Today is Tuesday, July 14th, 2026, and this is the meeting of the Bridgewater Township Zoning Board of Adjustment. Um, I'm going to read a few things. The open public meetings announcement and then ask you to join me in some activities. Adequate notice of this
meeting was provided in accordance with the open public meetings act NJSA10 col4-6. Specifically on January 28th 2026 proper notice was sent to the electronic news sources of record filed with the
municipal clerk at the township of Bridgewwater and posted on the municipal bulletin board. Excuse [clears throat] me. 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. There's also provisions that can be made for hearing assistance and so on and you can read that for yourself. If you're able, please stand and join me in saluting the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> And Miss Propes, may I have a roll call, please? >> Kulak,
>> yes. >> Mr. Woodelli, >> I hear >> Mrs. Mr. Zamin >> here. >> Mr. Franco absent. Mr. Fresco >> here. >> Ms. Henderson Rose >> here.
>> Mr. Giant. Ms. We wisman >> here. >> Mr. Vesio >> here. >> Mr. Kuchi >> here. >> And Mr. Mcnella is absent. >> And Mr. Gi is in transit. So he's he
recently texted me. So, we'll see what if, as if and when he arrives, just make a note. Okay. Thank you. >> Richard Allard, board attorney >> here. >> Bill Burr, board engineer, >> here. >> Katherine Sarmmed, board planner
>> here. >> Bruce Eisenstein is our um consulting engineer >> here. >> You have a quorum, you can proceed. >> Very well. Thank you. Before we get started, we have a lot of people here
and we welcome you to the zoning board meeting. Um, thank you for your participation in your local government. Because it's warm today and we have so many people here, I'd like to try and keep things as running as smoothly as possible. So, we have some orders of
business that we're going to be getting to on the agenda. And we have some very specific things that we need to do. There is an application for an extension on a case that was previously heard. There's the second hearing for CX Tower
leasing which will be coming up. And then lastly, we have the application for Bridgewater self storage. Um my suggestion to you is if you're here for one particular case or another, you might want to go outside and walk around or do something until we get to your
case, but you're welcome to stay for the entire time. It's up to you. But if you need to, you know, stretch your legs or so on, you'll know when we're getting to the case that you're most interested in. Let's see. So, at this moment, I would
like to open the meeting up to the public for items that are not on the agenda this evening. So, any land use matter that you'd like to bring uh to the zoning boards of attention that's not on the agenda, you may do so now. And if you choose to do that, please
walk up to the podium signed in, give us your name, address, and tell us what your uh issue is. >> Mr. Chairman, let the record show that Mr. Gayski arrived at 7:15. >> Very well, Mr. Gazki. Thank you. I know the commute is not fun.
>> Thanks. >> Okay, seeing no members of the public at this moment, I'm going to close that portion of the meeting. Do we have minutes that we would like to approve at this time? >> We have the April 28th minutes and
everyone's eligible to vote except for Miss Rose and Mr. Geski. >> Okay. >> I make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Mrs. You had no changes. >> Mrs. Amid has made a motion to approve the minutes. not going to be a
>> and then I'll I'll second it then if she has no changes to >> Mr. Widley has second it. Can we have a roll call? >> Chairman Kulak. >> Yes. >> Mr. Widley. >> Uh yes. >> Mrs. Zamin. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes. >> Ms. Weisman. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Vesio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kuchi. >> Yes. >> Motion car. >> Thank you. There are no resolutions at this time. So moving on then we have um an initial
hearing which is application 24-013-ZB Shalabi Sharif. This is block 374 lot 92 233 Shepard Avenue and the request is for an extension of a prior approval. Mr. W would you like to provide us some guidance here? >> Yes. So thank you Mr. Chairman. The um
original application was approved by this board for a home addition uh approved on October 22nd of 2024. Your township ordinance um indicates that the variance would expire after one
year, but it does allow for extensions of time um to be made um by the applicant. And the applicant has now submitted some correspondence uh indicating that they have become aware that it is expired and that they
require the extension in order to uh complete their application for required building permits for the construction which again was previously approved by the board. >> Very well. Is there someone here um representing Mr. Schalabin? Please come
up sir and tell us who you are. Welcome. >> Your name? >> Sharif Shelvi. Okay. >> Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help you God. >> Thank you. >> And I apologize if I'm mispronouncing
your name. I'm doing trying to follow your lead. So, >> good. >> Sharief, please. >> You may you may address the board and tell us what you're what you'd like to accomplish. We'll try to get extension. >> Do we have mic down a little bit? >> We will try to get the extension for uh
for the approval so we can go for the the everything the permit and everything else >> paperwork. >> Has there been something that has stopped you from moving forward during that period of time that you'd like to share with the board? >> We have some paperwork we have to get done first before the permit and that
took all that time. >> I see. >> Yeah. So the approval was still under condition and we was doing a review for all the people work and that's how we spend all the time. >> Yes. >> To get the things done and now we already everything is done but it was already best one year. >> Mhm.
>> That's why we try to get extension. So >> and so should the board grant the approval are you ready to proceed with your project and >> everything >> you don't anticipate any further delays? >> No I don't think so. We have everything is ready. >> I mean boring the unforeseen that we can't predict. >> Yep. We have everything is ready.
>> Okay, >> Mr. Roller. From this from this point, we have his request. We have the prior approval. Is there anything standing in our way? >> No. I would recommend that we uh the board vote to extend it for a year.
>> Yep. >> From now, >> that's sufficient time for you to get your permits and get started. >> Yep. >> Okay. And um I I would also note that the property is in the R20 zone and that the zoning has not changed to my knowledge, right, since this was approved. >> Right. Right. Right. Thank you.
>> Hey Rich, I have a question. Does he have to start it within a year or finish within a year? >> Start it within a year. >> Yeah. >> I have a question. >> Mrs. One year will be counted from today. >> Right. >> From today. >> From today. Yes.
>> Not from September 24th. >> We could do it from >> today. One year from today, >> right? >> Yes. >> And that's sufficient time, right, for you? >> Yep. >> Get it started. Okay. >> I'll make that motion. >> U before we proceed. >> Yes.
So, be before we proceed, I just want to quickly um bring this matter to the attention of the public. And if there's anybody here who would like to address the board with respect to your application for an extension, they may do so. So, if you just take a seat momentarily and we'll see if anybody
would like to address the board. >> Right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And if you haven't signed in, please do so. Tell us your name and address. >> Hi, my name is Carolyn Pritchard. I live at 266 Nagel Street. I live in the neighborhood where this >> I'm sorry, Miss Pritchard. Would you
raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. And would you spell your last name, please? >> Pritchard. P R I T C H A R D. >> Thank you. And your address?
>> 266 Nagel Street. >> Thank you. >> So I live in the neighborhood to Park area where this house is. For the last year, I've been calling the township to complain about this property and and the mess that's on it. the
collection of lawnmowers, chairs, it is like a dump site. Um, I've called the zoning officer probably over seven to 10 times starting a year ago. I've asked that something be done to help clear off this property and help
the neighbors out that have to live next to it. And hopefully they're not selling their homes because they'd really get a reduced value. We just learned about this meeting tonight. I would have had more neighbors here to discuss this, but uh it was late notice.
The propertyy's become an absolute eyesore. The zoning officer has issued summones. I've been in the the virtual meetings. They've gotten delays and delays. He's done nothing about the property. Um I've
brought some pictures. These are probably from a year ago. He's now planted trees along the whole front line of the property. I know they had to be moved back because it was a violation of one of the rules. They were too close to the road. The trees are all now dying.
So now there's dead bushes in the front of the property hiding all the stuff that's behind it. I just ask that you do something that he can't get these permits until the yard is cleaned up. It's not building material. It's lawnmowers. It's chairs. It's things
upside down. It's things all over. It's terrible. But this is a year ago. >> To to your knowledge, are the zoning violations still um outstanding? >> They are. He's now gotten delays on the court case, so it's not going off until
August, but nothing's changed. If anything, more things have come on to the property. And I I they're not building materials. Some of it might be, but it's just hundreds of bags of things. So, what you're asking the board is for a condition that prior to the
permit being issued that whatever might be debris or outside storage for which he's received a violation be removed and that basically that the violation notice be remedied. >> Yes.
>> Right. Prior to that's probably standard practice in the township, I would think, but it seems to me that that would be an appropriate condition. I mean, I don't know if you knew that there were summones issued, and I don't even know exactly what the summones are for. I know there was a sighteline
problem. I know that was remedied, but now all the trees are dying or dead. Some of them are, but >> well, we also have um because the intended um project would remedy a lot of these issues should he actually get
it started and build it. I'm not disputing what you're telling us. I'm saying that that's the intention. Now, in the meantime, if these violations were issued, as you say, then he will have to correct them in order to move forward and pull his permits. >> But if he's telling you it's all
building material, >> I'm sorry. >> If he's telling you that it's all building >> No, he didn't say anything to us about that. We're presuming based on the violations because it was listed that there were building materials on the violations as well. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> I would hope, but I just hope it's not going another year. I don't want >> I understand exactly what you're saying and and I can appreciate how you feel. I think that certainly I would feel the same way. But what I found is that if we let the process work forward, then he
will resolve that because his interest is in in getting the project done. >> I I would hope so, but I can tell you it's >> I appreciate it. >> It's gotten so much worse in a year. >> Is there any way we can have the owner come back and explain? >> Yeah, he will. Yeah.
>> I mean Yeah. Okay, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> We get approval on November 2024 and that's what everything is start. Since November 24 the contractor he was get all his materials and I put it in the
garage and now I'm ran out of space. So I try to get like a shade or put all the materials so they get destroyed from the the water everything. I couldn't because I'm already past the ratio. So they said I cannot get any shade or anything to save all those materials.
>> And what I'm trying to do is is move forward with the project right >> and clear all the things because some of them it's not materials because it should be in the garage but my garage is filled with all materials bags and all that. I have the lumbar was laying in this because we was almost going to
start >> right >> and I've been doing this since 2024. >> I understand and >> we get the plumber done the electricians done the fire electrics done. >> Sure. those delays. I do understand. I will I will say this. You don't have any objection to a condition that you're
able to clean up the and resolve those violations before you move forward with the actual construction. >> I mean, even if you have to uh put them someplace temporarily or find some way to get rid of the the stuff that's no longer usable,
>> that would be appropriate on your part to do that. >> Yep. Because our approval has to be like a bever. We cannot use regular materials. So we purchase special materials to put in the ground which are graffel bags and that's what make all the things >> I get it. I get it. Thank you Mr. Eer.
Um well let me first ask if there are any other members of the public who would like to address the board on this specific matter. >> Seeing none I'm going to close that portion of the meeting. And Mr. roller as a condition of or approval of the
extension. How are we going to address that? >> Well, we would have a condition that the applicant would have to remedy any outstanding zoning violations prior to the issuance of a construction permit. >> Right.
>> Okay. >> Can you talk in the microphone? We can't. >> We are in the corner house. Yes, a corner >> house has to be away 27 feet when we put the truck was like 10 feet like anybody else but he said no we have to be 27 feet away from the yellow line
>> because of the corner >> we didn't know that and we did already move them back so as a shrub everything has been solved >> okay >> okay understand this board doesn't really do enforcement that's the zoning officer so you'd have to satisfy him to make sure everything is cleaned up
before a permit will issue Okay. >> Very well. Um, seeing no further members of the public, I would entertain a motion to approve the motion. >> Extension with the conditions as listed. I >> make it. >> Mr. Widley makes the motion. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Mr. Fresco is the second. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Kak. >> Yes. >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Aamine. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fresco. Yes. >> Ms. Rose. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gayski. >> Yes.
>> And Miss Wisman. >> Yes. >> Very well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shalabi. Good luck. Just bring everything into compliance. I know it's difficult. We're all trying to be good neighbors with each other. So, if you can do that, then you'll be able to move
forward with your project. Thank you. Moving forward, this is a second hearing. It's a continuation from 51226. It's application number 25-020ZB. It's the CX Tower leasing application.
This is 719 Route 202, otherwise known as block 163, lot 6.01. The application has been made for preliminary and final site plan with use and bulk variances. And it's a new structure to support wireless uses,
specifically a a cellular array of antennas that's meant to provide improved coverage and provide relief to New Jersey American Water who has been hosting these various antenna for some period of time.
And with that, I would turn it over to please tell me your name again. >> Good evening. For the record, my name is David Kenny, attorney with Snyder and Snyder here tonight to represent the applicant CX Towers. Um, as the board chairman just stated, um, we had, this is a second hearing. Our last hearing,
we had uh the applicant's RF engineers provide testimony regarding the need for this facility as well as the need for the height for the facility. Um, the board has retained its own RF consultant who's here tonight. Um but I believe the testimony was confirmed that there is a need for this facility that if the water
tower removed the uh existing antennas from uh that structure without a replacement there would be a significant gap in service created in in this area particularly along route 202 and those that have been accustomed to uh the services being provided from this
facility uh would experience a loss of service. Um, CX Towers has come to uh, save that issue by building a support structure to house the equipment for the wireless carriers which is T-Mobile and Verizon as well as collocation space for
other carriers that we know are operating in the area and that will allow for the services to be provided and so there will be no interruption of service and it also will allow for an improved service to the area to help those. Um, since that testimony is
already on the record tonight, um, we are going to go through our civil engineers testimony, uh, we also have a representative for the applicant just to answer any questions the board may have about the the site development and the function of the site. And we also have our professional planner with us tonight. U, without any further
questions, we do have our civil engineer we can put up unless there's initial questions for the applicant. >> Right. Any quick questions from any board members before we proceed? I think your summary was well stated. I'll just add to that that you've you had
identified other sites that you had evaluated prior and it was agreed that this was the best solution for your particular proposal. >> Absolutely. We'll we'll go into that a little bit for the leasing standpoint, but from a technical standpoint, they did rule out other alternative locations, this being the only feasible,
but we did also just as a belt and suspenders and we'll have someone to testify that tonight also asked if they could get a lease from those properties and were not offered a lease. >> Very well. And would you be kind enough to introduce your first witness and we'll >> see how we make it out from here. >> We have Mike Patel from Tectonic
Engineering. >> Okay. >> And Mike, could you uh review your qualifications for the >> Y first? Yes. >> Yes. 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, I hope you got and again your name for the record,
please. >> Uh Mike Patel or I'll spell the real name. Manoj Kumar. That's M A N O J K U M A R Manoj Kumar. Last name is Patel. P
A T E L. So I'm a managing director here at Tectonic. Uh I've been with them for over 28 29 years now. I'm a licensed professional engineer in New Jersey and 17 other states throughout the country. Um, my license in New Jersey is valid
till April of 2028 and I have testified against esteemed boards like you throughout the country >> and everything with respect to your license is in good standing. >> It is correct. >> Very well. This board accepts your credentials and accepts you as an expert in this area. So, please proceed. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks. Thank you. Uh, Mike, if you could just This is a site where there is an existing uh ground equipment and we're going to go right to the site plan sheet. if you could just walk the board through um the site plan and where various things are. Um for the public
and for the members of the board, we do have on the screen a uh the site plan sheet. Um this is sheet five of drawing five of Z101. >> I can quickly walk you through what's on
the screen or what's on the drawing in front of you. So the the compound that where the water tank is and that holds the ground equipment for the cell carriers. Sorry. Yeah. So the compound where the water
tank is, it's about 400 ft offset from Route 202. Um it's a 100 by 100 lease area for the water tank as a compound that holds the ground equipment for the cell carriers. and the water tank
structure itself holds the antennas. The plan is to expand that compound by about 500 square ft so we can place the 145 ft pole structure to hold the antennas when they're re relocated. >> And and Mike, just to clarify, when we
say expand the compound space, not the lease area, just the uh fenced equipment area, >> correct? Not the lease area. >> Okay. Okay. It's >> all within the same lease area, lease footprint. Just >> make room for the new pole structure. >> So the essentially everything stays the same, but you're adding some more space
to accommodate the tower itself. >> We want to enclose it in fence and not leave it open. >> Okay, >> that's what it is. >> Please continue. >> Um, we can flip to the next page. >> Yep. This is sheet six. It just gives
you a more detailed view of the compound and it it kind of shows you just a little bit to the northeast corner of that existing compound where we are placing the pole >> and Mike could you just go through uh the bulk requirements particularly those
that are requiring a variance. >> Right. So there are certain things where we're not changing anything but then obviously we have the pole where um the maximum height is about allowed is 45 ft. This is a commercial
zone. Um we are looking at 145. So there is a variance for the height that's required. >> Before we leave that point, there's also um an antenna or a lightning rod on top. Is that right? >> Correct. >> How high is that? That's a 5 foot tall okay
>> lightning rod. So the top of the lightning rod to be technical is 150 ft height. >> Right. >> So that's really the variance request. Okay. >> Correct. >> 50. >> We we've asked for is 150. It's 145 to top of steel but I do believe there was something in the code. I'm not sure if
the lightning was part but as conservative we'll ask for a 150 foot variance. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> All right. Thank you. >> Sure. and and Mike just just quickly go over again the the actual the tower is new but uh it's its setbacks are related to
um the existing uh parcel correct >> that's correct as I mentioned the partial is set back from route 202 so when we calculated the setbacks to the tower they are from the lease area or the the lot that was divided for the
water tank so when you talk about front setbacks or side setbacks. Those are from the lease area limit line, not from the street. If if that makes sense. That's what's shown on this drawing sheet. That's what we tried to explain. >> And Mike, in your professional opinion,
as an engineer, is the tower located in a in a place that can allow for the safe and orderly development of the facility as well as the water use. >> Yes, that that's correct. So there is room around the water tank for the maintenance and upkeep of the tank
without any effect on that. So as far as how it's laid out, uh this is probably the best spot to where we can place the tower. >> Okay. >> And then also regarding the fences, the the equipment for the water tower and then the equipment for the cellular
carriers, there will be separate fences so that they don't have equal access. >> That's correct. So the water tower itself will be separate from the lease areas for the individual carriers. So they're all fenced around and so individual carriers when they have to access they don't need access to the
water tower, right? >> They can just access their own equipment individually. >> Yeah. And similarly the the water tower and New Jersey American water has no need to access your equipment. So you're trying to keep this barrier between the two structures that are on that site.
And that will also allow for maintenance by either party without having to inconvenience or somehow involve the other owner of the property, which is what happens now. >> Yep, that's correct. >> Okay, thank you.
Um, we can go to sheet nine. Maybe that just shows the height. Yep. So this page shows the height of the tower and as we clarified there's a 5ft lightning rod on top which takes the height to the 150 ft.
>> Um just shows the relative heights and how the antennas would be stacked on on the tower. >> Right. >> If there's no other further questions before before we let you go. We do have we may have some questions certainly from the board members. Sure. >> But also our our experts our engineers
may have some questions for you. But let me first see if there are any initial questions from members of the board with respect to this application and this tower, Mr. Patel's testimony specifically. Okay. So from our engineering experts,
[laughter] so we have Mr. Eisenstein here, Dr. Eisenstein I should say. And um with respect to his testimony given the height of the tower, I think at our last meeting we ascertained that that was um necessary in order to get the kind of
coverage. But did you want to offer any comment one way or another on his testimony? >> No comment on his >> Okay. Very well. Mr. Burr, >> I do have a few questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. U Mr. Patel, in my review letter from actually it was just from a
few days ago. It was an updated review letter, but it dates back um prior to the first hearing. One of my comments was for you to offer testimony that um you're in compliance with two sections of the township's land use code dealing
with the wireless telecommunication facilities. The one section is 126-19.3 and that that deals with design standards, >> landscaping, lighting, um, fencing,
anti-limb, uh, devices. Can you offer some testimony to the board or at least confirm that you will be in full compliance with those requirements? >> That's correct. We did go through that and and >> I'm sorry. I know you want to look at him, but we need you speaking into the microphone. >> Yes, we did go through that. So we do we
will meet the design standards and we can maybe meet on the side just to show or walk you through but we do have shrubbery that's proposed as far as aesthetics go. Again this area is like said back from the main thorougher so it's kind of hard to see if you're driving through and again it's a
high-speed road so it's not easy to figure out when you're looking at it. Um the the fence has a bar wire on top that's more like a security thing. There are some cameras proposed. >> Um, so we we did go through the
requirements and we we can discuss that on the side if you wish. >> And and what about lighting? What type of lighting is is proposed? >> So I don't believe there is any specific uh lighting for >> So there there's no lighting required on
top of the tower for FAA lighting purposes. I believe there's already because the ground equipment is existing. The ground equipment may have existing maintenance lights. The maintenance lights again would only be for use when a technician's on site during low light conditions and they are
on timers so that when he leaves it'll go off within a certain minutes of him of leaving. So they're not going to be on unless on the unlikely condition that someone's on site doing work. But again the setback from the property it's not likely visible from anyone. However, again uh it's not part of this
application. Those are likely existing maintenance lights for the existing ground equipment that's there. >> Yeah. No new lights proposed basically. And Mr. Burr, are you satisfied that your your ability to meet with the applicant um and make sure that those questions that you had posed are
sufficiently answered as a condition of approval or how do you want to handle that? >> I am, Mr. Chairman. And I think something like that's ordinarily um included as a condition and will have to be addressed as part of site plan compliance. >> Yes. >> If if the application is approved. So I would have no issue with that.
>> Okay. Very well. >> The applicant would also be welcoming of such a condition of approval. Okay. >> These light lights, did you have a question? >> Building. >> Sorry. That's all right. Go ahead. >> The lights that you're talking about will be mounted on the building or what
kind of light? >> So, um, the the this current application for the replacement structure for the antennas does not include an application for new lighting. What the statement was is that the ground equipment, so the various different carriers, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, they have equipment
shelters and ground equipment already there because they have their antennas on the water tower. They may have some maintenance lights at their exact locations for their equipments. But those maintenance lights again would be very uh probably lights about six or seven feet high and only used when a
technician is on site during low light conditions. So they wouldn't be like landscaping or beautifification lights that would be on at all hours of the night. And they're not on a timer where they automatically go on at night. So they're only going to be on if a technician's on site during work in a in
a during night, which again is very rare. And if they're up there at that time, it's an emergency situation. >> So these must be existing because you already have those sheds, right? >> That's that's what I'm saying is the lights. Uh we're not proposing now. So, if there's lights there, they're
existing lights that are there. Um, and again, with the setback from the street, unlikely that anyone has noticed those lights. >> Okay, >> Mr. Bur, additional comments or questions? >> Just a few more and then I'll be done. Mr. Chairman, >> please. >> Um, Mr. Patel, so the fire official or
the fire marshall issued a memo several months ago about the application uh requesting a Knox box. Knox, >> I assume no issue with addressing or satisfying his >> No, we'll satisfy that. >> Okay. Uh, and then an EIS, an environmental impact statement was submitted with the application. Can you
just take a minute um just clarify that there's no environmental constraints or other environmental related issues as it relates to this to this project? >> Um, I did not personally prepare that, but from what I know and what I've discussed, yes, that's that's what we believe. >> Okay. Uh, but Mr. Patel, while you
didn't do the full uh dynamic environmental report on full environmental, you did review things like slope and grading. Could you just speak to that and site drainage? >> There there was a question about site drainage whether the pole structure will affect in any way the drainage patterns.
>> Sorry. Um so I did issue a letter uh you may have received that that's on record that we did explain that there are no negative impacts on the slope or the drainage patterns in that area because of this proposed poll.
And and so so that letter indicated or part of your application is that there's a modest increase, a slight increase in imperous coverage due to additional gravel being placed in the equipment compound area. And your testimony is that that's not going to cause any
negative impacts. >> That's correct. >> Correct. And this is not a major development in terms of storm water management and you're in compliance with the the township's ordinance. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
>> any additional comments, Mr. Patel, or questions from the board? Mrs. Armin, did you have a question? I >> have a question, >> sir. >> The way I'm looking at it, you're going to construct a new access from 202 to come into
a paved access way from 202 to come from 20. Is is there going to be a gravel Further down on your drawings, you show that
>> there is an existing gravel path that leads to the water tower compound. I'm not proposing anything new >> from the neighbor's property. You come down, there is a driveway. >> Yes, that's existing from Route 202.
>> You are Yeah. Are you going to be um paving it with the asphalt or will that be? >> It will stay as gravel as it is right now. We are not proposing to pave that. >> I would Is it existing or
>> It is existing. That's how the water tower is accessed right now. >> Okay. >> We're using the same access. >> So, it is existing. >> That's correct. >> And it will stay the way it is. >> Correct. >> Okay. And just for for we have it shown on the
on the plans. It is it is right here. So there is the existing access drive that goes through route 202 >> and comes here. And as part of the application uh we did submit a copy of the easement that details the applicant's rights to use that access.
>> You got the easement in 25 or something like that. >> So the easement's been there for a while. There was a court case that had uh to resolve some issues with the easement. Those have been resolved and the easement has now um been perfected. It's been improved, but it is the
language has been improved. The actual physical driveway itself is a existing gravel driveway that's not changing. >> It's it's existing one. >> Exactly. Exactly. Physically there's no changes to the driveway. >> So I have a question. Maybe he may not.
Well, there is snow or something. That's that stone paved pathway get covered with snow and how do they clean it up? We >> we have another person who's going to testify on behalf of the applicant about site maintenance operations and they can
speak to that. Essentially, the easement did detail that, but we'll have someone speak to that. >> Okay, >> great. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. >> I just miss you had questions, please. >> Um, Mr. Mr. Patel. >> Yes. >> A few questions for my review that I
don't know got covered. Um on all of the ground equipment that's shown on the plan. It's it's all existing. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Sheet five does show that it says proposed next to Verizon equipment. So there was some confus or I was at least a little confused. So that could just be cleaned up. Um
>> yes, that is existing >> and and all of the ground mount ground equipment is existing. >> Correct. Um just to clarify we are adding fencing >> fence it but >> to the within but no other equipment >> no other equipment there is an unlabeled
equipment on sheet five I think it is labeled on sheet six just as existing equipment cabinet is that just general equipment for for the antennas it's not specific to any of the carriers or what is that utilized for
>> that's for the water tank >> the water tank Okay. Um, and then as far as the connections, the utility connections to those cabins, it appears that they're all connected to the water tower. Are they going to remain in that condition or are they going to are new
connections proposed to the monopole? >> So, the connections that you mentioned are the cables that connect the antennas to the ground equipment. So, once the antennas are removed, those connections will be removed as well and then they will be going towards the new pole structure. Will that be shown on an
updated plan or is that >> correct? So when when a building permit application is submitted, they will have more details about >> they will have more detail. Okay. Um and then my last question um was related just to the um and I don't know if I brought up at the last hearing so I
apologize that there are four current carriers on the water tower. Correct. >> Correct. >> Um including who? There's Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, and who else? >> Dish and Dish. >> Dish Wireless. >> Which Okay. Dish Wireless. Um, as far as I saw on the plans as the co-licants,
Verizon and T-Mobile were included. >> Correct. >> Um, are AT&T and Dish proposed to remain on the water tower at this time? >> No. The idea would be for them to relocate to the tower as well. It's just that they are not part of this application.
>> Do the elevations for the monopole show all of the antennas that would be on it or do they right now only show the Verizon and T-Mobile antennas? >> They only show two of those. So just Verizon and T-Mobile. So >> but there is room for two more carriers on that point. >> And can you just describe the drawing is
up on the screen right now. Would those >> would those carriers the antennas look similar to how they're shown on the elevations and they would just be fit in between or below? >> That's correct. So there will be one carrier in between and one right below. >> One below. Okay. >> They will look similar to what's shown.
>> And um so are you seeking approval for all four of those those antennas at this time? At this time, I think they're only seeking for two carriers because they're the only ones listed on this are >> to clarify the the applications for the tower itself. So, the the the use is for
the cell tower and then there actually is uh T-Mobile and and Verizon as part of this particular application. So, they'll be on. My understanding though is that the use is the one that's being approved by the board and then maybe there'll be different permits for the individual carriers to go on. we can
show the carriers on a future drawing. The uh the issue is just a practical one of that T-Mobile and Verizon join this application and were able to provide us the documentation for the application. The other carriers took a position of
let's see if it gets approved and then they may will expend some resources to draft up plans. So, our understanding is though from a limitation of where they could go, more likely than not, they are going to colllocate on here after this is approved. That may be a separate building permit if they don't change the
tower structure. Um, but again, we've designed the tower to support them. Um, and we do have as well as uh we'll have a full structural report provided showing that we can support from a capacity standpoint all of their equipment as well. >> And I'll defer to Mr. roller um you know
what he thinks the best course of action is um and if if you're only seeking approval for you know the drawing that is there if a colloc if an addition of of collocation antennas in the future would represent an expansion or require you to come back to this board and I want to make sure that it's covered
[clears throat] you know so that just for the addition of antenna >> so in a future collocation if they didn't substantially change the design there's a a federal law that comes into play called an eligible facility request. So what it says is basically uh
a local locality a municipality has to approve a collocation application by any carrier as long as they don't substantially change the facility which would be a change to the increase in height by more than 20 ft or a change from the existing fence compound here because they already have their ground
equipment located here and we provided the space below the existing carriers. We don't foresee that. But if they made a future application that substantially changed this facility, that would require another board approval, maybe an expansion of the variance use. But we've
designed it so that they would go in the design below the existing carriers. And I've assumed that would be based on New Jersey law just a a building permit approval. >> Yeah. And I'm familiar with the eligible facilities request procedure. And it um it it's not something that would come
back to this board. it would be handled administratively. >> And >> unless they did a substantial change, >> right? Right. >> One one other question is, is there any opportunity for a different carrier to come in and colllocate? Let's say AT&T and Dish
got beat out by someone else who wanted to join. Could there potentially be six carriers on the site, two remaining on the water tower? I know that the testimony thus far has been that the water tower is kind of kicking you off because of security concerns. But if forever whatever reason that change could additional car different wireless
carriers then jump on this tower. >> Theoretically, yes, it's space to provide units. So it may be another wireless carrier that isn't operating in the market right now or it could be emergency communications equipment. Maybe the municipal fire department wants to have some space on the tower.
Maybe the police department have so it's a structure. It can support any number of types of antennas. Um, and that's in the future speculative. We I don't know what they would do then, but it would provide space not just only for AT&T. Any carrier could go there or any
emergency communications provider as well. >> Okay. So, there's and based on the eligible facilities, you know, law, I don't think that we we control that, right? >> Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Um, I have a question for M. You said there's going to be a fence around the
um tower. What's the dimensions of it? >> So, it's roughly 500 square feet. So, let me just quickly show you what that is. So, if you go to page six, I think that's what you have, right? >> Yeah. >> So, if you look at that, there's a 35 ft
dimension. That's 35 ft length and a 31 ft deep. >> And how high is it going to be? So the fence I think they're proposing is 10 foot tall fence all around >> be like a wire fence. >> Yeah, a chain link wire fence.
>> Okay, thanks. >> Just real quick, this you this is uh this application is because you have to build this tower, right? The everyone has to vacate that water tower, >> correct? >> That's correct. So there is room on this pole for every service provider that is
on that water tower today. So we're not >> Absolutely. All right. So no one's going to come back and say we need a 245 foot tall tower because >> well there's no room on this one. >> Correct. I can't speculate with someone else another applicant. >> I just want to make sure that we've
designed this so that every carrier that's on the water tower could fit on this without a change in height at a 145 ft structure. So we've designed it to fit them and correct the testimony that we have part of the application is American Water has told all the carriers to vacate. So they have to get off their
leases are being terminated. >> So you have on there now four, right? >> Correct. >> And the four can go over there. And you talked about additional ones could come later. What's the maximum that can fit on the 140 foot tower? >> So that that would be again speculative
because I don't know what type of equipment. So, uh, an emergency communications equipment, they not always have as much equipment as a cell carrier. Sometimes it's just a municipal whip antenna. Sometimes we can fit those on the very top of a tower. Um, sometimes we have other emergency
communications equipment that are more of like dishes and other kinds of equipment or less smaller antennas. So, it depends on the type of equipment. They overengineer these towers to have capacity not only for the four carriers but additional future buildout for those four carriers if they had additional
antennas that they wanted to put at their own rad centers as well. So we're building it for these four but there is built enough overengineering so that it could fit other carriers as well. So another two came along five years from now there would not be a problem then
>> I again we don't know what those two carriers are proposing like the types of weight of equipment what kind of height and need that they need um and right now those two carriers from my understanding aren't really operating there's four carriers operating in the country
nationally is T-Mobile Verizon AT&T and Dish and Dish is not really deploying right now but they have an existing site here so we've put space for all of the four main carriers that are operating. The tower may have additional capacity for another carrier, but that carrier is
not even in existence yet. And we're talking about I, you know, I don't know how to guarantee something that's speculative like that. >> Okay. >> But we've overengineered and designed it so that if they have a chance, more likely than not, they could fit here. >> Okay. One one question to jump back to
the lights. At at what height does uh a light is a light required? You're at 150. Where does the FAA say you need to have a light at the >> So, we do as part of our analysis, we actually do a filing with the FAA. It's called a determination of no hazard to air navigation. It's dependent. Usually,
it's over the height of 200 f feet, but it really depends on if you're in a flight path, how close you are to an airport, stuff like that. So, they have determined with this particular cell tower, no flashing red light, no markings are needed. Okay. >> Any other questions for our board
members or professionals >> regarding the tower? Um, did the radio engineer consider a future location for those that lowest level of cellular service? >> So, we've designed this tower with for
the four carriers that that are there. So, this height is for those four carriers to be able to clear the existing water tower. But again, the line of sight, the the the minimum height that takes care of all four, >> correct? For all four tower at this height, and that's been a testimony from
the RF engineer, I believe, uh, confirmed by by your own RF engineer. >> Very well, at this time, let me open up the open up to the public for questions that are specific only to Mr. Patel's testimony. So if you're a member of the
public and you wanted to question Mr. Patel about his testimony, you may do so. Seeing no one, we have somebody who's interested. >> You can sign in, please. And >> hi, I'm Julio Montavo. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth. >> We're not swearing you in because >> I live in Bridgewater. Right now, we're only at taking questions of what he testified to. >> Of course. >> Okay. >> And what is your address, please? >> I'm sorry. Say again. >> Address. >> Oh, 203 Marshall Way, Bridgewater, New
Jersey. >> Thank you. And could you spell your last name, please? >> M O N T A L V O. >> And your question for Mr. Patel >> is you spent a lot of time standing here, but your lawyer was spending more
time testifying on your behalf and the lawyers here on the public side were questioning you and still more time was spent on your lawyer testifying your behalf and you were the expert and my
concern is why? >> And so the lawyer wasn't testifying, he had technical information that was reporting to the board. Not my perception. That's all I was just trying to tell you. >> Very well. >> I'm from the public. >> So, >> all right. I understand. >> And thank [clears throat] you for your
question. >> Please come up, tell us your name and your address. [clears throat] >> Uh, hi. Uh, my name is ASM Islam. Uh, I live at 32 Timberline Drive. >> Okay. >> U, it's not my, uh, field of expertise.
ASM Islam. ASM. last name Islam >> 32 Timberline Drive. Again, this is not my expertise uh my field of specialization, but I'm just curious u [clears throat] is this cell phone tower uh in any of
the local airports gliding path. Have you contacted and shared your information, heights, etc. >> Um so that was a question by Mr. Fresco just earlier. So, we did do what is called an FAA lighting study, and it confirmed that this is not in a flight
path, and it's not at a height that would require any lighting or markings. So, that that is is not a hazard to air navigation. It's not in a flight. >> And Mr. Fatel, you can confirm that that's accurate. >> I'll go. Mr. Mattel is not the person who submitted that report. That's why I'm testifying to this because there's a
document on testifying. >> I'm referring to documents that are on the record. Correct. >> Okay. And uh and you are a are you a structural engineer or as I'm a civil engineer >> civil site so you're mostly with the site development and all that. So from a structural point of view do you would
you know what kind of gas to wind or load rating or uh you know has been used to design this tower. >> Yes. So >> so you're going to have to come up in front of the microphone. You might have to share. So the question the gentleman asked is um how how is the tower
structure designed structurally? What kind of wind gust what's taken into consideration? So there are codes that are stipulated require how the tower needs to be designed and when we submit for a building permit all the design
which are pstamped will dictate all that and then there will be part of the package that will be submitted to the building department. So there are code requirements which uh we'll have to follow. >> Very well. >> And also since you're >> So now you're going to have to come back in front of the microphone. I know we're
playing a little tag, but the meeting is recorded and it's also broadcast on YouTube. So without talking to the microphone, we can't hear you. >> Yeah. So I understand uh how close is the tower going to be to the water tank? Is there a a restriction in terms of uh
what is the minimum separation? like if your structure falls down, is it going to take out the water tank and then you're not going to have water? >> So, I can answer that. So, the way it's placed right now, the the tower is about 30 ft from the water tank. Um, as far as
the risk of falling down, I would say if there is a event where the tower, the antenna tower has a risk of falling down, the water tower probably will have the same issue. So you're not going to have a water tower standing and an antenna tower falling on it in my
opinion. But it's as I say the codes require that these are designed for a maximum event like that. So the water tower itself since it's an elevated structure also designed to the same standard. >> And Mr. Mr. Patel also in your testimony
uh could you also talk about how towers are topheavy and that if there was a collapse of a tower more likely would the antennas fall in on itself >> right so usually the way uh these towers are designed through throughout the years as I have seen them they don't
fall like a falling tree um if there is an event where there is an overstress in the tower structure they it usually folds over itself so that it the bottom part is usually much stronger than the top So it usually there is a failure in the middle and then it falls over on its
own. That's that's how they're usually designed. >> So it would fold, >> right? It would fold. >> Is that what you're saying? >> Correct. >> On top of itself. >> One last. >> Sure. >> One more question, please. >> This one.
>> Um, are you going to have any camouflage stuff on the tower? Is it uh too close to a residential neighborhood that may like look a little bit odd in the context of you know if you have other things going on and it would be eyes
source or does it do does it require any camouflage or are you planning to do anything or >> we we have a planner who's going to kind of testify to that that that question. >> Okay. >> Right. There's something >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um thank you Mr. Patel. We will close
the Is there additional questions about this his testimony? Please come up then and tell us your name where you lay where you live. Speak into the microphone please. You might have to adjust it.
>> Thank you. Uh my name is Kavita Raalo. Uh living in Bridgewater 5 lane. K A V I T H A R A O >> please ask your question.
>> So my question is uh maybe it's already been considered but I wonder whether uh there is any health or radiation hazard in the neighborhood because it's a residential area. So if if there is any
radiation being emitted uh how would you uh you know have any remediation to that and uh we know that uh >> so that's not for this witness right that was that was testified to at the last hearing and the board's engineer we
have an our own RF engineer who reviewed all that and he was satisfied with the condition of of that as well. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> It was looked at question but it was looked at. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for Mr. Patel's
testimony specifically? Seeing none, I'm going to close that portion of the meeting. And Mr. Kenny, do you have another witness you'd like to call? >> Yes. Uh we would like to >> Thank you. >> we'd like to call uh Ed Frolley right now. Um he's we've submitted a letter on
behalf of the applicant CX Towers. Uh Mr. Frolley is here being to testify on behalf of the applicant as as a representative particularly to answer any questions the board may have regarding site operations or just development of the site. >> Very well. And please um tell us a
little bit about yourself but spell your last name for us. >> Before you do that, would you raise your right hand? You solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So help you God. >> I do. >> And your name for the record, please. >> My name is Edward Frolley. I'm an executive vice president with Tectonic Engineering. Spell your last name,
please. >> Oh, I'm sorry. F R A W L E Y. >> Thank you. >> Been working in the tele telecommunications world since 1993. I've been with Tectonic with the I left for two years, but since 1997,
I've worked forever major carrier. I've worked basically nationwide, a little bit of international. Um, I was instrumental in putting CX Tower and Leasing and American Water together. Um, I think that's why Mr. Kenny wanted me
here and Mr. Fa couldn't make it tonight. So, >> fair enough. >> Anything else you'd like to know about me? >> Yeah, I maybe missed it, but who do you work for? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Tectonic Engineering. >> Okay, thank you. >> And while you're not testifying, uh, he he's working at an engineering, but he's
testifying as a representative of the applicant, not as an engineer. >> Yes. Okay. >> I'm not an engineer to begin with. >> Understood. Yes. Thank you. Um, so, uh, Ed, if you could, there were two affidavits submitted, uh, with the application. Could you just state that,
um, there was not only from a radio frequency standpoint, a review of alternative properties, but also from a leasing standpoint, there was a review of alternative properties. >> Correct. Um, you know, and and first and foremost, when you're trying to find a new site, you've got to get somebody willing to lease you their property. If
they're not willing to do it, well, you can't lease the site. We're not going to be here to zone the site. So the two two places we went to we went to Thermal Fisher. I personally did it um did exactly as they asked which was send them uh mail. We did that certified mail
return receipt received uh the receipt back. They were not interested. They just never got back to us. The other site that we dealt with, excuse me, that they spoke about at the last touring was the BTCT Associates, which is that building down on 202. >> Yes. Um, and that's got the um
decommissioned sprint uh sprint uh antennas on the on the outside of the building. >> Uh, again, we not only did we reach out to them, but we reached out to their Steiner Equities Group. >> Nothing back. So, at that point, there's really nothing else that we could work with out there unless we wanted to go to
a residential area and that didn't make a heck of a lot of sense to us. >> So, no noting uh he's really just testifying on that. Uh he's also here just to answer any questions the board may have regarding site operations or questions of the applicant.
>> Okay. Appreciate that. But it's your testimony that you've evaluated other sites. You attempted to contact those who may be providers of those sites and either the sites were eliminated because they weren't appropriate or they had no interest in leasing to you. >> Correct sir.
>> Very well. [snorts] And with respect to the operations, let's see if there are any questions first from our members of the zoning board. and then we'll defer to our professionals if they have questions about the operations. >> No questions, Mr. Burr.
>> No, no questions, Mr. Chairman. >> And Miss Armed. >> No questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. With respect to the the operations, I'm going to make a statement and please tell me if I'm following the true path here or not, but right now you have there exist antennas that are affixed to
the water tower. New Jersey American Water wants those antenna removed and as an alternative, you're erecting a new support structure, the 150 ft pole that we talked about to locate those um antennas on that. So far so good. far so
good except for 150 foot with the lightning rod. >> 150 with the lightning rod. Thank you. And with respect then the operations would continue as they had done in the past. There may be occasional or more than occasional sometimes um requests to maintain the equipment uh with respect
to software upgrades and things like that. But how would you describe the need for technicians to access the site with what frequency on average? Um, barring any emergencies, what do you expect is sort of a daytoday operation? >> Average about once every six weeks.
>> They will go to the site just to check it out. Um, nothing else is going to change as um Mike Patel stated. All the equipment stays the same. You're going to see uh the fencing that we spoke about. Um, absolutely nothing else
changes. >> Okay. And as it was described earlier, the the lighting that's required is only required in low light conditions by service personnel who might be called to the site to do something and then those lights will shut off automatically once
they're done with their activities. >> Currently, the only two that have lights are the Verizon shelter and the AT&T shelter. And both of those shelters, the doors into the shelters look down towards um um Scientific. >> Okay. So they they don't even go out
towards 202 right now. >> Very well. Other questions on the operational aspects of this for Mr. Froley from the board professionals? >> Mr. Chairman, >> please. As I understand it, um failure
to remove the um >> antenna from the tower, the water tower, um will result in you. The the applicant has no choice but to remove it. >> You're talking the water tower right now.
>> Water tower. Sorry. >> Yeah. They have no choice. >> They have no choice. So, uh their options are either put up a new poll or half the people in this room lose their service. >> Um every bit of that. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Sure. I I don't mean to be so blunt, but you kind of hit it on the head.
>> Yeah. Well, blunt is good sometimes. Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Any members of the public who would like to ask Mr. Frolley some questions specific to his testimony about operations of the new proposed cell tower. And seeing none, I'm going to close the
public portion of that. And Mr. Kenny, >> thank you. >> You may continue. And thank you, Mr. Frolley. We have with us our our final witness is our professional planner. Um Paul, could you pronounce your last name for me? Sorry, I don't want to butcher it. Gleets. Um uh I offer Paul as a
professional planner. >> Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. And again, your name, full name for the record, please. >> Paul, last name Gleet, G L E T Z.
I'm a professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I've been in practice for over 20 years. I am a licensed professional planner. I'm also an American a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and I have a master city regional planning from the Blouse School. I have not I
don't think I've been here, but I've been before Bound Brook, Bedminster, Hillsboro, Rout, and Rocky Hill, Somerville. So, I've been in the neighborhood. and your New Jersey license is in good standing currently. >> Paid up. Thank you. >> Right. We accept your credentials as an expert and welcome you since you've been circling the neighborhood. Welcome to Bridgewater.
>> Happy to be here. >> Thank you. >> Um I think the and I know we want to kind of move this along. So the project description, I think you're all pretty well informed of what we're trying to do here, what what the proposal is. Um the property description, I just will mention quickly um that we're in the C7
commercial enterprise zone district. This property is located behind lot 6 and and is uh access from Route 202 via an easement through that property through lot 6. It's a single parcel that's 10,000 square ft owned by New
Jersey American Water. It's bound to the east by vacant and winter property associated with the Fiser Scientific use on block 163 lot one in the M1 zone. To the south um is the developed Fiser Scientific property also in the M1 zone.
To the north is a um residential home in the Route 202 rideway further to the north and to the west there are some single family residential dwellings with frontage on Route 202 also located within that C7 zone. Um it's landlocked
and access is just provided by the uh by the easement. It's improved with a water tower tank, two wireless equipment buildings and it contains colllocated wireless antennas as we talked about from the four carriers. Um the C7 commercial enterprise zone is
designed to achieve a single integrated development with a compatible theme and architectural and signage. It permits retail stores and services, personal service establishments, food markets, professional business offices, banks, restaurants, gasoline service stations,
hotels, um wireless communications facilities. Their use is conditionally permitted within just about every other commercial zone in the entire township. It's not allowed in this one, but it is allowed as conditional use in the M1, which is the site of the Fisher
Scientific. Um, so this this site has historically included the the uh the water tank and that currently hosts all the different antennas. Um and so a use variance is required. Um because it's
not one of those conditionally permitted uses in this in this one zone. Um and you need to take in account your your variance calls out what your job is to when considering a use variance for these types of things. I think the chairman has been along the way I've been watching you ask questions to kind
of satisfy these these requirements. So number one um site like host location priorities have been considered. It will fit the coverage cap coverage gap in the least intrusive manner. We demonstrated a good faith effort to investigate
alternative sites and alternate technologies and designs. Um where a new facility is proposed on a site already in use, the applicant has evaluated the effect on the new facility on the existing use. Um and again the
site and supporting structure design is capable of supporting more than one wireless carrier. So I think we've met all those standards that you have in terms of the evidence that needs to be presented. So we're here we need the D1 use variance relief. Also included in that is the D6 principal building height
relief we've talked about and we now we're looking for 150 ft in the zone where um >> 45 well 145 plus 5 ft for the um uh
lightning rod uh where 93.25 ft exists which is the current height of the water tower. We also have front yard sideyard setbacks and um the height uh the setback from the property lines are all additional bulk variances associated with the application as the site
engineer has described. Um so your your master plan I have to you know review that and discuss that with you quickly. The uh your last master plan re-examination report was adopted in 2022. your 2005 reexam kind of looked at
wireless um facilities and that kind of led to your ordinance requirements out of that review. Um under the 2022 master plan, there's one major objective to preserve the development character and quality of Bridgewater Township. This
objective applies to residential and non-residential properties. Um and so this objective um is to reexamine the planning approaches uh remain that remain as a strong municipal concern in order to improve
and fortify the overall appeal of living in the township. Preserving the character of the individual neighborhoods remains a clear objective. Bridgewater Township should continue to maintain and improve its residential neighborhoods and its commercial sectors without creating undue intrusion from traffic, noise, light, air, and degraded
air quality. The ongoing concern includes a desire to preserve residential character as well as corporate character of the township, particularly as viewed along the major highway corridors. Further adopting to changing circumstances caused by shifting social, demographic and
economic trends, increases the municipal interest in updating the ordinance to respond to modern needs to in order to maintain equality of neighborhoods and active actively promote a robust commercial sector. So, that's a very broad statement that that hits a lot of points, but I think our application hits
a few of those in terms of um in my testimony later on, you'll see that we we we protect the neighborhood character because it's really hard to see this. Our visual impact is actually quite low when you look through the photo simulations that were presented um to to
the board. Um, it's also on the it keeps the 202 or corridor active and it provides needed necessary services and it's it's a modernization to keep up with technology and to support, you know, folks wanting to live and work um in the area. So, there are two cases,
Supreme Court cases that kind of tell us how we're supposed to proceed with the South Tower cases. One is Smart of New York um versus Feralon and New Brunswick Seller versus Township of South Planefield. And so that's where the New Jersey Supreme Court set forth what our
what your responsibility is and what our analysis needs to be. Um so under the positive criteria for the D1 use variance, um we have to show that the we're promotes the general welfare through the purposes of zoning and the
sites particularly suited. Number one um is purpose a of the misable land use law and that's to uh guide the appropriate use and development of all lands in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Those two cases I cited earlier
um promote uh have found that the um holding an FCC license to provide seller communications um generally establishes that the use promotes the general welfare. Um, and the New Jersey Supreme Court has stated that prompt, reliable information is essential to the public
well-being. Um, so, um, as you all know, the cell phones provide 911 services, emergency phone calls, family phone calls, information at your fingertips, keeping your kids occupied when you're waiting for your food to come. All those kind of things we now have in our modern
society because of cell phones. Um, additionally there's purpose M, which is to encourage coordination of various public and private procedures shaping land development. The view to lessening the cost of such development and to be a more efficient use of land. This this
colllocation of this monopole right next near the water tower in an existing compound is a very efficient use of land. We're reusing most of the infrastructure on the site and just providing the monopole because we're required to do that um and vacate the
tower. So again, same lot, same use, same intensity on a new structure without the need to develop a different property. We're all within this within the existing lease area compound. We're not cutting down any more trees to do this. So this is a very efficient use of land. I think we can talk about that you
furthered the goal of your master plan in terms of keeping up and having modern technology to keep the Bridgewater popular for um residents and for commercial businesses. And again, the second part of this is the particular suitability of the site. And I think
you'll find again um you know the RF engineer went through a lot of testimony about why this site's important, what the gap is, what gap will be created, what gap will be filled. Um and the height is also necessary to clear the water tower and all those other kinds of
things. Um additionally um it's a non-residential use. It's immediia joins a 58 acre site that conditionally permits wireless facilities. It helps mitigate the visibility of the use and assists in separating it without substantially negative sorry without
negatively impact um substantially negatively impacting neighbors. It's close to ru highway 202 and is landlocked um and appear and and this kind this lot seems to be a be created for the for the water tower itself. So
it's kind of seen as this um utility lot anyway. Um let's see uh under the negative criteria um smart and seca uh we have to do this balancing of the positive um the the the two prongs and then we compare that to any kind of um
detriment to the zone plan and the master plan. So the first prong is the the four-part balancing test we have in SECA. The first one is the public interest. Um, wireless telecommunications facilities serve the public interest through the virtue of
having their FCC licenses. Access to emergency services. Um, 80% of 911 calls come from cellular telephones. Um, prompt reliable information. I can go on and on. All the magic you find in your hand when you're using your cell phone.
Um, and the detrimental effects. It's not a permitted use in the C7 zone. Um but if you look at the photo simulations have been submitted. Um the visual impact of the proposed monopole is dimminimous and the only potential negative impact since the proposed use
is passive really is uh and there's no very low traffic volumes which are once every six weeks. Um there are no health impacts as testified to under the RF testimony. um no population changes and only minor site changes. So there's no impact on
sewer and water capacity, anything else. Um and then uh it should also be noted that in the C7 commercial zone, it's designed to achieve the single integrated development with a compatible theme and architectural and signage. That ordinance was put in place in 2015 and
no such development has occurred or been proposed so far in that area. And the zone standards specifically exclude lot 6.01 1 the property in question from the requirement to merge lots in the zone due to its status as this water tower lot. So this specific exclusion
essentially eliminates any negative impact um on the zone plan or the master plan because it's already been seen as holding this lot to be kind of separate and unique. Um we can set the board can set reasonable conditions. I think you have some of those you've talked about
but we'll happy to comply with all the u review memos. Um uh and and when you weigh the the last part is the weighing of the the positive the negative and I really think you have the positives of the general welfare and
the efficient use of land off um far outweighing any of the negative impacts you'd have from a visual impact. Um and you can review the um photo simulations. Um I think the D6 height variance um is pretty much kind of
subsumed in the D1. If you don't give us the height, we can't build the tower. Um and uh so and again under a D6 height variance, we want to show that we're we're providing some sort of public good here. So the public purpose again the same ones we've talked about under the
C1 test. Um, and you've also heard that, you know, making the tower shorter won't help because of the RF interference. We have to fit the four carriers and we have to clear the water tower. So, we really can't go much lower than where we
are designed to be this 145 + 5. Um, and then there's these bulk variances. Um, and again, these are all sub I think subsumed in the use variance. Um, you could also, if you wanted to consider them under the C2 variance standards, which is a very similar analysis, the
purposes of zoning, and I would give you the same testimony for the next 10 minutes, um, about the positive and the negative criteria under the C2 standard that applies to the proposal for the for the use variance. >> Yes. >> Very well. Let me pause for a moment,
give you a chance to breathe, and ask if there are any questions from board members with respect to Mr. Is it Gleets? >> Gleets. Yes. >> Gleets. Mr. Gleets's testimony with respect to planning. >> So, let me turn over to I may as well
start with Katherine Sarmat, our board planner as an expert, and see if you have any questions for Mr. Gleets. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I believe Mr. Gle covered all of the requisite proofs and requirements. I have no questions for him, but you know, I think the board should feel comfortable that he has provided all the testimony
necessary to support the variances. >> Very well. And from Mr. or Dr. Eisenstein based on some of the testimony he had given just reiterating what had been testified to before you didn't notice any thing that needs correction or further questioning. You tell me.
>> Uh, no, no corrections, Mr. Chairman. Just one point of clarification. In Mr. Gle's the beginning of his testimony, he mentioned a number of factors that were addressed through the course of other witnesses testimony. And I just I just want to be clear. You were referring to
um section 126 341.5. >> Well, I'll tell you exactly what I was referring to. >> So, subsection H lists five factors that shall be addressed. >> 1999.3A.
>> Well, 3A 3A is is a separate ordinance. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Then it's u 341.5H. >> 3 341.5H. Those were the factors that you there was five of them that you summarized for the board having addressed each of them. >> Yes. >> Your testimony is the use variance
standards of the township's code have been addressed. >> Correct. Both your your for this particular use you have your own kind of checklist. I think we've met all those checked all those boxes and then you have the miss use law requirements for for the dvariance and everything else. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Thank you Mr. Burn. Dr. access that. >> So I I would just like to confirm that the use that is the um the need for this tower if the antennas have to be removed from the water tower as they do. The need for this tower has been well established.
There would be a significant gap in service over a vast area of this township if if the replacement antennas are not erected. The second point I'd like to make is that Mr. Valco was clear in his analysis that because of the
existing water tower, the height has to be at least the 145 ft plus the um the the lightning rod, which is a separate issue, but it has to be at least that high in order to get clearance over the water tower. So I I think that that in
both cases the need is is established and the height is established in my opinion. And the other issue that I just like to make sure that we have on the record is I reviewed all the emissions information and the um the uh the safety
considerations and confirmed that everything would be in compliance with FCC regulations. So the tower if constructed the way it's designed will be safe and uh usable the way it the way it's supposed to be. >> Thank you very much for that
clarification. And um Mr. Gleet, did you have any additional comments you wanted to make? Any quick questions from board members? I'm just going to pause for a moment to open up the u the floor to the public who wants to question Mr. Gleet
only on his planning testimony. Seeing none, I'm going to close that portion of the meeting. Mr. Kenny, uh >> again, uh so that concludes our witness testimonies. Uh for my closing statement, we just uh state that we've shown that there is a need for this
facility. There would be a significant gap in service created if we don't get this approval and we're seeking to prevent that gap in service from being created. >> Okay. Um, let's take a moment from to just for that from the board itself to see if you
have any questions of Mr. Kenny quickly or if you'd like to begin deliberation. Well, we have to open it up to the public. Should we do that first? >> Any questions? >> Okay. Uh, I'm going to pause for a moment and see if there are any questions from the board.
>> I just have one on that. One of the the reasons that these security Right. So, does this location meet criteria? >> Sorry. >> I was saying that that I understood that
uh one of the reasons the antennas needed to be removed were for security purposes and I wanted to make sure that the location meets the criteria for the uh Department of Homeland Security to fit the needs of that. >> Sure. So, there was a previous uh a um
attorney that represented this applicant who may have overstated some homeland security things. Um the there is a security aspect from essentially the water tank doesn't want unfettered access. New Jersey American water doesn't want unfettered access to the tower. And the issue was was that if if
the cell carriers have to go up to the tower to change their equipment, there sometime wasn't communication about when they were on there. and then they didn't have a record of everyone that was accessing the water tower. So that was the cons security's concern that they're trying to deal with across the region.
So what we've proposed here was the fencing that by separating out the water tower with a separate fence and a separate locked fence. None of the uh cell carrier workers will be able to access the water tower. So this does achieve that security goal by separating
the two uses and having a separate locked fence. It wasn't that someone could just access it. It was that the cell carriers who had a right to access it and had keys to that fence, they were going up and the communication to American Water wasn't good. So, there
wasn't an appropriate record of who was accessing the water tank. Now, by having the fences separated and the structures separated, we no longer have that issue. >> I mean, it's just a fence somebody can can climb over. I just want to make sure there's also >> there any criteria though that need
>> there's also security cameras that are going to be on on on the cell tower as well that are going to be used for New Jersey American water security purposes. But again, it wasn't a security concern by people we didn't know accessing the site. It was more of a recordkeeping
component that we had cellular workers who had to access the water tower, but there wasn't communication to New Jersey American water. So then they for their own purposes did not have a record of who was accessing the water tower. >> That's fine. I just want to make sure that there's not that note that DHS or
somebody doesn't have to evaluate this or >> they do not. I believe a pre a previous attorney may have overstated departments of homeland security review on that aspect. >> Right. So it's not required. >> No, it's not required. This meets the criteria for the for um the utility as
well as for the security concerns of separating the uses. >> Thanks. Thank you. Additional questions from the board. [clears throat] Okay, let again Rich, I'm going to open it up to the public. So, what we'd like to at this time is
open the floor to the public who would like to speak for or against this application. And same rules apply. We need your name, address, and state your case. And we'll see if there are any takers right now.
Seeing none, I'm going to close that portion. Mr. Oler, why don't you take us through what's next? >> So, um, what we have here is a request for four variances. It's a D1 use variance since
the C7 zone does not permit, uh, cell towers in the in that zone. We have a D6 variance for the height of 150 ft and uh, two bulk variances. is there's a front yard setback of 28 ft where 200 feet required in that zone and a
sideyard setback of 25 ft where uh along the easterly sideyard where 50 ft's required. Um I actually agree with the planner who said that uh the D1 probably uh the bulk variances are subsumed
within the D1 which is I think the case. Um, and I also agree with him that the if you hold an FCC license and you can prove there's a gap, you essentially satisfy the positive criteria. So after that, it's really just is there negative criteria for the board to consider the
way against the the benefits of having the cell uses. >> Um, if the board is inclined to approve the application, we did talk about a few conditions. Um that would include that the applicant shall satisfy the FCC RF
compliance requirements. Um all equipment shall be FCC approved equipment. Um there'll be no lighting at the top of the tower. The lights at the ground level will turn
on only when the technician is on site. They've agreed to meet with the township engineer on site to confirm that all the design standards are satisfied and they'll provide a knockbox to the fire marshall's satisfaction. And that's all I had.
>> Very well. Let's have open the floor to some deliberation. Mr. Widley, would you like to start? >> Uh, sure. Um, it's I think it's pretty straightforward. You're on the same property. I'm glad that you looked at other properties also uh before you ended up here. You only move it over
what 35 feet. Uh, no tower, no service. Basically, it comes down to that. It's right there. It's going to be, in my opinion, very transparent except the taller tower there. I'm in favor of it. >> Mr. Gaskki. >> Uh, yes. I I don't really see that
there's any any options to this and uh they have to be off the water tower. So, in order to maintain the service, this has got to get built. So, I'd be in favor of it. >> Miss Rose. No, no service. Got you. >> So, I would approve.
>> Mrs. Wiseman, >> I'm in favor of the improved security as well as maintenance of the service to the public. I approve. >> Thank you, Mr. Kuchi. >> I approve of the whole thing. I like everybody else said, no service,
no cell phones. So, >> fair enough, Mr. Vesio. >> Um, I certainly approve this is critical infrastructure. Um and um it's certainly in the best interest of the community to approve this application. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yeah, I think it's a good case. I
appreciate that you made concessions. You brought the the height down. Um I think it's important that applicants listen to the board and and support the town and the needs. Um but but the reality is this is a necessity and uh I support.
>> Mrs. Amin, >> um I'm in favor of approving this application. I'll just add my comments. I too support the application. We have an opportunity to hear testimony. We've addressed the issues of site selection, of safety, and
the necessity of providing the service and doing it in a way where there's the least amount of disruption to what people are experiencing now and actually enhancing that service with the erection of the tower. And then additionally, as far as the the visual impact, it's
minimized by its very location. So, I would support this application and urge its approval. So, with that, um, Mr. Oler, we're just entertaining a motion to approve with the conditions. >> Motion to approve then with the conditions that I outlined. Yes,
>> I move. >> Mr. Widley makes the motion. May I have a second? >> Miss Rose. >> Miss Rose has a second. Miss Propes, would you do a roll call, please? >> Chairman Kulak. >> Yes. >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Mamine. >> Yes. >> Mr. Geski. >> Yes. >> Ms. Rose. >> Yes. >> Ms. Wiseman. >> Yes. >> Very well. Thank you very much, Mr. Kenny. Thank you very much and we'll
look forward to our enhanced service as as time progresses. Thank you. >> Thank you much for your time. >> Dave, I will need the transcript to do the resolution. >> Absolutely. So, as soon as I receive it, I'll send it to you. >> Okay. Thank you. We're going to take a
quick 10-minute break, please, between cases. Um, Uh before we continue with the next matter at hand, I have an announcement. There is a case that is being adjourned to August 25th. This is the Hankle case
application number 25-011 zoning board ZB uh otherwise known as 66 Finder Avenue and that is being adjourned until 8 um 2526. Thank you. >> Just for further clarification, there will be new notice. That application has
some significant modifications. So there will be a new notice. >> Great. Thank you. Now we're going to pick up with application number 24-027-ZB. This is the continuence of the of the previous hearings. [clears throat]
>> I'm sorry. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Nancy. You need to do a roll call and I was a little anxious to get started. So, please. >> Chairman Kulak >> here. >> Mr. Widley, >> I here. >> Mrs. Zamin
>> here. >> Mr. Fresco >> here. >> Miss Rose >> here. >> Mr. Geski >> here. >> Miss Wisman >> here. >> Mr. Vesio >> here. >> Mr. Kuchi >> here. >> For the record, all of our board professionals are still here with the
exception of the RF engineer. >> Very well. Thank you very much. >> Chairman, >> please. Miss Rose, >> first of all, I'd like to thank everyone for coming. It's very clear that there's a lot of interest. But I would just say this to you as we go through the
evening. The only thing that separates you guys from us is comfortable chairs. We don't get paid. We don't get compensated for our time. We are all volunteers who want to who believe in Bridgewater and want to make sure that
Bridgewater stays the way it should. Okay. Now, we all have different interpretations of that based on what comes before us. But if you don't like what we're saying, I would just ask you to have the respect that um I hope you I would have for you if you were to say
something to me that I disagreed with. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, so this is application number 24-027, zoning board, Bridgewater Self Storage LLC, block 400, lots 1 and 2, 351, Route 28,
and 322 Route 22. This is a continuence of earlier hearings. In fact, this is the fourth hearing. This is for preliminary and final site plan approval with bulk variances and a D1 use variance. With that, Mr. Capzy is here in the capacity of the attorney for the
applicant and if you would reintroduce yourself to the members of the public and the board and begin where with your opening statement. >> Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the board, Matthew Capzy, attorney for the applicant. As the chairman noted, this application
concerns two pieces of real property within the township, 351 Route 28 and 322 Route 22. Just to reorient the board and members of the public, when you take the sites in totality, you have a little over five and a half acres of real property. The property is presently
improved with three buildings. Uh the tectonic building, which has been vacant for quite some time, a single family dwelling, and the Melik farm stand. The proposal before the board uh this evening and has been before the board on the four prior hearings, I believe this
would be the fifth hearing, is to consolidate the two lots into one building lot, remove the existing improvements, and construct a self- storage facility on the property that would be serviced by 15 parking spaces. Uh through interaction with the board, members of the public, the application
has gone through several revisions, uh including the removal of any rollup doors. So, as the building presents itself to Route 28, it's a very quiet elevation in that regard. There are no rollup doors, no opening active windows there. There is one loading dock on the
easterly side and it's actually I'm sorry, westerly side and is internal to the building. So, the rollup door allows for entrance into the building for loading and unloading. So, again, no loading or unloading outside the building in any regard. Uh the building height has been reduced as a result of
interaction with the board. was conforming at the initial filing and has been brought further into conformity as a result of revisions made to the application. I should have started with this as a reminder. We're in a commercial zone. Yes, >> the C3 zone which allows a variety of
commercial uses, um business and professional offices, research facilities, fitness uses, and so forth. Allows for a building height of 45 feet and three stories. Uh the building that's before the board is relatively shallow in height having only a height of 31 ft. Uh it provides a conforming
set back to route 28 a conforming amount of parking. The one principal bulk variance we need is as the building presents itself to route 22 there's a 200t setback requirement and the building is at 100 ft. And as Mr. Ricky had testified uh when we were here in
April. Essentially that results from the shape of the parcel and that setback is relatively in keeping with what you find along the immediate area of Route 22. Uh we do need an F variance and a D1 use variance because the C3 zone does not
provide for self storage as a permitted use and the F is an exceedence of what's allowed in the C3 zone. But uh again we can have further discussion during my summation. But even though we are exceeding the F we have been able to package that with essentially conforming
setbacks, conforming building coverage, impervious coverage and a more than conforming building height. Uh as another reminder, there's no access to Route 28 from this uh for this project. There is an emergency fire access lane that was requested by the fire
department and that has been implemented into the project with some other safe harbor provisions to make sure that that is only used in the event of emergency. So for all intents and purposes, there is no access on to 28 for anyone seeking to visit the cell storage facility which
will be accessed exclusively from Route 22. >> [clears throat] >> And a final component to the project is a sign significant reveation of the buffer along Route 28. Again, with collaboration with the board and the board professionals, we have uh improved upon that landscaping throughout the
series of the hearings on this application. Uh and now I believe it's in a robust and more than fair representation of what we're seeking to do with this site by way of an overall enhancement. When we were here in April, we had testimony from our architect to
discuss some modifications we made to the elevations, namely some material modifications that we made, and we provided the board with some material samples. We also had testimony from our civil engineer, Matthew Ksman, who talked about the modifications that were made to the landscaping plan. And then
we finally had testimony from our planner, Paul Ricky. We began public comment during the April meeting. Obviously, uh yet to conclude. And so this evening, Mr. Chairman, the applicant doesn't have any further witnesses. At this time, we had a reserved in the during the April
meeting. And we continue to reserve our right to recall witnesses or to call new witnesses in the event it becomes necessary. But for purposes of this evening, no witnesses, no exhibits, and we would turn the table over to the public for continued public comment. Before we do that, um, let's go back
just a little bit because over the course of many months, you've had the opportunity to present the board with a variety of site plans, engineering studies, storm water management studies. Um over a period of time, your architect
has worked with both and listened to the public comments and worked with the board to create a a more um appropriate color scheme and a design that fits well within Route 22. So, there's been a lot of information that's already been
shared. And for those people who are here tonight who are new to this case, there's access to this materials, these materials readily available on the township website by going to the zoning board and finding the information you're looking for. And that gives you a much
more informed um position on which to comment. As Mr. Capzy had stated, we're here, however, to get public comment. But I would be remiss if I didn't state that all along Mr. Capzy has been reaching out to the public and
representatives and correct me if I'm wrong, representatives of the neighboring properties and so on to see if some additional plans might be considered. Would you like to outline some of your efforts in that regard in public outreach? >> Certainly throughout the course of these
proceedings, the public has made certain um comments on the look of the building. We the applicant has done what it could to modify the building. We've added some additional fenistration to the building. We've updated this color scheme. Uh we had met with some representatives about
a year ago to talk about some other potential modifications to the site plan uh just to really maintain an ongoing collaborative effort between the applicant and the public. And uh certainly we appreciate that the public still has uh concerns on the application
and wishes to make further comment. Uh but certainly the applicant's position that we are in a commercial zone. The building is commercial in character and given the suite of uses that are permitted in the C3 zone, what we're proposing here this evening is the most sensitive to the residential corridor
that is to to the south. But uh certainly uh even through God willing the project is approved throughout the course of developing the site, we would certainly maintain contact with our neighbors uh to continue to solicit input and and uh build the project out
in as sensible way as possible. >> I appreciate that. I'm going to ask Mr. Oler who is the board attorney um and I'm going to provide some guidance as well. We are going to enter the public phase of the meeting where we're asking the public for comments. You can see the
number of people here. We're going to limit the amount of time that each member has to three minutes. And I know we have been collecting a um signin sheet, but Nancy, we have to have them sign in and give us their address when
they get to the podium. Is that >> given the number of people and the interest of time? >> I'll write down the names for our purposes, but they have a stenographer. >> So, we want to do it that way. I don't
mind. >> I mean, just have them announce their name and address and then move on from there. >> Yes, because most of the people did sign in when they came in. >> Okay. That'll save some time if they don't have to actually sign the physical piece of paper. >> They sign that paper, they can say. So we can cross reference that for purposes
of spelling and things like that. >> Fair enough. Um and there are some specific guidelines that we'd like to adhere to and that is when you're looking at a project like this you have to have the factual information and of
course your opinion. your neighborhood um supporters or people who are in opposition to the project and we respect your opinion but please try and keep it as objective as possible. Mr. Oler, do you want to provide some additional guidance?
>> So in addition to the threeminut time limit um in order to participate in a land use proceeding, the municipal land use law indicates that uh you have to be an interested party. And as you would expect, it's a defined term under the
municipal land use law. And it's defined um generally as any person whose right to use, acquire, or enjoy the property may be affected by the application. So if you're a resident of Bridgewater, you're certainly an interested party.
Um, you know, and if you're not a resident of Bridgewater, you would have to be able to establish to the board that you um you have some you're impacted or affected by the application on this property. >> Okay.
>> Thank you, Mr. Eler. With that, Mr. Kapzy, we're going to open the floor to the public. So, if someone would like to speak speak in favor or in opposition to this, please come up, tell us your name and address. >> Thank you. By the way, there is another sign-in sheet up here. So, I don't know
if it needs to be >> We're trying to move things along. So, we're going to ask that you state clearly your name and address. And hopefully, we're going to cross reference some of those amongst the sign-in sheets that were filled out earlier. But thank you. >> My name is Stuart Essum. I live at 23
Purscell Road in Bridgewater. >> YM. Okay. >> So, Mr. Essum, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you, God. >> I do. >> Thank you, members of the board, for
allowing me to make comments. As a preliminary matter, uh I want to say uh that I was formerly a lawyer in New Jersey. I'm retired from practicing law. I'm retired from the bar. Uh consequently, my comments are my own
opinions as a citizen of Bridgewwater. Uh and not on behalf of anyone but me. >> Very well. Thank you. >> Um I'll be speaking uh mostly limited to the Dvariances. Um, under Medici and the municipal land
use law, the applicant must prove by enhanced quality of proof that the proposed use promotes the general welfare because the proposed site is particularly suitable for the proposed use and the use variance is not inconsistent within the intent and
purpose of our master plan and zoning ordinance. To support the general welfare justification, the applicant's planner made reference to a report showing the community was underserved by similar storage facilities. But the applicant failed or refused to produce
the report and in fact the planner admitted he himself never reviewed the report but only heard about it from someone else. I respectfully ask the board attorney to instruct the board during deliberation that hearsay cannot constitute grounds for approval of the
application and as such the application must fail. Second, >> Mr. Houston, before you jump to the next thing, let me just tell you quickly that they did supply that report that their planner referred to >> wasn't supplied during a public meeting.
>> It's supplied to the board the same way they supply their application. So, the board has it. It's now part of the record is what I'm saying. >> I don't think there's any grounds for that. >> Sure it is. >> I'm not an attorney. >> The board asked for it and it was
provided. It's now part of the record. >> All right. Well, I object on behalf of everyone in this room. >> Yes. >> Who did not get an opportunity. >> That is not transparency. >> You may continue. Right. Second,
I note that the applicant's use requires removal of a pre-existing agricultural use Mix farm stand and an occupied res residence. The farm stand and the residence are not a property. They're not properties that are vacant
or in Utah. Rather, uh they promote um agriculture and enhance our natural resources. Consequently, what the applicant proposes to do by removing that is to destroy the public welfare, not enhance
it. [applause] >> If we take time to applaud between every comment, we're not going to get through. Last, I want that the >> F application fails to show that an increase in the
permitted floor area ratio will not impair the zoning plan and ordinance. The ordinance limits uses in this zone to a F of three and the applicant sees seeks an F of 4.3. The board's own planner says the F limit for
>> your time is up, sir. >> Excuse me. >> Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you very much for your testimony. I >> I would ask that you allow us to go. >> We really don't have the time. Um if you're making if you're making >> if you're making critical points,
>> right? >> I respectfully request the board to >> Excuse me. There will be order in this chamber. >> I request that this board >> I'm speaking right now. I am speaking right now. >> Your time is up. This time transparency
>> and I thank you for your comment. >> Only three minutes per person. >> Only three minutes. >> Excuse me. You're out of order, sir. You will be removed if you continue to be out of order. >> Being part of the public does not
entitle that kind of behavior. >> And neither does that. >> Ma'am, please. Mr. My name is Diane Bliss. B L I SS. I'll be very brief. First of all, >> Mr. Bliss, first, would you raise your right hand, please? You solemnly swear
that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help you God. >> Yes. 66 Hillside Avenue. I just want to know, are we the garden state or the storage state? And secondly,
why you put our hearing off to the end of this meeting for two very small meetings when there's hundreds of us here. Thank you. You're welcome. So, first let me respond to that question because the the tower application has a federal shot clock
that the board has to adhere by otherwise it's automatically approved without our review and comments and conditions. So, we had no choice but to hear that application first to make sure that we could finish it. >> Next person, please.
>> My name is Phyllis Colomb. I am not a Bridgewater resident, but I am an employee of Melix Farmstand. >> Okay. >> So, if this gets approved, I will no longer be your right hand, please. You solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
>> Absolutely. >> Would you spell your last name, please? >> K A L M B A C K. Address 84 Lincoln Avenue, Somerville, New Jersey. My concern is that I don't feel like there is a need and if there is a vote
tonight and you folks approve it. There is a storage facility that's up for approval that has yet to be decided on. There's also the Chimney Rock Road which I believe someone else is going to address. I do not think that Bridgewater
Storage has pro has provided any burden of proof. I resent that the minutes from the 428 meeting are not available online. So, we couldn't research what
your planner said because I dispute his records. And you also stated back in July of 25 that there was going to be an operational person who would testify. I don't recall that. And in the last two
days that I've reviewed all of these minutes, I have not seen anything. And kudos to the board members who have been asking since the second and the third meeting for justification and testimony from a planner and an
operational person. As of this date, I've not heard whether there is even someone to operate this facility. So in my mind, if you give this approval, you are knocking down a beloved community
center that is thriving and provides economic vitality because just about everybody in this room is one of our customers. >> When I was a project manager, if I went before a board, the first thing I would
do is prove my need for something. With all due respect, it has not been proven. The burden is on them. >> Very well. Thank you. [applause] >> Welcome. You are. >> Good evening. I'm Rebecca Mik. I reside
in Hunter County, but I operate Melik's Town Farming. >> Miss Muick, would you raise your right hand? I'm sorry. Yes. >> Thank you. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And would you spell your name, please? M L I C K. >> Thank you.
>> I have been providing my family's homegrown fruits and vegetables to the residents of Bridgewater for the past 22 years. Even prior to my tenure, this historic building has been a seasonal farm market for literally generations.
What we do affects others. The farm market serves as a familiar touchstone of oldtime Bridgewater as the town has grown and developed. The farm market is a place where neighbors and friends meet, pick up fresh corn for dinner,
Jersey tomatoes for the perfect sandwich, juicy peaches at the peak of summer, and during the fall, our famous apple cider, many varieties of apples, and of course, the pumpkin patch for their children's first pumpkin.
As a 10th generation farmer, I have some advice, words of advice for this board. Farming is a business unlike any other. We are custodians of the land. We understand the importance of sustainability. We wake up every morning with
responsibilities that can't wait. My family and I look My family and I look back on our day with pride, having worked to preserve a healthy environment from which our children thrive. Zoning boards and farmers share similar goals to protect and preserve the land
and the communities that grow from it. With the looming threat of being displaced by a retention pond for yet another self-s storage facility, I have received many well-wishes from my customers shopping at the market and online because they get it. They
understand how much it affects our quality of life. And I believe that many of them are here tonight. But in order to continue serving the residents of Bridgewater, you, the zoning board, must vote against this proposal.
Even if the storage development didn't go against your 2025 master plan to promote farm markets, you have a choice to make that will impact this township for generations. It will affect how neighborhoods grow. If you want to sustain the vibrant and
peaceful beauty of Bridgewater, think like a farmer. focused on the long-term plan for preservation and the effect that will have on literally everything. Sustainability matters as much here as it does on my farm. Ignoring it comes
with consequences. You will reap what you sow. Thank you. >> Thank you. [applause] Your name and address, please. >> Nicole Ivala, 501 Rolling Hills Road. >> So, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the
testimony you will give to this board be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Would you spell your last name, please? >> I E V O L E L L A. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Um, so in regard to the safety issues associated with this project, I
don't believe that the board has explored fully the shortcomings and flaws of the traffic statement presented by the applicant. First and foremost, the location of the facility driveway is problematic on multiple levels. Its location on the backside of a curve in
the road makes it impossible to see until one is almost upon it. There are no acceleration or deceleration lanes on either side of the entrance. A narrow shoulder only starts after the overpass and hardly accommodates a full-size car,
let alone the SU box truck referenced as the largest vehicle allowed on this site. This coupled with a limited line of sight at the Route 28 ramp onto Route 22 east makes this a hazardous interchange
as it exists now. Let alone once inexperienced rental truck drivers become involved. When the grass gets high or the snow accumulates as it did this winter, one can absolutely not see oncoming eastbound traffic to safely enter onto
Route 22 from Route 28. Even if one floors it, it is still a challenge to get up to highway speed safely. If constructed, one would have 5 seconds to make a decision to either switch lanes safely or jam on the brakes
without getting rearended because a box truck is pulling in, off, or onto highway traffic. For traffic coming westbound onto Route 22, the situation is even worse as they have to navigate another inherently dangerous intersection with limited line of sight.
These roadways and intersections were never designed for the increased amount of vehicles we are now encountering. The IT statement presented from which all the trip calculations and predicted changes in trip generation is
flawed and inaccurate. It uses data from 2013 citing 35,000 cars per day using Route 22. These numbers have certainly increased substantially since then. During questioning after his
presentation, their paid traffic expert admitted that the information utilized for his research was based upon a computerenerated composite, not actual local field data. Upon scrutiniz scrutinizing the IT bibliography, it was
revealed that the data used for his testimony was from the 1990s, 2000s, and the 2010s. >> I'm sorry, your time is up. Thank you very much for your comments. >> [applause] >> Brady 351 Route 28 Bridgewater.
>> You raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> I'd like to ask for a little leeway considering we were not allowed to speak during the question and answering period. If my comment goes 3 minutes and
20 seconds, I'd like some consideration, please. >> Well, you just burned up a lot of time asking for it. Thanks for your accommodation. All right. I'd like to address the applicant's claim of strong market demand or regional need as a justification for self- storage as it
pertains to the Medici protections. While there are computerenerated statistics often cited as benchmarks for self- storage demand using population density or rooftop square footage as predictors, the regional and hyper local picture is very different. Since the
beginning of these meetings, I've been informally visiting and polling operators within approximately 5 miles or 15 minutes of the proposed site. Their feedback has been very illuminating. While a few local companies are at capacity with long-standing commercial companies, the majority are at less than
capacity with enough current vacancies to be to completely able to absorb any future need by Bridgewater residents. Pulled locations were in Bridgewater and nearby Branchburg, Rariton, Hillsboro, Manville, Bound Brook, Greenbrook, and
Lebanon from established companies such as Extra Space Storage, Life Storage, Self Store, Public Storage, Store Space, Compass Storage, I Storage, Prime Storage, Rarin Storage, and Arthur Storage. The resulting number of
vacancies was a conservative 1,271. If you add in the recently approved Chimney Rock facilities, 876 units, the proposed Miltown facilities, at least 300 units. The proposed Somerville facilities, 378 units, and Branchburg's
already approved facility on Route 202 and Immlone Avenues, 587 units. This all adds up to over 3,400 units existing, approved, or pending approval. hardly the storage deficit portrayed by the applicant trying to
satisfy the Medi Medici positive criteria by arguing that the it serves the general welfare. It does not. While about 33% of American households have rented a storage unit at some point in time, only one in 10 actively rents a
self storage unit. For argument sake, let's use 12% as statistic for usage. 3,400 is 12% of 28,333. While Bridgewater is not responsible for other town storage needs, is there even
anywhere close to 28,000 housing units being built or even considered in Bridgewater and neighboring towns? Even when they satisfy their Mount Laurel 2 affordable housing mandates by 2035, Bridgewater will still have plenty of storage options. Add to this that a
portion of the potential new construction will be single family homes with basement, attics, and garages. The demand shrinks even further. Couple that with the very real sociological trend of contemporary home buyers and renters shedding material possessions. The subjective claim of regional need
further collapses. People don't want their grandmother's dishes, their parents' spoon collection, or their beanie babies. >> So, your time is up. The applicant's failure to market or redevelop lot 2 prop does not legally render the property. Nor does it bestow particular
suitability on a prohibited warehouse from other people. >> Please vote to deny. [applause] [applause] >> Good evening. My name is Kathan Takar. I live at AD Sha Road Bridgewater and I am a real estate broker, commercial and residential. One thing at my hand,
please swear that the testimony you >> solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Thank you. Yes. >> Thank you. Would you spell your last name, please? >> T as in Tom. H A K E R. >> Thank you.
K E T A N >> Ad Schaefer S H A F F E R I have sign in here. You're welcome. I'm a real estate broker, commercial and residential. One sentence attorney mentioned that C3 zone is a commercial
zone and I agree with him on that point. But commercial doesn't mean you can have 24/7. C3 stands for the office which is sunrise to sunset not 24/7.
So I'm I'm here to ask board to deny this application aside of quality of life this ill advised variance can drive property values down and that's the topic I will like to
speak to and as a residential and commercial broker I think I can offer unique perspective as witness to township for development and its impact on community.
The prosperity of my life, my neighbors life and my business will be affected if you approve this uh storage unit. First of all, this application should be
dead on arrival. it does not match the zoning uh permit because it's not fall into C3 doesn't fall into storage unit. Second thing far ratio it's way too far
than what is allowed. Eight years ago I had applied for variance to expand my home in backyard some 10 foot or so. I spent lot of money to put planning and everything together architect plan and township denied it. They says your your
home is fully whatever is allowed is is maximum uh built we cannot allow you to expand. So if tax I've been living in bridge bridge water 20 years and if I'm not allowed to expand my home in my
without causing anybody trouble why cooperation should do now other thing they calling self storage unit it's not don't buy it and I tell you why
106,000 square foot 700 plus units. No, as a commercial broker, I know if you go and lease the commercial warehouse, it cost you $18 plus cam charges. It's triple net le and you have to buy, you have to sign long-term commitment versus
self storage unit and I just check I have all the proof black and white. >> Your time is up, but thank you very much for your comment. >> I just want to say one thing. >> No, thank you very much. >> $189 put for the storage. time away from other people. Thank you.
[applause] >> Name and address, please. >> My name is Andy O'Harn. My address is 135 Walters Brook Drive in Bridgewater. I'm about 3/4 of a mile from the facility. >> Okay. Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. So, O apostrophe H E A R N. Yep. With all due respect to the comments that have made before and a written statement by each person would allow us
to say more. But having said that, um, regarding the concessions that were mentioned, they strike me more as, um, changing the position of the deck chairs on the Titanic. We are no longer seeking concessions. We are now reminding this board of their
duty to enforce existing zoning ordinances as drafted, adopted, and carefully crafted by the township council, which clearly states that self-s storage warehousing is explicitly prohibited within the Bridgewater Township C3 office and service commercial zone. There is a reason why
such structures are relegated to the manufacturing and industrial areas like offensity to our residential neighborhoods. It is not up to the applicant's paid planner to interpret the established master plan for their benefit and at the expense of current and future Bridgewater residents
in direct conflict with the stringent legal standards of the municipal land use law. In fact, a Wall Street Journal article dated April 15, 2026 called storage facilities in commercial corridors and residential areas economic dead zones. quote where variable in businesses and job generation could
otherwise exist and thus provide a multiplier effect on the local economy. In fact, there's a moratorium in 15 states against storage facilities in such areas. So the lesson to be learned is that we need to enforce the master plan's language as written regarding the goals and objectives pursuant to and I
quote the preservation of character of established residential neighborhoods as a paramount planning objective unquote and quote to preserve the overall quiet nature and quality of life that the township holds dear. And having said that, I ask the board to one uphold our
zoning preferences, two honor the township master plan, and three deny this D1 variance request. Thank you. >> [applause and cheering] >> Your name and address, please. >> Siona Naidu, 25 King Drive. You may spell that. >> Sure. Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the
testimony you will give to this board be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> And would you spell your name, please? >> Yeah. First name S I Y O N A, last name N A I D U. >> Thank you. >> Right. >> And then 25 King Drive. Yeah. So that's
just down the road and around the corner from Melix. So I'm here tonight like everyone else to ask you to reject the application to demolish Melix Town Farm. Let's be real, the project doesn't fit here. It's being forced to fit. I moved to Bridgewater with my family in 2014.
And to discover the neighborhood, my mom and seven-year-old me would bike around Waltersbrook, Miltown Road, the Route 28 area, uh often ending at Mulix for a snack or my favorite, local honey. That was 12 years ago. Now, in 2026, even after a year of
college out of state, Melix has remained a go-to for fresh goods, snacks, and my favorite, flavored honey sticks. I want to talk about what we were what we are giving up to make room for this ugly eyesore of a storage facility. Melik's Town Farm isn't just another commercial
lot. It's a working farm stand that families in this town have driven past and stopped at for years. It's part of what makes this stretch of the road feel like a community instead of a corridor of warehouses and industrialization. It is a Bridgewater landmark, and once
it's demolished, there is no bringing it back. We've also seen this movie before. In 2015, just a year after I moved here, a developer proposed a convenience store and gas station on part of this same site, and it was withdrawn after residents like my own family uh pushed
back because it didn't belong here either. Just last year, this board already approved a three-story self-s storage facility less than a mile away at Route 22 and Bossor Avenue. So, my question is, how many self-s storage buildings does this part of Bridgewater need? At
what point does approving just one more add up to a fundamentally different identity for Bridgewwater? One that all of us love and cherish and one that none of us voted for. I understand that the applicant has tried to soften the edges of the project, but this does not answer
the core question in front of all of you today. Should this site become a storage facility at all? A smaller, better landscape storage facility is still a storage facility on a site that isn't zoned for it. So why are we replacing a farm stand that this community values?
Nobody, not a single person, can tell 12 year later stories like I can about the farm, about a storage facility. So what I'm asking for is quite simple. Say no to demolishing Mixtown farm and no to yet another self-s storage facility Bridgewwater did not ask for. I would
much like to drive by this big red beautiful building again next summer when I am home from college. Thank you. >> Thank you. [applause] >> Hi again. This is ASM Islam from 32 Timberline Drive, Bridgewater. >> Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony
you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And would you spell your name please? >> ASM last name Islam. ISLM like religion. >> Thank you. >> Um beside being the resident and user of US 22 I I'm also uh I work as a
professional engineer licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey uh doing roadway design for more than 30 years. So I think one lady touched out uh on the safety aspect of the driveway entrance driveway on US22 and I totally
agree with that. She brought exactly the points that I really wanted to speak about it here. But just to give you few little bit more engineering uh perspective uh through some numbers uh the US22 as you know it's a high-speed
facility. It's 55 posted. We designed it for 60. So for somebody who's driving 60 m an hour and trying to come to any stop uh at the driveway which is at a perpendicular almost like you know zero speed uh you need as per the ASHTO
guideline about 500 ft uh so 500 ft for the deceleration and then you need from going from stop condition to speed up to margin to the S22 highspeed uh you know traffic that takes 1,200 ft. So you're talking about 500 ft up, 1,200 ft down,
1,700 ft of shoulder that probably people would be using for this uh you know maneuver and the shoulders are not wide enough because uh we are changing the land use because the design vehicle right now is trucks heavier wider it's
going to stick out into the travel lane and you know with that high-speed facility it's going to create basically unsafe situation and also to point that out that 500 feet I was talking about uh the the deceleration lane that you need from the driveway. It puts you in the
area where your traffic from the ramp from route 28 is merging. So it's like a overlapping uh uh situation going on. In our business we call it weaving uh maneuver. So some people are trying to speed up and marging into the higher speed lane. Some people are trying to
slow down and going to the lower speed lane. In this case shoulder. So this lane layout, the lane balance, all these things right after the bridge is not properly done for this use. So I I I my professional opinion is a it's going to create a very unprofessional unsafe safe
situation uh for the user of the roadway also uh you know anybody who's trying to get in and out of the facility. So I request that please consider from the safety point of view this thing anytime we provide unsafe situation you know
somebody's going to get hurt on top of that we're going to have lawsuit financial liability for the township and all that that comes in so >> very well thank you very much >> thank you [applause] >> please state your name and address >> Ethan Chen 12 Windover place a few minutes away from the storage facility
Thank you, Mr. Chen. Would you raise your hand, please? Um, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. E E T H an A Chen. All right. I So, I've
lived here basically my entire life. A few minutes away from from Elix. Uh, drove past every day going to school. And I'm just confused why we're making this massive exception and demolishing our historic farm stand for a self
storage facility of all things. This proposal flagrantly violates our ordinances. The site is not zoned for storage facilities and their plans 44% floor area ratio far exceeds our 30% limit. Now, I'm not instinctively
against development. If we were developing something beneficial to Tim community here, I'd probably support it. If they were just building on empty land, I also wouldn't mind as much. But to tear down a landmark and trample over our ordinances for a box for people to
dump their stuff in, that's ridiculous. The business model of a self storage facility is effectively a scam. They get people to put their stuff in, then hope they're too lazy to ever take it back out. At best, we'd be scrapping our farm
stand to perpetuate the scam on our neighbors. At worst, we'd be replacing our farm stand with a giant empty box. Either way, Bridgewater residents lose. This proposal is absurd and presents a substantial detriment to the public
good. I asked the zoning board to uphold our ordinances, honor the township master plan, and deny this D1 variance request. Thank you. >> Thank you. [applause] >> Your name, please, and address.
>> Andy Woke. That's spelled WK. 213 Short Hills Drive in Bridgewater. >> Thank you, Mr. Woke. Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. >> I'd like to just speak a little bit about the master plan versus the variance that we're all here to discuss. So, looking at the Bridgewater master plan, its vision is remarkably consistent. It calls for protecting residential neighborhoods, preserving
Bridgewater's suburban character, safeguarding open space and environmental resources, and directing commercial growth to appropriate locations. In my opinion, the application by Bridgewater Self Storage asks you to
depart from that vision. Their application asks you to approve a building substantially larger than your zoning ordinance would normally permit. New Jersey law places the burden on the applicant, not the public, to demonstrate that the site is
particularly suited for this use and that granting this variance is consistent with the township's master plan and the public interest. In my opinion, that burden has not been met by this applicant. The master plan also
speaks to protecting residents such as ourselves from light pollution. Approving a variance for this development is likely to introduce exactly the type of commercial lighting the master plan seeks to limit. We know that approving this variance
would affect a cherished and irreplaceable farm stand. But unfortunately, it would also set a precedent that future applicants will inevitably cite if the variance is approved. Based on all of these reasons, I respectfully ask you to uphold the
vision of our Bridgewater Master Plan and deny the variance. Thank you very much. [applause] I'm just going to remind everyone that as we as we get into what are redundant comments, um it would be better to come
up, state your opinion. We don't need you to recite the master plan again. You can cite it if you'd like and say it's not consistent, but you don't really need to go through it all. That way, we can get to the Excuse me. I'm providing some guidance here to allow you all an
opportunity to speak. So, please continue. >> My name is Roman Corduba. That's K O R D U B- A. And I live at 275 Floral Drive. >> Okay. Mr. Corduba, would you raise your right hand, please? You solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this
board be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> My wife and I moved here seven years ago because we were attracted to the bukallic bukhallic charm of the area. Now, the board is considering a variance that would replace a nearly 200-year-old
farm stand with an with an unsightly oversized storage facility. Approval of these variance would set a precedent that would open the door for additional development. There are already active proposals to build two such facilities in the area, one on Miltown Road and the
Chimney Rock Road area. It [clears throat] speaks to a pattern of choices by the board that I find alarming. each one sending us further from the goals of our master plan and our and our best interests. We moved here for the pastoral setting, not to be
closer to an oversized storage facility. I appreciate the need for economic development, but there's a right way to do it. I say we stick to our town's master plan, which calls for the redevelopment of unused facilities rather than than the continued destruction of our valuable natural
resources. This variance should be denied as one, it advances the economic interest of of the developer and the seller to the detriment of 46,000 residents of this town while it while it fails to consider the impact it will
have on our property values and our quality of life. This would be a substantial detriment to the public good while benefiting only two parties. It fails to produce the criteria necessary for the justification of the Medici plan. It fails to honor the
town's own master plan which calls for the redevelopment of large industrial tracks which no longer have viable or or industrial or manufacturing uses. It fails to consider the size and scale that's prudent for that location by by
allowing a facility that permits it uh a wildly inappropriate uh FAR of 44%. It fails to consider public safety, noise, and air quality concerns which come from an increasing traffic density.
This board must deny this variance, make a statement honoring both township residents and your and your predecessors who understood the mission to protect and preserve the traces of our rural past. I'll remind you guys that there's as standing online, I noticed that the
badge above your heads says uh describes the Bridgewater as both scenic and historic. And I hope you you keep that in mind when when you make your call. [applause] >> One more question. >> How many of you guys actually use storage facilities? Excuse me.
>> There you go. >> Just just your comments, please. Thank you. No surveying the audience. >> I'm sorry. >> Said we can't allow you to survey the audience, but thank you for your comments. >> Okay. Thank you. [applause] Name and address, please.
>> Rohit Kurana. For Bugard Drive, Bridgewater. >> You spell your name, please. >> Rohit. R O H I T. Last name Kurana. K H U R A N A. >> Okay. Would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Yes, I do. >> I'm a resident of Bugard Drive almost like 500 ft away from the Malik farm where this has been proposed. There has been lot of conversation and multiple renderings provided by the applicant to date. No real compliance with the required tree removal audience has been
attained. After proposing the clear cutting of 209 trees, the board initially pushed back and the elimination of uh 166 mature trees was submitted. The applicants paid landscape professional then attempted to frame
this environmental degradation as a positive of stating that they would plant 260 two uh 262 new trees resulting in net increase in the number of trees on site. This is profound ecological and aesthetic misdirection. You cannot
replace decades old established tree canopy and its power to mitigate storm water runoff to anchor soils against erosion and reduce ambient light and noise with small fragile saplings and strawberries. There is much more vegetation present and in danger that
just mature trees get logged. Understory density and ground level species play a huge part in the buffer ecosystem. Evenly spaced pine trees surrounded by mulch beds and grass don't even come close to the aesthetic and natural power
being threatened. Even with the revised proposal, they cannot meet the required 75% evergreen plantings mandated. Their best number is 51%. That means 49% of the tea coverage needed to block out this extreme visual
blight would be bare 6 months out of the year. This is yet another shortcoming in their application that would not be allowed to stand in an attempt to circumvent the master plan. I will skip the um mention of the Bridgewater land use sections 126-161.
They further testified that the further the proposed growth rate of the new saplings would be in excess of 2 feet per year. Visual thinking considering this will not be sprinkled area and the frequent and extended broad conditions NG often experiences. This is just one
among the many land use issues they created themselves by trying to shoehorn a ridiculously oversized and inappropriate structure with an excessive F with an into an unsuitably located and unders sized property lot. The long list of illegalities
contradicting to the master plan should have been precluded their summation from even ever being seriously considered let alone approved. They deserve no sympathy, no consideration for the amount of time and resources they have
consumed and the cost they have in occurred as it entirely their burden of trying to push through such an ill advised an oversized project. >> Thank you very much for your comments. [applause] >> Hello, my name is Rebecca Hassuna.
Rebecca Hs O N A. I live at 557 Limerock Road in Bridgewwater. >> Thank you, Mr. Suna, would you raise your right hand, please? You solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Um, first of all, as a member of our local board of education and a fellow volunteer, I want to thank you for your
time. I know that contentious events like tonight mean that you are away from your families for a long time. Um, and I know how difficult that is. So, thank you. On that same note, I would like to say that I'm here on my own behalf and on behalf of my family and do not represent the board in my comments. I do
have just three quick notes. Um, first of all, in the matter of the self- storage, everyone has made excellent points all evening. They've talked about a lot of detailed things. I'm talking about food. Um, we have to do what we can to maintain the type of town we want to continue to live in. In addition, however, in consideration of the news
today with the outbreak of the cycllospora parasites in our food system and the fact that weeks later, even today, a source has still not been identified and confirmed, it is more imperative than ever that we have access to local, healthy, and safe food to sustain our families.
>> [applause] >> We learned this in 2020 during COVID. Oh, sorry. We learned this in 2020 during COVID when we unexpectedly lost access to a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables. And now, while we have access in grocery stores, many people are avoiding purchasing there as the
produce comes from so many different locations. Having access to local farms allows us to control our exposure. These small farm stands that we shut down and lose. The more that we do it, the more likely we are that the local farms themselves will shut down altogether. And then we'll have no options. We are
lucky and privileged to live where we do with convenient access to just about everything, but still quiet and slow enough to be able to walk around the corner and shop at a local farm stand. We will lose our way of life little by little when we lose farm stands like Melix. A five acre second point a 5acre
parcel of land I just googled could accommodate 50 to not that we want it 300 apartments um we need affordable housing I know this is another contentious thing why aren't we using these spaces that are empty like the tectonic building and build apartments
that will actually sustain families um and support people last point and I am not suggesting that this is happening here but it's happened in other areas self- storage facilities ities are being repurposed into AI data centers. Repurposing existing
[applause] repurposing existing concrete buildings allows companies to bypass some of the zoning and lengthy construction delays associated with groundup builds. This is a potential slippery slope that we don't need to put ourselves on. So, I'd ask that you vote against this. Thank you.
[applause] >> Hello. Please your name and address please. >> Sure. My name is Bindu Yalaman Chile. B I N D U Yalaman Chili. Y A L A M A N C H I L I. Six Bard Drive. >> Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony
you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Um again, um I live on Bogard. >> The microphone a little There you go. >> Yep. Shorter. >> Okay. >> I live on um Bogard Drive. I've lived on
it uh 64 26 years and that's where we my husband and I raised our daughters. Um this is kind of emotional because um the kids used to go out there bike um and we used to walk across Alex to go you know get fruit and uh get pumpkins in the fall. Our street is directly across the
proposed storage warehouse and we're among the residents most affected by this project. I wanted to address the issue of safety and traffic. As has been stated, no traffic study was conducted for this proposal. Instead, the applicant submitted only a computerenerated traffic statement
rather than a sightspecific traffic analysis. And the second point I wanted to make clear is the applicant had mentioned that the entrance and the exit is only from route 22 and no access toward 28. But that's not complete story. Any vehicles traveling westbound
on 22 cannot directly access the property. It must exit onto 28 onto Garrison and re-enter Route 22. And that is the most one of the most um congested areas. That means additional traffic at
the intersection that's already heavily congested during rush hour and school year. If a truck misses for and the east entrance route 22 east entrance, it'll end up in the local roads making U-turns and driving through residential streets like mine, Bogard Drive, Kaiser Decker
to get back onto Route 22. That creates unnecessary traffic and additional safety concerns for our neighborhood where my kids used to feel safe walking around to their friends houses and to walking across to Melik. It's my understanding under the New Jersey law,
the burden is on the applicant and not the resident. And to prove this variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without impairing the intent of the zoning plan without a comprehensive boots on the ground field study and without
addressing the westbound access, the applicant hasn't met that burden. And in addition to this, uh the Ethicon site was approved for a truck transfer and that's going to jump dump a lot of um trucks onto 22. And with all this
additional traffic, there's got to be a traffic study that has to be done before we even consider this application. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the board to deny the request of variance. Thank you very much. [applause] And your name and address, please.
>> Hi, my name is Vsha Chira. V A R S H A C H I R R A. And I live at three Kaiser Lane. >> So, Miss Sher, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> I'm 19 years old and I have lived in the same house my entire life. There's no other place that I called home. And Miliktown Farm has been down the street, exactly six houses down, a tenth of a mile from my house, as long as I have been alive. There has never been a moment where me and my family could not
count on the farm to have the produce for all of us in the summer or the fall. This application must be denied because of the noise of the work that will be done that will disrupt the daily lives of all those who live near me. It is not a secret that no one in my community is getting younger, and no one wants to
listen to this being built. I know that there are empty promises to mitigate the noise, but there is no mitigation plan to my knowledge. And even if there was a noise mitigation plan, it is largely irrelevant because there's no way that there will be no noise from the construction. And as someone that
currently works in the construction field, I can confirm this. For these reasons, I ask that the board deny this D1 variance request. Thank you. >> Thank you. [applause] And your name and address, please. >> Yellow Chile. V in boy. >> You know what? If you move the
microphone up a little bit so that we can hear you better. Thank you. >> As in boy. H A V as in Victor. Ya. Yellow Chili at six Bogart Drive. Um >> you raise your right hand, please. You solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do.
>> Thank you. >> Uh B as in boy. H A V as in Victor. Y A last name Y A L A M as in Mary A N as in Nancy C H I L I. Um I'm a resident of Six Bogart Drive just across Malik Farmstand. I've lived
here for 25 years and this is my first time speaking at a meeting. I speak to you, the board, as well as everyone in this room, the overflow room, and around 200 people on this live on the live stream. I stand before you today as a concerned constituent that cares about my community. A community that I have had the privilege of growing up in
playing outside with my neighbors, sledding down hills on snow days, picking up apple cider from Melix in the fall, and walking to school bus stops to go to our public schools. Speaking I speak to our community because this is more than just land development. It is part of a vibrant residential community
where families live, children play, neighbors walk their dogs outside, and grandparents enjoy evening walks after dinner. A massive warehouse would fundamentally change the character of this area. As stated previously, it would bring a steady increase in
vehicular traffic, including larger trucks to roads that were never intended to support that level of activity. More traffic means more opportunities for accidents and greater safety risks for families that use these streets every day. While development has its
place, it should not come at the expense of the safety and the quality of life of the residents who already call this community home. I respectfully request the board deny the variance. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. >> Thank you. [applause] >> Name and address, please. Lawrence
Catelo [clears throat] um 854 Kushi Drive. Thank >> you. Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> C A T A L D O. Okay. I've been a I'm a
property owner in Bridgewater. Have been a full-time and part-time resident since the 1970s. I say no to approving this uh variance uh that would allow the storage facility.
In summarizing what everyone else had said to approve this variance would be to alter significantly the characteristic of our neighborhood of this neighborhood here would also be contrary to the
master plan. I mean this has all been said before. You all represent us. You're the only ones who do. Just vote no to preserve our neighborhood. Obey the ordinances. Thank you.
>> Thank you. [applause] >> And please state your name and address. >> Um Kevin Cobber. I live at 833 Meadow Road, Berto, New Jersey. K O B E R. Last name. Kevin, first name. Hey, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Uh, I've lived here my whole life. I'm 29 years old. Uh, my family has lived here since the 80s uh before 287 was fully developed. Um, our town represents
um a special area in New Jersey, a sort of refuge from the overdevelopment that the rest of the state faces. A lot of people who have stepped here tonight have spoken to that. They've moved here as outside residents and spoken to the fundamental characteristics of our town
and the historic nature that they do love about our town. Mix farm stand um represents that historic nature and to pave over it would be to pave over history of our town and of our state. Just because the facility uses our
town's name does not mean it represents the needs wants or uses that this town would have for it. Uh thank you. Thank you. [applause] >> Name and address, please. >> Robert Samansky, 3405 French drive.
>> Would you raise your right hand? Right hand. >> Mski. >> Thank you. Would you raise your right hand, please? You solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Thank you. Bridgewater zoning ordinance as detailed in the schedule of area yard and building requirements section 126 to
325 strictly mandates a 200 foot minimum building setback for properties fronting on the route 22 highway corridor. This 200t setback is not an arbitrary number. It is a critical long-standing planning tool utilized by the municipality to prevent a claustrophobic canyon effect
along the highspeed highway. ensuring the preservation of adequate green space, maintaining adequate vehicle sight lines, and provide an expansive buffer against the highway noise and pollution. The oversized visual massing and util utilitarian operational nature
of this huge self- storage facility are fundamentally incompatible with the desirable suburban boulevard aesthetic of the Bridgewater master plan demands for its primary highway corridors. The applicant is proposing a shockingly reduced 100 ft setback
representing an aggressive 50 50% deviation from the statutory requirement. Under NJSAA mandates, bulk variance requires proof of a unique physical hardship of the property that legally prevents compliance. The applicant has not proved this. A bulk
variance cannot be legally granted merely to maximize the developer's buildable footprint or to ensure the financial viability of an oversized project. If the applicant designed and presented a building scaled appropriately to conform to the permitted F and dimensions of the zone, the structure could have easily
satisfied the required 200 foot highway setback while simultaneously maintaining a highly respectful, deeply buffered distance with route 28 residential boundary. The need for this extreme setback variance is entirely manufactured by the applicant's
relentless desire to construct an unneeded facility that is functionally and dimensionally too large for the tract. Those consolidated lots can and should be viewed as separate entities. Lot two, lot two, block 400, the Tectonic lot, can be developed as a
standalone project. That would leave one lot, the Mix lot, as it is, as it as it is a tax generating community-enhancing permit permitted and established business location. Please vote to deny this ridiculously oversized application. Thank you for your time. [applause]
>> Name and address, please. >> Good evening. Maryanne D. Stephano, D capital S T F- A 15 Woodward Drive, Bridgewater. >> Thank you, Mr. Stephano. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> In the tragic event that this project gets approved, there are some considerable ramifications related to flooding and the retention pond or infiltration basin. First off, the soils and geotechnical engineering report clearly characterized the area as having permeability
questions relating to the unsuitable soils needed to handle the massive amount of imperous surfaces and its resulting runoff and that the storm water management approach be modified. They are also using 100-year storm assumptions that are no longer valid.
Recent history has proven that catastrophic 100-year events are happening with much more frequency. For example, supertorm Sandy, Floyd, Ida, and Irene all happened in the last 15 years along with additional significant rain events, flooding
events, not counting the more frequent storms like the last the one last Thursday that dumped five inches of rain in three hours. Using these outdated 100-year rain events for their water elevation calculations results in insufficient
berm height and retention pond depth. Since the beginning, there were numerous discrepancies between storm water conveyance sizing and water elevation calculations mentioned. Overflow will dump into the UN unnamed tributary on
the property and into the north branch of the Raridan, a stock trout trout trout stream of some significance. The north branch is not a non-trout waterway as stated erroneously in the environmental impact statement. Runoff
from this site would significantly impact it if this insufficient s shale formation of the retention basin is inadequate to perk and drain. What will keep the stagnant water from becoming a mosquito breeding ground and help hazard? The real travesty in all of this
is that the gargantuan size of the building and the resulting retention pond is what will wipe out the farmhouse and the farm stand forever. Do not let this transpire vote to deny. [applause] >> So before we ask for your testimony, I
just need to confer with Mr. Oler. >> Absolutely. Just so the public is aware, we're we're at this time up against the clock and typically we allow for no new testimony at this time. Would like to extend that a little bit, but I'm not certain that
we can get through everyone who would like to testify. As such, it it puts us in a position where we would adjourn the meeting and ask that we continue public comment at some point in the future. However, I have to point out that the applicant has been back before this
board for five times we counted, I believe. So, we're trying to accommodate his needs as well. Um, I would appreciate some order in the chamber, your comments. This is not a social media forum. This is a board of adjustment meeting. It is a quasi
judicial hearing and your behavior is inappropriate. So, with that said, I'm going to entertain at least five more people. But before I do, would like to ask the board if they have an opinion about how much longer you would like to go, knowing that in my opinion, we're
not going to get to a vote this evening anyway. >> Can we get an idea? Can we get them to line up so we get an idea how many more folks want to actually speak >> or show up or if you just raise your hands if you'd still like to speak and haven't had an opportunity to speak. >> I think that the people who were in line
before 10:00 should be allowed. We should hear them. people who stood in line after 10 o'clock. I think that's a natural place to cut it off. >> Well, I don't know who's keeping track, though. That's my issue. >> Yellow shirt man. The taller yellow shirt man. >> He's the last guy. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Very good. Everyone be behind the taller yellow shirt man can have a seat. >> I >> And we'll get your name later. If I may, >> can I ask for that? >> Our cut off time is 10 o'clock.
>> Well, we we won't have a roll call. Um we will however agree uh that we are going to limit testimony because we're well past our time to hear new testimony. So with that, if there's anybody on the board who would object to that Rose,
>> I would like us to finish this tonight and I think they would all like us to finish it tonight. So [applause] having having said that, knowing that you want to finish tonight and knowing that time is of the essence, are you all going to
say something different? Are you going to stand in that line and tell us you're in favor of this application? It's going to be completely different. >> All right. And I I think that um in order to if we were to try and finish tonight, then we're up against a an
11:00 deadline. I think it's unfair to ask the board to stay much longer. Mrs. >> Should be the last person and then we will deliberate and vote on it. >> Right. So, what we're going to do is just go down to the gentleman that was identified as the last person in line
for us and then at that time we'll reevaluate unless the board has a stronger opinion. I just don't want to ask everybody to stay that late. Okay. So, please continue.
>> Okay. My name is Frank Relle, 134 Warren Avenue in Bridgewater. Would you spell your last name, please? >> R A R A C H E L L E. >> Okay. Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, something a little bit different. Um if you look at HVAC tonnage for instance on 106 106,000 um size uh building it's going to be um
five dB at you know if they say at um or we're going to do it to the to the code that's still five dB right below max and so that same problem existed at Miltown school and the entire system had to be replaced just because the hum of 247 365 so that's something to consider as well.
Um, and lastly, uh, I'm a sales and marketing guy. Um, I use, uh, syndicated data all the time to justify my recommendations to Kroger, to CVS, to write aid, etc. That's that's who I sell to. Um, the fact that we can't see the survey and justify its reality uh, is is
worrisome to me because anyone can fudge numbers. And that's what he was doing when he came in here the first time. He walked in and said, "Yeah, I got that." Well, you know, he conveniently forgot it. Now, is it available to us or is it submitted in a way we can't see it because that's >> No, it's it's available to the public
and it was made available as soon as it was submitted by the applicant and it's online. >> Okay. Okay. Is it syndicated data? Is it firsthand data? >> Um, I can't comment on that. I'm going to have to let you >> I can I can request that. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you very much.
[applause] Christopher Hansen, 487 Meadow Road, Bridgewwater. >> Mr. Hansen, would you raise your right hand? 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? Thank you. >> Hi. >> H A M Pso N. Yeah. Hi. My family and I
have lived in Bridgewater for more than 20 years. My wife and [clears throat] I moved here from Brooklyn shortly after our daughter was born. We bought our home from Ed Irving. I'm sure some of you remember Ed. At the time, the Irvings were leaving Bridgewater because they were frustrated by the
overdevelopment of the town. [clears throat] Standing here tonight, I can't help but wonder what they would think if they saw this proposal before the board. One of the things that attracted us to Bridgewater was that it reminded us of where we grew up in upstate New York. It had open space,
local businesses, and a neighborly feel. The Garden State became our new home and Malik's farm stand became our new spot for fresh produce. To be clear, I am not opposed to development. In the two decades we've lived here, we've seen Bridgewwater grow in into a diverse and
vibrant community. I am opposed to this objectively uninspired use of this land. It begs the question, why are surrounding towns attracting businesses that strengthen and reflect their communities while Bridgewater is considering another place for people to
store what George Carlin famously called their stuff. Bridgewater deserves better. This community does not need or want another self- storage warehouse. We need development that contributes to our community. We attended the previous
hearing and listened [clears throat] carefully to the operator's presentation. We saw the revised plans and the design and landscaping modifications made in response to community feedback. I work in construction and my wife is a creative director. We both spend a great deal of
time thinking about how things are built, how they function, and how they look. But you do not need a degree in architecture or design to judge what is in front of you. You can use your own eyes and your own judgment. And what [clears throat] is in front of you is an unattractive building.
It is 106,000 square ft. To put it plainly, it's nearly the size of two football fields under one roof. The plans have may have been redrawn. The landscaping may have been modified, but none of that changes the fundamental problem. It is out of scale with the
site and out of character with this community. I trust the board took seriously the traffic concerns raised repeatedly at the last hearing and has since visited the site. You don't need another report to see what is already there. One entrance from Route 22 east, no deceleration lane, and commercial
truck traffic rooted onto residential route 28. Finally, as my neighbors have already outlined, the excessive building height and far simply do not meet the standards for the variances being requested. For all those reasons and on behalf of my family, I respectfully urge
you to deny this application. >> I'm sorry your time is up, but thank you very much for your comment. [applause] >> Name and address, please. >> Joseph Vitz 855 Sunset Ridge. >> Would you spell your last name, please? >> V I N CE. >> So, uh, I'm actually Would you raise
your right hand, please? >> Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> Uh I'm actually here in support of this application. Um I was curious about uh the amount of opposition that's been going around town, so I uh just came
because I was interested in it. Um I look at this as uh you're surrounded by two state highways. You have Route 22 and Route 28. Uh the Tectonics building has been vacant for many years. It's an eyesore. Um the property is really being underutilized. Uh yes, we do have a farm
stand and u obviously that's an icon of the community and uh I don't think anyone wants to see it demolished or gone. However, um they're a tenant so there's really no guarantees that if this application is denied that uh it's going to be there forever. It's actually
a non-conforming use. Um, and you know, I I don't really I'm think about what the permitted uses in the three C3 zone is, and it's really just professional offices and medical offices, which we already have abundance of along the Route 22 corridor, and they're all
vacant. So, if you want something done with this property, you have to do something that's going to be reasonable. Certainly, I don't think the permitted uses necessarily are something that's going to be viable or make sense. Um, they're limiting the access to Route 22.
People about talking about trucks. Well, that's where the trucks belong. It's a highway. So, you know, I I don't see why the DOT will make the decision on the driveway, and if they feel that it's inappropriate, then they'll deny that the access uh permit, but it's really not for the town to decide the access.
Um, so I I just am concerned. And I think for the town to continue to thrive and move forward and the viability of the Route 22 corridor, you do need to see something happen on the Route 22 corridor, but the ordinance what's there and what's been contemplated back in the
90s in the early 2000s with COVID, the offices are all vacant. So you have this, it's a low inensity use. All the access is from 22 on the state highway. Um, you know, and the other option would be what? Affordable housing. Well, that because we're right next to the R40
zone. You're across from the R20 and then it's ne across from the R20.1 which is an affordable housing zone. So, it probably would be appropriate too to put residential housing there. But if you look at what the impacts on the rest of the community would be in terms of the schooling and the other municipal
facilities, I think they would have a great larger impact than this self-s storage facility. And uh I think if you make it look nice um that portion of 22 you you need to do something with it. If you have a relatively officel looking
building and other buildings that are compatible with the rest of that stretch and you buffer it from where the residences are, I think that this is actually a good use of the property. And if it's denied, then we don't know what could be there.
If anything, it may just sit vacant forever. >> Your time is up. Thank you for your comments. There will be order in this room. >> And it's grossly inappropriate to boo somebody because you don't agree with their opinion.
>> Please introduce yourself and tell us where you live. >> Um, [clears throat] greetings to the board. My name is NK Shanker. Uh, I live in 18 Kershaw Court in Bridgewater. >> And would you spell your name, please? Uh, last name S H A N K A R [clears throat]
initials N K. >> Near N E M M A R A that >> Okay. Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> So, my my wife and I have lived in
Bridgewater since 1997 for 29 years and in the vicinity of this property. Uh, we raised our two children there. They have been to the Bridgewater school system, high school. They're now in college. And we used we drive by Malik's farm pretty
much daily. And when they were growing up, we we could walk up to the farm and and buy produce there. The reason I'm here is when we heard about this happening. I'm representing not just me, but my family. And you asked if there was something different. I'm also representing my kids who grew up here
who were giving me their input from college. once in the Midwest, once in Scotland. Um, so they said, "Oh, what's happening to Melik's farm?" I said, "Okay, maybe it's closed for some reason." And then when we explained this is what's happening, they said, "For what?" Okay, self- storage facility.
They said, "Self storage facility? Bridgewater does not need another self- storage facility. That's that's the nutshell of of the way many people think." And then on top of that, I'm finding out it's going to be a variance on top of what's really already approved. So, it just doesn't make
sense. So I would our our position would be to to deny this application. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Your name and address, please. >> Yeah. My name is Chris Bowden, BHD and I live at Agart 18 Bogart Drive in Bridgewater.
>> So Mr. Bowen, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I absolutely do. >> Thank you. Our master plan was re reviewed and revised in 2025. This plan advanced no desire to
permit a self- storage facility as an accepted use in a C3 zone. This has not changed. A key pillar of this master plan is neighborhood preservation. This project is clearly at odds with that. We already have five self- storage facilities along with several alternate
locations having or currently seeking approval and being particularly suitable for this use. The monolithic structure scales far too large for this size lot and totally overwhelms the immediate area. The current office building is set
back surrounded by many mature trees and is a visually visually unobstructed 8100 square ft spread over three floors. This proposed behemoth is 6,000 square ft. That's 13 times the size. Melik's
popular farm stand to be reduced to nothing but a storm water retention basin. The F as people have mentioned previous is submitted illustrates the outright unsuitability of this development. This is in total contradiction to our master plan.
The two principles of this development reside outside of Bridgewater in Tene, New Jersey and Muny, New York, and have exhibited zero interest in being good neighbors by exploring resident concerns of those of us who actually live here. And being in Bogar Drive, I'm three houses in and I'll be looking at this
every day. Storage facilities are currently fashionable investments as they are relatively cheap to build, need little maintenance, and require minimal staffing. The C3 zoning standards were in effect when this parcel was purchased. Why would we bend the rules to
accommodate this, resulting in substantial detriment to the public good? This facility will neither be an economic nor employment driver for Bridgewater. The scope of the variances requested have clearly impaired our zoning standards and failed to advance Bridgewater's quality of life and land
use goals. people in this community would be better served by one of the abundant alternatives that actually fit the requirements of a C3zoned residential adjacent property. This is not a close call. I implore each of you to honor our master plan,
maintain Bridgewater zoning standards, and reject this application. There is no existential reason that allows otherwise. Thank you. >> Thank you. [applause] I'm sorry you you were not in line at the cut off time. The gentleman who
preceded you was. You can take a seat. Thank you. >> I've been standing in line. The police officer told me I was the last person. >> I'm telling you that we're not going to hear your comments this evening. And again, we're going to be respectful to the wishes of the board. So, if you'll
just take your seat, please. Now, as as the board proceeds, we wanted to keep the the forum open for public comment, but we have run out of time to do so this evening. So, we need to adjourn this meeting to another date. Um, Mr. Capzy, you have some options to
explore perhaps. Mr. Roller, >> I think we had talked about a September date, Mr. Roller. Just as a general comment to the audience, it's well past our maximum time. So, we thank you for your attendance. I can't ask the board to
give us any more of their time than they already have. So, I respectfully ask that you allow us to adjourn the meeting. >> Can they just take a vote of the group to see if we want to return or come back? I don't want to come back. So Nancy uh September 8th we have a
>> Let me ask >> sorry wait hold on So, we are no no longer going to hear public input this evening. It'll be ajourned to another date. We invite you to come back and to continue with the public input on this matter.
>> Excuse me, you're out of order, but thank you very much for your attendance, Mr. Capzy. >> So, Nancy, let me go to you first. September 8th, we have an initial hearing for someone listed. >> Excuse me. We will maintain order in
this chamber or you will be excluded. >> Right. That >> Mr. Capzy >> the I hearing date on August 25th, but I I I can appreciate that that I'm sorry. Go ahead, Nancy. >> Sorry. We're booked until September >> September 28th.
>> Excuse me. I would ask that gentleman to be removed, please. September 28th is the next available. >> September I'm sorry. Say it again. >> September 28th. >> 22nd. >> I apologize. 22nd. September 22nd.
>> Would we have the entire agenda that evening >> as of right now? that you would be the only >> Can we Can we just block off the night so that we can be sure to finish this? >> Yes. >> Right. Okay. So, September 22nd, you'd
get the whole night. >> I'm sorry. I have to um amend that. We had something that has been carrying for some time. 1,200 Route 22, >> right? But that's going to continue to be carried, right? >> Uh and I believe so.
>> Okay. We're going to make sure it will. >> This would go first anyway. We could this first. >> Okay. So, for the members of the public, this hearing is being adjourned. It will be continued on September 22nd at 7 p.m. in this room. There'll be no further
notices from the applicant regarding the date or time of the continued hearing. Okay. So, again, September 22nd, 7 p.m. >> Great. >> Okay. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thank you, members. Um, I move that the meeting be adjourned. I second. >> We have a second. All in favor?
We can't do it.