The most notable topic of the meeting was the proposed self-storage facility by Bridgewater Self Storage LLC, located on Route 28 and 322 Route 22. The plan involves consolidating two commercial lots into a single parcel to construct a new facility. This development would require multiple variances, including a use variance to permit self-storage in a commercial district and a floor area variance, among others. The proposal has undergone several revisions since its initial presentation, with notable changes aimed at reducing the building height and altering the facade to better align with the local architectural style.

A central point of concern was the traffic implications of the proposed facility. The project necessitated a review of traffic operations, with the zoning board evaluating the adequacy of parking and the potential impact on local traffic patterns. The proposed 15 parking spaces for the facility raised questions, with some participants concerned about whether this would suffice, given the facility’s potential to generate more traffic than anticipated, especially during peak hours. Comparisons were drawn between the existing traffic generated by current site uses, such as a farm stand and office building, and the anticipated traffic from the self-storage facility. According to the traffic engineer, the new development would result in fewer peak hour trips, thus not adversely affecting area traffic.

However, skepticism from the public highlighted the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the local traffic dynamics. Participants voiced concerns about the reliance on potentially outdated traffic data. The applicant’s representative assured that the Department of Transportation (DOT) would conduct detailed on-site evaluations to address these concerns, particularly regarding the facility’s access point on a curve of Route 22, where visibility issues were noted.

In addition to traffic concerns, the architectural design of the proposed facility was scrutinized. Revisions to the building’s design included reducing its height from an original 36 feet to approximately 31 feet and modifying its facade to incorporate earth tones and faux glazing. Despite these changes, some board members and public participants questioned whether the design sufficiently integrated into the surrounding environment. Discussions focused on whether the proposed color palette, which included “natural white” and “Van Dyke,” truly met the classification of earth tones, with some noting discrepancies in visual representation between renderings and actual samples.

The landscaping plan was another topic of discussion. The proposal included a revised plan to replace 129 trees with 294 new plantings. However, a waiver was requested as only 51.1% of the buffer plantings would be evergreens, below the required 75%. This aspect of the plan highlighted the challenges of meeting regulatory requirements while balancing ecological considerations, such as avoiding competition among trees for resources.

The meeting also addressed safety measures related to lighting and emergency access. The project includes security lighting designed to prevent spillover into adjacent areas and an emergency access driveway off Route 28, which would be gated to restrict use to emergency vehicles only. These measures were intended to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring properties and ensure compliance with safety standards.

Public comments brought forth additional concerns, particularly regarding the potential for increased traffic hazards and the adequacy of parking facilities. Some residents suggested that the facility’s design could distract drivers, posing risks on Route 22. The applicant reiterated that the project’s design adhered to DOT standards and that the anticipated reduction in traffic volume from current site uses justified the proposed parking allocation.