Snapbox Self Storage, represented by COO Matthew Lang, presented revised plans for a facility on Chimney Rock Road. Lang detailed the company’s decade-long experience, highlighting its presence in 10 states with over 50 locations. The Bridgewater facility would cater to underserved local storage demands, featuring climate-controlled units and emphasizing customer access and visibility.

Operational aspects such as access hours, security protocols, including 24-hour cameras and keypad entrance, and prohibited items in storage were detailed by Lang. He assured the board of minimal daily customer traffic and underscored the facility’s low impact on local real estate and negligible overnight parking.

Security discussions ensued, with Lang confirming the presence of motion sensor doors and surveillance systems. The board probed into Snapbox’s management strategies, specifically emergency response plans, rental agreement durations, and protocols for abandoned vehicles.

The design and scale of the proposed building were questioned, with the board expressing concerns about the necessity of the proposed 129,000 square foot size and the presence of non-rentable “dead space.” Lang was pressed to justify the facility’s scale and to ensure it would not deviate into unauthorized warehousing operations, given Bridgewater Township Council’s recent ordinance changes.

Rosalind West Lake, representing Arthur Self Storage, inquired about the annual service agreement with the property owner and the reservation process for loading docks, while former Zoning Board member Evans Humer probed into the applicant’s experience and concerns over potential hazardous materials storage.

Resident participation was notable, with former UPS driver Nora O’Neal Cole questioning the misuse of customer access codes and Ashley Shes inquiring about the facility’s impact on property values and crime rates. The board and facility representatives addressed traffic concerns, specifically the potential hazards posed by the facility’s driveways onto Route 22.

The demographic served by the facility was a point of debate, with the applicant explaining that the facility targets a broad range, including both homeowners and apartment dwellers. However, the board and local residents raised concerns about the potential influx of customers from neighboring towns.

A discussion about neighborhood drainage issues was raised by a concerned resident, highlighting flooding problems exacerbated by heavy rains, including storm Ida in 2021. The board addressed this alongside questioning the applicant’s office hours and the necessity of a new facility in a market potentially facing surplus and vacancy issues.

Credibility challenges arose as a resident attorney questioned the applicant’s authorization to operate in New Jersey and the history of their facilities, demanding documentation to support their testimony. This contentious exchange underscored the scrutiny the applicant faced regarding business operations and the proposed location’s suitability.

The board attorney and members delved into the company’s litigation history and market analysis approach, debating the relevance of the operator’s suitability in the land use approval process. The proposed facility’s architect provided an overview of the design, including a three-story building with a retail section, responding to inquiries about height, size, and layout considerations.