Articles Land use and development
The Self-Storage Application at Routes 22 and 28, Explained
What Bridgewater Self Storage, LLC asked the Zoning Board for, how the plan changed over seven hearings, the farm-stand lease, what residents and the Council said, and the Oct. 13, 2026 vote as TAPinto reported it, pending the Board's written decision.
The short version
- Who and where: Bridgewater Self Storage, LLC (App. #24-027-ZB), on Block 400, Lots 1 and 2 (322 Route 22 and 351 Route 28): the vacant former Tectonic office park and the lot where the Melick family runs a seasonal farm stand.
- What it needed: a D(1) use variance, because the C-3 zone does not permit self-storage, plus a D(4) floor-area variance and bulk variances.
- What changed: the building came down from 120,570 to 106,650 square feet, with 774 units all inside (Jan. 27 testimony), and the applicant added the farm stand to the plan with a 10-year lease offer (TAPinto).
- The vote: TAPinto reported a 5-2 vote to approve on Oct. 13, 2026. The Board’s Oct. 20 special-meeting agenda lists the application’s resolution as “PENDING.”
LocalWhy has reviewed the Zoning Board’s minutes and attached transcripts for Jan. 27, April 28 and July 14, 2026 and its agendas through Oct. 20. It has not yet reviewed the minutes of the Sept. 22, Oct. 13 and Oct. 20 meetings; facts from those meetings come from TAPinto Bridgewater/Raritan and are attributed to it. The Council facts come from the Council minutes.
The application
The applicant’s attorney, Matthew Capizzi, told the Board on Jan. 27, 2026, according to its transcript: “Although we are in a commercial district with the site in the C-3 zone which allows various commercial-type uses, it does not permit self storage, so as a result of that we do need a D-1 use variance to allow the self-storage facility at this location and the building does exceed the maximum allowable FAR, so we have a D-4 FAR variance.” He called the bulk variances “quite minimal”: a 100-foot Route 22 front setback where 200 is required, two loading spaces where four are required, and a sign 5 feet from the Route 22 property line where 30 is required. A use variance from the Zoning Board requires at least five affirmative votes of its seven members.
How the plan changed:
| Date | Change | Source |
|---|---|---|
| March 25 and July 8, 2025 | Earlier hearings; an Oct. 17, 2025 submittal updated the plans. The application was not heard on Oct. 28, 2025 and was carried | Mr. Capizzi, Jan. 27, 2026 transcript; Oct. 28, 2025 minutes |
| Jan. 27, 2026 | Drive-up units, front-yard parking and a long Route 22 drive aisle dropped; building cut from 120,570 to 106,650 square feet (architect William McGeever); 774 units, all interior, down from “roughly 835”; about 31 feet from average grade (36 originally), 43 feet seen from the Bogart/Route 28 intersection (about 53.5 before), 45 feet permitted; about 300 feet of Route 28 evergreens to be replanted; no Route 28 access | Board transcript |
| Jan. 27, 2026 | Earth-tone exterior with non-reflective faux windows; 407 trees planned after removing 129 | TAPinto |
| By July 2026 | Building height reduced to 35 feet | TAPinto |
| Sept. 22, 2026 | Farm stand added to the plan: a new 10-year lease for the Melicks with a possible 10-year extension; power, sewer and water service, a restroom and gravel parking for the stand; storage reached only from Route 22 and the stand only from Route 28 | TAPinto |
To keep the stand, engineer Matthew Kunsman said on Sept. 22, as TAPinto reported, the applicant needed further variances, among them one to permit the farm stand, which he said has never been a conforming use, and one to allow two uses on the combined property.
The farm stand
Rebecca Melick told the Council on April 23, 2026 that she is a tenth-generation farmer and has run Melick’s Town Farm, a seasonal market at the site, for about 20 years, and asked the township to consider preserving it as part of any approved development. Councilman Michael Kirsh said the Council cannot comment on matters before the Zoning Board, which acts as a quasi-judicial body.
How long the stand has operated, as each record gives it:
| Source | Length of operation |
|---|---|
| Council minutes, April 23, 2026 (Ms. Melick) | “approximately 20 years” |
| TAPinto, July 17, 2026 (Ms. Melick at the July 14 hearing) | “the past 22 years” |
| TAPinto, Oct. 15, 2026 | ”22 years” |
On July 9, 2026, Tinamarie Diehl, chair of the Somerville Environmental Commission, spoke to the Council about the farm stand’s value; the Township Attorney said the Council could not comment on a pending application. On July 23, Councilman Timothy Ring said the township “is not considering a zoning change” and that the proposal was being reviewed through the variance process; Councilman Kirsh said owners who submit complete applications are entitled to a hearing under state land-use law.
The hearings in 2026
| Hearing | What the record shows | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 27 | Revised plan presented to the reorganized Board, chaired by John Kulak. John Kaplan, attorney for Arthur’s Self Storage, a competing storage business, cross-examined; Board attorney Richard Oller questioned its standing. Carolyn Gioia, Inderpreet Banga and James Brady questioned witnesses. Carried to April 28 | Minutes and transcript |
| April 28 | Engineer Matthew Kunsman, architect McGeever and planner Paul Ricci testified; 12 people questioned witnesses or commented. Ms. Gioia played a traffic video and asked for a supplemental traffic study. The applicant extended the Board’s time to act through July 14; carried to July 14 | Minutes and transcript |
| July 14 | 27 sworn public comments, among them Rebecca Melick; speakers raised the farm stand, traffic, the Master Plan’s C-3 language, property values, stormwater and Walters Brook; carried to Sept. 22 | Minutes and transcript |
| Sept. 22 | Agenda: “6TH HEARING.” TAPinto: farm-stand lease presented; about 150 people attended; 90 minutes of public comment; carried to Oct. 13 | Agenda; TAPinto |
| Oct. 13 | Agenda: “7TH HEARING.” TAPinto: 25 speakers; the Board voted | Agenda; TAPinto |
| Oct. 20 | Special-meeting agenda lists the resolution as “PENDING” | Agenda |
On Jan. 27, Inderpreet Banga said he represented Bridgewater Residents United, “a constituency of over 150 members in the Bogart community,” and confirmed it is not a legal entity and that he was not acting as an attorney (Board transcript). In late July, Bridgewater Residents United, which TAPinto described as a nonprofit for Bridgewater residents and businesses, started a GoFundMe to hire a planner, a traffic engineer and a land-use attorney for the Sept. 22 hearing, with a $10,000 goal. Its attorney, Jeffrey Brennan, TAPinto reported, challenged the credentials and testimony of the applicant’s later planner, Nicholas Graziano, and argued that the 2025 Master Plan allows self-storage in only one business zone, not this one. Speakers raised traffic, landscaping, setbacks from Route 22, the building’s size and floor area ratio, its visibility from Route 28 and nearby homes, and the need for another storage facility.
The vote on Oct. 13, 2026, as TAPinto reported it
| Vote | Members |
|---|---|
| Yes (5) | Chairman John Kulak, Vice-Chairman James Weideli, John Colucci, Pushpavati Amin, Andrew Fresco |
| No (2) | Christine Henderson-Rose, James Franco |
- Ms. Henderson-Rose cited the need to protect the master plan. Chairman Kulak said the Zoning Board exists to hear applications for uses the zoning scheme does not include, through variances.
- Ms. Melick offered a letter from her attorney disputing that the lease agreement was final. Mr. Capizzi and Board attorney Richard Oller said the applicant could not sign a lease for property it did not yet own.
- Mr. Oller said the certificate of occupancy for the site would not be approved without the clauses allowing a farm-stand operation, and that the document could not name a specific operator.
An NJ.com headline on Oct. 14, 2026 said residents “plan to appeal.” LocalWhy has found no appeal filing.
What is not known
- The exact variances and conditions granted, which the memorializing resolution will state.
- What the Board’s minutes record for Sept. 22, Oct. 13 and Oct. 20, 2026 (LocalWhy has not yet reviewed them), and the date of its notice of decision.
- Whether anyone files an appeal.
What residents can do
- The written decision. The Board memorializes its decision by resolution at a public meeting, then publishes a notice of decision on the township’s legal notices page. The Board did not meet on Oct. 27, 2026, according to its Oct. 7 notice.
- Appeals. Under New Jersey court rules, a challenge to a board decision is generally filed in Superior Court within 45 days of publication of the notice of decision.
- The record. The Board’s agendas, minutes and resolutions are on the township’s meeting documents pages, and its meetings are recorded on the township’s YouTube channel.