Bridgewater board hears plan to add 13 affordable units to 64‑unit senior development; stormwater and traffic concerns delay decision

The Bridgewater Zoning Board of Adjustment on Jan. 15 heard testimony on a proposed 64‑unit, age‑restricted development off Route 202/206 that the applicant revised to add 13 affordable units and to retain 51 market‑rate townhouses.

Kevin Coakley, the applicant's attorney, told the board the change was made after earlier hearings and meetings with the township planner. “and that is to add 13 affordable units to the project,” Coakley said, describing a 13‑unit affordable building paired with 51 townhouses for a total of 64 units.

Board planner Catherine Samad and the applicant’s witnesses discussed how the units would count toward Bridgewater’s fourth‑round affordable housing obligation and how age‑restricted units may be credited under recent state law. Samad cautioned that the township’s housing‑element list includes sites with different contexts, incentives and “set asides of 25 to 28%” on some proposals, meaning simple density comparisons can be misleading.

The project engineer, Robert Moschello, described site layout and infrastructure plans, including an emergency access connection to the adjacent Jewish Community Center (JCC). “This emergency access would be made out of stabilized turf material,” Moschello said, adding that the 15‑foot access would be controlled by bollards and a Knox box to allow emergency responders to open it.

Moschello identified zoning metrics for the current layout: about 5.6 units per acre for the 64‑unit plan, a floor‑area ratio near 0.42 (compared with 0.15 permitted in the zone), lot coverage roughly 48.7%, and about 253 parking spaces total when garages are counted. He reported a tree‑removal estimate of about 407 trees and said the applicant planned to replant roughly 185–200 trees on site.

Stormwater and traffic dominated board questioning and public comment. Engineers said the preliminary stormwater design shows eight basins sized to attenuate runoff and that the project will require DEP review and additional calculations during site‑plan permitting. The board’s reviewer noted a February memo with unresolved engineering comments and emphasized that the detailed site‑plan engineering remains to be completed.

Traffic reviewers pressed the applicant about sight distance and vehicle turning templates for emergency apparatus. A board traffic reviewer pointed out that the conservative sight‑distance target for the roadway, given posted speeds, is near 600 feet and said the plan as drawn shows lower clear distances on one side; Moschello said he believed additional distance could be achieved but recommended field checks and DOT coordination.

Nearby residents asked technical and practical questions. “It’s already difficult to pull out on West Foothill,” said Rob Esposito, a nearby resident, summarizing concerns about adding a new driveway and competing turning movements. Other neighbors described repeated flooding of a small bridge on the local access road and worried that tree removal and grading could worsen basement flooding.

Board members and professionals framed multiple issues—stormwater calculations, DEP permitting, sight‑distance field checks, fire‑truck turning radii and the full site‑plan engineering—as matters that must be addressed before final site‑plan approval. The applicant agreed to meet with neighbors and to return with additional professional testimony.

No final land‑use approvals were issued tonight. The board carried the matter for further evidence and set a continuation for Nov. 25 at 7 p.m. in the same room; the continuation was announced by the chair at the hearing’s close.

Next steps for the applicant include submitting the detailed site‑plan engineering and responding to the board engineer’s outstanding comments, coordinating any required roadway improvements with the state DOT, and producing the traffic expert’s testimony the board asked to see before or at site‑plan review.

The board adjourned after motions to continue the case and to approve housekeeping minutes were approved.