Mr Nella to begin his testimony okay good evening when uh we last spoke uh last met we were looking at two exterior uh renderings that we had uh prepared um perfect so what you see here this is going to be I believe we're up to A8 I believe so um this is going to be the rendering key plan so it's the areial uh site plan prepared by Bowman um I've superimposed where the views that we're going to discuss momentarily where they originate so here you can see exhibit A6 which is the view from the southeast that was one of the ones we testified to last week and as well from the Northwest exhibit A7 uh that was the second rendering we did uh during that meeting there was a request by the board to see additional views those included two views from the donu road which is to the north of the project property two views from the south which is along US Route 22 West and then finally A View From the uh senior housing center next door which is a view from the West so again this was elev this was uh exhibit A6 this is the view from the south Southeast so as you uh just pass the entrance to the facility this is from Route 22 looking up the burm towards the the main building you can see the monument entrance sign to the right the Landscaping which Mr winter testif ifed to last week along the top of the burm which goes along Route 22 to screen the property from Route 22 towards the right hand side of the plan this is the main entrance to the to the building this is where you would first come as a firsttime customer where you'd sign your membership you would um make any arrangements for your contract and get a tour of the facility to see the different size units that are available um at the top of this parapet is the uh snapbox Self Storage sign um sign AG is located in in two locations one is on this East Elevation and one is on the south elevation which we'll see from Route 22 uh the signs combined are less than 100 square fet um with the board's approval two signs would be allowed and the again the signs meet the square footage requirements um for the for the town's ordinance the signage is yellow in color it's back lit internally so there's no visible white light shining out of it so at night time you'll just see a yellow glow um it's not Halo lit it's not light shining from the ground or or behind it it's internally lit so it just glows up um with the snapbox Self Storage sign uh we mentioned last week the materials that were chosen the upgraded materials which is something you don't normally see on a self storage building which is um decorative brick work uh epist panel which is kind of a cement like like or stone like material um and then punched Windows to to give it more of an office Park Feel Again those windows are not functioning Windows you would not be able to see into the building these these punched Windows here that you would see and along the bottom you do see above the retail area you will see into that clear story area you'll see the second floor you'll see uh the blue doors of of the units that's fairly typical for what you would see in a self- storage design it's um kind of lets you know what the building is it's part of the Aesthetics um and basically every uh branding has something similar to that to the left here where there's a canopy that's another that's one of our uh loading areas that's where customers we could park with Park their vehicles here they can get carts from inside go get boxes from their cars or or trucks and bring them inside this is also the area where there's a deeper parking spot um provided that would be another um en larged loading area so a car doesn't take up the whole Space you still have ample room kind of back in and you can unload your your uh car or van all right this would be exhibit A9 which is a view from the south it's on the um south side of the median of Route 22 so we're looking across Route 22 and this is the view you would see in that direction so you can see the the building is two St stories here on the right as you move to the left maintains the height of two stories and it does drop down we talked about that kind of walk out basement um at that at this corner of the building which is necessitated by the slope of the property the second uh erress point from the properties down in that layer um so the building is a two-story building for the majority of the property um one level is submerged as a basement level as you can see we continue the level of finishes and Design Elements of of the East Elevation across the South elevation as well with the brick work the ephus work um the crown molding cornice um we've got the punched windows again that are not visible we've got a twostory tower in in this area here that has some of the visible self- storage units behind it as you move further to the left you can see this the segmented section of the building um in the plan the building steps away from Route 22 it's kind of got a saw too shape um one of the comments was from the board was to understand how the Sawtooth looks so this elevation definitely gives you more of a feel of how the building is stepped in different spots from Route 22 um as we move more towards the left um the building starts to drop off due to the grade we've so we've got some increased brick work more glass more windows and then this area here is the basement entry point there a canopy um that that'll service the loading area that's um down at this end of the building correct so the just take a step back so the this first one is is fully digitized it was fully done on the computer that was uh A6 um so a A9 is a Google view um I confirm the date of the excuse me that image so the any image from Mark A9 is that right did we mark this before when he introduced this image as A9 you went to A9 okay um so just remember to speak into the microphone when you're speaking thank you sir uh the Route 22 images are Google street views um they were done recently but the photo date on the on the Google Street View is actually July of 2018 um just so you know I worked with uh Paul Winters and his Landscape Group to delete any trees that have since either died or or been removed from those views so these represent um the current view less those trees that were removed and anything that would be removed during the construction of this project um the new Landscaping is shown what's proposed and again then we you testified this last time but the new landscaping that's proposed is at what age uh it's roughly the fiveyear um uh growth period would you take us through which windows are real windows and which are windows y oh sorry so the square windows that you see here on the top and bottom of of the first floor and the second floor and then these windows here anything that's a square kind of grided window so these four over here these six these those are are false windows they're basically just frosted um glass they give the appearance of kind of being lit during the day at night they just they're gone you don't see them there's no light emanating through the mid all where the windows are real are these uh Tower elements if you will so where the building kind of bumps out a little bit we've got this brick pediment that comes up and over in this location this location here so that's true glass that you'd be able to see through and you see storage units um behind it so those that's where you can see those uh it's more visible in this portion here where you can see the blue Overhead Doors can I get you a question can we go back to the first this guy where the cars are where that middle is that the only entrance that so so this entrance here is a pair of is a pair of sliding doors so once you're once you're a customer that's where your access point would be is that the only one no there's there's also one to the I there's one to the right here that's the office entrance but they can't bring their stuff in they typically don't they don't like to have [Music] customers let's say someone sold house and they [Music] need so depending on on the vehicle that they would that would be bringing the furniture um like we said if it's a if it's a smaller vehicle there's parking up here and a and there's a little bigger spot for loading here down at the South um West corner of the building at the basement level there was loading for larger vehicles I think it was a 50 55 foot truck I think was the testimony was there's two loading spots one where is the other oneit it's down at the southwest corner of the building I'll you'll you'll see I can let me go back to the overhead and you can see so this area here where my hand is moving around that's two larger load uh parking areas so someone with a larger vehicle larger U-Haul could park the truck here and then there's an access point at the basement level the building is serviced by two elevators so if their stuff is on the basement they can come in a Grade here if it's on the second floor they go in go in the elevator and up and over okay so everything's there [Music] to yes M I have a question see uh if you're looking from the South side at the existing building uh it's a little bit shorter but you can still see the existing building right mhm yeah so yeah so for just that's a thank you for bringing that for as a from for a comparison so where my um kind of hand is moving here that's roughly the area of the existing building that you can see two stories above above the ground the height of this building is is basically within a foot of the existing uh two-story office building and it's actually set further back from Route 22 than the existing office building it is longer across Route 22 but the in terms of height and proximity to 22 to start at its closest point it's almost in in the same exact spot the height of the existing building is comparable with the new building correct m in this rendering where you you could show us or point out to us where the loading dock is and it is is it obscured by the burm there that is in drawn in front of it yeah so I the next view will show it a little clearer but yes down down in this area where where my uh cursor is moving that's the area of the loading area so the burm is actually higher um than the road surface in that area so it'll be um partially screened I can move to the next one to um just let me just go back one second this is is the second sign that I spoke about earlier on the Route 22 sign same composition um and lighning package as the the one on the east this will'll call uh exhibit A10 which is a view from the southwest portion of uh Route 22 again I'm standing south of the median on Route 22 um this was a Google uh image so here you can see the existing sorry A1 yes A10 which is a Southwest view um these are the existing e uh Ingress and egress points that are on the property now and then it ties into our new internal roadway so this area right here is the the two spaces that I'm provided for um the larger loading and then this door here so a vehicle could in theory be parked roughly around here and they would load into this covered opening on this basement level of the building you can also see along the west um property line we've added shrubs and Greenery along that property line to screen uh the building uh from the adjacent neighbor and this patch of uh green here it's a little off off-colored green not quite the same green as the grass and the BM that was the that's the fire lane that's actually a grass fire lane that Mr Winters testified to uh previously and here's a good example of how you can see how the property does slope away so here in this area you're at the you're closer to two stories of the building exposed and as you get closer to the South West Point of the of the property it drops down to the exposed three-story um which exposes the basement excuse me exhibit a11 this would be a view from the West um this is from the uh the senior C the senior housing to the west of the of the project site this was a photograph that I took from the property um and this is looking directly at the at our facility now again these trees it's it was it was a little premature it's not spring it wasn't fully spring yet but this is the view that you would see from that parking lot um so it is a a fairly wooded area that in in the summer spring and summer and fall should be fairly uh dense and you can see our new Landscaping dropped in the back as well so that the uh coniferous trees uh that have been added to the property um the White Band that you see through the through the trees that's the second floor of the building the brick is the first floor of the building and you can kind of see it's really difficult to even see where the basement left level drops off down to the right as we discussed uh previously this is uh this was uh exhibit a well this was this was a this was existing A7 I believe um so this is the view from just uh coming on to Donahue um from the cross street again we discussed previously you can the the dense growth in this corner screens the property really well um making note these two windows here are are are one of those pair of fake uh Windows is faux windows so no light or no visibility will be coming through those windows are there any windows on the Donahue side that are going to cast light um no there well there is an there is a section where we're showing um you'll see on the render you'll see the overhead doors um the way where our layouts are actually working those are you're going to end up being frosted and you won't have anything that shines light just yes or no so the answer is nothing on the Don who side will cast light through Windows excuse me this this elevation is a new exhibit a12 which is a view from North taken from Donahue Avenue Donahue Road sorry you just said there would be no windows yet right no that's why that's why I couched it because you were going to when I got got to the slide you're going to see Windows okay so the way this is shown there you can see through it that's that is incorrect we've because of the way the layouts work out you're not going to see that you'll they'll just be frosted glass panels it'll look like glass but again no light coming through no visibility of the you be willing to stipulate then just so we don't have any confusion absolutely yes the overhead windows that aren't froster what however you want to call it in architectural language correct the I can say the the elevation facing Donna Road um which is the north elevation will not have any true windows that allow visibility into the facility or light to come out of it um this was again a Google street view um the Donahue roadside those images um as I said were July 2018 um some trees had been removed that have had previously died since that photo was taken but what you see here are are new trees that are being planted as part of the Landscaping plan so again with the the grade um and the the dense plantings that are being proposed we tried to mask uh the facade from Donahue Road as much as possible and finally uh a13 uh This Is A View From the Northeast uh again Google street view from Donahue um plantings all in here are all the new plantings there's a new tree um and so this is the a kind of we took this view from an angle rather than straight on because you would see this driving up down it here as you kind of look to the left at your window you would kind of see this diagonal view through the open patch um so it gives a nice three4 view of the existing building this is the entrance area we talked about previously with the signage um and the the uh and excuse me customer entrance here um and again similar to the previous View this view with the glass we are stipulating that there will you will not see into the building or have light cast out you can see a small portion of punch Windows as well just to give it that office uh character the intent hopefully by seeing these images that um the building although larger in scale than the office building it is um in height very similar um the use of mat materials I think brings a nice uh Office Park feeling to it and it's not uh overpowering on the surroundings windows that are facing I guess if you're looking on you're traveling on 22 heading west and you're looking at those windows they will um cast light um during the evening hours until close of business those two no not the fake ones no you're okay with the The View we looking at oh okay yes so that's the so looking right so looking West so it's the Eastern facade of the building yes so these the windows up high here no not those no light these windows here you will you will see and that's the you know it's on the west side it's not facing Route 22 it's not facing the neighbors so we felt as the front entrance of a of a building that that was inappropriate and then the ones right around the corner from that you said won't be casting any L the ones that are facing right yeah image right facing Don Hugh those will not be yes correct okay the elevation on Don H the elevation on Don H correct great thank you so these will be these will be frosted right here um we did got we did touch on the floor plans but we kind of jumped into renderings last week um if you want me to pull up the floor plans again if you guys have questions that you want me to go into further detail I'd be happy to do that um or I can answer any questions on the the renderings this is your case okay no I didn't I last week we started it and I know we kind of got pushed into the ren so I can I can bring them up and just do a quick quick I ask you to do that sure could I ask some question the renderings before we go to that point yeah um do the renderings um consider the uh hvvc rooftop units so the renderings don't show them um I I have a roof plan that I that I I can show you but basically what we do is the rooftop units are are fairly small for uh building size but we locate them into the center of the property into the center of the building so your Viewpoint angles your viewing angles like from Route 22 um you'd have to be like 6 700 feet away before you start to see the top of them um because of the angle you know the the uh your viewing angle um but we do are proposing a roof screen around around them so you don't see the units elves there'll be a there'll be a metal roof screen that way if if it is ever seen you're not looking at air conditioning ducts you're looking at a nice finished Louver panel we kind of paint them go away beige or go away gray and that way they kind of disappear into a cloudy day too how tall are the rooftop units so that's for the top of the um rooftop unit from the roof line um they're typically about six and a half feet high want give you yeah they're currently six and a half feet high off the roof line so we typically that's inclusive of like any Dage that there's SED off of correct yeah okay yeah it's mounted usually it's like an 8 in curb and then we put the uh roof screen um a little higher than that so it screens it from an uh Miss SM had a question about the um relative elevations of the the existing building versus the proposed building um do you have the true elevation of what the existing is and what the proposed will be so going from a set of drins that's very very old it looks like the top parapet of the um existing building so I'm going to give a number it's [Music] 157.7mm [Music] thank you m all right so these were the plans that were submitted so they're not exhibits they're just plans that were um submitted as part of the application uh top plan is the first floor plan second floor second floor second floor excuse me is the this is the seller plan on the on the lower level here so coming in on our parking lot this is the main retail entrance this is the customer entrance once they're uh rented units so again first time you come into this small office area get a tour of the facility negotiate your contract figure out what size units you need um this is where all the basic office functions occur there's a um break room building security toilet rooms um and then behind that is the utility rooms in terms of where the gas Water and Electric comes into the building we have uh two elevators located in the building one here and then one here we have two egress stairs one here and one here uh elevators and egress stairs serve all three floors uh the elevators are set at a certain distance kind of based on uh industry standards so you're never really too far from an elevator from your Cube or for your entrance um so again as mentioned before at the if you had a larger delivery of furniture um down in the southwest corner this is where you would come in uh the larger U-Hauls could be here you go into the facility go to your elevator up to the first floor up to the second floor or you stay on this floor if this is where your um unit happens to be the way we Design This is we try and keep the larger units tend to be on the lower floors because you've got more stuff you want to limit the number of uh trips up and down the elevator so your larger units tend to be served serviced from ad grade so as you can see here uh uh D's and and E's are some of the larger units um so they're located off this main entrance here at the lower level then when you get up onto the main level which is first floor so if you're coming in from the East uh again some of the larger units are closest to the entrances and then when you get up to the second floor the units tend to be smaller so they'll get a lot of um 5 by 10 5 by fives 10 x 10 smaller items uh smaller storage units that are easily uh accessed from the elevators I did want to just touch on so you can see here in this upper upper right corner you can see the glass and there storage units immediately behind it serviced by an aisle so this is the area where I said you would not see into the building so this glass is basically just Spann it's a it's a false glass um the front facing the the main entrance to the building so looking to the east you have an aisle and that's where you have true glass but again all along the Donahue roadside units are right up against the building so even though we're showing Windows you're not seeing into the building at all it's all false and then this to to touch on the rooftop units so we're proposing right now three rooftop units um located in the center of the building and then we have a roof screen around them to help with any screening I think that's bad [Music] it Mr marcala thank you for the additional photo simulations welcome very helpful yeah I I think they do do a do justice to the building and help explain views from all sides so I think they're definitely beneficial I question regarding the interior the out MH the wall that is separating each unit is it like a solid wall or is it a wire mesh what what is oh what's it constructed of so it's basically um it kind of looks like a really nice corrugated metal panel it's basically a a rectangular ribbed panel so all the units are built out of these metal white metal um walls they go8 feet high um and then above the8 feet it's open so you allow air conditioning and and Sprinklers and lights to kind of flow over the whole Space there isn't a security mesh that goes in at the 8ot level so that stops anyone's from stacking something too close to the sprinklers higher than they need to be also stops from from going into their unit and hopping over into the one next door how difficult is it to deconstruct that so if someone walked in and bought the whole top floor said pull out all the corrugated mesh that's separating these units there a bunch of nuts and they just come out and it's a it's a kind of like an erector set kit of Parts it can um it can be uh revised um I kind of know where you're thinking I think is um the concern of making units that are too big and becoming something more right um so the way these are constructed is as a column every 10 ft um that keeps um steel the amount of Steel that goes into the building um very low but and allows you that modular activity but it really prevents you from getting any usable space more than like that 10 by 10 or 10 x 20 module once you start going bigger you've got columns that just make the space not not really worth use this opportunity again Mr Lang hit on it he did a great job that you know there's going to be no forklifts that with a stipulation but there's no warehousing right of council passed no ordinance strictly there's no usage the area where that is or warehous um as great as the design is I just don't want money to Prevail and someone coming in buying an entire floor of a widget maker and you know conceivably if it's not hard to to pull these walls apart that Mrs ammin asked about you know I would be concerned but it sounds like there's a stipulation for no forklifts and that this construction is quasi permanent and it would be difficult for someone to go and take up a large space and also doesn't sound like it's in your bus mod to have that as well that correct that's correct Mr chairman and in addition I had the opportunity to speak with Mr Aller last hearing we threw out some additional conditions that we would be willing to accept upon an approval which would include a condition against employees working in any of the units themselves as well as a condition specifically prohibiting any distribution out of the facility perfect thank you I have another question let's say someone wants two units side by side they can uh move and make it bigger in space like the E unit the biggest one they want two of those side by side so they so the units come in in a variety of sizes they go anywhere from 5 by five up in this space up to 10 by 20 um so there's lots of variations so ideally they would um purchase a unit or rent a unit that's sized accordingly um or two next to each other operationally I would have to defer to see if if if there's a history of opening them up to allowing them to do that or they just rent adjacent units I don't know the just try and get a microphone if you can there somehow just for the new members you're CEO of yeah uh Matthew Lang um CEO of snapbox Self Storage we're based in Philadelphia uh we own or manage about 3 and a half million square feet feet of Self Storage across 10 states um so uh the specific question if somebody rented multiple units uh in our lease agreement they are unable to make alterations to the space so uh typically what happens when somebody has a requirement for more spaces that they're renting multiple units but they're unable to modify the physical condition um the the modular construction of storage units does allow for us as we're going through Lisa you know we put a unit mix plan together for what we expect the market to need um over time those needs do change and so uh for instance on the second floor where we have a lot of the smaller units um there are occasions where we'll take out a partition wall on the 5x10 size units to make more medium siiz units but these are not intended to create uh thousand square feet or 5,000 square feet or anything from a uh distribution or warehousing perspective just to maximize uh occupancy and efficiency thanks man any other board members questions good for professionals architectured two two questions please Mr vessio uh one question um what is the floor for the three levels of Lo of uh storage what is the floor uh design load for that so uh uh light storage which just falls under so self storage is considered S1 use and it's 125 pounds per square foot okay it's a load I understand we're not going to have any sort of hazardous materials stored within this facility correct U you know the Hazardous classification for what you're designing to well or storage classification it's S1 which which is uh the kind of the all-encompassing so it's there stricter design standards for an S1 versus S2 so S1 is allows to have have items stored that are for type S1 or S2 but has but no h no h no h and then my last question is um you had mentioned maybe two meetings ago the the the shape of the lot was sort of driving some inefficiencies with the architectural layout um I think you're right now you're your usable space I think for your drawings here is about 72% I mean what I mean how much better could you do if this was you know a perfect know rectangular building or rectangular site or or maybe if you want you know if you could maybe reassess that statement um is is is the shape of the lot driving a um underutilized building so so typically um you know obviously a rectangle is going to be your most a perfect rectangle is going to be your most most efficient um use of space and typically that'll get you like around 75% efficiency um so again the shape of this lot has kind of in order to um maximize our area we've come up with this segmented um saw to shape it does make it less um efficient so we don't get as true we don't hit that 75% number um whereas the previous building we had here was kind of that trapezoid shape that was not really really good either because you get all sorts of weird shapes and things so the efficiency is not good on that but this shape improves on that efficiency a rectangle would be you know would be would be more efficient um but there are cases where we found that sometimes a rectangle you can't get that perfect number because of just the size of it so by the time you start lining up the size units you want to have you end up where the building may be like 5T short or 10t shorter than it wants to be sometimes it's funny that extra 5T across a 100 foot building brings the efficiency significantly up and the current utilization is 72.4% is is that accurate it is 72.4% correct okay so it's just slightly less than what your optimal scenario yeah about two and a half% so two and a half on I'm just say so on 100,000 is 2 and a half th000 Square fet okay all right thank you I I have one quick question question are are there doors on the back uh in back meaning um where the fire path is are there doors on the back of the building on on the Donahue side on the North side yes yeah let me go back all right yeah so you can see on the so in the there's a fire obviously they can gain access there considering that's the fire lane correct yeah yeah so the fire Lane's right there so again so basement level you're going to go up a flight and out second floor you're going to down a flight and out first floor you're at at grade so it's stairs serving all three levels and yes they do dump back towards the fire lane on done here all right board professionals good evening who wants first crack thank you um so I I appreciate the uh updates to the building I think they were helpful um H but I do think that there are a few questions I had raised in r review memo dated March 21st um that I don't think we answered yet uh regarding the north elevation off on the Donahue Road elevation uh do you have the um dimension for the length of the entire building it's 324 ft in length okay thank you and do you know there's there's kind of a um what I'd characterize as a kind of a blank portion of the wall in the middle there do you have the length of of that portion basically from the last faux window on the left to the architectural treatment on the right and pretty much from 20 number 24 to marker number 10 or so so basically on on the North facade um so basically from 11 which is so 7 to 11 is one of those uh brick and glass towers and then 30 33 is one of those as well so basically from 10 to 30 so you have it's about 180 ft where there's nothing um it's just a stucco um and the brick treatment below we did not um we didn't put any Windows along that facade we just tried to minimize the impact on Donahue um so we just kind of had glass as you kind of turn the corners as you turn the northeast corner as you turn the the southwest corner uh sorry north northwest corner that's where we kind of focused our our glass treatment um I'll pull up that that rendering so you can see those th just to clarify those glass windows that face Don Hue don't project any like correct they're just they're just fake correct fake Windows okay right so so this is actually this is probably a good uh view to express your uh question here's here's the the tower at the at the uh Eastern side and then there's one down here so there is a blank facade this is where that around 180t or so of blank wall is again we've buffered it pretty substantially with with trees so we didn't feel um it was doing anything real by putting fake windows in along there my comment held before I saw the elevation that the exhibits presented and I I I still believe um that something should be added to that portion of the building simply because the view is impacting the residential neighbors and it it does have like a warehouse feel to that portion of the building because it's blank so especially because the second floor is visible and might be visible and you know seasonally I I think that maybe some additional treatment on that portion especially something like a faux window that doesn't have that much impact maybe space the existing windows that you proposed a little further apart um and and add them along the length there to just to break up the mass and of that building right yeah so um I if the if that's something the board would like us to um consider or pursue we could definitely add additional faux Windows along that second height similar to what we have on the front television I think that'd be helpful any number of Windows how many you think in there no like I said you could you could right now their spacing is pretty close together um they did in kind of in little small sections and rather than that I think just spacing them apart so that there isn't this blank stucco elevation that the neighbors can see that does give um a colder feel than even the office building that was there glass windows and around all the sides so um something that feels a little bit closer to residential and less like a warehouse that's something you're able to do yes great and what we'll do is I guess we'll make it subject to the planners review if if they like the way it looks won't we submit into it that would be fine um I I and this is just a suggestion upon you know seeing some of the elevations I do think there's a bit of a missed opportunity with um that corner feature um that shows the doors inside where the offices are located uh and when you noted when you responded to the Chairman's question about um those windows being frosted on that corner yeah um so that looks really nice um but then the windows basically on the right there that are facing Donahue are not going to match the side that faces more towards 22 right it's not it's not all going to be see-through glass right this this would not be see so so again so we were we wanted to show some consideration to the neighbors where one they may not want to see you know so so what we do just to kind of clean up how this works is this is actually a hallway here so there'll be lights on so at night you'll be able to see in there and you'll see that hallway lit up you'll see the blue doors um so we didn't necessarily want to have that facing Donahue and I don't disagree with that I just mean the corner feature I think could have been flipped to the 22 side so that and this this is just a suggestion this is something just that that I noticed that that same feature could be a full corner at the 22 side with the windows fully transparent right so kind of so actually we did before the building started getting Sawtooth we did have something similar to that okay but we felt that this one because it's kind of pushed further back we started to introduce that element more along the facade of of Route 22 so we have it here it's not a corner but it's it's a facade treatment um yeah it's the entry way so I thought it you know it does have some prominence there and that corner I I thought it looked nice on the rendering you know except for the consideration to the neighbors that it had to be frosted so uh I just to give it some thought if you wanted to um you know potentially flipping it to the other side towards 22 I think it could be a really nice feature I know you did add other ones along the 22 exposure um so you don't want to make it too repetitive and you don't want to make it too cluttered on that side but I I think as a corner feature could you know um right so your your so in essence that retail corner fli to the 22 side exactly just a suggestion so we could we could we could look at that I would have to look at it from a site plan too to see how it how it absolutely how loading areas and cir site circulation works if we were to where to change that yeah absolutely um so I think that's all I have for the architect though right now thank you thank you just a couple Mr chairman sure this is a good a good exhibit I want to ask you a question about Mr Nella um I see the monument sign for snapbox that's near the easterly entrance correct yes and that's a representative view of what's proposed MH and that's compliant with our ordinance currently in terms of the size correct right I believe we did make that um Mr Winters made it that size yeah you're also proposing facade signage as well correct correct yeah up here you can see do any of your renderings show or is it just difficult to see from here do they show the facade signage yeah so so here on the on the upper right kind of where my mouse C it says snapbox storage okay so it's should it's it's just going to be the text yeah it's just text there's no yeah no logo and it's just it's just the font snapbox and it's one on the on the route22 side as well same same size on the Route 22 side same signage yeah different size but same signage yeah so you're going to have facade on the east side you're G to have facade signage on the Route 22 sign correct they as well meet the ordinance requirements in terms of the size correct yeah the yeah the well it all comes in in terms of height off the ground and and the total signage is less than 100 square feet I think the only if not want to speak out of term but I think the the question is the two signs I think has to be approved the two facade signs would have to be approved by the town right but it's not necessarily relief from what's allowed it's just with consent by the board correct I believe that's the way it's okay um can you go to exhibit I think it was a12 or a13 and it was it was again the view from Donahue one of the two that's that's fine okay so one of the board members asked a question about the rooftop equipment and you explained that that was going to be screened and it was going to be POS the equipment was going to be positioned near the center of the roof and that there was going to be a screen around the equipment correct will that screen or that that fence extend end to the top of the equipment yes it goes to the top of the rooftop unit so so in so in theory this this view you wouldn't see it because it's so far in um higher elevations or further distances away you would start to you would start to see those but yes the the screening is the same height of the the rooftop equipment itself okay and that that was really what I wanted to emphasize because on the Donahue side as the elevation Rises on Donahue you get closer to the top of the building I want wanted to make sure even though it was at the center that wasn't going to be visible or they wouldn't see the actual equipment right the equipment will completely screen so I and to to be honest I believe you if you go up um that street I can't think of the name of the that cross street so the existing office building has rooftop units on it this building's basically the same height they're not screen though but you can as you get up higher in elevation you'll start to see those rooftop units that's why we've chosen to screen them so you're not looking at the okay if you did you wouldn't look at the unit itself very thank you thank you Mr thank you Mr B uh members of the public any questions on architectural testimony Miss Westlake right yes even thank you good evening rosin Westlake here on behalf of Arthur Self Storage uh just a couple um informational questions um the real windows are located on the um where you walk in for the office and then there's two two of those Towers on the front on 22 is that correct correct on Route 22 there's two um brick and glass towers and there those are the those are real glass correct okay and so does light emanate from all three of those sections light is not it's no different than a light being on inside an office bill in your house it's not none of the sign none of the lights are directed outward but you look and you will see light inside the it'll be it'll be lit and then um what are the hours that those lights are lit I think we can stipulate to like I guess when the main signs the main lights on the property go off well there's been previous testimony about the hours in which customers are able to access obviously during those hours sure sure no I just was trying to get a sense of whether there would be some lighting within the building 24/7 or or what have you I mean and and I would appreciate why you would do that I just trying to understand emergency lights of any kind 247 yeah there's emergency lighting and all it's all on uh Right light um excuse me motion sensors inside so if but there but there is dedicated fixtures that are battery backup and emergency right right perfect okay that M that makes a lot of sense um and then the you said that the the facial signs are um inter internally lit correct are they internally lit 24/7 uh I don't think we talked about the length of time that signs would be on um as part of our test we haven't testified to anything at at this time okay um but again okay I was just curious um and then finally um there had been testimony that there's no trash enclosure and so that the trash would be somewhere inside the building can you tell me where that might be right so typically what happens is when there's no dumpster or trash enclosure on site the the the managemental schedule pickups for the trash to be picked up what they typically do is take one of the smaller units and use that as kind of like a a storage U for for the general office trash that they that they occur there's no cardboard boxes or anything like that or bubble wrap doesn't get stored it's um typical office use garbage so so a customer's trash you know if they have they can't they have to take their their garbage with them they can't leave boxes anywhere okay okay great thanks so much thank you thank you other members of the public questions on the architecture testimony just your name and address please yeah you made use of the I'm Ron name and address name and address sure Ron CA k r zja a 32 Shady Lane Bound Brook ready when you s you satisfied are you satisfied Mr ol yeah you gave us a Bridgewater address I think last well it is Bridgewater it happens to use the Bound Brook post office I thought you knew that from the last time it's just for the records that's fine good evening sir how are you you made use of the term efficiency of the building or something like that during during your testimony do you recall the you the term I do efficiency what did that mean what is that term so that's the proportion of the building so I'll talk in general term so if a building's 100,000 square fet a building that's 75% efficient means that 75% of it is actually used as rentable area for the project so so out of a 100,000 foot building a building that's 75% efficient they can rent 75,000 Square Ft worth of um storage area so the non-efficient space is the whole hallways retail space uh elevator shafts mechanical shafts you know stair Towers Etc um the rooftop units are they part of the height calculation for uh the rooftop units are not are not part of the calculation for Building height the zoning ordinance permits that to be excluded correct yeah okay that's fine um I Heard the gentleman from snapbox make reference to rental agreements and what's permitted and what's not permitted my perception is that there's a high level of opacity in this application is there any reason I'm addressing this gentlemen is there any reason why no snapb model documents have been provided as part of this application a lot of the agreements um uh to degree are um within New Jersey lean law uh agreements within the state are modeled off of that requirement other than that um there are standard form agreements that uh the association can provide and that uh from time to time we have to make modifications due to the way we operate the business business what Association are you making reference to sof storge Association it's a organization of I guess owners or companies like your own correct that are okay um would it be fair to make a request of you to produce the agreement that you use and you would contemplate using in this particular location you know Steve we don't really need to see those documents the board this board has no jur ition over their internal lease document the only thing we would do is potentially ask them to put in certain conditions if the board felt that certain language needed to be in the um in the document but their business lease we don't have any jurisdiction over and we don't need to see the Tony that's been provided tonight and it was also when Mr Lang originally testified in relation as well that if this board were to so approve this application we would consent to the conditions on the items such as no hazardous materials and other things that were relevant discuss okay I heard your testimony make reference to the length of the building um I've not been able to independently verify that but I you said something about the length of the building I think that would have been on the donu side of about 300 ft three excuse me 324 feet is the length on the Donna Hue okay what is the length of the existing building on the donu side I I don't have that information in front of me but I know it is it's a smaller footprint any idea to estimate I is it under a 100 maybe no I don't believe it's that small okay have you done any work any additional I guess workups on other buildings that would better fit the footprint the usable footprint of this particular lot for this purpose have I in terms of self storage or in terms of any building type what do you in terms of Self Storage that's the application we're here for correct yes this is I believe our third iteration of of designs to try and work with the board to a come to a aable other other iterations that you may not have brought further or that you've not you've decided to abandon we do numerous schemes and discuss them internally to answer say again we do schemes internally to find the best uh option to present to the board you said the best options was that to maximize the number of units on this a combination of maximizing H units for the for the owner in terms of uh allowing for the property to have a good amount of uh perious coverage and try and meet the setbacks and and regulations to the best of our ability so it's a it's it's a it's a mix there's no there's no a to A to Z uh path for that it's a it's a constantly moving pieces looking at different options and and weighing the the balance the cost of asking for variances versus satisfying code and and getting a building that that's good for the owner I didn't hear you make mention of a particular criteria that is maximizing maximizing profit you believe that what you've done can affect a high weight on maximizing profit in this location my job is as the architect is to to maximize the the building that'll that'll get approved by the town and and work for my client I don't I'm not involved in the the economics of of of his business did any anybody on the team was anybody on the team responsible for maximizing the profitability of this location I I believe that was addressed in prior testimony there was um analysis done on the property not by me not I'm not an expert in that Cate that field so in connection with the fact that this application is Seeking a use variance there was testimony provided with resp respect to market conditions uh and the viability for this site from an economic point of view previously given this witness is an architect and can't obviously I was to say he hasn't testified to that so this is just cross of his testimony not other sir I have in front of me a doc um an attachment to a document that was submitted or that was part of a of a workup on March 21 2024 it's identified as table one and it makes reference to the zoning or the zoning ordinance it identifies a C5 zone are you familiar with that document I'm not even familiar what what what which document is this was a document that was part of a letter to Nancy probes from let just find it I think you're referring to the planners yeah I'll show hi with it y is that the plannner report that is Rich from March 21st I to check it again give me one second you might know better than I I'm looking for the first page I it was March I didn't think it was the 21st for some reason I thought the 24th but I I stand corrected uh I'm sorry it is March 21st okay sir a couple of the things that stand out out is the minimum front yard setback from Route 22 the requirement is 200 ft okay and you're proposing I believe with this particular version of the project 54.1 ft which is in round numbers about 25% of what's required do do you think that you can substantially increase the setback and still have a workable project this witness has not testified as to the viability of the project right that that would be an appropriate question for the planner and if the engineer comes back up for anything but not this witness okay let me just check one second no further questions right now thank you all right other members of the public questions all right see none your next witness thank we're going to recall and thank you g to recall Mr Winters for some engineering cleanup Winters you understand you're under oath I guess I'll begin by saying I guess there was uh the last hearing which there was a testimony provided by you Mr Burr and you have had some conversations maybe I'll I don't know Mr bur if you want to actually address the board for dep man why why don't you set us up sure give us some testimony and Mr Burke and respond to it I'll just turn it over to Mr Winters with respect to uh sure thing good evening uh chair members of the board good to see everybody tonight um I had some uh discussion with uh Mr bur following uh the past hearing and um it was uh regarding his his request he he asked us to take another look through at one of the zoning standards in specific uh one uh particular to a calculation stipulated under the hillside development section of the zoning code that's of chapter 126 of the land use code um just just to ensure that our our calculations were consistent with that and we we happily looked at that just to uh confirm we are consistent with that um with that we actually did discover that there's a difference in calculation method that does apply to that and we just wanted to ensure that we're represent presenting properly to the board uh what that calculation needs to be to to ensure that complies and this is only relevant again to one of the uh parameters that the hillside development section applies to and that's the floor area ratio calculation um the generally what the hillside development section of the code does in a few instances it uh it requires a reduced either a reduced standard of the bulk standard to be in effect based upon how much steep slopes are on a portion of the site or it applies to uh a reduction in the me means of calculation of uh what the the value is for your site um we we had performed the initial calculation and applied a reduction and and we we evaluated this with our steep slope analysis that was submitted and those those steep slope areas are unchanged uh so the basis for it is unchanged but when we we had presented the prior calculation for floor area ratio we had identified it as a reduction towards the requirement in the zone as opposed to applying it to the standard and I I'll give you the specific numbers in a minute uh what this does is it means I'm about to describe different floor area ratio for our property than what I previously put in testimony uh I just want to be clear with this though this is no change at all in the building as presented the floor area of the building is as previously testified to it's just it's it's a correction of the math to ensure we're consistent with the ordinance I I just want to be clear on that for the board's benefit um so with that uh in the C5 Zone the requirement uh for maximum floor area ratio is 0.25 and that does not change under the hillside development ordinance that was that was the part we're correcting here we had reduce that in our prior zoning analysis and that remains to 0.25 that's our requirement that we're going to be seeking variance relief from um as submitted with our steep slope calculations we determined the uh what what the steep slope excuse me the hillside development I'm calling it by the informal name what the hillside development ordinance stipulates is for varying categories of slope a reduction Factor applies on what part of the lot you effectively can build on and what that does is you end up calculating A reduced lot area you're not actually reducing the lot area in this this case but it's for the sake of the calculation when we calculate the floor area ratio real simply it's the total gross building area divided by the total lot area the uh ordinance section in this case directs us to take the reduced lot area based upon the waiting the the reduction factors for the steep slope areas the number for that would reduce the the denominator in this equation what we're dividing the building floor from the total lot area of 49,92481 ft so if you can do the math in your head a little you could see where I'm going with this our floor area ratio is going to sound like it's going up it's like I said though the same square footage of building we had before as we previously presented we uh calculated our floor area ratio of 693 and that's based on the total that area when we update the calculation for the um I'm make sure I use the right term the reduced area the total land available is the term right out of the ordinance that 114,000 sare ft instead of a 693 floor area ratio we calculate that as a 905 floor area ratio um there's a couple of things I want to just mention to put that into perspective on the application because yes it sounds like that's a jump in number and really it's just a means of the mathematics catching up to to represent what's in the ordinance here um in in general the hillside development chapter intends to address uh development on previously undeveloped land that's the primary concern to ensure that those areas are being developed uh properly responsibly uh yet in our case here we have a previously developed property um all of the slopes that were accounted for when we did our steep slope calculation they were all previously developed or or man-made if you will um as opposed to undeveloped existing steep slopes or Cuts or ridges or things like that it was it was all um man-made development um and with that in mind the other thing I also want to mention with with the calculation to put it in context the uh as I said the building floor area is the same as we presented which was still a 20% reduction in the original applications floor area um just just for comparison I want to extend the the proper calculation to the original application when we submitted the original application um that total floor area would have resulted in us seeking a 1.31 floor area ratio a 1. one31 which with the reduced building floor area is only a 905 floor area ratio so that's that's I just want to put that up for comparison and yes that's 20% reduction from the original um so I I thank the board for their attention to the mathematics of that just as I said we want to ensure we're consistent with the ordinance and just wanted to clear up any confusion that might have emanated from that and I'm happy to answer any questions uh or if if Mr Burr has anything further he wants to uh clarify with with our int what percent of this building is impacted by our Steve slopes ordinance I I have that one moment please um and Bill if you know the answer you're you'll get credit it looks like around 15,000 square feet of surface area yeah of so if you if you if you take a look at the steep slope exhibit or plan that Mr Winter's prepared after the first hearing mhm that's the map that shows the green around the perimeter of the property in different shades of green and what they did was they identified any of the slopes over 10% 10 to 20% 20 to 30 and over 30 those are really the regulated slopes in terms of the hillside development um so none of the plus 30 is being disturbed from what I can tell here um looks like 2800 square ft of 20- 30 and Paul jump in if I'm off with any of these numbers and 13,500 square feet in the 10 to 20 foot range really the main focus is in that North Westerly corner of the property to the rear of the existing office building where that slope was cut in to accommodate the prior office building so this brings me to the question most importantly does this change any of the drainage calculations or any the Improvement testimony that we had in the last meeting because I left the last meeting assuming that this project was going to improve dramatically the situation with Wastewater at the vasel ER section which is recently been closed during the flood conditions would help potentially the Glen Road residents and just overall create a safer environment for Waste waterer at that site correct and I would say that I do not think it impacts any of the prior testimony the proposed improvements that are being offered are still the same as what they were at the prior meeting so I don't want to minimize because the hillside development is an important ordinance um if this was a vacant tract of land where we were removing a lot of trees and cutting into existing slopes I would have a much greater concern because of the prior development because of the extents that this applicant is going to with their drainage proposal I don't think the numbers changing because there was a discrepancy in the way it was calculated impacts what the end result will be of the development and the bottom line on this calculation the overall numbers are still correct the impervious is still correct it was just the steep slope denominator that had a change and that ramped up dramatically the ratio that's exactly correct the the the F and the lot coverage that's calculated just based on the building that's proposed doesn't change it's because when you apply the hillside development regs it shrinks the developable amount of land that as Paul said that denominator of the equation shrinks so instead of instead of being whatever the the 140 some thousand square feet which is the actual land area it shrinks down to 114 just because of the the perimeter steep slope taking off my chairman hat just as a board member I'm very fond of the steep slope ordinance because it does protect raw land in in your opinion does this calculation change really any of the development characteristics putting outside your your previous testimony on the drainage does it change any of the impacts on neighborhood on Lighting on any of the other testimony factors I think the biggest potential impact would be the Aesthetics and I think we're hearing and we're seeing from the renderings we're hearing from some of the enhanced landscaping that's being offered that some of those impacts could be minimized so I would say because of where the existing office building is because of the fact that the slopes are previously developed I don't think this changes any of the prior test that's thank you right Mr chairman so that that was going to be my question so what we're saying is these have already been Disturbed this new this project is not disturbing something new is that what we're saying it's existing or are they cutting into something and creating a new issue based on the plans that have been presented it appears to me because when you take a look at where all the steep slopes are located existing today it's adjacent to where the the existing detention Basin was cut in directly behind the parking lot behind the existing office building where that was cut in right so in my review it appears to me that those slopes were either created or exacerbated to accommodate the prior development right doesn't appear to me that there's any new slopes that are steep that are being disturbed at this great thank you that's that my question thank you uh I've got a question before we move on um Mr wyers I'm looking at table one from the planner letter dated March 21 and I'm looking at the floor area Row in that table and I'm looking specifically at the proposed column which shows 693 but which you've now corrected to be 905 right yes the square footage that went with 6 93 was 10388 to what is it with the 0905 it remains unchanged the so the footage is the same correct the building is the same size as what was presented um the the another way I could explain this is it's um everything you've seen on the application everything we presented remains unchanged and without without Bel belittling the importance of the bulk standards or any number it's in this case it's simply a number it's a number that has changed because of it but it hasn't changed the character or the uh the intent or the design of of the lot we just are clarifying it in context of the ordinance so we're consistent with it we thank you making that correction any other related questions on why don't you go walk through because I think it's important in connection with this topic what the ordinance talks about in terms of stand approval for Hillside developments yes it does just give me one moment to uh put those papers back together so I could pick up this evenings um this actually does make for a um something of a convenient segue because what one thing we spoke about in preparation for this evening was we wanted to ensure that um we had uh up to this point provided a clear uh basis to to demonstrate that we're meeting this the different standards of approval that are part of the hillside development ordinance um and I I believe we put testimony forth in support of all these but for the board's uh benefit um and for the benefit of the application I just wanted to Bri briefly run through those standards I think that will also help aay some of the uh question that comes up of us making this clarification about the floor area ratio um and this this is more reiterating some of the things we've spoken about I'm not going into great detail because it's sort of a recap but I just wanted put it in context of those standards of approval um so there's seven standards of approval listed in that Hillside development ordinance um I'm going to read them verbatim and just just for record and then and then quickly touch on them uh number one uh control velocity and rate of water runoff so that such velocity and rate are no greater after construction and development than before and all other provisions of the Bridgewater Township storm water control control and flood plane ordinance have been complied with now based upon testimony given We believe We we've achieved and we're compliant with this requirement we have already put forth testimony that not only are we meeting the the storm water standards that were required to meet we're exceeding we're going beyond that and providing additional uh detention we are allowing that uh storm water storage to produce greater reductions in rates of runoff from the site uh and and we're we're going above to provide those things as as noted we're reducing impervious cover over the existing condition um we had previously given testimony that the project site is exempt from the flood plane ordinance since there is no flood plane or flood Hazard areas as regulated by the D on the site and we we've addressed the provisions of the Bridgewater Township storm water Control ordinances so we've we've satisfied I believe um the uh the requirements of of 01 standard one uh standard two of of uh the ordinance States minimize stream turbidity and changes in flow um Now by by virtue that there is no stream directly on our site I could I could easily say this is not necessarily applicable to us but Ju Just understanding that of course we're in close proximity to streams I'll take it a step further and and again point back to the uh storm water management improvements that we are providing which again are above and beyond the requirements we're providing additional there because we can and because we're willing to um and and we believe that those improvements will result in a net benefit to Downstream areas and to any stream streams that are Downstream of us so whether it's applicable or not I would say we've we've even achieved that standard um standard number three states protect environmentally vulnerable areas um by virtue of the fact that this is the Redevelopment and the fact that this site has been entirely developed prior to this point I we're we're placing our development in a previously developed area um there's no flood Hazard areas no Wetlands areas um we're we're addressing um all all proposed slopes will be stable that's a requirement for all development and I'm going to touch on that again in a moment in in relation to another of these points so I I believe we've we've achieved that through the type of development we're we're proposing here uh to to meet that standard standard for states to stabilize exposed soils both during and after construction and development um and I'm actually going to also read standard five because my response to both is is similar standard five states prevent soil slippage and although it doesn't Define it in there I generally understand that to be cases where the the ground may come loose because of of conditions or or rainfall or whatnot um both of these standards um I believe since this this project like all projects that are uh obligated to be approved by the local Soil Conservation District in this case it's the somerset Union Soil Conservation District will have to review and approve this plan in fact uh we already have that approval I do want to note um but our development has to comply with the standards for soil erosion and sediment control in New Jersey All post-development Slopes must be stable um we we don't get a final sign off from the uh Conservation District if if the site is unstable before uh before we wrap up construction so I I believe we will address through construction um that everything will be stabilized in 04 and and we have no concern for the soil slippage requirement of 0.5 because we are we are reducing or minimizing steep slopes and anything on there that's man-made will be stabilized um Point excuse me standard Six States minimize the number and extent of cuts to prevent groundwater discharge areas and that seems to contemplate um affecting groundwater conditions of uh that might be affected by by excavations and uh again I believe we're compliant with this because it's a pre-developed site uh we're seeking to change as little of the site as possible much of our proposed development falls directly within the footprint of the prior development um the building is at a similar elevation for the most part as the parking lot is um so I I believe we're complying with this because we're we're really retrofitting our project into the existing site uh as best as can be for redevelopment it meets that standard um and as I noted we're also reducing impervious cover overall from the existing conditions so we're we have that benefit to add to that and lastly standard 7 uh States preserve maximum number of trees and other vegetation on the site and avoid the critical Upland Forest Area is is shown on the vegetation map of the Township's natural resources inventory now that last point we we also I believe we're compliant with this and that last Point um we we don't encroach into those areas per the the natural resource inventory but I I want to point out in addition to the Landscaping we're proposing as I noted in prior testimony um we've with the reduction in building and the latest version of the plans that's before the board for consideration um we've been able to pull our devel El footprint further from the property perimeter that's allowed us to save numerous trees that are uh providing some very nice buffer buffer that was visible in I forget which exhibit one of the exhibits that Mr Nella presented again this evening uh we're we're preserving a number of those existing trees especially along Donahue where they are um so we're we're really maximizing uh the number of trees we could save minimizing those offsite and onsite impacts and as as previous testimony showed we're we're proposing um a a significant quantity of new trees new shrubs so as I said I think we're compliant with that um so again that's those are those seven standards and for the board's benefit and for record I just wanted to ensure we had run through those in context of what we'd offered before and I I believe we addressed those but of course I'm willing to entertain any other questions on that past testimony if the board has them I have um a question that hopefully will clear this up for me and maybe some of the other people I know you're talking in technical terms about the computation that was done in the math that was used in order to come to a consistent outcome between Mr Burr's calculations and yours is that fair to say so far yes we want to provide a consistent computation to the ordinance which we don't believe we had prior we thought we did and we wanted to clear that up for record so we're consistent and and now that you've completed these calculations does this impact the variance that you requested or the degree to which the lot coverage is going to be impacted so you're asking for something more than we thought you were going to ask I I can address that because it's it's a it's a question regarding the variance intensity and yes that's that's the very reason we're we're providing this testimony is to make clear to the board we're not hiding anything that that once this was determined uh that we wanted to be clear that what we're asking for and hope ultimately hopefully get a vote to approve for is the correct calculations under your ordinance so uh there was reference before to the planner's letter and and table a or one I believe it was uh from the planner March 21 letter that would be revised and the variance we're seeking would be a variance uh for the 0.905 um computation and just to clear up the numbers again the requirement is a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25 the relief we are seeking with this calculation fixed is uh for a floor area ratio of 905 this isn't a new variant so you were never close to this is number of what we had already had the variance among those SE it sounded that this was new and above but you needed this all along okay we we always needed this we just were correcting the number so it's correct per record so the degree of magnitude that you've increased it is from 0.25 to 0.90 your own no no 0 25 is the ordinance limitation we were always seeking a variance and we were at Point uh 693 so about 7 and now we're 0. n05 so about 0. n so okay thank you I I had you at one iteration from Scarlet's appendix uh 87 so I mean this number has been flying around well we had this there were three different iterations as as Paul mentioned the original application under this comput reputation would have been over one 1.31 the board will we had three different iterations that we came to the board with so your testimony is at your 0905 correct thank you does that mean that the existing calculations can correct everyone says it's 26 that that actually that's a very good question and that does mean the existing calculation as on our submitted plan is is incorrect as well in the same way that ours was um the uh that 0.18 floor area ratio for the existing building that does not take into account the the the steep slope number because that's because we had applied it to our original calculation said oh we reduce the floor area ratio requirement from 0.25 to 0.192 we that was the part that we uh we misunderstood because there are there are some in fact the other provisions of the hillside development ordinance the ones for impervious cover those do we reduce the bulk standard which is unlike this one where we apply the reduction to the uh the math to to the the lot area for calculating it that 0.8 we calculated on the original application for the existing building when we apply the hillside development factor is 0.24 so the existing building using that calculation is 0.24 floor area ratio that existing building is therefore just under the 0.25 one other question on that the uh improvements on the drainage is there any any way to quantify what those improvements in the area will prevent certain flooding conditions that we've had in the past or is it just going just so I understand the question so when when Mr Winters testified last time there was I believe you gave percentages above for the 30-year 100e storm all all that is that what you're asking about yeah just trying what I had heard in the testimony was it's going to improve it yes being able to I'm in in the area yes i' I'd be happy to I and I I understand the the concern and confusion because on on the uh regulatory side the the main way that they determine if we're compliant is based on Peak rates of runoff for certain design storm events and if you meet those reductions um then you comply and in this case and if you bear with me I have the uh supplemental information that I'm digging through last uh last time's notes just give me one moment [Music] please ah here they are oh there's there's going to be some numbers so bear with me um the um there's there's different storm events if you're not familiar with them the design storms um then they're they're based on percentage frequencies that they may occur and and based upon that we tend to call them by the frequency in years which is not always true that doesn't mean the 100-year storm only happens once in 100 years we all know that but um I think we've heard that one by now but um the the storm events are the two-year event the 10year event and the 100-year event um normally we will comply if we reduce the peak rate of the 2-year storm event from the existing like the the current rate that might run off of the site today by 50% of that that's considered compliant and we had calculated we were reducing that rate by 72% so almost 50% on top of that 50% reduction and before I move on what what that means is um the detention system the the storage we provide on site to hold back more water from immediately running off of the site um we hold back a little additional water and when we do that the amount of water that's immediately running off of the site during a rainfall event is held back further so there's even less water running off below the threshold we're permitted to let it run off the site we're holding back even more and what happens is we hold it back for a much longer period of time when the rain stops water may still be coming out of these detention systems but by that point the the peak of the storm has passed and that's pretty much the general principle of why we do detention for storm water events it's for for storm events it's to take some of the pressure off of what's Downstream and that's important because we've heard it uh I've I've heard it from from the board and from the um from the board's professionals the concern is Downstream capacity whether that's storm systems that are Downstream or uh water courses and streams that are Downstream uh and with that in mind that's the reason why we've we've uh uh agreed to to find a means to provide this additional storage to hold back more water take more pressure off of the downstream and that's allowed me to say that yes there will be an improvement in Downstream capacity because this project is holding back even more water and reducing those Peak rates more during a storm event sorry for the long explanation it's it's my [Laughter] area that was on two year rate do you want to go and give us the other year 10 100 sure thing I know I'd be happy to and and again these were these were testimony last time and I have I have no no problem reiterating those the uh the the 10-year event where we're required to uh uh achieve a 25% reduction in the in the peak rates of runoff uh we're going to be achieving a 56% reduction with the additional storage we're providing and for the 100-year event where a 20% reduction is required uh We've calculated we'll achieve a 33% reduction so so even if we weren't that yes that's correct this is a good opport the uh yes yes um since we're on the the everything flows tonight we're on the storm water topic and that gives me a chance just to uh talk about a matter that that did come up briefly in the past hearing and um I I had a chance to um uh look at this speak with the board engineer a little bit after uh the last meeting um and uh there was a question that came up as to whether we could provide any additional measures uh on the west side of the site uh regarding storm water management and I testified that um we are comp we are compliant and we remain compliant with the rules uh throughout the site on the west side of the site um we are already redirecting uh 2/10 of an acre about uh 20% approximately 20% % of the total area towards the detention and storm water systems on the east side of the site and that's that volume of runoff is accounted for so we're reducing areas that runoff directly and we're meeting our obligations by doing that but the question came up as to whether anything else could be done to um further uh assist and improve uh the runoff from the west side of the site which today and in the future is directly discharges without any detention um we believe there's an opportunity to provide some kind of measure on that side and and had spoken with the board engineer about maybe being able to do something it would be something small something that may serve to um deter some of the more frequent smaller events and just take some of that water offline during those uh and we're we're happy to uh to work with them uh to uh to work that into the design and I just wanted the board to be Garden that bill was mentioning last time and some other smaller mitigation measures I think that's great that that may be the solution um for that and we we're we're happy to look at that the the applicant is agreeable that we we'd want to provide something else there that we can um just need to work out the it'll be a small bit of mitigation is that your testimony but it'll be an improvement yes we're we're we will make a an additional Improvement to that side that will just one more thing above and beyond the the requirements we have just because we know it's a concern of the boards and we think we can do something there so we're going to Endeavor to do that and coordinate that with Mr Burr yes any other board members questions for Mr Winters all right board professionals any followup I I just had one comment unrelated to um the updated calculations um last hearing um it was a member of the public brought brought up a comment comment related to the loading zones um and that the and I just wanted to um make it more apparent or at least address it um that the requirement uh under Section 126-1 177b uh there's a table and it outlines different uses and then kind of has for certain uses has a sliding scale as the square footage the gross square footage gets higher that the number of loading spaces increases with it I jumped into this application Midway so I apologize for missing that and the number of loading spaces did change based on the on this the size of the building when they updated the plan but it appears that um for whatever reason I think previously the loading space requirement of one loading space was based off of that table and the only kind of congruent use I can think that it was based off of was the office use because the office use basically says if there's 10,000 ft or more you need one loading space whereas I think probably the more appropriate categorization would be the retail commercial planned commercial section which has that kind of sliding scale which would require a building that's 50 to 75,000 Square ft of gross floor area to have four loading spaces now they're proposing two loading spaces one of them which meets the dimensional requirements of 12x 50 one of them which does not it's proposed to be 10 x 32 I think simply that the applicant will just have to put on testimony related to a variance for that requirement so the planner would hit that planner address that yeah that good thank you you got it Mr chairman I do not have any questions at this point I guess the only the only thing I would add is a a comment about the drain the additional drainage that is being proposed on the west side of the building in my view it's certainly a welcome addition being that it's only been two weeks since the last meeting I understand Mr wyers hasn't had a chance to do a deep dive into the design but I think there's the opportunity to add another stormw feature near that Westerly Drive driveway that would really have a positive impact so I appreciate it I've been lighting up your cell phone over this I I really want to make sure that the neighbors see a net and a gross Improvement in in runoff and I appreciate you working with the applicant on this and continue to work and and come up with better plan thank you all right with that I'm going to open up to members of the public for Mr Winter's engineering testimony whoever's ready ready golf great come on down on crusa sorry you would agree that the floor area ratio requirement without a steep slope is 0.25 correct I'm I'm sorry I missed the number could you repeat that sir okay without a steep slope the the maximum floor area ratio requirement is 0.25 under the ordinance yes that's it's 0.25 um and if it wasn't clear from what I said the floor area ratio requirement in this zone is 0.25 uh regardless of the steep slope uh the um Hillside ordinance requirement it stays at the 0.25 it's the uh calculation of what we're providing that is varied by that ordinance section just just to be abundantly clear but in effect for the steep slope situation the FL the maximum Flor area ratio requirement is 0.193 that was what our prior representation was and and the purpose of this testimony was to amend that that um it is does not actually change what changed was not that bulk standard but the calculation of what our proposed floor area under that ordinance has changed so the 0.25 Remains the Same it was our calculation of um and just because it's better with numbers than explanation the C sorry testimony the calculation of 693 that we had represented previously is amended now it's 0.905 when when done per that so that that was the clarification okay so to meet the floor area raser requirement and not have to require a variance for that requirement the way I read this table is your floor area can be 37,45 square ft for this building correct uh I haven't performed the math to verify that so I'll I'll rely upon your number for this discussion well that's the number that's in the table as I understand it I'll just because it's the table I prepared oh thank you I was about to ask I can also assist I guess in some of the question answering or at least clarifications um the 37,45 sare ft that's gross floor area in total in any building floor um cumulative is based off of the entire lot area after the hillside development calculation so the number below that the 0.192 um is how it initially was calculated by the applicant but the number below that the square footage number the 28781 is actually the true uh I guess adjusted allowance under the hillside development calculation so the real the number that they'd be allowed with the hillside development calculation would actually be 28781 okay and based upon the request for a variance well based upon the flary ratio of 095 what is the applicant actually seeking that that that number is exactly the same as you see in the the the far column or the second to last column 13,880 Square ft is the gross square footage that's being uh requested so that would actually be depending upon which number you rely on as the standard that would actually be about four to five times what's permitted under this ordinance correct not four times it it's about a little over three times okay so it would be the ratio of 0905 ided .25 which is something less slightly less than four correct okay but in terms of the volum I mean the total difference in square feet that's an additional and I'm doing these in round numbers that would be an additional 60,000 plus Square ft going from 37 475 23882 correct say the first number again well the first number is 3747 you sure yes and then the request is based upon a number what appears to be 103,788 square fet which in round numbers well I'll do it a little closer is 60 roughly 65,000 Square ft okay and and Sir we've heard your testimony and and you're relying on tables that are based upon assumptions correct we're relying on tables that are based upon the calculations from the ordinance section and all we were seeking was just to clarify the numbers this evening I thought I thought your testimony was based upon tables that are not part of this ordinance but are part of I guess State guidelines you identified you're you're now referring to the storm water calculations yes okay that's okay moving on a different a totally different issue but understood um I I just want okay your question then I'm sorry that's what you're relying on to rationalize that maybe this maybe this will work in this location I I think we presented that um we are meeting the requirements obligated to the site we're going above those on the storm water side and that's supportive of variances we are seeking and again in context of this particular issue with the numbers we have given testimony and presented we've we've brought down the size of the building 20% from the original proposal already as part of our efforts to um Advance this application and and demonstrate that we can uh I guess best fit as as I'll borrow that from when we were talking about uh the use of this site so we've we've demonstrated this through our testimony okay the Bridge Water still has the ordinance and bringing the building down to about 103,2 ft is still almost four times what that ordinance permits and is still a significant reduction from our original application yes and and and you believe it's an acceptable situation now because you're relying on tables for which certain assumptions were made to arrive at those tables and attempt to utilize them I don't know that this witness can answer what what acceptable situation means okay I'll withdraw that question now the young lady back there told she lives on one of the young L both of those young ladies live on live on Glenn Road one of them testify and they have a real world problem the real world problem is they're basically downhill a bit from where the subject proper propert located and they have an unabated water problem nobody's attempted to explain it rationalize it minim well maybe you've attempted to minimize it with your testimony but there's been nothing concrete that you've put forth to this board that addresses head-on or minimizes what goes on on the North side or west side of Route 22 and how it affects the people on the this is time for questions really is are you getting to a question yeah the question was you've done nothing to minimize that was the question I think we've already given we have already given testimony uh that the uniqueness of this application where we're reducing total impervious cover we're providing additional storm waterer uh management measures above and beyond the minimum required that this application is in unique position to improve the storm water conditions within our control on our site okay but if you brought it within the maximum floor area ratio requirement of Bridgewater Township's ordinance that appears to be directly applicable to this case you would have a building that would be substantially smaller than what you're proposing correct that would be correct if you didn't want an Ord if you didn't want to get a variance from this particular requirement you wouldn't have have what's up on those screens right now correct if that was the objective but that's conjecture now um I didn't hear that that that was what conjecture what's conjecture about it you asking a question that I'm answering I'm just I'm stating the fact that you're stating I'm sorry um I just want to understand your question better let me withdraw that one is in this case for the board's benefit really about balancing the single problem water and isn't it about trying to minimize what's going to happen in the area and and I didn't know about the vasular renue problem and I think the broadb it to everybody's attention and it turns out it turned out to be a very serious problem and that's probably within a 100 feet of your application of your subject property you agree with that it's not 100 feet a couple hundred feet is your question to the witness whether the S the purpose of this application is to reduce the storm water that's what you just said what I'm getting at is in effect what this application is really focusing in on is balancing the interest of the of the people who are probably being affected by it in terms of water flow versus the ability to overdevelop this property such that you'll get a variance of the maximum floor area a ratio of 905 when either 0.25 or1 192 is what's required you know just to put this question into context I just want to point out a fact that this project is taking a property that has a small amount of building and a large amount of parking and it's replacing it with a large amount of building and a small amount of parking and while that may require a floor area ratio we are reducing the total imperious cover on the site as a result with this development it might require a floor area variance in this case but we think it's an improvement over it is an improvement over that existing condition we are reducing that impervious cover even though it requires this variance relief but you can't come to this board with any evidence to say that the water problem in the area will not exist to the extent that hasn't been the testimony and it's been substantiated by the town engineer that the flows off site will be reduced as a result of this development I don't want to get into a debate with you the answer is you're being asked to give a significant variance to the floor area ratio requirement very significant and if you look at the magnitudes Bridgewater said when they enacted this ordinance okay we're concerned about something and it sounds like we're concerned we're not going to debate right now if if you want to come and give a state closing I'm sorry I'm done you can be you can ask more questions on the testimony at the end of when the applicant is wrapped up their case you can give as much testimony as you want you can give a speech if you want I'll give you all the time you want now is not the time well if you're done then leave well I'm sitting down but you wanted to keep talking so I wouldn't leave while you're talking I like to talk clearly you do too I'm doing what I want we're open to the public well I'm going to sit down right now that's great cuz we're going to take a break and I think the board needs a break and we're going to reconvene in 5 minutes thank you 10 minutes thank you oh thank you I gave him he has his copy perfect I'm going to ask him to mark it up on these two items okay thank you Mr for for e SC thought e e f e wa PR like every don't work really hard there should e e all right it's 9:10 we're going to reconvene Roger get a quick roll call please here here yes here here here here here here here here all right thank you all right Mr mck chairman okay to my right is our professional planner PA Ricky will ask to put his qualifications on did we finish want make sure we finish cross from the public did all members of the public get to ask all the questions you guys are good all right then we've completed that sorry just wanted to make sure than again Mr Ricky yes I just remind you that you are still under growth uh for the record my name is Paul Ricky Ricci I'm a licensed professional planner I've been licensed since the year 2000 also a member of the American Institute of certified planners of national recognition I have a master's degree in city and Regional planning which I received from Ruckers University in 1997 uh I'm currently a planning consultant to to six communities I I've testify regularly in front of boards I've been qualified approximately 250 boards throughout the state I have testified in front of this board three or four times over the years right board accepts you good thank you sir thank you Mr Ricky can you identify you've been asked to do in relation to this application uh yes I was asked to prepare or formalize a planning opinion as to the appropriateness of this application that would include the variances and other waivers that are being sought yes why don't you walk the board through uh what youve done and what your conclusions are with respect to uh sure is it is it important for me to to recognize again on the record the variances that were requested or has that been just I think it would be good if you did okay you know there's been so many changes in them and we have an updated report but I I do think it would be clear if you identify each one if it helps you my scoreboard is we started at about 24 and now we're hovering around 12 maybe 13 depending on your interpretation one of which is changed tonight AIT yes right um okay we're seeking the D1 use firings to permit the self storage facility in your C5 commercial nursing home District the floor area ratio variance D4 to permit an F of 0.905 or maximum of 0.25 is permitted and I'll discuss some of those nuances through my testimony um minimum front yard uh facing Donahue 75 ft is required we're 49 3 ft is proposed uh minimum front yard to Route 22 75 excuse me um 75 ft is required on the underlying zoning 200 ft is required with the um the the additional standards in place where 54.1 ft is proposed 44.9 ft previously existed rear yard setback of 75 fet is required where 40 point 49.3 feet is proposed maximum improved lock coverage after slope calculations there was some discussion about this last time 40% is permitted and 48% is proposed uh to permit a conservation easement of 25 ft where 50 ft is required adjacent to the single family residential Zone um and I'll talk about this through my testimony this is not being changed with the exception of the fire lane that's being added and we're adding Landscaping to that area as well uh minimum landscape buffer along Route 22 100 ft is required where 28 to 33 ft uh is proposed and I'll talk about that as well this is largely uh unchanged uh off street parking to Route 22 100 ft is required where 20.8 28.5 ft is proposed to the driveway and 54 ft to parking where 29 ft previously existed uh off street parking to Dono 75 ft is required where 32 feet is proposed and where 25 feet previously existed to permit loading in the front yard and for not providing four loading Bays only two one of which is conforming in in size um 12 by 50 ft is required the other loading area is 10 feet by 32 feet and to permit a three-story building where two stories is proposed um and that's due to the grade changes that were discussed that is the extent of variances that that I have sure app sure uh as the board is is aware uh in order to Grant a C2 or excuse me uh a D1 use variance uh the special reason that's that's most uh in line with the proof is to show that a a site is particularly well suited for the use if a site is particularly well suited it promotes the the general welfare of the community could also Advance special reasons but purpose a is the is the most important um the use variance also has to be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good that's namely the adjoining property owner without a substantial intent and purpose of your Zone plan and for the D1 variants that has to be through an enhanced burden appr proof the Michi criteria to reconcile the emission of the use from the municipal master plan uh the the D4 use Varian is you know it's it's it's a little less onerous in terms of meeting me meeting the standards uh to meet the positive criteria we have we have to show that the site has the ability to accommodate the increased floor area ratio and for all variances we have to show that they can they can be granted without a substantial de into the Zone plan mean that medich criteria technically does not apply for the for the for the D4 variants but we need to meet it anyway for the D1 variants and I I refer to the board attorney uh while we I'm going to go through each bulk standard individually but it's it's common place that under a D1 use varing because there aren't specific standards for use not permitted in the zone that the board evaluated an application uh collectively um and because under the law it's it's understood that those variances are subsumed into the use variance with that said I'm going to discuss each one of those specific deviations uh from a bulk perspective as to their appropriateness and I defer to the board attorney how he wishes to move forward but nonetheless I'm going to discuss it I do think you should address each of the se's because while some of them may be subsumed into the D1 not all of them are and I I honestly think it's just better to address them all okay and I'm going to address them nonetheless okay my variance is excuse me my variance my my testimony is is pretty detailed I have a pretty lengthly uh outlined so I'm going to have to reply uh rely on my outline uh a little bit more than I than I traditionally do when I when I testify um so just just be aware of that it's not usually my my style per se um regarding the the particular suitability uh just beginning with the the C5 nursing home District uh this is one District in Bridgewater Township that has a total of four Lots uh two of those lots are non-conforming single family residential lots uh that are approximately one acre in area where where where three acres is required then you have the caran Assisting Living living facility which is next door uh and then the subject property which historically has been used uh for office space uh permitted uses in the C5 District today are nursing homes Continuing Care retirement facilities congregate care facilities assisted living facilities and senior housing General Offices and medical dental offices it conditionally permits service stations and we know there's a service station just a few properties down uh from the site as well so as as a planner I think it's clear that there's a limited number of uses permitted for this very small District in town uh here I believe that the applicant proposes to adaptively reuse this site uh and to design an attractive self- storage facility and again I think this was already brought out through testimony the self storage facility is not a warehouse and that's clear under your ordinance and these are for residential type users of the design of these facilities and it was testimony was also discussed that the largest unit size throughout this facility is about 200 square feet uh in area um I've testified for for several uh self storage facilities over the year over the years I've also reviewed them and recommended them uh in towns that that that I represent as as an appropriate intermittent use on where a commercial use adjoins a residential use um the reason that that I've recommended it in the past is because for commercial land uses this is one of the most passive land uses that exist and also um when you look at a a building U from from from my perspective what I recommend it was close to to Route One and N um it also sound acts as a as a buffer wall from from Highway noise in the context when you have buildings as well so um there's there's there's multiple reasons why um having a passive building it can be positive uh in in this context uh I I did look at the number of vehicles that that do travel past this site um approximately 60,000 Vehicles traveling by a property do also uh impact my opinion as why this is an appropriate location uh for a self storage facility uh today the site contains an office building as the as the borders aware um it's been information by the applicant it's provided to me is that approximately 50 to 80% of the building is is vacant and I think most of the board likely recognizes since postco that there's just less demand for office use today so I did look at um some statistics in the area uh generally speaking when there is existing supply of office space you don't build new office space uh an exception to that would be if if apple or a very specific user were coming in that needed a very specific space they may build new space but generally it's more expensive to build new space if there's existing Supply so um I evaluated the demand and need for for office space uh in the area U couple of numbers according to office snapshop by lean Associates uh Somerset County area had an office vacancy rate of 16% in the first quarter of 2020 3 uh jll um that's another Real Estate Services firm reported uh 25.8% office vacancy rate for Northern New Jersey uh for 2023 quarter 1 um and and these numbers that I'm I'm indicating these aren't just Somerset County numbers these are these are numbers that are are largely reflective of the state um and in New York City you can argue is have much higher rates so these are numbers that are are pretty much we're seeing uh in a regional and and likely a national level uh as well uh I did when I spoke to the applicant I said you know was there any interest in the the adjoining um assisted living facility the the uh to expand onto the site because that seemed to be an option for this Zone and um the applicant IND to me indicated to me that they had no interest in expanding to this portion of the site so you have an applicant that's looking at I have a I have a Zone that's essentially zon for for office and uh you know Assisted Living type facilities and there's no demand for office Mr Ricky can I just put you on hold for one second C can I help you he's he's I think that's what professional planners do he's reporting on the the statistics that he is relying on for the basis of where he's heading in in this report I think that's what professional planners do I can provide the sites of my sources if that's need provide those too sure I I thought You' started to do that before you continue may I clarify one of the statistics you mentioned uh the 60,000 cars is that per week per day per month that's the approximate traveling by the property daily and that's taken from um uh njdot website so when looking at what's permitted in the zone um and what there is need for it was my conclusion that there there isn't a need for additional office space and at least the the most adjacent uh assisted living facility had no uh desire to expand onto the property so the applicant is in a position how should this property best be utilized uh moving forward I already testified to and I'll talk about this more in the in the future that self- storage facilities for commercial land use are are one of the most passive land uses that exist in the marketplace today once these facilities are you know they're they're once they're filled um there there's very little activity that that occurs on them um I I've personally visited facilities uh because often I also do some work for AT&T in cell tower companies where I've been on facilities uh where they were looking to locate a cell tower uh passive use with a passive use and I've been on the facilities for hours and I've seen like zero to one or I I don't recall seeing any cars coming on to a facility uh in the morrist toown area um so I mean they're they're very passive facilities and and I'm going to talk about that more moving forward um in terms of need and demand for this use I'm going to summarize some of the testimony provided by representative of of of the applicant um but that testimony indicated that there's current supply of 700 23,000 Square ft of self storage space in the 5 Mile Trade area um a total of 170,000 ft² additional space was in approval stages which totaled or totals 890,000 square feet approximately of of inventory indicated that the population in the trade area of 143,000 individuals results in a demand for over 1 million square fet of self- storage space demand um this proposed facility would help meet that unmet demand for the site um I also found it um compelling when the Self Storage representative uh testified that much of the existing supply of self- storage units are older properties that are single stor that lack climate control in other amenities that modern buildings provide so that what the applicant is looking to provide is largely not provided today and that based on this previous testimony that he indicated that the facility would capture at that time when the building was larger approximately 15% of the demand that's needed in the area so it's development model is not GE towards capturing other businesses self- storage tenants but filling self- storage need for the area I think there's the ability based on it the information provided uh for this facility to exist the facilities that exist today to continue to exist because there's additional demand um this is not similar to uh a retail user that may came come in and try to out compete you to take your business away I think that's a clear distinction between what's proposed here what's needed here and other types of commercial activities um um here again this is an opportunity to repurpose the use into a a yearr round business that serves the needs of local residents and again I believe that this is an ideal transitionary land use between commercial activities and the nearby single family residential activities up the hill and again because once these facilities are occupied uh they're they're they're rarely visited and they're passive commercial land uses in comparison the kite the site could be developed with medical offices which have a lot more activity parking needs and the like that's constantly occurring uh as well as a gas station I don't think it would need this size of a lot but Alternatives that are that are more intense um than the proposed use um in terms of your master plan um I mean the township has been active uh in updating its master plan and I and I look through a a number of various versions um and um I can say that this application will support numerous goals of your master plan from your 2015 master plan encourage appropriate development of land use Focus areas in the township that will within the limits of zoning return underutilize land to productive use generate Economic Development activity diversify the municipal economic base create new employment opportunities and strengthen the tax base um the township had a specific 2010 master plan element an economic element for the Route 22 Carter that was specific to Route 22 and this application would enhance several purposes of that master plan as well enhancing increase tax ratables through diversity of high value uses support existing economic anchors and encourage reinvestment into existing facilities adjust to the Contemporary needs of Commerce and Bridgewater residents that's clear that the master plan recognizes the need to adapt to the needs uh of the community encourage long-term sustainable site planning enable more flexibility in development context and promote economic activity in appropriate locations this is a commercial Zone this is a growth area of the township or for building design guidelines where appropriate and again I think one of the distinguishing characteristics I'll talk about about this facility is that it's been designed to look like an office building um self- storage facilities over the years have dramatically changed and when and I'll talk about this more in a moment according to my anal is when Self Storage was planned at least based on your your master planning was around 2004 when it was discussed in your 2004 master plan self storage facilities were completely different type of facilities um I think most of us recognize these single story facilities with a lot of garage doors now you have facilities that are completely climate controlled with minimal amount of exterior doors like proposed by the applicant that appears to look like an off office building one of the negative problems with Self Storage was not the use but the visual impact of that use in an environment looking at those garage doors the the Gish colors the oranges the bright colors and the like um that were that were painted on those doors and and that's not proposed here uh in the 2022 master plan um your most recent master plan it says in the the extent where there have been significant changes in assumptions policies and objectives forming the basis of the master plan or development regulations as last revised it says since the adoption of the amendments to the master plan re-examination report of April 27 2015 there was a significant change in policy regarding the evaluation of the highway corridors and regulations which continue to encourage a mix of compatible uses without overburdening its residents with frustrating and inconvenient traffic congestion and and that's again one of the benefits of this self- storage facility that it would have less traffic than permitted uses um again a largely uh passive uh use I think other benefits include uh the removal of a par a partially vacant underutilized building the positive influence resulting from the creation of a new business uh the creation of short and long-term jobs uh the creation of a safe secure climate control space for personal items that will free up space for room or more comfortable living environments of residents uh and it it produces or places underutilized unproductive land in an economic zone back to functional use um regarding the FL air ratio I mean FL a ratio is is an additional me measure that's that's added typically to a building coverage requirement um um it it offers a way of of of predicting the ratio of persons to a of a unit of land it also is a means of regulating mass of a building so it regulates uh mass of a building and how it's how it's viewed in the community uh and how intense a property operates and that's the number people on the property the level of activity occurs given again that this is a Zone that's intended for office space office again generates the need for a lot more cars than this type of facility I'm GNA I'm going to provide some of those numbers uh in a moment um it's it's my overall opinion that the proposed facility can ENC combinate The increased floor area ratio in a manner that will result in the creation of low intensity land use with his own plan calls for moderate intensity land uses and regarding parking I I did the calculations of the parking needs of of 100 just by wave of a barometer um 103,788 7qu foot medical facility and this is not what's would be proposed for a medical facility but to give you an idea of the demand change would require 467 parking spaces under the Township Code and a general office would require 346 spaces that's based on medical of 4.5 spaces per per thousand square feet and for general office uh one space for for 300 Square ft a medical building in the current 27556 square foot footprint would require 12 24 spaces and general office would require 92 spaces under your current ordinance today our use requires 14.5 spaces where 15 spaces are provided physically that's 16 spaces per the new law with the EV credit and in terms of building scale uh the proposed building has a height of 23.63 ft to the deck line the roof uh and 25 6et tall to the parit and if if you compare that to the maximum height of 35% that equates to the building being between 36% and 48% lower than Allowed by by ordinance and you heard from U there's been a lot of testimony about the design of the building but the intent was to not have a building that was taller than the existing building uh so that there would be really no change to the height and how that building presented itself to the for the uphill residential uses also a specific characteristic that I hope the board evaluates as part of this application is that this site is slightly over a th000 feet in width um the proposed building face is approximately 330 ft so the building itself would still occupy approximately 33% of the actual Frontage on the highway it also be 290 ft from the closest point of the adjoining assisted living facility uh and approximately 180 ft from the nearest Residential Building me measured building uh to building so it's my finding that the the subject property is well removed from the adjacent commercial land use and is significantly lower in elevation than residential property to the north the perimeter Landscaping will remain in place as well as a green strip along Route 22 to help soften the project and also you've heard from the site engineer that over time the applicant is embellishing and adding to that Landscaping uh as well so we have the buffer plantings to the north on Donahue as well um buffers can't fully be provided uh along Route 22 due to the existing sanitary sewer easement that was discussed um one of the most compelling points that that I found about this application and this was again discussed tonight uh by the applicant is that the applicant's reducing the impervious coverage uh associated with this property from approximately 44% to 40% you have a a as as you're aware a maximum Improvement coverage as well and and that's here we're asking for for 48% where 40% is permitted where 44% is existing and you heard a testimony from the S engineer as well that 8% of that number is associated with that fire road that surrounds the building so from an impervious coverage standpoint uh we're very close and and and and functionally compliant with the intent and purpose of the Zone plan it's the the benefits of so of having that fire Road as as required by the fire department clearly outweigh its thatment and you heard how that fire Road would be delivered it would be would be it would look like lawn and grass so while it is a physical Improvement it will not feel like one um from afar um you saw the architectural uh renderings tonight I think that clearly depicted that this building is not massive or or out of scale uh with its environment and I think there was some suggestions to to make some additional architectural embellishments to the building but the scale of the building is is is appropriate in this context could it be uh modified somewhat to to be better yes but the scale is appropriate um and so from a floor area ratio perspective u u this facility will not result in a in a substantial departure from your Zone plan because the building will not be too large or out of scale um is limited terms of intensity uh it meets that's in terms of reducing the needs for parking and and population on the site and also I think it's important when you evaluate the FL a ratio um here it's factoring the number is is elevated due to slopes on the property and those slopes are Disturbed slopes this is not a a virgin area of town with the applicants looking to come in into do do need a forested area the Community this is an already Disturbed property and um and also the floor area calculation that's that's elevating the number and also the floor a ratio is calculating 2/3 of the first floor that is underground um I would just point out that the 2/3 of the floor that is underground that is not adding additional Mass to the site and because this is a passive use it's not increasing the number of population on the property um uh the amount of traffic and and cars needed for this facility already passive so in terms of how it changes the intensity of the site it does not and most importantly Flor ratio in my opinion one of the largest reasons that it's imposed is the control Mass um in terms of the of the bulk variances um um we're going to request the bulk Varian is both under the the C1 hardship Provisions as well as the the flexible uh C2 balancing um and I know the board is aware under the C1 hardship Provisions the applicant is entitled to bulk variant relief uh by reason of narrowness of the shape of the specific piece of property and as well as by reason of an extraordinary and accessible situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property with the structures lawfully existing uh thereon um for the C2 variant relief like any other variants we have to demonstrate that the variants meets the purpose of M milanus law and that can be drilled Down Under the polling decision uh the positive criteria Associated from the use variance and also that that variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good in zone plan where the board finds that um the benefits of granting the variances outweigh the detriments and it results in better Zoning for the property those are all reasons that that justify the granting of bulk variants relief uh simply stated for this property you heard from the site engineer to begin there is no buildable footprint on this property from a zoning perspective anything that is built here would require variance relief that's due to the the irregular shape of the property as well as uh increased setbacks that are required um for this site uh based on uh your zoning code and again this is a lot um that does meet the minimum lot area requirements for the Zone it's 3.44 Acres where three acres is permitted and despite that there is no building for footprint uh that is permissible today Mr Richie yes it's 9:45 I just want to give you a heads up I'm looking at the calendar in the docket there's 15 minutes left in this meeting I'll give you an extra 5 minutes but June 11th is our next meeting after that I'm so I wanted you to know that I wanted you to hear it I'm not going to tell you how to do your application these are all very important topics we need to hit on all the information but I want to give you a warning that we have 15 minutes left tonight and there is not another meeting we have Warehouse cases we have cell tower cases these are not small cases next available night is June 11th okay thank you okay um W with that said Mr chairman thank you uh regarding the appropriateness of of the setbacks despite there not being uh setbacks that are permitted um there be no building footprint um um the building would be located slightly further back than the existing front yard setback facing Route 22 today um we retain the existing sidey yard setback adjacent to the nursing home and in the widest portion of the lot approximately 55% of the portion of lot will comprise front and rear yard setbacks at the narrowest portion of the lot 54% of the lot will comprise front and rear yard setbacks so the ratio of the setbacks results in sound land use planning regarding the maximum Improvement coverage um the total impervious coverage will reduce from 44 to 40 40% and I believe we're largely consistent with your Zone plan because uh the 48% that's proposed for the Improvement coverage is associated with that fire road I will note that um in the m1b district where storage facilities are permitted the maximum impervious coverage of 60% uh is allowed 20% less than What's um proposed here um very quickly on the off street parking the applicant is really these are really existing conditions that are that are marginally um are really not being changed as part of this application dramatically with the exception that the parking is being moved further from Route 22 further from Dono Road and it's it's less parking in total in in terms of of How It's encroaching into the front and sidey yard setbacks excuse me the front uh on donaho and also on Route 22 there there there limited changes in in the disturbance areas uh there and I'm I'm I'm I'm summarizing now the loading in the front yard the site has two front yards um we thought Route 22 was the most appropriate Frontage and now it's angled and screened so it would be furthest removed from residential so we believe it was a better zoning alternative um regarding the size of that facility you heard testimony from the applicant that it was sized based on their needs allows for a big truck and a smaller truck these are people in the Self Storage fac facility business that understand what their needs are so despite the varant relief it meets the needs of the facilities regarding the three stories versus two stories the building is not taller than 35 ft as measured from ground to the roof even that your height is an average calculation that it's less than that so it's not a substantial departure from your Zone plan that allows up to 35 ft for all these reasons this application meets several purposes of Miss baners law because the is particularly well suited for the proposed use it meets criteria a promotes your general welfare um it meets criteria C provides adequate light air and open space despite the dimensional uh setback variances and because of the need of this facility as testified uh it meets purpose G of the municipal Landes law uh the variances can be granted without a substantial detriment uh to the public good in your Zone plan I testified that this is functionally a low traffic generator saw we saw the architectural elevations that showed the form of this project fits to the area uh there's perimeter Landscaping will remain and the applicant proposes to plant 38 deciduous trees 238 evergreen trees 954 shrubs 140 type of grasses and 240 perennials in ground cover so they're substantially adding to Landscaping um the sfe the site will be safe and secure based on this is a user that operates multiple operations and less intense than office and medical uses there will be no impacts to community facilities or schools uh no substantial negative lighting impacts a low generator of noise and the slopes while being uh Disturbed um those are from previous development um the tenth of theone plan was created in 2004 when self storage facilities were more Industrial in character um here the building only has one small loading area facing Route 22 rather than numerous bay doors and the like uh and this is an economic development district with a master plan calls to focus commercial development um regarding the hillside development you heard the testimony from the site engineer um you know the the requirements are are designed uh to protect the health safety and Weare U they're also designed to to maintain natural terrain maintain ridg line and Skyline impacts those aren't being negatively impacted here on an early Disturbed site and to stop erosion sutti flooding soil slippage surface water runoff and the engineer went through the seven points that it asked the your ordinance asked the planning board to evaluate when determining the appropriateness of of building in steep slope areas and that the engineer testified that this application advances everyone um or meets every one of those requirements regarding the enhanced burden approv this is important reconcile the emission of this use from the municipal master plan self storage facilities I already partially mentioned this are only permitted in the M1 manufacturing juristic based on uh a 2004 master plan recommendation um and I and I I already testified to how these facilities have have significantly involved evolved over time with they're no longer Industrial in character and now they can resemble other commercial land uses similar to offices that's proposed here um um I believe that there's accordingly there's changed circumstances since that 2004 master plan uh made the recommendation of only allowing it in the M1 District there's also new demand and need in the community uh for this facility today that that's that's needed for residents that that um that has increased uh over time um and I kind of went really quick there in the end but um um from a planning perspective this is uh an application that and on paper it feels that the variances and the extent of the variance Rel is is overly dramatic but what you're really looking at is is a use that fits well in this context is largely benign and is designed to be attractive and it represents an ideal land use uh between a commercial area and a residential district uh I I can't think of a better land use to put in this environment that's that's passive that I would want to live next to uh knowing that a commercial land use is anticipated the going an area than a self- storage facility so that largely summarizes my testimony all right thank you board questions yeah Mr chairman um I'm hung up on the requirement that you show us that the proposed site is particularly well suited for the proposed use um to me that's a it's a different way to say how well does this fit how well does this site accommodate this use how well does this use fit this site and I got issues with that when I take a look at a list of 12 variances all of which that deal with setbacks are violated you don't meet one setback I don't think not one setback requirement and if you take a look at two measures that in my mind scream over development I'm talking about F and lot coverage your F it's more than three times greater than what's allowed to square footage not 3% not 13 but three times greater than what's allowed your lot coverage more than 50% greater than what's allowed to me overuse overdevelopment they're screaming that at me I help me come to terms with that first there's no area on this site that could be built without a variance because the shape of the property um your ordinance you heard this from the site engineer there's no buildable area on the site per zoning right so that's effectively a taking of the property if if you if you um didn't award any relief to an applicate they can't do anything with the property um Flor air ratio right that that's a measure of of mass and intensely on his site right um you saw the architectural elevations that showed that the building um I I felt could be harmoniously integrated onto this on this property wasn't overly large it's well lower in height than than permitted by the zoning ordinance it could have been taller um in theory these self storage facilities could be have greater volume in that manner it's not like your your office space um and one of the key aspects here is is that the site is so wide it's a th000 feet wide so while the building is is somewhat long it's 300 ft it still only represents a third of the property so when you're driving by still 66% of the property is going to feel without building because it's over a, fet in width um the design was was intended to keep it lower because that was the existing height of the building in place today and again the f is calculating it's adding and I don't want to say artificially inflating but it's it's elevating the actual calculation based on slopes that that are from already Disturbed lands and from building area that's built into the grade right that's not changing the mass of the building and because it's a self- storage facility I mean part of the f is designed to um regulate intensity right and these are passive facilities so by there being more square footage it's not making it in an overly intense facility I mean while this board doesn't EV evaluate factors for economic development but we're meeting your impervious coverage requirement and we're where these facilities are permitted in your m1b District at the 40% you allow them to be at 60% so arguably there could be a facility with less square footage more imperious coverage that you would have to uh control per se here the applicant's reducing the storm water on the site it's making it better for the neighborhood and it's doing its best to architecturally harmoniously integrate a building to appear like a permitted use in the zone the office space so if it looks and feels like an office and it's passive I don't believe it's I think it's it works well here and it's it's the best transitional land use that you can have from a commercial property to a a residential Zone would you want to live next to something that's more overly intense than a passive use like this and the answer I think is no Mr Ricky maybe also excuse me excuse me what I'd like to live next to is a smaller version of what you're proposing I mean if you were if you were to come back with a smaller proposal your setbacks would be improved your F would be improved your coverage would be improved all of those things matter and you could do a better job of meeting what the what the land use ordinance requires okay Mr Ricky maybe you can also rev nursing homes Continuing Care retirement facilities congregate care facilities assisted living facilities senior housing not necessarily Self Storage um that's correct yes um on that on that question you have there to your to your um professional what's the what's the highest f um in in Bridgewater zoning currently I did look at this in previously one point just give me one moment I think it's 0.35% but I don't want to speak um with the with a an exception or two MH I I think I think it's probably around that or point4 and maybe the the board attorneys can if they have that information but we're if we're we're saying 35 or 04 and as that General range like okay but we're we're we're we're talking about 0.9 here so we're like double what any you know the highest allowed development is in Bridgewater uh true and and and I also suggested that um when we that's Char that's also characterizing slopes on the property um that I've already been Disturbed and the number before that calculation was closer to it was 0.693 and then um about 2third of the of the ground floor of the building are underground that aren't creating mass or for this use intensity so they're not making the building appear larger so I think um the FL a ratio feels a lot smaller than that 0.905 because um if there wasn't that that slope calculation on early Disturbed slopes that calculation is the total square footage right divided by the lot area because it's the slope my point is the slopes on the property don't change the mass of the building um building into the grade doesn't change the the mass of the building and for this land use it doesn't change the intensity of the building because you're for Flor ratio right again you're you're regulating mass and you're regulating intensity so I think the numbers a lot closer realistically if you can characterize those two functions than what's being presented at that 0.905 number I think you I think the previous gentleman does 5.69 as the are without considering steep slopes I believe 693 and that doesn't Factor the the square footage of the of the the building that's underground because it's based on square footage it's not based on square footage that's visible to the naked eye okay and what zone would this facility be best suited in um it's only permitted today in your m1b district and what's the F for that District uh I believe it's 355 okay all right no further questions any other board members just curiosity the research that you did the other per Dem well I suggested that there's a high amount of office vacancy in in the county the area in the state overall right um and then you're looking at Assisted Living type facilities so um I mean the applicant did reach out to the neighboring property there there was an interest there could it conceivably be uh was it fully evaluated with another assisted living facility uh could go there um no but that that facility is going to you know require more parking and and and service needs in this facility um but no um I don't have a conclusive answer whether another assisted living facility would would move here or not it's after 10 o'clock we're going to wrap up um Mr melic we'll see you on June 11th it sounds like all right for members of the public we're going to talk about reot in so uh for members of the public this meeting will continue on June 11th at 700 p.m. in this room there will be no further notices from the applicant and we will continue with the cross-examination of Mr Ricky all right thank you yeah oh easily all right thank you uh so members of the public this will be continued June 11th 2024 at 7 p.m. our next board meeting is April 23rd 2024 7 p.m. we have a residential case that evening and we have a uh application by 12200 Route 22 okay get a motion to adjourn please I move all right Mr widely Mr gaski all right thank you everyone good night okay