##VIDEO ID:341v3uODeiA## good evening everyone and welcome to the Hillsboro Township planing board meeting of nove November 7th 2024 please join me at salute to the flagge AL to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised according to section five of the open public meetings Act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 otherwise known as the Sunshine Law knows the 2024 annual meeting schedule has been been provided to the officially designated newspapers the Township Clerk posted on the township website and available here at the Town Hillsboro Township municipal complex in addition application documents and plans have been made available on the township Civic clerk website at least 10 days in advance of this evening's meeting complete application files are also available in the planning departments for inspection accordance with the public meeting notice that may have roll call of planing board members and also board and Township professionals Please Mr Vander and Mr vital are absent Mr Wagner here Mr adwit here Smith here Mr de here committee M Pon present mayor Chelli here chair PE present chair saraji here president prinstein here may here and myself and the videographer are here okay welcome everybody approve and every speak first up we do have consideration of meeting minutes meeting minutes of October 10th 2024 Mr Bernstein who's eligible all members of the board except Mr Deb okay may I have a motion to approve second who got who second Mr Wagner I'll okay thank you any comments from deis hearing none roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes M Smith yes m in the pon yes Deputy Mayor Chelli yes chair PE yes chair srir yes next we have a consider consideration of resolution Morton Street realy company file 23- pb-1 dsv Mr Bernstein eligible members are Mr Wagner Mr rtz M Mr Deb committee man leani Vice chair p and the chairman okay thank you may have a motion to approve so moved Mr chairman second okay comments roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Mr Depp yes in the P yes Vice chair PE yes chair sarach yes okay we do not have any plan board business nor any considerations of ordinances so I will now move to business from the floor items are n this evening's agenda if anyone would like to come up and provide any comments to the board um please refrain from any direct or indirect comments regarding warehouses as we know that's what we have on the agenda tonight Maria Janus 6 720 East f Avenue Manville New Jersey I'm also a Hillsboro Township property owner block 86 lot 3 2155 Camp Lane Road um you you members of the planning board gave approval of the application of Eminem at Camp Lane Road uh for the all affordable housing development uh called the Sherman tract Phase 2 which is on block 86 L 2.02 um the Sherman track Phase 2 and the Glen Gary development are part of a settlement agreement that was approved by Judge Thomas Miller um is the Glen Gary uh project allowed to begin development before the Sherman tra phase two uh development um is built uh because that's the that's the uh uh parcel that contains the affordable housing part of the settlement agreement if I recall correctly I know Mr Bernson will correct me that I think what they needed they can start building that the requirement was for them to get an approval on Sherman track 2 the answer is is a lawyer's answer of yes and no they can start building on phase one courtesy of the resolution but they cannot complete phase one until they have started building and meeted certain requirements for the building of affordable on the Sherman track pursuant to the settlement agreement and the uniform housing uh controls and the various laws governing affordable housing so they could start I don't know if they will start but they cannot finish phase one before they have completed a certain amount of affordable housing at Sherman okay you're mentioning phase one are you referring to phase one of the Sherman tract or phase pH one Glen Gary of Glen Gary okay and um at what point has has the has uh Eminem at camplan Road purchased the uh block 86 lot 2.02 from the township yet has there been a res resolution uh or ordinance whatever needs to be passed to sell that property uh for the township to sell that property to Eminem at camplan Road I know that's Township committee business so I Township committee doesn't I don't know the answer to that so that property doesn't need to belong to uh Eminem at camplan road before uh the Glen Gary project starts I think that's I don't I don't recall the contents of that agreement but again any sale of property is Township committee business fortunately you know Mr Bernstein wouldn't be part of that that would be the township committee attorney okay so we won't I don't that's a long way saying I don't have an answer um has anything started with the Toll Brothers um Toll Brothers development I understand they had paid $5 million towards getting um an application to build um on the golf course I think it was it it's under the uh affordable housing but there's no affordable housing there uh to be built there uh has that project started I don't know they've started doing ground workor sorry what they've started doing the groundwork meaning the escavation and and all that so that Toll Brothers project is starting yes it is the golf course right thank you thank you any other members of the public okay seeing none we're going to move on to this evening's public hearing um all good and and Mr chairman before we begin I'm going to continue my recusal in his matter thank you also Mr Deb still recuse if he wishes to sit up on the day as he sit quietly and or go uh in addition Mr chairman for purposes of the record I have a certification of absent board member examination of record eligibility to vote for the chairman for both the July 11th and the September 12th meetings he has viewed the recordings therefore he is eligible to particip ipate in this evening's meeting thank you okay so tonight we have Homestead Road LLC file number 21- pb25 DMS back mspv time of decision is the end of this month block 20010 lot 32 and 33 commonly known as 203 Homestead Road and 189 Homestead Road I'm not going to do a review or summary of the application because I think most folks know what's going on this application's continued from the September 12th 2024 meeting without further notice and I'm going to invite the whichever is the first group of objectors I think you guys only got two seats so yeah so do you want us to put us Mr G yeah Mr GNA introduce yourself yes good evening chairman members of the board Craig janetti the law firm Dave Pitney on behalf of the applicant Homestead Road LLC sure good evening Mike pisaro policy director for the Watershed Institute Scott gross objector number two Hillsboro New [Music] Jersey Bri tantino representing SWAT John Lan objective number four Lori Cleveland representing the surland Conservancy okay thank you so yes chairman and I'll kind of skip my intro as well is is a continued application for preliminary final major site plan and minor subdivision approval uh for property located at 189 and 203 Homestead Road uh proposing two warehouses one consisting of approximately 369,000 ft and another Warehouse uh consisting of approximately 168,000 ft uh at the last meeting uh the objector presented the direct examination of their traffic expert uh and it was left that I would uh begin my cross-examination this evening excuse me one moment I don't believe we closed I have two minutes just to summarize and and recap before we start the cross I checked the uh transcript I didn't see that we closed it'll be about two minutes I'm not sure what to summarize is I mean we you had sheets of testimony my recollection I'll look at the transcript again you were done with your direct and I was going to start my cross in the time you're looking we can quickly summarize so long as we're not going to just continue to delve into new stuff I mean summize what he wants but he testified what he testified to may I borrow the HDMI please ior oh the HDMI is that going to work every time we disconnect we did test it today [Music] so there we go we go [Music] take it away yeah do I need to be swor in again yeah Y tonight be the truth nothing truth I do record can spell your name sure Kenneth hman H us Manan make sure you [Music] speak okay let me do a uh two-minute summary of what was presented before I reviewed the uh traffic impact study that the applicant had prepared and there was also sub supplemental data that was submitted I reviewed that as well um the applicant uh used the it trip generation rates for warehouse based on Warehouse square footage what I showed in uh uh that the it data um truck trip generation was very poorly correlated with Warehouse size uh the the additional data that the gcan collected showed the same issue that's it and just in conclusion the proposed trip generation then is not an accurate representation of what the site would um actually generate as far as the number of truck trips and my recommendation that uh the trip generation work um be redone and the um um the resulting traffic impacts be determined okay that's it thank you [Applause] [Music] [Applause] so I can begin my cross- examination you done yeah we are done thank you thank you yes Mr K Mr hman in your testimony at the last hearing uh you indicated that your experience was in reviewing large infrastructure projects is that correct um I have a pretty varied experience that I do have experience in that area yes but you did acknowledge uh get CL you did acknowledge at the last meeting though that you're not an expert on warehouses correct I am a professional licensed professional engine no I asked you my area of expertise is traffic engineering and but you acknowledge at the last meeting you're not an expert in warehouses you specifically said it am not claiming to be an expert in anything other than traffic engineering so I'll take it as a yes you're not an expert in warehouses have you ever uh as a traffic engineer designed a warehouse or the internal circulation associated with a warehouse Mr Mr housman's testimony I'm sorry I object is uh around the area of traffic and reviewing traffic reports which is what he's done I'm I'm asking I'm trying to find out how much experience he has with warehouses he talked a lot about warehouses and the different types of operations based on it I'm asking if any he made a lot of assumptions as well so I just want to understand what his experience is with it um I don't recall making any assumptions but I guess you could Point those out we'll get designed any warehouses okay have you studied warehouses as to their operations how they how they run and operate in person I did not take any college courses in warehousing uh I think you even indicated that you had to search the internet and and Garner some and learn some information about warehouses correct can you be more specific it was his testimony I'm I've used the internet as a source of information for many things including warehouses yes in fact uh and even in your report and I'll site to the 107 [Music] uh page eight you referred to uh you were talking about excuse me what was the date of the report it's the first one 07 October 6 2022 and what page page eight you discussed kind of your assumptions and calculations of truck trips uh based upon loading docks and and how long the average load time for such loading docks do you recall that in your report I I see that in my report yes and you uh cited to a uh cargo loading and unloading efficiency analysis and multimodal transport report correct I don't recall but I'll ah okay yes do you Rec call that report I you referenced this report ref well I referenced it you seem to not recall it I'm asking do you recall that report I referenced that in my report yes did you read that report did you read that inter Intermodal transport review report I don't recall if I read the entire report do you know where that report was published I don't recall thing with the internet does this does this look like the report you reviewed I don't recall well is is it the same title it appears to be the same title um same date too correct 2013 2014 same date as well and if you look at the top right corner same uh publication Intermodal transport review if you can see that I I I can't see that but I'll take your word for it now this this report was published in Poland is that correct you zoom [Music] inh and it was from 2013 correct yes have you used it in any other study or review You've Done in connection with a a traffic engineering review I don't believe I've used this specific [Music] report do you know what uh in Poland what the regulations are or limits are on tractor trailer sizes I do not I want to talk about uh what you testified to and what you discussed in your reports about you know projecting the number of truck trips uh now in your report 07 I think also in your testimony uh you indicated let me see you indicated that our traffic engineer projected under it that there would be 322 uh truck trips or actually 160 trucks 322 truck trips you know one in one out do you recall that testimony you're saying that was in your applicant's report no I'm not I'm saying you referenced it I believe in your report poor and in your testimony uh that our or that the applicant engineer projected I believe that the applicant engineer did not include the daily number of truck trips in their report they only included the morning and evening peak hours I believe that was suggested by a penon report later and then agreed to in testimony correct so the the August 10th 2023 penon review letter Page 6 comment 7 that actually notes that warehouse the warehouse development will generate approximately 322 truck trips per day 161 in 161 out per it trip generation is that correct you're asking is correct that it's in the penon letter that's in this penon letter I I agree age that it is in the penon letter and in fact our expert in a supplement report agreed with the penon opinion as to the amount of truck trips based upon it why are you asking me questions about what your applicant testified no it was your it was your statement as to what he testified I'm just confirming we didn't address it first it was first addressed in a penoni letter we only agreed with it so you're stating that you agreed with the penon letter correct okay doesn't sound like a question now summarize your conclusion uh you're basically saying that the use of building size and projecting the truck trips uh using the it land use codes is not appropriate is that your testimony I think the it has a establish standards about what appropriate correlation to use and the correlation between uh truck trips and square footage for the warehouse land use does not meet the it standards so it's your testimony that it does not recommend using building size uh with respect to projecting tra the it is not a book of recommendations it's a book of data they also established some standards to assist um the engineer in selecting the appropriate uh uh land use types and independent variables um to use in their analysis but the it specifically does not recommend a specific uh independent variable for any of the 900 or whatever there are land juices during his testimony Mr hman did point out there are some of I'm asking the witness's questions you could address it on redirect anything you have [Music] [Applause] you also indicated in your report uh and will leave in your testimony as well that using the number of truck loading docks and Truck Parking uh should be used as an estimate for truck generation and is in a more reasonable approach is that your testimony and and was that in your report specifically paid for on 07 which is your first report what p is that on please uh seven at the [Music] bottom I mean it's your report I mean that was a big part of your testimony and Report do you recall that [Music] simple yes or no [Music] question and also I'm going I'll read from page eight as more as as a more reasonable approach to the number of trucks generated should be based on the use of the loading docks yeah that's in your report correct you still do you still agree with that absolutely the number of truck trips is related to the number of loading docks so for example that that's so wa no no that you can address it on an example so it's your testimony and you're you're staying with what was in the report that the use of the loading docks is a more reasonable approach for projecting truck traffic um I I can I see what my exact language is it's page eight right below the picture okay we need a whole analysis of it I would say that is a better uh independent variable than using square footage does does it recommend using uh loading docks as a means for projecting truck traffic again the it is a book of data the it does not make recommend ations regarding a specific independent I'm sorry uh the it trip generation is a book of data it is not a book of recommendations so your the it provides guidance however when you're looking at the correlation and also looking at the standard deviation for some land uses and independent variables to guide the engineer on selecting an appropriate inde Depend and variable to use are you aware if it has any data on uh or collect any data on the number of loading docks at a warehouse and how it correlates to number of trucks um the it conducted a study in Southern California I think it was around 2016 where they looked at a wide variety of Warehouse uses to try to subdivide the warehouse category into more specific functions but they didn't say if a warehouse has X number of loading docks it equates to x amount of truck traffic the it e trip generation manual is a book of data it's not a book of recommendation say if you're asking me what the it is recommending they don't Rec ask anything about recommendation I'm asking data they collected did they collect any data right they they collected data that said building size equates to this amount of truck traffic on average did they say loading docks equates to this amount of trucks uh on average is there any data collected that a traffic engineer could use I believe for all of the sites for that 2016 study uh they did collect the number of loading docks no I'm not saying collect the number of loading docks I'm saying similar how in 2021 when they issued their 11th Edition and still used building size with respect to projected truck traffic did they have any data for a traffic engineer to use to say this number of loading docks equates to this amount of traffic yes or no it's either in there or it isn't I would say yes in that supplemental report in 2016 so that report says if you have X amount of loading docks it equates to this amount of traffic a book of data it is up to the engineer on how to use the data so through all the land use categories where they have building size and projected truck traffic do they have a similar correlation based upon loading docks yes or no I understand they did a study and in the study they identified the number of loading dos the question I'm sorry let him answer the question I'm I'm sorry I I what what is the question just as the 11th Edition it man manual has the various land use categories and identifies building size and the average projected truck traffic do they have anything else with respect to loading docks equates to this amount of traffic okay and again in the 2016 study they recognize I'm not asking about the 2016 study that that is it's not responsive I'm asking about the 11th Edition he's given you an answer I think two or three times no you want a yes no answer he's giving you his answer so I think we you're not going to get a yes no he gave you an answer three times I think at this point so Mr Bernstein you look like you want to say something next question in your report uh you also seem to the same same one page six draw a connection between uh the town's uh standard or design standard for the minimum number of loading spaces for various uses and the proposed number of loading docks at a warehouse do you recall that in your report yes I'm I see that table here uh now the ordinance standards refers to loading spaces correct doesn't specifically say loading docks correct and this is and you you've identified the design the standard or the minimum uh for a warehouse of the this SI or these sizes uh would be 16 loading docks correct or 10 and six 10 and 16 10 for the smaller one 16 for the larger one correct believe it's six and 10 for a total of 16 thank you yes six and 10 for a total of 16 MH I'm going to math but again that's the minimum standard right there's nothing in the ordinance that precludes more than uh I'm presenting the ordinance in my report I'm not making I'm not stating anything beyond that that's the ordinance well you're stating a little bit more than that right you're you're you're using that minimum standard as that's what the town projected would be the number of loading docks for warehouses of this size right no let's read your report then okay okay in other words well let me take a step back the maximum hold on me get the you reading from please same uh same uh page I believe allow me sure I'm the right [Music] [Applause] [Music] report so you talk about if only the minimum number of loading docks 16 was provided for the two warehouses which page you on please same same page same same paragraph on six before six and 10 I'm sorry what 6 and 10 is 16 that's a paragraph we on that was on page six at the top no I'm I'm I'm at page page eight [Music] okay you know that if only the minimum number of loading docks 16 was provided for the two warehouses then all the loading docks would be in use at some point throughout the day correct okay that was my assumption yes and in your report or in your testimony are you trying to say that 16 loading do or 16 loading spaces uh is is what is contemplated for this a warehouse of this site I'm trying to state that the minimum required by ordinance is 16 but you acknowledge you could you could have as many as you want over 16 uh that's a zoning issue you I'm I'm a traffic engineer I can't comment on what's allowed and what's not allowed well you knew what the minimum was right there's no maximum correct I don't know that you only know there's a minimum I I'm referring to what the ordinance requires the ordinance requires 16 now on that same page page eight I believe it is you do this mathematical calculation now before earlier even this evening you say you you were making no assumptions as to Warehouse operations but here you're assuming consider the following assumptions truck loading docks are in use 90% of the time while the warehouse is in operation do you recall that I I see it in my report yes now did this uh article from Poland talk about where uh warehousing docks being occupied 90% of the time I don't believe that it did and you indicated already you haven't OB observed live Warehouse operations correct have I observed live I or studied live Warehouse operations I did not take any classes in college about Warehouse operations so you're just pulling this assumption at a thin air correct 90% there's there's no it doesn't say you assume 90% of loading docks will be occupied I'm sorry please don't please don't coach the witness I'm going to ask him questions and he will answer you should not be coaching him you'll have an opportunity to cross-examine him but isn't that correct you're pulling this assumption out of thin air you can't point to a study that says an assumption and I stated in the document what my assumption is but you have no proof that loading docks at warehouses are occupied 90% of the time 24 hours a day do you I made an assumption and I provided the calculation so someone can check that assumption so our job is you could just make up whatever facts you want and then we have to double check that is is that how this works Mr housan what's the basis for the [Music] Assumption the basis for my assumption is that the warehouse is going to be operating at close to maximum occupancy and how did you come to that conclusion I was looking for a worst case scenario and what the maximum number of truck trips might be you your witness Mr gianetti but even still you have no data study anything you could point to that the worst case scenario for a warehouse are that the loading docks will be occupied 90% of the time 24 hours a day do you are is is this a question in general or this is a question for this specific development for this specific development I don't know how many hours well no you're asking me a question about 24 hours let me explain my assumption about 24 hours at this point it is not known how many hours the facility is going to operate it might operate 8 hours a day it might operate 16 hours a day it might operate 24 hours a day if I was looking for the wor worst case scenario I would use 24 hours per day that that's fine 24 that's that's fine to assume the warehouse would be operating 24 or would be open 24 hours a day that's part of the request I'm saying where is your data or study or any information to say the loading docks would and there's a difference between a warehouse being open and the loading docks being occupied 90% of the time 24 hours a day and not only that getting unloaded and loaded 2.43 hours throughout that 24-hour day so truck comes in gets loaded comes out in get loaded goes out truck comes in gets loaded go out 24 hours a day for 90% capacity you don't have any Daya to support that or study is that correct yes or no you either have it or you don't okay that is correct now in fact I believe you indicated you you read the transcripts uh of the uh prior hearings or testimony of our traffic engineer and our architect yes and in fact uh you recall Mr Taran Mr Tarantino cross-examining our architect on that basically that same turn off whatever the Beeper is please I'm sorry it's an alarm for my help I'm trying to shut it [Music] off that's I apologize very but as indicated Mr Tarantino cross-examined our architect on this very I would say calculation I believe I referred to it as Voodoo math is that correct do you remember that part I don't remember the details of that no do you remember our architect who is also an expert in Warehouse operations all he designs our warehouses testified that that math is actually not practical and it's not how they operate warehouses I object I don't believe he testified he testified as an operations expert but he's he said he was an expert on operations he was testifying because heare operations and he testified all he designs as warehouses he designs warehouses but he does doesn't operate warehouses he testified as the operations of the warehouse he testified in fact when I try to stop certain questioning all the obors kept noting he's testifying as an expert on operations for warehouses does board recall that do you recall that agree I agree he testified as an expert on operations for this application so you don't recall the architect testimony that it's not practical that math uh or formula for projecting traffic do you recall that testimony okay yes now you also State uh on in ' 07 now again I think you just testified earlier you didn't make any assumptions but we already established the one assumption you made on the 90% occupancy Mr ketti ask a question please you also stated in your report page seven on to eight that uh the trailer parking spaces were for when the loading docks are fully occupied do you recall that in your report yes and in fact I think the exact language you said because you were talking about potentially loading uh remaining empty throughout the day and he said the applicant would not provide an additional 150 to 200 truck parking spaces to address anticipated conditions when all the loading docks are occupied where are you getting that assumption that the trailer parking spaces are for parking trailers when all the loading docks are occupied occupied I don't have a source for that information oh now I'm I'm sorry someone correct no no please stop I'm tired of everyone trying to chirp in your ear and give you the answers to questions I'm asking you his questions I'm not asking Mr Tarantino questions I'm not asking Mr gross questions those assumptions were not part of my testimony it's it's in your report it's in my report and then I released a supplemental report after the um applicant had testified and I had a chance to review the applicant's testimony and also that supplemental data that they had submitted correct but and at that point I recognized that the assumptions that I had made as part of my original report were really inappropriate because as I said there is only one traffic impact study that the board is trying to consider they're not considering estimate of what the traffic will be versus the applicant's estimate of what the traffic will be they're only evaluating the applicant's estimate of what the traffic would be so what I wanted to focus on to avoid this type of conversation that we're having is to point out the flaws in the methodology of the applicant the applicant stated that the ID recommended that they use square footage and I pointed out that square footage and truck trips are very poorly correlated so I that's my testimony I apologize I didn't see that in your supplemental report and if I knew that we probably could have saved a lot of time and so is it your testimony your supplemental report is re recognizes the flaws in your original report and is basically replacing it and changes the focus to the applicants um traffic impact study because what the Board needs to review here is the applicants traffic impact study and I'm trying to provide additional information to the board to assist them all right let's let's move to your August 27th uh 2024 report which been marked as 08 uh similar as you did for loading docks in in 07 you make a similar claim that the number of employees should be used to estimate trip generation uh you say that on page six is that correct [Music] I think I'm quoting the it there you're you you're saying but you you just testified that the it makes no recommendations now you're testifying that the it recommends that you use employees to uh calculate traffic generation I believe what the it provides is guidance on how to select an appropriate independent variable so I I'll read it in your report despite you just spending a lot of time saying the it does not make any recommendations you say in your report in addition the it trip generation generally recommends the use of employees as a preferred non-residential independent variable where does it say that in the it oh that that's a good question because when the it was first uh developed what they had said and this is in the documentation what documentation in the i in the it trip generation manual that the best variables to use are population and employment and that's the federal standard whenever we're doing federal work uh for air quality or for uh major transportation facil fa ities we use population and employment to estimate traffic data what the it also recognized was that for individual developments you didn't necessarily have that data available to you which is kind of how the whole it trip generation manual came together but the it from the beginning consistent with federal guidelines recommended population and employment as the best variables for estimating trips now page eight of your report actually has uh an excerpt from the uh trip generation handbook 11th Edition correct yes and at first line it says for the purpose of estimating trip generation independent variable is defined as a physical measurable predictable unit describing the study site or trip generator for example gross floor area employees seats and dwelling units so it's not just employees they're or employees they're talking about they're also talking about the size of the building correct again I'm just saying what it says right there what it says right there yes asking me you're asking me what is the it recommendation I'm asking it no I'm not asking that I'm not asking that you're talking about some something else in it that you have not provided anywhere I'm reading from the document you provided in your report M and does it not say we're talking about the independent variable gross floor area employee seats dwelling units for projecting traffic yes or no it either says it there or it doesn't it says it there okay so now it's talking about also study sites right for traffic studies you may study it's not always for a new development correct you might be studying uh an intersection you might be studying uh you know improvements being proposed on a roadway correct it doesn't necessarily have to do with new development all the time um I'm not sure I understand the question there are certain traffic improvements you you want to put it the do or the state or somebody wants to put in a traffic circle or they want to do a signalized intersection or whatever they'll do traffic studies based on that correct it's it's not always involving new development um it's not always done for a developer correct it can be done for a public agency correct so in those instances population even employees are easy to count because they're they're there right you know you know what's there uh so you can easily use that data that's that's not true you're not really interested in uh the number of persons or employees that are there today what you're interested in is the number of persons or employees who are going to be there in the future because you're designing the improvements not just for the existing traffic but for the future traffic and yes the future population and employment is generally available because this is a federal requirement and that data supports a lot of different uh purposes including for traffic engineering so if the data or or information is not available for predicting the number of employees do you agree that the it guidance is to use building size to determine trip generation absolutely not okay the it guidance is is uh which I think is in that page as well uh regarding correlation and regarding standard deviation that is how you select an independent variable so let's say we knew this we knew the tenant that's going to be in this building and they said there is going to be 200 20 employees to your own point before you're not concerned about the employees there now you're concerned about it in the future just as population right so I I don't are you talking about this development or some development somewhere else under under your rationale remember where I talked about you would know employees you would know population if you were doing a intersection Improvement and you said we're not concerned about the employees there now we're concerned about what population or employees there would be in the future but that would be the same case here right let me finish my my thought if we said we know the tenant it's going to be 220 employees that they have but how reliable is that information Tenants come and go tenants vacate space tenants leases are up and it could be a new operator with a different number of employees it could be 400 employees the next tenant so how how reliable is that information um um I don't understand what you're asking me well you were making the point of we the application has not identified the number of employees that will be at this site we had our operation guys project it based upon a kind of rule of thumb or industry standard of square feet how many of that employees but the point I'm making is I mean do you acknowledge tenants don't always stay at the place forever correct I I I'm not sure how that relates to my review of the traffic impact study that was prepared for one specific development uh and provided assumptions about how that development was going to operate but I guess a point I'm trying to make was even if we gave you the employee information how I I I can't comment on that because you didn't give me that talk about what the it says then let's go to uh that same handout you gave on page eight I'm going to read a paragraph and tell me if I'm reading it correctly it's the second to last paragraph the preferred independent variable so that sounds like a suggestion right from it the preferred independent variable should be stable for a particular land use type and not a direct function of actual site tenants in other words the values and measurements attributed to an independent variable should not change dramatically with changing in changes in building tenants physical site characteristics EG square feet of floor area number of dwellings are preferable that sounds like a recommendation to use building area over employees that are tied to tenants is that correct no so you you disagree with the it saying there then I I mean I read it correctly didn't I um you read the words correctly oh but however in previous to that the it is pretty clear I'm not worried about what they said several years ago I'm asking what they said on the same page folks can I read part of the same page too you could read anything on this [Applause] page um in the middle of the page now preferred independent variables one appears to be a cause quote unquote for the variation in tripin generated by a land juice um two is obtained through a primary measurement three produces a rate equation with the best fit of data square footage does not produce a rate or equation I'm sorry that fits the data where does it say that where does it say Square footage ises not fit it you just said you were reading from this report where does it say that when where does it say that if you go back no this this page that I'm reading from that you relied on as the guidance and the recomendations this page points you to the data then you have to look at the data and we go and we look at the data for square footage am I going toward it here's go report here we [Music] go so I'm looking now at page 17 of of the same report of your report and what that shows i' I've circled two values number of trip ends is 25 and there are two different size facilities one is 500,000 Square ft one is 3 million square ft we we'll get into the the size and and category stuff in a minute I'm trying to answer the question that you asked well I'm just wondering if I'm reading I read you what the it says it sounds a lot different than what you're saying no the it is pretty clear you got to go back and look at the data the it is a book of data what you're reading to me is the guidance on how to use use the data the data is unique for each land use and each independent variable so I go to what I'm showing on page 17 and as an example there's a site 500,000 Square ft produces 25 truck trips there's a site 3 million square ft that also produces 25 truck trips I would say that's an example of the number of truck trips not being a function of square [Music] footage so let's go into the square footage in in these different categories uh now again I'm going by the document you included in there talked about the physical characteristics in the square in the square feet and floor area and and that's the data that it is giving you right and all those items you're identifying it's the size of the building and projected truck trips correct the it provides a lot of data in the book yes they provide one of the variables that they provide is square [Music] footage and you take issue with our expert using land use category 150 for the warehouse correct uh this is well what I take well I don't want to say I take issue because it's not for me to take issue I'm just pointing out that the trip generation manual provides a recommendation on the quality of fit they use the r squar term the r squar term is how well the estimates fit the given data and they also uh suggest uh comparing the standard deviation which is the spread of data versus the average value so I'm just trying to be clear do you or do you not take issue with the fact that our engineer use land use category 150 uh in projecting truck traffic I take issue I don't want to well what what is I don't understand what take issue means well you believe that's that's flawed that he used that category instead of any of the other categories what I'm stating is that the it provides a recommendation regarding the qu the goodness of fit R squ the spread of data which is a relationship between the standard deviation and the average rate and I'm really simplifying those two things here and this particular graph does not meet those standards so and again I'm reading from your report and it's interesting because you're saying it doesn't make any recommendations but in your report you keep talking about a recommendations this page four second paragraph under page one sentence begins it I'm going to read it it recommended it recommended practice is that only sites of similar size should be used in the development of average rates first or second report this is7 so it's the first report first one the it recommended practice is that only sites of similar size should be used in the development of average rates and therefore the use of much smaller sites in warehousing luse code 150 is inappropriate is that in your report it recommended practice is that only sites of similar size should be used in the development of average rates yes and therefore the use of the smaller sites and warehousing Lage code 150 is inappropriate isn't that what you say that's what I said okay now you say the use of much smaller sites how how how are you saying the the sites in uh L use 150 is smaller than our sites and I'm I'm pulling up actually this is pulling up on the page or you know we can Mark these I have these as uh handouts too as exhibits if we want to mark them a I believe 11 we're up to these are the uh it trip gen generation manual 11th edition board I'm sorry board going to see these well I have it up on the screen but here is an extra provide a copy you'll provide a copy to the board I'll give it to you you'll provide my so you recognize this right this is the land use 150 category yes so it goes from basically 0o square feet all the way up to 400,000 Square ft correct yes now it seems like you're saying in your report it's not appropriate because our site is larger than the sites being used in L use 150 right you say therefore the use of much smaller sites in warehousing land use code 150 is inappropriate right how big how big are our warehous concerned in my initial report that I was substituting my judgment for the applicant and after reading the applicant's testimony and looking at the supplemental information that he provided I realized that the what I need to do there is only one traffic impact study that the board is considering it's the one that you're that the applicant provided and what I'm trying to do is to provide some information I'm I'm asking I'm not asking you to go off no cuz he's not answering the question he's not no he's not answering the question what's what's the question please F yeah I'm just gonna just only Mr gross can object at this point in time audience have to be no interjection from the audience you'll have your time so it your testimony at the last hearing page 57 of the transcript you were saying L use 150 suggests much lower traffic trips and it's not true all of that is what you were saying right do do you still do you still agree with that I I can can we bring up the transcript you want well do you agree with that statement I I I mean I know it was a month or two ago but your testimony should be the same it shouldn't be changing from one meeting to another question or a statement can you be specific about he's about how he's being inconsistent I'm asking him does he recall his statement in his last testimony and he's saying no and I asked well dides he still agree with it and he said he's not sure so okay I'm trying to get have him to be consistent okay so let me be consistent there is an equation that's associated with Warehouse land use 150 if you apply that equation or the average rate to the specifics of the site in the applicant traffic impact study I would say that the number of truck trips that that estimates is lower is uh lower than would be expected based on um the characteristics of the s the relationship between the potent you know the potential uses of the site the relationship between the number of loading docks and square footage so this this but despite you not having any experience or expertise with warehouses you're saying it information on lanus 150 with regard to warehouses is not accurate just your gut as to how warehouses should operate it provides data and they provide guidance on how to use the data if you look at your do say take take your gut as to how you think a warehouse is going to operate to project traffic no they do not but they do provide information on a recommended r squared value which you see in the lower right and also a recommended value which is tough to see at the very top between the standard deviation and the average rate so I guess again I want to come back and I'm asking something specific so I'd like to specific answer in your ' 07 report where I read that line it's the same same line where you're talking about the L use 150 being inappropriate you were saying the use of the much smaller sites in that category is not appropriate do you know the size of our warehouses I believe it's in your report do you know the of our warehouses it's in the report I'm asking you as we sit here tonight do you know the look at the report okay look at your report 16834 and 368 995 are those two warehouses much smaller or I'm sorry are those two warehouses much bigger than the ones identified on this category um or are they in line with it the size can you're asking me a question about engineering judgment I'm not asking I'm asking specific numbers it was your words that said it was a that the sites on this category are smaller than our sites and we just established ours is 160,000 ft approximately and 36 360,000 approximately isn't that in line with the sizes on this chart just sizes yes or no I mean it's it's right there I yes [Music] going uh uh which one was it the the standard deviation up there says 0.85 correct or 85% um 085 [Music] yes doesn't it say um now it talks about it does you referred it the r squared but there's also the standard deviation uh doesn't it suggest 100 doesn't it suggest 110% or less for standard deviation and is indicative of a good fit with the data I I think there are two requirements yes standard deviation and R I'm just talk I'm just talking about standard deviation right now answer it I'm asking about standard deviation he's he keeps talking about everything else I'm asking about standard deviation standard deviation [Music] yes now in your 07 that's is your first traffic report uh you have a table of um different land use categories correct table one now you don't have the numbers there but the standard is L use 150 do you know what the transload L use code is I don't off hand or the short-term storage I do not and any of them there do you know what the L use categories are I don't know what the land us numbers are did you take this information from the 11th Edition uh it trip generation handbook or manual no I took it from the high cubed Warehouse vehicle trip generation analysis prepared by it 2016 2016 so they issue a 11th Edition in 2021 do you think they took that into consideration when they came up with their traffic projections the it doesn't produce traffic projections as I understand the word to meet traffic data no because the it is a book of data they don't make any recommendations as far as the use of a specific independent variable ton you keep saying they don't make any recommendations but in your report all you talk about is what the it recommends so let's look is that a question is that a question no that's that's a point okay can I make a point too I'll ask you the question on redirect you can make all the points you want okay fair enough um you also make the statement in the report by using land use 150 and based upon this 2016 data right 2016 data uh the 150 category actually produces less truck traffic than these other categories is that basically what you were saying in your report and even what you testified to at the last meeting um I oh don't please I see please stop coaching the witness just showing where the report you're referring to that's all yeah I I think the standard I guess is the 150 yeah the standard the propos S the last line yes so that's the rate you said the standard warehouses is inappropriate L use 150 for the proposed development as it greatly underestimates the anticipated truck trip generation right so you looking at you took this data and you took it as what it projects for truck traffic and you gave the opinion in your report it's too low it's actually higher based upon the other categories correct is that generally what you said right there I did give my opinions as far as the first report so yes that's what it says okay so this is what I've handed out we've marked as a11 are actually and you have you have this uh page five of your 07 report has the 11th Edition L use 150 right it's it's the same I'm showing the same thing yours just has red circles on it okay all right so and it's the same projects truck traffic at an average rate of 6 per 1,00 square feet correct correct and and that's what our traffic engineer used in his uh projection correct not true your traffic engineer did not estimate the number of trick uh truck trips on a week day this is a graph for a weekday so what you're saying is not true okay but you use a land use 150 category for pro ask question I'm ask I'm re rephrasing it well you're asking me about this graph what's your question please traffic engineer never used this graph so you're asking me about a graph that your that your traffic engineer never used but he did say using the land use 150 category as did the penon review letter that using that 6 PO per 1,000 square ft it produces 161 trucks and 322 uh trips okay so and and you were saying that grossly underestimate estimates it so let's go to the next category transload shortterm this is lus category 154 correct and you have that highlighted in your chart and I'm sorry your table [Music] one so the it or isn't it true the 2021 11th Edition it Emanual 5 years after whatever analysis you were referring to States truck truck trip generation per 1,000 square ft average rate. 22 truck rate or trips per 1,000 square fet correct that's the number yes average rate 0. 22 correct and that's less than the 6 we Ed for 150 use 150 um you're asking me if the number. 22 is less than the number 0.6 that's yes I believe that is true I think we can agree on that one so let's look at now you have fulfillment center I'm sorry you have cold storage we'll skip that one for a second you have fulfillment center SL distribution center but there are on the table one there are two different types of fulfillment center and distribution center correct you're talking about I'm ask I'm asking if you know under on the land use categories that they actually separate out not need to look at the exhibit I'm just asking do you know I did not uh recall that offhand no now do you see in this uh chart they have a lanus category 155 non sort and then uh or Distribution Center non sort and then 155 Distribution Center or fulfillment center sort do you know the difference between the two I don't off hand do you recall the testimony of the architect that uh the sort means that there's two different types of filment centers one where it's automated and and machines are sorting everything out and and that's considered non sort and then their sort where humans or people are sorting everything out do you recall that testimony I uh I don't okay so let's look at uh the first one uh I think it's the 155 yes I just want to make sure yeah 155 non sort this is an interesting graph because it says fitted curve equation not given because for this particular land use I mean and there's no r squared indicating that there's no relationship between the number of truck trips and square footage sure we'll get to that in a second um but in this category has again TR CH because you used it in your first report right you identified you tried to say our use of 150 would project Less trucks because look at all the numbers they have here they actually produce more trucks right so you used it you relied upon it I I I did not produce a traffic impact study there's only one traffic impact study that we're considering here and that one used land use 150 you can't go back and forth your report says closer look at the it trip generation further reveals how the average truck trip generation rate for standard warehouses is inappropriate for the proposed development and greatly underestimates the truck trip generation so you relied on those other uses right you didn't say we can't use any of this stuff because it's not reliable you relied upon it to say our projections were going to be too low isn't that true isn't that what your report says it's I mean it is there's there's different Warehouse uses that produce different numbers of trucks yes and and you use this data to form your opinion that we were grossly underestimating it but now let's look at the sort fulfillment center they projected per 1,00 square ft it's actually 23 trucks per 1,00 square ft isn't that what that says right up there next to the range of rates which goes from I'm not talking about the range of rates right you you didn't you didn't talk about that and and when you said it was uh ours was going to be ours was projected to be too low you were fine using this when you were saying these numbers produce higher but now five years later where they updated their numbers our rate using 150 is actually higher than this one right so if we use 155 instead of 150 it would have been a lower truck trip generation if you would have used 155 instead of 150 I would have had the same comment that the are that well that that's the issue here the graph does shows that there's no relationship between the number of truck trips and the gross floor area again you didn't say that in ' 07 when the number you thought was higher or would result in higher truck trips you were happy to point to it and say say look that land use category produces way more trucks than our 150 we use when in fact it produces less so our traffic engineer was in fact conservative when he used the 150 category because it produces the most truck trips out of any of these uses it's not well what what's the question in that is it the most conservative that's the question out of out of all the other [Music] uses it's inappropriate I'm saying it's but you're you're choosing among values that are inappropriate ah but you didn't say that when when when you thought they projected more traffic you didn't say that you were Happ I said it in my testimony well let's look at also the sort right fulfillment center sort that average rate per 1,000 sare ft is9 truck trips per 1,000 square ft right L use 150 is 6 150 is higher than that right it's a yes or no I mean it's 6 two numbers out of you're quoting two numbers out of context sure one is bigger than the other you were fine using it in your 07 report let's look now parcel hub that actually you know parcel hubs can produce uh you know I maybe you know maybe you don't know parcelhub is that referring to a FedEx or like a UPS or a DHS you know parcel deliveries I think that's my understanding and what does it have here for truck trip generation 1,00 1,000 square feet a 058 just slightly lower than ours but still ours higher correct using 150 I yes yes number 6 is greater than the number. 58 now separately though do you recall or I think I can't I believe it was our traffic engineer and I stated we stated this is not going to be a parcel hub center we are okay with that being as part of any approval that this is not going to be a parcel hub center so do you do you recall that yes or now I don't recall okay okay Mr jet how many more much more time because I'm looking for a break here uh can I finish this land use category and then we take it's oh wait for the court reporter uh just two more two more and hopefully he can uh will acknowledge so quot so partial Hub I guess we established we're not going to be that but even still you agree our use of land use 150 at6 trips per 1,000 s ft is higher than the 0.58 for luse 156 I agree again that the number 6 is greater than the number 0.58 and then the last one is Cold Storage Warehouse uh in from 1,000 square ft that's 75 so in fact a cold storage which are designed differently that has a that does have a slightly higher truck trip pren trip generation per 1,00 sare feet than the 150 yes and interestingly for that land use the r squared is satisfactory as well as the relationship between the standard deviation and the average so again you use those categories well I guess I don't need to make the point it speaks for itself um we could take a break [Music] okay all right looks like when you need about 10 or okay so we'll reconvene you know what 8 at 8:50 yep we'll we'll start sharp at 8:50 good okay we're back in session [Music] i08 your second traffic report um page sorry Mr Housman uh on 08 which is your second traffic report uh on page 10 you include uh an aerial photo of an Amazon fulfillment center at 1910 East Central Avenue San Bernardino California and it just wasn't clear to me from your report why you were referencing that or or what it was used for do you recall that um sure the it has established standards on how to conduct a traffic count New Jersey DOT has standards as well um so when you conduct a traffic count if there are multiple driveways you count the driveways individually and you report the volume at each so you weren't including that to compare our proposed warehouses to this Amazon fulfillment center um including it to show what a proper traffic count looks like I'm asking specifically yes or no were you including this to uh somehow indicate what we are proposing is similar to that no [Music] okay so going back to sorry bouncing back and forth between your reports 07 page 4 second paragraph towards the end the paragraph that starts with that starts with the word figure one towards the end and again keep testifying it doesn't recommend but the last line you or second to last line you state instead the recommended practice well let me take a step back the the sentence before that you say the it recommended practice is that only sites of similar size should be used in the development of average rates and therefore the use of the much smaller sites in warehousing L use code 150 is inappropriate then you state instead the recommended practice is that a separate trip generation study should be conducted of similar facilities to the proposed development that your is that what your report says yes so now again we just established previously the land use one 150 code used by our traffic engineer projects or is most conservative because it projects the highest amount of truck traffic of all the L use categories for warehouses except for the cold storage now despite that are you making a statement or are you asking me a question no I'm getting to the question right here despite that you're aware that uh IR traffic engineer did exact what you said should be done for studying specific sites of specific uses um of similar size didn't any do that you were you seen A10 which is up on the on the screen you're asking me if the applicant produced A10 that's my understanding this was produced by the applicant and as you understand it this is a study of other existing warehouses of similar sizes um I I similar you know not exactly the same size you this is what the applicant produced I accepted it is what the applicant produced I didn't review it for accuracy accuracy as to what he he's saying these are the counts that he did are you insinuating he put different traffic information I [Music] there's a process that we go through to review a traffic [Music] count the applicant didn't provide that information in order to review the result the summarized results that he had here you're referring to the vacancy question correct um no I'm referring to um you know there are standards for how a traffic C is conducted uh traffic volumes are counted every 15 minutes uh individual driveways are labeled uh frequently or typically there's a picture so that you know you have the site someone wants to review where the count was done they can ensure that the count was done at the correct location I did not do this for this uh A10 I just accepted this data okay so um um and you can see it has a different color coating um of of I know it's hard to see uh there's different colors there green blue and I guess beige and he indicates where the green is where the it for for a warehouse of that size actually projected a higher truck track count than it actually actually was in the blue is when the it whoops the it en account had uh essentially equal projections and then the beige is when these counts were actually higher than it is that correct is that what that code says you're asking me what the word are yes you just read what the words are yes you read those words and it was his testimony based upon that chart given all the green that in fact most of the warehouses that they did this traffic these traffic counts out had less truck traffic than what the it projected for a warehouse of that size you recall that being his testimony and what this exhibit he was using it for not I'm not saying you have to agree with I'm just saying you recall that being a testimony you're asking me if your applicant provided testimony I think you can just state that well you you said you read the transcripts I'm curious if you recall that part of his testimony yes or no I recall some of it yes now at the last meeting or hearing you raised issues uh with or concerns that it wasn't indicated whether his analysis uh whether sites were fully occupied or not wasn't that your testimony at the last meeting I think my testimony was that the it recommendation for conducting these kind of counts is to include the occupancy of the site and I believe the applicant also implied if not stated that the occupancy of the site was an important piece of information because he was asked by the public and he said to the best of his knowledge each of these sites was 100% occupied I'm paraphrasing yes and um uh at the last meeting you talked about um websites you looked at which you were kind of calling into question whether the sites were fully occupied correct like real estate listing websites uh um yes I I Express concerns whether the sites were indeed 100% occupied because if the applicant my assumption was that if the applicant had information that they were 100% occupied he should have provided that to the board and he should haveed that question he testified to that he didn't he testified to the best of his knowledge they were he provided no information to back up that testimony and he didn't answer the question yes they were so in 0 8 of your [Music] report is that the second report yeah yes that is the second report [Music] [Music] actually I'm sorry at the last meeting you specifically referred to uh 111 kber Road Lebanon New Jersey and 900 Federal Boulevard Carteret to try and raise questions of whether those sites were fully occupied isn't that true um I can go back to the I did mention those two sites yes okay and there was no proof provided by the applicant that those two sites were 100% occupied and there was no proof provided by the applicant that each driveway at those sites was counted individually although that is the it standard for how you conduct a traffic out so since that time uh are you aware of a letter Mr gross sent to this board on October 24th addressing 111 Co Barry Road and 900 Federal Boulevard are you have you seen that letter um yes okay now in it uh see [Music] here he notes that uh your report from August 20248 indicated I guess I'll start first with 900 Federal Boulevard uh was 27% vacant based upon uh a loop net uh listing that you found online is that was letter did and is know what your report said [Applause] yes now it seems they you have now acknowledged that the site was fully occupied and that there's a Virginia Dare exract company that signed a 15-year lease in 2017 uh and the letter acknowledges that at least 900 Federal Boulevard was 100% leased yes but with 11 one kbry Road Lebanon you States one can conclude is substantially vacant and is relying Upon A kushman wake field uh listing he doesn't state that Mr gross states that as a supplemental to his yeah that's that's what I'm referring to M the letter indicated that he had stated exist I'm sorry the the letter is referencing uh for Mr grots that one can conclude 11 one kbry road is substantially vacant uh based upon a kushman Wakefield uh listing do you are you aware of that or were yes you can sell Mr gross on that did you uh the kushman Wakefield link provided it takes you to the the actual kushman Wakefield listing correct did you click on that oh I think that's a question for you Scott is that a question for me oh no it was for Mr Housman uh whether he was involved or not I don't know I I'll answer Mr hman provided a link uh the source was questioned I used his link and I got the same exact result that he provided in his August report in uh October and I looked at it again today and it's still the same 42.8% vacant did you go on the website does it actually say vacant or does it say available available available doesn't necessarily mean vacant though correct you could have a lease ending and you could be subleasing there's always different ways doesn't necess mean the space is empty correct that sounds like a statement not a question no I'm saying I I made a statement and I'm asking correct do you agree with that I'm not a real estate I'm not a I'm not a real estate professional I don't know the answer to that yeah I think I would rely on the applicant providing some proof If you are claiming that the space is actually occupied sure instead of just stating it with absolutely no proof that that is the case [Music] so and actually for all of these sites there's no proof provided that any of them are 100% accurate well again you say there's no proof he testified that to best of his knowledge they were fully occupied no what what what that's what his testimony was so don't say there was no proof you just want all the information in the world as to I'm responding to his comment you're pontificating could we cut out from the on the cqu and just ask questions so I'd like to mark this next exhibit uh a12 a812 I'm going to show you a copy of an email well I guess the listing identified uh Chuck Fern as a listing broker do you call seeing that I don't okay I'm going to hand you I'll hand out to the board as well an email from Mr fern are we producing Mr Fern you're asking no you're you're you are providing the board with this email which I assume is to prove or disprove the statements of Mr gross and to approve the testimony of Mr Dean well I'm sorry did did they have to bring Mr Fern to say that the space is bacon or or not occupied no I'm no you let's go back this this is to cor corroborate what Mr Dean has already testified to and there's an email to Mr Dean and I'll read it and you can tell me whether or not he has to actually come and testify to it I'm going to indicate I'm I'm I'm going to get in there because profession I'm in this is not an objective evidence because anyone can produce an an email like this so for this to be oh wait I'm you would need Mr Fern to come in here to cor that he is actually the author of this [Music] document an email from Chuck Fern Kush wake.com and Gary Dean well when Gary Dean comes back in he can corroborate it he's Mr Charles Fern anyone could produce this I could produce this on this could be produced on a Word document you want him in here you can bring him in here I'm I'm not bringing him in Mr Dean will corroborate that this email came from Chuck Fern and it specifically says it was fully occupied 100% occupied and that this listing is only 6 months old you can get Mr Chuck Fern to sign and date this this is not this is not objective evidence in my profession I'd be laugh is what Mr Dean relied upon well we're going to mark it Market a812 but testimony behind it all right so just so we're clear with all their other experts when they refer to something you know a study that they read they got to bring that expert in to testify to it [Music] objection it's good for goose is good for the game this is not your time I'm sorry it's okay I understand yeah The Angst but the broad stroke that's all there you go the reference to all the objectiv only couple I meant the objector Witnesses I meant the objector Witnesses objector Witnesses [Music] [Music] so again you [Applause] going back to your 08 I can find I'm sorry [Music] [Music] [Music] me see8 H page8 well that wasn't I guess this was introduced into evidence I mean do do we have someone from the it come and say that this is a valid document I you're starting to be questions I object you really want to go down that road cuz your traffic expert came in and testified basically his entire testimony is based on it numbers and he didn't come in with anybody supporting it from it the issue for this situation Mr Dean came in and testified that a bunch of warehouses were all occupied or partially occupied or mostly occupied Mr Cowman has indicated that that's not his understanding Mr GR gross because we asked for the backup to it has provided a backup if you would like to bring Mr Dean in on rebuttal and indicate that he has spoken to Mr Fern or whatever it is and deal with the issue at that point maybe Mr Dean's testimony will suffice but you started the issue you're going to either have to finish it or leave it where it is but if you're going to go down the road where everybody's got to produce the backup for everybody else's study we will be here well into the next century and I don't think that's what your client wants I don't think that's what the board wants I don't think that's what anybody wants so let us try and move this [Music] along sure I guess um page 12 of your report includes an aerial photo of 11 one kbry road you know and it says Co B Road showing empty parking lot in vacant space but again you don't have any proof that the space was vacant correct I do not have any proof that the space was vacant on the day when the space was counted you got to get closer to the I'm sorry I'm sorry I I don't have any information about the occupancy on the day of the count [Music] [Music] no careful that's all we have for cross- examination [Music] redirect Mr hman does the it recommend that you flatly use a data point such as floor area number of employees or uh similar to estimate uh trip generation or should you do something else with this data well the it they're they provide guidance regarding the accuracy of the data that they provide and whether it should be used so um it's a statistical analysis they look at R squ and the standard deviation which is um um what is the variability among the data because that's a good indication about whether there's a correlation and the it also talks about causation a relationship between the number of trips and the independent variable so it depends on the land use you know I think I had shown in the report I forget offhand the particular uh land use where the use of square footage is absolutely appropriate the r squar was like 0.9 or something but for warehouse the r squar was below what the it recommends which land use did the applicant use in their study they used got to speak up Mr gross which which land use did the applicant use in their study the applicant used um Warehouse uh land use 150 and that was the only because it was the one that was in the applicant's report it's the only one that I went back to look at the r squar and the standard deviation so using that assumption on um using land use 150 and having a poor are squared or fit should that be used then in generating truck trips according to it standards using square footage yes right that's an indication that that is a poor choice of an independent variable to use did the applicant use any other data besides floor area to estimate trip data uh they only used floor [Music] area did you recommend a land use or an independent variable to use for predicting truck trips um ultimately I did not because um typically you know my role when I do these reviews is I am working for a government agency and what they want to know is what improvements are what Transportation improvements are going to be required so when I am doing that review I need to if I have a disagreement on the land use or the independent variable I need to select my own in order to complete that analysis that's not the case here there's only one traffic impact study the applicant prepared it he used land use 150 uh independent variable square footage and that was the one that I analyzed whose responsibility is it choose to choose a variable that is fitting uh to predict drips that's uh part of the responsibility of the applicant as part as the preparation of the traffic impact study during the architect uh who testified for operations uh he indicated that it would take uh one hour to load a trip and one hour to unload a trip for a total of two hours per truck trips Mr Tarantino went through some math and we came up with 87 number of bays and two hours per truck and and estimated something like 1,44 truck trips per day using that 2hour per truck assumption uh how does that compare uh to any calculations that you performed um yeah uh that um uh the applicant had had mentioned the 2hour time I had found that one report that uh was a bit higher 2.43 which means that you would have uh Less trucks per day than the 2hour number um you know the um uh the container operation is pretty standard because containers are shipped all around the world so um uh the um the truck operation should be similar in different places I'm going to object it's pure speculation he he's admitted he's not an expert in warehouses or their operations hasn't studied it so I don't know how he's making these assumptions as to how they work around the world is your assumption that how many hours did you use to estimate to load and unload a TR uh truck well based on the report 2.43 I'm I'm just making the statement that container SI size because trade is international container sizes are standard around the world that that's the only statement I want to make with regard to that would you say that your assumption is more or less con would generate more or less truck trips than what the architect would based on the time to load and unload um larger time to unload would translate to fewer you know lower capacity and therefore fewer trips going to Mr Dean's collection of Warehouse data um and it it submitted as a report and then testified to it do you feel that Mr Dean adequately uh described his methodology that's in accordance with standard practice for a traffic study um well as I mentioned because he didn't provide the um I'll call them the raw traffic counts the uh backup information it was not possible to um check that data however this is the data that was provided it was accepted by the board so what I did was I analyzed the data as it was provided to me and what it showed uh with these sites was that there was a poor correlation between the number of truck trips and square footage if the vacancy Figures were unclear for this report would that affect uh the resultant in terms of whether it's a a good fit using floor area to predict truck trips um well you know occupancy is definitely a factor you know it talks about as a factor the applicant talked about it as well because that's why they needed to indicate that they were 100% occupied um you know that we're working with the data that was provided the applicant provides they were 100% occupied okay I did the analysis based on that assumption the anal I'm sorry the analysis to show that there was a poor correlation between the number of truck trips and the square footage for the sites that counted I'm ready to wrap up I'll just leave a quick open question is there anything that we felt was unclear in your answers to Mr Genetti before that you would like to clarify or are you good I think that I'm good okay thank you okay thank you no redirect or recross sorry wasn't any questions to uh from board members or board professionals as to the witness's testimony starting with Mr Mayu thank you I I was beginning to feel like you guys forgot got to move the come on um Mr Houseman maybe you can help me understand I we were just talking about about a color uh chart that the applicant submitted comparing um about a dozen other warehouses can you clarify this chart seems to be talking about AM and PM peak hour trips so it's not discussing total daily truck trips is that correct that's that's as as I recall that's correct the chart just shows morning and evening evening peak hour trips which was the same as the applicant's first report which also didn't include any mention of daily trips so this this this chart's not calculating total daily trips correct uh it didn't appear that total daily trips were calculated we counted I should say and we've had a lot of discussion we've heard about different independent variables uh this chart appears to only provide one variable and that's the building square footage correct correct so this chart does not even provide data on how many loading docks each Warehouse has correct correct this chart does not show any data on how many truck parking spaces there are correct that's correct as well um if if you were an engineer and you desired to utilize the it data would in your opinion would it be important to utilize the proper use classification and as an example if we were analyzing a a food establishment in your opinion would there be a difference between traffic for let's say a fine dining establishment versus a fast food establishment uh absolutely and those are two different land uses um and yet in in the it and each of them could generally be considered food establishment but correct but it's both restaurants but within the restaurant category there's a number of different subcategories and so getting that subcategory correct and your opinion is critical if you're going to try to use metrics Associated such as square footage correct yes so can I assume similarly if we're going to call this proposed facility a warehouse It's critical to understand the proper use of that warehouse correct it would certainly be beneficial to know the use of the warehouse however for this um application as I understood it the details of the operation are not known at this point they weren't included in the report and so you know regardless of what an applicant May title the use of the warehouse in your opinion would it be important to look at the parameters associated with the use such as number of loading docks the number of loading docks can give a clue as far as the potential uses of the site and I believe we've talked about this tonight your letter dated October 6 2022 you have a table one titled it trip generation rates um Mr Gan Andy has already discussed this and asked you some questions about the different rates and this chart includes uh a list of different types of general warehouse types it also includes uh some really important ratios and one of them is loading dock to square foot ratio correct correct yes and I believe in your chart in your testimony a standard or what we're trying to call Warehouse 150 has generally uh 20,000 Square ft of space for each loading dock correct um and I I I'm reading your this is on page four it's your table one which report first or second it's the uh first report [Music] [Music] [Music] I see that ratio so I'm looking I have to um I'm looking at let me finish the [Music] answer I'm looking at that first ratio I I'm not positive the source of that information [Music] well uh that column is identifying square footage per loading dock um right the the um the purpose of the um study that the it did was to see if they could I mean they recognized that when you use the warehouse single land use across different types of warehouses you they were getting a poor fit when they were using the square footage so what they wanted to do was to see if they could do better by identifying different Warehouse subtypes which is similar for you know it's been done for many land uses over the years so one of the things that they were looking at was the ratio of loading dock to square footage for the different Warehouse I'll call them subtypes and they also had information in that report about the relationship between the amount of truck parking and the number of loading docks well in your opinion would a site be considered more intensive the the lower the building square footage versus loading dock or I could rephrase that the more loading docks per square footage when in your opinion would that indicate a more intensive use it it would indicate the potential for a more intensive use and because in and if you I would suggest that if you don't know the specifics of the operation you need to take that into account the more intense use and a potentially more intensive use could produce more daily traffic correct correct and if I take the applicant's numbers I understand it's approximately 537,500 [Music] 175 square ft of warehouse space per dock uh according to your chart that puts it in a fairly high intensity use would you agree um well it's a facility that could be used based on that one dimension that one factor for you know any type of Warehouse operation could be a low intensity use could be a higher intensity use but with that high amount of docks the opportunity correct produce more corre traffic exists There's an opportunity for a more intense operation okay and if we look at another parameter you have in that same table as I understand the applicants proposing um 137 trailer parking spaces um which produces appr proximately 1.6 parking spaces per loading dock again that puts you on the high end of your chart would that in your opinion indicate higher intensity use it would indicate the potential for having a higher intensity use at the site [Music] yes so if we were going to rely on an applicant's um traffic I think the applicant calls it a trip generation comparison chart wouldn't it be appropriate for the applicant traffic engineer to utilize Warehouse that demonstrate the similar parameters as far as loading dock ratio and Truck Parking ratios I would suggest that those two variables if you're looking for similar operations um would be uh you know as critical as square footage you know one of the things which I noticed when you look at warehouse listings that they always list the square footage because that's critical for anybody who's looking at the space they also list the number of loading docks and the amount of truck parking because all three of those variables are important to anyone who would occupy the space [Music] [Music] so according to your chart there's there's certainly a range of anticipated truck trips per day per thousand square feet of warehouse space and in your opinion then if the intensity of this sorry can you repeat that question sure so according to your table one chart there's a range of daily trip generation rates per thousand square feet and if we are underestimating or if we're under classifying the anticipated use of this Warehouse in your opinion could there be greater daily truck trips that anticipated well I would not draw that conclusion solely based on this table I would look at this and okay now let's go to the individual um data and let's look if the use of square footage is appropriate for estimating the number of truck trips because if the use of square footage is not an appropriate independent variable then you can draw any conclusions from the data that's presented here um so for the board's benefit then if you're in the public if you're saying we're trying to estimate the the truck trips anticipated for this site are you saying that the data hasn't been provided by the applicant to adequately estimate that what I am saying is that the selection of the land use and the independent [Music] variable um the number of trips is poorly correlated for that land for that independent variable and that makes it a poor choice to estimate the number of truck [Music] trips thank you Mr voice I have nothing I have nothing at this time Mr chairman thank you okay board member I have a couple chairman okay so obviously the uh the Holy Grail this whole conversation is the it Bible um how often is that updated is it constantly being evolved is it 10 every year every 10 years randomly I I think it's close to every year but it's not a new set of data that's being collected I mean it's just additional data right you know on top of the data that's already there so reason I ask you you're referencing reports back to 2016 right or 2020 so the data that's if it's not out of date it stays as it is till they find a new reason to update it that kind of what I'm asking um I it's it's not you know they'll they'll use any valid data that they get so there's requirements on what constitutes a valid traffic count if the traffic count is valid then they'll include that data and it doesn't matter whether they had two Warehouse sites or 102 Warehouse sites Val you know any valid data is added to the database okay is there any data or determination as to proximity of a of a of of a site like location traffic uh distances from portals hubs or anything like that well the recommendation from the it is that if your hypothesis if you will that that is significant factor what the it recommends uh to do something similar to what the applicant did to identify 10 existing sites that meet those criteria and do a traffic count at those sites and see how it compares to you know the standard database that it has collected for a wide variety of sites all right and my last question is as in preparing a traffic impa impact study in your opinion is it best practice to create multiple scenarios to get the most a accurate count meeting different variables and meeting that R squar and deviation factor to meet that um I you don't need to look at every independent variable and select the best one you need to find an independent variable that meets the it standards and if and if it doesn't meet the it standards for Carl ation and causation then you shouldn't use that okay it's you any other [Music] members if not motion open to public no examination examination by the objectors the other objectives if they have any then the public okay okay okay in order Sho none Tarantino no questions no questions okay now we can motion open to public all moved all in favor I okay we know come on up you're allowed to question the witness on his t testimony for the past couple of meetings I [Music] guess Bill Martin 237 Hillsboro Road um in the 1221 21 Dolan traffic report [Music] a little SP all right in the 12212 Dolan andan traffic report they stated quote the bypass is intended to divert traffic to divert through traffic from us 206 thus reducing the traffic volume volumes traveling through the signalized intersection with Homestead Road in your opinion if this application was approved wouldn't this increase traffic flow at this intersection and this violate the intended purpose of the US 206 bypass I'm going to object as beyond the scope of his testimony okay the Dolan Dean report traffic report was completed prior to the weight restriction on Willow Road correct uh that is my understanding yes all in the December 2023 planning board meeting committee man chiarelli asked Mr Dean quote you mentioned the prohibition of trucks on Willow Road would that change the distribution of trucks or traffic in the current study end quote Mr Dean's response was no we assigned our trips to Route 206 on page 11 of your October 6 2022 report you said diverting 20% of truck traffic to travel east on Homestead Road to Willow Road as represented in appendix figure 4 that's the Dolan and Dean report is not a responsible mitigation from the impacts that the additional truck traffic would have caused the signalized intersection doesn't this mean that truck traffic would be going to r Road um As I understood the Dolan and Dean um volume figures it was showing traffic going to Willow Road um um truck truck traffic going to Willow Road that's that's an issue of trip distribution I didn't really focus on that because if there are issues with trip generation that are significant and the number of trucks you need to resolve that first before you can determine what the impacts would be of changing the routes for the trucks um away from Willow Road and toward 206 okay thank you anyone else [Music] okay just a reminder you know we'll be ending in about 15 minutes so if anyone wants to ask questions please start lining up so we have an idea [Music] thanks that's good um Merill bitburg for Hickory Hill Road um my question is simply if the trailer parking which is extensive with this project um I think 137 spaces if the trailer parking was doing Tran shipment in other words trucks are coming in and dropping off a trailer in one was being picked up isn't that a complete net increase to the calculation like don't you have to include more than [Music] docks um well that's you know uh the number of truck parking spaces uh you know may be a uh significant factor in estimating truck trip generation you know there's a statistical analysis that could be done um in order to determine if that's the case you know if as part of the um um data that Dolan and Dean collected if they had collected both the number of loading docks and the number of truck parking spaces then it would have been possible to do a statistical analysis to see whether those um variables were significant but but you know that's that's a hypothesis you need to do the analysis to determine if that's the case or not right and their analysis did not include they included square footage Docks but not they included square footage only okay um thank you you're welcome any wel [Music] is a motion to close so move second all in favor I okay I have one related I have one separate uh topic I'd like to approach this but this is closed with uh Mr [Music] hman uh it's become evident during the hearings that we would uh we want to supplement our testimony there's a several issues related to commercial vehicle traffic and safety that have not been addressed by the applicant we intend to bring one additional expert witness to a future planning board meeting to address uh Warehouse related truck traffic commercial vehicle and truck safety and real real world impacts of Warehouse operations on townships including the impact of this application if it were to be approved on Hillsboro our expert witness is a resident and a 20-year uh member of law enforcement they uh have experienced through that 20 years with commercial truck traffic safety and inspections and truck traffic and traffic enforcement in New Jersey they have relevant certifications from the new New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission the New Jersey DOT and the US do they also have working knowledge of state and federal statutes and regulations in the area of commercial vehicle Operation Safety Associated [Music] enforcement they also have additional knowledge of this application and can speak to the real world impacts of that on Hillsboro Mr gross let me c i hopefully circumvent Mr gentic you planning on providing a report we will provide a written report 10 days prior if it pleases the board we can also provide you're going to provide a report assum I'll leave Mr janetti's objection for the moment if we get past that and the board is interested we want a resume from the individual as to his expertise in the testimony you plan on providing as well as a full-blown report as to what that expertise turns into for purposes of this board to make an informed decision as it relates to the pieces you're proposing as an expert Mr chetti aside from what you just indicated would have to be provided I'm going to object to it as uh a sounds like going to be in some instance speculation but B that information might be good for the township committee when they consider zoning ordinances but it's not relevant when we're dealing with the use that for this application is permitted for this [Music] Zone Mr gross based on Mr genet's comment as well as mine the requirements are and we're going to I assume at some point determine when the next board meeting is going to be for this application you're going to need to get that in at that [Music] point it's up to Mr G to make his comments regarding the report provided forget the testimony and the board will then hear argument on whether or not it will allow your expert to testify Andor the report to be entered as part of the [Music] testimony we appreciate that opportunity but we believe there is testimony that the board should hear to make an informed decision that you whether you believe or the answer is we and Mr Jin is correct in the ense it has got to be focused at least in large measure on the application before this board the board is not going to get involved in speculation as to what could happen if certain things do or don't happen it's this application in the context of the code and related items so be aware okay thank you which I think brings us since I'm assuming we're not going to start another exper well I I assume you want to continue your objectors position before we get to Mr Tarantino is that correct I'm sorry I don't understand I you're now you're the objector on the hot seat so to speak you're not you're not giving up the seat just yet and therefore it makes no sense to call anybody Beyond your current witness correct well well Mr Tarantino needs to be here with his witness at the next hearing and if the board decides to allow Mr gross's new expert to testify then he's next if Mr the board does not Mr Tarantino is next but at 950 it's not going to be anybody well I I would just say procedurally um [Music] we've been at this for a very long time they have known the issue you know whatever they wanted to presented they have the opportunity to plan and have an expert ready to testify their next witness I believe is the planner report and they've submitted a report and should be ready to testify at the next meeting and I think that should be what's addressed at the next meeting Mr gross is going to have his expert prepare uh a report including credentials and everything else he says he's going to do it 10 days before the next meeting I may want more time than those 10 days to respond to that uh whether in writing or otherwise I don't think I should have to wait until this issue of this witness they're springing on at the last minute before we get to a next witness as had a a report submitted you know over a year ago so is your proposal to go to the next witness Mr Tarantino's witness and then we'll address Mr gross's witness at a later date I'm fine with that that that could be the case yes it all depends on uh well my suggestion Mr chairman based on the time frame is it any report that Mr gross intends to provide to us be provided a more than 10 days in advance of the next hearing Mr well I I'm gonna just would want to know how much time Mr gnet needs because I don't want to you I think we go back to the favor question when's the next hearing uh Mr Co and I have spoken and I believe he has a recommendation December 12th a portion of December 12 correct correct in anticipation of another applic a as well yes right now um right now for December 12th we have a 303 amlo Road that's just there for a possible extension that's one of the properties that the township is still working to acquire um we've kept this meeting uh open in anticipation of this application and also the possibility of uh Western Road as well [Music] who I know but if we're going to bring in weson that's just going to cut board's call because you can anticipate this next week we just wanted to give the board the options and for the board to decide how you would like to schedule it if I may and I realize I'm just one small part I'm here at the board's pleasure but I'm out of state on the 12th December with all due respect it's not his witness testify I I don't don't [Music] even the issue is whether the board wants to fully for this applicant or significant portion and the other I don't believe we will be finished with the other application next week either right but I'm just wondering how many other Witnesses do the objectors have well we might be address one of those issues tonight on the objection we have to the uh Susan o presentation right now we have one other expert witness right the board will have to deal with the other witness issues at the appropriate time I don't think I want to muddy the waters tonight Mr gianetti with that issue yeah it's just cuz I'm just trying to you know when we back here next week if we're going to try to squeeze in an ex you know continuation with Wesson we you you you promis just as a reminder though I am partially disregarding it you promised the other applicant next week was pretty much there so there's no no no yeah no next I'm just if it's continuing to December 12 as for that one right my recollection is we still have a witness to finish cross examination as well as public comment and then we're going to have potentially additional witnesses that the board is going to have to address the propriety of those Witnesses and I believe even if you get past those I believe the applicant plans I'm bringing at least one rebuttal witness I'm not talking about Mr janetti's application I'm talking about the other one yeah Mr Genetti has others too but that's a another issue for another time also the recommendation from Mr Co and myself is a significant portion of the 12th to Mr G assuming his client is willing to Grant the extinction on the to yeah so let's let's let's get to that yeah till the end of December yes okay all right we're having Christmas at T Ed huh so we we would beine going with uh e Rodriguez next on the 12 he available that dat okay and and then that'll give time time to report you know and then the next meeting is probably not until M Mr Mr Tarantino have your expert witness at the meeting on the 12th yeah no I think that's probably will be the order I have a feel we're going to be make sure if if we if we don't get has the issue that's just been addressed he needs to go so yeah your expert needs to be here on the 12th the expert not the additional witness you're looking for that's a separate issue for a separate Point sign I I think Mr gross's expert report though needs to be in before assuming we have come to a decision on the 12th Mr chairman I would suggest that Mr gross's expert report be in the hands of Mr KO for distribution by 3 o' on the 25th of November which is I believe that Monday before Thanksgiving that'll be Mr gianetti's homework for Thanksgiving among many other things I'm sure that would give him a little more than two about two weeks or so take a look y that's that's Monday 25th it gives your you Mr gross about two and a half weeks to get it prepared and Mr Mr Genetti about the same point that's fine thank you deal with it okay all right Mr chairman the motion is to continue this application without further notice to Thursday December 12 2024 at 7 p.m or soon thereafter as the matter may be heard the expert report from objector number two must be provided to Mr K by 3M Monday December prob Monday November 25th 2024 for distribution to Mr gianetti the objectors and the board and the board will address the issue on the night of the 12th and that Mr Tarantino's expert needs to be here right and a time of decisions extend it to the end of the year decision been extended December 31st I already signed it excellent so with that do I have a motion so moved second roll call please Mr Wagner yes M Smith yes commit in the py yes mayor Chelli yes Vice chair peas yes chair srra yes okay and with that we do have a meeting next week and qu anything else okay so that I'll entertain a motion of what motion to adjourn Mo okay do I have a second second all in favor I I we're adjourned see everyone next week right see this one