Evening. Welcome to our conference room edition of the zoning board next door. Thank you for accommodating us in our new location here. Hopefully, it's just temporary. Uh this is the Bridgewater Township Zoning Board of Adjustment Tuesday, October 28, 2025
regular meeting. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with open public meeting act NJSA 104-6. Specifically, on January 15, 2025, proper notice was sent to the Courier News and the Star Ledger file with the clerk of accounts of the Bridgewater posted on the municipal bulletin board.
Please be aware of zoning board adjustment policy for public hearings. No new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and testimony will be taken after 10. If you're able, please rise for the salute. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for it stands one nation under God indivisible and justice for all. >> Good evening Nancy we have a roll call please. >> Chairman F >> here. >> Mr. Wley >> uh here.
>> Mrs. Zam >> here. Mr. here. >> Mr. Fresco >> here. >> Mr. Bonjouro >> here. >> Mr. Gi >> here. >> Mr. CCA >> here. >> Mr. Kulak >> here. >> Mr. Vesio >> here. >> Mr. Gabbit
>> here. >> Mr. Attorney, our board engineer, Bill Burr will not be present. >> Katherine Sarmad here planner. You have a quir. You can proceed.
>> All right. Thank you very much. We're going to open up the meeting to members of the public that would like to speak on any land use issue that's not on the agenda tonight. Can you come forward to the day here? See none, we're going to close that. Uh Jim, you have a quick announcement? >> Yes. I just wanted we had to do a
switch. We do this almost every year over to this room from the uh courtroom because early voting is going on and we're not allowed to use it. and just wanted to thank Ryan from the township for setting this room up for us at um and did a very nice job to accommodate
everybody. >> I know we were this close to cancelling this. All right, Nancy and and Brian bailed us out. >> Very close. >> Thank you very much. >> Hopefully we'll see you again in this room this time next year. >> I was going to advocate for skipping this meeting next year, but whatever whatever your pleasure, chairman.
>> Yeah, if I'm back, we can definitely talk about it. And uh again, thanks for for everything. Uh minutes. We have two sets. We Let's do February 25th, 2025 first up. I know changes were sent via email a little bit later today. >> Um anyone but Mr. Gaspi can motion. No
second. >> All right. Any additional changes or comments for the board? >> I move. >> All right. There's a motion. Second. Mr. Bonjouro with a second. It's yay or nay. Anyone against? Everyone for yay. >> Yay. >> Yay. >> Second set. Uh July 22nd, 2025. Looking
for change of comments. >> Anyone but Mr. Fresco, Mr. Vioski, Mr. Kulak, Mr. Gab? >> Good. Mrs. Amen. >> Okay. >> Good. >> Okay. Mrs. Amen's good. I'm good. >> I move. >> All right. Second. Second, Mr. Bonjouro. Everyone in favor? I
>> I thank you. >> Resolutions, Rich? >> No resolutions tonight. All right. Why don't you take us through who we're going to hear tonight and what the status is? >> Yes. So, uh, two matters on the agenda. Stanley and Margaret
Puititz, uh, 756 Harding Road is being heard this evening. The second matter on the agenda, Bridgewater self storage, uh, for 351 Route 28 and 322 Route 22 is not being heard. That matter is being
adjourned until December 9th, 2025. um for future scheduling purposes only unless one of the other two matters for the December 9th meeting um cancel for some reason. >> So odds are that'll be into the new year unless we have a case that opens up. Correct. Correct. Correct. Correct. Correct.
>> Correct. All right. So for the public, if anyone's here for the Bridgewater self storage matter, it will not be heard this evening. Instead, it will be heard on December 9th, 2025 in the municipal courtroom. Um there'll be no further notices from the applicant. All right. Very good. All right. So, next up
we have 756 Harding Road. Mr. Silver, good evening. >> Yes. Good evening, Chairman Fouse and members of the board, Council Professionals, and members of the public. For the record, my name is Michael Silbert and I'm an attorney at the law firm Murphy Schiller and Wilks located in North New Jersey. And it's a privilege to be here this evening.
>> New law firm. >> New law firm. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. Uh, it's a privilege to be here on behalf of Stanley, uh, Mr. and Mrs. Wayovich, the owners of 756 Harding Road, block 477, lot 7, located in the R40 zone district.
This application seeks DNC variance relief to formalize and legalize long-standing uses on the Wikovich property, uses that have existed for more than 40 years without controversy and with the applicant's belief that everything on the property was permitted.
Property consists of roughly 63,000 square ft. It's irregular in shape, heavily wooded and screened on all sides. There are two principal structures, a two-story single family home on the northern portion. And then farther back, about 300 ft from Harding from Harding Road, there's a two-story
garage, workshop, and office building that I'll refer to tonight as the commercial structure. And behind that, there's a small storage yard and parking area. That commercial structure uh as evidenced by the certificate of occupancy was built in the early 1980s
in 1984. So over 40 years ago and the applicant obtained a CO for it at that time and it was inspected and approved and Mr. Wedikovich will will testify to that. Um Mr. Wedkovich has operated his family
business construction inc from this property since 1981. It's a small familyrun uh general construction company that handles home renovations, additions, and light commercial work. The business has really been part of the Bridgewater fabric for nearly five
decades. And in fact, Mr. Whitikovich is a lifelong resident of this township. Uh longtime volunteer with the uh Green Null Volunteer Fire Company and he's also been recipient of Somerset County Spirit of Giving award for his community service
over the years. Whitakovich Construction has been called upon many times by Bridgewater Township itself, serving as a preferred contractor for maintenance and repair work for the very municipal complex we sit in. And Mr. Whitakovich has also uh provided renovations and
repairs for multiple volunteer fire department uh company's location since the 1980s. I think that sheds some important context because it shows that the township has long been aware of the company's operations with the property and presence in the community.
More than 35 years there there were no complaints or enforcement actions, no disputes with neighbors, really nothing. The operation was quiet, consistent, respectful of its neighbors, and the Whitakovich family has always maintained the property, cooperated uh with its
neighbors, and intentionally kept the operations on the property very modest in scale. In 2019, uh there was a property maintenance complaint lodged against Mr. Wedkovich, so not a zoning issue. And of
course, Mr. Wedkovich responded immediately. So, he added, in the pictures you'll see, but he added significant fencing to his property, uh, planted screening trees, and he even adjusted the travel routes for the company vehicles to avoid avoid creating
any perceived disturbance. So, uh, he's very proactive and evident and that evidence the steps that he took to resolve that issue and there were no further complaints for the next 5 years forward. In December 2024, um, after decades and decades of
peaceful operation, the applicant received his first and only zoning violation. And candidly, if the board's not aware of this, the violation did not arise because of something that Mr. Wayov Kovich did on his property. There wasn't some sudden change or anything like that. It arose for an entirely
different reason. Um, there was another neighbor who uh under it's it's my to my knowledge has since sold the property but living up the street towards Harding Road had paved over a substantial portion of it of his property to conduct
a paving business from the lot allegedly without approvals and again this is all allegedly. Uh but when that was discovered he allegedly attempted to deflect attention to Mr. way saying, "I'm just doing what's allowed. Look at the property next to me." And it put the
township zoning officer in a position where he he was and rightfully so, he inspected Mr. Wikovich's property and subsequently issued a violation. And for the record, the the zoning violation uh issued by Mr. Lithuate
cited a violation for conducting a business in the R40 zone characterizing is as an impermissible home occupation due to the scale of the operations on the property. Now, I certainly don't fault the zoning officer for issuing the notice and based on what he observed and
in the absence of clear historical records, which is really why we're here this evening, it was reasonable uh to determine this under the ordinance. But again, that's why we're here this evening. So uh the truth is that the business has operated precisely in the same manner with the same structure, the
same scale, the same types of vehicles and same activity since it opened in the early 1980s. And uh at a minimum historically it was treated as a lawful home occupation. So I'm framing this first off as a fairness
issue as I see it. Um, and I'd ask the board to consider how something can be treated as acceptable and permitted for for over 40 years and relied upon by the township itself and operated without incident or nuisance can suddenly be deemed unlawful really because of the
result of of another neighbor who paved the majority of his property. Um, so we're not here to expand the use, intensify it. We're not here to change anything. We're really here to formalize what's been there and and here to listen to the board. If the board believes uh if there's anything that we can do
better with the property, we're here to listen that and and implement that as possible. I'm not going to go over the operations on the property. Mr. Whitikovich is going to do that. Um but if you look at the application materials, you're going to see a very well screened, well-kept property.
There's no street signage at Harding Road. There's no showroom. There's no lighting glare. So the structure is set as far back from the street as as it really realistically can be and it's invisible from public view virtually. So
this case was difficult for me from a land use perspective because unfortunately the records from the 1980s and the 1990s were incomplete at the township. So I wasn't able to locate them. I did obviously submit a number of open requests as did the applicant. And
unfortunately, what we were able to uncover was that certificate of occupancy that was enclosed in the materials as well. I don't recall if I submitted it. I may not have because there were there weren't any violations, but there were no violations. I think I submitted the the single the singular
violation as to why we're here. What I did find through looking through the county's records was actually a recorded subdivision plat from the early 1990s. I can't tell the board when it was approved. I can only tell the board when it was signed and recorded. And so the
property was subdivided at that time in the early 1990s and approved by the township's planning board. So while I don't have a resolution, presumably that resolution granted the subdivision approval and also addressed what you'll see in the professional reports and in
the application materials and overage on lock coverage. Um, so in I provided historic aerials, which we can get into, but you'll you'll see that the coverage on the property is nearly identical to the coverage on the property back to the
early '90s, which evidences to me that if your township's planning board heard an application on the property and and agreed to subdivide it, they most likely, but I have no resolution to give you, granted variance relief for the overage that you're seeing on the
property today. Um it also tells us something that the township you know the township again seems to have had knowledge of the uses. It did go to the planning board. So that suggests that either and it it suggests that the township either determined at
that time the use was permitted or that they missed what was happening on the property. But given Mr. way's long-standing relationship with the township, I find it hard to believe that uh the township was unaware of what was happening on the property.
>> So, that's an important point here. So, you're saying that had the town not recognized it, it would have had it done to the zoning board at that point, but because it went to the planning board, inherently it was and approved and known. >> That's Well, I'm suggesting that, but I'm not saying that affirmatively. But uh yes, in my opinion, if the township
knew of the use and and and characterized it as too intense to be considered a home occupation, then yes, it absolutely would have had to have gone to the zoning board >> and and that would have been a public hearing and those not that those neighbors would have been noticed just like tonight's hearing. >> Yes. And then and the neighbors and of
course there was a public hearing. Um a use variance wasn't wouldn't have been included in the legal notice back in the early '90s, but nonetheless, there would have been a public hearing back then in the early '90s. and and members of the public at that time if there were any concerns with the property certainly would have been able to avail themselves
before the board at that time to notify the board that perhaps there was something that shouldn't have happened on the property or existing. So, >> so you feel confident in telling this board that there was a public land use matter where notice was was proven and and substantiated and it was in the '9s.
>> Yes, I do feel comfortable. Although I did note that there wouldn't have been a use variance included in that notice, but every member of the board and as well members of the public have access to this. They can see that I included the the uh plaque that was filed with the county. Um and it was signed by your
chair by the board chairman at that time uh in 1995. Um but the first signature by the surveyors from 1989. So that's why I have a range of early 90s and I don't know exactly when the approval took place. >> Signature.
>> I have a question for you, Mr. >> Yes. Uh give me one. I just want to answer chairman's question. You can't make it out. I understand. >> It looks like it starts with a W. I I really can't. Paul maybe, or the last name. I I can't
>> I can see the the secretary's name. Owen O'Hara. It looks like >> O'Hara was the secretary. >> Sorry. >> It says Owen O'Hara is the secretary, but Howie Ward. >> No, no clue. >> Okay. >> Looks like Howie is the first name. >> Mike, what was the date it was recorded?
>> Okay. Um the date of recordation um looking for it >> 7695. >> That's this when it was fought with the county. >> Yes. Yep. >> Correct.
>> Yes, please. >> Yeah. Uh at the time in 1981 85 whatever date that was >> uh this family was living in the house. Right. Correct. >> And then they were operating their contracting business from home. So it's
like a home operated business. >> Mhm. >> Now at present they don't live in the house. >> Correct. >> The the whole house is being used as a business operation. >> No. >> Is there someone living there?
>> Yes. Absolutely. So the um the the property is still utilized for two uses. So, there's a single family dwelling on the property that's two stories. Uh, and it's being used in in that manner. And as I was going to get to, we're seeking a variance for two two principal structures and two principal uses, but
the the the commercial structure is still being used as a commercial structure. So, the property is still being used where a sing there's a family that resides in the single family dwelling and the applicant is still operating his company out of the
commercial structure. So, so in the big building which is major part of the property some people make uh the family they live >> um so they're they're detached
structures but um in the in the single family dwelling uh I believe it's being rented at this time and in the commercial structure which is totally detached there they're there's quite a distance between the two structures Mr. Mr. Wikovich is still operating his
construction company out of that commercial structure. So I think that um >> one other question is is Mr. Wikovich prepared to testify I mean planning board the let me finish but in the '9s when he came in front of the planning board was he present?
>> Yes. >> So he'll testify the fact that he was there. >> Yes. >> Correct. Um, >> do you know what the differences are between what was filed in 95 and what exists today? >> So that's why I provided the historic
aerials. So >> just a description. >> Yeah. So in in my opinion uh and I'll have Mr. Wikovich testify to this. Uh the aerials look almost identical. The only difference is that there's been increased screening to to
>> nothing substantive. No, like no, there there hasn't been increased in in lock coverage if that's what you're asking. No. >> No. >> Structures. >> Michael, I have a question here. I believe earlier you used the word homebased business.
>> So, I'm looking at the original document from July. >> You postponed that. And I'm looking at all these pictures. >> Yes. >> There's multiple trucks. There's sheds. There's a bunch of material thrown
behind the sheds. There's office with space. There's storage in one of these here. I don't really consider that a homebased business. A home based business means
you have an office, you do a few things, and I have one, but our stuff is stored outside of >> in commercial property. Mhm. >> So, I don't know how you use the word home in your description and look at these six or seven pictures and tell me
that's a homebased business. >> I I think that's why we're we're here. I think that I I I couldn't make an argument as you're keenly pointing out. >> I need an explanation because >> the reason why I referred to it that way is because the zoning officer citation referenced that it was uh too large or
uh there was too much intensity for it to be considered a home occupation. So we're here seeking a use fair >> and based on you using the word homebased and looking at these pictures then I would tend to almost agree with I I certainly agree that's >> so I need when you're the owner of this
business gets up to describe what's different from the 1990s compared to today looking at these pictures >> and you absolutely will. So I'm just going to just go over the relief that we're seeking so everyone's clear. So >> Mr. S before we get to that question. So
in the packet here >> the one drawing that you're you know you're referencing the signature for the chairman of this secretary >> that subdivision >> correct >> in our in the exhibit provided to this
board. Are there any documents that show sort of the secondary principal use or structure on the property >> there? I unfortunately the township doesn't seem to have a record of the resolution that memorialized this. So I
can't flip through the resolution and say to the board, this is what the board was aware of. This is what they approved. I don't have that document. All that I have to provide to the board this evening is a filed subdivision plat that shows that the applicant did receive subdivision approval that the
subdivision plat was signed by the planning board chairman here as well as at the county. Um, and I'm relying upon Mr. Wedovich to testify to the board the conditions of the property at that time in the absence of a resolution as to
what existed on the property. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question to our planner? >> Um, to follow a subdivision plan for approval, would the would the town planner have to visit the law to to grant approval
such a subdivision? >> They wouldn't have to. They'd pro they might rely upon the subdivision plans and what's represented at the board hearing. >> They they they're not required to go visit the site. It's good to go go see the site, but they wouldn't be required to.
>> But for the sake of clarity, the subdivision that you're referencing >> is shown in some of the exhibits as a culdeac with several um homes built around it. Was that all part of the original property that housed the
business at that time? Yes. >> And then it was subdivided to allow for the building of those homes. >> Yes. So before that subdivision was approved, this was a lot of space to operate both your home and your business
separately, so to speak, >> without violating a lot of the coverage things that we're going to be talking about. >> Correct. It was nearly four acres, >> right? And that subdivision was approved by Bridgewater Township Planning Board. >> Correct. >> And was recorded with the county. They
didn't have to approve anything, but and recorded with the county. So you have records that say that, but the records that you're looking for for the approval from the township, we don't have. >> Correct. And and the county would have would app the county, it's irrelevant, but the county has to sign off and
approve a major subdivision. So they would have been involved, but your your your representation is accurate. I don't have a resolution to provide to the board. >> This happens a lot. I >> um I think that it depends what year
you're looking for a resolution. So I think uh I don't want to speak on on behalf of the township, but in my uh experience in dealing with the township, usually from the late 90s on, I have no problem getting records. >> Uh I don't know if it's if it's a matter
that some of the records are kept off site. Um, I I don't have an an explanation, but >> I can tell you Dy's never lost a record, >> and I certainly uh certainly would would agree with that. And I think the Oprah
request probably I think would have went to to to Miss Probes. Um, and she I think you looked No. Oh, who whoever it went to um cuz it was it would have been filed a long time ago, but whoever looked for it, I can't recall like sent
me multiple email updates and we did receive like I said the the CEO. >> Um I I want to move on to my witness because I think it's very important for the board. I just wanted to summarize just quickly the relief that we're seeking and and touch on the
professional review memos. Um, so we're seeking a variance under section 126-306 to per permit the continued operation of the commercial business within the R40 zone. The R40 zone does not permit the proposed use. Um, we're also seeking a
variance under section 126-330 to allow two principal structures and uses on a single lot. Um, the township allows that in commercial zones. It does not allow that in residential zones. And then out of an abundance of caution,
even though I feel very confident that I I I can certainly demonstrate that the seabbulk variance would have been granted with it with the overage on lock coverage, I am still seeking uh uh variance for the approximately 32% of
lot coverage on the property, which is over I believe the uh permitted amount is I'll double check. I think it was 16 18%. >> Yeah. So, um, okay. Just wanted to say to the board that I think that there
are if if the board has concerns, there are certainly conditions that can be imposed. I know the bo that boards, certainly this board rightfully so, always has expressed concerns that when we grant variance relief as a board, we're not granting it to the individual. The variance relief runs with the
property. And how can we make sure that if Mr. Whitakovich isn't operating his company out of the property? someone in the future isn't going to take advantage or uh harm the surrounding community because of the relief that we're seeking tonight. And I think that there are a
number of ways that the board can mitigate those concerns by imposing, which we we would welcome with with open arms, really limiting the operating hours, restricting the number of on-site employees, um requiring that work doesn't occur on site, uh you construction work that
occurs at the client's location, prohibiting new signage or or lighting. Um and and really just putting a condition on on the approval that we're seeking that the use on the property, the commercial use may not be expanded
or intensified in any way um that would adversely affect the surrounding zone or neighborhood. and allowing your zoning officer to to make a determination down the road whether uh the way the property is being used in 2030 years from now constitutes some sort of negative impact
to the neighborhood outside of the parameters of what exists on the property today. Um just very quickly I just wanted to touch the two review memos um that we received from the sore utility. Um
it's dated August 5th, 2025 from Mr. Gova. Uh to the extent possible, we can comply with the memo. There were I I didn't understand the memo in the sense that we're we're currently paying a sewer bill for two units and have been
um for decades. So, whatever Mr. Geneova wants us to do, we can do. I just didn't understand exactly what >> sound like he wanted you to revise some drawings. >> Uh correct. I meant I meant more with the with the sore application. Um well, we can work with him. the the main
concern that I had uh was the fire review memo issued by Mr. Scalera dated August 21st, 2025. So, after the issuance of the memo, having appeared before this board a number of times, I uh know from experience that if there are outstanding
items in the fire review memo, this board wants it rectified and clarified. And Mr. Wikovich and myself met with Mr. Stera uh sometime in late September and we went through the report. There were a number of items that that were
just impossible to comply with. Mr. Scalera then went on vacation the next day and he asked me and I'm willing to submit an affidavit to this effect if the board wants it, but he asked me to represent the um resolutions that we came up with if the board would allow me
to do so. Um he said he would issue a revised report when uh if this is approved and we would comply with that revised report if the board wants me to. I can go through the things that um that were changed that he agreed to that he
would have changed on his revised report or otherwise I can just stipulate that the applicant would agree should this get approved to comply with uh Mr. Scara's revised fire review memo. >> Yeah, in essence let's save the time. Okay. >> But everything tonight is predicated on him approving and being okay and then
writing a memo to that thing. >> Correct. >> Okay. Just so we're clear, whatever happens tonight, he has to approve it and he has to issue a letter. >> Understood. >> Okay. >> All right. So, with that, I will conclude my introduction and we'll start the show off with uh Mr. Wedkovich.
>> Can I can I ask just ask a question, >> please? >> Is is it the expectation that your client will not increase any intensity in business activity more than is currently today? That's correct. >> You might also want to address the fact that this parcel will stay as it is.
It's not to be subdivided in the future of no application can be made to subdivide it and create two separate uses. >> Absolutely. If that's if that's the board's preference. I mean, if if it it's an R40 zone, so the property isn't large enough uh to be subdivided unless
the occupant came back before this board. And um I don't think there's enough lot area for that. >> And I'm not sure if if I buy have this as a mixeduse property or a commercial property so to speak, then suppose I buy it and I want to tear the house down and
expand the commercial use. So that's why you're saying earlier that the business operations would remain the same should the board choose to do that. >> Right. That's correct. >> Do you have any metrics to gauge the current intensity of business activity? I have my witness that's going to
testify under oath to the uh intensity of the operations. And if there's members of the public, um whether they're for the application or not, they will either either support or um counter what my witness is going to say.
>> The metrics be based on revenue? >> No. No. >> Touch that. >> I mean, I I I don't believe so. >> I'm hoping we hear about trucks and intensity. I would imagine that's what the board is interested in. >> Do you not want to talk about revenue or customers or anything like that? >> The the only thing that my client will
testify to is that there are no um customers coming to the site. >> What about employees? >> That's something related. We can talk about that. >> Yes, I I would. All right. If it's okay. I I I was like to start with you. >> Well, why don't we why don't we just >> Oh, sure. Bring them up. Let's swear
everybody in who's going to testify, >> please. >> Yep. I do have uh I do have my uh my client's professional engineer here, Mr. Dave Styers, who can also address any of the site layout concerns and ways we can improve it. And while I made a heartfelt
pitch about um the long-term use of the property, I do recognize that we are going to have to provide uh variance, justifications, and proofs. And my client uh on my advice did retain a professional uh planner, and he's prepared to provide that testimony this
evening as well. Okay. And Katherine, would you raise your hands, 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. >> Yes. >> Okay. And my left to right names for the record, please.
>> Stanley Butch Wayovich. >> Dave Sty, consulting engineer. >> Matt Flynn, professional planner. >> Katherine Zerat, board planner. >> Okay, thank you everyone. Why don't I get a seat here? All right. So, Mr. Wikovich, um why
don't you start off by telling the board a little bit about yourself, how long you've lived in Bridgewater. Um >> Okay. Uh, I'm a lifelong resident of Bridgewater and don't know my age. I'm 69. So, I've been here for 69 years.
Uh, grew up went through the entire Bridgewater school system, started a uh, out of college I started a small business at my parents house and it just continued to grow.
>> And can you talk about that business? talk a little bit about uh the nature of it, way to kovich construction, how it was in the you know where did it start in Bridgewater, how did you end up at the property, what's the operation like on the property, we'll get there, but
talk about what what are you doing? >> What am I doing currently? Uh well, you can start off about I think the board wants to know how you ended up here and >> Okay. So, I started a small business with a station wagon and a few hand
tools and had my best friend from high school and the two of us joined together and my sister-in-law who's in the stands here. It's been with me for 45 years as the office manager and that's how it started and then we continued to grow
and basically I just think through uh you know just being honest and fair and do what you say you're going to do the business grew and then I started to develop a relationship with the township
engineers and construction officials that I was fair and honest and they recommended me and the business grew. So, >> and did you uh so you you didn't start at this location? Where were you before this location? >> I started at my mom's house >> and then in 19
>> in Bridgewater >> and then in 1981 I represented the board that you moved to this property. >> Yes. I bought that property and I submitted an a permit for permit to put up the building and build the business. >> Okay. Okay.
>> So that was sort of the intent in 1983. >> All right. And >> I'll ask you operational questions shortly, but can you talk about the neighborhood when you came to the property in in ' 81 and how it's changed over time?
>> So it was a more of a rural neighborhood. It was probably couple hundred acres surrounding me at the time. Um, how has it changed? Uh, my backyard
butts up to a uh area of worship where there's a soccer field and a kind of racket court behind me and within about 300 feet from meters of
100 plus apartments. So, it's no longer that little residential area it used to be. And >> and when you um I represented that you obtained a certificate of occupancy in 1984. When you obtained that CO, can you
talk about to the board what what you thought you were getting permission to do? What what what did you think you were permitted to use the property for? >> Well, I felt that that was, you know, sort of they you know, I I would, you know, assuming everybody knew that that's was my intent. I was going to
operate my business out of there cuz they knew who I was and we just moved along. >> Mhm. So you you feel that the the officer that issued the CEO knew exactly what you were doing on the property? >> I believe so. Yes.
>> Okay. And over the years, did the township ever raise concerns about the operations of your business at this location? >> No. And is it fair to say that there were township officials that were at your property over the years? >> Yes.
>> Okay. And >> inspectors and roof, you know, re- roof the house, those types of things. Yep. >> Can you just talk a little bit about your relationship with the township over those years because I had represented you did you did work for the township. >> Yeah. So,
you know, I I guess they uh you know, they they sort of sought me out because I never spent 10 cents my entire life in advertising. So, they realized that I was doing good work and I was being fair and honest. So, um over
the years, I've done work for the the mayor, the fire chief, um the township attorney, the current township attorney. I mean, I'm still doing it, so they honestly must think
I'm I still have still have it in me. >> Okay. Um, I represented that prior to the the property maintenance complaint that you received from your neighbor in 2019. There were no other complaints, right? No other issues with neighbors. >> I've resolved all his issues. He was
concerned about his kids. he had small children that they would be wandering around and I resolved all of that. I put up a fence. I put up bunch of evergreen trees and I have that was six years ago. Haven't heard from him since. Good.
Okay. Um we touched upon this but can you talk about the current lot overage and how it came to be approximately 32%. I represented to the to the board that the that the lock coverage of 32% is consistent now with what it was back
when you received subdivision approval. >> That is correct. So I I I guess when be prior to the subdivision, the lot coverage was legal or >> but you so you hadn't you haven't made
changes to the lot coverage since you received subdivision approval. Do you remember um approximately what year you got approval from the planning board? >> Yeah. 94 or you mean for the >> when you appeared before the Bridgewater Township Planning Board? Assuming that you did? Let let me start there. Did did
you personally? >> Yes. >> Did you testify that evening or you don't remember? >> I don't I don't think I did. No, I I don't remember. Let's go with that. >> Okay. But but it's it's your testimony to the board this evening that the
planning board at that time was number one aware of what you were using the property for and number two aware of the lock coverage at that time. >> Absolutely. >> And is it fair to say in your opinion that the board would be aware that the that there would be an overage on lock
coverage if the subdivision was were approved? >> I don't I'm not responded. I don't know if they'd be aware or not. How >> Well, the board approved the subdivision. So, were they aware they were creating a deviation? >> Yeah. So, I I assume so. I >> But you don't recall if they explicitly
granted relief? >> No. No. >> Okay. >> Um, have there been since the subdivision approval, have there been any additions or modifications to the commercial structure? Um any changes to the
property outside of the enhanced screening that you just spoke about? Um yeah, there might be we may I think we added a 8 by10 shed or something that we had done an addition on a home and they
were throwing it out and we moved it to the property. >> And is if if not we could certainly get a permit for it, but is that something that you think you got a permit for? >> No, I absolutely did not. >> Okay. No, we just, you know, the shed was getting thrown out, so we just put it in the yard. >> Okay.
>> Happen there. Second, I want to just jump in on the permit thing because he said something I just think it's relevant to ask this question. Now, you mentioned that you got roof work done. What other permits have you pulled for this property? Any repairs that there's permits? And what I want to know is who from the town was there? Was somebody
there get the fence? You mentioned a fence. Did you pull a permit for that? How many times the town been there in an official capacity or what what have you pulled permits? >> So, um, so, well, I think since 2016
or 17, you don't need permits for roofing anymore, but prior to that, I did pull a permit for the roof for the house. I couldn't tell you the year. I mean, these are going we're we're 20 years back on >> like I said, I'm just trying to figure
out how many times the town has been there and then official capacity. >> I I mean, so the town was there for the plumbing inspection of the building, the electrical inspection of the building, >> the sewer connection. I mean, this is
all back in 198 198 >> 83 or 84. >> Yeah, 83 or 84. >> Okay. And we did we try to find any of those records. You have all that? >> Um >> I have a permit list but not with me. I
don't recall >> I I I don't recall what permits were granted but that that was something that the building department could provide to me. >> Okay. Great. Great. Thank you. >> So let's talk a little bit about the operations on the property. So um can you describe a typical workday at the
property? >> Okay. So currently we have five employees. Um the um the actual workers or the staff show up at 7 in the morning. They myself and my nephew sitting there.
Um he's my project manager. He kind of we get the guys organized. We have three guys who actually leave every day in vans. Um he gives them their work order. He tells them where they're going. He sets them up. They leave for the day.
They do their job. Any construction materials or anything would be delivered to that site. Uh 4:00, approximately 4:00, 4:30, they come back. They review their day. They will go over with him what they've completed,
what needs to get done for tomorrow, what we need to get together. He's usually out till 7 at night picking things up for them and the next morning they show up and and then they leave in their personal vehicles. >> So total how many people work for you?
Totally. >> Five. Five. Well, five including myself. >> Including yourself. Okay. >> My sister-in-law, my nephew, and three other employees. When the construction work is done by
the five people who work including you, they all do construction work. >> Yeah, construction. Yeah. Yeah. Unfortunately, the environment is changing. Most of the work gets subbed out now and the subcontractors go directly to the site. So, there's not a
lot of >> You're a general contractor, right? You do general contract. >> I do. Yes. So, so, uh, do you hire any other people to do work for you? >> Yes. >> You do? >> Okay. >> Um,
>> on the employees, just real quick, the people that work out of the building are all related to you. >> No, >> in some form or f. Not the ones that that drop their car off there and then go out all day. They're in the building 9 to5. >> Yes. My nephew that work on the property. >> Nephew and my sister-in-law. Right. >> That's correct.
>> All right. The nonre are never they're just dropping their car there, getting their stuff and leaving. >> Yeah. And their instructions, right? Right. They're not there all the day. >> No. No. Right. >> Nope. >> Okay. And uh I represented to the board that you don't have customers or clients visiting the site. That is that
accurate? >> That is accurate. >> Okay. Um and there's there isn't construction on the property. It's all at the >> Yes. Okay. It's at the site. So you're not building something on the property. You have a workshop. You would would you agree it's not dissimilar to a workshop
that someone could have at a single family home? >> No, we don't have much there at all as as far as a workshop go. >> Okay. Um let's talk a bit about the types of vehicles on your property because I think that's uh would probably
be a major concern of the board. So the pictures show vans. Is that accurate? >> That is correct. So you aside from vans and pickup trucks, do you have tractor trailers or or single unit trucks outside of a UPS or FedEx delivery going to your property? >> No.
>> And and you don't need that, right? You would you would be okay if the board determined to condition the approval that you can't have tractor trailers, you can't have box trucks as part of your business operation. >> Okay. Um
deliveries. Um please. Yes. >> How many vehicles total are there? >> Uh there is four vans and two pickup trucks. >> And then of course the the personal
vehicles of your employees. >> Right. Well, they're they come. >> Right. Right. Right. Right. >> Um in terms of deliveries, what type of deliveries do you receive? Frequency of deliveries, types of materials. Can you touch on that a little bit? >> Yeah. I mean, we really don't get
anything more than maybe, you know, UPS or FedEx or, you know, basic Amazon if we're getting office supplies or or all the construction materials go to the site. And what types of materials or equipment are stored on your property,
particularly outside? Uh mainly ladders, um garbage cans, safety barrels, cones, safety cones, that kind of thing. >> And the uh the pictures I took are and then the pictures that are in the
application. Did you look at those pictures? Are you familiar with them? >> And if not, we can look at them. >> Yes. >> Yes. So they were they an accurate representation of your property? >> Yes. And um when I when I came to take pictures, can can you represent to the board whether or not did we stage
anything or did I just show up and take pictures? >> Just showed up. >> So you have an authentic if I wanted to stage something, I would have this is what it really looks like. So >> will come, >> right? Um
can you talk about the uh how you manage traffic noise? Are are there noise concerns? Are in your opinion, are there traffic concerns? >> No, there's no noise concern. There's nobody there. There's I I have my my sister-in-law works part-time from 9 to
1:00 3 days a week. >> Okay. >> So, there's no noise. >> And And how about uh do you have any traffic concerns? >> No, just drive out, drive back. >> Okay. And I think you've already touched upon
that that you haven't at least firsthand experienced any um negative interactions with neighbors concerning the the use. >> No. >> Okay. Now, you you touched upon this as well, but talk a little bit about how your property is screened. Um you
mentioned you planted evergreen trees. >> Yeah. along the property line. >> In your opinion, can can a member of the public really even tell that there is a commercial operation on the property >> unless you're looking for it? >> So, the there's a there's a lot of
screening. There's a there's a lot of buffering. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. I want to just switch to the uh block coverage for a moment when I've asked you questions about it, but >> what's your opinion on the current drainage conditions on the property?
are I mean I' I've been there for 40 years >> no problems you're saying >> no problems 44 years I've been on that property >> and I and I'll ask your engineer how storm water uh runoff is managed but you've never had a neighbor for example come to you and say hey you're you're
impacting my property you need to do xyz right >> no >> okay and to your knowledge do the adjacent properties um do they suffer experience any ne negative impacts from the runoff. >> Uh, no.
>> And and the adjacent properties, uh, one of the lots was formerly your property, too. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, so you haven't observed, just to conclude this, you haven't observed any flooding, erosion, or water damage on your property, right? >> Not in 44 years.
>> Okay. Um, let's see. So, in your opinion, and I'm sure the board will have additional questions, but do you think that the business has operated harmoniously within the neighborhood? >> Yes.
>> So, you don't think that there's been any substantial impact uh to the neighborhood at all? >> No. >> Okay. And how would it how would it affect you and your family if for some reason the board didn't approve this
application and didn't approve the requested relief? >> Uh I mean Bridgewater's been my whole life. I mean I grew up here. I started a business here. I it it's been my whole life. I I would love to continue to work and live in
Bridgewater for many years. I mean, but I think >> this has been everything to me, Bridgewater. So, I've been involved in all kinds of things and volunteered and so I'd like to stick. I mean, well said.
That's I would like to ask you um what are your future plans for the property if this gets approved? And I had mentioned earlier that variance relief runs with the land. So, You could be an upstanding citizen. You could have
managed your proper property in the correct manner. And how do you think the board can feel confidence that if they were to grant relief this evening that 10 years down the road, 15 years down the road, that the property will be
maintained and operated in the same fashion that you've operated it for all these years? Well, if they grant me approval, I have no intentions of changing anything that of the way it's been operating
>> and has operated. >> Pretty quiet. >> So, and I guess to conclude with that, you know, my nephew's been with me for 20 years and maybe longer. And I over time I'm just hoping to transition the
business to him that he'll operate out of the same location. After he's done, I really can't answer that question. You know, after 30 more years from now, I don't know what it will be, but I can grant it that I want to keep it going.
>> Do you do home remodeling or commercial jobs or >> both? Both. >> Both. Just just remodeling. No, we don't build anything new. >> Okay. We're strictly a remodeling contractor and for years we used to do service work is how we got involved with
Bridgewater Township. We were their preferred vendor to do all their service when we would fix you know door closers and doors that fell off of hinges and things like that. So that was we did that for about 10 years.
>> Okay. And um while I have I've represented that I haven't perceived any uh negative impact your operation um if the board were inclined to condition approval. Are you open to
working with the board and and essentially restricting your your property in perpetuity um to ensure that the board's confident that when there's a change of hands 15 20 years down the road that the next property owner um will utilize the property in a proper
safe and caring fashion like yourself. >> Absolutely. Yeah. >> I mean that that would mean that they have to continue the exact same way. Yeah. I >> And those conditions would run with the property. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Just so you understand that, you
know, no matter what happens, who it's sold to, the next owner, they're bound by the same condition. >> I'm really concerned about myself, not the next owner. Honestly, >> understood. >> I just want my nephew to be able to continue to run the business. >> But ironically, the board is concerned
about the next owner. We're not I'm not concerned about you at all. >> I I I totally understand, but I have no intentions of trying to change it to make it any better or >> Thank you. >> I have no further questions. >> Thanks.
>> Can I just ask this is the only location you >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. For questions. >> I I have a >> Please, Mr. You know in our packet we have uh something that came from uh the zoning off zoning violation
and sent to 1778 mountaintop road is that where you live >> in Bridgewater. Yes, >> that that's where you live right now. >> That's correct. >> And 756 the house you know all these nice
pictures that I see in the back. You have your drafting room and this. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So that these are in the main house >> that No, that that's the business. That's the building, >> right? I I only took pictures of the
commercial. >> I do have another question for you. See, uh you said you said that you have five people who work for you, so they're probably on your payroll. Now the uh construction workers you hire
them as needed or uh what does it happen? Do they ever come to your place to pick up any products or any tools or anything? No, they're they're the the three employees that actually leave every day are full-time employees and
they have been with me for I I think 12 to 15 years is probably the shortest and 35 years is probably the longest out of the three. And um if we if we hire
u you know subcontractors, they they go to the job site. They don't come to the office. >> Okay. So all these vans that you how how many vans do you have? >> Five. >> Five. Five. So they are all five for you
people to use. >> Yes. Yes. >> Not for the contractors. >> No. No. >> No. They're personally owned by the company. >> So that that's good that we want to make sure that there not too much traffic coming and going and out. >> Nope.
I have a question. So the certificate of occupancy is it this document has the package. >> One question I have. So the description of work and specific use is construction of detached garage and specific use here.
So that was kind of what was permanent. Looking at the photographs here and certainly your first floor looks like you have a a work you know it's a garage with a workshop a basement almost similar less so but the second floor you looks
like you have three large offices a plotter coffee machine you have a conference room I'm seeing you have restrooms up there as well >> uh just a single bathroom there and you're professional >> yes >> for many years
So just by looking at the so there's not many exhibits here kind of to support your claim which you know I don't doubt your claim just looking for the evidence here. Um like how would you kind of get go from a
co with a for a garage to then say that kind of was a co for a commercial? Well, so that that you have in your hand was the only piece of paper I could find
digging I and I went to all the Oprah to try to dig up all the permits as you did as well. And >> once the garage was built, I then applied for the plumbing, the electrical, all the other things that
>> get to what you see. I cannot find any of those documents. I'm sorry. I just Yeah, I'm there for >> Do you have 40 plus years old? >> Do you have any plans? You know, do have you saved any plans from this >> facility? 44 years.
>> No, I don't unfortunately. >> I mean, I found that in an old folder from another job on a whim. So to slightly go back this uh stage, Mr. Silver at the beginning brought up the kind of how we got here and I want
to make sure I'm following is that you've been at this property for longer than I've been alive. >> Then with the exception of one conversation with a neighbor that resulted in trees coming up, there were no complaints from anybody until somebody said, "How how come he can have
this long a driveway? I can't." >> Yeah. Okay, >> well said. >> Okay, >> it's worth repeating that the township was unable to produce any of the records that you had requested other than those
which you cited earlier and so certainly the property owner doesn't have the mind of what we could do >> or violations for that matter. Is that correct? Mr. >> Can you repeat that? I'm so sorry. I I >> All I'm saying is that we were unable to
produce the records that you requested, which would have shown some type of approval either from the planning board or some other official within the township other than that which um the owner has already talked about that he found in his file just kind of by
accident. >> Right. The only thing that I that I received from the township was the permit was a permit list which was actually included here which shows permits were pulled. Um, one permit I see from 2011.
Um, and then I don't even remember if the OPER request came back with the CO or if Mr. Wayovich gave it to me. I don't recall. But but there were no uh certainly an open request would have yielded if there were other complaints from neighbors,
zoning violations, property ma maintenance issues. Um that didn't come back either. >> Right. >> Right. >> Fair enough. Thank you. >> Hello, Mr. Chairman. Um, so in the limited amount of detective work that
could be done in looking this up, I I was able to find a document from 1989, which was the site easement for the extension of the culdesac. It appears that the subdivision was
probably approved by the planning board closer to 1989. And you can see a signature by the engineer that's from 1989. It may not have been perfected until '95 when it was filed with the county, but the documentation for the road dedication easement or so the sorry
the road dedication and then the site easement from ' 89 seemed to show that that's when the culde-sac was added for the subdivision and those things were done to dedicate the roadway and to create the site easement. What's interesting is the road dedication
doesn't include a survey, but the site easement does. And it does show the improvements unlike the subdivision plan that were existing 89. It shows a home. It shows a stone driveway pretty similar to what exists today. And it shows a
stone driveway to the back to what shows as an existing frame barn approximately the same size, but it was not noted as a shed. It was not known as a garage. It was known as a barn. Um and a driveway, a mckaden driveway that goes beyond
that. Um pretty much to where it exists on on their variance plan. What didn't exist um is that pretty significant expansion of the gravel driveway behind the barn in ' 89 when the board did review this, did approve it for the subdivision,
likely incorporated the existing site conditions in their in their decision. So, there are some changes um including that gravel area that is expanded that impervious area in the back probably by three or four times. Um as
well as the two the two sheds. There's there's a shed to the west of the is it the west of that uh gravel area or sorry the Makum driveway and then um just above that behind the building. So, and my only concern with those two sheds is that they are in the sewer easement. one
of them at least is poking into the sewer easily. But um so it does give some some better indication of what the site history was, how the board saw it when when they did the subdivision approval, what they knew existed, and probably what's changed since then
without additional approvals. Probably the front the the two sheds and the gravel area. >> He testified to the one shed. he knew the one shed, but this neither shed in the back and not the shed in the front next to the house was added. And that's that's fairly typical when people, you
know, can add sheds. So, um, but I just wanted to kind of make the board aware of that as we're kind of contemplating what the township was aware of, what we know, you know, was done legally, and then what has been expanded. And the
that that plan also shows that the area behind the driveway was pretty much wooded. So obviously to make the gravel area um they'd have to remove the trees that were there, but um the silence would have been acceptance from the township's perspective.
>> The township might not have known. No. So the township didn't know about the gravel driveway that was added, >> but they knew about the barn. >> They knew about the frame barn. They had a driveway to the back. They knew all that in 1989. >> Um and then when it was obviously perfected in '95, it was probably operating. The only thing they didn't know about probably was the expansion of
the of the driveway to that which does have an impact on the impervious coverage um in some sense. But as far as the structures that existed, yeah, they were they were probably aware of it. >> Thank you. All right. Any members of the public questions?
Your next witness. >> Um call my next witness momentarily. I did have a printing issue and I actually can't see the 1987 historic aerial, but if the board members have it in their application packet, I would ask them to compare the 87 aerial to the 2002
aerial. Um, and again, that doesn't necessarily come up with the exact date when something was uh improved on the property. >> Thanks. Do you need it? I'm going to reference the my computer screen which is uh included in the
packet as to the 87 aerial. So the parking area behind the garage I don't know if you can tell if you have your glasses but so I think Miss Mrs. Armad was referring to is the area where the gravel is. Was
that changed from 87 on? >> I mean, that whole area back there was parking. I mean, we had it there. I I don't I can't tell you if we added 8 feet or 5 feet or something.
>> I mean, I I did didn't cut any trees down. I can tell you that. So, >> okay. >> Thank you. Thanks, M. >> All right. I'll I'm >> He told you to say that. That's not good.
>> All right, I'm going to uh call our next witness, which is uh Mr. Dave Styers. He's going to talk about the site layout a little bit. Talk about drainage. >> You can you can exit. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir.
>> Yeah. Uh Mr. Styers, you've uh appeared before this board on many occasions and have been accepted as an expert in the field of engineering. Um >> licensed in good standard >> still is Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Please tell the board uh about the
existing layout and talk about storm water management runoff. >> Yeah. Okay. But first I think we should mark that. Let's mark it A1 and then just for the record describe what A1 is. >> Yes. A1 plan in the uh packet uh it is colored
but unchanged other than that. Okay. Okay. Just to orient the uh board uh to the east of the existing site is 20220 206 north already comes in as a culdeac off of 20220 206. To the west is route
287. Um, and like Butch said, the house of worship, the alphaloff facility is uh, oops, to the south. Um, so we're on the cold sack of parting uh on the north
side of the property, which is the frontage. Uh, we have a driveway that comes in. Uh as you proceed in uh to the west is a existing Cape Cod house approximately 3,000 square feet. The
driveway splits and runs down to the rear and to the uh commercial building uh in the back. Uh the dark darker gray is actual pavement and then the lighter
gray is the stone yard in the back or the south. and in front of the uh uh house. I I don't have a lot to talk about since this is existing conditions. Uh there was one thing that was brought up in the
uh reports about drainage. The drainage on the north side of the existing house drains out the parting. Uh if you take the house and kind of split the house the property down the middle behind the house, water sheds to
the west and the east uh kind of in equal uh increments and then a small portion of that u storage area drains towards the alpha facility. There is a creek uh in the back. I believe it runs
towards route 287 and under 287. Uh so it's a sheet flow. There's no storm water improvements on the property and as uh Butch had indicated there's no uh apparent flooding or any issues like
that. Uh dark green are the trees which are substantial. There is a solid wood fence around the uh the rear of the property which buffers the neighbors. And uh one
comment from sewer utility was about uh sewer hookups. The both the house and the commercial property have hookups. There's an easement that runs from the culdeac and barding through the property. So the actual sewer laterals
are on the subject property and do not uh encroach onto the neighbor or the actual railway. >> Mr. Styrus, have you have you actually visited the property before? Yes, I have. >> Um, in your professional opinion, did did you have any concerns about runoff
or potential impacts to the surrounding neighbors due to the lot overage on Mr. Whitikovich's property? >> I did not. And and you know, based on the sheet flow and also the fact that uh this this has been there substantially
for a long period of time. So there would be no so-called increase to our neighbors. It's it's existed for some time. Thank you. >> Nothing further. >> All right. More questions through tires. >> Dave, um, when I looked at the property,
I noticed there is a fence apparently behind the bushes and trees on the 2026 side of the property. On the other side of the property, is there a fence over there also? >> Yes.
I saw one. If you go all the way to Culdeac and look back at the property, you can see on the neighbors that runs up to you have one here. >> I saw a solid wooden fence on that side. >> It's on the pictures, too.
I believe it runs along the west side of the storage area and then then it uh returns back to the building. So this area is enclosed. >> So we have fence on both sides. >> Yes.
>> And um what I was saying is that I believe the owner of lot 7.02 is here this evening as well. Um, I'm sorry. 7.01. >> That's the residence to the west. >> Yes. >> Any other board questions? Katherine,
any questions? >> Um, no. I I think you know, just to clarify that gravel area that goes back, it probably goes back like 70 70 feet looking at Dave's plan where the where the rearmost shed is, that's where the
micum stops. Um, and you can kind of see that in some of the photos they took. So, I don't know. I mean, from from the intensity that's described about the number of cars and stuff, I don't know if there's an ability maybe to remove some of the gravel and reclaim it as grass. It would help with the impervious
a little bit. Um, it would help contain kind of what's creeped back further and further. >> You plant a tree, >> plant a few trees. Even though the the neighboring property has its own intensity, I think that it will help stop the creep of any gravel continuing forward. if there's any other future property owners. It tends to happen when
a property is this long, but >> would you be willing to kind of leave that open, work with Mr. Silbert and the applicant to go and and tidy that up and and claim some of that impervious? >> Absolutely. We're happy to do that. The only uh I don't mean to call it an issue, but um it's just I guess the
technical relief that's being granted, the extent of it, if we're going to increase uh or decrease the impervious coverage, I don't know off the top of my head what amount that is, but maybe we can figure that out. Now we won't exceed the 32.18. >> We say up to the 32.8 with the provision
that they'll work their engineer will work to um decrease it. >> Yeah. >> Total max where it is now. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> All right. Any members of the public questions on Mr. Styer's testimony? >> See none. Thanks, David.
>> Thank you. >> And our uh final witness uh is Mr. Matt Flynn. Who uh Mr. Flynn, is your your license in good standing? >> Yes. >> And you've appeared before this board and been accepted by this board as an
expert in the field of planning? >> I have. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Flynn. Will you accept >> expert in pl. >> Thanks. Um, I have an exhibit that I'd like to pass out. I think we're on A2 just to kick things off here. >> A2. So, just describe what A2 is.
>> Yeah, exhibit A2 is some drone photographs taken by my office as well as a simple aerial map. What date is it? >> Uh, these were taken August 21st of this year, 2025. >> How many pages?
>> Four. >> If you need this one, I'll I'll get it back to you. But Sure. >> Uh, I don't. Thank you. Did we run out? Um, >> can these aren't stapled together?
>> Did you say they're not stapled together? >> Oh, the staple came out. I'm sorry. >> Another one. I'll give you the >> all good. >> You got the staple. >> It was just one set that wasn't
landed landed there. >> Well, sorry for causing a little commotion there, but uh basically what we're looking at here is if I could just direct the board's attention on on sheet one here. Um, we've heard testimony from our uh applicant as well as our engineer regarding the substantial buffering on
the property. Um, sheet one here gives a clear uh uh display of what we're talking about in terms of buffering. Not only is that area in the back substantially buffered, but even that dwelling in the front is substantially buffered. So, you know, it's hard to
even see the dwelling, let alone what's going on about 150 ft beyond that. Um, so when we're talking about impacts from the streetscape, of course, that that is certainly not um an issue in my opinion. Um, the other thing that we see on sheet
one here is that these two homes that also have uh access from the culdeac, just as a point of reference, those two homes actually came online after this uh this property existed in its current form. Uh, so this neighborhood sort of
grew up around what we're talking about this evening. Uh, flipping over to sheet two. Just sort of uh lowering that drone down to give a better view of sort of what we see if we were on the street level there. Again,
hard to see the dwelling itself and even harder to see what's going on beyond that there. Um, so sheet three was pretty much I was trying to show the board. I think uh our applicant noted that this area has been uh subject to change over the years. I
think in the last uh two or three years we saw those um the Woodmont Square apartments that we see on the left side of um sheet three there. Um those were developed around then. It's a three building development with about 100
units in them. Um just by point of reference uh historically in 1987 there was four detached dwellings uh to the left of this home and now there's two. So again, when we talk about change in the neighborhood, I think uh he
testified to the fact that this is somewhat less residential or less um characterized as detached residential and >> family, right? Less single family. >> Correct. Right. Um and so those those apartment buildings came online, but also what we'll see on sheet three is
that um directly behind our property is actually a house of worship. I believe it's a mosque. Um, and we can't really see it here because of all the trees, but if we shift over to sheet four now, and we can see the property lines there. Um, we can see that right behind our
property is that house of warship there. Um, we don't actually, um, our property actually does not abut the house of warship itself or even the parking lot. It actually abuts a, um, undeveloped buffer area on that property as well. Um, so not only is there buffering on
our property, but there's also buffering on the adjacent properties, which also shields um or mitigates any potential visual um detriment there. So, as we heard, we're here seeking a D1 use relief. Uh, basically two D1 use
variances. one for the commercial use that's existing on the property and then two for the uh the fact that it actually constitutes two principal buildings on the lot. Whereas we're allowed one which is typical of a residential zone. You're
typically allowed one principal building and of course in this case we have two one being the residence and the other being the commercial use. Um so really from the planning standpoint I looked at I would say four things. Um, one being the context of the property. Um, and I
sort of walked the board through that already. Uh, I mentioned that the culde-sac itself sort of grew up around this use. Um, the property backs up to a mosque, not another residential use, which is important, of course, because the residential or I'm sorry, the commercial component is in the rear of
the property where it is not relative to a residential property in the back there. Um, like I mentioned, we are just a few lots away from a large multif family development, which is the Woodmont Square um, development, which is also in
the same zone, just just so the board is aware. Um, the other thing I looked at in addition to the context was uh, essentially the aesthetic or how this is going to look. Um, again, I talked about the substantial buffering on the property. Um, it's not really going to
be visible from the street. Um, notably the commercial facility is of course located behind the dwelling. So we are retaining that residential uh pattern that we want in a residential zone from the street. We're not eliminating a residential dwelling that comprises a uh
pattern in the streetscape. We are keeping that there and uh keeping the existing uh commercial facility in the back behind that. Um the other thing I looked at was the massing overall. If we look at uh Mr. Styer's engineering plan and the
application submission, we'll note that the F is about half of what's permitted and that's inclusive of both buildings. So even when we talk about both buildings, the F is substantially below what we could get here um in this zone.
In terms of the property itself, this is an oversized property at uh approximately 63,000 square ft whereas 40,000 ft² is the minimum. We have substantial lot depth which allows us to pull that commercial use further back from the street. Um, and really that
substantial or generous proportions here allow us to meet pretty much all of the bulk requirements except for lot coverage. Um, but if we look at the plans, we'll see that all of our setbacks are compliant. And perhaps uh the most notable of those would be the rear setback. Again, since we're talking
about a commercial use in the back of the site, uh that commercial use is set back about uh 150 feet from the rear property line. We only need 75 ft. So, it is well separated from our property lines. Uh so, I would say that all of that
factors into the site suitability standard. Uh basically the essence is whether this property is particularly suitable for the use in question. And I think based on those four considerations, the context, the massing, uh the spatial dimensions, uh
the aesthetics, all of that plays into uh site suitability. Uh the positive criteria, uh we look at the municipal land use law, the purposes of zoning, why we have these controls in the first place. Um purpose a promotion of the general welfare. Here again,
we're legitimizing a long-standing business in the community. Um, this does give the board the opportunity to impose any reasonable conditions um that we might see fit uh moving forward into the future. I would note that a small contractor business such as this one
does play an essential role in uh maintaining uh local homes, infrastructure, uh municipal services as was testified by our applicant. Purpose G, variety of uses in appropriate locations. I think I can fall back on the site suitability
testimony. uh purpose I desirable visual environment here I think the key thing is that we are keeping that residential home abudding the street um which is going to preserve the streetscape there um and finally purpose M efficient use
of land uh again substantial compliance with the bulk requirements again all setbacks are compliant F is well under um we have the area the width of the lot um and I'll note that the setbacks are compliant for both of our principal
structures. So the residence as well as the commercial building um all of those setbacks are individually met as well as building height. Um so zone conformance I think lends itself to the negative criteria. No substantial detriment to the public or to the zone.
We talked about visibility and uh when we talk about potential detriments that that's really the key factor here, but I would say perhaps more important than the visibility of it would be the operational testimony that we heard from our applicant. And just to echo what what he testified to, um there's no
customers on the site, no showroom, no signage, uh no construction will take place on the property. Um limited employees with limited hours. Um there's really no noise concerns. Again, there's no construction taking place here. Um,
and no, uh, minimal if any traffic concerns. So, all of that goes towards the negative criteria. Um, all said when we look at the use variance that we're seeking here, um, again, site suitability, positive criteria, um, and
the negative criteria, I think all of that is met. I'll get into briefly the the lot coverage uh, variance here. I think we can look to the C2 balancing test to the extent that the board sees that uh determines that we need that variance.
The positive criteria uh all of that really carries forth from the use variance. All of the the lock coverage variance is necessary to affectuate the use a longstanding existing condition. Um so the flip side to that the negative criteria again no substantial detriment
here again we're talking about an existing uh condition and it's not going to stand out as overdevelopment by any means um especially when we look at the F um the setbacks etc. Um the the one variance for coverage is not going to
stand out as uh sort of uh uh a substantial detriment. So really with that, I think there's there's a there's a practical element to this. We have a responsible applicant here that has existed here without detriment to the community. Um that one complaint
that we received uh years ago was was acted on promptly and I think this is a smallcale operation uh that can certainly be uh granted. >> I I have just a few questions. So can you just talk uh briefly about the
proximity of the site to 206 and the types of uses one would expect to see there? >> Of course. Yeah. So 206 is about three or four lots to the uh to the west.
>> East, >> right? Yeah. 206. So if we look at sheet one uh or not sheet one but sheet four, we'll see 206 on the right hand side of that aerial map uh and we can see that the rebuilding uh apartment development
along 206. We also see the mosque that I mentioned again along 206. >> Is it is it fair to say there's a variety of uses though? There's a mixture a blend of commercial, residential, >> I would say. So yes. >> Okay. And um just a couple couple more. So, do you think did you view this
application as as unique in your opinion? >> I did. >> Okay. And the reason why I asked that question is is because you know if a member of the public was watching this and says, "Well, I want to do this with my property." If you do you think that
there are planning justifications to warrant an approval here that might not be transferable to somebody else who just wants to use their property in the exact same manner? >> Yeah. Yeah. And that's basically the reason we have that site suitability standard. Why is this particular site suitable for the uh the proposed
development? It applies to this site only. And really the majority of what I said about site suitability would not really be applicable to many other properties in the in the zone. >> Thank you.
>> I could keep going. >> I don't want to step on your your >> No. Yep. I'm good. All right, I have I have a quick question on um >> 55D under negative criteria the MLUL um no substantial impairment and I agree with you on that of the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and the zoning
ordinance parenthesis not spot zoning. So help protect Bridgewater Township that we're not spot zoning here. >> Right. Again, going back to site suitability, um you know, it's pretty much impossible for a zoning ordinance to anticipate every unique condition that exists
throughout the township or within this one zone. Um and I think the the zoning mechanism and the purpose of this board in the first place um was built around that that simple fact that certain situations like these um arise. >> Thank you, Mr.
>> Thank you. Other board questions. question. >> Um, I just have two other things to point out that weren't covered. Um, as a result of the the use in the rear, there are some design standards that I think they'll probably need waiverss from just for
they're technical in nature. Um, under 126-171D, no driveway shall be located um in in any residential zone to provide access to uses other than those that are permitted in a residential zone. So obviously this is not a permitted use in the residential zone, hence why they're
here tonight for devariance relief. So I think a design waiver would need to be solved in that as well as um 126-181D which is no captain 126- >> the first one is 171D and the second one is 181D. >> Thank you.
>> No problem. Um is that no driveway or parking lot in a residential zone can be 10 ft from a side or rear property line. Um I'm hoping that they can achieve a little bit of um distance from the rear property line. Not for the sake of the
because the neighbors um have a much more intense use. It's really to to prevent the creep of that gravel driveway moving forward. So any kind of green space or trees will help to prevent that from expanding in the future which I think will help um in my opinion
this board's kind of mission to make sure that any additional property owner subsequent property owners will will not expand this use. Um because the testimony we've heard tonight about this use has really been that Mr. Mr. Widowich has done a great job in keeping it a family business and keeping it contained, but this use variance
approval hopefully will not um do anything different for any subsequent property owner. Um and then I just wanted to clarify um that the you is it your opinion, Mr. Flynn that um there's going to be no
substantial change in traffic patterns or um kind of different kinds of trucks or vehicles that shouldn't be on a residential road as a result of this use. >> Well, based on our applicant's testimony, there would be no change to the existing operation that's been there
for some decades. >> And um I'll ask Mr. Silver if they'd be willing to impose a condition or agree to a condition that there would be no um you know regular truck traffic commercial truck vehicle trucking vehicles that would enter and exit the site on a regular basis.
>> Absolutely. >> Um as well as it didn't appear that there's really an outdoor storage of any loose materials. Um but if there would be a prohibition or condition that would prohibit any loose storage of loose materials uh outdoors >> like um uh like
>> stone mulch um pallets, things like that. >> Yeah, Mr. Burr said the same thing. He actually asked me to make sure that there was clean up on the property and minimize storage of equipment on the outside. >> We're happy to do that. >> Good, good point. Thank you. Yeah, I think that's really helpful to making sure that this remains um you know a
very contained and clean operation for any user. Um and then finally just that this is subject to sign off from the fire official and there and any conditions from the fire official. I think that would >> and they agreed to that >> and they agreed to that. So I just want to make sure that that's on the record. Okay. >> Other than that, I have no um other
issues and I think Mr. Flynn covered all the um necessary testimony. >> So I just want to go back to the outdoor storage. Should we say no outdoor storage or >> I I think we need to come to an agreement because we have both the planner and the engineer talking about this. So, you know, we we do have substantial comment from board
professional that something needs to be done. So, we'll throw it back to you. >> Um, sure. So, I what I what I certainly gathered there was that um uh Mr. Bur and Miss Armad do not want to see uh construction materials like mulch,
lumber, things of that nature stored outside. We can certainly comply with that. Um, as far as equipment, um, I need I need you to tell me what what do you need to have outside? >> Currently, we have ladders and some, you
know, trash cans and safety equipment and barrels and things like that which are, you know, stacked neatly and that's about, you know, all we do have outside and I would like to continue to do that if I could. >> And you have a dumpster, too, correct?
>> Yes. I um with the exception of the of the dumpster, the the items that were just listed are not yes necessar maybe the scale of it or the intensity, but they're not like super um uncharacteristic. Like it's not that you couldn't go to a residential property
and see a ladder outside or or um garbage bins. Um so maybe the active storage of material is not approved for use or operation or maintenance of the property structure. Isn't that really?
Um, mine is more that if this is approved for some sort of like, you know, construction workshop or landscaping, whatever it is, a family business that deals with construction, that >> you could easily have piles of mulch, piles of stone, pallets stacked 15 ft
high >> that aren't for that for the use >> that are for the use that they just happen to store them on the property. Um, you know, a a use like this could be really valuable to a landscape a contractor that may use it as their
primary place to store everything um back home. >> And we've actually denied those cases historically. >> Yeah. And it becomes it becomes a sight maintenance issue. It becomes a safety hazard because it gets in the way of fire trucks and, you know, efficient circulation of vehicles. So, I don't disagree that right now the pictures
show that it is fairly orderly in the way that it's set up. off of the paved area for the circulation of vehicles. Um, but obviously there's if you prohibit it entirely, you can make sure that nothing happens. If you say in an orderly way or you limit to certain
things, it can still it's an it becomes an enforcement issue. Um, right now they do have ladders on the east side of the property along the driveway and then behind the shed, the two sheds, what he mentioned, wheelbarls and traffic cones and things like that. So, um I think
I'll leave it up to the board. I really just don't want to see it multiply into I said loose materials because it really is like that would be landscaping materials that would be construction materials. That would be where it's >> there weren't for that property. I think that that's what I was saying. Yeah. So,
it anything >> Well, they've got like 20 ladders there. It's not like it's one ladder. I don't think they're so >> operation. Yeah. I think um >> ladders you see pretty common. I this is what I would respond with is that we're
we've given pictures and what I'm suggesting is that the board condition this approval that it cannot intensify at all. So if if the zoning officer perceives that the use on the property has intensified, the zoning officer can issue a violation and a subsequent owner of the property would be back before you
to explain why their outdoor storage facility has increased in intensity. and I'm certain that a neighbor would complain if somebody was using the property inappropriately. So, I think that the board has protection if they're imposing that condition. It's it's very
hard to say like this material can be here and this quantity um at the at the end of the day and I'm not trying to scare anybody, but it's this Mr. Whitakovich operation operates a general contracting company. He's doing it in a modest and low intense level, but
there's there's certainly going to be a certain level of of outdoor storage and materials. And I'm I'm suggesting the board monitor it by uh by the photos that you have and and uh employ that I that the zoning officer determine if again if there's an intensification.
That's how you monitor the outdoor storage. >> Hey, Michael, why don't you say like bulk no bulk storage? >> That's that's fine. >> I mean, that clarifies it right there. >> Is it possible for Mr. desires to indicate on the plan like the variance plan that was submitted where the storage is happening right now and limit
it to those areas. >> I think that would be totally fine. >> It is modest and I think that that would be uh would give a zoning officer the ability to enforce it in any future scenario. >> Yeah, I I always hesitate to get involved in the in the operational
aspects of the business. I don't want to hear about revenues, employees other than when it >> feeds into the intensification or the intensity of the use. So, if we can limit this space that's being used for storage and let's let's delineate it right now and let's mark it and it's not
going to increase. >> I'm one vote, but just I I would love to hear what the board thinks and let's make sure that that's the case and 50 years down the road if there is a landscaper that acquires this property, they're not storing mulch over the property and organic materials and things like that.
Yeah, I'd like it to be enforceable. That's how I see it. Anybody in the future could look at a plan and say you're out of line with what was approved or you're in line with >> Yeah, we we certainly have a designated storage area. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, members of the public,
questions on Mr. Flynn's testimony. >> Thank you, sir. >> I uh I don't have any further witnesses. Um, I think that we've discussed this quite a bit and I I'm not going to give any closing remarks. I think that I think
that the board's heard what they what they've had to hear from our from our experts obviously. So, the one thing we do talk about is is parking. You know, we isolated a number of vans, number of pickups. How do we make sure that doesn't double or or triple? And you know, we have people double parked and
we have valets, you know, moving cars around and, you know, I worked for Bloomberg in Princeton when I got out of college and they have so many employees that they have 50 valets that work there that move the cars during the day. Um, and the town allows it. I I just want to make sure that we don't have a situation where we have 20 vans and 20 pickup
trucks coming and going. >> Is there a way we can limit the number of of vehicles to this property? I think I think you restricted it to defy vans and two pickups. >> Okay. So, we're going to solution. >> Yes. Yeah. And I mean it I I think like
I said, I think that that would constitute an intensification if a zoning officer observed that there's 20 cars at the site all of a sudden. Okay. >> Um you know, outside of party for the residential use if it's a re reoccurring situation. Um the only other suggestion I could
have is that if we designate a parking area on the plan um and that's the parking area. Um the other I'm just thinking at the top of my head that something that I would think that Mr. Slair didn't put in his memo but he
he might have wanted to include is is some signage to uh keep the driveway clear so that there's clear access to the back of the property in case of an emergency. Actually, my next question is if this use grant is granted, do they get access to a sign? I mean, are they allowed to put up a commercial sign out
front? >> That's up to the board, they would not be able to get a sign at the front as of right from the zone. They'd have to come back before the zoning zoning board or planning board likely for a zone for a variance for that. Um, >> there would be a would be here because Yeah,
>> use an intensification because I we don't have any. >> I just want to make sure there's no signs happening out front. Uh, no, >> no, not that this award has approved, so they don't have any rights to that. >> Um, >> I lost my train of thought on the other thing. >> No, the following.
>> Were we designating this as a home base for business? >> Oh, that's what I was right now. Thank you for reminding me. Mr. Scalera's report might include something along the lines of his ability to inspect it. The fire official does inspect home offices. I believe they have a whole database of
them, of which this I think Mr. Scalera had noted to me that he had never inspected this prior. Um, so there may be a condition including that he has the right or the fire official can inspect the property on an annual basis or by annual whatever it is. Um, >> and he'll put that in his letter.
>> Yeah, that was actually one of the items that we were of course willing to comply with in his report. So, uh, he he actually asked if he can inspect the residential dwelling as well, which we said absolutely. >> Okay. >> So, >> yes. Can I just add from zoning
standpoint if they're registering it? It would need to be registered as a home occupation. >> It's not a home >> occasion. No, it doesn't meet the definition of home occupation. It's not in the realm of home occupation. Nor do we want to start setting the precedent. >> Okay.
>> Right. >> All right. So, that's it. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Silver. uh members of the public that would like to speak for or against this case and have the time to join us and just need to stand up. >> Yeah, you come on. You can we have a microphone right there.
>> Your name and address. >> My name is My name is Derek Ba. I am the resident uh west of >> Sure. Derek, would you spell your last name, please? >> In Bravo Alba Sierra Delta Echo. >> I didn't get the last one. Sorry. >> Oscar. >> Gotcha. Okay. Would you raise your right
hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Um, just want to let you know that um I'm the neighbor 2019 and the loudest thing I've heard there is the word pecker back on the trees. Um I I'm up at
6:00 in the morning. I'm home about 6:00 in the night. There's no noise. Um the workers I know when they come in when they leave um these guys they come in they park their they park their pickup truck get in their service truck leave to go to work they come back which I
felt I felt strange that they would leave Harding Road alone and have having to inconveniently have to go on William just to get back on 202 just to be to make the right which is inconvenient for somebody who's going to go make a living
have to go do do work. I don't do that. I don't see why his workers would have to do that um just so they could pass on Harding Road just to go on to 202. It's not necessary for them to have to go William Street all the way down make a right and make another right just to get
back onto 202 Road is right there for them to use. Um the fence that separates Mr. Bush's property, my property, a couple woods that was broken, he fix it automatically when I moved in. Um, these guys have been quiet, been nice to me,
I've been nice to them. I mean, I don't see necessary for him not to operate. He's been there for so long. He's embedded there. Um, I believe that he should he should stay. And now that I'm here, I have the opportunity to use the
leverage on something, you know, that I'm here. So, that's the reason why you said the quiet part out loud. But yeah, I if if there's anything you need from me in regards to helping the
state, please. I'm here to bring questions, anything like this. >> Thank you very much. Good neighbor. >> Uh any other members of the public that would like to speak? >> All right, seeing none, uh Rich, won't you take us real quick through the conditions? >> Sure. If there's an approval of
conditions that we uh spoke about included for satisfying the uh soon to be revised fire marshall report be no tractor trailers, no box trucks uh used as part of any ongoing operation on
site. This really goes without saying, but we've mentioned it a few times. any modifications to the site or changes would require uh this board's approval. It will reduce the gravel area behind the garage to the township planner satis
satisfaction. Um impervious will not exceed 32.8% and that would include pulling back the 10 ft from the rear yard line. Yeah, I think they're seeking the design waiver for now if they can achieve the 10 feet, but I've recommended or requested that they do
okay 10 ft. >> We can do >> and that that gravel area be reclaimed for landscaping and or tree planting. >> Okay. Um no commercial truck traffic on site uh on any regular uh use basis. No bulk
outdoor storage of any construction material such as mulch, stone, or pallets. Um, okay. You'll amend the plan to identify the existing storage areas and then may not intensify those storage areas.
[Applause] I wasn't sure if you wanted this or not, but uh no more than five commercial vans and two commercial pickup trucks on site. >> Um I I >> Are you okay with that? >> I mean, I'm fine with that. I mean, we
do have one I mean, we have five four vans, one truck, and two pickups, so they're all >> um I Yeah, I'm just like >> Yeah. No, I appreciate it. I I think that in this exact moment in time that that sounds great, but I don't know if
that's uh if that's going to be the case 5 years from now, 10 years from now. I I think that the um >> what's the total parking on site? What do right >> we don't really need to see. >> Well, but but you may grow and and
>> what's the capacity? Where could you fit in there without double parking or creating an unsafe condition? So, what should the maximum commercial parking spaces be? >> Up to seven commercial vehicles. How's that? Perfect. >> I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. >> Up to seven. Up to seven. Sorry. So, no more than seven commercial vehicles
parked on site. >> Okay with that. >> I'm the cars addition there any cars that they use? >> The cars would not be commercial vehicles. They're reg they're registered um as personal. I'm talking commercial
registered vehicles, >> right? >> Okay. And >> seven max. >> Yeah. Seven. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, Rich. >> Jim, why don't you kick us off deliberations? >> Uh, I'm going to keep it simple. Um, I'm glad you've been in Bridgewater all your life and I'm going to give my vote to
you so you can stay here and keep operating there. >> Thank you. All right, Mrs. Ain, your thoughts, please. Looking at these uh pictures, I'm saying this property has a lot of nice trees and it looks so nice. And you know, even
though we have a little bit of more uh covering issue, but it's very much better than neighboring properties. And I'm saying this operation is going on for so many years. What's the problem? Let it
continue. And I'm in favor of approving it. >> Thank you, Mr. Schwing. >> I I think the only reason why we're here is that historically nobody knows what happened that went and but I think if we focus on where we are today, nobody has
a problem with what exists there today. So, let's keep it that way. Let's not let it intensify in any way, but let's let it run its current course. I'm in favor of the application. >> Thanks, >> Mr. Prescott. >> You know, I think I know what happened.
I've been in doubt for since 1979 and you know, Bridgewater was a lot different then. Um, and uh I think Mr. F chairman Fouse said it. You know, they look the other way and you know, nobody stopped long enough to to get it done properly. And I really think that and and it was done that way because you
were trusted part of the community then and that's why it was done that way. And I think that we should we should honor that and continue it. And I think it's a great case as always from you, sir, by >> laying it out quickly, giving us what we needed to know and and um so so I support it.
>> Thank you. >> Uh from what was presented, I I do believe that this business has been there for many years. Um the client is certainly much member of the community.
Um, and I certainly don't want to have him as operation because of this. Um, certainly want to make sure the resolution is, you know, lots of guard rails on it because as we know the variances go with the land and certainly don't want to intensify this use and
we want to keep it as simple as possible for what it is. So um you know considering the applicant and his history bridgewater and unfortunately we're not able to produce any documents from Bridgewater. I'm okay with this. >> Thank you Mr. G.
>> Yeah. Again you've been at this site and in business for longer than the property is well maintained. It looks like I live probably two miles from you and did not know you existed. So there's clearly no issue with noise or tons of cars going in or out. I have
no issue with this. I would be glad to support it. >> Thanks Jordan. >> Um I think it's a great local business. Uh I think Bridgewater is very happy that you're still here and going to stay here. Um and uh I hope you stick around
for a few more years and good luck. And I'm in favor of the application. Mr. Chass. Yeah, I'm certainly in favor of the application and I'm glad we're uh cleaning up and tying up some loose ends. >> Thank you, Mr. Chica. >> Yeah. Um with the long to do the
business the way it's been in the neighborhood, it does not appear to be a detriment to the community anyway. As long as the current use, I guess, remains as our new baseline for the activity there. You know, I would be in favor of it as long as nothing intensifies. >> Thank you, Mr. Gul.
>> I agree. I think we have a long-term successful business. This gives an opportunity to provide a legacy of that business and continue it for as long as the generations might continue to operate that business and then with the restrictions that we would impose
provide for the continuation of a symbol of use into the future. So I would support it as well. >> Thank you John. >> Thank you. >> Uh I agree with the board. I mean there's really not much to add. There is one component of a D1 variance application in MLU that would refusal
impose an undue hardship on the applicant and you you hit on this you know this would be a family business uh local jobs lost um and you know frankly it's a it's a gentleman that's contributed to our uh township and I'm very appreciative to that and I I think as Mr. Fresco said I I I think your
contributions and your reputation they matter. I tell my kids all the time it matters who you who you hang with. You know, it's uh you know, it's important and and thank you for everything you've done for Bridgewater and uh I wish you the best of luck with your business and I'm going to look to the board for a motion to approve. >> I move that was Mr. Deli and that was
Mr. Bonjouro to second it. >> Second. >> Mr. Fresco to second. If you got him on there and Nancy, if you could call roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Gi, >> yes. >> Mr. Vanou, >> yes. >> Mr. Fresco, >> yes. >> Mr. Sweeney, >> yes. >> Mrs. A. >> Yes.
>> Mr. W. Mr. WY. >> Uh, yes. >> Yes. >> Unanimous. Good luck. >> Thank you so much. >> All right. >> Which one is Deli Holdings? >> Congratulations. I work with your firm.
So Nancy question the expiration date [Music] at some point. >> Yes. He has just >> I just work with him. >> Halloweenare
10:31. >> All right. And we didn't get an extension from them. So then I'll recommend to the board that we dismiss the application without prejudice so that they could bring it again if they decided to. I have a motion to dismiss belly holdings on without >> I want to also just put on the record
aside from not getting the extension that we requested there's been an escro deficiency for some time now put that on a motion to dismiss belly second please second Mr. Sween >> sorry
>> Mr. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Oh, you got >> it's roll on. >> Yeah, >> chairman. >> Yes, >> Mr. Wley. >> Yes, >> Mrs.
Mr. Sweeney. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fa. >> Mr. Verna. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gi. >> Yes. >> No. No. Seven. Seven. That's good. Our next meeting I have is December 9th. Is that correct? >> No. Thanksgiving?
>> Nope. November 25th. >> What location? >> 821 Bridgewwater LLC. >> All right. So, our next meeting is November 25th, 7 p.m. in the courtroom next door. >> Yes. >> And with that, a motion to move. >> Thank you.
always. You