> Thank you. Are there other members of the public who would like to question Mr. Going on his traffic engineering testimony? >> Jim Brady again, 351 Route 28. Um, I'm sorry, I didn't get to write down how many cars a day did you say will be
entering and exiting the facility daily? I know there's a difference between weekday and weekend. >> Yeah. Uh the Saturday peak hour was 33 and the uh the weekday morning and
weekday evening peak hours uh were 21. And that's a total of vehicles entering and exiting, >> right? Based on the computer interpretation of other existing facilities. >> Well, I I would say based on
uh the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the NJ dot and you know the the industry standards that transportation engineers follow. Was that analysis based on an area with a similar or lower population density than the
proposed facility when the high amount of traffic on Route 22? >> Well, the this is data that's um that the NJ dot uses statewide. >> I see. But so those data points could be in a less populous area than where the
proposed facility is. um they could be, but where where you have less population, you tend to have fewer self- storage facilities. >> Okay. Um you said the the parking made available
at the new facility is going to be 15 parking spots. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, doing some math in my head. So at a 740 750 some units
if including employees one or two that have to park if more than 2% of the occupants out of 755 units I guess eventually it'll be full then 15
spots isn't insufficient right? What's what's 2% of uh 755? It's more than 15. >> But but the 2% you chose to use is is completely random. The data that I'm referencing was at actual self- storage facilities.
>> Okay. But without extrapolating or just guessing, is there data that shows that more than 2% of a storage unit's uh occupancy shows up at any given time?
And if it does, 15 parking spots is not enough, especially when you subtract one or two for employees. >> Let me just stay with the question and not try and answer it yourself. >> Okay. Um I think I made my point about the 15
parking spots being insufficient. Um and you mentioned that when you rented a storage facility, you went there and you were the only one. My experience has been when I rented a storage facility, especially in the morning, there's many, many cars.
So, does that calculation take in account that there's contractors and retailers who are showing up every morning to load up their trucks to go about their business or is that just some sort of generic assumption? >> The data takes into account what
whatever the you know, all the facilities that were were included in the database. >> Also, Mr. Chairman, we're not as a staging point. >> How do you know that a painter can't go store a ladder there?
>> This applicant is more than agreeable to adopt it. >> Very well. Thank you. >> So on the rental agreement for the storage unit, there'll be a contingency that says you can't come here in the morning to load up your truck for your business. Okay. So, no retail or contractors or
commercial applicants will be allowed to rent there. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's news to me. All right. Has this DOT study addressed the fact regarding safety that the proposed facility
is on a curve and you come over the route 2822 bridge. There's a limited line of sight and no shoulder until you get past the bridge. Then there's maybe about 400 feet of
shoulder, like she pointed out, inadequate shoulder. So at 60 m an hour, you got about 5 seconds to assess, is the car coming out of the storage facility? Is there somebody on my rear? Do I have to change lanes? Do I have to
slam on the brakes? Does that do DOT study take any of that into account because there is a limited shoulder and as you said no acceleration lane >> the So what we've done so far is we we
sent a plan a one sheet plan to the DOT to show them what we proposed to do. We sent them a copy of the survey showing what's on the site now. Uh we sent them our trip generation calculations and um you know tax maps, a few other things.
Then we met with them to see what what specific concerns they had. When we actually submit our application, the DOT will do a do a much closer look. Um we will be sending a full set of plans um
storm water report, various documents, and they're going to do field visits. they they will be taking a much closer look at it and if they require us to to make any changes um based on line of
sight or or other factors uh then we'll have we won't be we'll have to make those changes. >> Okay. Does you mentioned the the DOT letter of no interest is that at all or letter of interest is that at all related to the
number of cars coming in and out of the facility? Is it >> for a certain amount? >> But I don't believe I said letter of no interest that I thought I heard you say that. >> Um let's see what else. All right. I guess that's it. you
address my question because there's more safety issues related to when you're coming on to Route 22 West from Route 28. It's at the crest of a hill. You really can't see. So, you're saying that all those potential safety issues will
be addressed by the DOT in the future. >> As part of the the application that we'd have to submit and and get approval and have get a permit, I see >> for the for the project. So, as he mentioned, there will be some real life interaction, not just computer formulas. >> That's correct.
>> We're gonna file an application, whatever that involves. >> Right. So, it may or may not mean on-site human interaction. >> It's whatever the DOT requires. >> Okay. I also just asked the board to take that ride, come over the bridge, pretend there's a box truck, renter
coming out of that facility, and see how long it takes you to slam on the brakes or change lanes safely. That's all I ask. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Intera before you begin, we want to be mindful of the time as we're approaching
the 10:00 hour. So, we may have to cut off your questioning period depending upon how long we're going. Mr. >> I would like to do that as well. So let's use this opportunity to ask your questions and um he'll conclude his
testimony tonight. >> Sure. Indepanga 376 State Route 28 Bridgewater, New Jersey. Uh Mr. Going, did you um you mentioned that you use the standard IT rates in your statement? >> Excuse me. >> You use the standard IT rates in your
statement. I use the the IT rates that the DOT uh that the the DOT uses NJ DOT. >> Okay. Uh NJ DOT or DOT across the uh country? >> NJ DOT. >> Okay. So, I do want to say the IT rates
are averages from the state. My neighbors and I don't live in a national or a local average. >> We live in a T intersection. I'm going to get to the question. We live at the T intersection of Bogart Drive. Why should this board prioritize a generic manual over the specific safety of the
Bridgewater residents who will have to navigate this entrance every day? >> Because the this is I mean New Jersey has one of the more complex and arduous um
permitting processes compared to to many other states. Um, we have the New Jersey State Highway Access Management Code that that dictates all this stuff. And um, there is a real uh
intent on the part of the DOT as well as professionals like myself to um do things right. I not sure if there's any other way to >> I'm just uh asking the question if it's
in consideration of a more passive environment uh you know that's more typical suited for a storage facility versus a more residential you know the proximity to residential neighborhood >> well the I think reser
>> okay I can I can have that for the So, in the architect's testimony, he claimed he cannot or will not design this building to match the tone neutral residential aesthetic of Sunrise Bridgewwater. I do want to remind the board that the Sunrise is in a C3 zone,
the same zone that we are debating today. >> Mr. Chairman, you can make this comment. >> I agree. I think that if you have those comments, you're certainly entitled to make them at the end of our presentations and just confine the questions to the traffic engineering
study on or statement because two things. One, we would like him to conclude his testimony and two, the hours getting late. >> Sure, I will do that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Going, the uh the architect admits that the building is designed purely for commercial application.
Um, your claim generates your claim it generates fewer trips than a 25,000 ft uh square foot compliant building. Is that correct? >> That's your testimony, right? >> Uh, >> you said 25,000 square feet, right? >> Yes. Uh, isn't it true that your trip
generation models don't account for the visual and environmental traffic, the massive shadows, the light reflection from the panels, and the permanent three-story wall that is uh compliant with a 20 that a compliant 25,000 foot building would not create.
>> I really can't comment on the architecture >> in terms of traffic. I'm I'm talking about vehicular traffic. So, uh, in a C3 zone, the goal is general business. By building a structure four times larger than a compliant building, but with a
90% less parking and minimal employees, are in you effectively creating a dead zone on Route 22 that provides no service to the residents of Bridgewwater unlike the Sunrise facility or other permitted uses? >> All right, Mr. going. Um, you said the
NJ DOT for US Route 22 was from 2013, correct? >> I guess based on the the documents that were submitted. >> What was from 2013? >> Uh, the NJ DOT data for US Route 22,
unless I'm mistaken. And Route 28 was from 2018. >> Uh, in our report, and let me just confirm this. Yeah, I didn't I didn't specifically mentioned this in testimony tonight, but in our report we uh we mentioned the
average annual daily traffic on Route 22 and Route 28, and that's those come from uh DOT data that's on their website. >> Do you have the years for when that was uh reported? >> Yeah. No, you're correct that the route
22 is from 2013 and route 28 is from 2018. >> So my question to you is given the significant growth in Bridgewater and changing traffic patterns from the last decade, how can this board rely on a net reduction calculation based on decade
old baseline numbers? those those numbers don't have anything to do with the trip generation numbers that we calculate, you know, for the proposed use or for the existing uses. Those those are numbers that are in there um
to indicate to the reader what the relative volumes are on these highways. So, you know, you can kind of get a flavor for it. Route 22, AADT about 35,000. uh Route 28 18,000. So it's um
I don't plug those numbers, the the 18,000 and 35,000 into any calculations that I do for for the proposed traffic that'll be generated by the site. >> Okay. I'm not completely following you.
>> What I'm saying is >> think it's relevant. Data is always relevant. If the data from the DOT was from 2019, >> data was from >> well if it was from 2020 I that would be COVID so I wouldn't want that data but
um if the data was from 2024 it wouldn't make a difference to or change my findings and conclusions. >> Okay, fair. Um so
let me see where I was at. Um you asked uh you're asking for a 93% uh reduction in required parking. Is that right? Roughly. >> Well, our interpretation of the code is that the planning that the zoning board
may um accept a different standard when there isn't uh a standard for the the actual use when the that's uh that's how the township code reads that. I think he's proposing 15 spots where 210 are
normally required. Is that right? >> 11 are required. >> No varian. >> Okay. Um I'm just curious, you know, if your low trip estimates are slightly off, for
example, during a peak Saturday moving window, where do the excess vehicles go? Isn't it true that they would be forced to queue on the shoulders of Route 22 or spill into residential Bogart Drive? Um, no. >> Where would they go?
>> They they would probably um as in the previous iteration of the project where we had the roll down doors, they would probably hang out in uh those those uh
loading zone those the fire striping until a space opened up. However, um I I believe the the 15 is more than sufficient to accommodate the needs for
this project. >> Okay. Um if a 25 So again, your testimony was set you said uh if a 25,000 foot building were built here according to code, it would meet all parking and set uh setback requirements. Why is the
applicant's desire to build a monolith that requires four to five different variances more beneficial to the public than a smaller building that >> I don't think that's an appropriate question for the traffic engineer. I think that should be >> okay >> addressed to their planner. >> Sure, I'll do that.
Um, just one last question here. When a large U-Haul style truck enters from Route 22, it moves significantly slower than a passenger car. Did your software model the delay caused to the through traffic on Route 22 by these larger, slower vehicles, or did you only count
the number of vehicles? >> We counted the number of vehicles. The um the New Jersey State Highway Access Management Code um takes into account the the different types of vehicles that that are coming and going from places.
Would you be willing to to do a traffic study to see what that looks like or run the software model? >> We're not doing >> not doing it. Got it. >> So, it's well past our 10:00 deadline. >> Yeah, I'm done with my questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much for your questions. I want to thank the public for coming out. It's a cold evening. Everybody would love to get home and be warm if we can. Um, are we concluding with our traffic testimony and then if you kind of give us a a look at what we're looking at
should when we get together again and we'll see if we can figure out some dates and things like that. >> Certainly, Mr. Chairman, our next witness would be an operations person that would speak to the day-to-day operations of the facility as well as how this market is underserved and
there's a void and need for self storage in this area. and the last witness would be our planner. So, two remaining witnesses. >> Okay, >> Rich. >> So, couple things. First, I just want to make clear on the record that there are no other members of the public who um
expressed a desire to ask questions of the last witness. Okay. And uh second, Nancy, if we are now concluding, when are we going to the next available date? What is that?
>> Will there be a resubmission of plans? based on >> I think most of the issues this evening will be addressed uh potentially as conditions of approval should the board vote favorably on the application. Uh but that's something I'll have to consider to see u whether any housekeeping needs to be done. If so get
a revised material set in >> um we have we can put it on for March 10th but we would need adequate time to disseminate the materials not only to the board but more so to the professionals. >> Yeah. So MLU well says 10 days prior,
right? >> It's understood. >> We would need at least 20. >> We'll we'll work to accommodate that. >> That would be a condition. Otherwise, we would have to move it. >> Understood. >> So we'll take that March 8
understanding. We have to get the materials in 20 days ahead of time. >> Right. And you're available for March 10. >> Let me just double check here. I just want to confirm with Bill and Katherine on the the 20 days just to confirm that that's enough time for re-review for them.
>> It would be helpful to have it more than 10 days. We'd like to have the review memos in the week before. So, um, anything you can provide within that 20 days or more, we would appreciate. >> Understood. >> Thank you. >> March 10th, I am available, Mr. Chairman. So, if we could set that date, it would be appreciated. >> Okay. So, for members of the public,
this matter is going to conclude for this evening. It will continue on March 10th in this room at 700 p.m. with no further notices from the applicant. >> Thank you, Mr. Holler. >> Right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the board. >> Chairman, if I may, I just had one uh
one question. Uh we the public wasn't aware of the um the renderings that were provided. Is that something that the applicant can provide the public? Um, Nancy, >> well, the applicant's going to provide uh digital copies of those and Nancy will include them in the digital file.
>> Yes. And then as long as we're um Mr. Cape, we'll need an extension at least the end of >> Well, that's fine. Extended time through March 11th. >> Okay. Thank you. >> But yes, you have to answer your question. Those renderings will be
available on the website as soon as we can get them loaded up for you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, board. >> Thank you very much. >> With that, can I have a motion to adjourn? >> Next meeting. >> I'm sorry. >> Next meeting. >> The next meeting is Oh, I forgot it right. I don't even know what the next
meeting is. >> Next meeting is uh excuse me, I just want to double check here. February February 10th. >> And on that and for that meeting, we have um is it Rockland APV?
>> Rockland APV. And before everyone scatters, I have some supplemental materials for Rockland. If you could just >> that you want to distribute those tonight so we have them. >> You can pick them up on your way out. >> Okay. Very well. >> Any other things that I forgot to do
before before we adjourn the meeting? >> Yeah, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone. >> It is.