##VIDEO ID:PByCb2wqlCw## e e e e 17th 20 24 adequate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the open public meetings Act njsa 10 4-6 on February 7th 2024 proper notice was sent to The Courier News and the Star Ledger and filed with the clerk at the township of Bridgewater and posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building Please be aware of the planning board policy for public hearings no new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10: p.m. hearing assistance is is available upon request accommodation will be made for individuals with a disability pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or Ada provided the individual with the disability provides 48 Hours advance notice to the planning department secretary before the public meeting however if the individual should require special equipment or services such as a Cart transcriber 7 Days advanced notice excluding weekends and holidays may be necessary would everyone please rise to salute the flag I pled aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all Miss probes could I have a roll call please Herman besso here here Mr will be Mr M here Mr Wang here s here Mr B Char Mr Chow yes Mr will beard attorney engine thank you Miss PR okay at this time I'd like to invite any members of the public wishing to address the board on any land use matter any land use matter that's not on the application this evening may do so at this evening on the agenda my apologies please feel free to come forward at this time okay seeing none moving along we'll be moving straight into our Land Development applications for the evening and we do have three applications to he this evening uh just a quick note uh we are hearing uh an application h this evening RI Heritage in and Chick-fil-A uh I will aot as best uh to my ability about an hour approximately to each application give or take and we'll beginning this evening with h hulia it's a continuance from May 21st 2024 that's block 150 Lots 12 and 13 commonly known as 147 Chestnut Street and who is returning this evening to represent the applicant good evening Mr chairman board members members of the public my name is Michael silbert and I'm an attorney at the law firm de Frisco baitman located in Warren Township New Jersey I have the privilege this evening of representing the applicant Julia hos in connection with an application for minor subdivision approval for property located at block 150 Lots 12 and 13 we're commonly known as 140 147 Chestnut Street the property is located in the Township's r10 single family residential Zone District so uh as Mr chairman indicated it's been quite a bit of time since we last appeared before the board on this application just just to refresh the board's Collective recollection we have presented this application on numerous occasions on April 16th May 7th and on May 21st all in 2024 lot lot 13 features an existing single family dwelling an accessory detached garage and a shed Lot 12 is currently vacant with landscaping and a gate so as the board may recall while the lots are shown as separate on the Township's tax maps the applicant seeks minor subdivision approval to prevent lot merger this subdivision aims to confirm and preserve Lots 12 and 13 as separate Lots along with many of the existing non-conformities attached to each respective lot Additionally the applicant seek C variants relief to allow the construction of a single family dwelling on Lot 12 the applicant proposes to install a 6 foot high privacy fence along the northern property line of Lot 12 between Lot 12 and adjacent lot 11 I highlight that because that was a a point of emphasis on the board over the course of the three hearings on this application um the applicant really went out of her way to incorporate every one of the board's suggestions over the course of those three hearings in order to address the board's and the Public's concerns as it relates to this application as requested by the board the applicant revised the application to provide a conforming 15ot sidey yard setback between the proposed Welling on Lot 12 and the northern property line shared with the applicant's neighbor adjacent lot 11 the applicant agreed to completely eliminate the existing accessory detached garage in lot 13 Even though that was again uh recently renovated the applicant agreed to relocate the existing shed on lot 13 and finally the applicant agreed to reduce lot coverage on lot 13 to comply with the lot coverage requirements of the r10 single family residential Zone District I just want to be clear um that in my opinion over the course of the three hearings the board's number one concern on this application was storm water management and lock coverage because the applicant was so willing to accommodate and work with the board these revisions in connection with this application actually result in an overall reduction in lot coverage for the property compared to the existing coverage across both Lots so for example currently the combined lot coverage is 35.5% where 35% is permitted in the zone the proposed law coverage in connection with this revised application will be 29.8% for Lot 12 and 32.8% for lot 13 resulting in a combined total of 31.3% it was the opinion uh at that time I believe back in on either May 7th or May 21st of the board's engineer that based upon the reduction in lot coverage on the overall properties the application actually resulted in an improvement to storm water storm water management conditions versus what currently exists on the property additionally this application eliminates all pre-existing non-conformities regarding the side yard and rear yard setbacks with respect to the um accessory shed which through its proposed relocation on lot 13 we actually concluded our affirmative application at the May 21st 2024 hearing but we requested an adjournment to allow the municipality sufficient time or at least we hoped we would had allowed the municipality sufficient time to adop an updated master plan I reiterate due to the undersized nature of the Lots there remain certain variances that are unavoidable for these proper for these two lots most of which create deviations between the setback requirements for the Lots owned by Miss Julia hos and the deviations are not between the neighboring lots and point of emphasis for the board so the bulk standard deviations that are that are com these are all bulk standard deviations that are common throughout Bradley Gardens which I'll just just detail briefly um for example the applicant seeks to preserve the existing lot areas of 6501 square feet for Lot 12 and 6510 squ ft for lot 13 where 10,000 squ ft is the minimum lot size required in the zone both lots have an existing lot width of 50 ft where 100 ft is required the applicant seeks to preserve the existing front yard setback deviation of 2268 ft for lot 13 or 30 ft is required the applicant seeks to preserve the existing minimum sidey yard setback on lot 13 where 6.84 ft is proposed and 15 ft is required the applicant seeks to preserve the existing combined sidey yard setback deviation on lot 13 where 2055 ft is proposed and 40 feet is required these are all existing non-conformities that the applicant wishes to preserve by securing subdivision approval from the board and preventing lot merger the only true new variances that result by way of this application is con is in connection with the new proposed dwelling on Lot 12 there are two sidey guard variance requests again they're unavoidable one from the minimum sidey guard setback where 9 ft is proposed and 15 ft is required and the combined sidey setback where 24 feet is proposed and 40 ft is required as previously stated these departures are merely the result of the existing lot width and lot area deviations they are truly unavoidable what the applicant has agreed to do at the request of the board was to enure that the impacts of those deviations are only only to be realized between Lots 12 and 13 and that the deviations would not be felt aside from the visual impact which all address momentarily by the applicant's neighbors as you may recall it was represented to the app represented by the applicant to the board that the township was undergoing significant changes I'm sorry it was represented by the board to the applicant that the township was undergoing significant changes to its master plan explicitly saying that some of these changes were being done to address the Siz lot issue throughout Bradley Gardens which is why we are before the board in connection with this minor subdivision application so the application was to prevent this application as I mentioned was to prevent the merger of two undersized Lots under the doctrine of lot merger while the Lots uh appear as separate and distinct Lots on the Township tax maps uh they cannot be conveyed as separate Lots as a matter of law unless the board grants subdivision approval and the variance relief to effectuate same an adjournment request was granted at the last hearing on this application to afford the township the necessary time to finalize its updated master plan we had hoped that the that this would allow the township with enough time to specifically address one of the recommendations found in the 2022 master plan reexamination report which reads a new master plan is recommended the study of zoning changes should include additional permitted uses where appropriate considerations should be made to offer revision CL ification and amplification of uses that are viewed as archaic and here's specifically what I hope the township would focus on quote amending bulk standards may be considered to achieve consistency with lot sizes and neighborhood development patterns I would like to take a bit of time to remind the board of how this application directly flows to the 2022 reexamination report and its recommendation that bulk standard should be considered to achieve consistency with lot sizes and neighborhood development patterns and this goes exact uh flows right into the visual impacts of undersized Lots so at the May 7th hearing on this application the board heard expert planning testimony and Engineering testimony from Mr Dey and Mr Styers respectively they testified to the fact that many of the nearby lots and Bradley Gardens are similarly undersized and that the application before the board tonight would in fact achieve consistency with existing lot sizes and neighborhood development patterns throughout Bradley Gardens specifically the following lot heard the exhibits presented at the previous hearings and I think we could even look at exhibit A2 in in Block 150 along Chestnut Street the following lots are undersized not including lots 12 and lot 13 but lot three lot four lot 5 Lot 12 lot 13 lot 14 Lot 15 in Block 151 along Chestnut Street across the street from the applicant's property the following lots are undersized lot one lot 6 Lot 8 lot 9 Lot 10 lot 11 Lot 12 lot 14 Lot 15 and lot 17 in total there are 40 there are 34 Lots in this section of Chestnut Street and of those 34 Lots 17 of them are undersized which represents 50% of the Lots in this portion of Bradley Gardens alone this accounting does not reflect the extraordinarily high percentage of undersized and non-conform Lots throughout Bradley Gardens as a whole I don't have an exact number at the top of my hand but our planner testified that the percentage of non-conforming and undersized Lots throughout Bradley Gardens is significantly greater than what is along the applicant section of Chestnut Street the the point that I'm trying to make is if and if it's for some reason unclear the point is that this minor subdivision and the deviations request requested in connection with this application is in fact consistent with the with the properties along Chestnut Street and it is consistent with the overarching lot sizes throughout Bradley Gardens similar to what our planner testified to there are there can be no substantial detriments to the public good as a result of this application since the visual impacts that are to result by way of this subdivision are the ordinary and customary impacts associated with undersized Lots throughout both Chestnut Street and throughout the overall Bradley Gardens neighborhood since the the board is rightfully concerned with how this application impacts the Zone plan this application epitomizes the 2022 master plan reexamination recommendation that bulk standards should be considered to achieve consistency with lot sizes and neighborhood development patterns well that can't be done if somewhere between 85 and 90% of Bradley Gardens is undersized when uh lot width of 100 feet in Bradley Gardens is required and a lot area of 10,000 square feet is required so I our our representation is that this application is certainly not inconsistent with this portion of Bradley Gardens along Chestnut Street and certainly does not represent just by the Numbers alone a substantial and the key word is a a substantial impairment of the Zone plan again I'm not I again I'm deferring to Mr Dow's testimony from the May 7th hearing that approximately 85% of the Lots in Bradley Gardens remain undersized so in conclusion this application has undergone now four extensive and extremely costly hearings during which the applicant has consistently Dem demonstrated her willingness to address the board's concerns at every stage this includes her agreement to remove the garage despite its recent renovation and our efforts to reduce overall lot coverage which constitutes clear improvements to the existing conditions the applicants uh a single mother and a longtime Bridgewater resident has a proven track record of success evidenced by the substantial improvements already made to the house on lot 13 if you recall we went through all these pictures of what the house looked like and the the proposed changes are certainly not a c not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and they will comply the proposed home on Lot 12 will comply fully with the F and the building height requirements and it also includes an the applicant's commitment to install a buffer on the Northern side of Lot 12 to ensure privacy for the neighboring property um my understanding is that the applicant has attempted in the time between May 21st and this hearing to approach her neighbors and try to work out some of their disagreements and differences I don't know if she was successful in working out with every neighbor but the neighbor directly adjacent to our lot 11 indicated that she was uh accepted the application was okay with the changes I don't know if she's here this evening um but that was my understanding based upon the representations made to me by the applicant so I thank the board again for their consideration on this application and I respectfully request the board Grant Miss H's subdivision requests with the variance relief requested and and take into consideration the entire neighborhood so thank you thank you Mr Silber for bringing us back up to speed uh certainly uh the board has uh deliberated this quite a bits over the past four hearings now four hearings um Mr PE I'd like to just segue a quick second here there have been quite a few conditions uh that have been well yeah but first the uh the public okay has the opportunity to comment then once once they're done we can run through what the motion should be can we just clarify first the variances that beinged yeah give me one second am been so many Chang es so um okay so we're seeking a uh lot area variance for both Lots 6501 for Lot 12 6510 for lot 13 where 10,000 ft is the minimum lot size required in the zone both lots have an existing lot with of 50 ft so we're and 100 ft is required um the applicant seeks to preserve the existing front yard setback deviation of 2268 ft for lot 13 where 30 ft is required that's the lot with the existing dwelling on it the applicant seeks to preserve the existing minimum sidey yard setback on lot 13 where 6.84 ft is proposed and 15 ft is required the applican seeks to preserve the existing combined yard setback deviation on lot 13 where 20.5 2055 ft is proposed and 40 ft is required and those were all the existing non-conformities so the the new variances that are being sought in connection with the construction of the dwelling on Lot 12 would be from the minimum sidey setback requirements where 9 ft is proposed on Lot 12 and 15 ft is required similarly there's a combined side yard setback requirement of 40 ft and with respect to Lot 12 we're proposing a setback of 24t sure thank you Mr cor any other questions from our board any comments miss sardan Mr Burr um have there any been discussions with the applicant uh since the last hearing or uh what are some of the improvements that have been made in the interim and uh how would that have affected the storm water situation that we've all been so concerned about um I I have not spoken to the applicant or the applicant's professional since the May 201 first hearing I think there were three hearings as we heard one in April two in May um there were a number of concessions made to reduce the coverage on the lot to the first hearing there was a preliminary um agreement for lack of a better word to investigate doing drainage mitigation on the site after the first hearing um the applicant's engineer came back in May and said soil testing did not provide for satisfactory soils to allow for dry Wells like to be installed so what they did in exchange is further rework their plan to reduce the coverage on the existing lot as well as to try to keep the new construction to a minimum as I understand um the coverage has been reduced the garage has been has been removed there's been an agreement to um upgrade the SW the the the Swale or drainage easement that is between the two lots that I believe there was an agreement that the homeowner would maintain that in perpetuity the only issue that um I really don't have at my fingertips is an updated plan to show some of the conditions that i s that I suspect the board is going to discuss shortly this is approved so on the latest version of the plan that I have it does still show a lock coverage issue but the testimony at the May 21st meeting was that the coverage is now under what's allowed so certainly a condition of of any approval by the board is to have an updated set of plans that clearly shows coverage is under if if the numbers work out and that that that um those revised plans are provided then I agree with Mr silbert from a drainage perspective the runoff leaving these two properties in effect would be less than what's there now just by virtue of reducing the coverage so as we to understand it even though the soil percolation is not necessarily satisf Factory because the coverage is significantly reduced in the latest iteration of this that's a bit of a safeguard they're they're reducing the coverage below now they have to show it on the plan but the testimony by the applicants engineer is that they're reducing the coverage in the proposed setting below what exists today so that that will represent an approved condition right there um and there's been some landscaping that's proposed as well I believe is is one of the conditions that was agreed to I think there were a number of ARB that were going to be removed my notes indicate a prior concession to replant in that area which certainly would help um the cleaning and maintenance of that drainage easement which is along the common property line of 12 and 13 would help as well um there were some unidentified pipes brought up at one of the hearings which I think I think they was some direction that they either were decommissioned or or no longer existed I I'd have to take my take a look at my notes on that particular issue but there's definitely been some improvements proposed uh through the course of the three hearings that you know the appli for thank you Mr Burr M sad any questions or commentary based on that no I'll reiterate what Mr bur said about needing revised plans of is approved I think a condition should be included that the plans reflect what was testified to so we have you know something in front of us that we can use um for your question earlier about meeting with the applicant uh similar to Mr Burr there was no conversations about um anything regarding the application um I think one of the representatives from the applicant um did reach out to the township to discuss the master plan to discuss um looking at not this particular site but the Bradley Gard Gardens zoning as it relates to um a potent feedback for the master plan to consider a recommendation that it be analyzed um not consider a zone change necessarily but it was discussed that a zoning analysis would have to be conducted to confirm what the um number of lots are that are non-conforming um and then maybe maybe look at the zone change at a future date um but as far as the master plan goes I know that they were kind of it sounds like from the closing statement that they were relying upon the master plan um to move forward and it didn't move forward in that timeline but that's not to say that the master PL would have included anything in particular to this site um we did we are you know we take feedback under advisement as far as what would go in the master plan but like I said earlier um it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be a recommendation or be an analysis or be a firm change at this point in time so um you know I know that it was delayed and we apologize for that and it's going to be underway in 2025 um but in no way I don't think that has an impact on on this application okay and I know board engineer Mr burd just testified to uh a little bit more of the buffering I think with the adjacent lot to the north if I'm not mistaken uh that that was some of the concerns that we heard here on the deis as well uh that buffering would that be essentially to screen from the higher elevation to the lower elevation and is that something that they've proposed uh to improve upon or because I remember during the last hearing that I believe some of that buffering was proposed within that easement there uh that's not marked on the plans I was not privy to the conversations that Mr silverite noticed about uh with between the applicant and the neighbor um so I don't know I I mean it would have been nice to have maybe an updated rough plan of what that Landscaping buffer might include so we um so we know what that conversation was but again I think that'd be something that we'd condition shown on the plan that landscape buffer um and we'd have to understand you know if the the neighbor is here tonight or wants to there was a proposed condition that as regards any Landscaping that the applicant would work with the board's professionals to make sure that whatever went in was appropriate both from a screening and from a storm water management standpoint Mr chairman one more um Point Mr silbert did just give me a copy of a plan looks like it's dated revised April 26th which I believe is the plan that was testified to at the May 21st meeting I didn't have a copy of that on my file so it may very well be that partially updated there may be some other updates necessary but partially updated plans we're already at least testified to we'll take a look at this but I can tell you that the plan I'm seeing does show the reduced loot coverages below the 35% is Max for boths this is what I I I think it the plan that I gave to Mr bur was probably an exhibit that was depicted not submitted to the board uh just because we didn't have enough time to do it 10 days in advance um I don't know what it was marked at the hearing I don't know if Mr happens to have might have been A4 was the colorized grading soil erosion plan it was introduced on May Mr Silber can you just confirm that the the you noted the coverage earlier I think you represented as 32.3 I know it's conforming now but there was that was probably the most changed condition that started from a variance condition and a variance relief request initially and then was reduced based on the um reduction coverage and the elimination of the garage the detached garage I think I gave I gave a couple of numbers because I gave the proposed coverage on Lot 12 and lot 13 and I believe one of the members of the board's uh board had asked me what it would be if you combine the Lots together but the um coverage between on Lot 12 is uh is 29 8% and on lot 13 it's 32.8% thank you I just wanted to confirm I think the the third number I gave was if you were to combine the two lots just to demonstrate that it was less than H the existing coverage if the Lots were to be combined into one lot thank you thank you mrman the exhibits A3 was an overlay showing changes uh to the plan dep piting a deck stairs to the basement uh shed movement A4 was an aerial of the neighborhood and A5 was a colorized grading plan okay so so what my mistake so would so the the plan the print out that I gave to Mr Burr was A5 which was presented to the board on May 21st and I believe that conditioned to uh to provide buffering along the property line between Lot 12 and lot 11 came out of that hearing but we have not actually revised the plan to show it we've just agreed to work to uh the satisfaction of the board's Professionals in order to provide adequate buffering there and Bill do you you agree that that what's depicted on that plan would be an improvement storm water management wise over what exists today I yes yeah so I think we had said that the house width cannot exceed 26 feet and that was to ensure that the minimum sidey guard setback to our to the neighbor's property on Lot 12 would be preserved at 15 ft offet it's offset and there's a Devi between the applicants properties Lots 12 and 13 we are not creating a deviation with respect to the neighboring lot 11 thank you Mr yes please Mr chadri I think uh Mr Silver last time um there's also you actually have addressed the issue of uh you'll be cutting that all the shrubs on the uh backside I think to make the space and also uh there's a drain water uh concern was there for the back uh property I the the plan that I have here and I don't remember off the top of my head shows that we were going to be planting additional shrubs on the on the rear portion of the properties and and additionally what we had agreed to was to plant additional buffering shrubs on the Northern side of property between Lots uh 11 and 12 know that if that's that that I remember very well okay uh I was just thinking about I think the concerns from the neighbors for uh drain Waters from the going back side on the Raritan side yeah right right yeah so we so what we have shown here uh and I wish I had a a blow up of the board but I don't have it because our we had concluded our affirmative application I know it's a long time ago but we are showing uh and I will uh the applicant will certainly agree to provide shrubs and buffering on the um on that on the rear side of the property or the east side of the property between the property line rid in Bridgewater Township that should hopefully help with with drainage as well also in your original drawing you also planted uh supposed to plant some tree on the front I guess uh this is one tree is here uh the on the drawing the first it was placed I think on the road side I don't remember what what was proposed as far as uh Street trees on the on the front uh I I didn't I don't recall requesting any variance or waiver relief from that no there is no waiver there because of that you are cutting the three steps I don't remember what was testified to in all honesty based on the fact that we're not requesting any wavers or or deviations from that requirement I'm assuming that we're we're compliant with that but thank you I don't remember what what Craig had testified thank you chairman does that conclude your question Mr chowri yes please thank you thank you any other members of our board any commentary okay at this time I'd like to open up to any members of the public that wish to ask questions or comments rather comments based on the application that was heard over the past now four hearings as the opportunity to just give your opinion please feel free to come forward at this time please state your name and address we'll have to swear the man okay could you raise your right hand please do you swear airm that any testimony you're going to give in connection with this hearing will be the truth or nothing but the truth sir thank you could you state and spell your name for the record name is Paul verer 148 Chestnut Street um the last meeting that we were here there was a lot of talk about water drainage there was a comment made by a board member that everybody has water no big deal well back in August of 18th we had a thunderstorm I've got pictures from that thunderstorm of the flood waters running right across that lot that they want build a house in I'm glad to show them to you you can have them yeah we can mark them as an exhibit could you show Mr silbert first and then if if those are your only copies we'll have to keep keep those with with Miss probest M Mr chairman can can I just ask a qu a clarifying question did I hear you say that a member of the board said everybody has water because yes all right I don't know who that was I don't want to mention the names all right I I mean I know my position is that water and runoff and where water's going to go is a major concern yeah in this in this neighborhood and everywhere I know okay thank you thank you Council yeah sure go ahead we're taking a photo break here and we'll we'll call those 01 matter of fact the one neighbor right next to us we had to run out and push our car out of the flood just to get her out dry you what were the conditions this week you know we didn't have a we didn't have a deluge but there was a pretty fair amount of rain you know yesterday the day before what what were the were the conditions similar well I wasn't really home this past week but it wasn't not like it was on the 18 of uh August okay there was actually water coming from lynen Street down a guy's backyard through the driveway which is in the pictures about that much oh yeah sure could you just hear them at the end and then everyone can get a chance just then you can take a look pass them down and then we don't have to wait it's it's it for me unless you have something else you want to say no I just wanted to show you make aware of the water you have them they they'll now be a part of the record everyone's going to take a look pass them down yeah so everyone will see them I'll just see the group because I have to thank you thank you there any other members of the public that wish to comment please feel free to come forward at this time please before we said anything you can't read any letters from any other neighbors I know the Anthony in the back wanted to be here he couldn't have a school function a few other neighbors wanted to be here same thing School functions they couldn't be here he's got a letter he said if he couldn't read it if he could look at it at least or I think he did send a copy I think he told me to the planning board but he's the one directly in back the problem is is anybody who gives testimony which that would be have to give the opportunity for the applicant and the board to cross-examine that person so if they're not here you know you can't cross-examine a a letter yeah I know he did he did call he tried to see because yeah I saw there was postponed so many times I saw an email he did a letter just just to you know do that but uh was this individual at our previous hearing yeah he's been here twice did he speak earlier in the hearing yeah yeah Anthony uh he spoke twice is this the ritton resident or a Bridgewater resident ritton resident okay matter of fact he was supposed to have a friend here tonight I believe he did live on Obert Street he was an engineer and he was going to come here testify I think also speak on it I don't know if he was able to make it tonight or not though I don't know who he was or is this the resident that shares a lot line to the rear of the property I don't know he did live on Obert at one time or he might live on Obert I'm not sure but I know he's an engineer and he was supposed to be here so I don't know if he was able to come here or not made it or not and like you said in reference to that last storm that one that was August 18th was not a big storm either it wasn't that much rain maybe an inch or something you know it wasn't that big it was quick but it wasn't any major thing and the pictures that you see there they're actually delayed by the time we find out we got out we said let's go get some pictures we had talked to some residents the water was actually a lot higher than what it receded quite a bit what's the date of Aug I think it was August 18th I think that was I think we had about an inch or something and like you said yesterday or you know the r we had it was I think we looked at our rain gauge we might have gotten an inch total but that was over from what was it Monday night you're giving testimony could you uh yes you swear or firm that the testimony you've already given and that you will give in the course of this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth yes I do thank you could you just State and spell your name for the record uh Eugene jorski j z i o r s Ki we're at 145 ches Street thank you like I said you know the rain we had yesterday wasn't really or day before that wasn't much and it was spread you know was about an inch total but that was spread over whatever 18 hours and it was almost like a a light rain of Miss so it really wasn't anything heavy that's going to build up or anything like that and you know like you said do a lot of the lots are undersized if you know if you took all those lots that were unders side you you know you could Grant this here A subdivision next thing you know you've got everybody we've got a few people that couldn't make it said the same thing I've got 100 foot I've got this you know what if they can do that why can't I do it maybe we'll do the same thing and we'll put two houses on there and we'll rent the other one out and they said well why would they stop me if you you know approve one why would you you stop the others because if everybody does it next thing you know you've got more water run off more water and you know we wish the former person that owned that house was here he was the one that owned all three lots he built the stuff he worked for the township he knew a lot we said there's a reason why that house is on that one side and the others was left open it's either land that you could use for recreation but it was the lowest spot and it does you know on really some bigger storms it'll flood a lot you know you probably didn't want to put up at the water and there Ser a lots I know our neighbors have the same thing they've got a large lot the hous is on one side you know a lot of houses are that way and like you said if you you could say okay we're going to 9 foot you know uh what's it set or not setback but uh I for what it's called you know instead of the 15 foot you know it's going to be nine you could do that all over the place and next thing you know people are going to say well why can't I do that they've done it this one's done it and if you have everybody saying I want to divide my lot and do it I would you stop it and next thing you know you could say what like he said 50% of the houses are uh or lots are undersized if you start everything doing it you're going to have so many houses you'd have water running off all over the place you know and like you said the way it is now no matter what you do more hous it's just going to impact you know you're going to have more land being taken up and you're going to have more impact the water is just going to it's got to go somewhere and no matter what you do it's coming down Chestnut right to that Baseline it's going to go into that pipe and no matter what you do it's not going to handle any any more water can only handle so much and then it backs up this like last time we had that couple inches it backed up a lot of the basements got water there's nowhere for the water to go and I don't know if there's a picture on there of Obert I don't know if that was sent to you or not because Anthony had sent me a picture I did have that picture with me I think on the phone and it showed Obert same thing you know a foot deep right across there the whole thing was all filled with water just from that little inch on August 18th so you know everything they do it does impact right thank you thank you any other members of the public please feel free to come forward at this time good evening you swear airm that the testimony you're going to give in the course of this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth yes I do could you state and spell your name for the record uh yes my name is Dominic kuso C A R Uso um I've been a longstanding uh resident of Bridgewater Township for a little over 52 years and I don't really have comment specifically about this site but more about the overall area there um and my family has been developing and building real estate throughout Bridgewater Township for many many decades we've built a lot of properties in the in the area um and we've been doing it for a long time um the applicant is a family friend and had asked me to look originally at their application when I was going through the maps I looked more at the overall area and what I found um when I looked at the over area the concern was that um the properties in this area it's an r10 Zone and when you look at it uh in all the blocks there's about eight blocks of homes which Encompass about us probably several hundred homes and when you go through that there's only about 50 or 60 that are conform to the r10 Zone the other SE several hundred Lots in that eight block area do not conform and I think and I had brought this to the Township's attention I had meetings with our mayor had meetings with the administrator I had meetings with the professionals and I had said to them that I believe that it's an injustice that's being done to the majority of the homeowners in this area not because of with this border what this what the current Administration has done but many decades ago other Administration came in and just put a blanket zone of r10 over over all this area and most of the Lots the majority of about 85% of them were uh nonconforming at that point because they basically pre-existed and the majority of them are 50 foot wide Lots so anyone that lives in this area and we all know the demand for housing and young people that want to come to Bridgewater other people that want to buy homes in Bridgewater there's just not enough inventory and as a builder when I look into an area like this I would say okay I can't divide I can't build on a 50 foot wide lot because it doesn't conform to the Zone but I also can't buy two lots because you'd have to buy two houses to create one conforming zone so it precludes any Builder from going in there to try to improve the area or to do a renovation or to do an addition on a house or to knock it down and put up a new new construction the same thing is for the homeowners because it's a 50 the majority of the lots are 50 foot wide they can never widen their house they can't they the only thing they could do is go out the back because the backyard but maybe if they have enough room they can go out and a lot of the lots that I looked at they're all non-conforming because they're all 50 foot wide some of them are 200 feet deep which makes it a 10,000 square foot lot so in that case it meets a bulk requirement but the ones that are 100 feet or 125 ft they're 5,000 6,000 7,000 foot Lots these homeowners and these Property Owners it makes it impossible for them to either want to widen their home for them to either want to sell it to somebody else that wants to buy it and widen and renovate that home or possibly construct a new home and it just makes an impossible situation which is what I had relayed to the mayor to the professionals to the township to say this needs to be looked at because if you vote to deny one homeowner the ability because the only relief that people have is to come to this board and you have to live within the zoning that was created many many decades ago that relief though for majority of these homeowners in this area is very costly and it's very timec consuming so most of them are not going to do it the ones that will do it like Mrs hos who's taking the time and effort to do it um she spent the time she's spending the money to do um it's it I believe that it's an injustice not only to her but to also all the homeowners in this area because if you deny her then you're denying everyone that owns property in this area I think the town needs to look at the overall area and they need to either grandfather in the homes that were pre-existing with 50 50 W foot wide Lots which is the majority of them within this area so that's what compelled me to want to come and give some testimony tonight thank you Mr Mr chairman I have just a couple of comments and you know want to want to give the the witness an opportunity to you know respond if if necessary um there's there's there's really two different types of relief that may be in order on a property um an undersized lot with a house on it would be going to the zoning board okay um and and would he would would uh receive a fair and thorough hearing and if the relief is Justified would likely receive it what's different about this case and this scenario is we're a planning board because of the subdivision and we're also acting in some regards like a zoning board would because of you know the placement of the house and the sidey yards and things like that so you know the the big difference in this case is you know this is not like you know a tiny little Shack that was built and is clearly not appropriate for modern use um and you know you know there looking for an expansion as you said that will go to the zoning board and and you know I've been on the zoning board for eight years Bradley Gardens among other neighborhoods a lot of cases go there and so so you're right on that point but what's critically different here is there isn't a house yet that's why this case is before the planning board so so that that's that's really the key difference I you know I I I think that you know if if there was an an older insufficient house by modern standards well you wouldn't be here You' be in front of the zoning board and I think that the line of questioning would likely be a bit different that's really yeah okay regardless of which board it is the zoning board the planning board mayor the council they the township so that's who I explain it to thank you thank you I also have a question you deal with possible uh homeowners people who want to build homes yes do you feel it necessary to advise them of the conditions for the L that they're purchasing you do you do that or did you just let them go and buy it no no no of course we would we do that wherever we build we build in hillsbor we build in Bridgewater build of course we would advise them of this I'm just thinking that maybe the homeowners should or the potential homeowners should have known should know or should have known what they were getting into maybe they don't have the expertise might be their first home and they don't have the expertise I'm just wondering is anybody talking to them about the possible restrictions in this particular case I no no I'm just in general yeah in general in general if if someone comes to me and asks me to build them a home and if they have a lot or if we try to find a lot we would first make sure that the lot is conforming to build what they want to build on if it's not I would advise them that it's not conforming and that they would have to go to uh to zoning if they want they want to push it to get it I may ask a couple questions of of this witness Mr chairman just very quickly do we have to swear him in um he already did we we SW yeah Mr sworn in okay thank you please proceed there was there was comments about uh situations uh where you have an existing dwelling and you're trying to work within the the confines of the fact that there's an existing dwelling and so I have a question when you looked at this property with Miss hos did you notice that there was an existing dwelling on lot 13 lot 13 is were the existing home is yes yeah so so my question is you you approached this lot and you saw that there was an existing dwelling on lot 13 yes and you also saw that Lot 12 was vacant yes so is it accurate to say that although Lot 12 doesn't have an existing dwelling you advise Miss hos and Miss hos proceeded based upon the fact that there was an existing dwelling on lot 13 would would you have approached this project differently if there was not an existing dwelling on lot 13 yes so if the property in its entirety was vacant would in that instance would you have considered building one home yes if it was vacant you would build Combine the two lots to build one home but because the because of the fact that there was an existing dwelling on lot 13 you felt compelled to not maybe compelled is the wrong word but were trying to work within the confines of the fact that there was an existing dwelling on lot 13 correct and that and the lot next to with the empty lot identifies as a separate lot and I believe that it identifies as such on the tax map so at one point all these lots that are 50 foot wide are they're all individual Lots I guess I guess the point of my questions is that you know you didn't you didn't go around Bradley guarded and saying let me find a 100 foot wide lot and let me subdivide it that wasn't the at least the intent you saw 100 foot wide watt with with a house located on on the right side of it and on the tax maps appeared as two separate 50 foot wide lots and that's how you proceeded yes okay thank you does that conclude your question Mr Silver yes thank you very much thank you very much he the comments from our board any other members of the public that wish to comment on the testimony just heard all right to that I have a question for uh board engineer Mr Burr um have you seen the photographs that were provided to us by the resident uh Mr better this evening okay uh could somebody pass those to Mr Bur please then they can go to Nan okay Mr bur I specifically wanted you to see these because throughout the course of these four hearings one of my biggest concerns uh has been that specific point um on this street where the crest of the road is to the north and I believe where the proposed structure to be built is is at the lowest point and that's where the um drainage easement that's you know we're not entirely sure where where it's marked in the planes or not but what we see there is the flooding that we've all kind of envisioned over the past four um hearings and I'd like to get just your input there because we're you know the if there has not been anything constructed on this lot for the past oh 70 years now there are we to believe that there's a reason for this well I think I think there as I look through this I think there was some history on this particular lot um at least according to the plan that that was provided to the board I think there was a swimming pool on the lot at one point there's a fairly generous gravel area around the area where the pool was I think there's a concrete pad in the back corner of of the lot so I don't know that it was ever developed with any type of dwelling in the past I suspect not but there certainly were some improvements made to that lot at some point in time um I understand there's there's pre-existing drainage issues um both from the public from from photos I'm looking at certainly from my knowledge of the neighborhood um know through the course of of several plan revisions that the applicant submitted I really took a look at the coverage numbers because on small Lots like that like like these that is really what's contributing to the inex run off and in my mind you know separating the fact that there may be a pre-existing drainage issue on this proposal the applicant even with a new dwelling is proposing to reduce the amount of coverage on both of these Lots so um it is difficult to separate them I I I agree and I I certainly appreciate that but just as I looked at the two the two lots in question from that that lens there's definitely a reduction coverage I can't say with any certainty if a home was built on the new lot that it that it wouldn't get flooded I don't know the answer I don't know how specifically the water now flows across that lot there's some grading proposed there is some drainage in place I suspect because this is a low point of the road depending on how large a storm event may be it's possible that that storm system just can't handle the volume of water that's trying to push through drain pip so it really is a tough question to answer I I know there's pre-existing issues but again just in terms of the subdivision and looking at the straight numbers that were presented they're less in the proposed condition than what exists today I know that's probably not answering Mr chairman direct question but want to take a look a second look at some of these photos and please anybody else any further comments are there any members of the public that wish to comment before we close the public portion for commentary please I should have should have mentioned before just state your name one more time oh I'm sorry Paul veter 148 Chestnut Street there's four storm drains right there where that's flooded so we got four storm drains that can't handle the that water flow and he stated that he thought there was maybe one but there's four I think you was out there one time you had mentioned I was out there this morning oh okay so you know there's four there okay I just want to make you aware that there is four storm jines thank you if there are no further members of the public that wish to comment that will close the public portion for this applicant Mr Mr peek at this point I believe we can talk about those conditions unless uh Mr Burr has anything to interject here yeah well while he's he's looking at that the applicant's looking for minor subdivision uh with various bulk variance relief as was recited there were a number of conditions uh discussed over the course of the hearings the first I have is that the applicant would comply with item number 12 of The Joint planning and Engineering memo um I'm not quite sure what item 12 is but that will comply with it uh that there'll be no parking uh in the yard only in the driveway uh the property owners of both Lots 12 and 13 would be responsible for storm water maintenance subject to the township Engineers oversight and enforcement that the applicate would work with the board engineer regarding implementation of storm water management improvements the applicant would make a contribution to the sidewalk fund the township sidewalk fund uh in accordance with the township um formula that the applicant there would be full restoration meaning curb to curb of Chestnut Street uh where it's Disturbed again to the satisfaction of the board engineer and that would include selection of the contractor or engineer to be provided with storm water calculations there an extraneous pipe uh in the pool area that the applicant will remove applicant will uh stipulate compliance uh with all the other Township bulk standards anything that isn't specifically the subject of the variance both Lots will will not exceed 35% lot cover will be Landscaping to Shield the exposed Lot 12 house foundation applicant will work with the engineer and the the planner regarding sufficiency and selection of landscaping we'll be screening installed between Lots 11 and 12 Property Owners to maintain the easement on their property will be a two-year warranty on any trees that are planted and almost there I'm up to tonight now provide updated revised plans uh that conform with the testimony given uh to the board uh the house uh on law 12 shall not exceed 26 foot width and it'll be offset as depicted on the plans to keep the 15 foot setback to lot 11 and the north and east property lines would be buffered again to the satisfaction of the professionals I believe there was one that the the height of the house on yeah that's that's with they'll comply with like f and height and and that remind me if there are plants or trees bushes in the back and those were going to stay they're going to be pulled back right the ones that were kind of the on Lot 12 they're going to get pulled back to the property line oh and also uh elimination of the garage but I believe that's depicted on and that also depicts the reduced impervious cover okay so there's the conditions thank you very much Mr P any further comments from our board or from our board professionals was pictures more right I think so yeah were you review you were going to review the pictures further I did I did take a look through the pictures um it's not surprising that you see standing water along the line guess Lot 12 when you take a look at the engine it shows that it's essentially through that area fromont toar so um what it also shows which is a little bit concerning is the fact that there appears to be some surcharging of the town storm system in the roadway meaning again I don't know when photos were taken or how big the storm event was it tells me there's too much to p through the pipe that exists now the other possibility is that there could be a blockage or a partial fog in that storm pipe I would have no way of knowing that without reaching out to System make sure that it's free flowing but there definitely appears because it's a low point of the road certain storm events you have an accumul and then because it's flat side best I can offer is reaching out to DPW making that pipe system clean perhaps on the subject lot if Bo is to approve thisty this project perhaps the better of water pass through there the water does appear to be be caught right along thej line which my perspective is it's better than having itow a lot not ideal from what I saw but I don't know the full Contex so would you recommend as a condition then that the applicant um check and clear the drainage facilities on on Lots yeah I think 12 and 13 I think two things um the township can certainly check the drainage facilities in chestn I think that would be appropriate um I think the applicant should confirm the condition and fact that the pipes on this lot are clear that run to the rear and then I would suggest that they look into with their engineer um a way to regrade the soale make it more appropriate to convey the the runoff that may enter that Swale and perhaps consider introducing another Inlet structure to better drain off the the lot that's that's where all the water wants to go that's a pre-existing condition it wants to run through that easement into the Raritan burrow side it's just a function at over time whether it's larger storm events whether it's just development in these neighborhoods something's going on it could just be that the pipes are underz now and we're getting bigger and bigger I think those are appropriate First Steps Mr Sil would that condition be okay with you it's it's certainly okay with us and I was just looking to see because I in the April 26th 2024 correspondence from Craig Styers he indicated that he actually had added another uh inlit and I'm just trying to find it on our site plan yeah that that Michael is in between Lot 12 1 okay ex to REM dropped okay if I'm interpreting the photos correctly photos seem to show a standing water issue on the other side Mr chairman just one clarification for for what Mr Burr said um I think I think there was one one item that the municipality will take action on and two of them are going to become conditions but the municipal action is independent of any action taken by by the planning board correct you you can reach out to DPW okay it's something they regularly do um throughout the town okay yeah the applicant has no no control over but what we have control over we will take care of without regard to the result of this hearing okay okay thank you very much Mr Burr be appropriate for some to make a motion in the board to deliberate that'll close the public portion if I haven't closed it I'm sorry there are there any further comments from the public please come just you know just like you said in regard to what you said whether you grade that land or do I'm sorry one more time Eugene jorski whether you grade that land or anything to move that water away bottom line it's got to go somewhere it's still going to go to that road it's going to push out it can't handle the amount they said that was an inch that was an inch of rain you know and it wasn't a torrential but I mean it was an inch in when we had uh you know Ida they were bigger that was a pool you know the water was about 2 foot deep on that street at least it was a pool over there it was a mess you know we had some server ones but you know you said even if it was a pipe whether you can handle it or not it's going into the RIT ins side I didn't get a chance to show the one picture if you want to see it this is Obert street that same storm the one inch where the pipes go down and that goes through there I can show you a picture of their street Anthony did send a picture we did have that can we consider that it's just the one picture because that is still more water that goes that's because we can't bring that into the record we have the nine photos of okay this is the street after where the water does flow that is actually covered 6 inches 8 inches deep the whole thing from a lousy inch you know and that's I said if you saw that street it's it's quite a bit so anything you go you're going to push the water where you going to push it towards a lot of 11 you grade it high you can't push it towards you know 12 and 13 great it's so go out in the street it's still bottom line it's got to go out to the street it's got to flow it can't handle it so anymore it's still going to back up even more than what this is that's I said should have printed this picture you'd have liked to seen that because you're still causing more to the street in ritan now what do they say you know that's what Anthony was saying he was wondering what does ritan say about the water coming from Bridgewood or what you're doing pushing it over there making their problem do they get involved eventually I don't know I ask you a question sure don't you think all the problems that you're talking about and they might and I'm not discounting the problems exist whether the applicant decides to build a fully conforming home on and assuming the lots are Consolidated and the applicant's like you know what I'm going to tear down the lot the home on lot 13 I'm going to build a lot that conforms with the ordinance all of the problems that you're speaking about exist if the applicant is going to use the property in the manner that's permitted under the ordinance and it'll exist whether the applant is going to use the property with variance relief from the board but these issues that you're describing are are issues that AR not um you know specific necessarily to this application they there issues that if the property is used as permitted under the ordinance there these issues are still issues would wouldn't you agree with that I guess well I'm just saying it's the lowest part there's you know there's a reason probably that nobody built there that's where all that water congregates it's almost like it's a I I I think we're kind of yeah beating a dead horse here and there's other matters on the agenda so okay unless there's something new y any last comments from the public okay that closes the public portion for this application for the second time at this point uh Mr silbert any other comments nothing further Mr chairman thank you for your time thank you for the board's consideration I know this was a very tough application thank you very much Mr silbert at this time that'll close that portion of the meeting and we'll open up a portion for deliberations well we need someone to make a motion first we'll need a motion for deliberations that's Mr chowri is that to approve subject to the conditions okay I don't believe we deliberated however yeah no now now that the motion's been made now you can deliberate all right we'll need a second motion second that's Mr mcor Mr chry we'll start with you and uh that has been made I think yep that's the problem okay so this is a fourth hearing and I'm actually satisfied with all the recommendation has been made and I think Mr Silver applicant has agreed to implement the all recommendation with the consultation of uh with Mr bar uh so I'm okay with that hope everything will be working out thank you I approve it Mr Wang bottom there yeah okay um thank you Mr chairman um I I think I missed the um U the last meeting um but uh to me I uh I believe that um uh the storm water uh management uh need to be really taken care of it if this uh application is approved um and um I believe the the developer well well can you know have the uh um you know all the all the all the means to uh make it uh better um so yeah so I I I don't know if I can vote this this uh at this moment but you know this is what I see um I I hope that um you know the issues going to be under all conditions reg great and you know to be handled properly Mr M thank you I notice your application is one year and three days old I I commend I come commend the applicant for her uh endurance and patience just a few few words now we have a an area here that was developed sometime originally developed sometime before 1931 a number of houses as have been pointed out are on small Lots um non-conform per forming lots and this is what we have here now possibly this was a self-created hardship there was an empty property there it was purchased and now we're coming back saying I want to fix this be that as it may I have to think about the code are we over regulating things in that area over regulating this particular piece of property when there are other properties in similar conditions um why should this particular property be selected be pointed out specifically not in accordance with the uh with the code others are not you know the um narrowness of the property basically hinders beneficial development okay which creates a hardship for the applicant the applicant has his property can't do anything with it right now however I think the benefits of granting uh permission to build on that property um substantially out outweigh any detriments which may arise and I also think that the um intent of the code will not be substantially impaired okay we have a piece of property I love those two maple trees in front of it I hate to see them go but um I would recommend that the subdivision any requested yard variances subject to the other conditions mentioned I think they should be approved I think the application should be approved M Sora on now um I I'm going to stick with my comments from actually the the last meeting I I am appreciative that the lot coverage will actually be improved from this ad so my biggest concern I think I said this last time is water um storm water management I live in Bradley Gardens I have water that pools like that um in one area of my lot so I I feel that and the improved lot coverage of adding this second home while removing the pool and the slab and the garage and that back I think it was the back patio type area um I believe will actually help not hurt um the the current conditions maybe not help but not making any any different than it than it currently is appreciative of the planting of moving the the house over a little bit and shrinking it in size to make it as conforming as as possible um for those those Reasons I'm I'm inclined to approve councilman kersch all right thank you so so first I do want to um legitimately um complement the applicant for a desire to invest in our community um and um the stiu liveness of uh being through multiple hearings um but I I do need to address uh you know a few items and then I I am going to be pretty consistent with where my my feeling on this was back in May um in no particular order there was commentary that there may be a master plan change and there may be consideration of uh relief for the entire Bradley Gardens neighborhood uh the operative words there were met um and that didn't occur candidly I didn't think it was going to occur um and it didn't occur um so the zoning is what the zoning was and continues to be that way today uh another comment was made today um uh referring to the three and a half hearings that we've had or however many number and the uh extremely costly hearings um you know I'm sensitive to that I'm sensitive to the fact that you know there are instances when homeowners need to come before a planning board need to come before a zoning board um but you know those those are the risks you take um when when we have um a case and we have two more tonight if the time allows um this board and the Zoning Board in Bridgewater we provide very thorough and very Fair Hearings and sometimes those are quick and sometimes they're not um and this is a case where um you know it's it's been a comp it's been it's been complex um I still continue to be very concerned about the water uh not just the coverage but the flow um you know so so the commentary about well you know there's going to be less coverage than before that's good but where is the water going to go that continues to be a a concern of mine um I know there was conversation about at what elevation the house is going to be built so that it can be sufficiently o the water table so that you you don't have your own basement flooded but if you go too high then you have too much of a crown and then the water's going to go around the house and cause all kinds of problems that does that does still concern me um I I come back to the fact that um I mentioned this earlier in the hearing tonight um this is not a case where there is uh small by today standards you know uh you know uh less than ideal condition house and we're talking about bringing it up to mon chards there's no house there we're being asked to put one there uh and you know this this came up in the hearing but um uh the homeowner you know I believe knew there was risk in buying this property and that they had been combined because of you know actions and legislative situations and all that kind of stuff so you know this this this was this property was purchased knowing that in order to um you know subdivide and build on the second part of it a hearing like this was going to be necessary at some point um there was also commentary tonight about there being housing shortage and there was there's like an implication well we have to fix that I don't I don't buy that argument at all I think we fixed that in specific locations when building makes sense I don't think we have an obligation to fix the New Jersey housing crisis um it wasn't specifically said um but you know know a bit of a undertone was guys this is only one house like why are we having three and a half hearings um about one house and and you know again that wasn't specifically said but it was sort of an undertone message and maybe it's on the minds of some in the audience maybe it's on the minds of some in the audience waiting for the other two cases um and my answer is we scrutinize the face of Bridgewater down you know whether we're talking an entire neighborhood whether we're talking uh a substantial area in terms of acreage or we're talking you know a small property we we scrutinize this because we care uh about what the community looks like now I said back in May this is a this a this is this is like a 5050 call you know I and I still feel it's a 50/50 call but I think that the burden is on the applicant to bring me to 51 52 53 and I I just for my satisfaction I'm just I'm not there I I do you know I appreciate all the work um you know unfortunately at the end of the at the end of the day the case has to has to has to be uh decided on its merits not on its effort the effort was huge um but I think on its merits it I'm right at that 50% and to me 50% is is a no so I I intend to vote no okay I would say I Echo all the sentiments that I've heard on the day is here this evening and over the course of the last three hearings proceeding to this one and uh and I too uh would like to stick to uh a lot of my comments from the last meeting uh the deliberative comments of testimony a lot of people have given um I greatly appreciate the effort that has been put into this application by the applicant by the attorneys um I'm struggling to make this work in my mind it's frustrating um because I I absolutely agree with Miss hass's philosophy especially when we talk about building smaller homes and certain neighborhoods that you know not every construction has to be a large home right there's a there's a there's a construction for every neighborhood um I feel however uh in this particular situation that we may be proceeding without enough data uh there could be a reason why there hasn't been a structure there maybe maybe not U I don't like the doubts um I think that uh Miss hos has done everything possible to make this work we talked about uh the the missing tooth scenario right about whether there's a missing tooth on that road or not I don't think that's the issue I see the issue as being drainage um and I believe that she is victim of circumstance in this situation here uh it is very unfortunate that the Confluence of this neighborhood as far as the water goes just happens to be right in that one spot um but uh to Echo some of the other sentiments I heard it's not just a house it's an existing neighborhood an existing neighborhood density uh it's livable space it's parking space it's it's storm water density more than anything uh so it's not just about building one home in one spot uh it's the fact that building this one home may may not have an issue and the may may not cause a lot of problems in my mind um without the insurance the without better assurances that this would actually help the storm wanted mitigation in the area it's tough for me to vote affirmatively on this um I would very much like to see a an inspection prior to any building taking place and confirming that you know there are no pipes that are backed up or perhaps we do hear back from the engineering department that there are some issues that just cannot be rectified and how can I prove something when it cannot be rectified uh so for that reason I would probably be inclined to vote uh the 50% no as well and um it's been moved it's been seconded and it's been deliberated so I think now it's is propsed with the just to be clear Mr Wang is not thank you m Pro so that means three affirmative votes would be required to approve the application chairman Vio no councilman kers no Mr maora yes M Sora yes and Mr Chow Mr Silber thank thank you very much congratulations thank you very much Miss hos for all your time and effort just a bit chairman um can we take uh a minute or two yes we'll be proceeding with the ra Heritage in correct sure we'll we'll take a five minute break yeah he's e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e for a second please second that's Mr Wang all in favor I I I okay next on our agenda this evening is RI Heritage in of Bridgewater LLC faral sin Hospitality Development LLC that's block 222 lot 3.01 commonly known as 1260 route22 and who is returning this evening to represent the applicant thank you Mr chairman just for the record Michael silbert uh from Francesco baitman born Township New Jersey I'm here this evening representing the applicant RI Heritage in at Bridgewater LLC uh will not give too much for summary here the applicant is seeking amended preliminary and final site plan approval um for the property the uh just just so the board remembers the the applicant appeared before the board on December 3rd 2024 and presented the testimony of Jeff M vice president of thalson hospitality development followed by operational testimony of Terry O'Brien and Jeff hefin regional vice president of real estate and land Acquisitions for Park silver development the developer of the proposed woodspring suets Hotel so again I'm not going to waste the public or the board's time in summarizing this application uh the applicant had one remaining witness to call which is Mr George vul who was going to present the amended site plan to the board this evening um I believe Mr vulk was sorn in at the last hearing yeah um we want to just jump right into it Mr chairman if that's acceptable please do thank you I'm going to have with me a color rendering call a something yeah we are at at A1 that's just colorized rendering of the site plan correct and uh Mr F wait what what exhibit can you mark the A1 oh A1 yeah can you mark the A1 with today's date yep okay the uh the Genesis for this application is the the woodspring Suites hotel which is to the south of the property that replacement of the residents in um the woodspring hotel suites we talked about two weeks ago and the footprint of this building is much smaller than the residence in and the building is 30 feet further away from the easterly sideline 30 feet further from the Westerly sideline and over 60 feet further from the the rear of the property of the southerly sideline so the building has been substantially pushed forward onto the site with greater buffers to all residential areas that surround it m Mr chairman can I just ask for a like a a repeat of those numbers so is is the new building 60 ft less long and that was essentially split in half so that's how your buffers are 30 and 30 to the East and the West um did did I hear that correctly overall dimension of what was approved with me 20 290 ft was the overall length of the resident in this current building is 240 ft that's about 50 yeah and you and you divided it roughly evenly in between the two side okay so it's still relatively centered and so the pickup is about 25 on each side uh one side's maybe a little longer than that and then one side is a little shorter than that which is the longer one the uh the side to the east let's see it's uh it was currently 91 ft to the building it's uh approximately 116 so 25 ft there and this is 109 from the easterly sideline to 143 okay I'm sorry so can you just repeat where where where is the the new space like how the new space is is 143 ft from the property line MH and then the other one 109 mhm from the Westerly property line it's uh approximately 116 and it was 91 so 16 and and eight is uh 24 and then the rear yard line the rear setback was 155 156 and is now I don't know why I'm doing that is now 210 ft from 155 to 210 so just a question um and I don't know the Topography of the land um I I do want to make sure that that building is as far away from residents both to the East and to the West it is there flexibility to come closer to centering it again as the older as the previous building was uh the the the older building really was essentially they're both predicated really on the the the the visual sight line that comes off of Route 22 so as you pull in the driveway if you're out of town or looking for your hotel you see it ahead of you the the main the main entrance and essentially it is um you know halfway between the property could we shift it a couple feet certainly yeah you know I I don't know that a couple feet in this case you know is is going to make a difference it would be my preference to just to H have this building be as as give as much of an even buffer to the East and to the West it is essentially at that position also we've had the fire department review this plan and for their firefighting turning radius that this was the the most centrally located that worked for all their turning movements but if I am a resident to the West we have picked up another 25 ft on the buffer it sounds like yeah and and a substantially uh less impact of a building uh that that wall here proposed is on the order of 50 ft wide and width compared to 170 ft and on the depth how much how much less deep is this new Building compared to the old about that same dep this this building depth is 65 ft and the old building was the greatest depth was 165 and then the middle was 115 so 60 about 50 ft in depth you've you've lost and the front wall is in is in a same or similar spot we've added to the quote unquote backyard basically correct yes this building is essentially in the same location with the uh Spring Hill Suites okay the front so so front is the same where you've really lost bulk in is behind where it's shown and to the sides where it's shown correct so almost like a u-shape around that is what is no longer there compared to the original plan I would say so yeah okay so for the residents who live in the Chelsea um you know to the to the South which I guess would be the right on the diagram they're noticeably further away from the back of the building than the residents in correct and and for the res for those residents who are along the Westerly border not as significant but still we've picked up I think we said about the 25ish feet that's correct okay and everything is still in place as was agreed with the bming and the and the trees and the fencing and all that kind of stuff absolutely we've met all the ordinance for the the tree quanti quantities uh the landscape plan is is pretty substantial we have a fence that was proposed along the burm of the of the detention Basin that ties into an existing fence on the Westerly side of the property so uh that burm is probably six seven feet high with another I believe it's a six foot fence or could be even an 8ot fence on top of that you know I guess I have a comment I don't know if this is something that you could speak to or maybe maybe someone else um you know I've been speaking speaking to the residents you know I'm going to be blunt um you know it's my role um and they you know they have concerns um you know many of which have been heard you know the the biggest one is you know they want to make sure that the enjoyment of their property is not diminished um and and you know among them they said we don't want people you know looking into our into our into our bedrooms and I I joked with with one person I said well maybe the people in the hotel don't want you looking into theirs uh so but are are you satisfied that the current location is satisfying that need for privacy in both directions to the greatest extent possible with this plan yes sir I do uh we have also left a substantial buffer that is existing out there we're not going to touch which is I mean you can go out there today and look at it it's it's there uh I'll admit that this time of year is probably a little thinner than in the summer but uh with the tree growth that we have proposed the fencing that we proposed I think it's going to be a nice quiet neighbor you said that' be an8 foot high yes sir I did that' be sitting on top of a BM that's correct the burm would be half tall uh I would say four and A2 ft so 9 foot base on the BM like two to one it's a 3 to one so 13 ft no the burm is uh elevation goes from well if you want to go for the back of the property here to the top of the burm is uh 82 ft is the top of the BM 82 and 1/2 ft and the back of the the property is 75 so 7 and 1/2 ft and top of the BM is 10 ft wide with an 8ft fence on top of that can can you also speak to you know you know the the the privacy and the um uh shielding of car lights particularly along I hope I'm going to get my directions right the Westerly side um of the property um you know to the extent that people would be parking in the roughly 10 or so spots to the west of the building but across the driveway so to speak and then along that longer run um you know are you satisfied that between the fencing that's proposed the birming the um uh uh any Shrubbery and other things that um there there would we would not have a a a light pollution Challenge from from cars getting getting you know in and out of those parking spaces um uh diminishing the enjoyment of residents that live there I know I I firmly commit that the the parking lot is very buffered uh this this fence along the Wester uh property line is 10 ft High uh we also have back here a 3- foot high retaining wall uh with burms up into a substantially landscaped area and then this is a uh 8 foot six foot high wood fence in this area so from here from the rear property line to approximately the front of the wood spring hotel is a 6 foot high fence wooden fence on top of an existing BM and our parking lot then goes drops down with a three-foot retaining wall here so it's further dug into the ground so uh light pollution from headlights on cars I would say would be extremely minimal or non-existent at best okay because you know that that's that's I think a concern um and and if that you know if that's been addressed um you know that's that's that's an important you know component the previous board that we you know had this approve through we we uh we had a lot to go at this and Scarlet Doyle uh to her to her uh approval was uh very sure that this was to be a nice project and further uh we're reducing the impervious coverage on the site uh we're reducing the motor vehicle surfaces on site um this plan was designed and approved by the flood Hazard area uh the njde and with it for uh green infrastructure uh facilities that were baked into the design uh most of this uh green infrastructure has been in place today as pervious pavement bios swells uh rain dry Wells for the roof leaders on the hotels um the water quality was addressed within the Basin and these gigantic filters that are installed uh most of the U utilities on site have been installed most of the I would say 90% of the storm water is in effect and operational uh concerns with that were or that the site isn't final graded such that maybe these inlets aren't you know working as well as they should but they're still picking up most of the runoff that uh comes from the site the Basin has been inspected it is operating uh after a rainstorm you go out there you'll see it's full of water uh there is a pipe a 6t diameter pipe that comes from the north on the other side of Route 22 that's between the uh Red Lobster and the Hampton in which traverses across Route 22 picks up Route 22 water and then comes through our site in between building number one and building number two and continues unimpeded through the site and continues to discharge we have not changed anything characteristics of that pipe that's it's an existing feature uh the D has reviewed that and it's agreed that it's not to be touched and not to be changed so that water is from the north of us um and I would say the uh the reduction of impervious coverage on the site of around 18,000 Square ft the reduction of uh motor vehicle surface area and uh and the reduction of the floor area is a positive are all positive attributes for this project Mr chairman I have a question for Mr P particularly [Music] um you know we SP we as a board you know spend a lot of time you know focusing on plans and and ask questions and the applicants provide testimony and I think the applicants provide fair and honest testimony um about impacts um sometimes though you know impacts aren't known until the build condition you right if we ever get it wrong so to speak in a case like this and there is excess light coming through there's a spot in the fence the design of fence or an angle of a fence you know something isn't quite right um do do we have recourse to go back you know and again I'm not saying because something wasn't followed just because the real life condition turned out to be a little different do we have any recourse to go back to the applicant or at that point the owner and operator and say you know what c could you could you make a tweak over here just so that we can and this is not only I asked that question broadly not not just for this applicant because again field field conditions are sometimes a a little different yeah no I I I hear what you're saying and there's no eraser you know that the board can put in to say well you know we want to go back and and change things but it can be addressed like with taking lighting as an example you could ask that once the lights are installed that there's lighting tests done and that adjustments be me be made as a consequence of those tests so if you have concerns about about things like that you know the all I think the best you can do is is try to craft conditions that would address that and give you recourse to after the fact you know mitigate some some issue that that was unforeseen you know I I I I'm not trying to jam up the applicant here I I'm just simply you know asking the open-ended question you know is is is there an acceptable condition that could be put in here that if there are unintended you know site-based circumstances that arise you know post construction and I don't mean forever I mean you know shortly after construction that that there that there be a willingness to address them you know I don't know how we word that you know you know I just I just I just want to protect the residents that are there I would I would discuss with the applicant but any type of condition like that would have to be very specific you know it would have to call out the very specific concern the very specific test that we're supposed to do doing some kind of open-ended condition that you know kind of just opens up the applicant to um you know anyone's complaints they don't like this they don't like that can can we do a test like it needs to be very specific and I I would be willing to work with with the board I I would say my concerns because I'm I'm not trying to jam this up I but I'm trying to provide a level of protection um would be associated with light either you know from the lighting on the site or or potentially from um you know you know car headlights those would be the two I'm I'd be concerned about um so as far as lighting sight lighting are you looking at like a foot candle te like I don't know what the test would be and I don't know if the if the board's professionals or if there's a specific test that you H have in mind because you know I guess when you when you're thinking about like car headlights like perhaps something that like that could even be subjective like maybe to one person uh the headlights of a car and I'm not even suggesting there would be impact we just heard testimony that there that that there's sufficient buffering but to one person there might be an impact to another person there might not be an impact so I don't know what the well I mean because the fencing is intended to not have it be a problem and and I think in good faith you expect it won't be a problem you know I guess I'm I'm looking for you know if there would be a way of of you know tweaking if if a tweak becomes necessary if I may uh in other towns we do this um we usually have uh the town engineer would come out as part of a CO and see the night lighting this the light and identify that it's adequate because these LED lights fixtures are dimmable or adjustable so we can add light or reduce light in areas and U and that's Ty typically you know what's done uh we do I would not that we do have uh something on the plan an indication that uh the lights will be sufficient for uh sight lighting shall be reduced around commercial reality building pad sites one two and three in accordance with the township requirements to extinguish lighting levels to half hour after close of business except for security purposes needed for the hotel uses the hotels and hotel parking lots shall remain illumin at ducks to Dawn so we do have a note on the plans but on top of that we can stipulate that uh you know if there is an issue somewhere of of not enough light or too much light uh we can have the your board engineer come out and you know say yay or nay to the lights I'm so prior to co that the engineer would would check the intensity of lighting and also to make sure that the the fence and other Landscaping is sufficient to block headlights filling into neighboring properties and then you know if there is some light escape you know you you beef up the buffer certainly yep and Mr chairman that is something that is reasonable and it's a condition that both boards have included in Prior approvals before to do a nightlight test our office would go out in the evening particularly if there's been some sensitive issues raised during the course of the hearing with an eye on surrounding properties to make sure that there are no objectionable light spill over impacts um know nuisance impacts from lightting as a result of the build but our office will also be involved with construction of any approved project as well and our charge is to oversee the site improvements everything outside of the building itself to make sure that the plans that the board has approved usually with conditions have been built in the same manner and if there are issues that arise during construction it's not uncommon for us to bring them to the developer and request that they address those issues whether it's you know there's a void in the landscaping and there needs to be some additional plantings or you know if if a drainage issue just wasn't fully addressed um normally those are issues that are caught during construction and certainly we do a final inspe ction before any certificate of occupancy is issued so there's a couple of checks along the way but but certainly a night lay test especially for lighting impacts both for the overhead lights as well as headlights would would certainly be an appropriate condition yeah and and again I'm just trying to strike that balance sufficient light so that this property is secure as the The Operators and certainly in time the guests are going to want safety but at the same time protecting the residents so that they're not you know living across from you know a blazing light so you know and clearly there's a balance and I guess I just want to make sure that we strike that balance um and and you know I take this this um applicant at their word they want to they want to be good neighbors um and I think that that's that's going to be an important um uh uh check mark as as part of the construction process Mr chairman can I ask a question on that line please Mr CH yeah actually say a Mr bar you probably know very well there are light designed nowadays well I know that very well actually so uh reflector lights actually you can actually have a in a very common d uh diameters or rectangular shape any shape you like so that the light doesn't go beyond that certain point from depending on the height of the Light Tower is and also U refractive light you cannot avoid it that will go anywhere like diffus light that cannot be put as a condition because diffused light will go to any anywhere wherever it light can go but the reflective light could be basically protected uh through the design of the reflector itself yes it's a very good question conman car basically raised it it's important for thank you Mr CH are there any specific uh hours of operation during which the lights remain the same or do they change after a certain time in the evening or is it 24/7 the same type of lighting I always I would think uh the the lights again are different for the front half of the the site for the commercial buildings uh again this was gone over years ago that they wanted specific lights to be bring the the residents or the you know the residents for these hotels in and the areas around the hotel safe for them at any time during the night and then areas up here where uh hour after closing time would be dimmed not turned off but you know maybe every other light or or dimmed somehow so uh it would be less obtrusive now we talked about security as well I'm glad they brought that up um would there be lighting the lighting on the that area that immediately greets the yes exactly where would the security lighting being being that uh spot there that I couldn't hear you where would the security lighting be behind I guess that's what building behind the spring hill behind the Spring Hill these are these are spaces for the Spring Hill so this would be you know there would be some lighting here and um you know the buffer that we have this is I guess hoola hands or whatever is going over here right um but for the most part you know the the parking is going to be here for the res or the you know the the renters or their guess remind me again the access points to access the uh the location off of rout 22 there's only one access point in one access point out you have two access points two coming in one going out okay and that lighting Remains the Same lighting 247 365 yeah okay I don't know about 24 but right I'm just thinking from a security perspective here just to ensure that there's adequate lighting to be able to identify by cars coming in and out yeah oh yeah 100% okay it meets all your ordinance standards and then again the note was put on there um to address you know to to customize the lighting so it's not on all the time where it doesn't need to be on all the time any other questions from Mr pul you a question okay yo actually yes I actually borrowed the question from you I know I told you to put some Stone so that you can throw me out here okay uh I'm getting deaf too so don't worry about it uh so 22 uh there is no light pro street light provision here right Mr bar street light provision street lights there is provision traffic light traffic light sorry oh no no no traffic signals yes no there's no provision the entrance yes off of 22 no no no no okay how many stop oh it how many um basically you know cars you are going to see in the morning time or evening time I I couldn't answer that for you sir it's yeah that was Pro that that would have been a question that would have been addressed during the um original application when the traffic engineer testified I would imagine that the counts have gone down since the square footage of the building is being decreased but um we don't have a traffic engineer so how many uh both uh hotels how many rooms are there uh Spring Hill and how many rooms 122 I believe let me just check that yeah 12 127 that were previously right right you're right 122 and the Spring Hill will be how many Spring Hill how many were in the Spring Hill he said 127 we lost five rooms no no no that is a woodspring right wood spring is a 1223 103 103 so it's okay 225 so uh total 2025 so 500 people basically mostly uh so you the problem that we see I drive there every day so that's what I'm more worried about it actually not because of all other things that has been raised by you know the engineer can take care of it and all also what board has raised the problem I see the traffic coming out and blocking the 22 because if you if you have uh Drive in at this moment uh that should be okay but if you drive in about from anywhere from 4:00 to 67 uh 7:30 or so in the evening and the morning probably about uh 7 to9 that 287 is totally blocked anyway and that actually blocked up to uh what you call uh pre previously the restaurant name I forgot that yeah not Mor line on 22 itself so if you have a another soal 500 people coming and going uh or make it say 200 or 200 300 cars uh then it will actually block it up to beyond the mercedesbenz on 22 so that that's my worry rather than you know anything else the question is have you T about how to mitigate that big traffic jam from almost you know beyond mercedesbenz I think I forgot what is a Sako gas station or something like that and uh to the 27 well the the original project was do approved okay there was a hotel on the site originally I know there's in right and that hotel was you know very similar uh not maybe close in room room size but they had approvals to Triple the size of that hotel that was never done but uh so the site has been used for many many years I mean for 50 60 years that I know of um so again the dot has approved the application for uh the the amount of rooms that we have we're reducing the rooms by five so it's got to be a net positive at some point okay we were if we were going to increase the number of rooms to a certain point it would probably require us to go back to the to the state and Dot and file a new application but since this is a reduction from what they previously approved um as as Mr folk said it should result in that positive okay well if you already do approved it I'm nothing to complain about it and I I think the The Operators testified that uh you know that their their their time frames for the use of their facilities is off peak you know not typically peak times but uh when they go for the hotel okay well let me uh I'm okay with it ter but then basically if we have some more question I'll ask later very good thank you I have a couple of questions Mr cor um I know that you proposed a uh the need for a variance for buffer and I wasn't here the last time I did listen to the the tapes however I listened right afterwards so just bear with me why why is there a produce um why can't we meet the requirement for the buffer um so I can I'm I'm going to answer that just because when I looked at the site plan I called out two variances and those variances were actually with respect to the Spring Hill hotel which we're not touching and I guess there were and maybe maybe George could speak to it but I I assume there were some revisions to the site plan after the board approved it in 2018 and when it was going through the Township's review of the plans and there were certain things done done I would believe maybe bill or or Mr Burr and and Miss Doyle probably asked the applicant if they can improve this or improve that So the plan that was submitted to the board which references 2020 approval references revisions that were made to the plan after they received site plan approval based upon feedack back and revisions with the Township's professionals at that time so the so the I looked at the bulk standard table saw there was a deviation from what was originally approved and what is now on the plans and I called that as a variance but in reality that was changes that happened over the course of as I explained going through post-approval compliance and I don't know if there's anything that I that I missed for you wanted to wanted to add to that but um just in short the two variances I called have called out in our application have nothing to do with the hotel that's proposed before the board this evening they had to do with the Spring Hill Hotel and again they constituted improvements to what was originally approved I don't know if there's anything you want to ask no that's perfectly said okay are there any VAR what are the variances being promoted there are no variances and I um I apologize for uh for misleading the board of the public with that I just saw the deviation from and it had to do with Spring Hill I just assumed it was uh related to the Woodring Sweets Hotel so so essentially you're looking for amended preliminary and final site plan right variance free period well we're asking I mean there was variances previously Grant right but those existing yeah those are existing and they run with we're not we're not touching it the only thing I would the only thing I would say is that I guess and I wasn't in the room and I don't know how it went but like when you when you're typically when you're changing uh deviation and it's an improvement technically you're supposed to go to the board and still get the from to to dot your eyes cross your te's you get the relief and I guess when it went through the review of the township perhaps they said wait a second so you're going to increase the buffer if we just do this it's four feet you're you're probably okay just showed this on the plan and they didn't make us file an amended site plan application because for the applicant if the variance relief is already granted why would they go through the motions to file an amended site plan if they're making an improvement based upon the ordinance for something minor like that I don't I don't know if you're F if I'm making sense but um I I would imagine that's probably what happen when they were reviewing this site plan after site plan approval delies pick make it garbage pick up I'm concerned like during daytime hours or something like that like so they're not rattling dumpsters at 4:30 in the [Laughter] morning that's fun or no have any further question Mr cororo no okay uh last time we talked a lot about the uh the hotel the Extended Stay model and what not I'm sure not sure if there's a question from Mr folk or or someone else but um uh at at times it is possible for people to uh move into the area um with children that uh need bus access is there any school bus access or uh residential bus access uh located to the area or located to the site bus access will be off Route 22 okay uh so as far as school goes there would be no school bus stop close by there or proposed I couldn't answer that I mean if I don't think so we're not proposing one right just keeping in mind that his extended say we did talk about what that entails um what we didn't ask uh last time how many roughly how many employees uh would be working at the woodspring 14 14 okay um are any of those employees uh would they be considered a full-time resident at the woodspring any of them thank you any other questions for Mr folk any questions from our professional yes thank you Mr chairman um I would just like a clarification from Mr silbert um about the way the the the relief I I was I just misund maybe I'm misunderstanding what was said as as outlined in the table in the joint review memo it shows what was previously approved by variance and some of those bulk standards have changed whether or not they refer to the residents in this is the amended site plan for the entire site so um I I'm I'm a little confused about what was spoken about and what what dates were reflected on the plans I also raised you know a number of the housekeeping items from the plans that need to be updated to to kind of mitigate some of that confusion um but can you back to the question can you just can you just cribe if what was shown on the plans as previously approved is proposed to be changed and into a still in a variance condition whether or not it's approval or not an improvement or not could you let me know exactly which item and I can explain it um so I know that the so I'll touch upon the height first because I think that was just a plan error as Mr silbert mentioned and I just want to verify that that's a that was a plan error as identified in the review memo the height is actually conforming the the height of that on the review memo is for the Spring Hill Suites and there was a variance approved for that correct the height for our building is 46.4 Ft okay and that was previously approved as what what was the height previously approved for the resident in building that's parcel d corre while while Mr folks looking this up it's more of a of a question I guess but if the board was viewing this entire site plan in its totality and there was one building that was approved at 49.3 feet and one that was proposed at 46.5 or whatever the number was would the board just grant the single variance for for the site at 4 uh 49. three or would the board have granted variances for each individual building they may have I don't individual building it would be each it depends on how they outlined in the resolution but I'd assume at each individual building um but my questions mostly related just to the confusion between the site plan I did note in the review memo that on page sheet two of the site plan I believe it does show it correctly the zoning tables which shows it incorrectly I was just curious if because 46.4 would still be a variance Condition it's still over 45t correct that's correct not a d variance it's a bulk variance but it's still variance condition I just didn't know if it was previously approved at 46.5 FT it it well it wasn't at 4645 ft uh when it was original it was under it was 44.83 ft okay thank you so I do think that there is bulk variance relief needed for the building height uh the two the one other condition was the minimum conservation easement which I think Mr silbert just referred was for the Spring Hill Suites but regardless it was appoved that 9.87 ft or 125 ft is required and is being improved but still in a variance condition to 94.1 ft can you confirm that yeah okay so that's the that's for previously approved that was for the the Spring Hill Suites setback okay and it's been improved from 90 to to 94 correct okay that would still require in the compliance for the after approval took about a year and during that time the building shifted a little bit okay I would I would consider just for the purposes of doing it correctly that that would also be a variance condition and those would be the two deviations from the previous approval that would require new bulk variants relief to codify that those in my opinion yes I will defer to the board and the board's attorney to guide them on that and M aren I'm just going to go through the resolution really quickly and just confirm whether or not the the original um residents in required height relief because I thought that it did but sure just double check that thank you do you mind if I keep asking Mr fol please please go ahead sure thank you um the other thing that was raised in the review is this is an amended site plan is that um at the time of the prior approval there was no electric vehicle charging requirements at the state part of state law um and I didn't know if as part of the site plan amendments if that was a consideration um I think the requirement would still be imposed per the law the way the law reads um and if so is that something that the applicant is we we have proposed electrical charging stations for the amended are they shown on the plans yes they are can you indicate where they where those are just to just to guide me and are those going to be actual EV spaces or like make ready spaces well there's a requirement for install right now and then there's the 5% of 15% that you have to add in the next year to and you know whatever the state law is we will comply with comply with they're in the front of the building on the right hand side front of of the wood Springs suets building by the handicap parking I do see them um okay thank you [Music] um and then my only other question would be um in looking at the landscape plan on sheets 17 and 18 um I don't I didn't have a copy of the prior approved landscape plan but is it substantially consist with the prior approval yes yes it is same same same same thing okay same number of trees same similar species okay um other than that I I don't have any other questions right now thank you thank you m serid board engineer Mr Burr thank you Mr chairman uh just a couple of questions George um you had you had mentioned in your testimony about site work that has already taken place on the property can you just elaborate on that I know we know that the site has been dormant for a while but it was active a few years ago in terms of site workor can you just fill the board in on what's taking place to date sure certainly uh number one the existing facilities have been demoed completely from the site there's no uh longer Hotel there uh secondly the I would say 90% of the curb for this project has been installed uh 90% or more of the storm water uh management the uh inlets the storm water piping the detention Basin the the the water quality mechanisms the outlet structure all that has been installed the sanitary sewer has been installed um items like the gas and currently the water are uh pending but uh you know once once the building goes up they they like to they want to get the water in and then the then you know as the flammable materials come on site the the fire department requires that we have water so that's coming next and from um from a storm water perspective I know we talked about the fact that your original approval dates back to I think 2018 the the approval was perfected in I think 2020 correct so it's before the current version of our storm water ordinance but your testimony was from a green infrastructure perspective yeah if you do comply we we got our we got our approval in December of 2019 from the flood Hazard area D njde and at that time they knew the rules were coming and we were under the you know you better do this or you're not going to get approved so you know even though the rules weren't in effect yet everything comported with the proposed rules that were due to be and those D permits are still valid yes they are in good standing okay yes your testimony was from a lot coverage perspective and motor vehicle service or Surface perspective that's that's kind of the trigger point your testimony is you're reducing both of those correct versus what was previously appr that's correct yes okay and in terms of of overall parking is there any difference in the parking count is it I I think we picked up five space so you picked up a couple spaces but yeah signant a little bit more uh efficient layout than what was previous okay and just to just to build upon Miss sarmad question about the landscape plan yep so Shrunk the building you were able to obtain more more buffer distance in terms of the building from the three adjacent property lines is is that space just being filled in with with turf or lawn area or is there an opportunity in in your opinion to maybe enhance the landscape package at all or is it already a pretty robust I know it's been through yeah site plan compliance review I just if we're shrinking the building and there's a bunch of open space well the grass is nice too you know it's a but that's the plan is to have it be green space yeah of course okay um there there was one condition and we talked about it briefly about fencing around the rear and I think there was either public question uh at the last hearing a couple weeks ago about the condition yeah Defence GL you brought that up so one of the conditions in the prior approval is to construct an 8 foot high boardon board fence requested by Chelsea condo ass Association made of a composite brown or neutral composite material my concern is the resolution doesn't speak to the timing of when that fence is going to be installed uh in your opinion what's what's an appropriate time to to construct that fence I mean that that's that's the could it you know as soon if everything's done out there and installed uh anytime I guess it's a it's a question perhaps for the applicant but um I don't know if I don't know if we're talking about two separate issues I don't know if there's an existing fence that's there is there's an existing fence a new fence that's proposed correct certainly the new fence that that is proposed the furthest out time is at the time of Co but if there is a damaged fence can that be repaired sooner um or frankly as soon as possible I I think I know if that's for the owner Mr silbert and and the applicant yeah the condition being if there's any existing fence that's damaged it'll be repaired prior to pulling a building permit or sooner or sooner sure absolutely yeah I mean I'm open to suggestions you know yeah uh yes we would replace that or repair it thank you m Mr chairman just a question that Dawns here um if I may I'd like to ask a housekeeping question of Mr silbert real quick recognize the time is 9:30 during my opma announcement I do say that there's no new applications taken after 9:30 uh the um subsequent application will there be new testimony um for the Chick-Fil-A application um there there would have been new testimony yeah uh even if we could get a couple minutes of the board's time just to work through the supplemental review memo that came out that would be helpful so we can come prepared at the next hearing if NE being that it's NE necessary at least we'd have the opportunity to address the board for a couple of minutes um but so we'll give time to review the new information that has been right we we we don't have to ask for a vote this evening um but just just to talk out that review memo which we would get into okay thank you let's let's see how things go and we'll resume from here thank you I apologize no no that's that's an important housekeeping item um so um just a question um what amount of time what time period do we expect construction to take once ground is broken I don't know if that's you maybe there's someone else from the applicant that can give a general estimate there yeah okay so I I guess my question is you know you know again I'm not singling out this property I'd be concerned about any property um you know are what what what protections are there to to the neighborhood to that that 12 to 14 months is not a miserable experience I mean is there time limits during the day when construction is typically occurring um you know like you know what what what what is the standard practice there the the your Township has a a construction mitigation measures it's pretty substantial uh it's listed on our plan it gives uh times and and uh dates when you can when you can't work so that's that's incorporated into any approval okay councilman that is ordinance driven the the hours of construction that are permitted are listed on the originally approved plan Monday through Friday I can't read the fine print I think it's 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and then Saturday construction is allowed in a reduced time frame I believe it's 8:00 am to 400 PM no Sunday construction is permitted so as long as they work in accordance with the ordinance that's what we would be looking common common issue we have is is contractors show up early they fire up their equipment it's 6:45 in the morning and everything's idling and getting started up and that's when the complaints we do take a hard look at that and and typically speaking I I guess impacts to the neighborhood would be earlier in the construction process right I mean once the structure is built and starts to be closed in you know interior stuff is not likely to to to be impacting them correct yes okay I'd also add that a lot of the site work has been done and that's really the dirty Smokey noisy stuff okay you know now we're just into pad construction which is okay but this this there there's this a steel component of this correct the construction oh it's all wood there's no steel at all [Music] okay um just I just had a couple of questions uh related to the height since I did look at the uh original 2020 plan and it appears that a height variance is needed for the wood spring Suites um so I just wanted to ask Mr folk if he uh believes that under the the S the C2 criteria if he believes that it'll uh despite the variance that there'll be adequate light air and open space on the property yeah I I think by moving the building uh shrinking the building in size and moving it further from the the east south and Westerly property lines it will not be a detriment to the location thank you and uh based upon the based upon the other buildings in the area um there's an a height variance required for Spring Hill uh do you think that this helps promote a uh desirable visual visual environment yes it will great and um you don't believe that there's any uh substantial impairment for this to Minimus deviation from the ordinance uh height requirements no I don't okay and no substantial detriment to the public no no no no substantial detriment to the public thank you any further questions for Mr folk uh that's that's uh I mean I could bring the ground up around it and and meet it that way or or these guys could make the ceilings a little lower by an inch or two throughout I I don't know maybe best asked by the owner of the or the uh it is about a foot I mean yeah foot and a half and foot and a half can you guys make it a foot and a half shorter no that's not good well you know uh let's see looking at the Finish [Music] floor and the doorways I mean I it based upon on the ordinance I probably could raise the ground around it a foot and a half if if you want to make it 45 ft I can make it 45 ft by raising the ground around it what that nothing it just makes the the you know the entrance I just keep that that's at 2% or so and then the the the doorways on either end the east and west side of the building and then the the doors in in the back we just have a a you know we try to keep everything at 2% so it's safe so I can go to 5% and pick up and uh it's I mean it's it's NE negligible I understand your concern it's uh it's something that uh you know the building is smaller feeling because it is a smaller building um and 45 ft to 46 and A2 is really hard to see anywhere around so it's it's it's a you know if there was a parit wall or something that you could shave off that would be my thought but I don't I don't know why what's going on up there Ju Just Just A a question maybe this is best asked of Mr Burr um so we have a 45 ft requirement it's there's probably a reason for it um is it an athetic reason is there a fire concern you know do we have fire equipment that can reach 45 ft but can't reach 46 ft I mean like what what what's the rationale behind that I I don't know the Genesis of it but I know it's three stories 45 generally speaking a threeory building and approach 45 whether or not it is because of a fire you know fire fighting issue I'm not posi I almost think it's driven by number ofies do do we have sign off from the Fire official on this plan believe you already you already approved a 49.3 foot building with respect to Spring Hill Suites okay and that one has fire fire sign off yes it do yes I I asked the question is from a safety standpoint of course yeah yeah the [Music] so are you suggesting that the overage of the height is to provide screening for the rooftop HVAC so it's really aesthetic and based you can actually see that if you look at the um architecturals I have them out on sd1 SD 1.1 you'll see that most of the building is compliant it's just Center feature and the par pits that were mentioned that are at that 46 fet height the I doesn't have it's not extremely detailed but it the other portions of the building aren't exceeding there so it could be a combination of Aesthetics and and also screening sure and this is closer to compliance than the original the original was I believe what does it say on the plan 44.83 44.83 so we are up uh I mean our architectural plan says 46 feet so but it's 46 at the max in the middle yeah but you can see even if you flip the page SD 1.2 you can see how the how the heights being used to what appears appear appears to be being used for for screening purposes it looks and the height of the of the Spring Hill is tall ER yeah Spring Hills 49.3 you know I'd like this to be as compliant as possible but I'm I'm willing to be flexible on that on that point I I don't want to speak for the architect but the architectural plans don't show any other dimension height Dimensions except to the top the uppermost part of the building including what's showing as pretty much a facade like a parit so the I think we measure Building height from grade average grade to the roof to the roof height that's not the roof so they probably are compliant with the roof height um just taking a look at the architectural plans I think that's probably just a lack of detail is why it got translated over to the engineering site plans um I'd like that to be confirmed um I think that you know I think we could move forward but I do think that we'd want to see it confirmed from their architect or their engineer that it is compliant but it it does appear to be from the plans I think from my standpoint When I Was preparing this application I was told that the height of this building was going to be the exact same height of what was previously approved so when I saw the architecturals come in at 46 ft I just assumed based upon the representations that it was going to be constructed at the exact same height so so I I think that we can actually comply with the ordinance anyway even though we're probably already compliant if we're if we're not we can comply with the ordinance I think that as Miss armad had mentioned that this is uh not being measured in accordance with the uh Township's height requirements it's to the highest point of the building and it's not taken uh based on the average height calculations required so we'll comply so then the only variant you need is the buffering between the two principal buildings from the easterly property line from here to the Spring Hill it got wi okay property line not but it's the other building it's not your building while you're here tonight yes and it got the other condominium Unit C or whatever that is and then and and I guess what George said is that Tech like it's good to you know make sure if we variance relief is needed that we get it but I think that that Dimension 94 feet in change was actually already approved by the township perhaps not by the board but the site plan is signed by and it's a very tangential relevance to what we're talking it is that is true any other questions for Mr folk Miss sad I believe uh We've exhausted a lot of your questions but you may have some more are you aware what those requirements are prepar I believe they're allowed to have a 3ot parit above the roof um and so they just need to confirm that it I'm eyeballing it it's not to scale the plans but it looks like it it's close so um either you know I think that they can they can reliably um resolve that by a plan revision too um they look close to about 3 feet but if it's 3.25 they can reduce it to three feet that's all I had for for this thank you board engineer Mr Burr any questions I what I would just want to put on the record to the extent that the originally approved residents in complied to the ordinance we're committed to complying to the ordinance with respect to this building as far as height is concerned so we were supposed to we we represented this is supposed to mimic what was previously approved and we're sticking to that so what was ever approved for our um for the residents in this this building will also Echo those approvals thank you Mr silbert noted for the record Mr chairman just along those lines um the prior resolution and conditions and the prior approval will be complied with moving forward in addition to any other conditions that are currently yes uh with the exception of the conditions that referenced amenities that no longer exist or any of those conditions that are no longer relevant because of the um amended site plan application this evening obviously won't be enforceable but all of the remaining conditions previously imposed by the board will in fact be enforceable and we will adhere to them I'm not sure if Miss sarma's report had covered this or not but the um the easement uh toward the rear are those going to be just um typically Conifer trees are there going to be some deciduous trees that are in there as well are these trees going to reach you know 80 to 100 ft things like that within the next decade or so here say that again my my apologies the the conservation eement in in the rear the rather I say the storm water retention basement in the rear there uh are those trees going to be just typically buffer trees or are they going to be a mix of deciduous trees uh to the point where they reach let's say Heights of like 608 ft it's com combination of of a lot of trees um the the green ones are typically conifers the other multicolored ones that are green and red and yellow are are typically deciduous um we have a lot of uh Norway spruce is what a lot of these guys are back here okay So within time that should provide for Lush buffer yes y okay it's the last question I had any other comments or questions from the board at this time I to open up to any members of the public that wish to ask any questions from Mr folk please feel free to come forward at this time good evening please state your name and address for the record evening LS kutson l r s last name Canon k n u d s o n I believe you were previously sworn I was the last hearing uh I was not sworn in no I will I I will you raise to right in yes you swear airm that any testimony that you previously gave or a testimony that you will give in the course of this hearing will be the truth or nothing but the truth I do thank you and again could you just say and spell your name again Lars L RS last name canuteson KN n u d s o n my address is 104 Chelsea way and I'm the president of the Board of Trustees of Chelsea Village uh I'm going to uh skip ahead because I appreciate the board's uh D due diligence in confirming a lot of the uh the details of the the setback in the in the back which was uh one of our two primary concerns uh and uh just to note to council I wish you LED with the engineer because that would have addressed a lot of our concerns uh last time so um we're very um we're we're very uh I'm I'm personally uh I I don't want to limit my comments right now but I I'm personally uh encouraged by the uh by the new developments I did have some questions just very quickly to confirm uh the prior uh plan that was approved included a 7 foot burm uh and uh on either side of the detention on the south side of the detention Basin with uh uh with Conifer trees uh those still that is I just want to that's been discussed now but the previously but that is still uh part of your plan that's unchanged no change okay um and uh those Conifer trees will eventually grow to a height that will block that will effectively block the vision of uh anyone in the hotel to look into the back bedroom look into the second floors of the uh the the the condo units in in Chelsea Village I believe that Norway spruce get pretty tall yeah I I think you're right um uh so I want to talk a little bit about the drainage um you could you go over what you said earlier about the uh prior compliance and uh the the the compliance requirements that the uh uh that that that you had to meet and when you were in substantial compliance with us so the question is the drainage plans yes the the water the the runoff plans correct you said that there were plans that were uh substantially in you were in substantial compliance with correct me if I'm wrong I may be misremembering your testimony but you are in substantial compliance in 2020 is that right uh 2020 was the date of the signed plans for compliance with the township that's when they the the there's a compliance report after the approval you have to submit your plans to comply with the resolution and there's a compliance report that stipulates everything that the resolution requires you to do and for your plans to be signed by the township um that compliance was dated September 22nd uh 2020 okay so before hurricane Ida I I guess so yeah yeah so um did your plans account for the rainfall that we experienced in Hurricane Ida absolutely okay uh were you aware of some of the runoff issues that our community experienced during that time dur every Community this community wasn't the only one touched true it's very true but our community in specific you were aware of some of the runoff issues that we experienced again I'm not particularly aware of what your community uh experience what I know living in this community and seeing everything around me I know that there was a lot of rain right yeah uh were you aware that there was uh a significant uh siment runoff from uh your from your lot into into the the Chelsea Village lot I think all these concerns have been addressed uh between Chelsea Village and and the developer okay when those happened could you could you do you have do you know do you have any details on that I wasn't present but I know that these concerns were bought up to the the contractor at the time when those uh issues were made present to them and and they uh remedied whatever solution was necessary okay uh so subsequent runoff issues then would I'm I'm curious as to whether or not you were uh informed or of aware of those as well I I am not aware of any issues um okay uh it's uh I will represent to you that there that that the runoff issues have continued to be a problem uh the it seems to be improving somewhat particularly this year the runoff but we have uh there there are there are residents who have brought to my attention that there are continuing to be runoff issues uh particular on the south end of the lot um and uh that remains to be addressed and I would be I would hope I'm going to express exess a hope that you will be uh looking into those issues and uh updating your drainage plans and uh any any any any compliance that you anything you can do to try to to uh ameliorate those going forward because as we are all aware uh hurricanes are becoming a somewhat more frequent occurrence in the state of New Jersey um uh so um regarding the uh the lighting um so I heard your testimony earlier that there would be uh there would be an opportunity for the testing of the lighting uh could you go a little more what a little bit more into what what is involved in that it there's there's a design a lighting design that has to uh comport with the township ordinance for lighting and this plan does that and as part of the new lights that are out there today on the market they're LEDs and they're programmable dimable uh sometimes with a cell phone so uh as part of the construction or the certificate of occupancy the board engineer will go out to the site at night and identify if there's areas of concern and we can adjust those areas if necessary uh there is light meters that uh study uh and identify foot candle intensities but typically uh these cut off lights and the the height of them are low enough that uh it's going to be a very nice lighting project in my opinion I I I trust it will uh I I genuinely hope that it uh it the testing goes well I'm looking at your lighting plan right now uh the uh the foot candles is the the numbers in this plan are those measured in foot candles lumens what's the foot candles I got it understood um do those stop at the boundary of the the the number sto particularly of of concern to us they stop at the um the western boundary of the plant um have there been any uh has there been any consideration given to taking uh light meter readings uh uh in Chelsea Village to make sure that the uh that there's no light spillage into the Chelsea village community well the these this plan identifies uh the light created from this project and it's a the fence essentially cuts off the lights at the property line based upon the fence's construction so uh Lighting on the Chelsea side of the fence would be from Chelsea up okay if the fence is so your it is your position that the fence will be tall enough to block the light from the parking lot into the second floor Windows of the Chelsea Village Community is that correct you're not going to see there's not going to be a spotlight there's no they not going to they're they're cut off so you're not going to see a a source of light and the uh intensity of that light is going to be no impact zero at at at Chelsea it's your assurance that there will be zero impact got it okay understood um uh want to turn again to want to turn to to security concerns uh it was testified in the last hearing that the that the uh parking lot is um will be fully monitored uh is are you aware of uh the are you aware of what that means is that I think the the U user the operator of the uh Hotel indicated that they have light they have cameras that will be monitored by someone in the building uh in2 Camas right yeah something like that I I'll I'll accept that um uh uh and finally the fence repair um it was raised in the last hearing that there was going to be uh that there will be that there uh were the fence along the southern boundary is uh in disrepair in a couple spots um I do I have your assurance that the uh the fence will be repaired by the time yeah we we put that on the record at the last hearing and we're we're sticking to it okay they've agreed to make that a condition prior to pulling any building permit or anything okay um would it be uh would there be an a would there if if there are any any issues that are raised uh now that our residents would not uh feel aren't being complied with is there a contact I don't want to really involve the the the planning board in any uh discussions of of of issues going forward I'd really rather uh try and handle it with with with you and and and our and our future neighbors uh is there some contact information that we can have that you would be able to provide to us as a first level of escalation before we come back with planning work could talk after the hearing ifine that's okay that's fine I just want to be able to put it on a record that there is a escalation point before we come sure um I think that uh addresses all my questions I think thank the board for its time thank you very much Mr n any other members of the public wish to ask any questions based on Mr Folk's testimony please feel free to come forward please state your name and address for the record good evening do do you swear airm the testimony you're going to give in the course of this hearing will be the truth and not with the truth promise to say everything it's true to my heart yes very good now could you state and spell your name for the record please um my name is John Merton m r TN I reside at 184 Adamsville Road um so in the in the communic submission letter that's dated SE dated October 30th there's a reference to a storm waterer manager report dated September 11th and March 2018 online I can only find reference to a 2018 report so I'm not sure what happened to that 2024 report and I would figure a report that's that technical in nature of 208 Pages there would be some no the the the the second add the addendum to that report is is really a two Page Letter it was it was basically uh an addendum just saying that the lock coverage is being reduced therefore storm water management on the site is is going to be increased and fromont was just saying that the that the originally actually it's it's been constructed was sufficient to handle the proposed uh improvements yeah I mean the letter is on file okay if I have it I'll I'll give you a copy so the um again I assume and there's reference to uh the utilization of best practices available at the time so I'm sure you're aware that of the storm water ordinance that was updated within the last year is there what assurances are there that that calculations in that 28 page report are compliance in compliance with that ordinance that Bri order now has it's it complies with Bridgewater ordinance for storm water management and I again defer to to the engineers that indeed there is because there's nothing that that in that 2018 report that where the numbers may have changed or been modified and with the evolving nature of this site I'm concerned that um whatever things that may be done now or in the future may not be comply in entirely with the ordinances we have in place the site improvements are getting smaller rather than getting bigger so that's helping the overall drainage from the site right so from what I understood this is this a is this discussion we're having now so seems to solely related to basically that one structure my understanding from what I heard previous that the rest of the site is to be determined on occupancy and and construction times so will there be a potential evolving of this plan at some point in the future if I could answer that question if we ever wanted to substantially change the plans we would probably have to file a new application if we're doing very minor changes in this case decreasing the building footprint of an already approved hotel that's why we're in here seeking an amended site plan approval but if your concern is um well the storm water management infrastructure that was approved in 2018 exist exist or be grandfathered in if we're going to do major site plan changes I don't know if that's your question but the answer is no we would have to file a new preliminary and final site plan application and and again my my understanding is that the um again you can i' heard that this the structure itself is going to be smaller in size however there's been significant changes to what the government has established as rainfall amounts and that's what is being reflected and has to be taken into account in the ordinance I believe that was established and I don't see those changes and those numbers reflected in in the 2018 report that's that's on that's presented so um I just want some assurances that the significant changes in our weather particularly rain as you've heard from the previous gentlemen are being reflected and would be accounted for yeah again we're reducing the amount of impervious coverage on the site substantially which substantially reduces the amount of runoff so and again so reducing substantially but the in but the projections and rainfall also substantial 20% increase I understand in the report I think we' I think we've answered it and uh okay yeah and just want to get some assurances that uh if there are changes in in ordinances updates to ordinances are they required to be in place before an application is continuance is of approval and I'm not probably not being sufficiently eloquent in this but if approval is granted for an application but there are ordinances that come forward that are related to again like storm water and other infrastructure that might be critical protection of the of the citizenship would they be required to be implemented on the time point before any of the additional construction might be done no I mean whatever whatever ordinances were in place at the time the approval was granted that's what they have to live by just like if they change something applying to residences for instance and you've been in your home 20 years the the government can't come and say no you have to that's a but is it not a land use that I don't think would be changed but again if there's if if it turns out the government comes forward and says yeah they know we're having 300E storms now every 50 years there would have to be increases and adjustments to the storm water management reports so there's again the protection of of this Integrity of the pay of the in the context of a land use approval whatever whatever regulations are in place at the time of the approval that's what they're that's what they're Bound by okay so if it changes you know the next week they got in you know they got in under the you know before the deadline so something if I was to interpret that if it were something granted in 1952 it would still be allowed to be continued now yeah that's is that really okay probably not yeah if they're coming for a new application then then they'll be subject to whatever laws are place now but if they get an approval and they build according to that approval and they haven't changed anything then they're protected from any changes to the land use ordinances it's to to a lay person it seems inappropriate to have it unow continuous for what is perhaps a very flexible potential design again there was reference to a domino construction going on with some of the properties in the county or the town and so it seem that there would be perhaps by that virtue a technical change to the applications and hence we require that there be an updating to any or with compliance to any ordinances that might be coming in at that time anyway thank you thank you I'm Robert ginski I live at 119 healthy way where affirm that the testimony you're going to give in the course of this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth yes I do could you state spell your name uh last name is gin spell zg o r z y n k uh so I I think that the you know part of the concern questions here is that we thought about the mitigation with the light to say that if there was a problem you can't go back to the applicant I think we have the same concern about the storm water say that we're approving something you know I happen to be the unit that's right across from where the emergency Spillway is for that Basin so if that thing overflows I'm probably going to be the first one to you know experience that so I I think we're relying on the professionals that they're you know doing this uh but I also have some concerns that have they really looked at everything the way it is so I'm not sure if they know it's not shown on the plans but but on top of that burn right where the spillway is coming through is there's a series of manholes that are around there that I assume might be dry Wells might be something but again that's something not showing on the plant I'm not sure how that affects you know what's going on with that that whole area but that is a concern of mine uh but I also want to talk about the timing we didn't really talk about you know when is that landscap you're going to be put in so I I do again live right across the way there is construction activity going on right now I work out of the home from time to time so I'm right there my bedroom faces the thing you hear the beeps you know on the on the back of the equipment's rolling all that stuff is going on you know so there is a concern that not only during the development when it's done but during a construction know what is the mitigation for the sound and the noise and the and that type of thing so I would like to know like when when will that Landscaping go in to Me Now is better than never because now it has the opportunity to grow over the next couple of years by the time it's built there might be something there that's that's my my concern on that I I think you asked that question at the last hearing and I I went to go see if there was any um uh construction phasing uh asked for and approved back in 2018 and there is not so basically um the Landscaping the buffering improvements on on the entire project site have to be put in place in order for presumably the First Co to be issued for any component of the project so so by the time it's built you're saying by the time that first phase is built the Landscaping has to be put in yeah there there's no they won't be issued a CO until the township feels that they've adequately uh complied with the requirements in the in the original approval and this approval and that would include the promised buffering fencing lands caping things of that nature all those things that are shown on the site plan have to be put in place not necessarily the construction of each building but you're not going to get an a CO issued for any component of the project if the buffering isn't in place that you're speaking about I mean typically I've seen on previous site plan and site plan approval that they have some type of at least timeline of when things are going on I didn't see anything on here so I'm not sure if that's a an older requirement or new requirement but I guess there's two things that you know there is some plant things that have to be planted in the fall and there's some plantings that have to be planted in the spring so I think that you know I just want to make sure that that is being part of the whole planning process so yeah I I don't know as far as a construction timeline is concerned but the uh I from my perspective I would be concerned about construction as it relates to vesting of the site plan approval and the relief formally granted when the applicants already commenced construction on site improvements your question might be something that would be worked out with the various uh Association members so I can't answer that specific question as far as construction I mean you know right because there's multiple buildings going on here does that mean that that Co is going to be granted when that first building is built and I guess that's a question for the board of the engineers I'm not sure yeah I I would say as long as the as long as the site plan improvements Landscaping buffering things of that nature the conditions the resolutions that can be complied with are complied with upon completion of one building a co could be issued for that portion of the project and then my my only my only other concern is that you know part of the landscaping and part of a lot of what's going on is on the Chelsea side of the fence and I don't see any access points there's no Gates or something so I would recommend that there's got to be some type of access going through that gate to get to that Landscaping well I'm saying you you have the fence that's running along that whole property line right there that exists today right you have land no the the I'm sorry the proposed fence and you I'm was that go ahead you know what I'm saying there's a lot of landscaping that's happening on the side that's not accessible and I think that there needs to be a gate in the sense well yeah I mean the Landscaping will be put on that side of the fence there's no access to it I'm saying I think that there needs to be some there need to be a gate some somewhere in that fence there should be a gate anybody else good evening morning swear affirm the testimony going to give in connection with this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth yes sir thank you could you state and spell your name for the record Mitchell zun z a y t o u n 130 Chelsea way so I um I shared a presentation with the board I don't know if they able to bring it up so you know everyone can see it if not am I able to plug into a uh Outlet or USB or we do you have it digitally on on a phone or a device that's on my laptop yes uh I believe we should be able to hook into one of those uh I just got to remember my passcode I can never remember it just just so for my own edification can you just uh describe what the presentation is so it's uh images that I took from where I live and facing so I live on the south side of the of the proposed building so I just wanted to share some of the concerns conerns which some of you which you have addressed I just wanted to just kind of talk through it a little bit more give you guys a little bit of visualization of what we're experiencing on the Southside um as well as poss you know as well as on the Mr zun I'm assuming you will have pointed questions based on this yes okay yes sir so on the west side and and as as as the east side um just so that the uh applicant can have a copy of this presentation perhaps you could provide a digital copy to the board secretary uh tomorrow or after the hearing of this yeah sure yeah I I would ask that this will be uh 01 so if you could send what's it called o o o for objector uh- one uh that'll be the exhibit if you could email uh miss propest a copy of that tomorrows card yeah we'll need to disc what what is 01 uh it's Chelsea Village [Music] um f photos in direction of subject property sounds good yep [Music] okay so on this first slide this is the a photo from my bedroom second floor so as you can see direct line of sight into the property that's where the building is going to be which you mentioned earlier that you guys are going to be building a lot of greenery around the the property and should provide some privacy couple questions um can you ensure that we're not going to have any trees that leaves are falling um and number two the level and I don't know what the height of the second floor of Chelsea Village is but if it's 45 ft are we going to have immediate privacy at 45 ft or do we have to wait 10 15 years to have that privacy I I I mean that privacy is an an an opinion really uh you are 200 and some feet away from the building wall itself almost a football field so uh you know to me that's pretty private um if if we were 30 feet away I'd say you have a good valid question um we're going to have a buffer the the trees are being planted uh much larger than required uh by the township um they're going to be placed on a BM there's going to be an 8 foot fence also uh again um you how long have you been in this location 25 years okay so you do know the days in was there you saw that but that was way across the that was on the 22 side okay it it's wasn't too far from this building ahead of it uh you know the days in was approximately centrally located here so uh again I I don't know how to answer your question we we we we hope for privacy for you and that's what you know that's what the concern is it's just that we don't want to live behind our blinds you know we want to be able to open up our blinds you know have the sunlight come in be able to change you know when we have to change and not worry about someone peeking into our Windows you know or using it look I understand what you're saying you're far off I understand that point but you know in this day and age you don't know who you're having in your hotels right you don't know what kind of equipment they might have you don't what you know what they're bringing in right there's all kinds of people out there and I'm just want to make sure that I'm protecting my family and protecting the residents of people looking into our units that's what I'm trying to prevent that's all I I'm I'm with you 100% I I I think we're doing the best we can because your board required us to do that when we originally came came in and we're we're sticking to the board's requirements that that they made us go above and beyond the ordinance requirements to ensure your privacy okay that's what thank you and then one so this is this is a a photo um and now these photos it wasn't this year and I I want to maybe say it was next year last year's photos um so this is some of the drainage issues that been brought up from the developing site with the runoff so on that first slide you can see all that muddy water that is on the south side of the burm so it's piling up or pooling in that general area and it's flowing into our property as you can see on the second third and fourth slide all that muddy water you you took these pictures yes okay thank you yes cuz that I lived on that side um so question is that burm causing that water to pool because it's you know water goes down right and it's pooling in that pacific area and then it it actually flows into our property into our storm drains now we spent as a community a lot of money on our redoing our own drainage um we we can't handle this extra rainoff we just can't and when I get to the next slide or next two slides it'll kind of sh we'll kind of really show what some of the you know the aftermath of this is if you want me to move forward I I mean it the site's under construction if that was two years ago uh a lot of the improvements that are out there today weren't there then um you know unfortunately uh runoff happens when it rains uh at this time I think you're not going to have problems like that there's a lot of curb that's in there right now a lot of the storm water management is in place so uh I don't foresee uh you know the water is becoming muddy much longer I mean they're going to until it's fully stabilized the S the the site itself you may have this temporarily so with the burm is that what's calling causing the additional rainoff because it's coing down right like what's on the the BMS are the BMS are are shortening the amount of runoff that can come to you the BMS are collecting the runoff into a basin and holding that water and metering it out slowly and then that water settles the solids that are in that runoff so the BMS are helping you with your runoff with those BMS weren't there you probably have a much worse condition and and that can be from the north of 22 there's a lot of water that comes from the north of north side of 22 that barrels through this property that we can't control we've never experienced this before this I want to make that for a record we never experienced this type of rainoff ever in 25 years I've been here I can't app on that 25 years I've been here we never had this Mr chairman if I may Mr B so so the site obviously is under construction I think we heard from Mr folk earlier that because the site hasn't been built out the the storm water facilities that have been installed already really are nonfunctional um they're not capturing runoff from what will be the parking lot and the roofs of the new buildings but um quite honestly it is troubling to me to see this silt Laden runoff leaving the site um I don't know if that's still happening I don't recall um in my office ever being notified of that particular issue but it's something that I think the applicant needs to get a handle on at this point not at a later date um there should be soil erosion control measures in place to help limit the amount of silt water that is leaving the site and I think it needs to be looked at and I'm happy to meet the applicant or his Representatives on site at any point in time but I think there there should be a requirement for some type of interim measure whether it be you know temporarily directing whatever runoff is leaving the site now to the Basin on site and they may need to they need they may need to reconstruct the Basin at a later date but um it needs to be managed better than what I'm seeing in those photos those photos were taken from two years ago and I believe there's been improvements made on site so perhaps um Mr Mr bur perhaps uh you know we we need some current day data to determine whether or not there's a a current day problem and I believe you said sir that you that you haven't experienced these issues this year but you had experienced it previously yes uh I mean this year was pretty dry I mean we went what 90 days without rain right right right so um but that can also hurt us right if there's 90 days of dry weather and all of a sudden we have a downpour in has nowhere to go because it can't absorb into the ground that fast right so that's also a concern but um the other slide will show we have a basin in the back side of the South Side um I don't know how best describe the location is it is it South behind please is this image depicting what is on the site that we're viewing this evening or is this a different site this is direct this is on the uh south portion of the Chelsea Village uh development uh some distance from the hotel site but what we see here the mud that is coming out is not typical this is mud that is run off from the hotel site across the entirety of our development if you take a look at a satellite map you will see a detention Pond directly behind my unit 104 this is reflecting that and this is TP the the mud that you see in this particular photo is not typical of what you get uh for most lar for most large rain events thank you when was this phot I I want to say it was about two years ago um and I brought it you know I did bring it to uh the board at the time and I don't know if they ever discussed it they probably didn't so now that's why I'm discussing it um because I it's a concern um and I know it what this gentleman's going to say it's from two years ago and that you probably want some type of more recent photo well also I think um based upon what George just whispered in my ear that the that that the contractor had actually met with representatives from from Chelsea uh two years ago to address this I wasn't there I don't know how it was addressed but apparently the lines of communication were open two years ago and that these problems were communicated to the applicant and to the contractor I don't know what the solution was but um I can't go off of today's uh or this season's rainfall based upon what you just said but I believe that they're trying to address it I don't know if there's spe fair enough yeah fair enough I mean I haven't uh I haven't seen it this bad this year I mean is there a little bit of like in this if you look at that third uh slide there uh or third picture that is generally what we see uh when it comes off on a rainstorm it it doesn't get into the level of pretty much of what the fourth slide is right now but we haven't had a big rainstorm this year I mean it's been pretty steady rain Andor no rain um so but I'll keep an eye on it you know I mean if it's something that it does happen like this again then yeah I'll definitely be reaching out to somebody about it um and then and this last photo is our South uh entrance into Chelsea Village and Adamsville Road so again you can see all the mud water going into Adamsville uh roadways um and causing flooding right into the Adamsville Road um so that is another concern that we that we have like we can't even get into our complex because that side that South Side is flooded so we have to go into our north side if we can get to it I have no other questions on the water um I had one other quick question question on the uh construction hours on Saturdays is there any way you can start construction at maybe 8 o' instead of 7 says 8 o00 yeah but we hear we hear everything going at 7 am. uh you you shouldn't and if you do I would encourage you to call the engineering department I know it's Saturday we get the message come Monday morning okay and nobody should be working on a Saturday without providing advanced notice to the township so that if inspections are necessary okay okay okay okay okay so followup question for Mr Burr on the the IM these couple images is is that is that a failure of of power system you know to keep water off of a municipal roadway bill could I just interject real quick chair uh councilman that picture there is on if you say it's Adamsville that's Downstream of our property right on a tributary that's nowhere near our projects right I I'm asking through the lens of I'm concerned that my residents are are having difficulty accessing their um their homes independent of this and that's why I ask Mr Burr is that is that a a deterioration or a failure of our mitigation efforts um it' be very difficult to answer that I don't really have a good context of when the photos were taken it sounds like two years ago but what type of storm event it was I think I'm not aware of that being a regular frequency issue I could be told otherwise but I would think that I would know if that intersection flooded that engineering would have found out about it so that we could investigate if it's a blockage of of a storm system or a drainage Channel that's blocked um I'm I'm not aware of it being no because as was the as was the case in the conversation in Bradley Gardens you know if there if there is a problem for us to address we'd like to address it I I mean the best I could tell you is I can I can talk with our DPW super superintendent to see if he has any history I do not in that particular area I know there have been isolated issues and extreme weather events that have been pretty well documented but I would need to take a closer look at it can you recognize this gentleman he may he may have some insight please come back to Le turn for e well what's interesting is this is now all interconnected so for those who are seeing the broader picture um you know there there is an you know consideration of uh an area in need of Redevelopment uh that runs essentially along if my directions are right the west side of the cuckles brook there are some challenges that we've now uh identified on that property um I believe it's it's known as 1200 route to 22 LLC or something like that um so you know you know Bill it's all it's all coming together now isn't it it's it's all interconnected yeah it's a it's a it's it's and I guess the the good news is uh help is on help is on the way um presuming that that area in need of Redevelopment again sorry to sidebar but you know um assuming that that area in need of Redevelopment continues along its path and that it is in fact properly redeveloped the the whole that that whole area and the and the proper flow of the cuckles brook should improve correct it is it it is definitely something that is on our radar we have a couple of um things that we're looking into uh grant money Etc and like you said councilman the Redevelopment plan depending on how that are OPP yeah it's all interconnected yeah okay sorry sorry for that sidebar but I think it was it was highly relevant the board appreciates any and all opportuni to be schooled on these matters thank you any other members of the public wish to Com or question Mr folk seeing none that closes the public portion for this witness Mr silbert any other Witnesses do not have any other Witnesses very good we would conclude our application this evening okay very good any F any general commentary from the public based on this application thank you very much uh again Larsson k nuds n uh I'm very uh I want to express first of all that we are Chelsea village community is actually grateful that uh for the additional setbacks on the southern end of the development developed property um this is uh encouraging uh and we very much very much appreciate uh the developer um I I understand it wasn't the intention of the developer to to grant us this additional uh uh buffer uh but it's very it's a very welcome development um there are two things that remain concern to our community uh that is privacy uh and privacy subsuming the issues of both security in our homes and uh uh blockage of lighting uh which I think are uh should be adequately addressed by the Landscaping plans uh we that remains to be seen and we will be carefully monitoring any developments in that regard uh what we what remains to be a concern with us is the issue of the runoff uh and you've seen pictures uh and we understand uh that there have been some developments there is a Sil fence that is on top of the burm now uh and as has been heard tonight we do not have this year nearly as much of a drainage issue as we have in the past but as we all know it's been a fairly dry year uh and uh if someone could kindly arrange for another hurricane to come through and test the uh drainage that would be uh perversely appreciated um until until that happens without damage to the rest of the community uh until such a stor um a rain event occurs uh this is going to remain a concern for us the drainage plan was approved in 2020 uh accounting for precipitation that is just not realistic uh if the board is going to Grant the new waiver and we are here today we I understand that there are the variance uh requests that are that are in many ways improvements and under certain circum certainly the height of the building may not May no longer be a a variance request uh but if the board is going to Grant its approval to the updated site plan uh it is our position um my position as a homeowner and I know a lot of uh a lot of my a lot of my neighbors positions that we really need to reconsider the drainage plan in light of new precipitation uh projections uh and it would be uh it would be our request that if the board is going to approve this that they also require a new drainage plan uh from the developer thank you anybody else that will close the commentary portion for this application Miss Sarma and Mr Burr have we satisfied all points from your reports Mr chairman I believe so with some of the concessions that have been mrman I have a question to Mr bar actually I'm sorry I have a question to Mr bar uh Mr bar is there any simulated model that we can do because we cannot ask God to have AAL R rain tomorrow so only way we can do it by having a model is there any model that we have for rins it's hard to answer you have there's really two issues that are at here how the site is g to function yeah I understand there's concerns about dra but I also originally designed ago Allan not for what I would consider to be a fairly modest change to the hotel drinking it and this site could be built according to the original plan with no issues they have can I would welcome an opportunity to have a meeting on site that I would be present at to see what the existing are of the the and then certainly construction picks up again continue to oversee construction with from the lens of what it's how it's going to function at the end of the day there are really a lot of drainage components pavement so there really are a number of different drainage just how does it all come do we don't don't know it we just haven't had a lot of lotos even if they are two years old and may be addressed we got to make sure it's does that make sense yeah but I just is is perhaps a site meeting find out where things stand right now right anything should be done right now to make sure that until this project is finished with construction asking you I'm sorry go ahead thank you reason I'm asking you because I work in lots of air report developments and those are done for 100 years planning with the rain storm and everything else and the ice so that's why I was thinking whether there is any you know models that we can use it also obviously I don't want to you know burden all developer so much but at least if it's a readily available model um then probably we could see it again I understand your point Thank you and completely understandable what you are saying thank you thank you and Mr chairman just just to be clear I think we are in the purview of um not adding extra burden but just operating under the principle that each landowner has a requirement to manage their own water correct okay thank you councilman any other comments Mr PE have we satisfied all conditions and requests yeah so uh the relief they're looking for is for amended preliminary and final site plan with uh you know basically ratifying the the prior variances that are being tweaked a little bit primarily with the buffer uh which does not affect the subject building but it's the the other building on the site in addition to the standard conditions generally applicable to all applications the conditions I have for this are that the applicant will abide by all prior conditions and representations from the uh initial approval accepting those conditions that are specific to the residents in brand um those will not apply uh the 89 day the municipal 89 day residency limit will be enforced so as to discourage anyone from trying to declare residency in the hotel uh the applicant shall install uh the fencing that's that's shown on the plant and maintain in good condition for so long as the hotel use is there there uh prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy there'll be a nightlight test to uh assess both the intensity of the lighting and to determine whether there's any spillover to neighboring properties and they will remedy that as necessary if uh any existing fence is damaged that'll be repaired as soon as is practicable and no building permit will be issued so long as there is damaged fencing uh they will provide updated and accurate plans that reflect the testimony given in the course of the hearing and to the extent uh the prior approval showed compliance with various uh Municipal and state regulations this one will also and finally there will be a site meeting uh as soon as practicable uh to review current site conditions and to Implement any reasonable suggestions to mitigate uh off-site impacts so that would include uh the runoff and and things of that nature that's that would be yeah with with Mr Burr Mr Burr and the applicant and whoever is relevant from the applicant contractors so that would be the motion would be to uh you know either to approve or deny that I'll make a motion to uh approve this application subject to the various conditions and uh uh deliberate uh and then vote looks like we have a a second behind Council M Carr no I'd like to make a a request uh for the um board to consider requiring a performance bond to cover Landscaping in the event the project uh is not carried out to fruition from other projects not this one but from other projects we've seen price left in less than desirable position so I'm thinking of a performance bond on this one right M Miss Bill might have I was just going to say a couple of things I think that uh all requisite bonds of all required bonds have already been posted um if site work has began and the applicant will comply with all of the requirements set forth in uh section 53 of the municipal land use law as it relates to bonding if you want to add that so basically in in layman's terms you're saying you've already posted a bond that would cover the landscaping and should the project not go forward that Bond could be invoked to put the site improvements and so we're into reasonable condition okay but we'll we'll restate that in the resolution okay well then I'll make the motion again with that addition and who will second that motion Mr moror I'll second second Mr Muro okay and with that we'll open up deliberations and uh Mr Muro will'll start with you um I have no real objections to the project I think it's the uh the area certainly we have to look at the water situation but that in the would project should proceed Mr Char same thing uh I think we have hard enough and there lots of good discussions and I think uh with all the variants that's been specified we should be able to proceed it Mr Wang thank you um I I I also I I think you know um I appreciate the um uh applicants efforts to uh uh modify and to make sure that uh the residents uh benefit going to be uh protected uh privacy and Stor stor Water Management um all the impact I think should be uh uh make it minimum um also I um I think you know this side going to be um a a great addition to brew Township and for the land use and you know I I Lear to approve it oh by the way I I listened the uh December 3D uh meeting so you know uh that that's about it thank you councilman kers you know I think I've tipped off where I'm going with this throughout the hearing uh I really appreciate the willingness of the applicant to work with our community and to work with the members of our community that are are closest by and potentially the most impacted I think we have uh had a a a reasonable um airing of all the of all the issues uh I think that we have identified sufficient protections I think that there is a desire to be a good neighbor and I certainly appreciate that um um you know that's an important component of of uh of of your success and I think you recognize that clearly you're you're looking to invest a considerable amount of of money and equity and um you know sweat and tears and everything else that goes into a project like this I think that as long as as the various issues and protections that we talked about can be uh abided by I think we're looking at at a uh an asset for Bridgewater Township moving forward and um you know hopefully a um a marquee location for your brand so I think we've uh it's taken us a little while to me that's okay um but I think we've reached a good conclusion here and I'll I'll support the um I'll support the application Mr cor I'm uh most concerned about storm water management especially after seeing those those pictures today um I do trust Mr Burr and the his ability to come and and I I appreciate your your willingness to learn and listen um to what he has to say as well and Implement those those changes um I think that is going to be necessary I I'll be I did also hear that construction has been going on and off hours and those things really bother me um and I will be really disappointed to hear if that continues uh as these talk about being friendly neighbors that's extremely important especially during construction um I like the the note added about the eviction the 89 days and being willing to um do deliveries during the daytime or garbage pickup during the daytime versus at night because I think that the neighbors when I think about privacy I don't just think about being able to see inside but the ability to have privacy of of time and be able to sleep and and not worry that that they're going to be awoken really early in the morning on a Saturday morning or in the evenings I think that's important so I I'm I'm inclined to approve because of all of the willingness to make changes I am hoping that the applicant really adheres to what Mr bur suggests um and make some serious changes there because I I look at those pictures and I see green grass everywhere and then the mud and I know where that's coming from I don't have to have a degree to know that that's coming from the construction site so um I'm I'm excited to see some improvement for those neighbors because they deserve it yeah I'd like to thank the applicant uh for walking us through the hotel industry and the Extended Stay industry but but specifically thanks for understanding and being patient with the board as we sit here deliberating something that we don't have full control over the prior approv approval so as you can imagine none of us on this day as were here back in 2018 so we so want to kind of pick at every little portion of this of this site here and we recognize that we we can't but we we definitely appreciate the understanding that you have for that I appreciate the fact that you've reduced the far uh that we've reduced the motor vehicle area um we have to focus on things uh that we can control right I believe that the applicant show that they're willing to control uh the security uh as best as possible right um they've been willing to they've shown the willingness to control the water situation the storm water as best as possible we as as we all know forces of nature cannot be controlled as best as possible but uh I think that they've done uh everything that they can to uh show you know based on the buffering based on the changing of the of the uh the setbacks um I'm glad to hear that there is demand uh here in Bridgewater um it's it's nice to hear that we're coming out of I'm hopeful that we're coming out of this Co phase this postco phase here but that's what we want at the end of the day want Bridgewater to be a desirable Community uh and I'll Echo these Sentiments of my peers here I also believe that uh this is a neighborhood and uh I have no doubt that the applicant is coming in here to be a good neighbor and uh and that's exactly what Bridgewater is about so I am also inclined to improve uh to for this application and with that I believe we have a prior approval motion here by councilman kers and we have a second so I'll just need a roll call but was it seconded actually by Mr mura okay okay yeah Miss prob roll call please yes yes Mr M yes Mr Wang Mr yes Mr CH yes thank you Silber thank you and best of luck have any com yeah next time when we have a meeting up to 12:00 we're going to go to your hotel for free for free what are we going to do here about let seef let's see if he wants me can he can he manage what he needs to do in 15 20 minutes we're going to ask if he can do it in 20 minutes they can be prepared the next yeah and I think we'll have a better understanding you know we don't have to waste you know half an hour 45 minutes huh no question thank you okay next on the the agenda this evening is Chick-fil-A which is a continuance from 12324 block 164 lot 6.05 commonly known as 754 Route 202 and I spy Mr silbert in the seat he hasn't left yet Mr chairman I'm G to put on the record again Michael silbert on behalf of chick fet Inc from De Francesco baitman warrren Township hardest working attorney in The Firm tonight huh tell me about it um uh yeah I'm not going to resmar the the application the board's familiar with the application as we presented the uh professional testimony at our last hearing by from Mr uh Zachary chaplain the applicants engineer you also heard professional traffic testimony from the applicants uh traffic engineer Patrick Downey we heard operational testimony from John Martinez at the first hearing this is the third hearing on this application um with whatever remaining time we have this evening I wanted to address the December 88th supplemental review Memo from the board's professionals that Chick-fil-A received and our uh Witnesses are all under oath and I would like uh to turn it over Mr chairman if that's okay to Mr chaplain to talk a little bit about that supplemental review memo we we received it is and I believe that we could probably get this accomplished within the next 20 minutes or so yes okay very good please proceed good evening I'll try to be brief into the point um so we had a chance to review the memo um I understand that the concern is essentially that you know the fact that we have a portion of a bypass lane and not like a full bypass lane um you know around the the drive-through area I do want to make it a point that for Chick-fil-A the majority do not have a bypass lane um I don't know if I'm able oh you can't see it okay um I'd like to mark this exist bit okay do you guys have the ability to see it on your screen yeah can you zoom great if it was zoomed in a little more I'll actually zoom into to each oh left my mouse over the grab my bag no chocolate so this is an exhibit it's entitled existing Chick-fil-A locations prepared by our office dated December 16 2024 um I forget where we left off on the we are at a I want to say seven A7 being the next one up I'm sorry what do we call this existing Chick-fil-A locations so in essence what we did was we took the uh snapshot of an aerial of six Chick-fil-A sites um in New Jersey that have already been built um that essentially show and I'll start here in North Brunswick you know this this site has two lanes around the building itself um there is no bypass then you move on to South planfield It's actually an older version where it was two lanes of ordering into one lane of pickup you'll see here there is an escape but again there's no actual bypass lane around it for the South planfield site and then in Edison there's two full Lanes around the whole site Paran has two full Lanes around the site this was actually pretty recently built we also have Oldbridge which is the same case and Lawrence and I think what's important to note is that our plan probably wouldn't even had that third bypass lane was actually um just initial feedback from the township years and years ago that we we had put that in but typically we don't look to do that and you know obviously worked and installed and build many Chick-fil-A locations I think what's important to understand is that that unlike most drive-throughs that have one lane we do have two lanes right so in the event that there is an emergency um you know let's say there's a car that breaks down you have the ability for the Chick-fil-A staff to move vehicles and that uh and and you know essentially get vehicles out of the site the second exhibit that I'd like to introduce is called the bypass lane modification exhibit A8 A8 pass modification prepared by our office dated December 16 2024 um so this is essentially the the site plan uh with a red line markup on top and after looking at it a little bit more closely what we look to do is almost remove that third lane but provide an escape so you'll see here that in the event there was an emergency there's essentially another curb cut to that Main internal Access Road um so that you know if one of the lanes for whatever reason couldn't get through we could circulate through the other and then get out the site without having to fully drive through uh the drive-thru so I hope just in context the background that there are many chickf flight sites that don't even have a bipass Lane the fact that we would look to just make this modification we'd actually get as a result of this a lot more green space back more of a um you know drive you know we wouldn't have uh of a driveway throat here so actually think it's a it's a good change overall for the project thank you for the testimony uh any questions from our board well Mr chairman I have a a comment I you know I had some internal dialogue about a concern I have I don't know if this made its way to you or maybe right now is the way can you zoom out of this just slightly there you go thank you um I like that there's now the way the way to get off the site I still remain concerned about what could become a choke point of getting in and out um you know which is the uh you know your main entrance and I guess I remain particularly concerned about the scenario where we need to get an ambulance in there you know if there's a a a restaurant um visitor or or a staff person that has a medical emergency and it could be a chaotic situ ation and cars coming in and out and all kinds of crazy stuff and the suggestion that I made um to alleviate that is is there viability if you're looking at the line of um parking spots uh facing Town Center Road um is there viability to removing a couple of spots um near the um near the uh you know the pylon sign or whatever that's called um and making that emergency access only um so that essentially you know in the event of just you know the most severe circumstance that becomes a secondary option particularly to get an ambulance in and out of there quickly I I I don't know if that's depicted or you know what that crosswalk is but you know just my thought is you know the most direct way to get in there quickly with an ambulance particularly is you know you know some sort of a graded situation over the grass you lose a couple of parking spaces potentially and then you know that that's kind of your break glass in a real bad situation how could you get an ambulance in there real fast it's almost like a grass paaver Road just to be something like that and you know some kind of Cl Clarity that these are not parking spaces um now you know I I could it happen sound I'm seeing a nod of a head yes is that valuable and necessary you know you know I don't I don't want to impose a condition for something that'll never happen um but at the same time if you can afford to lose a couple of parking spaces and that gives you more flexibility for greater safety you know perhaps that is is a is a a good um a good outcome from from this uh conversation well we're coming back facts it seems like so we have a chance to you know put our heads together and think about it so I appreciate the uh suggestion I think it has definitely has Merit um the one thing I'll I'll add just to remind the board again is our Drive aisles are oversized they're 30 feet wide so you should have room even if there you know that's basically room for three vehicles essentially so that main thoroughfare um you know if needed like there is extra space for larger vehicles to kind of get around I understand that they have no way to get out you know you know from going through the drive-thru but you have that 30 ft and ability to K turn if needed but like I said obviously Escape you know an extra emergency Lane could be valuable I I suggest that not not as a requirement but as a suggestion and if your answer to me after considering it is you know what we are perfectly comfortable even though there is essentially a oneway in oneway out situation in an area that could be congested as long as consider it if you come back and say you know what that's a great addition it it you know it's belt in suspenders it's a little bit of an extra security for us sure let's do it um or if you come back and say we've considered it and you know I just I ask you to consider it um you know and and I think what I'd be most concerned about it wouldn't be fire it would be it would be an ambulance condition um you know getting an ambulance and I guess the benefit to that is it would be pretty close to your front door which presumably would be where any EMTs or other Personnel would want to get in to address you know a patron or or an employee that may be having a medical concern okay got it as an aside in Bridgewater uh some EMTs report directly to the scene as opposed to go to the squad building to pick up the ambulance so they would show up possibly before the ambulance would possibly before the police would just yeah excess based on experience on the squad and and you know I would defer to your judgment if that if it's viable and desired you know what is exactly what does it look like um you know is is there a a a you know a you know a chain that clearly shows this is not for normal circumstances you know I don't think you need a lock or a gate or anything but you know something that delineates this as not a place you know for normal traffic but that again whether it's a chain or something could be easily and quickly removed if there was a need whether an ambulance gets in there or or as was just stated maybe it's it's even a private vehicle of an EMT responder yep that makes sense and if I may add on that I happened to be at a store today and you can't park in front of the store the front of the store is reserved for fire engines there's absolutely no parking of the front entrance of the store yeah and I I you know I'm sorry to to to continue on um you know it's it's funny when we have hearings like this you know now now now every time I drive by there I'm I'm seeing it and I'm picturing it um and um you know it's right by Wegman's um you know you know this the site seems to be a little tight you know I mean you showed some of the other Aerials and a few of those definitely had more more room um you know I I you know I I think as you come back the next time you know I I would just look for additional reassurance that um while crowded um th this this site will work um I know we heard testimony before that there are times when your Traffic Engineers sometimes have to deliver challenging news and say sorry can't make it work um so the fact that we're here means we've we've gotten over that hurdle but I think if you could focus your comments on you know for you know for the record for the benefit of of of the of of any public members that are here um you know just just some additional assurance that although it's tight we can make this work and then you know my other desire is I if there can be S some additional commentary about the exterior movement that is going to be created um when people go out past the bank go on to 202 South try to cut across to make that U-turn because again as I've been driving here the last couple of weeks that that's going to be a tough maneuver um to make and and I know there was commentary about finding signs and you know kind of you know urging people who are going north to go left people who are going south have the choice to go either way but again Jersey drivers will find their way to go the way they want um you know that that's that's that's an area you know I'd like to just see Revisited a little bit um you know because I I I I'm concerned that um you know we we we we look at at the grade of the intersection I'm concerned that in addition to the grade you know the efficiency grade or whatever it's called um level of service um that you know we also are looking at the at the safety grade if there is such a thing um you know and and um you know it's a tight space you know it's a tight space and and you know getting getting getting out of out of this whole complex and going north again is is is a bit of a challenge I think the benefit is is in a shopping center you know so if is tight we're not impacting you know the major highways or like having issues with like the major the main access points so the fact that like our main access point is you know onto internal roadway of a shopping center I think that's helpful and just an experience with working on many different Chick-fil-A that's that's always been beneficial for for our sites when we're within a larger shopping center and can take advantage of the parking and then internal access it definitely helps as compared to some of those other ones that you saw that are like have direct access onto those highways but totally heard what you're saying we'll come back um you know we'll have a couple things to say to just reassure that that this does work that we've done a lot of calculations and you know a lot of plan preparation and and you know we'll we'll reassure the board and the public that this can work Mr chairman can I Mr CH okay so basically since I live right near there uh so last week I actually went several test drive uh including Friday lunchtime that is basically most because of the holidays the Verizon stores also lot of people came to Verizon store and obviously Olive Garden actually totally filled up so what I did I actually went many times to your place you know thank God that nobody caught me there and that actually the you are right the from the Verizon side those that two two lanes will be too tight I mean I know you have probably designed it I'm not going to change anything I actually went not only through like uh councilman cars was saying I went uh to the uh you know to the 20 or2 north and south from the Town Hill Road uh Town Center Road so actually the going to North is a little bit of headache in the peak time and remember check player is not there yet so think about when it will happen however I also did I actually come by The Bu Road and you could one can actually go uh take the U-turn from The Bu Road itself because there is sufficient distance there uh you know while I drive crazy so basically probably people may not be liking driving like me but you could actually go both towards the to2 north by that way as well as go straight to the to to South uh so if if we can basically make the traffic more uh by the signs more doable I think you know you could actually bypass many of the congestions uh there plus you are doing the time change and you have other you know light uh but at least uh what consument car saying is actually more is more makes sense now and now at we can at least do the emergency uh for the EMT or some you know the cars that will actually help lot because this will be a really congested uh road that uh you know in front of your uh store so think about that one that will actually helpful I'm not even considering now fire brigade uh at the same time I'm really worried about how these two lanes on the Verizon side you know if something happened there I don't know how at least in a peak time how you're going to handle uh those cars that uh if you can at least think about it or if you know the answer uh kindly share with us because that is really concerns for a safety side the two drive-thru Lanes yeah on the what you call on the Verizon side well and your concern is that it's it's you think it's tight or no it is very tight and if something happens there uh you know um anything I in fact liver pain or something I whatever it happened it's how you're going to control that take it out uh that car this this will be really messed up things there I think it comes back to the fact that we have two lanes so you know there's going to be Chick-fil-A team members who are out there and who can you know help direct traffic you know as needed so if you know they need to move cars and say hey there an emergency like they're going to get people to go and we have two lanes to work with instead of one you know most drive-throughs again take Chick-fil-A out of the equation you know Starbucks Duncan one lane so the two lanes uh gives us not only that our lanes are are oversized we've got um you know striping in the middle and flexible Ballard so there's there's definitely a lot of you know because we have our team members who are out there too so they're oversized drive-thru Lanes we have two if something happens we have team members out there who can help direct traffic no actually if you're talking about other like Burger King or so anybody you could actually have another space which you can drive through it so there is no uh even though they have only one lane again I'm not recommending baring or anything else here uh but at least even though they have a one lane they have Side Lane which you can bypass it uh so here there is no bypass lane is there which basically it's okay you know that your design better than me I'm not telling you to change anything but all I'm saying it for emergency it will be as long as you thought about it I mean I we' we actually have an operator and attendants tonight we were talking to him and obviously operates Chick-fil-A and he said even just like um someone enters a a drive-thru by accident it's like maybe a handful of times a year and then once they do it they never do it again so it's it's very rare and like I said if there is an emergency the team members they're there to help they're there to move traffic we have the two lanes to work with and like I've showed before obviously there's many sites that have been built just like this I I'm very familiar with the South PL pill um even though I don't eat chicken but at least I take my son or wife there so it I I have experience with chck filet obviously your things are very must be very good people a lot of people go there um so again think about it when you go home today I mean whether how you basically um in a emergency situation how you handle it that's that's specifically one of what is North site that to by land it is too congested okay thank you would you say with the space that we're seeing here we see the representation of vehicles in two lanes if a traffic operator would take somebody and bring them to the extreme left and one to the extreme right there's sufficient space in between for a full-size vehicle to be able to drive right through is what you're saying no what I'm saying is um let's just say a car broke down in one of the lanes yeah and you couldn't you're blocked by that car the other lane the team members can just start saying to the cars that you got to drive up there's an emergency so that cars can get around that car to open up space for it okay so if two of those cars were put either as far away from as far away from each other as possible toward their respective curbs there's not sufficient space in between for cars to go between correct let alone a motorcycle for example that's a better angle here you go yeah I I think it could it could be possible the canopy has column so it yeah it would not be possible okay it' be too tight okay understood drive through Lane yeah what I was saying is the the yeah the the drive aisle itself you can't you know the main drive a but in the Drive-Thru it's it would be by the canop piece right right okay but I mean uh it's it's obvious that the board obviously sees this but you know if there was an emergency situation you wouldn't have to wait to go around the entire drive-thru to exit you you still do have the opportunity to exit at the Northeast portion of the property rather than waiting what how many car Lanes would you don't have to answer that but you're waiting approximately eight car lengths versus going around the entire site to exit in the in the naturally planned um exit point of the drive-through Lane so it's all I'm trying to highlight is it's evident that we are keeping in mind that in this scenario there is a point of exit that is much closer to the entrance of the drive-through Lane um and from what it see what it appears a traffic operator could direct people to the exit ramp that that immediate exit ramp the one that you're including in this site plan in order to facilitate that type of process I I actually wanted to ask a question of Mr Martinez um if if it's possible um when when Chick-fil-A opens here do they put in place some kind of Emergency Management plan if something were to happen in one of the drive-through Lanes do does is the staff trained in some manner to jump into action or I mean well so question so on opening internal LAN is us thank you I think at this time I'd also like to ask any board members if they have any questions at all that's not related to the traffic this is probably a good opportunity to ask them because I think uh over the course of the last two hearings we've pretty much combed over every last issue that we've wanted to deliberate on so if there are any other questions or concerns that come to mind I think this would be the time to do it nope none here yes very good once again thank you any public yep um so the so can it be carried this application to the reorg meeting so we don't have to provide new notice or the reorg is on uh January 7th correct this would be is we also have request just an official set of hands here show of hands who would be here on the 7th for reorg S yeah is there a choice I mean there's always a choice well I life is full of choices I know I know okay every day we make choices I want to check with my with my team uh to see if they're available on the 7th anyway but at minimum I just didn't want to have to Ren notice yeah why don't we can we can carry it and they can we can decide later whether it it goes through but to avoid having to Ren notice so we do anticipate a an a a case to be heard on the 7th so that's what you need to to discuss before weour entertain request from OS Mr silber's what type of case is that um so AOS has coming in with an amended minor site plan application they are proposing to put uh an a DAC mechanical system on their property it has to do with um it's basically Machinery that takes CO2 emissions out of the air and they're building a structure I call it a structure because it's simply to house the mechanical equipment from the environmental conditions um there's no variances it's an amended minor site plan application should and this is on miltown road across from the park yes it is I I don't say it'll be quick because you never know but but I'm hoping it'll be quick are you saying you so you would only have engineering testimony that's correct well what what I can do at least for the subject application R A Heritage uh this hearing will be carried Chick-fil-A Our Heritage I'm sorry long night Chick-fil-A applications being carried to January 7 no further notice will be given So for anybody watching out there any public here January 7th yes no further notice will be given okay thank you I I would like to open it up any questions from the public no questions from the public any question from our professionals all [Music] good is there just just just commentary on the seventh I will be bless you bless you I will be here I may have a a time restriction that would require me to leave um so we would just want to make sure we you know we have full compliment in case I do here on the sth looks like everyone plans to be here with councilman's uh potential possible time constraint yeahor should I I believe so I'd like to check with some of the other board members as well well just for scheduling purposes we've already noticed for abos for the 7eventh we obviously would like the board to hear us but if the board says we can't accommodate you um we've noticed for it so that the board can carry us to their next available date theing yes we did and I thank you for that would your intention be to to if possible to hear OS that night and then to schedule Chick-fil-A sometime later or to also if possible hear Chick-fil-A that night I I think um I don't know what the what your reorganization meeting I actually in advance of tonight's meeting I looked up the reorg meeting from February 2024 to see how long it went and it only took 15 minutes approximately I I have no idea what's on the plan or on the plate for um January 7th so I would leave it to to the board to make a determin the board's been extremely flexible and accommodating uh this evening um I think aenos is they're at similar situation they have people flying in from California so they are banking on that on that January 7th date if that's possible um and then obviously we're all available from Chick-fil-A so depending on how quickly you get through reorg we we can be here um you know I just I'm going through the dates in my head right now and I just want to make sure that if we are submitting any supplemental EX exhibits that we have enough time to get it in 10 days in advance so that the public has an opportunity to review those revisions because we showed Concepts this evening so why don't why don't we carry Chick-fil-A to the 7th and I'll talk with my team and even see if it's feasible for us to get site plan revisions in 10 days in advance of that hearing particularly in light of the fact that we have the holidays and and our our likely schedule for 2025 shouldn't be a surprise you know subject to holidays or or lack of uh room availability it's likely to roughly be first and first and third Tuesdays yes although that's not official yet um but we do have statuto 10 days is all that have to provide materials in but process requires a little more than that so what M saying sub Chick-fil-A but no no that that that makes but in all likelihood our next meeting we haven't said it yet but our next meeting after the 7th would be the 21st yeah so my what I'm saying is the Fire Marshall is going to have to these changes for circulation and with holiday time so so that that might be a challenge for the seventh with holiday time I think it makes more sense if you want to entertain obos for hearing on the sth then potentially carry carry chck FL to the 21st after we set that as a date but we may not able to and then to ask I'm sorry to ask another question do you anticipate how much more time do you or how many more witnesses do you have for Chick-fil-A the only well I would recall Mr chaplain if if site revisions and we took your feedback tonight so I would anticipate there were revisions made to briefly go through those revisions the revisions that the board should already be expecting and they've already seen the concept of that so that shouldn't take long we do have some um planning testimony that would be required from Matt Flynn our planner uh as it relates to some of the C variance relief that we're requesting so in short quick engineering testimony and then planning testimony perhaps that would take an hour I mean we didn't have a big turnout this evening with respect to Chick-fil-A clearly so um maybe it'll it'll go quickly I'm hoping okay thank you the Public's waiting mind right yeah that Public's waiting they're waiting okay right okay so for January 7th then we'll schedule a hearing for avos with the potential carry for Chick-fil-A so we're going to so we're going to schedule chickfila for the 7th and it's the in all likelihood it or it may be carried to the 21st correct thank you very much for staying so late thank you you want to make a motion I'll make motion to the meeting who wants to second that Mr chowri all in favor I I all right what time is it 11:34 11 yeah I think the of okay not 11