sure whether there's going to be an intensity there that would really change the results of this but his recommendation as a review comment was to uh revise the study to incorporate whatever traffic might be generated by that and that certainly can be done uh I don't believe that'll have any impact
with regard to the results that I'll explain to you as we go through the rest of the study. Uh the third element was to try to get uh more updated data with regard to what is going to be generated tripwise on the site with the proposed
use. And to do that, we went out and surveyed two different sites. Uh one that's actually on Hartford Road, another one that's over in Morrisville to get trip generation data for a similar type trailer repair uh storage facility. Um, and we uh did those counts
uh as we would do normally counts at the driveways to get what the ins and outs are. We broke that down by uh employee or staff vehicles versus tractor trailers. And we consolidated that down to try and come up with trip generation
that we could then uh use for this site. And what we found was the Morrisville site had more conservatively high trip generation. So, we used that data so that we were as conservatively high as we could be to do our analysis for this
site. Um, I'll also say that the morning peak hour uh at the Morrisville site was between 7 and 8 in the morning, consistent with the Bridge Road peak hour. The afternoon peak hour out there was 3:15 to 4:15. a little bit earlier
uh than we would anticipate. But instead of trying to do anything with those numbers, we again went conservatively high and used those trip generation numbers for the four to five peak hour at Bridge Road. So again, I think we're very safe with regard to the numbers
that we're using for trip generation based on using actual data from actual similar sites. And what we found and project is that there'll be 26 trips during the peak hour in the morning generated by 10 employees and a total of
16 trailer trips. That would be 11 trips in, five trips out. Uh during the afternoon peak hour, 4:00 to 5 in the afternoon, a total of 42 trips. Again, 10 of those will be employees. And then 32 uh trailer trips, 16 in, 16 out. uh
that is what is projected to be generated based on the actual uh comparable sites. Uh just to give an order of magnitude uh the New Jersey Department of Transportation has a standard that they use for significant increase and significant increase would
be over 100 peak hour trips. Obviously, we're not even half of that with regard to what is projected uh on this site uh and consistent with what we found uh from the other uh facilities that we did the studies for.
We then had to apply that traffic to the uh intersections that we evaluated the site access uh Natalie Road intersection with Bridgeboro and Creek uh Bridgeboro for Bridge to analyze what impact we might have. And with regard to the impact, there was no changes in the
levels of service when we evaluated between the no build and the build. Uh and so this level of traffic is not generating any changes to the uh the levels of service which relates to delay at the intersections. Obviously, there's going to be some increase in delay, but
it's not significant enough that's changing any of the levels of service out there. All the level of service at the intersections are at a level of service C or better at Creek and Bridge. Uh D or better at Hartford and Bridgeboro. Uh at the site accesses
where C are better. Uh and as has been discussed, the site access has been consolidated to one site access point along Bridge Road, which actually is an improvement over the condition today with multiple uh sites. And the level of service at that site access is
acceptable. all the center left turn lane out there. We've had discussions with the county. The county is uh in say we basically agreed with the concept of having one driveway and there might be some minor widening that's being done on
our side of Bridge Road just to make a consistent shoulder uh along Bridgeboro Road along frontage of the site and that would be the only improvements that would be required from the county. Uh so with all of that said, this site will not have a significant impact on the
overall roadway network. Again, the significant impact would be if we're having more than 100 trips, we would look at whether or not we're changing any level of service. We don't have more than 100 trips during the peak hour. We're not changing any levels of service out there. The site accesses will work
to acceptable levels of service uh from the county perspective who have jurisdiction over the roadway. And the impact to the intersections up and downstream uh is not significant and that is demonstrated through no changes in the level of service and levels of
service today and in the future that would be consistent with what the county would expect uh without having to do any mitigation. Uh so that's a a synopsis of the update that we provided. Could
you um maybe in in your experience, it's not something you all take took a look at, but uh you know this is a use variance and the property is zoned for residential use. Um in your experience, would the traffic generated by this site um be less or more than if the site is
entirely developed for residential use? Well, I I can anticipate that you would have a a level of residential development that would far exceed 42 peak hour trips during the PM, far exceed 26 trips during the uh morning
peak hour. I think the question that always arises is okay well you do have trucks mixed in that. when we do our evaluations and capacity analyses, you know, trucks are accounted for in terms of taking a little bit longer in terms of their
movement out of a driveway, their movement through an intersection. And we put those percentages in. So, uh, based on how large the site is, I'm convinced that you could have more intensity with the residential use based on the size of the site.
And off the top of your head, are there any other uses? I'm not asking you to uh you know say exactly what would be appropriate at the site but other uses that are generally out there. How would they compare? It's it's interesting Mr. Rank Camp and I were just discussing the small section of this that is neighborhood commercial.
You could put a small uh commercial entity that actually could generate more than 42 peak hour trips uh just in and of itself without developing the rest of the lot. So uh yes you know the intensity of this is certainly in keeping in my mind from a traffic
perspective and from a transportation planning perspective there's not going to be any impairment to the zoning plan or the master plan there's not going to be any uh issue with regard to significant impact to the public good on a traffic side of it because it will fit
within what was planned in the zone. So, the off-site impacts are are not anything greater than what would be anticipated from the development of the site with the permitted use. That's correct. Um, there were some questions last time about uh, you know, left left versus
right turns out of the driveway. Uh, did you take a look at that any further? Yeah, we we again portioned uh the driveway uh left turn movements, right turn movements uh fairly evenly in terms of the outbound side of things and everything worked well within the levels
of service expected by the county. Uh and and so there was no issue with regard to delay on site. There was no issue with regard to delay along Britsboro Road for left movement in. So there was no issues. And you mentioned the county. Have you had any discussions with the county? Yeah, there's been a discussion with
them with regard to how this access would look and again their response was there may be the need for some widening, minor widening along the frontage to have a consistent uh shoulder uh area out there instead of something that varies along the frontage.
Very good. So uh as a summary to your testimony, you think that uh the traffic, the truck traffic particular that will be generated by the the use of this site will not have any uh substantial negative impact on uh Bridgeboro Road or any of the
surrounding areas including the residential areas in Yeah, that's correct. Again, county roads are by designation truck routes and so trucks are anticipated on these roadways. the numbers of trucks that are being generated by this are not a significant amount that would create any
issue with regard to level of service and operations. So yes, this will not have a significant effect. Thank you. Uh Mr. Chairman. Okay. Uh does anyone on the board have follow questions? Ed, looks like you were ready to jump in.
Yeah, I I I know this has been brought up previously in other applications. Can can you speak to the approach delay associated with the existing conditions versus the build conditions and even the no build conditions? I I I can see within the report there is an increase.
Um but can you can you speak to that? Uh if you give me a second I'll scroll to the to the actual numbers. Um with regard to the the existing driveway u and I'll give you some some actual
numbers from the counts. Uh the existing driveway has uh one to two trips uh during the peak hour coming out. That's where the delay is at the stop stop control. Uh the projected increase there would be up to uh that during the
critical peak hour the 42 trips which not all of them would be uh outbound trips. So the total outbound would be 26 uh total trips on the outbound side. So, it's an increase from two trips to 26 trips. Uh, with regard to the delay,
that was going to take me just a little bit longer to give you the actual numbers, but just bear with me. So the existing delay would be the level service A with 9 seconds of delay for those two vehicles. So nominal delay.
It's maybe I'll elaborate a little bit more. So, so the um focus of the discussion at the last meeting um with Nathan revolved around the impacts to the intersections of Bridgeboro and Hartford and also Bridge
and Creek. Um, so if you uh speak to that and both the existing AM PM peak hours, no build AM PM peak hours and the proposed uh AM PM peak hours and and explain to um
I guess to us the you know I understand they're within the same level of service. However, from a perspective there is an added delay. What what is that delay looking like? Uh I'll I'll unfortunately the way that we do our reports the scroll through
quite a bit. So just bear with me and I will scroll through them and and give you the answers. And uh we typically don't look at existing to builds. We look at the no bill to the bill. If you want me to give all three, I can do that. I I think from
for for the purposes of you know the the the situation currently what the no build is based off of the year projected year and then the build condition. Very good. So just bear with me again and uh I will
give AM and PM no build to build. Uh so let's start with uh Hartford Road uh and Bridge Road. the signalized intersection during the no build uh am peak hour. Uh it's at a level service C
with 34.6 seconds of delay on average delay. Uh when we get to the build, the AM peak hour is at a level service C. It goes up by 0.1 seconds of average
delay to 34.7 seconds of average delay. As I said, it's a very insignificant impact during the PM peak hour. Again, bear with me. The intersection of Hartford and uh
Bridgeboro is at a level service overall level service D. 39 seconds of delay. So the the barrier between the C and the D is 35 seconds. So that's why it's a C in the morning goes to a D in the
afternoon. The build uh at that location during the PM peak hour is 39.5 seconds of delay level service D. That's a 0.5 second delay increase on average.
Again, he won't even know it. Going to the other signalized intersection of Creek and Bridge, the AM peak hour during the no build condition is 22.8
seconds of average delay level service C. And the build condition during the AM at Creek and Bridgeboro Road is at 23.1 seconds. A level service C less than a
half a second of average delay increase during the morning. uh PM peak hour at Bridgeboro and Creek is 33.7 seconds of average delay level service
C. And doing the build condition um that goes to 34.6 seconds of average delay. Again, a level service C. So that's again about 8 second less than a second of increased
delay. Um you want me to do the site accesses also or those are the two major ones the two signalized intersections. Yeah I think you can do the site access as well. Might have to do it by movement on the site accesses. So again with me
Uh, I think I mentioned during the AM peak hour uh at the site driveway. No, Bill feels like suspense going on. My apologies. Um, 12
12.6 six uh average delay for the left turn movement out. That's a level service P. If we go to the build that driveway that build would be 14.5 seconds of
delay level service B. So an increase of about two seconds delay during the PM peak hour. The level of service is a C uh at 15.3 seconds uh for the exiting movement out of the site and
the build PM at that driveway is 19.1 seconds of average delay again level surface C. So that's about a 4 second little less than 4 second increase in average delay. So you can see you know the the delay increases are
fairly insignificant fairly ins they are insignificant uh don't change the level of service uh out there with regard to uh what's happening because just is not enough traffic to generate changes. I don't know if it's going to impact
anything that that any of your answers, but the no build situation here is going back to the situation that exists with an approved truck terminal on albeit uh one of the lots, not all three lots. Um so there will be uh you know possibly some increases uh from the measurements
that you took right now anyway. Right. Yeah. I mean, considering the fact that during that uh during those peak hours that we did the actual driveway counts, only having one to two driveway trips today, I'm assuming that use could actually Yeah. permitted use of that site could be more. Yeah. Well, and and the use of the site
before this application was submitted was probably substantially more uh because it was being actively used as a truck terminal across basically the entire property even though it was not necessarily approved for as correct. say the whole site was being used but the approval was not for something that large.
The approval was only on lot 50. Okay. But kind of comparing apples and or that's the only time I mentioned it. So and and obviously the numbers that I just gave you that it it demonstrates that it just is not an in substantial increase in delay. In effect you're not
going to notice the delay increases. If I can Mr. Chairman please couple quick questions. you had um indicated that you felt that this was in effect would have less impact than a residential development on this site. Um
is that based on any type of comp, you know, design done to see how many residential units you could get on the site? Um or is that just basically a quick assumption? How's that come about? Yeah. No, that was just a quick when I saw the size of the land, just the land
mass. Uh just a quick assumption. Mhm. And the would the peak hours be the same for a residential as opposed to just truck traffic? That's a great question, JB. I don't get that often. You know, we we saw on the Morrisville
that the peak hour actually that PM was earlier. So, it's possible that, you know, many truck operations, those truckers, they're trying to get in and out of there before the peak hours hit. Uh so residential doesn't have that same type of situation. So you could have a
little bit more intensity with regard to the actual peak hour uh for residential versus this. However, we didn't analyze it in that fashion kind of did conservative. And then the other comment you referred to the felt that the neighborhood
commercial zone by itself could generate more traffic impact than what was proposed with this trailer facility to terminal. But the neighborhood commercial portions 80% wetlands. Yeah. Again, I I was just looking at the
zone as opposed to exactly what you could develop there. All right. So, I just wanted to understand that. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. Shropshire, I have a couple follow questions. Uh the you said that you compared the site um that's being proposed here with another site in
Delran and the Morrisville location, right? The other site in Delran is the one that's uh right off of Hartford Road. Is that correct? That's correct. And the Morrisville one um with regard to that location, that's not immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood.
Isn't that true? Yeah. I I didn't go there myself. Uh so I just know what the numbers say as opposed to the area that it was in. So if I were to say to you that that particular site and a residential neighborhood that is somewhat nearby is
separated by train tracks and another highway, you wouldn't have any any knowledge of that. I again I didn't look at it. All right. So and that so that type of thing didn't enter into your analysis then. Right. Right. All right. Now we talked about uh trips
uh you know in the report. Do you know currently how many trips are happening per hour from this particular location during the AM and then PM? Do you have a concept on that? Yeah, I again the counts that we did of the driveways just showed one to two trips today
from the driveway section. Right. Right. And Okay. All right. Now, the last hearing we had, there was some testimony about these trailers being dropped off, not idling, and being left there for storage or repair to some
degree. So, clearly, someone has to drop them off and then leave the location. So, either by Uber or somebody following them to pick them up or calling for a car. Um, it doesn't sound to me that
those trips of the driver of the trailer dropping it off is in is calculated in your numbers. In other words, you've mentioned employees of the site and you've mentioned trips of the tractor trailers. Did you take into consideration other trips to get those
drivers off of the site and then back to the site? Yes. Okay. Where is that reflected in your report? when we did the driveway counts at Hartford and we did the driveway counts uh in Morrisville, that was everybody in and out. So, it included those trips that would be carrying
either the the dropped off truck leaving the trailer leaving the trailer and the truck exiting or if the truck stays on site, however that driver gets off site. Th those counts are all vehicles. All vehicles. No dichotomy between cars, automobiles and and trucks.
Correct. Um you've also discussed the uh delays. We we just had heard your testimony about the delays that uh might occur uh at the different intersections and of course at the driveway. Um and you
mentioned that with the tractor trailers and the other vehicles the delay would be uh I think you said not significant. Is that the the right? Um, does your analysis or the report that was made here or either report does it take into
consideration any type of safety issue that is created by tractor trailer traffic as compared to regular motor vehicle traffic? Capacity analyses don't particularly have a safety component to them. Uh what
it does is it does calculate uh how a truck will operate differently than a car will operate because it's longer, takes more to get up to speed. But the the assumption is that the roadways and intersections are designed according generally accepted traffic engineering
principles and therefore they are safe by their by their uh by their design. Uh and so so yeah, as I said, it's not something that's inherent in our uh capacity analyses, but if we saw
something that was not designed in accordance with the generally accepted standard or unsafe from our view, we would obviously bring that up. And I'm sure the county would also Well, for example, if you are making a right out of this facility with a
tractor trailer and you go towards Hartford Road uh on the Bridge, you're going to make a right on Hartford Down. Let's say that is the the direction that the driver chooses. It's kind of a tight intersection. We know there's a lot of traffic there already. So when you make
that right-hand turn, the tractor trailer has to have a wide birth, go left to make that right as compared to making a left turn where they have a little bit more leeway. So did your analysis take into consideration that particular situation because of the other lane that's going to be either
making a left or going straight or making a right? Yeah, it it did in terms of the overall design of the intersection, which uh I actually sat out there this evening and the shoulder area. There's a substantial shoulder area for that right turn. Uh so if the truck is in the travel lane, which is
where it should be, there is a lot of radius to make that turn. Even though the angle of the intersection uh would would say, hey, maybe there's an issue here, but there's there's enough shoulder area there that these two county roads can function with truck traffic. You're talking about right at
the intersection where that 7-Eleven is. Is that what you're speaking? Right. So, you're you're saying that in your opinion there's enough to get through there with multiple tractor trailers that won't create a significant delay. And and I'm saying the county says that also. So, it's just not me. Well, the countyy's not here to testify.
No, I understand their design. I'm just saying that they're designed to work and that design because there's two county roads necessarily takes into account the fact that there will be tractor trailers there. That's correct. So e even if there were not going to be tractor trailers there because there's
two county roads it needs to be designed to be safe for tractor trailers even if they're not going to be present. That's typically how the county designs road. Out of the trips that you've analyzed and and looking at what you anticipate would happen with this particular um
variance if approved. Uh how many tractor trailers per hour? Not not as many. I know you you discussed, but how many again was that? So during the morning peak hour, 16 total trips, trailer trips. During
the afternoon peak hour, 32 trailer trips. So 16 in the morning total, right? And that's going in and out of the facility, right? 11 in, 5 out. Okay. And and so that would also include whichever direction the tractor trailer decides to then, you know, use either
coming from Creek Road or Hartford. That's everything, right? Correct. Same thing with the 32 in the evening. 16 and 16. Correct. Okay. So with 32 trucks in the evening, how is it possible? I mean, this is just the lay person's analysis that there
wouldn't be a signific significant delay in an intersection that is already completely packed and delayed endlessly uh for several reasons. We have the Bridgeboro Hartford intersection. We have Aunts Tavern, the 7-Eleven right
there. And then shortly down the road on Hartford, you have the intersection of Conro Road and Hartford Road, which is very a very difficult intersection for people to turn. How is it possible with 32 trucks? Let's say they all decided to
go right to go up to Route 130. Could happen. What then? Yeah. Uh obviously the we anticipate that there'll be a dispersion of those trucks at the site driveway. So it's not going to all be focused at one location. So that's but let's say half of them decide to go
that way. 15 trucks in that time period making a right-hand turn to then make a right on the hard road. How is that not going to be a significant delay in traffic? Well, we didn't look at that as the worst case scenario because uh I'm posing it to you now.
Yeah, we didn't look at it. Okay. So, so real quick to build off that that question, I I know this was brought up at the last meeting from my recollection, but the vehicle queue at at the intersection, how how that would be impacted by the the additional
tractor trailers at the intersection. Can you speak to Yeah, with that insignificant level of increased delay, it's not going to be any noticeable increase in the the queueing. And that's that was within your analysis in terms of the
storage lane availability. Correct. So, and you look at it as so 15 per hour. That's uh one truck for every four minutes. Correct. So, you know, like the chairman said, you did not your models do not assume that all 15
are going to be leaving within five minutes. Uh they assume it's going to be one truck every four minutes. So, there could be times when you know you have three trucks leave within four minutes and then there might be an increase, but then there will be, you know, 15 minute period when no one will leave. Yeah. And and just to be as accurate as
I can with regard to the analyses, we put peak hour factors. We are required to put peak hour factors into the analysis. So we look at the worst 15 minutes within the hour and that's what we're analyzing. So in other words, it's it's more intense than one truck trip
every 15 minutes or every four minutes. Uh it's more intense because we look at the worst 15 minutes and that's what's required. Just sort of just jumping on this the same theme here. So the tractor trailer traffic that you analyzed the length of
the track traffic tractor teros what what was assumed in terms of their length? Yeah, it would be a standard trailer that's got a a 53 foot trailer with a truck in front of in front of it. So it's a it's a standard long trailer. 53. Not not any longer.
No. Well, the the actual trailer's 53. the the cab in front of it makes it longer. Okay. And the weight of the vehicle is would you say it's significantly larger or greater than a passenger vehicle such as a
Honda Chevy Volt something like if it's empty you know there's whether it's empty or full that would make a difference but yeah it could be okay and that goes back to the county road that needs to be designed for that weight because they know that trucks will be driving on that road.
Correct. So, and given the fully loaded 53 foot trailer versus a Honda Civic, would you say that in your experience that the acceleration rate for those two vehicles
is drastically different? Yes. And that's accounted for in the analysis. Okay. So, and and you did explain your your analysis. Can you without trying to get it too much into the math because I don't know that we are I want to build off your your question
real quick. So, I have in my notes um from the prior meeting that uh WB67s um won't be won't be utilized on on site. So, I'm just looking up the dimensions right now. Ed, you said WB67s. Could you just for
everybody present that's not an engineer knows what that is from based off the diagram I'm looking at right now and please correct me if I'm wrong on this that that would incorporate a 53T trailer a a WP 67 which is wheelbase 67 would be a 53T
trailer. Yeah. So the let's see yeah so the the actual lot based off of the notes that I have from the last meeting is that that size trailer won't be utilized within the uh
the parking stalls. Um the let's see can you can you clarify on site if these will be used or won't be used because I have in my notes that they they would not be clarification. Thank you. Uh I believe the testimony was that there were
specific spaces specific spaces would not be utilized by them, but there was not testimony that um that the 67in wheelbase trailers would not uh access the site. Thank you. And then
I I I there was testimony that you know again there is no tenant here. So, it's possible that a tenant will not have any of them and that they will be smaller trucks, but we do not know that today. And the applicant did not limit it to saying that that that WB67s would not be
understood. And I I believe this might have been touched upon um as well. Um so, obviously there's based off the trip generations that are that are being spoken about and there's 291 spaces that are available. Um, this is going to operate more as repair
or a storage versus a repair facility. Yeah, there'll be testimony on that from our planner later on. But I think the answer to that is generally yes, although it will not be like permanent storage or anything like that, but like I said, our our planner
will provide testimony. So So and you did give us uh numbers before about your calculations of the delay. Is it the last time we were here? It's my understanding that there was test testimony that there's no IT standard for
this type of facility. Correct. Correct. That's why we want to have a count. Right. Okay. And then the length of the trailer. So you don't know it's being built on spec. So we don't know the population of trucks that are going to enter the
facility. Correct. Correct. Um, and the calculation of the delay. I mean, I didn't see anything in there. And I'm not again I'm not the engineer but I didn't see anything in there that
states how you calculate based the the level of service and the delay based upon you know obviously there's a number of vehicles but whether it's an average or what assumption are be is being made as to how many of the vehicles within
the queue at any given time are are passenger vehicles like the little Chevy Volts or whatever or as opposed to a 67 foot tractor trailer and what's the assumption there is that built in.
So, uh in the capacity analyses we're required to put a percent truck and so we look at what that percent truck is going to be based on the counts that we've taken and based on the increase related to. So it's all based on the percentage of the So in other
words, the program calculates it out based on the percentage that we get. What was the percent what was the percentage of trucks assumed? Do you know? I don't know. But we it would have been inputed based on not only the counts but uh what we rejected. So this is a calculation performed by a
a program or formula. We we actually do the calculation of the truck percent and enter it into the program. Can you just clarify how you uh get to that percentage again by the counts that we do uh of the roadway and by the increase or in some
cases it would be a decrease if it's not truck related uh the uh the change that would result from the proposed use. So it's a combination of existing actual conditions combined with anticipated conditions based on the use of the site.
That's correct. and your and the data that you uh received from the other similar sites in the area. Correct. And and it's not atypical for us to conservatively high round up in terms of those percentages. So
is there anything um as traffic engineers and I as a landings attorney I hear them speak very often. Uh is there anything within your profession that you know requires you to use the most conservative approach because I very often hear uh conservative and you you
do use uh the you know peak hour which is that's conservative conservative conservatively high sometimes when we say conservative people think they're wrong conservatively high there's nothing that dictates to us other than the use the common use of the peak hour factor in review agencies. Uh so the
peak hour factor is incumbent in terms of how we do analysis. In terms of the trip generation, the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual is they come up with average data. We typically just use the average. Uh so so again we're even being a little
bit more conservative than what the Institute of Transportation would be because we're using conservatively high data from two data points. If we average them out, it would have been less than we projected. uh and if we actually looked at what would happen during the street peak hour instead of the used
peak hour, it would be even less. So again, we considerably high in terms of what we did in the analysis. So jumping back to this acceleration issue of, you know, a Trans Am is able to accelerate at a greater rate than a a
fully loaded tractor trailer. Um, and we experience delay when we're sitting behind the slowmoving tractor trailer. And if I understood your testimony, you said that you built in a certain percentage of trucks being in the queue.
Um, and and their acceler How many how many trucks did you I mean, how did you account for the acceleration rate of the trucks and its impact on the weight time? That's something the program does
for us. It calculates out what the uh actual movement rate would be of a truck versus a car through the system. So that's a program thing. But you don't know how what the percentage of trucks are in that queue either. Yeah. Off the top of my head, you don't know.
You said earlier in regard to the chairman's question about trucks going to Hartford and you said distribution of trucks turning right or left out of the driveway. What is the distribution you utilize? What percent go to Harford? What percent go?
I think we use pretty much a 50/50 out of the site. And what was that based on? Is that assumed or is that what's happening now? Yeah, what's happening now is a very low volume. I think it was two trips and and they were all making less if I remember
correctly. So, we split them up. We have more going down. Yeah. What we're showing is a 5050 split in terms of the outbound. In terms of the inbound, we have a little bit heavier volume coming from uh Creek Road in the north. Uh so, but on the outbound side, we we split
up. Well, and that is one of the things that you took a uh one of the updates you had to make because I guess probably based on the existing there were two going to the left. Um you had the overwhelming majority making the left and I know that was brought up by the board engineer as something that that you needed to take
another look at prior to this meeting. uh because it could not be assumed that almost every truck was going to make a a lap correct towards me. I I actually have another quick question going back to the original the the start of your conversation with the uh
information that was included. Um I I don't know if it's in I don't see it listed here. There was an approved site plan um that was directly adjacent to this site for a flex warehouse facility. or those future trap generations
incorporate into your analysis? I don't know. Um I'm looking at what we included. Um and it was the Kings at Delran residential development and then Tipper
Ridge. Um so those are the two that we included. That's right beside the It's right beside the Yeah. And your point before it's a a contractor use my recollection and
that'll be directly between your site and heart and therefore that will be the impact on if if something else needs to be since we're going to have to take a look at the park the passive park we can take a look at that also. Mr. Shar, I wanted to follow up. You you
had testified a few moments ago um that in analyzing the safety issue that I had asked that these are county roads that approve tractor trailer. Would you agree with me that this intersection has been or if you know has been u in its current
condition for for quite a period of time? It's it's um it's been Hartford Bridgeboro looking at that intersection. I should be more specific. Um it's been that way with the surrounding uh area for for quite a period of time. Would you agree with that? Yes.
All right. And and regarding that particular location, it's a very different type of intersection from say one on Route 130. Is that correct? I would say yes because Yeah. Route 13 is a major artery, right? This intersection that we're talking about is is
small town kind of intersection, is it not? No. And not not your Okay. So that's fine. But you had mentioned that because the county would have to approve for tractor trailer. Is it not true though that across the country many many many accidents occur
with tractor trailers even though they're on approved roads approved by whatever county? I don't know. You don't know that? And again I I'm asking because this intersection here is an intersection between multiple parts of Delran communities. It's near a high
school and there are many kids that walk through that intersection to get to the high school. So, how is it possible that there wouldn't be a heightened safety risk if you know with additional tractor trailers upwards of 15 or 32 in those
peak hours especially given the tractor trailers have less visibility or create visibility problems with compared to passenger vehicles. So, so what I can tell you from our profession, uh, with regard to safety, uh, it is a incredibly
high percentage of accidents that are driver related. It's not related to design of the roadway or, uh, malfunctioning of the vehicle. Uh, so the type of vehicle uh, rarely has an issue with regard to the number of
accidents. The type of driver rarely has a a an impact. I'm sorry. The type of vehicle and and the type of roadway design rarely has has it with regard to the driver. The driver is without a
doubt. That's the most unsafe component of the of the equation. When you have professionals driving, typically you have safer drivers. So, usually that's what you have with CDL licensed drivers, safer drivers. Um,
This is designed appropriately. I don't think there's any issue with regard to safety. Just let me ask you that. Does what? As long as what is designed appropriately? The roadway. Is the roadway already not designed? It's already in a particular configuration between Hartford and Bridgeboro. Correct. Yeah.
So, you're proposing that it be changed? No. The the county only uh asked for a slight widening on our side to unify the shoulder width. When you say your side, meaning on the side of Bridgeboro that
business would be located along the front. Yes. How how much would that uh shoulder be widened? Do you know? Don't know. Not much. And you're talking about widening it from the say the corner of Hartford and Bridge all the way to your facility or the site frontage. Say along the site frontage,
right? Which would then stop 100 yards before the the intersection. Yeah. And it may already be uniform beyond that. Okay. Well, um I have a question on figure six, seven, and eight where you you're
comparing the existing levels of service, no build, and then build levels. You have their, you know, the A, B, C's, and D's. Can you can you remind us again what those levels all mean? Because there are there are if you look at some of the individual intersections
there are changes that happen but overall it's kind of like all grouped in there is going to be changes and some yeah there's there's movements within the intersection that do change the overall intersection level service don't
change and there's a table on page six that actually says what each one of the delay components are A through F for an unsignalized location and for signalized location. Uh so I'm not sure whether
that helps answer the question that you just had or whether the real question is there are some movements that change uh and and what are those changes if you want me I go through. So like so what's an A, a B, a C and a D and E? Is E the worst?
Yeah, actually F is the worst. uh F would be failure. And based on table four, at an unsalized intersection, that would be in excess of 50 seconds of average delay. At a signalized intersection, that would be in excess of 80 seconds of average delay.
Okay. So, if we're looking at Natalie Road in figure six, it has it going straight across. What page? Uh, so it's figure six. Um, there's no page. Y I see it. Thank you.
But then on the build levels, Deli Road, there isn't a continuation on to it. So is that where the map isn't consistent? Well, what happens is there's an existing access opposite Natalie today that will be removed and the site access
will be relocated between Natalie and Hartford. So that's why those figures are different. Okay. So, so NI road now ex no build is an E to F and then we'll go to a C to C if it's built. Correct. And that's because they're not
competing with the traffic that's across the street even though it's low. And is the tra is if they're if you're on Bridge and you're getting and you're going to take a left into your facility, are people can people pass the truck being stopped to go in? Are they going
around the shoulder? Yes. No, there's there's an existing center left turn lane. Okay. That gets the left turn traffic off of the through movement traffic. So, nobody no through movements are delayed. What's the length of that? What's the length of that left turn?
It's a center left turn lane. How long is that? I think it almost goes between Creek and Park. Not Not all the way to Creek. It goes, I think, to where the bridge is, but it's it's it's well beyond our site.
How many tractor trailers could possibly be in that left lane turning in? Do we know we're going to get the approximate Lou? Uh satellite imagery suggests it's 2 miles.
So length. Yeah. From uh from where Jay's landscaping begins on Bridgeboro to uh Castleton Road. Uh your question was from coming from Hartford. So probably two tractor
trailers on that entrance. So you could get more than two tractor trailers pointing in at one time. there to the side. While they're looking for that particular one, I do have another followup for you just because we're
looking at these figures. Um you in in the report that you were referring to uh on figure six and figure eight, it talks about the existing levels of service on figure six as compared to the build levels of service on figure eight. And
it looks as if looking now at the Creek Road because I didn't focus on that. All of the all of the levels of service increase at the intersection of Creek Road and Bridgeboro Road between, you know,
comparing between existing levels and build levels. For example, coming down Bridgeboro Road and making a right onto Creek Road goes from level BB to BC. Coming up Creek Road to make a left onto
Bridgeboro Road goes from a level CD to CE. So, you would agree with me that all of the level service all the level of services at that intersection if this is built are going to be worse. Correct. No. Uh what I'm saying is that what
you've already approved in the township to get to the doill levels of service create the differences. Well, let me just understand that because if the existing level for example, looking at figure six, it says overall
uh under that it says uh county 636 which is Creek Road. If you to if you were to make a left off uh under the existing levels onto Bridgeboro Road, it it says CL/D. What does that mean? That means the morning peak hour would be a level service C and the afternoon peak
hour would be a level service D. And then if you look at figure eight, that same location says C/E. Correct? Yeah. If you jump past figure seven. Okay. So tell me the significance then of
figure seven, which is well figure seven is says CE, figure eight says CE. Correct. So the E is an increase is a well I call it worse. Correct. It's a It's a lower level of service. It's lower based on what's already been approved in the township and we won't be
lowering it beyond that with our proposal. So, in other words, that's going to happen no matter what. Or or if it gets built. Yeah. Or if it gets built, that's going to be the level of service. So if it gets built the level of service will decrease from D to E at that particular now these other projects that have been
approved by Delan if they're built that will create that level service E change. Um I am informed by the engineer that that left hand turn lane is about 700 ft. Um
[Music] I this is an existing exhibit which you're trying to put up there. Um it is the uh A4 colorized site plan. Yeah. And the engineer use his scale and
informed me that that that left hand turn lane is about 700 ft. That's the entire turn lane. Yes. Do we have the measurement from the entrance of the site to where it narrows at Harford? Say that again from
so the turn lane only impacts coming from Harford Road into the site. Correct. Because the turn lane you wouldn't go to the turn lane. Yeah. There's no left hand turn lane coming from VR. So the area would be from the entrance of the exist of this new proposed site that entrance main towards Hartford Road to where the ends
the actual terminal because there's a yellow hash mark probably right I would say probably in front of pediatric center the dentist office. So do is this Mr. Yeah. So Mr. Tracker is answering the question and he said it's 250 ft from
what? From the center of the new driveway to the subly limit of the center for the hatch. Okay. Did you get that? Correct. Okay. Mr. Striker, you are still sworn in from the last time. I am.
Okay. So, is so basically is that two tractor trailers could sit in that lefthand lane waiting to turn left? be closer to four. Four. Okay. They're approximately 76 foot wheelbase. Correct.
67 is the worst case. Plus space in between. Yeah. Plus the spacing between so three to four 250. That's the existing correct. Yes, that's existing. Correct.
And while people are doing math, any reason why we don't count Castleton and Nicholas in these levels of service on maps? I'm sorry. There's Castleton Road and Nicholas Road that aren't accounted for on these maps for all the levels of service existing build. We didn't do any counts at those
locations. Castleton directly across from this future site driveway with a development that has roughly 37 units in it compared to Natalie which is like Okay. Uh, we did not do any counts at
that location. Is that a future development? Nope. It's there. It's been there for since 96. 96. Yeah. In terms of the alignment. Yeah. We did not do any updated counts at that location. Yeah. It's a little bit off. You can actually see it at the bottom there. Yeah.
It's on your map on this down there. That's castle. and the huge development that also attaches to Summer Hill and the Grand Natalie is the other existing well what's the other one Natalie
Nicholas is a U for for Natalie so Nicholas is technically directly across from that first to answer your question I'm sorry Ed what did you say it say 70 three trucks if you're lucky if everyone pulls 250 ft what they have now is total
200 [Music] Kim, I think we are back to you. I Jack, do you have questions? No, I'm good. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I'm curious. Um, you said you did the study 50/50, which direction they were
coming out of the facility. But, um, knowing that area, if a truck wants to get on 130, would it be easier for them to go left to go out to 130? Same as if they wanted to get to 295, make that left and then the right onto Creek Road. So,
is it disproportionate to do 5050? I mean, what would the reason of a truck going right and then right onto? Yeah, I believe that was more concern of the board. So, we assign traffic in that direction to look at worst case. So, worst case scenario, 50/50.
I I can speak to this real quick. They had all the movements going in a single direction last night, right? I heard that. better. The other part of that barrier is but I'm just wondering it's why my question is so it was answered worst
case scenario you did 50/50 but realistically it probably is not going to be based on the direction that most of the trucks are going to head for. In other words, it's probably going to be in reality somewhere in between the two pro um reports that were provided to
the board. Whereas the first report had uh I think 100% going left and understandably the board said hey you know what about going to the right now you've used 5050 the reality of the situation is it's most likely going to be somewhere between 50/50 and 100% going to the left. Agreed. I have you right in left. Yes.
If you go into that site and you put in your GPS, someone that doesn't know the area and then you want to get back to Pence, I'm assuming that it's going to take you down Hartford to it's going to take you in the direction of Pence versus away from Pence up on 130 the
opposite making that left just Yeah, your GPS could do that, right? So if someone's not coming from the area, I think that's where you're going to get that people turning right out of there that don't know the area, right? or if there's a lot of traffic, they're going to turn right because they
can't make a left-hand turn there. Well, again, we we looked at it pretty split, but I I concur that I think it's going to be a much heavier right in, left out. You have you add 60 some feet into Hartford Corners any time of day, and
you're you're in trouble. Well, based off of that, those that know the site might choose to go left to avoid that intersection, right? Correct. So, you know, I think if they're familiar Yeah. Just
my experience with Conway, I think they would get left out of the site. Do you have any uh um is there any evidence that trucks will take the easiest path to drive a truck through?
Is there any evidence rather rather than going to a busy intersection and making it right? Is that you're looking for the word speculation? Yes. Yes. Uh, with all of the applications I've done that have had truck professional drivers involved, they're usually
looking for the easiest, quickest path. That's been my experience existence. Uh, questions. Dave. Yep. Chris, he might be able to help us. What is the weight restriction limitation on Creek
Road? That would be I believe it's four tons. Four tons. And what does a 53 foot tractor trailer? I thought it was five or at least I thought that's what I saw on the side. It's either four or five, but it's Creek
Road that's between 130 and I think Creek Road between Bridgeboro Road and 295 is 12. You're driving the street right now. I don't know. Professional driver. The bridge says 12.
The bridge bridge weight limit 12 tons. Almost done without announcing at 117 Creek Road. You can see Yeah, we're we're uh slowly slowly getting there. Zoom in.
Yeah, one's coming from that direction. We go to the other side. There's a different uh have to be the same if the bridge is the same. No, I think there there's there's something where you trying to Yeah. All the way up like at 130. No creek.
It's probably right as you're coming to Morristown before you hit W's edge because everybody pulls over right in front of water's edge with tractor trailer. I should just let you drive. That's a good idea. Not so easy.
I don't know. I would take safe to assume that though that the bridge is 12 tons if it's 12 tons. The bridge is 12 further further up from the other direction. The problem is the bridge won't necessarily be the road. Correct. have a question
and is that is and um this is is Creek Road a county road? Yes. So technically the county road should be built to the county specs but the bridge limits the specs at Creek and Center. There's also a sign that says bridge weight limit 12 tons.
So correctly. So a question the the no build to the build the only thing at least from my awareness that we have roof is that uh commercial office space building that's going in there it and from my memory and
grant my memory is terrible the the traffic for that was negligible. They were they were predicting you know one car per building even in peak hours it it had a negligible effect. Do you have a list of what the approved items
that you're uh tracking for for the no build to the build? No. Uh is that in somewhere? Did I miss it? Spoken about that earlier. Uh page four uh at the top uh it says these developments include the approved
kings at Delran and the Timber Ridge at Delwan for Delan residential development. So those are the two. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um Jay, Ed, do you have follow? Nothing at this time. Okay.
You you are also on now. Yeah. Okay. Anybody else in the board have follow questions right now? No. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Shire. Our next witness uh is not an expert
witness. It is uh Francis Shields from uh the applicant. Mr. Shields, uh you don't we don't need your licenses because you're not an expert, but you do need to be uh sworn in. You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before this board.
I do. Thank you, Mr. Shields. So, um, you work with the applicant. Uh, the name of the of this company is 3005 Bridgeboro Road, uh, Industrial LLC. What's the parent company? Uh, Criterion Group LLC.
Okay. Can you tell us a little bit about or what's your your your role with Criterion Group? I'm a project manager with Criterion Group LLC. And one of your jobs is primarily managing this site at this point. Correct. Yes. Um so can you give the board a little bit of uh of um
information about who Criterion is, what they do? Absolutely. So Criterion was founded in 2003 in Queens Atoria. Uh for about 15 years their primary uh primary focus was uh multif family residential. In about
2017, uh they started the 4A into industrial properties. Uh since about 2018, uh Criterion Group has acquired and manages approximately 65 industrial properties from Worcester, Massachusetts down to Miami, Florida, and then into
the Gulf of uh America. And um you know our focus has been acquiring uh sites that were you know previously in rough shape kind of mom and pop operations and uh transforming them into you know first class industrial sites
that are fit for high quality you know national or regional tenants. Thank you. Um so you've done uh what you're proposing at similar sites. you you've taken uh sites that are um um you
know not up to modern standards as far as stormwater management landscaping um and you have transformed them into uh efficient sites. That's correct. Yes. And uh with success I'm assuming. Yes, absolutely. And that management experience has uh
given you the ability to manage such sites such as this uh in locations such as this where you are uh in in and around neighborhoods. Um, correct. Absolutely. Yes. Um, very good. Um, and, uh, anything else you want to say about
the company and and how you operate the site? Uh, you know, just we we focus on, you know, making sure we're complying with all applicable ordinances, following the rules. Um, you know, we have a team, uh, about 15 members, but we, you know, retain local experts in every city,
state that we operate in. We try to, you know, make sure we're hiring the best and, you know, focusing on, you know, making sure that whatever our end use is is um, you know, fits well within the community.
And, uh, we submitted it was as exhibit um, A1, the statement of proposed operations. Uh, it's right here. And um you know it it has the basic uh limitations of what you're going to do at this site. Uh and you guys are going to abide by
that. Absolutely. Yes. And adhere to all uh federal, state, and local regulations. Of course. Yep. And try to be a good neighbor. Absolutely. And the property is going to be leased to a single tenant. Yes. Single tenant. And you will ensure that they uh need to
uh adhere to the limitations on the statement of proposed operations. uh all the testimony tonight and if you were to receive the benefit of an approval any of the conditions uh uh in the approval itself. Yes, absolutely. You know, we typically lease these sites to single tenant who's
you know under a triple net lease who's typically responsible for the site's operations. However, if they fail to comply with those opera uh obligations, which they typically don't, you know, we immediately step in and uh make sure it's taken care of. Your your experience is that? So, wait. So under you under a triple
net lease they're responsible for maintenance of the site and the operation and you you step away. Uh yes unless they fail to you know meet those obligations which so so what assurance does does the township have that those maintenance agreements other than the recording of
the storm water management plan and the storm water management obligations. What assurance does the township have that they will your triple net lease tenant will be a good neighbor and comply I mean obviously they have to get the site plan approval hooked but other issues
relating to operation of the site. I was going to say you know we screen our tenants carefully and make sure that they are highquality operators and as I said if they you know for some reason fail to meet those obligations we would immediately step in and uh I'm assuming
that in your leases you require them to maintain the sites uh to a very high standard that of a first class facility. Absolutely. Yes. That's explicitly in your leases, correct? Yes. You know, in in greater length, obviously. And in any lease for this site, you will be willing to uh
incorporate uh all the terms, obligations, and conditions uh in a uh approval resolution in the testimony. Um if you receive the benefit of an approval, yes, absolutely. You know, we specifically reference this approval, potential approval.
Um very good. Um I think that's it for direct for Mr. Shields. So uh question uh regarding the um you just spoke about you you won't step in unless there's a problem with the um
the company that leases from you, right? You won't step in to correct it unless there's a there's a problem. Correct. Uh we'd step in if they failed to, you know, comply with whatever regulations are imposed on them. The Mr. Do you understand that the uh
the approval resolution is not if you receive everything that I'm going to say is based on you know getting an approval from this board uh that approval runs with the land and not just the criterion. You understand that? Yes, absolutely. which means that you
know whether it's in the lease or not the uh tenant needs to comply with everything in that approval resolution as well as all the testimony provided by your uh professionals correct? Yes. And then that's going to be included in the lease. Like that was your testimony?
Yes, that would be specifically in the lease. So uh if there is a problem that problem would be uh you know basically them not complying with this approval and testimony. Yes. And you'd step in immediately. Absolutely. And my question is that you'd step in
though after there's a violation, correct? Uh if there was a violation that the tenant failed to cure after being notified of such. Yes. You're not monitoring it to prevent violations. Correct. Oh, you know, we are we uh you know, employ collers as our local property
management team in each market we operate in. They conduct uh regular site visits to ensure, you know, preemptively that, you know, the tenants complying with all applicable regulations, which would include the conditions of this approval. But you just testified that you don't step in until there's a violation. And
if that's the case, that would mean that whatever the violation is, whether it be noise, whether it be lighting, whether it be the trucks blocking the road, what whatever the violation is, you're not taking remedial action until after the citizens of Delane have suffered from that violation. Is that true?
Not necessarily. You know, if our local property manager identified something that could rise to a level of, you know, receiving enforcement from the um the county, then, you know, we would step in preemptively or the municipality. Municipality. Apologies. And Mr. Chairman, are you referring to
the technical word violation? And I think maybe you're referring to uh you know a violation of the lease that they are not adhering to the standards of of what's required by the lease which is a might be a higher standard than a violation a technical violation the zoning violation or municipal violation.
Correct. Correct. Yes. Yeah. I'm speaking specifically about if this were to be approved there would be conditions the site plan conditions etc. As we've discussed uh at length here, if the tenant were to violate those conditions or be in violation of it,
then say for example, Ashley Crossings might be the um individuals who are impacted by that. You wouldn't step in in criterion until after someone spoke up and said, "Hey, for the last week, these trucks have been idling 10 ft from
my house." Right. Unless we uh learned of the potential infringement prior to that. How do you find out? Our local property managers who are doing, you know, typically weekly site visits. Well, I think this could be solved with the condition in the resolution that
they're, you know, required to monitor the site uh when it's leased to any tenant um to proactively prevent any uh violations of the approval. You that's something you would agree to, right? Yes, happy to do so. It's what we typically do as well. Yeah. You're you're going to be doing
that regardless of whether it's in the approval or not. Yeah. So, you're happy to agree to such a condition, right? Correct. Yes. So, so I have a follow-up question from a while ago now from earlier tonight
that uh you were going to speak to regarding the storage versus the repair. So, I'm reading through the statement of proposed operations. Yeah. Uh I said that the planner was going to provide testimony on that not Mr. Shields. Well, not from this perspective, but the facility itself can
can you speak to what incorporated what's the maximum service day and you have listed in here, you know, the repairs are going to be anywhere from a day to 120 days. Um you know, currently it's a one-story shop building with four
drive-thru days. Um, generally speaking, you know, there's a maximum service day that you'll be able to operate, I would imagine, in terms of the repairs. Is that something you can speak to or is that a planner? I believe that I I have to defer to our planner on that.
You're you're talking about a vehicle that may be stored on site being repaired for 120 days. But this isn't a junkyard and I get that. But frankly, my vehicle's taken 120 days to
get repaired. That's a pretty bad vehicle. I I I think that there's going to be testimony to that. Um but I'll answer what that testimony is going to be. Uh and that is that this site is not solely for truck repair, truck and
trailer repair. It is also for storage. Um and planner will provide more more color on my understanding was it was for storage with some repair. That's correct. Yeah. And this is saying that I may have a vehicle here for 120 days which
you know seems like beyond just repair that seems like that would be extensive work necessary for a vehicle. No, I mean I think that's when the truck would be stored and our truck and trailer would be stored beyond repair or uh um not
just for repair. So I I think that the way that it reads versus the average duration of state of trucks andor trails are depend on the operator but generally ranges from one to 120 days. So I I think that's understood from a trailer perspective, but I think to to Jay and mine's
question is in relation to the actual repairs that would be performed in themselves twofold. The actual repairs, but that paragraph is referring solely to repairs trucks will repaired better stay. If they're if they need to be repaired
longer, they'll be that type of thing. So I guess it's much clarification as well. The the reason I'm I'm asking this is because it's more related to a traffic movement perspective. It's a storage. All right. You have somebody dropping off a trailer, potentially picking up a
trailer, which I would assume they're empty either way from the the prior uh testimony that I recall being provided. But the the repair aspect, you're dropping off. There's a maximum number of storage spaces if I recall. It's specifically for the repair locations if
there's an emergency overnight to be dropped off. Um I so the planner is speaking to that not the applicant's representative. Yeah, I think he's going to provide clarification and I'm sorry I still don't fully understand your your question. I I read this so if you ask it again maybe I'll I maybe I'm just I'm
multiple questions. Yeah. Yeah. I mean I'm just maybe I'm just a little perplexed the planners testifying to that versus the the applicants representative that the planner is going to testify to the actual use of the property um and how uh
you know Trucks and trailers will sometimes be on site, you know, generally maybe up to 120 days, but the owners rep this came from, you know, yeah, you know, it really, you know, as we noted this statement of proposed operations, there's no identified tenant
yet. So, you know, speaking to the operations of a hypothetical tenant is is difficult. Um but you know um some tenants you know trucks might be brought on the site not necessarily for repair at all. They're just storing trucks there and they could be held there for a
period of up to 120 days. It's a fair point that you may or may not know exactly what's going to be on site because it's you know you're not sure your tenants's going to be. But in the reverse, we're looking at a a use variance application here. And use variances are
generally restricted to specific uses. And so that's why we're asking these questions. Understood. Yeah, I get that. That's why um Craig will be addressing those specific items. You being the the the owner rep, I mean, I
would assume you would know more about the vehicles um and what's on site than Craig would. um he's going to know more about the planning testimony, planning information, but I assume you would know more about the actual vehicle storage etc. etc. Yeah, you know once there's an end user
identified absolutely we would and you know because as you mentioned this is a variance you know any potential tenant that would be you know eventually occupying the site would be you know limited to operating and you know the manner of you know what's approved here.
So kind of the bucket of tenants we we'd seek would have to you know fit cleanly within you know the operations that are permitted here. One of the items addressed at the last meeting was that the intent was that these trailers will be empty on site.
They're not going to be full or if there's one that may be full it'll be an emergency situation. But the intent is not to be using these trailers as storage facilities for materials. This will be somebody parking a truck here. You know, hopefully overnight then go
pick something up. But if it's not picking it up, it's not going to be sitting here. You know, this isn't going to become a de facto storage facility of tractor trailers. Is that the intent? That's the intent. Yes. And it will be mostly empty. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Beyond the intent, this will
not be a pseudo uh you know 3PL third party logistics type site. uh pseudo warehouse type site, pseudo uh cross docking type site. Correct. That's correct. Yeah. You know, we actually from the owner's perspective, we don't want, you know, goods being stored on this property.
Is that in the lease? Is that restriction in the lease? Uh because there's no tenant in place. There's no lease in place. But um you know, we would make sure that a potential user would fit within that scope of it would have to be in the lease, right?
because the lease is going to have to comply with the approval from this board and the board was testimony last night uh on the last uh last hearing and then you just testified that there will be no uh you know third party logistics, cross talking, warehousing. Uh this this is
not intended to be storage of goods. Uh, occasionally a uh truck might arrive, a broken down truck might arrive with goods in it and then those goods will leave the site potentially and a different truck, but that's only to get the goods away from the site is the intent and the use of this site is not
to store goods. That's correct. Yes. So, so that by a tenant agreeing to uh the terms of uh the approval, they're agreeing to that, right? Yes, that's correct. Okay. So when the repairs are being done, are
the bays closed? Uh, typically yes. And um, how often what type is anybody going to testify as to the frequency and types of deliveries to be made to the site? you know um you know based on our proposed operations there will be
typically you know daily deliveries of you know supplies and parts during you know typical business hours. Yeah, like I I think the engineer provided testimony um as well on that point. Um that uh you know there could be up to
daily deliveries on uh with parts and so and so forth. Um but without a specific user in my uh designated for the site um you know very specific testimony cannot be provided on that. Yeah, I I don't have that in my notes
but I could I do not as well. Do you currently does your company currently manage any locations that are local to us right now? Uh yes, we have a uh facility uh 400500
Creek Road in Deleno, New Jersey. Uh just to go back, uh my apologies that it was not the engineer, but it it is in statement of proposed operations, right? That's what I was asking. That's kind of big. Okay. You are right. You you answered it.
I think Sean said, you know, uh we really to give a really detailed specific answer there, we need to you know have identified the tenant. But you do not anticipate this property having a high level of deliveries um you
know several times a day. It's not something that would generally occur, right? Not typically. No. How could you know that if you don't know who who's going to be leasing? Well, that's why Yeah. You know, not typically, but you know, I just have to think of a real specific answer here would have to, you know, ultimately know
the end user. The question you just gave to council's question was pure speculation. Is that true? The answer I mean the answer that you just gave council's question was speculative. Correct. Correct. Yes. Thank you.
What type of deliveries would you have here? This is just a storage facility. You know, I have empty trailers here stored for whatever reason. I mean, granted, you have a the way I understand it, kind of a minor repair facility. Um I can
imagine that maybe there may be some parts coming for a specific issue but what types of you know storage loading deliveries would be necessary here with some of your similar sites you know I'd expected you know given the you know repair nature of the site it
would be materials and goods related to those repairs but you need something specific for a truck you know you have like we we see the auto parts cars running around all over the place delivering something like that. Yeah, that's why your answer is
speculative, but because of the use is not uh generally a a a heavy delivery demand type of use, that's why you can speculate on it. Correct. Yes, Mr. Shields, I'm looking now at a Google
Maps um screen of 400 Creek Road. Are you familiar with the facility? uh not 400 specifically. Okay. It's 450. 450. Okay. Regarding the truck uh facility that you mentioned on Creek
Road in Blenco, um it's another truck storage facility. Correct. Uh it's not currently being used as that. Um you know, we're actually going through site plan approval right now with the township of Deleno. It's going to be ultimately used by a um vehicle uh
re retailer. Okay. So, they have a pending application will be heard in three weeks. Okay. And so, and the site was previously approved uh in 2023 uh for use by Room, which is an online
car dealership similar to Carvana, uh which has since gone out of business. Um and the application currently before Deleno uh is uh for Carvana to move into the site. Okay. And so the site that we're talking about here, at least in this picture, it
looks like it shows tractor trailers, but it's bordered by a massive parking lot. Correct. That's correct. Yes. On one side, and then uh on another side, it's it's bordered by the Deleno Inspection Center. Correct. Correct. Yes. On the other side, there's Creek Road.
Correct. I believe so. Yes. Right. Creek Road runs along the property, right? Yeah. So there's no adjacent residential property next to it. Correct. That's correct. Yes, indeed. There's no adjacent 55 and up community immediately adjacent to that
property. Isn't that correct? That's correct. Yes. Thank you. It's close. There is there is pretty close. But it's across the road though. It's across the road and down the road. Correct. Correct. Yes. Okay.
And does Centurion and and I guess Collier as well currently manage the property as it exists today with the current use or would you come in new if this is approved at Bridgeboro? Yes. Yes, we do. And Collier is also the uh
Do you have any proposed changes of the current operations with the upgrades that they're seeking approval for today or would it be basically existing operations just with an upgraded site? Um, you ultimately it depends on the the end tenant that's going to determine the
scope of the operations. Um, yeah. Okay. So, are you saying that that Criterion manages the site currently? You know, Criterion is the the management company um that behind, you know, we share a common owner with 3005
Bridgeboro Road Industrial LLC. So, we're the managers and then we use, you know, local on the ground managers because our offices are in Atoria. Right. Right. I mean, you're the manager for the way that the site is currently operating,
correct? Yes. Uh the site as it exists today is kind of in a sight of obviously it's in a state of transition from uh when Criterion's affiliate bought it to uh hopefully from
your perspective of whatever's uh the proposed use if this gets approved. Correct. Correct. Yes. So uh basically a as it's uh you have not made any upgrades to the site or uh
heavily used the site uh you you've kind of minimally used it to keep the existing approval going um since you purchased it. Yes. You know we've been working through this approval for some time now. Okay. Yes. When did you update?
Uh I believe it was the middle of 2021. Thank you. I asked that you manage any of the local locations. You currently manage where the site is now also. You manage you mentioned Delanco, but you manage
the current site. Yes, that's correct. You you own it. We own it. Yes. How is it managed? What do you do to manage the site currently? Excuse me, apologies. Um you know we just work with you know now there's no
tenant operating at the site. So we just use collars to you know uh handle you know basic maintenance of the site you know landscaping making sure there's no trespassing on the property um you know making sure the building stays up to
code things like that but making sure that that the site is not being used in a manner which is in excess of the prior approvals. Who's responsible for that? That'd be ownership's responsibility. Aren't you honored? Don't you own the site? Yes. Yes.
Okay. Questions of the board? Anyone? Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Shields. Thank you, everyone. Appreciate it. Uh, and finally, our last witness is, uh, Craig Ronamp, professional planner.
So, Mr. Rancamp has uh been uh accepted as an expert in professional planning before this board and I believe before a number of boards. Um, you're welcome to spread his credentials on the record, but I believe the board will accept him as an expert in professional planning. Any objections to the board? No.
No. Okay. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. And your license is still in good standing. Correct. It is. Just uh for the sake of the record, could you just state your first and last name? Yes, it's Craig. C R E I G H Randamp. R
A H N K A M P. I'm sorry. I have to amend that. You said first name. My first name is John. I just never use it. I didn't know that. There's a long story behind it. I'll spare you. So, Mr. Round Camp, uh you are a
professional planner. Um since there's a lot of people in the in the audience tonight, could you uh just kind of basically uh give an overview of what a professional planner does? That was not a question I was expecting. Um sorry, didn't mean catching up. A planner is is um charged essentially
with understanding um the material that that is the the province of specific experts, traffic, architecture, engineering, relating that back to policy issues, master plan and zoning. Um and putting together that
package of material under the criteria that boards use in reviewing applications uh to try and make something coherent out of all of the information that you've heard. And uh one of the things that you do is you look at whether a site is suitable for a
particular use. Correct? Yes. Um so you've been working on this application for a while and uh you know can you tell the board uh whether in your opinion this site is suitable for this use? If we could
must do that before I start talking. Uh this would be exhibit uh A7 and it is a three page aerial uh of the site. So if
we do A7 AB and C A all of them are from Google Earth using the timeline series that were originally acquired from the state of New Jersey. So it's New Jersey's aerial sold to Google that we can then access through their timeline series. A would be dated 12 2002,
December 2002. B is December 2010 and C is uh October 2020. And I get one back. They all went away. And there's probably some for the audience as well. They brought a bunch.
Thank you. All right. So, I'm not going to jump into those right away, but just figured we get that out of the way. Um and the the other administrative thing so that um I don't have to repeat everything that you heard from our previous experts. I'll say for the record that um I was here for the testimony of Rob
Strker and Dave Shropshshire. Um and to the extent they describe the site and and the things that are happening here from the site plan perspective, I adopt their testimony as if given by me. So I'm not going to go back over everything they did. Um and we'll try and and relate um what you've heard to the
decision you ultimately need to make. Um before I get back to the use issue and I I will come back to the use issue I promise and describe what this is. Um I want to touch lightly on the history of this site. As the board has already heard um this has been a longunning um
issue issue being a polite word for it um in which a local operator um did things and some things may have been approved and some things may not have been approved. Um, and all of that leads to a controversy in which the buyer of the site thinks they have rights to do
various incundary things. Uh, some of which are probably an overexpectation of what was actually approved. Um, and the town has a perspective of what had been approved historically. And somewhere in that mix is a controversy. Um, and one of the ways we solve controversies is
through a use variance application. I'll get to the specific uh purposes of the act that allow uh purpose M to be used to settle these kinds of controversies. Um but that's what brings us here. So as the chairman was asking, you know, would you put this use next to a residential development? Um starting from scratch,
it's probably not the best idea in the world. But the reality is you have a non-conforming use on at least the core parcel here. There is some level of trucking. We think a lot. You think a little perhaps, but some level of activity is already occurring on the site. And the question is, can we tame
that historical mess in a way that makes sense for everybody that we can add things that make the site better um than the existing conditions? Or even if the town won on every issue that's in dispute, might this site plan with the amenities that were providing be better than just going back to the
non-conforming use the way it is? So that that's the underlying theory of what's before you tonight. Can we collectively do a better job on this site um going through this the site plan process than simply arguing about what was or wasn't approved, what
expectations are or aren't legal, um and going down that highly litigous, expensive, ugly path. Can we get to someplace that makes sense? So my in my touching on on the history, it's not my intent to litigate it. I'm not trying to to state our position, but we know, for
example, that a use variance was approved in 1986 for a trucking terminal in what was the ASC senior citizen district. That's a historical fact that exists. Um, in 19 uh 98, we know that a a
Dvariance adding a driving school to the site was denied. So, there was at least a record of of this the prior owner trying to do more and more things with the site. The board denied adding a driving school in 1998 and sometime after 1998. I didn't do the the Oprah
request in Hunt Town. The land was reszoned to A1 other than our little wetland corner of NC. Um, and I couldn't find a justification or a story that anybody really expected a farm was going to appear here where you had this non-conforming use, other non-conforming
uses. This was kind of the area in which weird stuff had happened historically in the town. To me, the agricultural reszoning at that time was more like a holding zone. But I'm not asking for an argument with your planner. Um, I think it's just clear that nobody could really expect that a farm was going to pop up
where all of these uses were uh carving up this particular area, but that happened sometime after 1998. Um, and as I said, a small portion of lot 48 is in the NC1 neighborhood commercial. Never really practical, a mostly wetland area. Um so sort of
scratching our head you know what was this zoning trying to accomplish but that that's the pattern that's what we have as facts on the ground. So turning to the aerials that I I have given you um 2002 is before the prior land owner um
started expanding to the north and the south and you'll see that as we go. It's our belief and I know your planner believes a little different. A planner and engineer believe a little differently that this is more or less what the use variance would have allowed. It may be a little bit
different on the edges, but essentially a core trucking operation um was permitted by the use variance on the core lot. It's something like this. And this is a a historical this is what was actually happening in 2002. you see
trailers stored into the rear, to the south, and to the north of the site um to a very um dense degree, if you will. 2010 is where we see um some of the expansion that we absolutely know was not approved to the north and south. If
you flip back and and forth between 2002 and 2010, you'll see to the south there's a a little uh curved crescent shape uh that that went into the woods that clearly was not part of the original parcel. And in the north heading towards uh Bridgeboro Road,
there's an area of paving that that didn't exist in 2002. Then I had 2020 um which is before the current owners started um detenantizing the site started diminishing how much activity.
Um so you see the trucks to the uh west have disappeared. They're now vans of some kind that whether they're mail trucks or delivery vans. They're a smaller vehicle but they're still parked all the way back to the edge of what had been used in the past. And here you see the violations to the north and south um
have expanded much further than they had previously. Um and and we're not even arguing on those north south expansions. They were clearly not approved. Um so so that that's part of what the prior user did um that we're trying to fix as part of this application.
So the point of those aerials is to show um at least in the 2002 the full extent of the operation that was occurring on the site. Um certainly not secretive. It was clearly being used in the open before the north and south encroachments
started happening. Um and I think what's important is when you compare that plan to what's before you here. Um what we're doing are a couple of things and it's adding the storm water management that uses up a significant amount of the land to that
north and south that had been be expanded into and adding basins into the core. Um so rather than bringing an application to you saying let's you know they the old guys started using these other particles let's just throw them in. um we've thrown them in, but the
amount of of new green and storm water that we're providing um offsets that land area in a large way. So, that's all I'm trying to do with the aerials, not not triggering an argument about what is or wasn't approved, just sort of the facts on the ground um as we've seen them.
Um as you guys have heard many times, a use variance has three parts to it. Um why should we do this? The special reasons. Um how doesn't this interfere with the town achieving other goals and objectives? is the intent and purpose of the zone plan to use the legal ease. Um and lastly, can we do it without causing
substantial harm to the neighbors? Um and tonight I'm going to take them in that order. Um purpose one, uh I'm sorry, purpose I um is the desirable visual arrangement uh through good civic design. Um it's it's a lot of words but we know
from the case Burbridge v Mine Hill that cleaning up and improving a non-conforming site can be the basis for a use variance in and of itself if the benefits that are acrewing from upgrading the site making it better um make sense to a community that can be a
sufficient basis for a use variance and the things here that I would point out that you've heard from the other witnesses we're getting rid of four curve cuts are or getting rid of three we're coming down to net one from four uh so improving the overall safety of the interface between the property and
the roadways. Um very much improved storm water management. the I don't even know what color to call it. celery areas that you see on exhibit uh that would be B A four A4 on exhibit A4 these celery colored
areas for the storm water management basins that have been added in multiple areas of the site which obviously don't exist if we go back to the to continuing to use the non-conforming use that would simply go on the way it was in the area that whatever ultimately we determined
was the edge of that um so you have much improvement in terms the storm water quality and control um paved and delineated spaces. It's not the wild wild west that you see in the aerials. You actually have a site plan on A4 which has clear circulation, clear and
safe circulation that actually makes sense turning uh templates were put on them to show you how they worked. Uh clear spaces delineated rather than that wild wild west that you just fit in whatever you can fit. um much improved frontage um landscaping um along
Bridgebrow um basins but also plantings between the basins and the roadway. Um a very much cleaned up front uh of the site um an aesthetic improvement that I think would be uh very important for the community overall and a very much improved rear buffer to residential
development. So you saw in 2002 um trailers parked way to the back of the site. Um, we've now got, I believe, Mr. Streker's testimony, it was 152 to 165 feet from the property line to the edge of pavement. So, a very significant
buffer, significant landscaping going in that area to create separation that wouldn't exist um if we go back to the non-conforming use. In addition, the actual storage of trailers is another three spaces in, so roughly 60 feet. So
you're roughly 220 ft from the property line to this permanently stored trailers. These areas are activity areas where a truck can be used to do K turns. Um but so that would only be an operation during uh business hours for the site. So movements are only
happening in this area. Um again separated by all of this uh during uh daytime operations on the site and the closest stored trailers um are about 220 ft plus or minus um in that area. Uh to me that's a very substantial
improvement. Um even in going back to just a continuation of the non-conforming use. I believe that what we've accomplished here is something that improves on that for everybody. Um adding as I said the adjoining lots, these are the areas where that
encroachment occurred to the north and to the south. You see to the north most of this area where encroachment was is going to be used for a basin. In the south it's about 50/50 between basin and some parking in this area. But that's basically making up for losing area in the middle so that we could have
detention uh facilities in the middle of the site. So on on balance, while we're using the entirety of the site, um we're not increasing the overall amount of activity um that could have occurred on the site in the past, we're using the additional land area to accomplish
buffering um and basins in ways that I think make sense. So on balance, I think the list of benefits um for what is arguably an expansion of a non-conforming use makes sense uh in terms of becoming a better neighbor both in the front, the back and storm water
um and overall the site functions um in a much better way. Um council addressed this in in uh asking a question to our traffic engineer, but it is worth emphasizing there is no such thing as a no build here. No build is going back to whatever the litigation determines the
non-conforming pre-existing use is. So there is some trucking operation on the core site. Um that is the no build condition. Um how where exactly that line gets drawn is down a road that I hope we don't have to travel. Um but there is some core truck operation here.
Um that would be that pre-existing non-conforming use. So that was purpose I. Um and purpose M is the coordination of public and private um activities uh to more efficient use of the land. And this is a purpose we use as planners all the time uh when we have these kinds of
controversies um that it makes sense to have a a settlement plan if you will um particularly happens in affordable housing um but also here. So I would suggest purpose and as part of this as well everybody gets to save their litigation costs. Um and lastly I want
to talk about purpose G and this is where I get to address your professional questions about the nature of the use. Purpose G is to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations uh for a variety of uses to meet the needs of of all of the citizens of New Jersey. Um we
have all very publicly been dealing with the explosion of warehouses. Everybody understands that between COVID and trade wars, we're now storing a lot more goods domestically than we ever have. Um and along with that goes the need for trucks to move those goods from factories to to
warehouses, from warehouses to factories to ports and back. Um from 1990 to 2020 um they a survey by Slate magazine had tractor trailer vehicle miles doubled between 1990 and 2020. So a very
significant increase in the number of trucks on our roads um and the vehicle miles that they are traveling in the system. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that again? Tractor trailer from 1990 to 2020 tractor trailer vehicle miles doubled. Thank you. And the source is uh Slate
magazine did a an expose an article July 27, 2023. Thank you. Yep. Um so we focused on the idea of what's happening in terms of warehouses. The question is what happens to the trailers
that are doing all of this work. Now the one thing to understand first is that it's seasonal. There is not a uniform demand for trailers all the time. That's uniform. Um, if you think of department stores and they're bringing in goods four times a year for each of the seasons, a couple of months or a month
before that, there's a peak delivery for that particular store. Um, the same thing happens with with automobiles. They get brought in on cycles in terms of ships. Um, so so that there are peak demands, there are diminishment demands, and the point is where the trailers go when we don't need them. And the reality
is we don't have enough spaces. Um, and I I'll talk to to some of the sources that say we don't have enough spaces in a minute, but I want want you to understand the idea that on any given day there are a whole bunch of trailers on the road. And on any given day, about 20 to 30% of the trailers on the road are parked someplace
not being used because people are stocking trailers for their company because there will be a peak or there's been a disruption in global trade and all of a sudden they've got more trailers than they needed. They're not throwing them out. They're they've got to maintain them. These are durable goods. Um, so we need facilities around
the country where trailers can rest when they're not being used. And part of resting, when a trailer is resting, is the opportunity for it to be repaired. Um, so this is where repair has two parts to it. One of which is repairing the the tractor, the truck itself. Um,
but the majority of it is repairing the trailers. Um, when they come in for a month or a two-month stay, that's the opportunity that you can check their tires. you can see if somebody dented something, if the lock is broken. So, all of the things that are on the trailer get to be repaired when it's in
one of its hiatuses. So, there is repair as a trailer gets parked on the site, somebody assesses it, surveys it, decides there are things that need to be done to it. It then rotates through the the repair bay, those things get done, and it goes back out. So yes, it the
primary purpose is is restoring, but it's not but but repair and maintenance of those uh trailers goes along with the storing function. It's the storing function that gives you the time to do that assessment and repair work. So the trucks that in in your view as
planner, the trucks that are coming in, you're trying to make them safer um by repairing them while they're on location. Yeah. Well, I'm focused on trailers first. I'm going to do trucks in a minute. Okay. So just the trailers. Yeah. that the back half is coming in to be stored for a month. Right. It's a surplus trailer at the moment.
And you mentioned and while it's in, it gets assessed and if and while it's assessed, if something's inappropriate, it gets repaired. Right. So, like you mentioned, for example, the tires, correct? Yes. So, presumably there will be multiple trucks coming in that could potentially have multiple trailers, I should say,
coming in that have tires that need to be repaired. Correct. Sure. So, they'll be driving through Delan with tires that are not in repair before they get to this location. Correct. They're not exactly bald. They're they're they measure them at at depths and there's a point just like you just like you do with your car. You don't
drive your car until the threads are showing. There's a point at which you decide to replace your tires. Okay. So, so to to stop here real quick to sure you you piqu my interest with one of your comments regarding that there's but no pun intended by the way um
there's four times a year roughly speaking that you're going to have a higher intensity demand is that in one industry that was an example I'm just using your your your example but let's let's use that because there's no tenant that's been been identified
is that incorporated in and I understand you're not going to be able answer this question. But is that incorporated into the traffic analysis that was done? No, it can't be. Nor nor is it in traffic for residential when there's summer season is quiet and
fall is busier. I mean, there there are seasonal things that happen in life that we know about that have never been part of traffic studies. Yes, but there are permitted uses and permitted zones and they are considered when you're establishing zones of the area. This is a unique situation where
we're looking to put a non-permitted use into a location where, you know, it's not allowed, wasn't included in the master plan, it's been zoned appropriately. So, that's something we do have to take into consideration is, you know, what potentially could be the peak impact, you know? So, that's why I
think we're asking that question. Yes. And and the only thing I would add to your preposition is that there is a pre-existing non-conforming use of a disputed scale underlying this. Whether this is in fact more than that or not has not been determined and I hope we
never actually have to go through determining that. So I just want to caution you and the board about this. You keep referring to a dispute. There is no dispute there. There there is an approval which has is in place. There is a use which is in place. there
is no ending existing litigation relating to this. So I don't want the board to feel like they're being threatened with litigation or that there is pending litigation. And I think you're you're you're drawing a fair comparison of this is what exists now and hey this is our our proposal to make
it better. But also that's not really the standard for the use fair. The use fairance is based upon what the standards are of the zone. And yes there is an improvement to be made but you have to about compare compare the site and that's their burden of proof of showing what's uh what how the use does
or how it is particularly suitable for this site despite the fact that that's not a permitted use in the zone. I don't think you meant to say that. I think you're just trying to to be sure
just trying to be to say look this is I guess you're trying to soft pedal that fact that this is not and I existing site this I'm I'm just rambling never mind but I think I think you get what I mean I apologize it's 9:15
and I'm glad you raised that because it's absolutely not my intention to threaten the board I if that's the way I was coming across I apologize no threat is intended and I and know know you well enough to know that you didn't intend that but you're just trying to highlight what you think are the benefits but I I think we
yes but the but the foundation the foundation is still rur mine hill in which you're starting from an existing point in which there is a non-conforming use so we're not starting from from this is a farm field does this make any sense we're starting from this is a pirate
trucking operation of various size with an existing approval but less less than what's being operated on but but but you're still bound by what's required and permitted in the zone. And what you're saying is there's a certain level of infrastructure already there.
Yes. And a certain level of impacts associated with that non-conforming use. But there's one of the sites received the approval. And we'll talk about that in a minute. But then there's the other sites that
did not receive any tools that have expanded onto those sites by the prior user. Yes. I'm not not believe me. I'm not claiming yes, but by whomever, right? It grew onto a I just I just don't want the board to think criterion did these bad things and is coming before
criteria bought a site in a odd situation and is trying to fix it. But it's one thing to say we had a pre-existing use on a site that was approved to have a pre-existing use. The zone changed. Things happened in many years. It's
another thing to say, well, we've encroached onto a completely different site. We're occupying a different site and we should be able to receive a benefit of being a pre-existing use on that site. And I didn't say that. Certainly the impression we gave. At
least that's the impression I received. that's not the case. Um, you know, you're saying that, well, you got an existing condition on this site, so we should start from that standpoint. Whereas, you know, my opinion, we should start from the standpoint that it's expanded onto a different site
and that was a a a violation right there. We should be starting from the standpoint of that other sites were not improved, did not have what was there before. That's the standpoint I'm starting at, not at what's there, right? Illegal.
And and the proposition that I'm making for you and the board to consider is incorporating those sites into the core site that had the approval. And what happens is the core site retreats from front and rear and add storm water management. So, we're actually reducing
the amount of activity on the core site in exchange for being able to use the new additional sites that allow us to add storm water management on those additional sites, which is your request to offset the impacts. In fact, I Okay. So, I would say that's more negative criteria as opposed to positive criteria. You're
offsetting the impact. If you offset them, you'll be good. It's a positive. Okay. But anyway, under Burbridge My Hill, if you're if you're improving the site, that can be a positive. And I absolutely agree with you that the expansion of the
site to the north and the south was completely unapproved. That was a pirate operation from the prior owner. There's no justification for the expansion in the two directions. Um, and I will leave to the lawyers to argue that it happened for so long that it can't, but that
that's not for me. Um, but my my argument to you is we're adding so much to that core that could still be that old trucking operation and making that so much better that it's worth adding the additional land so that we have the space to do the the
additional buffers, additional landscaping and storm water management that there is a trade-off there and it's a trade-off that I think makes sense. Okay, that's your opinion obviously viable and that makes sense. Yep. I'm not asking you to agree, just you understand what I'm saying.
Yes. Um anyway, I was in the middle of purpose G. Um that that no apology necessary. That was useful. Um that that's the role of the middle mile in in the logistics industry. Um in terms of uh uh reports, we've got the US
Department of Transportation. Um, the scarcity of truck parking spaces across the country decreases safety for all highway users, exacerbates the industry's long-standing workforce challenges, contributes negatively to driver health and well-being, diminishes trucking productivity, and results in
unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. A 2010 study from the North Jersey Transportation uh planning authority, not the one for our district, there are three in New Jersey, this is the north. they just happen to have more staff and do more reports. Um they address the
question of why is there a need for additional parking? Um the federal hours of rest requirements for drivers, that's less important here. We're not resting drivers. Um staging for freight facilities, emergency truck parking, secure locations where drivers can park
their trail tractors when off duty, um and the storage of trailers as I was talking about in terms of middle miles. Um so we have two studies talking about the need for this at the national and state level. Um and the last one is a New Jersey DOT
statewide uh 2003 statewide freight plan. Um that that truck this is more of an exhortation. Truck parking should not be seen as an undesirable use but as a requirement of regional logist logistics and its efficiency. The understanding and recognition that public and private
organizations must provide truck parking as a necessary service is critical. Um so my only point in in reading those three short quotes to you um is to support the idea that under the MLUL um one of the basis for granting a use variance is need for a particular use.
Um this is clearly a use that is in great need. We have expanded warehouses. We've expanded the use of trucks and we have lagged in terms of of this middle mile quote unquote um providing a a parking area resting spot for trailers
that are not currently in use. Um so I had purpose um um I for for uh um improvement of the site um and purpose G for the need. Um the next prong that we're meant to address is the intent and
purpose of the zone plan. Um one of the lenses through which we can look at this is Judge Wilson's decision decision um in TWWC reality. Um, and the two things that are there that are important is that the properties around the perimeter of the site can still be used as zones, that there's no interference in those
other properties being used in a manner consistent with planning and and zoning within the community. Um, here you've got the mine situation that the core area is already trucking. Um, expanding that to the south and north in the areas that we are doesn't have a direct impact
on the ability of those adjoining parcels uh to use that zone. Um, for pretend that agriculture could come. Um it's certainly not going to have a negative impact on agriculture. We're on very large lot single family homes. Um and it allows for us to create the
enhanced buffer on that core parcel uh to the rear and to the front. Uh the second is whether it has an impact on frustrating other goals of the municipality. Um, clearly this is not a food producing area that that losing a little bit of this land is somehow
impacting the agricultural economy of South Jersey or of the community. As I said, I think the egg zone was more of a holding zone than something that the master plan actually intended to occur here. Um, so I don't think we're having a negative impact um on the actual intent and purpose um of of zoning and
planning in this particular area by having the marginal expansion to the uh existing non-conforming use that's in the core. Uh in terms of of the third prong, it's a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. Um and as I as as I've said and as I guess as the aerials
already show, um the bad parts of this use already exist with the non-conforming use. Yes, we're making it bigger to the north and south to accommodate storm water management and buffers. Um, but all of the things that we said could happen in terms of our discussions with the other experts are
things that already can happen if we simply go back to that core non-conforming use on the center parcel. Um, I I don't think we're significantly exacerbating what those impacts are. And I think, as I've said multiple times and won't repeat, I think we're making it
better with this application. better buffers, better frontage, and a net overall improvement on what this site looks like and how it will operate um instead of going back to the non-conforming use. And with that, I'm Oh, uh you wanted to address uh repair
of the trucks as opposed to the trailers. There were 13 spaces that were identified in the engineering testimony um approximate to the repair center. Um the expectation is those are the spaces that are actually serving um when trucks are actually the object of repair rather
than trailers. Um there's no expectation that the uh trailer storage areas of the site um are being used to score store trucks in relationship to the repair function. Um the 13 is plenty in terms of scale to uh support the actual repair
facility size that we have here. Let me try to understand that. Yes. So this the repair space is shown just for so that any repair to be conducted on
the trailers could be any space on here. Well, the trailer is going to be brought in in park. It will be assessed in its parking space and then whether it needs to be moved to a repair facility or not will be determined after it's assessed. But they're not likely to do assessment at the gate.
I I can certainly understand assessment. Okay. Assessment makes sense. But you said that the 13 spaces were for truck repair primarily. Yes. Are that is that where all repair will happen? Oh, repairs happening in the garages in in the building. No, there's not
repair happening on site exterior outside. Right. And and my answer to is the door closed would have been yes. But we got a softer answer from the owner. Okay. So the repairs are only conducted within the building. Correct. A truck may be stored in those specific
case is getting ready to move into the building to repaired. Whereas a trailer may be stored anywhere on site and then when that needs to have its repair or scheduled to have it repaired, it'll be moved from wherever it is on site, brought into the building, repaired, put
back. Right? That's that's the typical operation. As has been said multiple times, there is no specific tenant, but that's currently how this type of facility operates with multiple companies that I'm aware of. So there's 291 spaces identified. Yes.
Of which 10 are for employee parking. Yes. 291 plus 10. Plus the 10. Okay. So 291 of which of which 13 are truck spaces designated. So that brings it down to 278 for trailer
parking if my math is correct. Um but the trailer spaces are larger, right? larger than than the identified truck spaces there. There is room for a truck to pick up the trailer within the space.
Double stack. So, this is this was going to be a question I had. This might was asking. So the 13 spaces identified from from I believe the previous testimony was provided that was going to be truck and trailer would be pulling in the vehicle
would be getting assessed or the trail and then you' have a separation of that ultimately the remaining spots on site the 60 foot um minimal space size I'm not missing any here that is
specifically for a trailer storage only double stack Right. I mean, a truck obviously has to go there to get it and drop it off, but they're not trucks are not meant to be stored in those spaces, but they they sit there, don't they? Well,
I I think that a WP67 would not fit fit there, but if you have smaller operational vehicles. Oh, yeah. Somebody's doing unit trucks. Sure. But but I is is something of that nature going to be stored there. And you know, excuse my naivity on on this. How are
the trailers themselves going to be moved? Is there an operational truck that's on site to pivot the trailers and park them? We're at the edge of my understanding, but yes, that's my understanding that just like a in a in an old fashioned train yard, there is a yard engine that's doing that kind of
thing. It may not even be a truck. It may be a like a a I don't even know what they call little tractors. So only the trailers are stored in the spaces, not the trucks. The trucks, right? The trucks will only be stored
if necessary for repair in those storage spaces. Yes. I don't want to go too far to say that there couldn't be a truck overnight somewhere on the site, but they're not be intended to be there. They're not stored there. Okay. Because that's important because
again, we're looking at use variants and we want to be specific so that Yes. So there could potentially be a a tractor and a trailer stored in those spaces. Not parked in those spaces
for shortterm possibly parked. Yes. Not store mean short terms a couple hours. What do you mean by I'm trying to understand because I don't want to be in a situation five years down the road from now and all of a sudden we're in zoning violations because we weren't specific.
Right. So I need to know you you're saying my first comment I thought was they're basically going to be just trailers in those spaces. Now it's there may be a tractor there with the trailer and and you know that's fine. I just need to
know what we're referring to. The intent is that trailers are stored. The intent. Let me finish my sentence. The board may impose a condition different than what I'm saying. My understanding of the way these yards operate, trailer, the trailers are stored. The trucks are not.
Um, you asked the question, does that mean that there could never be a truck other than in those 13 spaces at some particular one overnight? And I was just trying not to go that far. It's not the intent. It's not the way it operates. If somebody comes in five minutes before closing, might they not do all the
operations before they go home that night? Maybe. But to to that point, if you have four bays that are available and 13 parking spaces, theoretically couldn't be stored inside the bay over. Yeah, I mean that's the intention. Those 13 spaces are where the activity should
be occurring. So, so where this comes into into uh the question is I think on the proposed operations C um policies and procedures vehicle maintenance order parts consisting of regulations obviously if there's a potential you
know fluid leak that would have to be inside the building from my understanding obviously all repair happens inside the building no not even that but if you have a vehicle coming in leaking fluid if it's overnight would there be accessibility to get inside the base for the collection system that would be in there.
Um, you're asking me I know it's a loaded question and you're not answer. The answer is yes. In the facilities that I know about, you know, you're asking me to speak on behalf of an owner who doesn't have a tenant where I've had specific tenants that the answer I would easily say to you is yes, because if
they're getting through the front gate, they can just as easily get through the the the opener for the repair facility. So, logically, the answer is yes. What if the repair facility already has trucks slt trailers in existence in
those bays? What do you do with that truck? Which is why I was was was trying not to get myself paid into into a quarter by job. Weird things can happen. It's not the intent. It's not designed for that. Could we imagine a scenario in which six trucks broke down and this is the only
facility they can take them? Maybe. But but likely and it's not what we're designing for based on your national statistics of how much trucking has increased. Sure. So now we may have a situation where trucks are leaking and now they're just leaking out on the on the on the ground and they're not in a collection facility
in the in the repair facility with the collection device. So what do we do then? At the moment they're leaking on the street. So this is a better it's better to get them here than leaking out on public streets with no protection. Oh this is this pave or start? It's going to be paved. It's going to be
paid. I'm sorry. Okay. With with grease traps and all kinds of things. Yes. That internal have grease traps. Will the external have grease traps? External the external parking lots. No, I don't think so. But we'll have to ask the civil that.
So if they're storing on site and and they're leaking, they're leaking on site. It's penetrating through potentially into the ground. I'll let the civil engineer deal with the store. But I he's taking me beyond my skills. There's also there's also listed in the statement of operations. I I'm trying to
find it within here, but I think it said that if vehicles need to be towed from the site, they would be towed from the Yes. That's that's I think kind of where we're trying to get another very quiet. Yeah. Yeah. Uh that the towing of vehicles from the
site might may happen on a rare occasion when it's discovered the repairs are beyond the ability of the facility. Yes. So I guess the ultimate question is if there's a inability for the facility to store the vehicle overnight, would it be detourred to another facility?
So the rare instance that you're referring to based off of this, it sounds like that. No, the logical answer is yes. These folks would get a phone call saying, "Can you receive a truck?" And if they can't, they'd say, "No. So when a truck's coming in here, it's
there's going to be a call. So I can't handle I think this is outside of the scope and I think it's putting him in a Mr. Ran in a position. I do think there are some follow-up questions that could be asked of Mr. Shields um put him in the hot seat
because and I'm thinking of one instead in ter because I have another uh client that has an access issue and access control is important. Then in regard to the use itself. Yes. Um All right. Um
finish up your questions. Chairman right out ranks me any day. Only in theory. Um so yeah. So on this issue, let's see if we can just wrap up these questions. We can obviously have time for more, but we want to try and manage the larger scope of this hearing.
So, um, with what Miss Cardi just said, do you want to defer that question to, um, the owner? Is he the I would say ultimately that's why I asked the question before I was a little perplexed. Why before? Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
I just have some questions relative to the use of testimony. Agreed. Right. I knew you would. Um, okay. Um, yeah. Why don't you finish that, J? and then and we'll go from there. Just going through the testimony then. Um,
frankly, I think everybody's aware, you know, we're having a lot of issues with with warehouses. Warehouses are definitely coming much more. I know I probably get a package or four or five a day at my house. Um these are not uncommon but
in the same instance it doesn't necessarily mean an agricultural zone or an A1 zone which is also residential zone would necessarily be appropriate to satisfy that our you know master plan re-exam
from date on this one uh 11 2020 you know refers to that there should be ordinance revisions and address the intent and purpose and the need for the fact of tractor trailers,
um, storage facilities, warehousing, etc. Um, we have three zones that probably could these uses would be permitted M1, M2, and M3 where they would be, you know, most likely considered a permitted use. Here
we have a use in, you know, an agricultural zone and an NC zone with significant residential adjacent around it. The master plan recognizes the need to look into it, but it the master plan also recommended various reasonzoning of
properties and this property was not one of them. How do you rectify with you know obviously the intent and of our master plan is not have this property be utilized as a warehouse whereas you know that's or where storage
facility trucking facility um and your desire to do that. This to me frankly seems somewhat contradictory to the intended purpose of our master plan and may have a negative impact on our master. My turn. Your turn. Long question. Yeah. Sorry. The
If we were starting from scratch and we actually have a farm sitting here and we were trying to figure out if this is the right place in your community for this use, it probably isn't. And I don't disagree with that. But the issue is you already have a non-conforming use that isn't going away voluntarily. And the
question is, can we make it better? The whole point of this exercise, this application before you, is taking the non-conforming use that exists, the thing something like what was in the 2002 area, maybe a little smaller than that, but something like that, and turn
it into this. It's a little bit bigger by adding the two pieces that were improperly encroached on, but it adds the basins, the setbacks, um the landscaping, the burning, um the whole the the front being significantly better, getting rid of four curb cuts.
So, so this is not a question of should we convert a farm into this use. This is a question of we've got a non-conforming use. Is there a way to get something better out of that than simply letting that non-conforming use go forward? historically the way it was.
Well, no, we have a we have a an approved use from 1986. Yep. Which frankly is significantly smaller than this 2002 area. I understand that's your view. No, I'm I'm looking at the what we
believe is the prior plans, which is only the one line. So, I'm you know, I'm not sure that site plan is a condition of that approval, but these are these are arguments I'm trying not to have. Okay. Well, I can only go by what I have as an approved as the plan that was submitted with that approval.
It's only again the one lot looks concentrated towards U Bridgeboro Road. There's not as much in the back. Um, and this 2002 drawing shows other lots expanded that are beyond what
this prior approval is and I don't believe are referenced in the resolutions for the prior approval. So that was one aspect. The other aspect is this expanded over time um without approvals.
It did and as we've acknowledged I I understand you've acknowledged that but it's expanded and then you know we're trying to say I want to know what was there before. To me, that's the original, not what is not what has
expanded to. No, 2002 is much bigger than what compare 2002 to 2020 and the additional stuff that happened between those two days. The area that was impacted was wood. So, but time doesn't go to the
runner. Tide doesn't go to the runner. If 2002, this this document here of 2002 is beyond what Mr. what our planner is saying. If it's going beyond what was already approved, we don't just say, "Oh, well, you went beyond what we approved." I guess we have to accept that. No, I I've acknowledged that that
drawing is probably more than what what was the core use. How much more is it is I got chastised for saying in dispute that that there's a disagreement between the parties as to what that core approval approved. It's it's something
less than the 2002 aerial. I agree. But again, That original approval was from ' 89 with the master plan re-exam 2020. Yeah. And they still knowing that pre-existing was there didn't recommend that this
site be reszoned. I don't want to get into an argument with you about how insane agricultural zoning was in this corner. That's your opinion and that's fine. I can respect that. We can disagree. Right. I didn't reszone it. I know. Um that's not that's not you know our job as a zoning board but we
need to go by what's in our master plan and what's in our zone plan. Yes. Um we did not starting with vacant land. Everything you say makes sense to me. But if we're starting with a core use and the question is can we do something better than than whatever whatever it is
you believe was approved by that non-conforming approval. I and I don't know what that picture is. Assuming assume that picture in your mind is what we're doing here better or worse than going back to that. I think this is better. If you disagree then
that's a matter of opinion because I'm going to have to look at what was previously approved and you can always make what's there better. No question. Well, that's the question is that Hill standard. The question is does that raise to the standard of what would be appropriate for a use variance and to expand that use variance onto additional properties
and the potential impacts on the surrounding properties hill issue and you either agree this is better than going back to the non-conforming or not. I don't think that's a black and white answer. I think there's a simple answer of you could take what's non-conforming and prove what's non-conforming and not
expand it. You can take the But there's no legal responsibility for the applicant to improve it. They would simply be going back. Oh, there is because they've expanded without approvals. So they're in violation. Would have to be removed. Right. But ultimately we get back to that core use which we think is more you think is
less. But whatever that is, that core use would be allowed. Existed the prior approved use is allowed. No question about it. Right. And I think this is better than that or better than us fighting about it and then getting to wherever that is.
and we're going to have to disagree on that because this is significantly larger than what was originally approved. And again, you're coming in for the use variance. So, you're asking for that expansion and I understand you're saying that, you know, yes, we're going to expand, but we're going to try to offset that impact by XYZ,
right? And the question becomes, right? And the question becomes, you know, again, does this significantly larger? I I I don't mean to say sound so harsh like that, but this is significantly larger than what was originally approved.
It has more land area. I don't know that it has more parking spaces. It's got a lot more than what I see on the prior plan. I know. And that that's an area of that word. I'm not supposed to say dispute between us. Um well I think just to put it to to
make the record clear council was speaking about dispute in the legal context the construct of your comment uh that we hope it doesn't go into litigation or something along those lines which was intimated which again this board cannot be influenced by in any way shape or form. We have to use
the positive and criteria positive and negative criteria to analyze whether or not your application should be approved in this particular zone. I'll leave the lawyers arguing that issue. I have my questions as to whether or not this is a benefit to the surrounding
area. I think there's definitely negative impacts on the surrounding properties. Um again, I cannot look at the violations and incorpor and and just go from there. I have to look at what was originally approved. I think there'd
be definitely improvements that could be made to the prior approved site that could offset some impacts, but once you go into expanding the further properties, you know, I think there's negative impacts the surrounding areas. Um, I think each of the purposes you
represented can be provided by addressing the site, the approved site itself as opposed to the overall area. Um, so I have significant concerns with this to be honest with Chairman, members of the board, I'll be happy to answer any further questions
you have for me. Obviously, I'm still here. I do have a few questions. Sure. The current approval which is documented on record in the township is 90 parking spots on one specific lot. Correct.
Correct. Uh not sure the spaces, but one specific lot. Yes, one specific lot. But there was an amount because there was a written amount on a document somewhere that we had read in this one of the four times I read it with a drawing and a circle that was stamped from the down. Yes. So we
were going to go from 90 parking spots on one lot to 300 over three. That is correct. So that is substantially increasing it. And just because I'm maybe I'm wrong for
stating this improperly that the due diligence that a property was bought with maybe they were misinformed of what they could do for it is not the responsibility of the board to say okay this is our we have to deal with this now because that is the due diligence of an owner to purchase something and know
exactly what it is before they buy. We all have that same responsibility. I think I feel that I true freely that you were misrepresented whoever the owner was when they bought this and that's not nothing we can change. I I don't see I apologize. I don't see
that the count of spaces. So there was there was it's in this documents. There was a might have been in the last one at the time before and it was a count of 90 whatever that date was in ' 86 because it said it Council, I know that as this uh colle's been going back and forth, I don't know
if your planner was done testifying. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not for closing questions. I just I just wanted to know by all means more direct. Okay. Um All right. So, yeah, go ahead. Yeah. I just wanted to close a loop earlier that Ed and Jay had with the 120
days. It's not because trucks are coming in disrepair. back to the cyclical cycle of the truck usage. Close that loop. Yep. Okay. Thank you, sir. And you might not be able to answer this question. Is there a specific location
on the site that will be a longer term storage versus a section that's ready for repair or they're just going to kind of go anywhere that they fit? Yes. because because it's going to happen dynamically over time and and
there'll be multiple companies owning trucks even though there's one operator for the site. The trucks may be owned by multiple companies that are asking for spaces. So one company may say I need all my trucks and the other company says I'm still storing mine. So it's a think of it more of a as a train yard. The
cars are moving. I just look for from it from a I'm trying to look through a different lens here. If they're there for a longer period of time, in my mind, they need more repair. No, they're just not needed on the road. And when they're stacked back to back in
a longer term, the safety of the site is a concern to me. um the ability to get if you know a truck in the very back corner catches on fire, how many are going to go before we can the fire department can gain access
from a safety standpoint. That's when they're stacked like that. And again, they were stacked like that in 2002. I I understand that it's very common in the storage of trailers. They're not they don't typically spontaneously combust, but I understand things can happen.
Okay. Um, I can't I can't see. Okay. You guys have follow. Um, that's a question. Um, if they've expanded the property past the they were approved. Can we have a say on
what happens to the parcel that got approached on? No, this is not an enforcement board. Our our decision your decision tonight is based upon what's in front of you now. So if they Yeah, that's that's an enforcement issue
that the applicant is hoping that this will be a successful application. So it'll obiate that. But that's not something that this board deals with. All right. Um, for council deciding if he needs to redirect the operator.
Council, I I had a question for uh you can maybe direct if this is the right witness, but the um the fire department uh issued some questions concerning the cretinarian truck lot in this application. fire marshall uh reviewed the site plan submitted uh and in and
indicated that he had some questions. Number one, how long will the trailers remain on location? Will be loaded or unloaded? Uh will there be a truck uh with them or just trailer storage? And I think my understanding is at this point you can uh trailers will remain on location. That's accurate obviously,
right? Trailers were a max of 120 days and they're empty. All right. And so they won't be loaded. That that answers the next question. Uh will there be a truck? We had discussions about that. There could be in your testimony, but we don't know. It's not intended. It would be a rare occurrence. The trucks are intended to
be at the front of the site where those 13 spaces are rather than distributed through the balance of the of the site. The other question was uh will will the existing building be used and you testified it will be for repair. Correct. All right. Um what is the use of that building? What is the use of that
building? I said improvements to that building would go through your normal building department review and have all the fire suppression and whatever is necessary as part of that and the use of the building is for repair predominantly or is it something else? Um repair and most logistics companies have a small office space so it' be
office and repair. Okay. Um the next question was the two closest hydrants on Bridgeboro Street would require some sort of shutdown in the event of a fire. Uh we are requesting a hydrant be installed inside the property. So if this uh was
approved, would there I mean do you agree to do that pursuant to the fire marshall suggestion for instruction? Yes. Yes. I imagined it would be. Um okay. Uh the next question was will you have gates locked? Yes. So there will be gates at the at the
entrance to the property. Yes. And they will be locked for off hours. Yes. I'm that's something that I want to address with the operations for Okay. Right. That's I don't think Okay. All right. Um,
the fire marshall also indicated if so, these gates would require you to have a a Knox pad lock. Yes. Okay. And there'll be camera security as well. I mean, there are a bunch of there are lots of things that go into securing the site appropriately. Okay. So, those were the questions that were were posed and we may also have
those for, you know, the manager for criterion that testify as well. But, uh, thank you. All right. So, uh, Ed, Jay, you guys have followup? Not at this time, Mr. Chairman. I miss anybody on the board. Everybody
Okay. All right. Council, can we take a five minute break? Sure. They said we're going to take a five minute break. Uh we'll be right back. Thank you. All right, ladies and gentlemen, let's get moving. Are we back on the record? Okay. Uh, ladies and gentlemen, um,
council for the applicant has indicated they'd like to to carry um the, uh, application, but so what I'm going to do now, I think you probably know, is I'd like to hear from the public. We're going to open it up to public because you've been waiting patiently this. I'm sorry. Can we just first is that correct, Mr. McG?
Yeah, we we would like to carry. Yeah. Okay. So for anybody who's interested in this application, it's going to be continued to the August 21st meeting without further notice or publication. So you won't get further notice, but we are now going to hear public comment on
the application. And again, there'll be an opportunity at the next meeting. Right. Right. So we're going to start going through asking for more public comment. I know we did some last time and then the continuation of the hearing will be what was the date again? August 21st. August 21st. Okay. So, I'm going to open
up the public. Uh, ladies and gentlemen, we have I think there's a sign-in sheet there if you want to come up. Put your name down. Come up and address uh the board if you wish. You don't have to. Anybody want to come up? Yep. I see your hand first, sir. Come on up. So, we'll ask you to uh
sign in so we get the spelling of your name and your address. We'll state your name and address for the record and then I'll swear you in. All right. And I'm hearing a lot of chatter. So, let's, you know, get back to, you know, everybody. We want to be able to hear what the testimony is. Okay.
Audience was very good throughout the first three hours, I have to say. Yeah. Okay. Would you kindly state your name and address? My name is James Rushmore. I live at 17 Rosland Drive in Delran. You swear affirm to tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth before this board. I do. Okay. So, I've listened to the expert testimony for several meetings now, and the contradictions are rather stark.
Um, and I'm going I don't mean to suck the mic, but I have a few things I'd like to cover. One is sound. And I know their sound expert is not here tonight, but in the fancy colored map that he presented to us, they were generating sound in the center
of their property, not on the outsides. And my back fence is right adjacent to their property. Um, the topography of of my lot and the lots of my immediate neighbors uh runs down so that our fence
is way lower than our homes because they sit up high. So, if I sit on my deck or if I sit in my bedroom with my window open, I am well above their proposed burm for sound barrier. And the six or
six foot trees that they're going to put on top of that burm are not going to block the sound for a long long time. The truck turnound where they're doing their K turns is in the back of the property adjacent to my house and even though it's 150 ft away from my fence
um that sound travels and those are not quiet vehicles. The other thing is this applicant has not been supposedly been been supposed to do a lot of activity. And when they were doing
activity prior to getting shut down, um there were tractors and trailers stored on this facility for an extended period of time. And there and most of the moving of these vehicles occurred after dark. Um
the traffic study that was presented tonight is starkly different than what was presented previously. And what was presented tonight in terms of the impact on the on the uh the lighted intersections at Hartford and Creek and sorry Bridgeboro and Creek and
uh Hartford and Bridgeboro. Um the ratings on those don't seem the same as what we were given at the last meeting when the other gentleman was here. Um we have a dangerous intersection and we have
several schools that these kids walk to and from immediately adjacent to where this traffic is going to occur. We've had near accidents and accidents because of lots of vehicles including trucks. A truck trying to make a right-hand turn
from Bridgeboro onto Hartford cannot make that turn, even using the corner there to try and wiggle around because the cars cheet up too close to the light to be able to give that truck ample space to turn in front in front of
7-Eleven. I live near that intersection. I worked on Bridgeboro Road for over 30 years as a tenant in Dr. Pino's building. So, I've driven that road on a daily basis for a long time. The amount
of development that's occurred has totally changed this end of Delran, and it it really is overwhelmed by what's currently existing. I'm very upset when people do things that aren't permitted
um and then they think that they have the right to continue to do what's not permitted or do more than that or ask for forgiveness as they try and do more. Um there's something really really wrong with that. And I I know that your solicitor said that you guys are not
here to be enforcers, and I get that, but you also shouldn't be here to rubber stamp what's not right and allowed to get to make it bigger. This is a real challenge for the immediate neighbors, not just in Ashley
Crossing, but in all of the neighbors and all the people that drive through our community on a daily basis. We should have a safe area, a clean area to be able to do live our lives on a daily basis. And I think that there's nothing positive that's going to come from
expanding this facility and allowing it to do what they're proposing to do. So, thank you from your time. Thank you. [Applause] Okay. Uh I'm sorry, ma'am. I thought you were
coming coming up. Uh, go ahead, Ken Paris, 31 Tberry Lane, Delran. And And when you're done, just sign in, please. Sure. Um, a couple things I wanted to bring up. Uh, one is first of all, uh, Creek Road is also uh they are not permitted
to drive on that. I confirm that. Uh it's 12tonon and I believe the trucks are about 40 ton. Uh the other thing is there's a fire department that is also down Bridgeboro Road that will also be impacted. If
there's emergency, if there's trucks in the way, it could be another issue that should be thought about. Also, I got to ask a question. Um, I know the other property uh there is the is is there a
possibility of environmental issues with the other property? I'm aware that um that trucks have been worked on in the fields there and there the actual trucks itself are opened up and I believe
there's possible contamination. Has anybody looked into that and will that happen here as well? And um and it also was mentioned about the accidents, you know, that these trucks are going to be worked on because uh
they they they may be in bad shape or they could cause an accident. They may cause an accident in our roads and what are they going to do with the bad tires? Are they going to storm there? That's another environmental issue. So I think these things need to be looked at. Also, uh I do say say the same thing. We have
three schools. We have children walking all the streets. It's a dangerous situation. I definitely would be against it. I think it's a bad idea and uh our town really doesn't need it. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. Uh, next next up, anybody else want to speak? Oh, sir, I see a hand back there. How's it going? Um, just state your name and address for the record, please. My name is Victor Giuliano. I live in actually Mount Laurel, Tensaw Mill, but
uh I own You swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Absolutely. And you live in Mount Laurel? Yes. But I own I own quite a few properties in town. Do you you own property in Delran next to this one or you Oh, yeah. Yes, I do. Numerous
properties. Okay. I just caution the board because if you're not on the 200 foot list, you really don't have an interest in that. Gotcha. But I am. Okay. You're on the 200 foot list. Yes. So, you know, I'll just Well, I'm sorry. If what what property
address is within that? Uh I believe it is uh 3103 Bridgeboro Road. Thank you. That's one of them. So my question, one of my questions is if their storm water systems that they
would possibly be putting in there, would they be underground or above ground? And if they are underground, you know, the filtration systems that they'd have to use just because of the oil or the potential for the oil and the runoff for the vehicles and trucks to, you know, actually take care of it or if
it's just the basins and then the oils or whatever would just end up in the basins. Um the other issues that I've had on my properties is there's been bamboo which is you know been brought to their attention over the years. Uh they have cut it down recently but bamboo is
extremely invasive and it is I notified them prior to it being on my property. It's now well established onto my properties and now it's a bigger issue and it's probably going to be for the foreseeable future. Um, aside from that,
you know, the environmental issues, you know, I don't know if they've ever done phase ones or phase 2s on any of these properties. You know, there are I I've seen people dump motor oil and stuff on the truck properties that they also own. So, I would hope that if they were aware
of any issues or environmental issues that they would take care of those problems and, you know, hopefully do the same for this other property as well. So, those are my biggest issues and concerns that I have and uh do with what you will.
Thank you very much. Okay. Anybody else like to address the board? My name is Cindy Sparland 30 Cindy C I N D Y Sparland. I live at 31 Marshia Drive. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth? The truth of
what? I do. I have a couple of uh things that really bother me about this. The traffic guys have always said it doesn't make any difference. Oh, it's going to make 9 seconds difference. There is no way.
I have been behind these trucks making a left turn off of Hartford onto Bridgeboro Road. One truck goes through the lefthand turn. Not nine seconds. That's one truck that you're stuck behind to go straight ahead. About a
truck and a half goes through that light. So, we're going to sit there for hours trying to get out of our neighborhood. And their estimation of um rush hour from 4:00 to 5.
Let school get out. We don't leave our subdivision between two and three because you can't. Teenage drivers go bumperto-bumper coming out just like a school bus. You don't have any choice. You sit there and when you have to wait two or three minutes to get out of your
subdivision, that's crazy. What's an 18-wheeler going to do? It's going to be even worse. The kids dart in and out of traffic. Teenagers are brain dead. We all know that. We were all there. And kids are going to
get hurt. They're going to run in front of a truck because they can do it. And it this is just a really dangerous proposition. They're going to have 291 spaces, but yet we're only going to have 26 outbound
trucks a day. That doesn't add up. They're not here to lose money. They're here to make money. And 26 trucks isn't going to do it. there. Any truck that comes out of that facility, whether it's turning right or
left, is going to take up two lanes of traffic. We see it on the one on Hartford Road. They take a right turn, they have to go into the oncoming lane to turn right. They take a left turn, they have to cross both lanes of traffic to make a left turn. Traffic comes to a
dead stop. You can Our tra our uh school crossing guards have come close to getting hit several times. This this is dangerous. And they're trying to make it look like it's this is we're going to improve things. That's
not an improvement in my book. All it's going to do is hurt the neighborhood, hurt the area, destroy our homes. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Okay. So, so I should clarify um so the agreement to to toll the to continue the um application to the August 21st hearing you told the time for the board to act correct? Yes. Um is there agreement by the board motion to grant the approval or grant
the request to adjourn under the condition that no further notice no further publication they agreed to total times motion second Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?
Thank you. Okay. Oh, we're still going to be here. I thought you said No, no, that that was just a proc place in the record for that. Steve Ferrar 11 Tara Lane in Ashley Crossing.
Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. uh to go after what I mean to to add on to what Cindy said. I'm under oath. I'm a resident. I'm
standing in front of 7-Eleven watching a tractor trailer who has who wants to turn on to Hartford from Bridgeboro who has to swing out to the left turn lane and then arc into
the left turn lane coming down Hartford to get around that corner. Okay, he does that once for cycle of the light. So that's one truck that gets through. The crossing guards that are there now
have put in cones in I'm talking the corner of 7-Eleven. Okay. a cone right in the by the curb in the street and one on the sidewalk because the really good drivers were
cutting it real close and when they did the truck body would be over the sidewalk. sidewalk comes out and then right angle. They're over the sidewalk so they have cones now so the kids can stand behind
them when the trucks go around the corner. It's that's what's really happening there. Regardless of a study, we got to be careful and protect our kids. Um I also want to add on to what Jim
said. Jim uh Jim Rushmore. This property is aboutund about 19 acres now. And that 19 acres has a perimeter of about 4,200 ft.
The 300 ft behind the residential houses, that's five houses in Ashley Crossing. It's 300 ft out of a total of 4,200 feet in perimeters.
They picked the f the 300 ft where people live to run their trucks up there and have a truck turn around right at the fence. Okay?
Because that was to their benefit. Although the zoning says it should be to the benefit of the residents if we're making changes, this certainly wasn't to the benefit of the residents because of both both sound and light. Now, I know
they're moving it back, but just think about this. Jim told you every one of those houses is on a slope. It slopes down to the storm sewer by the fence. So, five houses are all walkout
basements, which means their living space is 11 or 12 feet above the ground level. And they can stand on their back porch and look over the fence and look all the way down the Bridgeboro Road.
So that's that means they're about 15 feet above 15 feet above ground level. They're proposing a burm of six to 8 ft. And on the other side there's trucks coming up
and a trailer. You figure his lights are about four feet off the ground and the sound from his engine is about four feet off the ground. So you got a truck that's four feet. You got a burm that's six to eight feet and then you got a
house that's 14 feet and the sound goes right over the burm to the house. Burm doesn't work doesn't. And certainly the lights that are coming from the trucks as they come up
to the truck turnaround are shining right into the bedrooms of the people by the by the uh edge of the development there. So it's not right from a from a sound
perspective. It's not working from a light perspective at least half the year when the trees have no leaves and potentially the whole year depending on how loud the the noise is. So, I'd like to suggest that we uh ask for a noise
study, not in the middle of the of the facility, but up where the people live and see what the sound is there because I think we need to propose they put up a barrier
kind of like what Amazon did down on Delran Parkway. They have a big barrier because they had a 24-hour operation and they uh wanted knock down the sound and the noise and
the light. I think it doesn't have to be obviously that big, but something more substantial than some trees and bushes, trees that are going to take 10 years to grow. that would certainly help the residents along there because those
residents are the ones that are getting most impaired by this improvement in what's going over there. And I, you know, I I don't want to say you shouldn't do it. I'm saying take care of the people that are most affected by it
and take care of them properly. Um, the last thing that I have a concern about is I've been through been through a lot of information and
I'm concerned about water quality long term. We have water on the south or wetlands on the south side of this facility. We have wetlands on the
north side of this facility. And I say we because it is ours. It is township property. The wetland on the north side of this facility. And then we also have the storm sewer that runs along the property
edge of Ashley Crossing. It goes out to the wash, whatever they call those big troughs with big stones in it and it mixes with Lowe's coming down and it all goes down into Rancokus Creek which is
where all this groundwater goes eventually. And my concern is what if we have an accident? That's all I know this board can't involve with whatifs, but what if
we have a terrible accident? Something leaks accidentally, not purposefully. So, it could be a real mess and it could be a real liability. And uh it could be really a liability
because that wet the wetlands there is owned by the township. So, thank you very much for your ear. Okay. [Applause]
Hi. Uh, my name is Liz Caputo. I live at 33 Marsha Drive. I'm new to this. I just moved in on July 2nd. Oh, 33 33 Marsha Drive. You sw and you'll swear sign in. Do you
swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. I'm new to this. As I said, I just moved into this home on July 2nd. One of the reasons I bought it was because of the location and what was behind me.
And now I find I'm sorry. I'm I'm Now I see that I have to worry about environmental issues, sound issues, light pollution, traffic, more traffic. I knew when I moved up here that Harford Road was
going to be tough. I knew Delran High School was right there and I knew I was going to have to adjust my schedules on a lot of things. But when I heard this and this is the first time I'm hearing it. This is the first meeting I've attended and the concerns that everybody one of
my neighbors have. It's scary. It's scary. And if I would have known what was going on, I would have thought twice before I really before I made an offer on this house. And I I really that and
and that's really all I need to say. I want to say I just I think it's sad that we have to go through this. Thank you. Uh, my name is Sal Millisiano. I know. Uh, I live at 15 Roslin Drive here in
Delran. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before this board? I do. Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is my first time addressing you, the zoning board.
My wife Carol and I have been residents here in Del and Ashley Crossing for 25 years. and we've attended most of the meetings that you've you've had regarding this issue.
Uh we just want each and every one of you to know that we respect and appreciate you for helping prevent that sports stadium from being built right over the fence from where we live. By the way, I'm neighbors with uh Jim
Rushmore. We live next door to him. whatever he said is what we see. We're we're only 30 feet from the fence, but uh we're very confident that you will make the right decision uh
regarding the 18-wheeler trucks that will destroy the peace and quiet that we currently have. I just wanted to bring to your attention something u uh that I think is
important. Around 1790, a famous British statesman named Edmund Burke made two very important statements that I believe relate to our situation. One of his statements said, "Bad laws
are the worst sort of tyranny." He also said something that I think some of us have heard before. The only things thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Now, friends, I I can't think of anything more evil than a law that may soon be passed allowing several 18-wheeler trucks, several 18-wheeler trucks to invade our
peaceful and quiet retirement village of Ashley Crossing. When these trucks pull into their respective parking spaces, they will be emitting a beep beep beep beep sound that will annoy and awaken
everybody within a half a mile. Believe me, my wife has very delicate ears. She she can hear when the toilet bowl's running. Now, uh, I I know for a fact that when
we were woken many, many times by this beep beep beep beep. So, what I'm saying is, please, dear members of the zoning board, you're all going to retire pretty soon. You're going to all be looking for a really good place to to live for the
rest of your lives. All we ask, all we ask is that you please put yourselves in our shoes. That's all I have to say, sir. My name is Robert Lyani. I live at 22
Ashley Drive. You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And just sign in when you're when you're finished your testimony. Now, I've lived in different places in New Jersey and um I I'm not originally
from Delran. I'm a Mount Holly boy, but um Hartford Road connects 130 with Medford and Bridgeboro connects Riverside with
Morstown. They were originally country roads. They went through a farming area. The trucks they they uh that traveled along these roads were carrying fruit and vegetables
and a few families. Delran has seen fit to make um Hartford and Bridgebro uh you might say the center of a new residential area. There's Ashley
Crossing, Fox Trail, Tale, uh Summer Hill, the Grand and and another uh community just down uh Bridgeboro. Um there are two shopping
centers and uh there's a high school and uh an elementary school. Um, these are stressed roads because they're still no bigger than the country roads they originally were laid out
connecting areas for commerce through a a rural area. Um, as you've heard, we've heard all night long about traffic, uh, trucks, the noise,
um, the congestion, the danger with children walking to and from school. Please consider how stressed these roads are already when you vote one way or another on this issue. Thank you.
All [Applause] right. I don't see any any further hands. Anybody else? Okay. Uh I miss Okay. I don't see any more hands. So, at this point, I'm going
to close to the public. Uh again, we have another date as we've discussed. I'll open it to the public as we do at every meeting on that occasion as well. Um so, um council, at this point, you're complete for the evening with what Miss put on the record. Is that right? Thank you.
All right. So, uh before we just break and go into complete anarchy, as happens before release, if you could just allow us, um uh the next thing on our agenda is to open and close it to the public in something else not concerning this application. I'm assuming there aren't any. I'm going to open it to the public
for that purpose. Do I see any hands for any other issues? I see none. I'm going to close it to the public for that reason. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Motion. Second. All right. Here's a motion. I can't. All in favor? I I thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, have
a good night. until last.