Now bear with me a second. You have the agenda handy. Just want to read that. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with the open public meetings act NJSA10-4-6.
Specifically on January 28th, 2026. Proper notice was sent to the electronic news sources of record filed with the municipal clerk at the township of Bridgewater and posted on the municipal bulletin board. Please be aware of the zoning board of
adjustment policy for public hearings. No new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10 p.m. With that, I'd ask you if you're able to stand and join me in the salute of the
flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
And Nancy, may we have a roll call, please? >> Kak >> here. Here >> honesty, >> Miss Wisman >> here, >> Mr. Vesio >> here, >> Mr. Kuchi >> here,
>> Mr. Mcnella >> here, >> Mr. Aller, board attorney >> here. Mr. Berlin, >> thank you. I'd like briefly to open the meeting um up to the public to address this board on any matter that's not on
tonight's agenda. So, if you had something you wanted to ask us about zoning or something that's just not on the agenda, you're welcome to do so. And seeing none, I'm going to close that portion of the meeting. Nancy, do we
have minutes or any resolutions for today? >> Not tonight. >> Okay. Thank you. So, we have a land development application before us this evening, and this is the initial hearing for application number 25-022-ZB.
And with that, Mr. I'll ask you to engage with our council and see where we should start this off. >> Well, first I can tell you that I've reviewed the notices and uh notice was in proper form was published uh properly uh and timely and served on property
owners within 200 feet. So the board does have jurisdiction over the matter. >> Great. Mr. Roller, >> nice to see you again, Mr. Silbert. >> It's very good to be back, Mr. Eler. Um with your permission, Mr. Chairman, may I be may I begin our application?
>> Uh, well, before you do, I know there was some correspondence between the two attorneys. >> Yes. >> Regarding the specific variances that you're seeking and some of the for us on the board, more nuanced letters of the law here as it applies to the the matter
that's before us. I think it would be prudent for us to start with that discussion and see where it leads us and then if you would start the more formal presentation. >> Absolutely. and I can um >> so in doing that Mike why don't just outline all the variances that we agree upon. Well, I would okay that we agree
upon, right? Okay. Absolutely. Give me one moment here. >> Um have a sheet with >> because I was reading through the correspondence and while we have a pretty good understanding, it's always better when we have two professional land use attorneys who brains are much
bigger than mine to have the dialogue around what we're looking for. >> Sure. Give me one moment. Let me pull up my page with all the relief here. Okay. So, first and foremost, what we agreed upon was we are seeking a D1 use
variance for a self- storage facility on the property for in a zone in which self- storage is not a permitted use. We are also seeking a C variance for the number of stories. We are seeking a C C variance for four stories where the zone
permits three stories. Um the ordinance's definition of story will count basement and this project is is inclusive of a bl of a basement. So those are um >> two two of the variances >> four stories and the basement.
>> No sir, it's um it's four stories and of those four stories that's inclusive of a basement which counts under the township's definition of stories. It counts towards the story count. >> Okay. there. We are also seeking a um D4
variance for the floor area ratio. Um get the exact specific numbers up. One moment. Um the zone permits 30% floor area ratio and we're seeking variance relief to
permit um an F of 36%. Um let me get the exact number here. >> It's 36.6 >> uh 36.6%. 6%. Yep. And there were a number of design waiverss that we are seeking um at least
that I've characterized them as design waiverss based upon the uh this application or this property having gone before your planning board and these having been identified there as design waivers. So there's a design waiver um for the foundation plantings where 10
shrubs per 20 um uh of foundation are required. So 368 shrubs are required, 42 shrubs are proposed. Um we have a design waiver for street trees along Miltown Road. Um where one tree space 30 to 50
ft on center required which would uh equate to 12 trees, 10 trees provided. Uh design waiver for tree plantings per disturbed area where three trees are required per 5,000 square feet. that equates to 69 trees and we are proposing
18 trees. Parking lot tree requirement another tree uh design waiver uh one tree per 10 spaces so that would be 71 spaces um seven trees are thus required.
Um, we're providing I believe we're providing seven um parking lot screening. Um, make sure I have one moment. I have a list of variances here and I
don't see it. Here we go. Um, parking and loading in the minimum front yard setback is not permitted. I believe that's uh I believe that's a variance. 100 ft is required for the front yard setback whereas 93.1 ft is
proposed. Loading space dimensions 12 feet by 50 ft are required. We're proposing uh two additional loading spaces from what exists at the site. 12 ft x 38 ft. Um we're seeking variance relief for the number of freestanding
signs. Um one exists. We're proposing a second one at the other uh ingress egress. So two signs are proposed where one is permitted. Um there is also a uh setback design waiver with respect to
the signage. Um where a minimum of 10 ft is required and we'll have testimony on the exact uh distance. I believe it's approximately 7 ft but wasn't noted on our plan set. Um
I think that covers the relief. >> So as Mr. Oler was saying these are the ones upon which we agree. Is that correct Mr. Oler? >> Yes. Correct. And then the where we differ um and I think you saw it in Ms.
Sarmmed's report is um she's pointing out the D1 variance uh for having multiple buildings and multiple uses on a single lot and Mr. Silbert presented a
letter and some analysis uh to the board which I read this morning and you know in in reviewing the land use chapter and uh in Bridgewater was I conclude based on what I've seen so far that um I think
it's section 126 323D among others just in general how you read the ordinance that it uh that the ordinance requires you know those bulk requirements ments to be applied to each building separately and really is read
where only one building one use is permitted on any lot with the exception of uh um well inclusive of uh of residential lots. Right? So and and Mr. Silbert's position is that um um based
on his reading that multiple buildings and multiple uses should be permitted on commercial lots, not residential. Uh yes, any lot that's not single family and and I think, you know, that's something that we can address in our our presentation. I would ask that the board
um withhold making a final determination on that variance. We're prepared to put the proofs um in front of the board should the board determine that that relief is necessary based upon the recommendation of the um of Miss Sarmad. And you know, I'm hopeful that um you
know, I can present to the board uh at the appropriate time the ordinance that I'm referring to, why I'm coming to the conclusion, and kind of walk through the board um as to the the history of certain land use applications in Bridgewater, certain sites in Bridgewater that I'm sure this board would be familiar with where there are
of course multiple principal buildings, principal uses on the property. But I didn't want to slow down or impede on presenting the application because at the end of the day, if the board determines that relief is necessary, we're going to be prepared to provide that relief to the board.
>> So, I would agree with proceeding and putting in the proofs. And Mr. Silbert um after I sent them my response today indicated he was going to Oprah whatever records there are on on a particular ordinance that does talk about double buildings, right? Or multiple buildings.
And I think that'd be helpful if there's some legislative history to that. Maybe there's some references in in the um how they concluded to reach that >> certainly resolution. Right. >> I think not to belabor on this point, but I think there are board members that
have um certainly ruled uh on applications that I've brought to this board in the past um in which those applications had multiple principal uses, multiple principal structures. Now, as Mr. Oler had pointed out, if the board had made an error in the past and
they're they're seeking to correct that error on a going forward basis, that would not preclude the board from doing so with this application. My point would be that if there is a level of ambiguity in the ordinance where we're really not certain, then of course we would look at precedent. We would look at the board's
past treatment, both the planning board and the zoning board to determine if if the language in the ordinance is ambiguous. How has the board traditionally treated that? >> Yeah. But ultimately, it's the board's call moving forward how how it's going to treat that issue. >> Absolutely. So, um,
>> and you're not suggesting in any way that this board has perhaps made an error in the past. Um, >> I'm sure that's beyond the scope of >> I actually am not suggesting that. I'm saying that the board has been accurate in its um interpretation of whether multiple principal structures and uses
are permitted in in commercial and industrial zones in the township. >> Right. I wanted to ask Miss Sarmad since you maybe pre precipitated this discussion if you would like to offer your opinion as well. >> I had a chance to speak with Mr. Oler um
and you know discussed where this originated from and and you know how I presented it in my review memo. I think his response to Mr. Silbert captured perfectly um what my thoughts were um in my reading of the ordinance. So I have nothing further to add. I'd be happy to
answer any questions from the board or respond to anything, but I think Mr. Er's response captured a lot >> and you're satisfied with the dialogue between the two attorneys as to how we should proceed moving forward tonight. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. The the thing that I'll
ask is that in plain English >> for members of the public who are watching at home on YouTube or just the board members ourselves what we're really saying is that we have a one parcel of land >> and upon that land there will be two
specific uses. U one is already existing the other one is proposed. The proposed use is for a self-s storage facility which is prohibited in Bridgewater, but at the same time we're willing to consider the application on its merits
and then the nuances of the the variance that you seek and perhaps in a way to be to air on the side of being conservative. If it were required to meet that higher standard, you're willing to um meet that higher standard by offering the proofs as required.
>> Right. I want to make sure I'm very clear. I don't believe the variance is needed. Um and I intend to provide um evidence as to why it is not needed. >> Um but with that being said, uh I would ask the board to with withhold their
determination on the relief required until they've heard the entire application absent the planning testimony to allow us the opportunity to address um that variance if the board so believes that it is needed. um we are going to provide the proofs for that
variance in the event the board determines it is necessary. >> Fair enough. >> That we are all protected. >> Right. >> So with that after all that little dialogue I appreciate your patience and walking us through it. Mr. Oler, thank you Miss Sarmad for raising the issue
and please present your case. >> Thank you. Um so uh good evening uh Mr. Chairman and and board members. It's uh a pleasure to be back in front of you. For those of you who don't know me because there's some new faces, my name is Michael Silbert and I am an attorney
at Murphy Schiller and Wilks LLP. Uh our law firm is located in North New Jersey and I'm here on behalf of the applicant this evening, non-realy Holdings. The it's Nan Realy Holdings LLC. The applicant seeks preliminary and final
major site plan approval to construct an approximately 85,140 square foot fourstory as defined by your ordinance climate controlled self- storage facility on a 2.11 acre portion
of the northern end of property known as block 165 lot 2 located at what is commonly known as 360 Miltown Road. The property overall is a 6.4 4 approximately acre parcel located in the
township's C3 office and service zone and it can and it currently contains an existing one-story 17,717 approximate square foot research and development facility which will remain on the property currently utilized by
Avenos as well as a pilot plant um approximately 1,000 square ft indicated to be an accessory structure that was recently ly the subject of an approval at your planning board um last year. So the project involves a condominium
subdivision subdiv subdivision on our end of the property. So not a subdivision in the in the formal land use sense. It's more of a financial subdivision as as Miss Armad pointed out in her report whereby the proposed self- storage facility would be located on proposed land unit A and the existing
R&D avenos facility would remain on proposed land unit B. So, we believe that we've um created a thoughtful and care carefully designed application and have come up with a use
for an underutilized commercial property in the township that is more than able to accommodate this type of development. So, as the board is likely aware, self storage is among the lowest traffic generating land uses, which will be
confirmed by the applicant's traffic engineer. Um the building that you see before you in the plans that has been deliberately designed so that the floors one through three are fully compliant with the township's F limitations with the additional floor area being
attributable attributable to the basement level which is not visible to the public. So just by way of example and you'll hear plenty of testimony about this this evening. If the applicant were to eliminate the basement level they would make the building conforming in terms of of number of
stories. It would make the building conforming in terms of floor area ratio, but the perception of the public, the impact that the building will have to the community, at least certainly from a visual impact, will be identical. The footprint of the building wouldn't change. The height of the building may
change a foot, half a foot. Um, but you're essentially getting the same exact building. And we did this very deliberately. We know how sensitive the township is to the floor area ratio requirements. and we tried to create a building floors 1 through three that would be compliant with the township's
floor area ratio requirements. Um so you're going to hear testimony this evening from the applicant's civil engineer Mr. Rob Michello from Gladstone Design. Um we have uh two profession we have two architects uh one of one of
which is the um the uh project design project designer Dylan Cino and then licensed architect Susan Deart that they're responsible for the architectural plans before you this evening. Um we do have a traffic expert that will speak to the number of parking spaces provided on site as well as the
expected uh traffic volumes that are anticipated for this use to the property. um that will be handled by Corey Chase from Dynamic. And then to conclude our application, um hopefully in that time we'll have the variance relief that's necessitated by this application in order. Um we have Kristen
Shepard, our professional planner, um from Kafone Planning and Consulting. So those are our witnesses uh this evening. I'm not going to waste any more time um explaining the the application. I would like with your permission, Mr. chairman to call our first witness and just jump
right into the uh civil engineering testimony. >> Yes, please. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Rob. >> Now, Mr. Michelle is going to introduce himself and he's going to tell us about his credentials. And >> first, I'm going to swear him in. Would you raise your right hand? And I'm going
to ask our professionals to stand too and raise your right hands if you would. All right. You solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So I help you God. >> I do. >> And my left to right, Rob, starting for the record, everyone's name, please.
>> Excuse me, Robert Mohello. M O S C H E L L. And my business address is 265 Main Street, Gladstone, New Jersey. >> Thank you. Now, even though Mr. Michelle has appeared before the board. Should we have ask him to recite his credentials
and see if anything's changed in terms of, you know, you forgot to renew your license or didn't pay your insurance bill or something like that? >> My license is still in good standing. The renewal is not up till the end of April, actually. >> Oh, good. >> So, um, but that being said, um, licensed professional engineer in the
state of New Jersey, received my license in 2004. I've appeared before this board as well as many other boards within the state of New Jersey as an expert in the field of civil engineering. and I hope to be accepted as as again as an expert this evening. >> Yes. And this board accepts your credentials. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Mr. Michello, thank you very much. Um, did you uh supervise or help prepare the site plan that's before the board this evening as well as the other uh engineering materials before the board? >> Yes, I did. >> And why don't you walk us through um the
property here? I see you have an exhibit up there. Do do we want to mark that? >> Right. I'll be more than happy to. So, let's start off with for the record this evening. This is exhibit A1 and it's entitled aerial exhibit dated March 24th, 2026. Just mark that on there.
>> Mr. Michelle, would you put today's date on um there as well next to A1? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, what I want to talk about this evening is first to give a little bit of history on this property to kind of explain to the board um what's gone on here over the last couple of years
and what the property is currently made up of in terms of the development that's there today. Um, as Mr. Silbert pointed out, there's been some development occurring on this property over the last few years. We've actually been in front of your planning board twice, starting with um 2021 when we came in to do a
modernization of the existing office building. I actually it wasn't an office building. It was an existing um industrial building that's on the property as as Mr. Silbert pointed out 17,717 square ft. And we came in at that time because the building was vacant. Um it
was actually used to be a cheer a cheerleading facility that was there before um it's been renovated and before that it was an industrial use on the property. So the property owner at the time came in, went to the planning board, got approval to basically modernize the building and do some
improvements on the property and and and along with those improvements, um they were able to attract a tenant that's in the building today, um Avenos Incorporated. And Avenos was actually in front of the planning board in um 2025 about a year and a half ago because the type of research work that they do
they're actually they actually do what they call a carbon capture type of research where they're trying to capture carbon um dioxide that's in the air, pull it out and basically convert it into water. So they had this whole um process that they're working on and they had a small model of that actually
inside the building and they wanted to build what they call a pilot plant or a larger life-size model of that outside of the building for their own um research purposes and ultimately for investment purposes and things like that. So they were in front of the planning board. The planning board approved that I'll call it pilot plant
or research facility and it's actually currently under construction today. So to talk about the property in general >> before you before you continue the that which is under construction today as you said was approved by our planning board
and that is a larger working >> conversion of carbon >> into water or >> correct >> they're doing is that that when I was there today the construction doesn't look like it's complete there was also some drainage work being done uh
bringing in a or covering up the pipe that they just put in and so on. Um are you working on the overall site yourself, your engineering firm? >> Yes, we did. >> All aspects of this um plan. Okay. So,
as you're going through this, that which was already approved, that which is under construction, you satisfied the planning board that that's acceptable. >> That is correct. We went through resolution compliance for both approvals and that the second one is under construction now which is a pilot plant.
>> Got it. And you anticipate or do you anticipate when that construction would be done? >> That I do not know at this time. >> Fair enough. It's okay. >> Great. >> Please continue. >> Thank you. So just to we'll get to the improvements in a moment to talk about them on site, but just to go back for a
moment. The property itself is block 165 lot 2 6.49 acres. It's within your C3 zone. And and for this particular location here, there's three lots that are in your C3 zone. Lot one to the north, lot two, which is us, and then lot three to the south, which is
actually the Somerset County um park rangers um office building that's down here. So, your C3 zone is really just these three properties right along here that you see, this triangular shaped piece here, this wedge if you will, that goes to the north on the plan. We front on Miltown Road, which runs in a north
south direction on the plan. Here you've got the North Branch Park to the west of the property. the north branch, the Rarin, which is down here. And then to the east, you've got Vandervir Road, and then you've got both single family and um town houses um to the east of the property. I also want to note that the
property is bordered on the east by the um what the the Conrail Rightway, which is, you know, a rail line that runs through here. That's on the back side of the property that really splits the site from the residential um that that is on that side. And >> the rail line is still active, is it not? >> The rail line is active, correct? And
and so looking at the plan here in in a little bit more detail, the site has two access points, a driveway on the south side and a driveway on the north side. There's the existing building that's there today, as I mentioned, 17,717 square ft of existing building. When we
got the approvals back in 2021, we did not increase the size of the building. Really, what we wanted to do was modernize the look of it on the outside. And then of course they renovated the interior of the building for research and laboratory used to attract a tenant which is now Avenos. Um in terms of that
building height, the existing building's 27 1/2 ft at its highest point. And you can see the building on the plan here in the sort of an L-shaped um location on the site there. It actually has access to on the south as well as access on the north. There's loading on the south and loading on the north as well for that building. And again, it was an
industrial building, so it had it had higher ceilings for what was going on there back when it was originally constructed. Um, I do want to point out the existing parking on site was not increased with the original application. It's still um 61 spaces is what was
supposed to be striped on the property. I know the parking lot has had some construction on it and I don't think the striping was all fully completed or it's worn off a bit, but there's supposed to be 61 parking spaces on the site today and that complies with your ordinance requirements for parking for an
laboratory office type of use. Um, in terms of the existing lot coverage on the property, it was with the original building, the parking lot, the driveways, and taken into account the pilot plant building that was recently approved and is under construction, the
lot coverage is at 25.7% and your ordinance is 60% for for reference purposes. Um, and and and we had a from the original lot coverage, it's a few percentage points increase because of the pilot plant um, work that's going on there. And we did add under the original
application, we did add some sidewalks and for um providing ADA accessibility into the building. It did not have an actual ADA ramp to get from the ADA parking spaces into the building. We added that as part of the 2021 application. So the impervious coverage was slightly increased with the first
application and then the pilot plan brought it up to 25.7%. on the uh on the property. One another improvement that we did do for this site under that original application was the public water line actually stopped right before the bridge here. Um there's an
existing um tributary to the north branch that runs in an east west direction. So that water line actually stopped right before the culvert. And as part of that application, the the property owner um got approve got worked with New Jersey American to extend the
water line along the property frontage. So that allowed us to bring public water into the um into the Avenos building and that will allow us to also have public water for this this application as well. But that was extended by the property owner um back in 2021.
>> So I'm going to move to my next exhibit. >> Excuse me. That water line though, the extension was meant only to serve the property that we're describing today or did anybody else benefit from the that water line being extended? >> It's a public line. New Jersey American Water owns it. So anyone else could
connect into it. We stopped it at basically just just right around just past the driveway right around here. If anyone else up north wanted water, they could certainly work with the water company to to extend it in the future >> because the the 4H fairgrounds is there. They have their baseball fields restroom
facilities there. I don't know what they're using now, but if they chose to, they could tie into that line >> if if they wanted to. Yes, they could connect off the line that's here. It's it's public. It's in the It's in the It's actually in an easement on our property with easements to New Jersey American Water. >> Okay. and everyone has rights to that under under their under their tariffs.
>> Thank you. >> Right. So I I want to talk about just in a little bit more detail the existing environmental constraints. So I'm going to move to my next exhibit. >> While you're doing that, um is there a way that I can have my screen appear on the monitor?
>> There is a way if we're really >> if we're really nice, Suzanne may be able to help us, but I I thought that she had made that offer earlier. So maybe I was mistaken. >> Uh she did make that offer. Um >> and you prematurely turned it down. Is that
>> Oh, okay. >> Suzanne, can you help us? >> Is that possible? I connected into this, but that I don't know which. >> Okay. Thank you very much. But I'd like the board to just see the um existing site.
>> Just before you continue, as you're connecting, I also want to instruct the board members that if you turn the monitors on in front of you, you should be able to see that as well. that which is being projected once it's projected and there it is on the bigger screen in
the room. >> All right. But what's on the screen and what's on the uh Mr. Michello's A2 are very different. >> Yes. So, uh Mr. Michello on the >> We haven't even marked it yet. So, why don't we do that? >> Let's mark that A2, please.
>> This the board we're going to mark A2. >> Board's going to be A2. Yeah. >> Thank you. So for the record, this will be this exhibit will be A2 also dated March 24th um 2026 and it's entitled site plan rendering. >> I'm good on power. Thank you so much.
>> And then Michael, as we go through whatever you put up on the screen, we're going to mark those. And if you haven't already emailed those to Nancy, you'll need to do that. I will do that. Um there are a collection of photos um that
I'll ask Mr. Michello to um verify that they were taken yesterday afternoon of the existing building on the property. Um if we can mark those as A3 site photos uh dated March 23rd.
>> How many are there? There are a total of two, three, four. There are a total of six photos. Yep. Yep. Six photos. Um, four of them are I'm sorry, three of them are taken from the the other um they're not taken
on the property. They're taken um to the east of the property by Dittle Road, but for purposes, >> he can he can authenticate them. Yes. >> As we get to them. >> Yep. It will only take a just a minute. I just wanted the board to see the um
site in its current configuration if any board members didn't have the opportunity to make it to the site. So, um >> ready for >> Yeah. So, >> did you want to talk us through your pictures first? Yep. Very quickly. So,
Mr. Michello, this is the correct Please uh clarify. Is this the location of the uh area on the property where the new self- storage facility is proposed? >> So, this photo that you see on the screen here is actually, and just to give everyone an orientation, I'm going
to go back to A2 for one moment. I'm sorry, A1. Um, this photo was taken basically at the existing driveway coming in the northern driveway looking into this portion of the site right here, which is the existing parking lot. So, it's to the north of the existing building. And
what you see here is basically on the far right of this photo is the face of the existing research laboratory building. So you could get a sense from where we're proposing looking out the left side where that black car is parked is generally where the new building is
going to be going to the left off photo. >> Great. And then just quickly, so can you tell the board what this is a photo of? >> This is a photo basically looking south. If you're standing in the parking lot, right where my zone C3 box is right here and I'm looking at the south fac the
north facade of the research building and you could see the part of the building that's sticking out closer to us is the larger height portion of the building where they they have their research facility in there. Um you can see the door that's on the building that they used to go in and out of. Um, but you're looking at the that side of the
building um fa um facing the north side >> and this these bunch of photos and I can get to them later on in our presentation. Um can you verify that they were provided to you yesterday that they were taken on on March 7 uh 23rd? Yes, >> they're accurate representations of the
property today. >> Yes, they are. >> Great. So, for the time being, that's all I wanted to show the board um for A3. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you for indulging me, Rob.
>> No problem. So, back to just to finish up some of the existing conditions on the property before we get into the proposed. And I wanted to just flip to the rendering here because it it shows some of these features. Now, now I've reoriented the view where Miltown Road is on the bottom of the plan here and
north is really off to your left. Okay. So, we're now looking sideways at it um in terms of the orientation. And what I want to point out here is the environmental constraints on the property because there are some um here and and this the screen is the view is split. So there's a match line here and
the rest of this would be over here on the plan going towards the um the south. So there is a tributary to the north branch of the Radaran River. Um it drains from those ponds that are actually over by the um residential development comes underneath the railroad tracks flows through the site
under a culvert and ultimately through the park and into the north branch of the Raridan. Um, with that tributary, there's a se there's a wetland complex associated with it. It's been mapped on the plans. You could see it here, um, outlined in blue with a crosshatch on it. There's also a wetland complex on
the north side of the plan, which is shown here as well in in blue with a crosshatch on it. Those wetlands were verified back in 2022 with an LOI. They have a 50-ft buffer associated with them, and that LOI is valid for 5 years. So, those have been verified by the state already. We also have a
repairarian zone that's off of this tributary, a 50 foot repairarian zone that's also been verified by the state. Um that was done back in 2022. And this area also has a flood plane associated with it on the tributary. And that's actually this orange line shown on the plan here. Um that represents the flood
plane limits based on the FEMA mapping plus 3 ft um based on the the latest um 2020 uh 2023 uh rules that were put into effect for flood plane. So the constraints are basically on the south side of the property and then a small portion of wetlands on the north side of
the property. >> Is it safe to say that as you were to point out the constraints that the new facility that was added to the research facility is right up against that that line? >> That is correct. Yes. And we we designed that facility so that it would not go
into the constrained area and we designed the rest of the site so it would be out of the other environmentally constrained areas. And and as you pointed out, those are the most current maps or indications from FEMA that you're using. >> Correct. We we are using the latest FEMA
mapping and adding the three-foot to it that's required by the uh the state. Now in terms of >> make reference to the residential development that's on the other side of the tracks, effectively not not directly bordering your property, but that
residential area has what are retention or detention ponds of some kind. and you were describing their flow through that same area. That's where I lost you a little bit. >> Yeah. So, I'll go back to exhibit A1 for the for the board um for reference and and here's the railroad tracks. And if
you look to the east, there's two I I'll say rather large um ponds that are in between the townhouse development that you see here. I'm assuming they're storm water basins related to that development when it was built. Um and there's two control structures. There's one right underneath this label here and another
one right here that brings that water then underneath the railroad tracks and through through a culvert and then ultimately into that stream on the property. >> So it it empties effectively into that stream. >> Correct. >> And that stream is not something that
you're using in any way to drain water from your property or you are. >> Well, our property ultimately because of the storm drainage in Miltown Road ultimately gets into that stream as well. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Everything drains the both prop both both our property to the north I'm sorry our property and the
properties to the south generally drain into that into that >> go into the north branch of the rarity >> correct that goes through the park into the north branch. >> Okay. >> And and and again not to get into too much detail but based on the flood plane mapping a majority of of of the park um
is is within the flood plane. >> Yes. >> Just anybody who played baseball there knows that. >> I have a question. Where is the existing sign located? You can show it on this drawing or the next one. >> The existing sign that's there today. It's actually right here on on on the uh
on the plan. >> It's on that corner. >> It's it's it's to the north of the driveway. >> The existing sign that's actually still under construction. It's not it's not actually completed yet. >> That's out that was supposed to be installed for the uh for the Avenue's office building. >> The approved sign. >> The approved sign. Yes. And I I'll talk
about signs a little later on a little later on when we get to it. So lastly, in terms of existing conditions, the property is relatively flat. Um, it does have some grade as we come up away from the stream up into the site, but for the most part, there's no steep slopes here
in terms of your regulations on the on the property itself. So, with with that being said, we also did do a tree survey. The trees have been surveyed on the plans, and that's been noted on the on the site plan sheets as well for the for the trees within the area of where we're going to
be doing the uh the development. So, the proposed application, as Mr. Silbert had pointed out, is for a self-s storage building. It's actually a four-story building, three stories above grade. And because of the way your ordinance defines um stories, the
basement level is also considered a story. So, it's actually a four-story building, but it's only going to be three stories visible above above grade. The total size of the building is 85,140 square ft. that includes all four levels of the building, the basement plus the
three levels that are above that. And you'll hear from the architect on the internal layout of the building and how that's designed. But basically, there's approximately 227 storage units inside the uh inside the building. Of those storage units, there will be a few that will be accessible from the outside and
that'll be along the I'll call it the western facade of the building, but the majority of them will be accessible from inside the building except for those on that first level there. So, in terms of the overall um building square footage, I mentioned it's 85, um
140 ft, but Mr. Silbert also pointed out that we designed the building in such a way that the first three levels of the building would be would be above grade would actually um when you add that up with the existing square footage of the office building on site. Okay, you would
have a total square footage of 81,727 square ft which would be just under your 0.3 um F. So 0.292 292 and then when you add in the basement level you'd end up with at 0.36
um 366 in terms of your F for the overall site. So we as Mr. Silver point down. You'll hear this from our planner. Again, it was the intent was to when you drive by the site and you look at the buildings on site, the square footage of both buildings, the research building and the and the self-s storage building.
When you see them, what you see would be would be basically be a.3 F because the basement's basically buried below grade. You will not see the basement on this building. So, to talk about in general the site itself um and access into the property, I mentioned there were two
driveways on the site. There's the existing driveway is is where my pointer is today on the north side and we have the southern um driveway as well that's there today. We are going to relocate that northern driveway. We're going to move it over about 85 ft. Generally line it up with one of the existing driveways
that's there with the park. And the reason why we're doing that is basically to better facilitate vehicular flow into the into the subject site to be able to travel between the two buildings more efficiently as opposed to having the driveway at more of a more of an angle. This makes it for better traffic flow
into the site, flow around the building, and then also to come back out on the southern driveway that's there. We are reconfiguring the existing parking on site because we have to move the existing parking lot, which is generally in this location right here on the plan where half the building is going to be going. So, that parking, the parking is
going to be reconfigured. With that change or reconfiguration, we're going to have a total of 71 parking spaces on the property. You'll hear from our traffic engineer about the the the um the traffic volumes that are generated with this, but based on the 71 parking
spaces and based on using it um parking generation, the self- storage building only needs nine spaces as we noted on our plans. Um we happen to have the way it's laid out when you come in the driveway, you have a four-way intersection here, as I'll call it for all intents of purposes. You can make a right to go to some of the office
building parking, or you can make a left. We have 12 parking spaces designated along the front of the building here, which will basically be for the self- storage building. Okay. And then next to those 12 parking spaces, we have the two loading spaces, which will be for what I'll basically call box trucks or U-Haul style trucks.
It's not going to be tractor to trailers or anything like that coming to the site. We anticipate for for self- storage building. We have the facility so we can have one to two box trucks that may come in there to deliver to bring somebody may bring their stuff to a unit. They may come in a box truck to
do that. Um, and we have two parking spaces designated for those. We'll call them loading spaces, but they're not your typical 12x 50. They're 12 x 38 as shown on the as shown on the plan here. >> If if I may just ask you a question, there is no then exterior door access to
individual storage units. The the doors that you're describing now are really meant to load um people's belongings into the unit and then be dispersed from there. Well, there's there's about 21 units along the frontage here, this building that are individual storage
units. Okay? >> So, you could go in and you could rent one of those units and then you'd be able to basically if you wanted to pull up here and be able to load right into that unit, >> they're not like loading, >> right? They're not loading bays or anything like that. It'd be something that you would actually rent for yourself to use where you have access to
it from the outside where you don't have to go into the building to get to it. and and >> excuse me. We're gonna ask the public to participate, but if you hold your question till then, you're more than welcome to ask it. >> If I may, Mr. Chairman,
from those parking spots and the loading zones, are there doorways that go into the building that are located there for the internal units? So, the way you get into the building and I was is there's a main entry on I'll call it the southern
portion of the building right here. That's the main entry into the building. So, you'll be able to go into the building that way with any thing you want to load into your interior storage unit. >> So, everyone would go in everyone would go through here. So, if you're parked here, you'd have to walk down the sidewalk with your with your whatever
bringing in. >> You were you were okay there for a while. So just >> and then go into the building here and you'll see on the architectural plans there's an elevator core and other type of things. So you can go up to the uh up to the different levels of the building or down. >> So the loading spaces, the loading
areas, the 38T areas are all the way on the opposite side of the building from the entrance. >> Yeah, they're down here and the parking is here. So again, we put the parking spaces closer to the entrance for people that are coming in in their regular cars or SUVs and want to bring something in. If you have a larger truck, yeah, you
have to pull down the drive and park here and then bring your your material down and into and into the building here. And the architect will show you that that layout. >> Mr. Michelle, we're we're anticipating that and our traffic engineer will address this, but we're anticipating, you know, SUVs, vans, those are the
types of vehicles that are likely to access the site to utilize this type of self- storage facility. >> That's correct. We're not looking at at anything larger than the typical SUV or passenger vehicle, but we do have provisions for if someone were to come in a small U-Haul or single unit truck
and they want to load a a unit up or potentially unload their entire unit to take it out in one in one in one um pass instead of maybe making multiple trips. Um, so, so that's why these spacers are located over here on on the site plan.
And we do have those those units along the frontage for folks that would want to have access from the outside that don't want to go into the building. >> If I may, because I I want to make sure I understand this. If I understand you correctly, this
building is three stories counting the basement as a story or four stories counting the basement as a >> It's four stories counting the basement as a story. Correct. >> So in order to accomplish that, you need
a floor area ratio variance. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Okay. I I I'm struggling with the idea that we we're we're going to need a floor area ratio when you have design opportunities in the building to eliminate that. Yes or no?
>> The I I'll take >> I'll take that. So our when we're when we're looking at a piece of property and we're assessing the um bulk standards and requirements, we look at to see whether the property can accommodate the
overage if we're seeking an overage. So when we put together this plan, we're looking at, okay, if we're going over the prescribed floor area ratio amount that's allowed in this zone in Bridgewater, how will that impact the site? That's what we're looking at. So
you can design and come up with any you can design anything to you could make a building 200 square feet. You know, you it is possible theoretically to design uh any building that needs to be designed, but we try to assess and
you'll hear from our planner the impact to the community if we are seeking a deviation or a variance and coming up with the appropriate plan to present to you. So that's why what what you're seeing in front of you is a is a plan in which the building won't change
if we eliminate the F variance. the basement would would go away, but we're not perceiving the basement or the increase in F as having an impact, a negative impact to the community. We're seeing that the site can accommodate that over
>> it doesn't look like it has a floor area problem. >> Oh, sorry, pick one. Um because it doesn't appear to have a floor area. It doesn't look big enough because you can't see the the >> that that's >> or that's underground, so to speak. >> That's absolutely correct. and on the on
the intensity or impact to the community. When you typically see a floor area ratio, you're expecting consequences uh such as a significant increase in traffic by way of example that could uh impact the community. But
because the use and we'll hear testimony on this this evening has is such a low driver of traffic, we're not concerned of of any type of increase traffic to the community or to the site because this use doesn't generate traffic. So if
it was an office building, you could have 100 more employees coming to the site every single day or or a research and development facility. You could theoretically have 100 more employees coming to the site every day due to uh a floor area ratio overage of this
magnitude. But for this use, you're not you're not going to have that or we will testify and and hope to present to you that you will not have that type of impact. >> All right, I'll wait to hear everything else. Thank you. I do want to ask from an engineering
perspective though, the the basement units and you've got these outdoor units and maybe the architect will testify to this. I'm just trying to imagine how they're stacked. If I'm pulling in from the outside, are there units underneath
me uh that I can't see? >> No. The footprint of the building is the footprint of the basement as well. So that brown you see on there, that's the footprint of the building. So the basement level goes down. This is a wall that goes down into the basement level as well. So you don't you don't have
parking on top of those units like a suble that we're we're on top of. So the footprint is aimed to with what you see there on the plan. >> And but that main floor which is at ground level. >> Correct. >> Underneath it is a basement in which
there are many units. >> That is correct. >> Right. So if I have an exterior garage door I pull in with my stuff. There's a unit underneath me. >> That is correct. >> But I can't pull my car into that. True or false? >> You can't pull your car into it. It's not designed for that. It's There's a
curb line here. There's a sidewalk and then the storage unit. >> Thank you. >> Y So So I I do want to just point out I was going to get a little bit, but I think it's probably the question we just heard about the site itself um and and the size of the
F. There's two other components to the zoning that I want to talk about. The lock coverage, right? Your ordinance has a 60% lock coverage for the C3 zone. This site, as I mentioned previously, was at 20, I believe, 27 and change when it was um developed with the pilot
plant. Um 25.7%. And typically what you're trying to look for is is terms of the the overall development when you're adding on to the property. When we talk about lock coverage on this site here, we're actually only increasing it to
have the numbers. Just give me one second to 36.6% lock coverage. Um, so it's only an increase of um 30,425 ft over what was previously approved and constructed. Um, so it's only going up
to 36.6% over the um overall property compared to what your ordinance allows up to 60%. And and one other aspect of it that I think is interesting with the lot coverage is the existing um pavement on the property today. The existing before we do any development is about
45,000 square ft of pavement on the site today as impervious coverage. And even though we're reconfiguring everything and we're adding a few more parking spaces, we're making it a little bit more efficient. So we're ending up with the same impervious coverage of parking, approximately 45,000 square ft of
pavement as well. The difference here is the building square footage is going up because I'm going from a building of just this building around 17,000 square feet and I'm adding another 20,000 and change for this building footprint here. So, the coverage is really increasing in
terms of building and some sidewalk and things of that nature, but the overall impervious for parking is generally remaining the same. >> And and that's an excellent point. So from an engineering perspective, because we'll have planning testimony on this point later on, hopefully this evening, but when you're looking to determine
whether a site can accommodate an increased in floor area ratio as an engineer, are you looking at things like height, um, lot coverage, impervious coverage? Are those things that you're considering when when trying to contemplate whether or not the site can accommodate a floor area overage?
>> Certainly, in a situation like this, we are. and and and again, if this was an office building with the F overage, you'd have a lot more parking required for that extra level of of building you're constructing. In this case here, because of the the um limited nature of traffic, and you'll hear from our
traffic engineer about that, we only have, you know, 12 parking spaces that's really, you know, adjacent to the building in in terms of what it's generating in terms of impervious coverage. >> Thank you. >> So, again, that was the impervious coverage number. I do also want to point out the building height. Um, your
ordinance allows 45 ft. This building's at 40.57 based on the calculations. So, it complies with your ordinance requirement of 45 ft for the zone. So, we're actually in compliance with that. So, regardless of whether or not it has a basement, the height would generally
be 40.57. It might vary by a couple inches if I'm slab on grade versus a foundation, but for the most part, the height would generally be the same whether I'm a basement or I'm slab on grade. >> That's that's significant though if you agree with this because theoretically
you the applicant could have come in with a uh building that conforms with three stories and could have applied or or could have presented an application for a building that was 44.99 ft and that would be permitted. It >> still be permitted. Correct.
Um, in terms of I talked about circulation, again, we anticipate because the site has two driveways, um, we we we have um, two access points to the property. You have an access point on the southern side um, for a portion of the research building and then you have an access point on the northern
side. You come in the site, if you go into the self- storage building, you go to your left, go into the office building, you go to your right. You could also drive around the back of the building. We are relocating most of the parking spaces that were in this parking field. We're putting them behind the building up against the railroad tracks.
Again, the railroad tracks have it has an elevation difference of anywhere between 8 to 12 ft. So, those parking spaces in the back here really are not going to be visible from anyone on the residential side. They're buried back there behind the uh the railroad tracks, but nonetheless, we're going to put them back here where we have room to place
those. We're adding a couple more parking spaces on the south side of the building um just to kind of fill in some of those areas that are adjacent to the driveway now ultimately to get us up to those 71 parking spaces. Um Mr. Silbert did talk about the condo line. Um again,
we're looking to condo this site. It's not a subdivision from a zoning perspective. It's strictly for condo purposes, for financial reasons. And that's this purple line you see on the plan here, which basically splits the site into two condo units. Land unit A,
which is 2.114 acres, and land unit B, which is 4.295 acres. And that's strictly for financial purposes. As Mr. Silbert had pointed out, we're not doing anything from a zoning perspective as it relates to that to that line. We're still treating everything as the overall
tract that we show here at the 6.49 409 acres, but we're not doing anything to those to those numbers from a zoning perspective. Um, in terms of getting into besides that that zoning comment, um, we talked about building height. Um, building
setbacks, the building generally complies with all your setback requirements. Um, it's 100 foot front yard setback, 100 foot sideyard, and a 20 foot, I'm sorry, 10ft rear yard. building complies with all the setback requirements um of the zone as as shown on the plans here. Um so
that that's in compliance. We are showing on the plan um and this was based on a conversation that we had with your fire official actually back in the fall when we had met with him. um he had requested that we provide on the plan a fire access road or or drive on the
eastern side of the building between the building and the property line as well as an access on the western side of the building and of course you have access on the southern side. So we're proposing on the plan here a 20 foot wide stabilized turf access drive for the fire trucks um to or any type of
emergency service vehicle to to drive down there. I I I will note that the review letter from the fire official um does mention he was asking for a 24 foot wide um road. Um when we had met with him back in the fall, he had suggested 20 foot would be amendable to him and
that's what we show on the plan. Um but his letter does say 24. So I have yet to be able to reach out to him and connect with him to talk about that. Um but we felt the 20 foot would be adequate for a vehicle to drive down here and it would be stabilized turf um like we've done on some other projects or other sites in
town um for accessibility. >> Just to be 100% clear with the um fire marshall's review memo, we are asking uh the board and and indicating that based upon communications um that you've heard uh Mr. from Michella's sworn testimony
that that 20 foot wide stabilized turf came about from explicit discussion with Mr. Scalera as to the um required amount that he needed to navigate the site for fire and safety purposes. Not to venture
into architectural testimony, but the um the rear of the building, Mr. Michello, that's not anticipated to have any windows or anything. Uh >> yes. So you'll hear from our architect, but this fac this eastern facade of the building here has no doors, has no windows, has no rollup doors for access
or anything like that. That is just a solid building wall on that side. Architecturally, there may be some components to it that will make it look a little different. >> I'm sorry, M. Before we get away from the fire marshals report, when did you have that conversation with him? that.
So, I was checking my calendar right now to see if I could figure out the date of our informal conceptual meeting, which unfortunately is in the calendar of my prior firm because it was long before we submitted the application. It would have been in July 2025 or August 2025
>> because his report is dated only about a week ago. >> That's correct. So I, you know, we would um really have to rely upon the very current report, not a statement that maybe was made a year and a half
ago. >> Well, I'd like to expand upon that discussion and I can appreciate what you're saying. So I think the applicant really went above and beyond here. I've handled a number of applications. I've never met with the fire marshal before submitting an application. We brought a
concept plan that reflects something very similar to what you see on the board this evening and um you know it changes everything there. It's a a major financial investment for an applicant to retain all the professionals involved to come here this evening and prepare a
plan like this before you and to have a representation made that uh a 20 foot wide uh fire access way particularly in light of the ordinance which requires only a 10-ft setback but that's another another point. Um that that's that's
something that the applicant relied heavily upon and obviously Mr. Scalera isn't here. We relied heavily on it, but no one sent them a confirming letter to say, "Hey, at this meeting, we're relying heavily on this. You know, here's my confirming letter that we only
have to have a a 20 foot wide." >> Um, of course, it did not I did not send a confirming letter. It's it's an informal meeting, but I am I'm suggesting to the board obviously the board want would would want to come up
with the safest um option for any site, but you're going to hear testimony this evening from our professionals that the um proposed layout with a 20 foot wide stabilized turf area for uh fire access is in fact safe. And
>> it would seem to me to be it would be prudent for you to meet with Mr. Scara again and say that you've proposed a 20ft access road behind the property that stabilized turf and see if he would agree that that it was adequate because
if he doesn't agree then then obviously we're we're at a impass. We've got to change something because he's specifically saying he reviewed this plan and he wants 24 feet. So that is uh certainly next on the list of things to
do which is to contact Mr. Scalera. Right. >> Absolutely. I plan to do that. We will >> The other thing I wanted to point out though is you you had made reference about how earlier boards may have consulted with the fire official or there was something something that you
were describing that at times the board did not get the fire official's opinion and I'm not certain what you were trying to get at there or maybe I misheard you. Yeah, I I I think what I was saying um is that the the applicant in my opinion
having handled a number of applications, we went very far above and beyond to meet with the fire marshal in advance of preparing this application with the foresight to understand that we're going to go in front of the board. We're going to get a fire review letter right before
>> I got all that. The inf the inference was that we don't do that with or other applicants don't do that. No, no, no, no, no, no. Uh, anyone, any applicant is any member of the public for that matter is afforded the opportunity to go in for, uh, an informal conceptual meeting.
The, the, the fire marshall a lot of times is not present and isn't expected to be there. So, I'm saying for this application, we wanted to make sure, at least for the preliminary discussions regarding it, um, that that the fire marshall was present and able to weigh
in on it. That that's what I'm I really don't want to spend a lot of time on this. I just want to state for the record that it is very often that this board will have a letter from the fire marshal indicating what his requirements are >> as we hear the application
>> always. >> And and I understand too that there are times when you may have had a conceptual discussion, but as I outlined before, you need to go back to him, get his opinion on the 20 foot stabilized surf. And if not, then we have to make um something some amendment to the plan or
some other device. Mr. Bur, you look like you want to say something. So, I'd love to hear your opinion. >> Yeah, I just wanted to for the board's benefit just expand on Mr. Silbert's explanation of what transpired. Um July 10th, 2025 is when that informal meeting
was held. Now, Michael is correct. Typically, if an applicant, a prospective applicant wants to meet with the board's professionals, i.e. Katherine and I, an informal concept meeting is the avenue to do that. Usually Nancy is at the meeting as well
as the director of municipal services. Typically, the fire official is not present at that meeting. In this particular case, when we looked at the initial concept, because of the constraints and the narrow narrowness of the property, we we asked Tom to take a
look at it at that point in time mainly because we knew typically he wants 360 degree access around a building and that was not going to be possible here. So Tom joined the meeting, took took a look
at this, and he actually relaxed informally his standard on having full circulation, and he did say that he'd be okay with just a driveway to the rear. I don't remember a specific discussion about the width. I could be wrong, but
he definitely relaxed his standard of having full circulation around the building, and he said it'd be appropriate just to have it on the rear. Again, I don't remember a specific discussion on the width of that driveway aisle. And quite honestly, Tom may not have have remembered that when he
reviewed it six months later. So, there definitely was a dialogue, but you normally don't have anything in writing as a result because it's informal. >> It's non-binding. >> There's never like a TCC menu or something. >> It's non-binding. It's it's just meant
to allow the applicant to hear from us and we provide some guidance on the ordinance requirements. We can never predict how the board either board the planning or zoning board might view an application. So, we're very careful uh not to guide the applicant, but merely
just talk about the ordinance requirements and and what some of the the the typical issues are that um the board will look at. I think we're all in agreement that we need to revisit this with our fire official and then pending
that discussion. Then we have we can perhaps make a decision that's better informed than that which we're doing right now. >> Just to to conclude from from my end, we need a D1 use variance this evening. Um we're going to make sure that the board
is happy with this application, assuming they're going to approve it. I just wanted to represent to the board that we did do our homework. We did reach out to the fire marshall. We did want to accommodate um the fire marshall's wishes. That's purely what what I was attempting to represent and we will
circle back with the fire marshall because this is uh an outstanding concern. So >> thank you. >> So >> Mr. Michello, >> moving on from the fire access on the rear, I do want to point out that we do have that act we do have the same 25 foot wide on the south side and 25 foot
wide on the west side going to the corner of the building here. Basically, it stops there because of the fact that we've got a wetland buffer um that we really can't get past at that point. But we have given what I would say 270 degrees of um access around the building with subject to a discussion with the
fire official >> on the existing property. Is that also 20 ft behind the building that that parking area actually? >> No, that act that width is actually um 25 foot behind the building because I've got parking there. So, I want to be able to back out of those parking spaces um
in into the drive aisle. So, I would not be want to be less than uh 25. It's actually 25.2, but >> Okay. Thank you. >> It's it's in the rear there. Um I do want to point out that while we're talking about drive aisle widths here, there are two parking spaces um that are on the southern side of the property. Um
there's an EDA space that was added here and an existing parking space. Um and the driveway width here is actually 219 ft on the plan. That's an existing driveway width. Um, when we came in here and redid the access to the building, we added an ADA ramp which terminates at
the edge of that pavement. Um, we did not widen this this driveway out to 24 feet or 25 ft at the time. We felt that given the the the low volume of traffic that comes through here for the office use that having a slightly narrower drive lane here um would be okay for
cars pulling out of an ADA space and a single parking space. So, we kept that at 21.9. So, while that is under your ordinance requirement, we're not modifying that section of the uh of the parking there. When we get to the new parking spaces um that start right here
where my pointer is and going into the back, we actually have 24 ft in width um for those new parking spaces. So, there's only two parking spaces that are slightly undersized in terms of the drive aisle width on site. >> Mr. Michelle, really quickly, um, when you went in for your preliminary and final, I believe back in 2021, and then
the amended approval, um, do you recall if the planning board wanted to see that, um, access driveway uh, increased the ingress the the >> No, there was no mention of making that driveway wider. It's it's functioned as it has for um, you know, many years. And
since there's two mean since there's two means of egress and ingress into the site, there was there was no need to widen that driveway out any further. So your your opinion is that the site is is is safe as we're proposing with the drive aisle the existing drive remaining at its current with
>> that is correct. >> Thank you. >> I would just add though under the under the previous conditions since you're relocating the access way perhaps that existing condition which pre-existed your plans may have compensated for that
narrow driveway on the side that you're referencing now. I don't know that. I'm just saying it's a possibility. So, we want to look at this site, make it safe, make sure the fire officials happy, and that's how we'll continue. >> And to point out the the new driveway
that we're proposing here, it's it's 25 foot wide, so it meets the standard. It's actually 25 foot wide. I've got 25 foot curb returns coming out to the road here for um ease of access for a firetruck to come into the site. We provided a firetruck turning plan um as part of the application. shows it can
access the site, actually pull down that fire lane as well. Whether it's 20 or 24, it has the ability to uh to do that. Um, just moving on to just some housekeeping on parking. There are two EV spaces denoted on the plan for EV charging. Um, just to meet this the
requirements of of the state for on-site make ready parking spaces. So, they'll be there for the use of the uh the patrons on the property. Uh, one note to that just from the um the the negotiations of the master deed
um for the two prospective unit owners um the the the required parking based upon our calculations and what we're providing on land unit A are 12 spaces but the self- storage user is going to be entitled to 15 spaces on the property
irrespective of the condo line. Um, so there is actually additional parking that the self- storage facility per the the at least draftmaster deed and the um uh more of the contractual items that are on the private side are are spelling out and I wanted to convey that to the
board just so that they're aware of that. >> So then each building owner will have cross easements for parking >> with respect to those spaces where the pointer is these right here. These five right here would kind of be swing spaces, shared spaces between the uh
between the two, >> right? And that's more based off of what the parties, the private parties had negotiated way before concept plan was was drawn out. Um, so >> so you need that to satisfy your parking
requirement for the new building? >> No, this is just an excess. >> Okay. just just letting the board know that that there is um additional parking spaces that are available to the self-s storage user in the event which we don't think would ever happen that they need
those additional spaces. They're they are going to be entitled to and that can be you know if the board wants to require that to be a condition of approval um they're going to be entitled to additional spaces on what will be land unit B assuming this is approved >> and and the same would be true for
access into the property itself too, right? So you'll have cross cross easements for ingress and egress. >> Um that's correct. However, the the um the way that the uh uh the private agreement has been crafted is that there
will be a reciprocal easement over the new proposed driveway. the um the old existing driveway is going to have a license agreement which would then uh allow the uh land unit B if ever down
the road 20 years from now he the that land unit owner wanted to modify the arrangement um they would be able to do so. Um so the new driveway yes will will have an easement that will provide access to both land unit owners.
I usually don't get into the um specifics as it involves easements between private parties, but I felt that it was important for the board to uh understand some of the >> Well, it is important because you're showing a plan that shows, you know,
traffic flow across both of the lots, right? And um is there any proposed signage that that prohibits, you know, the new building um owner users from going on to the existing building site? >> No, there's not.
>> Okay. So, so me as just someone who's using the self- storage facility, I have my car and I want to drive out and around back of the existing building and exit there, I could do that, right? >> Yes. I mean, I think we we want to want to um come up with a with with c on-site
circulation that that is suggestive of how someone is supposed to >> I don't know why anyone would do that before. >> We certainly do. >> If you're pulling out of the parking lot here or parking here, you're you're most likely going to go right back down the driveway and go out. I mean, unless you're curious and you want to drive around the back,
>> but for the most part, we anticipate that everyone will use this driveway going to the self storage. And if you're going to the office building, if you're coming from 202, you're probably coming in this driveway. If you're coming from um 22, um you you may be coming down the road here to come in, depending on where
you park. >> So your your master deed will have uh some easement language for the signage, too. How you dealing with the sign? >> Um that, >> right? So you're putting the sign for
the new building to the right of the um >> Yes. Yes, I have I entry. >> Correct. So, >> so it's not on unit whatever that is. It's on unit A. >> A, right? So, it's not on unit A, it's on unit B. >> Yeah. I believe that the way that the master deeds uh um prepared as it
relates to signage is those are just considered to be common elements of the site. >> Why? >> I just think that's that's >> Well, normally if you do a ground condominium, you're just doing the whole lot, right? It's like the same thing as a subdivision. It's just, you know, worded a little differently because it's
in a condominium deed, but not, you know, not a filed map. But wouldn't the whole unit A follow the lines, right? And unit B follow the line. So there's no I don't see any common element here. Why why do you have common unless it's
for drainage? >> It it is for drainage. I think that the the current draft and obviously there's there isn't something signed yet um has drainage as one of the common elements and I believe that signage was included
there as well. Um >> okay, but A has the right to place it on unit B. >> That that's correct. >> Okay. The green light wasn't No gates. >> No gates.
>> So there's no security quote unquote there. >> Well, the building will be secure. You'll need to the building will I'm going to get into operations in a moment, but the building will have staff in it and you'll need some type of a fob or something to enter the building. Um >> it's the these operators typically
monitor it with uh 24hour surveillance. We don't have an operator identified yet, but that's pretty standard practice to have, you know, high techch, high level security systems in place in addition to on-site an on-site employee. But but there's no plan to put like a
gate up across here for people to get to those parking spaces. That's not this site isn't designed like that. There's there's no there's no outdoor storage of any type being proposed here. So you might see in some self- storage facilities that have gates or fencing because they might have the ability to
store something outside, you know, not inside a unit in a yard area. In this particular case here, everything is going to be stored within the building. So there's no there's no outside storage of overnight vehicles, no RVs, no buses, no boats, no trailers, none of that stuff. You're going to come here, you're
going to use one of the parking spaces to enter the building to bring your to bring your stuff, and then you're going to leave, but you're going to have nothing on the outside. What are you doing about those uh busy little 4 fairgoers that park on that site now after paying their 10 or $20?
>> That I don't know about. >> Okay. >> Something you might want to think about since >> it's been happening. Land owner anyway. >> Okay. >> We can look into it. Thank you. Um so so talking about just a couple
other um site items, we do have um some proposed trash enclosures on the property. Um we do we have one proposed trash enclosure on the south side generally for the the southern portion of the research building and then we do have a second trash enclosure on I'll say the middle of the property between
the two buildings. Um more so for the self- storage building but also for the office building as well. Um these are your typical masonary enclosures um with uh with screening around them. We don't anticipate the way these self- storage buildings are are are set to work with
the tenency and the lease agreements and Michael you could comment on this as well. Um the trash enclosures are not designed for people to empty their units into. Then that's pretty strictly enforced by the the the the operator or owner of the of the building. A trash
enclosure is really for the the office use of the building to use for for trash purposes or for the operator to use for trash purposes. If someone if someone were to clean out their unit into the trash, that would be infor that would be enforceable under the lease, >> right? Yeah. We would the the operator
would include something to their lease that basically says that the the refuge's dumpster is not to be uh utilized for, you know, disposing of your personal belongings, things you don't want anymore. Um, and I've seen other operators where they they enforce that through their surveillance systems.
So, they will find uh any tenant or user of the self- storage facility for uh inappropriate using the uh refuge facilities on the property. Yeah. >> And did the location of that trash that you were pointing to for the self-
storage facility and maybe the office workers, did that create the sharp angle that you have going on the stabilized turf? Did that force your choice of that? >> Uh, not necessarily. I think it was just the way we had the curve here. we could
get a straight pull in for a garbage truck to be able to access it and then still have enough room to make the turn for the fire truck to go to go into there. We showed that on on on the circulation plans. >> Um, from the other item I do want to point out from an operational
perspective is if there is a unit that for argument sake the tenant no longer pays their their their bill and they they that unit becomes evicted, they typically would have that cleaned out by a trash hauling company. um that the and that they come in and clean that in one
in one um swoop. They don't take it and put it in the dumpster that's out there. The operator doesn't do that either. They have someone else come in to to remove those materials. Um that's the trash. Uh the signage. So, we've been talking about signage. It's come up a couple times now. Under the
prior original application that was being done by the property owner before Avenos um came in for their application, a sign was approved just north of the southern driveway on the property. That sign was actually approved with with a setback of I believe 5T. And for
whatever reason um as it turns out when we were going through the ordinance there is a design waiver needed for sign setback. I don't know why when the 2021 application went through the planning board, no one picked up on the fact that we needed a setback. We missed it. The planning board missed it. And the other folks that were involved back then seem
to have missed it as well. But in any event, the sign is approved. It's quasi constructed. The foundation's in. The the the walls are in, but the sign itself isn't isn't actually finished for whatever reason. I don't I don't know why it's not done. Um but it's there. It
just needs to be finished. Um, and we're proposing a second sign because we have two driveways just south of the northern driveway here on the plan. We're proposing that sign to be set back a distance of 10 feet from the rightway line. Your ordinance requires 20 ft. The sign itself is 18 square foot in size.
Um, which is less than 25 square ft where you we'd allow it to be 20 ft from the property line. Um, the reason why we're setting it at 10 ft is just behind that sign. Um, and you'll see it out there now on the existing um, site. There's a hot box that was put in for water service to the building. We're
also proposing a hot box. You can see it on the plan here. It's a concrete pad with a hot box for water service to the proposed self storage building. New Jersey American Water requires these hot boxes if your building's more than 50 ft from the road. So, we have to have this out there for a backflow pre and meter.
So, we want to put the sign in front of the hot box so it has visibility for people driving along um Miltown Road to be able to see that sign. So, that's why we're asking for the deviation from the setback of 10 ft um as opposed to 20 feet, which would put it back in line with the hot box and block its
visibility for people traveling south on um Miltown Road. >> Rob, did you say what the um setback would be for the proposed additional freestanding sign? >> That is actually at 5T. No, I'm sorry. For the proposed sign is 10 ft. >> Yes, for the proposed sign it's 10T.T.T.T. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. And that sign's going to be
completely identical um in in nature. The >> the size will be the when we did the plans and submitted to the planning board, I was submitted to the board of adjustment, we kept the same sign detail that we had for the um original um office building plan back from 2021. And
while the square footage of it would be the same, the sign actually showed six tenants on it. the original property owner thought he might be able to tenant the building out to six different um bu users that could be in that building based on the square footage. So, we showed six tenants on the sign clear. Uh and again, I'm not sure if that's still
the intent, but we will have to just take a look at the detail of that to see if it's still going to be a panelized sign with a number of tenants on it or if it's going to change to something a little a little different. But the size will remain the same. Yeah, the the actual just because we're on the topic,
um, Abnos is the sole user of what will be land unit B. So, we anticipate the signage will reflect one sole user. So, you won't have six uh panels because there aren't six tenants. And we would um we would anticipate that if approved
that the freestanding sign on uh well, still land unit B, the the new one would reflect a singular tenant as well. >> And Mr. er, maybe you would comment on this question that I have. When when um
Mr. Silbert is referencing or Mr. Michello is referencing approvals that were made by the planning board, the planning board contemplated those approvals as they pertain to the larger property with only the improvements that we see there or those which had been recently approved.
>> Yes. >> Now you're coming to the board and the zoning and asking for variance relief and some other things. And now we have to look at the property in its entirety. And so this zoning board has fairly wide latitude in what they may require while
still respecting perhaps some of the decisions that were made. But Mr. Oler, what are what are our limitations here? Can we look at the existing building and say we want to make some suggestions as it pertains to the development or are we
stuck with what we have there? Well, the existing building is built, right? >> Yes, it is. >> Yeah. So, there's really nothing before the board that is being proposed on the existing building. Um, I would say though, since we will have, assuming an
approval, a D1 use variance, anything that goes on that property in the future is coming to this board, >> right? >> It's not going back to the planning board. So, anything that happens on the existing building in the future is going to correct here. >> Right.
>> Board would would retain jurisdiction and and I imagine you would include that in your resolution. >> Yeah. And and so I don't see anything that's before the board with respect to the existing building. Um >> No, they made reference to the sign and the sign was approved but never built or
>> in the process of being built, >> right? I mean, >> permit. >> Yeah. >> Drawn >> because we're seeking a use variance. If the board looked at the site and said that there is we don't we feel that there is um a substantial detriment or a safety risk or something for this use
variance we're seeking unless you make modification to something on land unit B then I could understand you know that that could be grounded in something but otherwise I don't I I don't I wouldn't say it's appropriate to go back and say well you know I I I I don't really like
the sign there. It'd be better if it was a little bit further back or something like Do you see if you could see the difference of what I'm trying to explain? One is directly tied to um the relief that we're seeking versus one is more just personal preference. They're they're different um areas.
>> Yeah. And and I just want to clarify for the board that if in fact we're looking at the decisions that are before us, we're not going to be addressing those if there were any issues on the existing building unless you were to make changes and then the board would be asking you
to come back at that point. So what we're focused on today is the improvements that you're suggesting and how that plan lays out. >> That's correct. >> Right. But I think it's easy to get when you talk about shared parking spaces
then it blurs the line at least in terms of what we're looking. So does that belong to you? Does it belong to them? And your condo agreement dictates that it can be shared. So I just want to make sure we know what we're talking about as we make our decisions. Thank you.
>> And and just to clarify that the parking modifications being shown in his plan are before the board. >> Yes. So you have uh jurisdiction to rule on that, >> right? But I would I would say that um jurisdiction in the sense that uh if the
planning board determined that the uh parking provided for the R&D facility was adequate adequate and there's no EV if the board was not presented with evidence to suggest that the um parking that was provided to the R&D facility was problematic.
You know, I I would say yes, parking is um within the board's purview 100%. But I would think that the board would give uh lend a lot of weight to the um success of the Abnos facility and its current parking configuration or at least parking count, I should say.
>> And I'm not trying to confuse the issue, but you do propose relocating parking as it pertains to both buildings. >> That is correct. Then actually what we're doing is making it I think a little bit more accessible for the Avenos folks for both sides of the building because basically most of it is
now just on the north side of it. So it actually makes it a little bit >> and so effectively we're approving that change as well >> I would say. So yes, >> your your parking reconfiguration was to essentially respect the parking counts for the R&D facility to ensure that the
R&D facility had the uh requisite parking in accordance with the prior approvals. >> That is correct. Accordance with the ordinance requirements for parking and the prior approvals. We meet those we meet those standards. >> And I'm not challenging the number. I'm suggesting that as you describe the
changes that you're making, that is something that we need to approve as a board. >> I agree. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I know we talked a little bit about operations tonight. We talked about a couple different aspects of that for the building. Um we talked about the um the
the the security purposes, the security of the building. We talked about the number of units. Um I don't know if I mentioned hours of operation um or employees. Just to put it on the record, we anticipate typically this would be uh typically a typ 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. type
of facility where you know people would have access to it during those hours. That would be considered the business hours. Um you also anticipate one to two staff people being there um during that time. So it's not it's not anticipated to be an unmanned facility, at least that's how we we envision it um right
now. So there always would be somebody on site. You'll see in the architectural drawings there's a core area where there's some there's office and um bathroom facilities um as part of that. So, you know, tied to the to the building layout um in terms of the operations. >> Mr. Moello, I have a question. How many
units do they have storage? >> Um I think the total number was approximately I wrote it. Just give me one second. Uh 227 units o over the four floors. >> Okay. and and those units, you'll see when the architect testifies, there's different
sizes of units. They're not all one size. There's larger ones, there's smaller ones, depending on the per you know what you need to rent um in terms of what you want to store there. Um so that's generally the site layout. Um in terms of in terms of utilities, we're going to be um public utilities. I
mentioned the water service already that's going to come into the site for the building. Um it will be sprinklered according to our discussions with the architect. Um the building will be climate controlled. you'll hear about that as well. Um, public water, public sewer. For for the sewer for this building, it it really doesn't have any
type of category that the state has for sewer flows for a self- storage building. The closest thing I could find in in in the regulations, um, Mr. Bur, this might be towards you as well, is I looked at warehousing with number of employees and I anticipated two employees at 25 gallons per day, which
is only 50 gallons of flow, which is really small for a building this size. Um, but we will have a sewer line that will connect into the existing sewer main that's um that's to the south of the property. I know there was a comment in the sewer the sewer um engineers
review letter about having its own own sewer connection, but we're going to reach out to the sewer engineer to discuss that and try to utilize the existing um lateral that's on site already that goes down to the existing main given the very small flow that we have on the property here. So, we'll
we'll look into that and and and address that >> because I I believe Mr. correct correct me if I'm mistaken, but the the board of adjustment doesn't have the ability to grant any type of relief with respect to the Soore ordinance because the Soore ordinance does require each building to
have a separate connection. Um, and that's what is reflected in Mr. Gova's review. Um but in this situation where the the um the the usage is is so
minimal um we would seek relief um from that requirement in in consultation with with Mr. Gova. Of course >> any approval from this board would just be conditioned on other agency approval. So you would have to deal with that with the uh sewer department.
>> Okay. Which is fine. >> Yep. It's fine. Um and then moving on to basically storm water management on the site. Um again as I mentioned um earlier the impervious coverage for the parking overall is going to remain the same but we do have
an increase of imperous coverage about 30,000 square feet. This project is a major development under the stormwater rule. It's disturbing more than an acre of land. Um it it does have an overall imperous increase. Even though it's not vehicular impervious, there's still an increase. Um so we do have here um two
storm water bio retention basins that we're proposing in the front of the site um designed to meet the green infrastructure requirements of the ordinance. Basically taking the runoff from the newly developed portion of the property plus basically collecting the runoff from what is basically going to
be the remainder of the both the existing driveway um and the new parking and basically now putting it through what I'll call state-of-the-art storm water management where there's really nothing on site today. So, you're getting an enhanced stormwater management system for this property
where there's really nothing out there today. It just flows off into the existing um drainage um the drainage inlets that are in Miltown Road. So, both these basins will be tied into the drainage system in Miltown. They ultimately discharge into the tributary to the north branch, but they're going to be designed to meet the um the
current standards for for storm water management and for uh water quality and and and retention. Um this site doesn't have any recharge. It's in planning area one. I know Mr. to burn in your letter. There was some question about whether or not um we were either desoils um for infiltration purposes or no infiltration
versus um planning area one, but we are in planning area one which doesn't require um recharge because of you're considered urban soils in planning area one. So, you're able to um to uh dismiss recharge on a site like this because of the soils that are out there. And our
soil testing confirmed basically desoils across this property, which means no infiltration from from a storm water runoff perspective. So, we're collecting it, we're treating it, and then we're discharging it. And these systems are designed for the 2023 storm water rule, which basically has you designing for
that 2100 year storm event, which is that, you know, one and a half times your current storm 100-year storm of today. So, it's designed for their increased volume and capacity um for that larger storm event. So, that's what you see on the plans here. Um,
next is landscaping. I know Mr. Silber talked about waivers related to landscaping on this site. Um I'll go through those um when I when I go through the design waivers and variances at the end. But by primarily speaking the landscaping on this property here I
is generally focused on the front of the site. We are um landscaping around both of our bio retention basins with shrub massing. We're adding some additional um deciduous trees in the front of the site as well as in the northern portion of
the site and we are showing shrub massing around a portion of the building foundation. Um your ordinance requires foundation plantings around the entire building. Um this particular building, we really can't do that for two reasons. One, the east the western facade has
those rollup doors all along the front plus the sidewalk to the entrance. the the eastern facade is right up against the fire access and quite frankly back here no one could see this portion of the building anyway. So to plant shrubs all along the facade of that building where no one's going to see it and it's
not going to have any benefit to the visual of the site also didn't make u much sense from a planting perspective and most likely they'll just get um you know beat up over time given the fact that they're back there and no one's going to even be able to maintain the area around them. So, we are proposing
um um again landscaping on the the south side and on the north side and in the front of the site um to complement some of the landscaping that was put in around the 360 um Miltown building as well. But I'll go through the waiverss in a little bit. We don't meet all of your landscaping requirements just based on the amount of land mass we have here
and the area we have to uh to to work with. >> Mr. Michello, I don't want to interrupt you, but I am going to. It's we're nearing like halftime, so we want to take a little break. Would that be okay for you to come back and finish your testimony in about 10 minutes? >> Sure. >> Okay. So, this board will just take a
10-minute break. No problem. >> Let's uh reconvene and I'm going to ask Nancy for a roll call. >> Chairman Kulak >> here. >> Mr. Wedelli. >> Hi. >> Here. Mr. >> Here.
Mr. I'm sorry. Ms. Henderson Rose >> here. >> Miss Wisman >> here. >> Mr. Vessio >> here. >> Mr. Kuchi >> here. >> Mr. McNel >> here. Professionals are here. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Silird.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And uh turning it back to you, Mr. Michelle. You were just um wrapping up your your testimony. >> Yes. So, I have just a couple more topics to just touch on. Um and we'll we'll be wrapping up here. Um, first is just to give you some numbers on landscaping. Um, I'll go through the
waivers at the very end, but basically for this project, we're we're proposing essentially 28 deciduous/flowering type of trees around the site. You can see them on the plan here as these larger circles um both along the frontage around the basins and up on the
north side. And then we have um 343 uh shrubs that are spread out between the northern portion of the building, the southern portion of the building, and around the uh storm water basins um that we have here on site, as well as around the hot box and around the uh proposed sign. In terms of landscaping on the
property, um site lighting, um we are going to basically redo most of the lighting on site because we are taking out the existing parking lot which has lighting on it now. Um so we're going to redo the site lighting. will have um LED style lights. One light is going to remain on the south side of the property
and I think there's two flood lights mounted to the existing building that's going to remain, but the rest of the lights um 13 in total will be replaced with I'm sorry, the rest of the lights will be removed and um 13 new lights will be installed um polemounted lights, LED style lighting for for the for the
site. It's the intention that those lights would be turned off typically a half hour after the end of business. If 10 o'clock is the um is the end of day for the self storage building, they'll be turned off a half hour after that. Um in terms of in terms of lighting on the uh on the property and come on at uh on
at dusk. Um they'll be on on controls to be able to uh to do that. Um as far as the lighting levels are concerned, we we comply with the ordinance requirements for all the lighting levels around the site. Um so we're we're in compliance with both the the lighting on the parking lot and at the intersections. Um, in terms of the lighting,
>> before you get I have a question on um plantings. The back of that building is a brand new wonderful blank canvas for people who want to express themselves um with by tagging or graffiti. So perhaps you might take that
into consideration as you're looking at the landscaping. And I would also point out to you that there are people that are going to see the back of that building and they ride the train. And it would be nice if Bridgewater was at least someplace along the train line that didn't look like it had just come out of the industrial re revolution.
>> So I'll defer that to our architect which he may be able to speak more as to he she and she may be able to speak more as to the um the look of the building on that east side, but it is very understood that yes, that east side of the building will certainly be visible when you're when you're certainly on the train line and it will be somewhat
visible um from the farther distance as well. Um and and you could that's there just because of the the location of it in terms of the uh the road on the other side. The train tracks do block a good 10 to 12 feet of the lower level but the upper portion of it will be will will be >> and it is a canvas.
>> Yes. Um so those are the the landscaping numbers the lighting to go through the list of variances and design waivers for the application here and and and I think Mr. Silbert's kind of touched on this already um in terms of what are variances versus what are the waivers.
Um, so if I if I mix something up, please feel free to correct me um as I go through the list. So, we talked about the use variance already for the site for the proposed self- storage facility where no such use is permitted. As Mr. Silbert pointed out, we're also asking for a variance from section 126.
Attachment one for the maximum F on the property of 0.366 is proposed where 0.3 is permitted um under your ordinance. Um we're also asking for a variance in regards to the number of stories of the building where
um a maximum of three is permitted and four is proposed here being that the fourth level would be considered the basement level based on the ordinance definition of what a story is in terms of the uh the ceiling height of of of a uh of a level on a building. Um and then we have a series of design waiverss that
we're going to go through um for the site. Um first off, this has to do with the landscaping. This goes to the foundation plantings from section 126-1 191 where your ordinance requires 10 shrubs per 20 linear feet of of foundation of a building. That would
mean we'd have to put 368 shrubs around the perimeter of of that um self- storage building. Um certainly that that would be very difficult to do given the um fire access lane and the um the sidewalk and then and along the frontage of it and so forth. So in this case,
while 368 are required, we're only providing 42 around the uh around the building itself. Um then a design waiver from section 126-191 for street trees. This is along Miltown Road. Um it says where one tree is to be spaced between
30 and 50 ft on center and um and 12 are required, but 10 are provided. And I'm going to put on the record that we'll probably look to figure out a way to get two more trees along the frontage and eliminate that that waiver request. I'm not sure why we just didn't do that to begin with, but given the fact that
we're just two trees short, I'm sure I can find a way to get an additional two trees along the Miltown Road frontage to make that comply. So, we'll we'll we'll say that waiver for the most part will go away and we'll agree to eliminate that waiver. Um, then a design waiver is requested from section 126-19
for tree plantings per disturbed area where three trees are required for every 5,000 square ft of disturbance. That would mean we would need 69 trees um in total on the site and and again where we're proposing if you don't count the the 10 along um Miltown Road, that's an
additional 18 trees that we're proposing that we've interspersed on the site plan here both in the frontage around the basins and on the northern portion of the site. I do want to point out that that very northern portion in the wetlands, that section is already wooded and we're not going to be impacting that
wooded area, but there are trees on the northern portion already and there are trees on the southern portion within the wetland area as well. Um, so we are going to in infill and plant where we can, but we just would not be able to meet the uh 69 trees on site just given
the uh the size of the property and the space we have to work with outside of the developable area. Um then a design waiver from section 126-1 177. Um this is for no off- streetet loading or parking area shall be located in a in a
minimum required front yard setback of 100 ft where we have the setback measured to the striping and the corner of the um the pull-in spaces for the trucks here in the front for the single unit trucks. We're at 93.1 ft is being proposed and the ordinance
requires 100 ft. So, we're just 7 ft short in the front here for those um those couple of spaces and that that run along the frontage of the building basically for the single unit trucks. The parking spaces along the frontage of the building comply with the setback, but the two loading spaces which again you'll hear from our traffic engineer as
to the frequency of use there um will will be minimal, but again we have those slightly into the front yard uh setback of the site. Then a design waiver is also being requested from 126-177 for the size of those stalls where your ordinance requires 12x50 and we're at
12x 38. Again, this is because we're anticipating a single unit truck as opposed to a tractor trailer that's going to, you know, access this site for for the purposes of the storage unit. And so we are looking for a smaller space there along the frontage um as opposed to 12x 50 um which would be a
typical loading space that you might see on an on an office building or something along those lines. Um, and then a design waiver is also required from section 126-1 195E where your ordinance only permits one freestanding sign on a single property regardless of the number
of establishments. Um, and here we're asking for two signs, one at each entrance as I went through that um earlier in terms of my testimony and the reasoning for the location of it um along the frontage because we have the two driveways here on site. Um, and then we also are requesting the design waiver
from section 126-1 195 F11 um for the setback of that same freestanding sign where the ordinance allows signs less than 25 ft. We're at 18 square feet to be located um 20 ft from the rightway and we're requesting 10 ft due to the location of the utility hot box so that
we are in front of that and it does not block the uh the sign. >> You want to include the uh existing one since we missed that last time around. I guess from a technical perspective is existing non-conforming but that sign is set at a setback of five feet for the purposes of the existing sign. Um and then as far as the other bulk standards
in your ordinance um is concerned we comply with all of those. In terms of the list, I did not mention the variance related to the um principal uses on the site. I'll defer that to to a later discussion, but I believe those are that's all the relief that we're requesting this evening. Um, in terms of
third-party approvals for the site, um, we are going to need Somerset County Planning Board approval. We will need Somerset Union Soil Conservation District approval. We've applied to the county. We've not heard back from them yet. Um, and we will apply we will apply to the Soil Conservation District um, in in in due time. Um, we'll need approvals
from your um, sewer coordinator for the sewer connection for the project, which we'll we'll work out with and of course the sign off from the fire official. Um, but we don't anticipate needing any NJDP permits at this time um, for the project the way it's currently uh, currently designed.
And I believe that covers my direct testimony. Mr. Chairman, >> thank you very much. I'd like to ask the members of the board if they have any questions for Mr. Michello about his testimony. >> Thank you for the extra two cheese.
>> You're welcome. >> Feel free to add more. I will keep that under consideration. >> Mr. Chairman, a few questions like that, >> please. >> Mr. Vesio, go right ahead. >> Uh the for the excavation for the basement,
how what would be the depth uh to accommodate the basement including you know foundation excavation? Um actually on the elevations the first floor level's 79 the first floor is 79.5 elevation is the first
floor level and the basement's um 68 1/2 so we're we're 11 1/2 ft from first floor to basement floor. Um then we'll probably have another foot of excavation underneath it for stone and slab and and and and subsurface drainage and things like that. >> So the the the grade out there is about
>> 78 and change. So, we're anticipating about 11 foot excavation plus or minus for the uh for the base for dig digging the basement. >> Okay. And then footings would be a little bit >> they're a little bit below that. Yes. >> Okay. And then how far are you away from
the Conrail property? >> Well, the building itself is 23 ft from the property line and then and then the rail line's probably the rail line right away I think is 60 foot wide. So, the track is actually pushed a little bit over to the east. So we're probably 45 50 ft from the actual train line itself.
>> Okay. And that and that that train line is on an embankment. It's kind of built up like a pyramid. >> It's it's elevated up. Yes. It's >> fil. And and that embankment comes down to the property line or does it kind of stop? >> The bank the embankment stops right before the property line. So you can see there's some topography on our plans
where you can see where it starts going up, but it stops right before our property line. >> Okay. And when you're 23 feet away, you're probably excavation will probably be a little bit more than that to accommodate any formwork for your walls and all that. When you're excavating, would you be within the influence zone
or potentially undermining the adjacent uh railway? >> Typically, again, not not knowing the exact soil conditions that might be underneath the railroad tracks, you might be a one to one influence line on that. So, you need 10 to 12 feet of distance from the property line. So, we're probably within the within the
range of we're 23 ft to the to the the limits of the foundation itself. If we have to excavate out 10 to 12 feet from the edge of that to step it back, I think we're going to be okay in terms of that distance. We're not going to impact the uh slope of the embankment. But, I'll leave that up to again, that's more of a structural calculation for the uh for the found for the structural
designer for the foundation to ensure they have adequate spacing. Otherwise, I'll just have to shore up portions of the excavation. >> Okay. Um and you mentioned third party approvals. Um maybe for the next uh hearing maybe we can just double check to see if you would need any third party
approvals from Con Edge uh sorry um from Conrail uh for that. >> We can check we'll we'll double check that to make sure we don't need anything from them. >> Okay. Um where are your egress points from the building? >> The architect's going to talk about the
building but the main door there's there's two doors on the building. They're generally on the southern facade here and and and here going into the that go into the building. >> Okay. And is there like a second means out? There should be a second means somewhere. >> Um yeah. And again, I don't have the
square architectural plans here, but I believe there's a concrete pad here on the north side. I'm guessing that might be the other exit out of the building. Just give me a second to check that. >> Feel free to defer. >> Yes, there's a stair tower. There's a stair tower in the far corner of the
building. So there's a there's an emergency exit egress there. >> Okay. So So for any of the customers are that have to eress out that door, >> how would they I mean they're they're going to be blocked to the that's the that's the uh correct. They're going to
be blocked to the east by the the railroad tracks. We certainly don't want people, you know, running over the railway tracks. Where where where are they going to go, you know, when they exit the building in case of a fire? >> This is most likely an emergency exit. Um, so if there's a fire and they got to get out of the building, they would just
walk down the stabilize emergency turf to come back to the site. >> Um, and and again, I'll leave that up to the architect to talk about code compliance and what that requires, but generally they would just walk along the stabilized turf access path out of the building. The building is going to be sprinklered, so if there is a fire alarm
or something, they should have adequate time to get out of the building before um there's any real issues. >> Okay. And I when the Arctic does uh testify, I would like to kind of hear their thoughts on having to egress along that uh fireway because that is a pretty
long distance. And you know, is that something that should be considered in their egress, you know, calculation, you know, for egress length. So they would like to hear the architect >> testify to that. Um, is this is this site suited for a
subdivision? So, I can I can elaborate more on my question. So, the current size of this lot is I believe six acres acres. >> Yeah. >> And the standard the the minimum lot size for this type of commercial lot
would be >> five acres. It's 5 acres for the zone. >> Okay. And in your opinion, would you do you believe that this site I understand it's not your application, but would would you see this site being suitable for a subdivision
>> for for this type of design that we have here in layout? I don't think subdividing it, putting aside the zoning aspects of it for the moment and what the bulks variances that it'll create from doing that. I just don't see a subdivision um having a benefit here that can't be
accomplished by doing it as a condo and not having to deal with the aspects of of the zoning. So I I don't think a subdivision would would would have would have any any any benefits to that. >> And if may I follow up with a question? So uh Mr. Marcella, so our lot area is
is um 6.4 acres approximately, correct? >> Correct. So, what we're proposing is is approaching um there there's what we're proposing that it's there's no way to accommodate the five acre minimum at least to provide a conforming lot.
>> You you'd be create you'd be creating two undersized lots which you probably would not want to do from a subdivision standpoint >> or one conforming and one undersized. But the other point to that is you're also trying to navigate envir environmental constraints and on the perimeter of the property. Would you
agree with that? >> Correct. There are environmental constraints there. >> The reason why I asked that question is I was wondering in in your engineering opinion if you feel that it it does make sense based upon the environmental constraints on the ground to have it to
have the tract utilized in an integrated development um versus the alternative. >> Oh, certainly. That's why we're proposing the the condo line as opposed to a subdivision technically because it it gives the ability to have um two separate users share the components of
the property but not create two separate lots that end up having to deal with um zoning issues that are associated with that basically going forward because now you've subdivided it off. I don't want to say in perpetuity. Nothing's ever permanent forever. But again, you're creating something that's now less conforming down the road somewhere if
you created two two subdivided lots. Now, regarding the the condominium line, I mean that is from what I understand it's not part of your application, right? You don't need zoning board, town approval, right? >> Or putting a Okay. So, really for the purpose of this application, it doesn't
the condo line doesn't would you say it doesn't really matter? >> Really doesn't matter to to the board. It just shows the board that this is how we anticipate um the separation of of the two condo units. And as we mentioned earlier, the shared access for parking, shared access for coming through the
site, that'll all be part of the condominium documents. But from from however it's used for the purposes of financial reasons, how it's applied to payment for maintenance, for basins, for things of that nature between the two, both the property owner and the I'll say
the the owner of this facility, that's all part of of a condo document. That's beyond my my realm of expertise. industrial I could say that condo line made my job uh much more difficult based upon where the line was drawn. So at least between the two the two private parties. So
>> my my problem >> um I think probably my last question or second to last. Um with the current lot that we have here, could you develop the current lot pretty much to to max out if it was one single principal structure?
Is there is the lot suitable for developing the lot to the allowable F and lock coverage? Well, as you can see from the the plan we have here, certainly it can accommodate an F of of.36. I mean, if we just take out the basement of the building, we're at F.3.
So that that that's certainly, you know, accommodatable based on the layout we have here. The constraints don't prevent us from getting the coverage we need to effectuate the building and the parking. Um, and I think too if you were to go further and and and change a use to
something else, you still have room on the site to maybe get some additional um impervious coverage based on your ordinance. Um, so I think that, you know, there there's other things you might be able to develop there, but that again, we're looking at it from the purpose of a stealth storage building right now.
>> And and Mr. for shelots. It would be theoretically possible, we're not proposing it, but it would be theoretically possible to design the existing plan, alter it in a manner that would actually make it so that the buildings were connected in some in some creative way so that it would
technically be one building. >> Anything's possible from a design perspective. You could, you know, connect the buildings. You could, you know, do many different things on the property in in that regard. Yes. >> But you don't think that's the you you're not suggesting that. I'm asking that question so that it's possible. >> It's possible. Anything's possible in
that regard. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um I think that's all I have for now. Um something I would just be listening to to make a decision on is we're we're putting two principal structures on the lot and it almost
seems like it's a subdivision, but it's not a subdivision. So, I'll just kind of be listening to kind of see, you know, well, why is it not a subdivision if it kind of acts like a subdivision? You know, they have their own frontage, different really people that are going
to one building versus another totally different uses. So, maybe that's something I I'm going to be listening for, like why is it not a sub? Why is this not suitable for a subdivision or or or why is it not a subdivision if it kind of speaks to be a subdivision? Um, that's that's all I have to add. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um, board professionals questions for Mr. Michello. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up with Mr. Vesio's question, um, and I guess to follow up with a response, too, because Mr. Michelle has indicated that
the scenario in which a subdivision um, you know, if that was the scenario that was proposed, it wouldn't be more more bulk conditions that would be created. it would be bulk conditions that would be sought, relief that would be sought from the board to consider.
So, um it wouldn't just be a function of it being created. It' be additional relief that the applicant would have to seek. Um I did pose the question in my review memo about what that relief might look like because I do think um you know, Mr. Vesio pointed out that a
subdivision line in a condominium, a financial condominium or financial subdivision, whatever you want to call it, it's an invisible line to most people. So as a function of understanding how not only Functions for the whole property that benefits
from areas that are far away from this portion of the property um you know what what does it look like for for if you took the bulk standards against like lot A um or lot B for the existing use. >> So so I've not I saw that in in in the
letter M. I just have not had it we didn't calculate that yet. have to go back through and calculate coverage and the like to figure that out. But >> I'll defer to Mr. Silbert for the rest of that answer. >> Yeah, because we were looking at this as as more of a financial um arrangement of
the property, the parties were not contemplating the bulk standards when they drew that subdivision line. So, if they were, they they could have drawn the line in a different manner. And and I'm and I I'm suggesting to the board
that we we if we did a subdivision, we would need additional variance relief because we wouldn't be able to comply with the lot area. But it is it is easy, but I would I would imagine that my planner and my engineer just testified to, but it would be easy to come up with
some design to connect the buildings to avoid this issue altogether. It could be one building. It it could be we could design it in that manner. You just heard our engineers say that that's not in his opinion the proper approach to it. But I I'm I'm saying this because I don't want
the board to get hung up on that because we could solve that problem. And you know sometimes when you're on the board you're dealing with you're dealing with numbers and you're dealing with the practical realities on the ground. And as an applicant we're trying to navigate and balance those things too. So you
we're dealing with the numbers. That's why you don't see a subdivision, but you see two separate buildings because that's what we believe is appropriate for the site notwithstanding the fact that it could be one. >> I I I have a comment regarding what you
just suggested. See, the usage is different. >> Yes, we >> you cannot have one common building with one side being self storage, the other side being a lab. I think that's one of the points of contention um that we spoke about
earlier this this evening that that I I don't want to delve off into that until we're done with with at least further along with our application, but I would I would ask the board to contemplate if there are other properties in Bridgewater Township where there are
different uses on the same property. And I think the board >> and that's not relevant to this application. You're in the C3 zone. I don't know what those other properties are in. I don't know what was asked for in that. >> I'll get I'll get to those properties later on as as >> we need a lot more information before we
can rely on that. >> That's true. So, I I won't get ahead of myself. Um but that is an excellent point that you raised and that's something that I'm hoping to address by the end of our application. >> If I may, Mr. Chairman, um the you mentioned there's two other lots in this
C3 strip. >> Yes. How big are those two other lots? >> I I don't have the exact lot areas, but I do know that the total acreage in the C3 zone, I believe, is Just give me one
second. I thought I had it written down here. It's 11.8 acres. >> So, you can't have three 5 acre lots in there. >> You You can't. So, it's Yeah, 11.8 acres total. So you you would this one happens to be six, but that would mean the other
two are are under are under five >> and maybe under two and a half. >> Yeah, depending on the size. The one up the one to the north is certainly smaller. That lot one, which is a triangle lot. If you recall looking at the plan here, that's certainly a lot smaller than the one to the south, which
is, you know, larger than lot one. So you get the sense of the size that we're dealing with here. >> And you you just mean this portion of the C3 zone, correct? >> Correct. just just right here within within this section right here. I don't know. I I didn't look to see where the other sections. >> I just wanted to clarify that that's not
the the norm for the zone isn't that it stands alone here and that most of the lots are non-conforming. There are other areas in the township that are zone C3 that are, you know, have different lot areas. Um and and I I I think my question is valid and or the request is valid to understand that and it's really
just about what the zoning implications would be if that line were a subdivision line because um you know what was just described about com, you know, combining the buildings and things like that are really kind of loopholes to the zoning. And I really just want to understand how
the zoning would function. Um to to understand that, you know, floor ratio is is intended to control volume and control scale and gives flexibility in how you want to design a building and you know the way the floor ratio even exceeding right now is benefiting from
the fact that the office building isn't a multi-story building that it you know it's it all has to do with the configurations of the building. So it does benefit from the fact that the existing use is you know smaller in scale compared to what's being proposed. Um nevertheless um I think you know some
of the other implications right now that you know weren't described in the response were now this site will be governed what was a fully conforming planning board application on multiple occasions in recent years will now be governed by the zoning board. Um and and
um I think that's not always in best practice. So, we just consider I think that all those things need to be considered and I just throw that in there as a part of my response to that as well. Um, Mr. Michello, under I don't know if you touched on this, I did bring it up in my review.
Um, under section 126-127, there is a requirement for the number of loading spaces based on the gross floor area of a building. Um, I know that two loading spaces that are undersized for the dimensional requirements are being proposed, but my understanding from the ordinance requirement is that there would be four loading spaces that would
be required for a building of this size that's commercial in nature. >> I did not do the calculation based on the size. So, I'll just have to confirm that. I'll just, you know, to make sure that that's what the number is, but that could be the case. Yes. >> Okay. And I think additional relief would then need to be sought for for the
number of loading spaces >> if it is four indeed. >> Okay. I'll I'll double check the number and and we'll confirm that for the board based on the square footage of the building. >> Thank you. Um one other thing I'd raised in relation to parking was the configuration of the spaces. Right now
um you are it is being proposed that the the office building is fully satisfied with the 59 parking spaces I believe. Um but um I noted that there are five parking spaces on the kind of periphery of this building adjacent to the
entrance that include EV and handicap spaces. There are no additional handicap spaces kind of internal to lot A um that would serve the site. So if there were a handicap patron that were um visiting the self-s storage use um theoretically they would be you know utilizing parking
that is kind of satisfying the need on the other use. That is correct for the one space that's here, but that's again why we have the the agreement allows for that additional shared parking back and forth um in terms of that space. Um so while we show
it outside of the the the quote unquote condo line, um it's it's can be used by both the the self- storage person or if someone were to go to the office building and needed it. There's 38 spaces for the office building. So we feel that that's more than adequate there. Do you think that that that would
then encourage use of those those five spaces would essentially you know even though there is a share there's a commonality or you know a shared um use of the the the the spaces from a technical standpoint of
the zoning you know that's not really contemplated by by the requirement of number of parking spaces. So, if you're encouraging someone to park on that portion, you're really kind of taking away from the office uses, the office parking spaces. Correct.
>> I mean, there are I don't want to say hundreds, but there are a number of properties throughout the township, and I know that you're suggesting we need a variance from this standpoint that have a parking approach, a total collective parking approach based upon different
uses. So you can go um to a property that has office space and light manufacturing space, medical space, restaurant space. The this board has traditionally considered the parking onsite for all of the uses and have
would try to make a determination whether or not there's adequate parking when taking into account all of those uses. And we feel that we've clearly satisfied that. So, >> okay. I that's that's a that's that's your response. That's fine. Um, right
now for the parking on the Avenos use, um, is it is the building is fully occupied by Avenos? Correct. >> Has a parking study been conducted to determine if you know what the parking needs are on the site, if there's parking issues, if there's availability. As as far as we know, and again, they've
been using some of the parking lot for their construction of their pilot plant for storage materials, but as far as I know, they've not had any parking issues on site. I' I've visited the building a couple of times because they're my client for when we did the other application, and my understanding is the 59 spaces that are required, they've it
was more than adequate for for what they do in there because of the large space in the back they use for the pilot plant purposes inside of the building, too. So, I don't think there's a parking issue for the current for the current user of that building. >> Okay. Thank you. The um proposed parking area in the front of the building in the
front of the existing office building that right now um what I couldn't really tell from the survey because I think the survey is a little was a little older. I think I noted that in my review as well. What is that currently? How is that developed improved? Um I think there
were some ballards or something that kind of cut that space off. I I'm not really sure what it's being utilized for right Yeah, there was supposed to be um originally there was supposed to be some there was supposed to be parking in the area. We're talking about the the space that that's that's in between here. >> Yes. >> And and it was just basically paved
right up to the building. There's supposed to be some PL some planters along the facade of the building and there was still going to be parking in that area, but it was a little inefficient. There was more pavement there than what you actually needed for parking. So, we basically cleaned it up now to make it standard, you know, 9 12
x 18 with a 25 ft drive aisle with two dedicated ADA spaces and tying into the entrances of the building to make it look more formal compared to what's to compared to what's there now. >> Were there ballards that were blocking that area off before? >> There wasn't supposed to be. Um, I think
if you go back to that photo that that I think if you go back to the original original um site before um the 360 Miltown application came in, there might have been some ballards there that prevented people from parking in front of the building, but those ballards have
since been removed. If they were, I just don't remember. >> They show up on the survey. That's why I asked the question and it's >> Yeah. Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. the and again to go back to it, the original survey was from 2020 before the improvements and we kept the original 2020 base information because other than
the Ballards and some other improvements that were done there. It didn't make much sense to go get a whole new survey when the impervious coverage really didn't change that much. The pilot plant was already shown as under construction. But yeah, those ballots are now gone. >> Is there an asbuilt that's been done since since the last two applications
have been approved? >> I don't recall if there was an asbuilt done. I don't maybe Mr. Bur remembers if they did an asbuilt for the first application. I don't think so. There wasn't enough site there wasn't enough site improvements to really go out there and do an asbuilt and the the pilot plan is not completed yet. So I I don't know
if that approval required an asbuilt but if it is we it'll be provided by by Avenos. >> I don't recall either. I just I do recall from that application that there were a number of things shown on the plans that were confusing because they were already approved in 21. So it's it would be a little helpful, you know, to
have something like that. I think at this stage you've answered a lot of the questions, but um it it it was a little confusing. >> I I think we would have no issue. I think it's a requirement. It would most likely be a requirement anyway to provide an asbuilt if the project were approved to provide an asbuilt to the
site because now we're changing with this. We're changing the majority of the site. So I think you know an asbuilt would be required at at the end of the pro at the end of this project if it were approved. >> Okay. Thank you. at the um in the zoning chart on the cover sheet it notes or sorry under the improved lot coverage
summary under building it notes that the approve existing and approved is 18,816 square feet and then the building coverage itself or under the F rather says 17,717 um do you know what the difference of
the approximately thousand square feet is from? I think it was from the pilot plant. >> No, the pilot plant shows separately that it's 4,000. >> No, that was the lock coverage, but there was a thousand square foot um footprint of the building that has the
mechanical equipment and everything inside of it. I think that's we counted it as building coverage and then the remainder of that pilot plant with the foundations and the gravel and everything was considered as part of the lot coverage if I if I recall that correctly. >> It says approved in 2021. So, it
pre-existed the pilot plan. So, I'm just curious of where it it stems from. >> Yeah, I'll have to I'll have to go back and double double check that to see where where the calculation came from because the building 17,717 square f feet. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I'll double check that. >> Thank you. Um I know a few times it's
been um said that the F that's being sought relief for is 366 and I just want to clarify it's 368 in all the plans and everything I read. Um, and the the coverage is 36.6, but the F is.36. I
It's minor, but >> I'm I'm sorry. >> I just wanted to bring that up. >> No, that that Thank you for clarifying that because I went through my outline and I think I changed it twice thinking I was reading the other number. So, >> okay. Um, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy. Um, the last um the last
question I guess I have is related to the um tree replacement requirement of 69 trees where 18 are provided. I know you said that you will be looking to um you know provide additional trees and um hopefully that can be achieved. I think you know one of the things that that is
telling is that if the disturbance can be made then hopefully the plantings can be made to return the trees because it is a very wooded area currently um that's being disturbed. >> And as I mentioned besides the two trees I'm going to put back on the frontage. We'll take a look to see what other areas we can enhance. I can't put trees
down by the um the pilot plant and and and the reason for that when I that application came through that's a that that plant basically sucks in air. >> Yeah. >> And then converts it into uh converts the carbon dioxide into water. So there's an intake there's an air intake on it. So you don't want to put trees right by the air intake. When you get to
the fall, it'll be sucking leaves into it. So, we did we did say when we did that application that we kept the trees away from that side, but I'll take a look on the site plan and see what else we can do to to fill in some more trees on site and and enhance that that that landscaping. >> Okay. Thank you. One last thing. Um
there's a requirement under the um design standards requirements for driveways and it doesn't specify if it's an access ingress, egress, emergency driveway have to be um set back 10 feet from the property line. I think um you
know potentially that could be another another um required uh condition that requires relief for the emergency access because it is right up against the property line. Um it it it's it's an emergency driveway but it's a driveway
nonetheless. >> Understood. We'll take a look at that and if that's the case request that relief accordingly. >> Thank you. I have nothing further >> Mr. Bur. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um Rob, couple questions. Um you had testified
about the prior site plan approvals from 2021 and 2025, both granted by the planning board, >> correct? >> Were Were there any conditions um stipulations or otherwise
in either of those approvals that would in any way impact this proposal? >> I have to go back and read the resolutions. I don't think so. from from what the site plans allowed us to do in terms of the uh development of that site. Um one of the idea the original
2021 application was to modernize the property. So we we wanted to repave the not repave but stripe restripe the parking lot, repair some of the um damaged pavement that was there and so forth. So I don't think anything in those approvals and again not having read all the conditions I don't think there's anything that would limit us
from from doing what we're doing here. >> Okay. Um want to revisit the parking. Um, I'm not going to belabor it, but just just a couple of quick clarifications and I apologize if you testified to it already, but in terms of
just just give us uh the board a breakdown of the existing proposed parking between the the two uses um how it constitutes to the total of I think 68 I think 68 is >> 71.
>> It's 78 is what's proposed. 68 is what's required. Uh 68's required, 71's proposed. >> Sum summarize how you got to those numbers for the existing office building and the proposed self storage. >> Yeah, the existing office building is um
as I mentioned 17,717 square ft. Um it's one space per 300 ft of floor area. So that's you come up to 59 required spaces for the office building. Um and I believe I said originally there were 61 on site um that that existed there
today. Um just to confirm that yeah 61 existing spaces for for a requirement of 59. So yeah two extra spaces um there on site and then the self storage facility we're using 0.1 spaces per thousand square ft. You got 85,000 square ft of floor area. You
round that up to nine spaces required. So you end up with a requirement of 68 parking spaces and we have 71 on site. So, we're basically um ending up with the way it just got laid out, we ended up with 12 parking spaces in front of the self- storage building um where the
requirement was only nine. Um we just happened to have three more there. My pointer um just happened to have three more in front of the building here. Um and then the rest would be basically for the office use. But again, putting aside the condo line and all those discussions, you you basically have a a
shared parking arrangement where people can park. If if people for the office building parked in these four spaces over here, then they would park there, but you you they would go to the office building site. Conversely, if one or two of these spaces got filled in by someone parking for the office building, they'd have to walk across the the crosswalk to
the sidewalk to get to the building. It's still going to have adequate parking for the uses that are on the property. >> Yeah. And so that that's your testimony is that in the shared arrangement regardless of the condo line, there's sufficient parking in your opinion for
both uses to exist. >> Correct. Yes. I'm I'm sure there'll be some conversations between the the operators of the building and and the theos folks to, you know, probably ask them to park in their their spots, but this is shared arrangement nonetheless. >> Okay. um want to ask you about the the
12 spaces on the west side of the building. So the bottom of the building on your plan, the 12 proposed spaces and then the the loading zone that's hatched off and you had testified that's the area where the overhead doors are proposed for the building. Correct.
>> Yeah, they they run basically along the entire western facade of the building, >> but there is a curb and sidewalk along the face of that building. >> That is correct. So, the intent, as I think I think our chairman had asked, the intent is not for vehicles to be
able to back into those overhead doors in any way. >> No, that's not the design intent. It's it's the doors are there for access to the unit, but no vehicle no vehicular access coming from the parking lot. >> Is the idea though to allow a vehicle to maybe back up to the overhead door?
>> Well, they they wouldn't be able to. You have the curb line there. So >> well to to that point, the only reason I ask is the parking spaces don't line up with the overhead doors. No, that was the intent. >> No, there was no intent to do that because this whatever this I I don't
know the ex I don't remember the exact size of those of those units there, but they're not designed to line up to the parking spaces. If you just happen to be a a unit renter that has one of the units that's that fronts along the parking spaces and you happen to show up that day and no one's parked in that
space in front of where your unit's going to be, you could back in there and park there, right? >> But, you know, that that would be the the benefit to you to have that space right there so you don't have to go into the building and up to wherever your your unit is. But again, they're there for they're not they're not intended to line up with the parking spaces.
>> Okay? And if for whatever reason the board was not in favor of the overhead doors, I know this may be more of an architectural question, but could the building be modified so that those units were only accessed from the interior of the space?
>> I'd have to defer to the architect on what that would mean to the to the building layout. >> Okay. Um so from a drainage perspective um we heard your testimony about the two proposed detention basins being proposed.
Those basins are effectively going to capture all runoff from the new imperous coverage and the new building. Is that >> yes correct? >> Okay. and your testimony is that the current design um
meets the township's stormwater control ordinance. And I and I say that hesitantly because I did have a couple of comments in my report. I don't think any of my comments are ones that can't be overcome, but I suspect you're going to agree to address
any of the technical comments. >> Yes, I didn't get I didn't get to that, but the there's x number of comments related to the storm water. I've read them and I have no issue with making those tweaks or adjustments which I don't think will materially change the design too much but we'll just bring it into conformance with what bills with
your office is asking for. >> Okay. And one of the conditions if if this gets to the point of an approval would certainly be an operations and maintenance manual anm manual to ensure that the on-site drainage is being maintained. >> Yes, that is correct. That that will be
needed for the applica for the project. It's going to be the drainage system ends at the end of the day ends up becoming in common. I don't say common ownership, but it it's it's common elements on the property because it's picking up runoff from both the parking associated with the office building and the parking and the building associated
with the self storage. So, it has to be maintained as a common element across the property. And you've you've heard me mention this before, but as you know, the township every year has to certify to the state that it's in full compliance with its municipal storm
water permit. One of the things that I would ask for here is for an annual certification from the property owner to be submitted to the township at the end of the year so that I can be sure that these are are all being maintained. >> Yeah. And that's that's certainly typical. We're seeing that we see that
now with these onm manuals more and more and more in all the municipalities across the state. >> Okay. And um going back to the environmental constraints. So you gave a pretty thorough description that there's wetlands at both the north and
southerntherly portion of the property and their respective buffers. And then there's also because there's a tributary to the north branch on the southerntherly portion of the site, there's a flood hazard area associated, a floodway associated with that. >> A flood plane. Yes. >> Flood plane.
>> And I think you testified that there is already an LOI confirming the wetlands locations. >> Yes. >> Flood hazard area line verification. I think >> there there was a verification for the repairarian zone and the original flood plane line because it was prior to 2023.
And one thing I noted is that I think I think the I may be getting them mixed up, but I think the flood hazard verification is set to expire this year and the LOI next year. >> I'd have to check that. Um, >> but in in your opinion, those are still valid.
>> Yes, there's >> in good standing. >> Yes. >> And we know, and I'm not going to get into the details of it, but we know D just rolled out new rules, the real rules. um at the beginning part of this year
which impacts flood hazard area elevations in light of those new rules. Are are you still compliant with this design or is that going to cause any complications at all with how you've laid this out? >> No, the the the the 2023 rule had the
FEMA plus three added to it. Um FEMA plus 3 ft. FEMA flood elevation plus 3T. the real rules really affected the um title flood elevations more so than the fluial which is this is considered fluial. So they did not change the they did not change the FEMA plus three so
that's still in effect um for sites like this. Okay. >> So it and this is not title so that's not affected here. Okay, back back to the F question and I I think you you said this before. I don't know if it was in justest, but you
mentioned that um 368 is what's currently proposed.3 or 30% is is what's allowed. If if you were to eliminate the basement or the fourth story, which is effectively the the third story of what people see, what
would that actually bring your number down to? I think you mentioned it would bring it down to 30%. >> They're almost the same. >> You just mean it would bring you under 30%. Yeah. >> Will it bring you right at 30? >> I think it was like 296 or something like that. If I took off a If I lpped off the basement, it would be 029. >> You took out the basement, it would
bring you to just under >> Yeah. Because I again I think the way the architect calculated the floor area the basement floor area might be slightly smaller because of the width of the foundation walls and so forth. Um but it would bring you right under the uh the.3. >> Okay.
>> I think u Mr. Burr if we eliminated the basement we'd have approximately 2,000 square feet extra to play around with. >> Okay. >> In order to hit that 30%. >> Understood. Okay. Um, going back to the
loading question that Miss Sarmad mentioned, not specific to what's required overall, but I know there's some loading requirements for the Avenos building. Are those being changed or impacted in any way with the with the reconstruction of the parking lot around
that building? Are those all being preserved as is? >> No, I I think they're being preserved. I mean, there is a door on the north side which is more not so much a loading door as it is an access door into the building. So that's being preserved. And then on the loading the loading dock itself is actually on the the south side
of the building. Um and and and that's for the most part being preserved there. Um there's there's you know a loading bay which has got a covered area on it plus 40 almost 47 48 ft behind that. So I think those areas for the building are being preserved for the you of of the
research facility. >> Okay. Talking about the signage and the fact that you have the two separate driveways, what I'm hearing is the intent tenatively or preliminarily is to focus
the office traffic for Avenos to the I guess the the subtly driveway and then the new driveway in front of the self- storage. You know th those folks use that. Of course, they can they can intermix. I guess what I'm getting at is are the
signs because you're asking for two signs. We have the one that's under construction. Is is that going to say Avenos? I I >> I'm not sure. We think so, but we'll have to go back and confirm that. It's supposed to be the tenant in the office building and this sign's supposed to be
for the self storage, but I want to confirm that with our >> with the property owner and and the and the applicant. board is probably wanting to understand more of why you need two signs. >> And to that point, do you have a sense of how large the signs are? >> They're 18 square feet.
>> They're both 18. >> Yeah. This the size that was on the original plans, we kept the same size going forward. >> So from a size perspective, even if you add both of the signs together, would you still be under what the ordinance allows for for the size of
the signage? >> Yeah. Yeah. The the ordinance allows actually 100 square feet for a freestanding sign. >> Okay. >> So, we'd be well under that. >> Okay. So, you'd be at 36 >> 36 feet. Yeah. Two signs. >> Okay.
All right. Um I think feel like I had one more question here. Um landscaping. I think the board appreciates that you're going to make an effort to eliminate one of the design waiverss for
the street trees. From what I'm hearing, you're going to take a look at the plan to see if there's any more landscaping that can be added in the event that you can't meet the requirements. Am I correct that your client is offering a payment in lie or
plantings elsewhere? I think that's what the ordinance contemplates is if there's a place in town where additional trees can be planted, we would certainly offer to do that. Otherwise, I believe we have to do a payment in in in le of um the the replacement requirement. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. >> I'd like to open the questions to the public for to pose questions specifically for Mr. Michello and his testimony. There any questions about his engineering testimony? Members of the public are welcome to come to the podium
and ask those questions. You good back there? >> I'm good. >> Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to close that portion. Now, Mr. Silbert, we're I don't know. We're approaching 10 o'clock, but we have time to go until 10. Question is,
how would you like to manage the rest of this time? Um, I think I would like to manage it um by calling our our traffic engineer because there was so much discussion about parking that I think it logically follows um to do that and
would prefer to hold off on on architecture uh for the evening just because I'd like to the opportunity to speak with Mr. Scalera and um see how that's going to change potentially our design. So it it probably won't have a major impact on park. >> That's fair enough. Thank you.
>> Would you introduce your traffic engineer or have him introduce themselves? >> Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help your God. >> I do. >> And your name for the record, please. >> Certainly. It's Corey. C O R E Y. Last
name is Chase. C H A S E. Business address is 245 Main Street in Chester, New Jersey. >> Mr. Chase, if you wouldn't mind your um academic credentials and professional background for the board. >> Certainly. And good evening everyone,
Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, Corey Chase, a principal with the firm Dynamic Traffic, bachelor's of science degree from the University of Massachusetts, licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey, licenses currently in good standing, also licensed in six other states. I've
been qualified as an expert in traffic engineering uh before the township previously as well as a hundred other municipalities throughout the state. >> Great. Thank you. And before this board, >> I have previously. It's been some time though. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> The board accepts your credentials as
expert in traffic. So you may continue. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um our role in the application, uh we prepared a traffic impact and parking assessment was dated November 5th, 2025. We also worked with Mr. Michel's office uh evaluating the site access,
circulation, and parking supply for the proposed self- storage facility. Uh as shown on A2 and as Mr. Michello indicated, we are proposing to relocate that northern access drive to be located directly opposite the existing driveway to the park on the opposite side of
Miltown Road. Um certainly you know we we represent that that marks an improvement over the axis which currently exists where those driveways exist in an offset configuration. So consistent with good access management principles whenever you can have two driveways on the opposite side of the
street align one another that certainly represents an improvement. So with the relocation of that driveway we think it represents an improvement to the existing access configuration again with the offset driveway configuration. Uh we took a look at the the trips that would be generated by the proposed self-
storage facility utilizing data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. That's the national and state recognized standard for developing traffic projections. Utilizing the 12th edition of the trip generation manual, uh which is the current edition of the trip generation manual. If you look at on table one,
which is located on page two of our report, uh we summarize the peak hour traffic generation for the proposed self- storage facility. uh traffic engineers focus on the the weekday morning and the weekday evening peak commuter hours as well as the Saturday midday hour as really the focus of all
our analysis points. Uh you can see that the self- storage facility in and of itself generates a maximum of only 14 trips during those three peak periods. Uh to give the board an idea as to what that level of traffic generation constitutes, the New Jersey Department of Transportation set a threshold of 100
additional trips during a peak hour is what they term a significant increase in traffic. So this is less than 20% of of what the state would determine a significant increase in traffic. Uh constitutes approximately one trip every 3 to four minutes during a peak period. So certainly not a significant source of
traffic generation. I would add that in consideration of the existing research and development facility, it certainly be a complimentary use. You know, the self- storage facility is going to be utilized primarily on the weekends later in the evening uh when the research and development facility is going to be
closed. So, it's anticipated to have very limited activity, you know, during the morning, during the evening hours when that facility is operating. As Mr. Michella mentioned, only one to two employees on site. So, very limited employee activity. Uh we also took a look at the proposed parking supply. Um
again utilizing data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the sixth edition of parking generation, they've identified a peak parking demand of 0.1 vehicles uh per thousand square feet. So that's where we came up with those nine vehicles required for a
facility of this size. So based on the parking provided for both the the office portion of the facility as well as the self storage, we think that that's going to be sufficient. Mr. Mr. Sber, was there anything else that you wanted me to touch on or obviously happy to answer any questions that the board has or its
professionals has? >> Just one quick question. As you were outlining the um perhaps the peak hours and the peak trips and so on, did you do that in the context of the overall property and add them together? Did you look at that as well?
>> We did. Uh and again, that's on table two. So we also took a look at for the existing research and development facility just based on you know comparing apples to apples we looked at what the IT trip generation would be for that as well. Um that was a peak of only
nine trips during the morning peak hour and eight trips during the evening peak hour. So if you look at a total uh compilation of those two uses, you're looking at a maximum of 20 trips during the weekday evening peak hour. again still below what the state's threshold of of a significant increase in traffic
and in totality again approximately one trip every three minutes during that peak hour. If I may, Mr. Chase, I I represented earlier on in the uh application um that this was an extremely uh non-intense traffic use. My question to
you is is if if the site was built with maximizing the floor area ratio with uh a fully occupied office building um fully occupied research and development facility at that 30% floor area ratio. Do you feel confident in in saying that
that would uh generate a greater trafficked impact on the site and to the community? >> And I apologize Mr. Silbert for not touching on that in my direct testimony. I also apologize to Kristen who's our planner who'll be touching on this in the future, but uh we did look at that. So we looked at permissible uses in the
zone. Uh and just from a comparative standpoint, um if you looked at a a permissible use that would generate the same amount of traffic as the proposed self- storage facility at 85,000 square ft, uh you'd be talking about an office building of 6,500 ft² or a medical
office building of only 3,000 square ft. So if you're looking at permissible uses and their equivalent size to what the the traffic generation of the self- storage facility is, you'd be looking at at a significantly smaller building. So if you were to answer Mr. Silbert's
question, if you were to maximize the F with a permissible use, you'd be looking at significantly more traffic generation than what the self- storage facility would generate. So, so from your perspective, the would would you agree that the um F overage has a negligible
impact as far as traffic is concerned to the site and the surrounding area >> with this specific use? Yes. >> Thank you. >> Um does the state take into consideration that lovely little one-way tunnel when it's talking about whether
whether there's an impact of increased traffic or anything like that? So the state and that's a great question. The state's number is is really based on additional traffic during a peak hour. So it's looking at additional traffic over the course of 60 minutes when the roadway volume is in its highest. And
what they assume is when you're talking on the order of 100 trips, you'd be talking one to two additional vehicles every minute during that peak period. So regardless of the adjacent roadway network situation, they would say if you're going to add more than one to two additional vehicles during that single
hour, it could likely have an impact on the overall operational conditions of the road. Um given that we're so far below that threshold, again in my professional opinion, uh regardless of constraints further to the north or the south along Miltown Road, the additional
traffic generated by the self- storage facility would not have a significant impact on the adjacent roadway network. >> Thank you. I just feel like though that piece need that information for future reference and if anybody comes the in the community comes and asks us about that, we have an answer. >> No, certainly. And again, ma'am, that
was a great question. And and just to follow up to that, um, and I don't and I imagine you know the the one way that we're talking about, but if there was a maximized office building or research and development facility on the property, just just from your your experience, not necessarily referring to
it or or if it would trigger a DOT um significant increase, just in your opinion, could that have an impact on the oneway? >> It would certainly have more of an impact than the self- storage facility. And I think what you'd be up against as well is any of those types of facilities would have the same peaking
characteristics as the existing research and development facility. So meaning that their traffic would be arriving in the morning and leaving in the evening similar to that research and development facility where that that's not necessarily the case with the self- storage facility. Again, I think it's complimentary to the existing use and
that it doesn't really have much of a peak during the weekday. You know, what little peak that it has, it's it's likely going to be on the weekend. It's outside the ordinary peaks associated with, you know, your typical morning and evening rush hour traffic. >> That's correct.
>> When you go beyond the the impact uh that the small increase in traffic might have and focus on the site itself and the circulation of traffic on the site, the adequacy of the parking, the emergency access behind the building. Do
you have a professional opinion about how all of that functions together on the site? >> I do, Mr. Chairman. And again, we work with m Mr. Michello's office in reviewing not only the the site access and circulation for the self- storage facility, uh, but the improved parking
and circulation patterns really around the research and development facility as well. In my professional opinion, I think the plan before you this evening represents an improvement over existing conditions. As Mr. Michelle mentioned really what they took the opportunity to do is is better define the circulation
and parking areas in that research and development facility. As he noted today, you know, primarily the majority of the parking is located adjacent to the northern building facade where in the proposed condition, it's really better dispersed throughout the northern western or northern eastern rather and
southern building facade. So overall again in my professional opinion I think e even with consideration of the research and development facility it represents a betterment than the existing layout today. >> Thank you. >> Um you might have touched upon this but just really quickly from your
professional standpoint you didn't have any concerns with the existing width of of the drive aisle to the south of the site. The one that's remaining and not being touched. >> I don't and I apologize for not touching on that either. As was mentioned, it's approximately 22 ft in width. Uh
directly adjacent to those two parking stalls located adjacent to the southern building facade. This facility is going to be utilized by employees only. They're going to be very familiar with the the circulation pattern both where the parking stalls are located as well
as the aisle widths directly adjacent to them. So, in my professional opinion, I don't see any detriments to having that that slightly undersized aisle width impacting those two parking spaces. And while you're up there, dare I say ask you, but the the emergency access
lane in the back, the stabilized turf area. Um, again, just from your traffic perspective, do you feel like that that does provide um adequate access for uh firefighting apparatus, things of that nature?
>> I do. Just based on the general layout, the the approach angle, and the overall width, I feel like that would be adequate. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Scary commented on additional 2 feet in width, but again in my professional opinion, it is sufficient in width for a fire apparatus to navigate
>> the townships. >> A township's fire apparatus. That's correct. >> Thank you. >> The other members of the board have a question for Mr. Chase regarding his traffic testimony. >> Board professionals.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Chase, I just had two questions that I had raised in my review that I don't think were covered. Um, I had asked in particular um if there were any other standards um any other industry standards besides
the it that could be utilized to determine um a parking rate an appropriate parking ratio um in the absence of one in the township code. >> Uh and I apologize for not touching on that. Uh, as far as industry standards go, uh, the Institute of Transportation
Engineers is the only published data that we utilize. Um, professionally speaking, I've worked on approximately 40 of these facilities. And we typically park them between 8 and 10 parking spaces. And generally, they're between 100 and 120,000 square feet in size. So
again, slightly more square footage than this. And they're typically all parked at approximately 8 to 10 spaces. And those are all facilities that um include first floor rollup doors or have similar configuration to this. >> Uh generally some uh some have outdoor
direct access, some also just have access through the interior corridor to the building. >> Does the it differentiate between any of the configuration that I just mentioned? Because this is a just to kind of get a lay of the land. There are storage facilities that pre-existed modern storage facilities that are generally
one-story only rollup door access that requ that that have a number of buildings are not tall buildings but have a number of buildings that and I I was just curious if the IT captures that type of storage facility as well and incorporates that within their averaging
um or if it's all just considered one classification of land use. >> It is two I'll answer that in both parts. So it is just categorized as when landing use. They don't differentiate between the the older type facilities that you're describing where they're multiple buildings generally speaking
just access through rollup doors and sort of the newer model that we're seeing where it's a multi-story single building. Uh some of them have exterior rollup doors, some of them only have loading docks and you can only access through internal building. Um they don't differentiate between the two types of facilities. um the data based on the
age, some of that does reflect the older type facilities in combination with some of the newer type facilities as well. >> And I only bring that up because many of those older facilities don't rely upon traditional parking spaces. Normally, people will just drive up to their unit. So, they don't have a stripe space. There might be a few parking spaces that
are for, you know, potential customers, the office space manager, employee, whatever. Um and so, I just wanted to make that clear. What is the land use classification that's um included in the IT six the sixth generation the sixth um edition
>> for this self- storage facility. Yes, it's mini warehouse >> called mini warehouse. Thank you. Um >> and I would just add that the just to expand upon your point um they did count as part of the data collection. And so any vehicles that were parked adjacent to a rollup door were counted as parked
vehicles on site. So they didn't just when they were doing their research, they didn't count vehicles actually in a traditional 9x18 parking stall. It was vehicles parked on site utilizing the facility. >> Thank you for the clarification. Um now have you found in any of your experience
that the rollup doors generate additional or more traffic than the climate controlled units on the interior? >> I have not. No. Have you found that any of those rollup doors um attract a different kind of storage tenant
potentially than um your your you know a traditional storage leave your stuff in there and don't come back for for a while >> only this situation is unique in that it's full height curb directly adjacent to those rollup doors so you don't have and I know this was discussed a little bit earlier you don't have the ability
to to back up or you know drive into these facilities. If if that were not the case, if you could, you know, drive a vehicle in or out of these, I would certainly say you're correct that it would attract a different type of user uh potentially. But given that there is full height curb, you don't have the ability to do that. In my professional
opinion, it wouldn't attract a different type of user. >> And you could still could you still back up a pickup truck uh in one of these spaces to access and and basically be in front of a rollup door? >> You could and certainly offload into that certainly. >> And Mr. Mr. Silbert, is there going to
be testimony from I know you said there isn't really an operator that's been identified. Is there going to be any testimony about kind of site maintenance and operation at all >> um relative to the uh
you expand what you mean by that? >> Yeah, you'd mentioned before that you know the trash and things like that would be enforced by the operator. Um, and in this case, I I guess I had a question or some of my questions are being pointed to that some of those
rollup door uses that um can attract um you know, tenants that really aren't just storing stuff, right? The contractors, uh, plumber, people that are storing things and coming there daily in and out to access it and in particular without a gated access to the
site may be more feel more attracted to this, you know, facility because it is open and very easy to access. um without security. So I guess my question is more is there going to be a prohibition or some sort of enforcement that would stop this basically being used as some sort
of you know business um individualized business. >> Understood. I think that um you're and you know I would love to hear the board's feedback but um I think that we would be open to providing a gate to
prevent access um during outside of the hours of operation not not around the whole site but just where the pointer is on A2 if if that would um satisfy concerns that that you
might be raising um in terms of lease prohibitions things of that nature. Happy to work with with you and the board if there are certain um restrictions that that the board would want to see. You know, I I would have to talk it over with the with the um principal, but I would imagine we would
be we would be receptive to that. >> Okay. >> And I think we'll have some additional conversations around that as we also get into the architectural testimony. And in the absence of an operator, then you'll have to suggest to us what guidelines
you believe are appropriate for the building because the board will have some opinions about the operations of it and how to provide for the safest facility and the safest environment for the community at large. So, we're not going to discuss that right now, but I
think that's a great point that Katherine raises and that we'll be addressing some some of that additionally as we get into the architectural testimony. >> And I can provide you with a copy of a resolution adopted by this board probably about a year ago on another self- storage facility that would
>> conditions would be applicable. >> Yes. And and if um you know to I would be happy to provide the board with with what you know other operators have in their own lease agreements as like just the standard type of language um that you would typically see for this type of operation in advance of our next
hearing. >> Yes, that would be >> happy to do that as well. >> I didn't mean to interrupt you, Catherine, >> and I didn't mean to interrupt Mr. Chase's testimony. I bring something up that wasn't related to to his testimony, but um nevertheless, I think he he's
answered all the questions I have. >> Right. Mr. Bird, do you have questions for Mr. Chase? >> Two two quick questions, Mr. Chairman. So, the testimony was um you're satisfied with the overall parking uh arrangement and count, etc. You're also
satisfied with circulation. Just two circulation related questions. So at the end of the main driveway aisle by the southerntherly end of the building. So extend to the to the railroad tracks right where the emergency access drive
leaves the main drive where you have the dumpster enclosure. I think a prior question was it it looks a little tight in there. Are you satisfied that a fire truck can safely and maybe easily navigate into the site and make its way onto that emergency access drive in
light of the dumpster, the curbing it, you know, vehicles may may be parked um in front of that building. >> I am just based on the the 25 foot wide drive aisle and the angle at which the departure of that emergency access drive is proposed. Uh, in my professional
opinion, having it at more of a 45°ree angle, it makes it actually an easier maneuver than if it were to come directly perpendicular off of that axis aisle and then make a 90° turn. You know, that would be a more challenging turn for the fire apparatus to make. So, again, in my professional opinion, I
think the 45 degree angle that which it currently the departure is proposed actually makes that maneuver easier. >> Okay. And then the the proposed parking lot on the on the opposite side of this building uh where the rollup doors are proposed. So you have 12 parking spaces and then
there's a a hatched loading area which would suggest a vehicle a van a car a box truck would park in parallel to the building. How does that van or truck, whatever, whatever the vehicle may be, how does that then turn around to exit
that portion of the parking lot or is there not sufficient p space for for a typical vehicle to be able to turn around and they have to back out? >> The intent is and so that there is a 25 foot wide drive aisle and then there's actually some additional space between the actual striped loading area. So in
totality, again, in my professional opinion, will that vehicle execute a multi-point turn? It certainly will, but there is sufficient pavement width and given the fact that it is a dead-end area and there is no through traffic. Uh there's going to be no additional traffic in the area besides what's utilizing the loading area. You know,
there is sufficient area for that vehicle to execute a multi-point turn to uh execute a U-turn and then be able to traverse in a southerntherly direction back towards the main access aisle. So, we don't envision a scenario where a U-Haul truck or a small van is backing
down the aisle to get to the loading area or backing out of it. There is sufficient pavement area to allow them to turn around at the end. >> Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Any members of the public to wish uh to pose some questions to Mr. Chase on his testimony, please come up
to the microphone, give us your name and address, and there'll also be a signin sheet for you as well. Last name is Teing T E L A N G 14 Alexis Sport Bridgewater >> and first name. >> Thank you. >> Just two quick questions.
>> Welcome to the microphone, please. >> Being a traffic expert, have you personally sat in the queue um navigating underneath the one lane bridge in let's start with rush hour traffic days a week.
>> Do I personally sit in that queue five days a week? I do not. >> And Have you ever navigated that um passageway with a heavy downpour? >> What was the end of that question, sir? >> Downpour. >> Heavy downpour. I can't recall
traversing that underpass during a significant rainstorm. Now, >> thank you. Yeah, if you would just please sign in. The the comment I'll just make about that is that you addressed briefly and
Ms. Rose brought up the question about um that limited access underpass where right now when you drive that people use their judgment I guess is the best way to alternate. Some people push four cars through before they'll let the one guy
go through. It's really problematic and we don't expect you to solve for that. Uh we do expect however that you've considered it as part of your overall view of the traffic testimony that you provided and I would suggest that you said that you had. >> That's correct Mr. Chairman. We did take
that into account and again just as I described based on based on the the nominal increase in traffic that would be generated by this use and certainly you know very limited impact during peak conditions which is really what we're focused on you know the weekday morning and weekday evening peak times. this use
would have a very limited impact and even less of an impact when you compare it to a permitted use in the zone. >> Great. Thank you. Mr. Silbert, would you like to wrap up tonight's um proceedings with with what you'd like to plan for the next hearing? >> Absolutely.
>> And Nancy, I'm not sure how we are on calendaring and all of those other things that pertain to his coming back >> or if you're prepared to address that now. Our next available hearing date is June 9th. >> I'm sorry. >> June 9th.
>> June 9th. >> That should work, but I'm going to double check with my uh team very quickly. Um just give me one moment, please. And while you're checking, I want to thank the board members for staying late
and hearing the additional testimony. I know it's a sacrifice and we're all anxious to get going, but if we can, we'll just cover a few minor things and then we can can ajourn. >> Um, Mr. Chairman, that works with uh just the request that if an earlier date
does open um the applicant would be willing to renotice in order to secure that earlier hearing date. So for purposes of res of carrying the application, June 9th is great, but um we would obviously seek for an earlier
date and we'll renotice. Um >> all right. So for purposes of the public, this meeting is going to adjourn at this point. It will reconvene on June 9th uh in this room at 7 p.m. There'll be no further notices from the applicant unless the date moves up. >> That'd be great. Thank you.
>> Thank you. And just >> No, please go ahead. Can you ask for an extension through the end of June? >> Yes. >> So June 30. >> Thank you. >> And Nancy, just quickly looking at the
application status and the um the additional hearings we have coming up. The next meeting was not till April 14th. And at that time we're going to be having presentations from Solar Landscapes. And I'm guessing if time
permits then Rockland APV. Am I correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Rockland is a continuation. >> Right. >> And Solar Landscape is uh new I'm sorry, initial hearing. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Any other things
that you need to tell us? >> Uh no, that's it. >> Okay, great. I'd like to have a motion to adjurnn, please. >> I have a second. Miss Rose. All in favor? Thank you everyone.