Bridgewater zoning board continues Café Amelia expansion hearing after residents press parking, trash and lot-coverage concerns

The Bridgewater Township Zoning Board on Feb. 24 took testimony and public comment in a continued hearing on application 25-00001-ZB, an application by Café Amelia to expand operations onto an adjoining church lot and to alter existing site features. Chairman John Kulak opened the session, read statutory public-notice language and the board adopted routine minutes and a procedural resolution designating the township website and the online publication Tap into the Breeze as official 2026 electronic news sources.

The hearing’s substantive portion centered on the applicant’s civil-engineering and architectural testimony and a lengthy public-question-and-answer period. Donna Jennings, attorney for the applicant, introduced site engineer Robert Moshello, who confirmed the application requests about 10 zoning variances and six design waivers. Moshello said the combined proposed improved lot coverage for the two parcels would be 79.4% and that the applicant proposes substantially fewer foundation shrubs than zoning requires (roughly 28 shrubs proposed versus an ordinance calculation of about 69 based on frontage).

Residents repeatedly pressed the applicant about what they described as chronic parking overflow on Charlotte Drive. Multiple speakers said the existing Café Amelia operation routinely sends cars into neighborhood streets during busy periods and asked how the applicant would prevent similar problems after the expansion. Moshello and the applicant’s architect, Craig J. Calatian, said the proposed plan provides 51 on-site parking spaces (an increase from 27 currently serving the restaurant parcel) and that valet staging and internal circulation are intended to reduce curbside parking on neighborhood streets. “The ordinance requires 51 parking spaces and that is what we are providing on site,” Moshello said.

Neighbors said the on-site number will not prevent spillover. “We have school buses and emergency vehicles that sometimes can’t get through when there’s double parking,” said resident Tom Horvath, who asked the board to consider narrower pavement widths and weekday events in its review. Several residents asked whether the applicant had secured or intended off-site parking agreements; Jennings and Moshello said no off-site parking is part of the current application and that any off-site arrangement would require the applicant to amend and re-notice the application.

Trash and nuisance odors were raised repeatedly. Nearby residents described persistent trash odors and asked the applicant to relocate the trash enclosure and increase pickup frequency; Moshello acknowledged the concerns and said the applicant would consider a relocation and agreed to discuss increased pickup frequency and other operational controls with board professionals.

Calatian, the applicant’s architect, described the design as an effort to reduce the overall intensity of the two-parcel campus: he said combined allowable occupant load from past records could be as high as 242 but that the current proposal would post a combined occupant limit of 180 and would dedicate roughly 60% of new building area to support spaces (kitchen, storage, staging) rather than public assembly. Calatian said the rooftop bar/terrace is designed as an enclosed amenity with mechanicals and parapet screening oriented toward Route 202 rather than the residential block.

Board professionals noted outstanding engineering and traffic review comments. The consulting-engineer’s December technical review recommended either a shared-use parking plan or operational restrictions because the banquet component could, at peak, overlap with restaurant operations and strain the proposed parking supply. The board asked the applicant to return with a traffic engineer, an acoustical engineer and a professional planner to address night-time operations, traffic circulation and sound attenuation.

Before adjourning the hearing, the board carried the matter to May 26, 2026 (7 p.m.) and the applicant agreed to extend procedural time to mid-June to allow the additional witnesses to appear and answer outstanding questions. No final vote was taken.

What’s next: the applicant will present traffic and acoustical analysis, a professional planner’s testimony and responses to operational conditions the board and residents requested, including dumpster placement, trash-pickup timing, snow removal and whether operational limits on concurrent use of the banquet and restaurant functions are warranted.