video, please. There we go. Okay. All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the planning board meeting of June 5th, 2025. Please join me in salute to the flag.
To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty 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 Sunshine Law. Notice of the 2025 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers. The township clerk posted on the township's website and available
here at the 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 available in the planning zone department for inspection
in accordance with the public meeting notice. That may I have a roll call of board members and also board and township professionals please. Mayor Cherelli, Mr. Smith and Mr. Vitali are absent. Mr. Wagner yes. Mr. Flag
here. Mr. here Miss Smith here. Mr. Deb here. Committee the Pani present. Vice Pasen here. Maji here. Mr. Royce present. Ball here. Spring here. May here. And myself and the videographer are here. Okay. Welcome everybody.
First up, we have a couple of meeting minutes for consideration and a phone call. I'm not here. Okay. May I have a motion to approve the February 13th, 2025 meeting minutes? The
eligible members are Mr. Wagner, Miss Smith, Committeeman Leani, and the chair. So moved. Second. Okay. Any discussions from the day hearing? None. Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner. Yes. Smith. Yes. Money. Yes. Yes. Next. May I
have a motion to approve the April 3rd, 2025 meeting minutes? Eligible members. Eligible members are Mr. Flag, Mr. Ratowitz, Miss Smith, Mr. Deb, Committeeman Leani, and the chair. Okay.
Second. Okay. Discussion. Roll call, please. Mr. Fleck. Yes. Mr. Yes. M. Smith. Yes. Mr. F. Yes. Committee Money. Yes. Chair Sarraji. Yes. We do not have any resolutions for consideration, no planning board business, and no
ordinances for consideration. So, I will move to business from the floor for matters that that are not on this evening's agenda. If anyone would like to provide any comments to the board, please feel free to come up to the mic, state your name and address for the
record. Okay. Maria Janusk, 720 East Frick Avenue, Manville, New Jersey. Hi. I'm also a Hillsboro Township property owner, block 86, lot 3, 2155 Camplain Road. Um, I have a question in regard to
when an application uh is submitted to the PLA to the planning board, who in the planning department has the responsibility of looking over whether the applicant um is in in the right zone in accordance
with the uh when when he submits the occasion. if what he's presenting is is in the right zone or if something is in a a residential area, can they put something in in that's not residential? Can that come before the board or does that does that have to be checked out
prior to to make sure that everything is in order so that then the the zone the uh board can look at the application? This is in regards when an application is received. When an application is received by the planning department, part of the protocol is through
completeness is that is something that we would be looking at. Uh for planning board matters, it'd be myself and my assistant planner Miss Ball. Uh when it comes to say the board of adjustment, uh Miss Mclaclin would be looking at it uh at that time during uh completeness.
Okay. I'm I'm saying specifically like to the planning board, not to the board of adjustment. Right. If a if if a property is in a uh let's say residential zone, can an applicant submit something for a an industrial
property or would that would that have would that come before the board and then uh request waiverss or does that is that handled prior to that in the in the planning department itself? So the uh the planning board is the board of permitted uses. So the planning board
can only hear applications with uses that are permitted. The zoning board of adjustment is the board of non-permitted uses. So if a proposed use requires a deuse variance, only the board of adjustment has jurisdiction to do that.
Okay. And um some applications that have come before this board have had some ambiguity. There was there was one recent application that the applicant submitted uh records where he the building was sitting on an easement that
was not owned by that property owner. Was that permitted to come through or should should that have gone to the board of adjustment? That was a decision rendered by the previous planning director as part of the completeness application. What came out of it afterwards became a whole
another issue. So the prior prior planning director determined it to be complete as presented. Okay. Okay. And as that application went
forward, there were um instances where it was Miss Kenn, I'm going to indicate to you the matter is in litigation and the board is not able to comment any further. That matter is in litigation and the
litigation um has not fully the the the the the uh attorney that submitted that that is did not provide all of the proper information because there were uh people at that at those meetings. I I was
there. There were other people who are here that were at that meeting and what is presented to the court is not accurate because that that application um should have should have been looked at by the by the township governing body, the township committee because
that easement was owned by the township and that should have been handled way before it went through the entire process of going before the planning board and that application was denied and now the applicant is looking to appeal that deny. mile that should have
been handled way before. It was a big expense to to um residents of the um uh Hearthstone um 55 and over development. It was a it was a it it should have been handled it should have been handled way
before it went to the point that it got to and that what's what's in the courts now uh is not accurate and that should be looked at very carefully. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to comment to the board on mayors not on
the agenda? Okay, seeing none, we're moving on to our first uh public hearing. Uh this is Campus Associates. You can come on up. LLC file
20-pb is the 2025 update. So, the last status update we had was to the board was of December 5th of last year. Good evening. Good evening. How are you? Um, would you like me to give a general update? I'm happy
to do that. Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, we need to know who you are. Sure. Sure. Uh, my name is Steve Kesler. I am the general counsel of Fernmore Living, uh, Fernmore Properties, uh, as as it as it's known. and uh one of our LLC subsidiaries is the owner of uh the
Five Campus Drive uh property in Hillsboro. Um so between the last time I was here and the time I'm here currently um I'm happy to report that all uh clearing and grading has been completed. Uh all of our site work um including
infrastructure, pipes, storm water systems, sewer, water, and curbing have been completed. Um at this point um all the infrastructure is installed and functioning. Uh the next steps for us uh will be the electric layout um and f
followed by the crossings and and the uh and the permanent paving. Uh we're currently in for uh permits which are pending with the township. We're working through some issues. There were some some issues with um changes that we have to make to some of the plans and and make some things complete which we're
working through right now. Uh those are permits for our uh clubhouse and our buildings. Uh we're going to start with our foundation permits. Uh we expect to have those relatively soon. Once we have those permits, um we will begin uh our foundation work. The foundations for the
buildings will take um you know in the in the 6 to9 month uh range is is pretty pretty good estimate for us. Uh once the foundations are complete, we move forward to the full um you know uh build building uh process, the vertical building process. uh we'll start that uh
right away. We'll do one building at a time. Uh our plan is to have about a one-mon uh gap between the completion of each of the buildings. Um and uh that's basically where we stand uh today. Um like I said, we're working uh with the township right now uh in terms of
cleaning up some of the application materials uh for our permits. And uh we've uh uh hopefully had relatively uh good uh relations with our neighbors. We've reached out and been in touch with the temple that which is located next door and we've had some good contact uh
uh with uh um uh executives uh from the temple and uh we look forward to completing the project in a timely manner and and working with the town to get it done the right way. Anything uh on our end? Uh permits are being reviewed. uh just making sure all of the
paperwork is in order because it's a it's a different ownership group. There's a little bit of going through some of the paperwork and making sure we're on the same page in terms of making sure that uh the phasing schedule especially as it's inclusionary that
we're on the same page uh with that. I believe zoning permits will be issued uh very very shortly and they're actively meeting with the building department and all the other agencies as they go. Thank you. Anything?
No, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Board members. Um because it was seems like years ago. Can you was it three buildings that you're building plus a clubhouse? It's four four buildings actually. Four buildings plus. Yes. And is your
intention to uh occupy each building as it's completed uh or is it to wait till they're completed total? We usually the way we usually do it is as each building is completed because we have about a one-mon gap between them, we'll start leasing them up one at a time. So we'll
go to seek um when the time comes at least a temporary co uh to get people in there. There probably will be site things that have to be completed, landscaping, things like that. But we usually um like to work through, you know, on the larger developments, like if we're developing eight buildings or
nine buildings, we we always do that. Here it's it's a smaller project for the projects that we do. But my anticipation is that we're probably going to begin leasing as each building goes up. And is the clubhouse going to be completed in the beginning, middle, or end? Yeah, our
plan is to get the clubhouse completed in the beginning as the first building is going up to start putting up the clubhouse because just from a leasing standpoint, tenants like to have their amenities in place and makes the leasing process a little easier. I was going to say that would make Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
Thank you. You're welcome, Mr. Chairman. Uh we have a specific phasing schedule and there's a very specific order that they have to go in uh not counting the clubhouse uh in terms of the uh residential and and which one it's all based on how many
affordable units are in each. Uh there's a ratio market rate to affordable. It's per our ordinance in terms of which ones can get cos. So that's that's where we're working with them to be on the same page in the exact order it has to go. Okay. And that's another thing I
should mention. We're working through the deed uh that you know getting the deed restrictions filed for the the affordables uh with uh Mr. Bernstein's office currently as well getting that finalized. Do I need to open? The rationale is the board knows for
having this appearance was the rather lengthy lack of action being taken on the site and the prior owner's appearance here looking for an extinction. If the board wish, the board can open it up to the public relative to
any statements that council has made and then it's up to the board whether they want another appearance at some point in the time or you're all letting the process work its way through. Okay. So, may I have a motion to open the public?
So, moved. Second. All in favor? I I Okay. Okay. If there's anyone from the public that would like to uh question the uh applicants, well now now developers u attorney on any on any of his statements, please
come forward. State your name and address for the record. Grant Colemer 144 Taylor. I didn't plan to speak. I'm sorry. Um but there was something about storm water which was on my mind. Everything is in place for the storm water. you have connected into that 42-in pipe. Uh at this point, as what
I'm told by our um our project manager is that the storm water system is is functioning. It's obviously not complete. We don't have all the paving and the rest of the improvements complete, but the storm water is in. Okay. Okay. So, no testing. Do you ever do testing to see like what is actual
compared to what's what's real or what's proposed? I mean, I'd have to consult with our engineer on that. Okay. Um being but I'm happy. You can update the board when they come back about what I'm happy to do that actually. Proposed versus actual would be there. That would
be okay. Thank you. Maria Janu 6 720 East Freck Avenue, Manville, New Jersey. Also, Hillsboro Township property owner. Um can you elaborate a little bit on what what's been done as uh uh as far as
this project right now is everything is only underground. Yes, the underground uh improvements are completed. Obviously connections have not been made to the sewer system or anything like that because we don't have we don't have foundations or buildings but the uh storm water infrastructure um
the curbing um and some uh uh temporary paving have been installed at this point. to protect the everything that's that's been put underground. Okay. Uh I was on I think I there was something on on the website that said that there were going to be some kind of
um project presentations uh today. Um it's just an update. Not as far as I'm aware. Sorry. Just a verbal update. Uh so uh what has been done now is done in accordance with the um settlement
agreement. Well, we we came after all of that. So, we stepped in after the settlement agreement and we took over the the the um the project uh as approved. Um and at this point, we've been working really well with the township with the
township's building department uh to move the project forward. That settlement agreement, as you say, was with the prior owner. Was this was that settlement agreement legally transferred to the new owner? Um, I'm going to defer those questions to uh the
board's council. Answer is yes. Predates my involvement. Could you repeat that? Yes. Yes. What? Yeah. You The question was, have they been transferred to the new owner? And the answer is yes. Was transferred legally to the owner? They are they are
part of the assumption that they when they came in to take over the project and it is my understanding they are following the conditions of the agreement and the approvals. Okay. Why why isn't that settlement agreement provided as part of these part
of these records? Because there are requirements within that settlement agreement that we should know what is required and that and that hasn't been shown. Also also this um application was initially denied and the records that
are shown with this Mr. Sec. I think you're going beyond what the what we're allowing the public to do is ask the attorney questions on what he just provided. Not a rehash of that application. If you need background information, I'm sure you can make an
appointment with the planning department to uh review whatever documents you find are not available. Okay. So, this application is being conducted in accordance with the application that had been submitted by Campus Associates LLC
Weiss. Um, we have an approved plan. Like I said, we purchased a property with an approved plan that was in place and we are uh following all the requirements uh of that plan. Okay. because this application uh doesn't doesn't uh give
the specific site concerns which were historic, environmental and there are a lot of uh freshwater wetlands on this property. Has your has your have you um uh received permits from the uh environment from the New Jersey
environmental uh department in regard to these freshwater wetlands. We are pursuing the construction of the project in accordance with all required laws, ordinances, and regulations. Okay. So, what what are the requirements in in regard? You're going beyond regard to
the Miss Janusk, you're going beyond. You're looking for process understanding. I suggest again make an appointment with the planning office. We are being told that the underground work has been completed, storm water work has been completed. that that should be part of a connection
with the freshwater wetlands because there's very serious flooding issues on that. So I'm asking if if if this is uh these are requirements and if they have been they're connected they're connected as far as they can with at the stage of the project's
at I don't know what else you need. I'm asking what what what are the requirements in regard to the freshwater wetlands? That's not his attorney is stating that they complying with the requirements. Do you have a question of what he just provided in his update
statement? Yeah. What are the what what what are the requirements? He didn't talk about requirements. He gave us an update on the status of the project. Do you have a question on that? When I asked he stated that we they are complying with the requirements. So I'm asking what are the requirements that
they are he's not he he he's he's not here to be starting to answer those type of questions what why not because he's not that wasn't what the board asked he is here stating that the underground m you said underground do you have another question that is relevant otherwise I I
would ask you to please sit down we have a lot on the agenda tonight I know I know but this is also on the agenda and it's very important because someone else had asked there's a lot of issues He got an answer and he was satisfied and he made a suggestion for us and we're being
told that certain things were done. So what was done? Mr. J. Question or please sit down. What uh why not of me of the attorney of his statement? Why is there no resolution regarding the initial denial
of this application? There has nothing provided records. I'm gonna ask you to sit down. You have no relevant required on civil clerk and resolution is not provided and it should be and also the settlement agree so that we know what is
required of this applicant and also you're being disruptive right now. Do I need to bring an officer in at this point I have asked was legally transferred. Thank you. Please sit down. Anyone
else? I'm really nice. I'm not jo Okay. Okay. May I have a motion to close? Second. All in favor? I. So, board members, would we like an update? Listen, I like to get out of work early,
so I don't mind up here at all. So, I'm happy to come back in six months. December. Yeah, December would work. that more than sufficient time to have the summer to continue the project and and the festival time of the year too. So, you know, we all should be in a good
mood, right? Happy to do it. All right. So, do we need to make a motion for motion to place this matter on the dece one of the December board meeting agendas for an up
a further six-month update on the status of the project. So, moved. Second. Okay. Comments. Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner, yes. Mr. Flag, yes. Mr. Yes. Miss Smith, yes. Mr. Deb, yes. Lean,
yes. Vice Chair Peas, yes. Chair, yes. All right. Thank you folks. Enjoy the summer. Thank you. You as well. Thank you. Okay. Next is the main event, Homestead Road LLC. I will
invite representatives and Mr. Chairman, while yes, while council is getting ready, I will continue my recusal on this matter. I will remain on the day this evening um for the exe to wait for the executive session. Okay. If I should
get up and leave, nobody can follow me. Okay. So, Homestead Road LLC file number 21-PB-25-MS backsp. Time of decision July 31st of this year, block 200.10, lots 32 and 33, otherwise known
as 203 Homestead Road and 189 Homestead Road. The application is continued from our May 8th, 2025 uh meeting without further notice. and I will ask the attorneys and objectors to please introduce themselves.
Yes. Good evening, chairman, members of the board. Craig Janetti, the law firm, Dave Pittney on behalf of the applicant, Homestead Road LLC. Yeah. Mike Pisaro um from the Watershed Institute. Objector number one. Scott Gross, local citizens against
traffic. John Lanahan, Lorie Cleveland for the Sland Conservancy. Brian Tarantino representing SWAT. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have a certification of absent board member examination of
record eligibility to vote from Miss Smith who viewed the video recording of May 8th, 2025. She's therefore eligible to participate. I will point out for the board the eligible members are Miss Smith, Mr. Wagner, Committeeman, Lupani,
Vice Chair Pson, and yourself. Thank you. And do we want to state about what time we're going to end? Because we have the executive session. I'm I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, for the executive session to start around 9:00 because it's going to
take a little bit. So I would therefore suggest that we've got about an hour and 20 for at least tonight. We'll see where we go after that. Okay. Thank you. Uh if you recall, chairman, at
the few meetings ago, uh we had the direct examination or of the rebuttal testimony of our traffic engineer, uh who was cross-examined by the objectors and was in the middle of uh public questioning. Um he wasn't available at
the last meeting, but we did actually begin public comment for those that wanted to have public comment um to get their one bite at the apple. And we have our traffic engineer this evening to uh continue with the public questioning
of his testimony uh from the March meeting. So unless there's any housekeeping matters, I'd like to call uh Gary Dean back up to the stand. Okay. and we'll swear you back in. Tonight's going to be the truth. The whole truth. Yes, I do.
Certainly. Gary Dean, Dean N. Okay. And I'm just going to ask my general question. Any changes in your credentials, suspensions, or gaps, or anything along those lines since the last time? Not at all, Mr. Chairman. still current and in good standing.
Okay, please continue. I really don't have anything um okay further examination. I think we're just asking more members of the public that want to come up and question him about his testimony at the last meeting. Do we have to formally reopen?
Okay. I have a motion to open to public comment on Mr. Dean's most recent prior testimony. Rebuttal testimony. Yes. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. Anyone from the public that has not had
the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Dean on his rebuttal testimony, please come to the mic and state your name and address for the record. Anyone can come up. I don't Nobody wants to talk.
I'm okay. Does everyone remember who Mr. Dean is? I I just got to check. It's Yeah. This is like your last chance. All right. Thank you as always, board members. Yeah. Thank you for coming back.
Uh at this point, unless we have I don't think we have any more witnesses, I think what we do, Mr. chairman is resume public comment on the overall application itself related to what has been presented to the board through the what
we are now engaged in our golden anniversary meeting right this means meeting 25 so okay so now I have to reopen we got to close Mr. or we're just open
regardless. Okay. So, we are open for the public to continue putting on the record their thoughts about the application um for those who have not. Yeah. For those who have not um at the May 8th meeting. So, please feel free to
come up um and state your name and address for the record. You don't need to wait for me to call you up. Good evening, everyone. My name is Patricia. Todd, you can move the mic out of the if you wish or up.
How's that? You can get heard. Okay. Good evening everyone. My name is Patricia Taylor Todd. I am uh from Jackson Avenue in Montgomery. Thank you. Unacustomed as I am to public speaking. I am here on behalf of the
Montgomery Township Committee, Mayor Nina Singh and the residents of Montgomery Township to uh make a statement in opposition to this application. And um I want to place this following statement on the record. I've given a copy to the assistant planner. Dear Hillsboro Township Planning Board,
on behalf of the Montgomery Township Committee, we want to express our serious concerns regarding the proposed warehouse development at Homestead Road in Hillsboro Township, particularly with respect to the anticipated traffic impacts on New Jersey State Road 206 and surrounding local roads that traverse
both of our municipalities. As neighboring communities, we share a significant portion of regional traffic burden. And we are especially concerned that the projected increase in truck and employee vehicle traffic generated by this warehouse could have adverse effects on roadway safety, congestion,
and infrastructure wear in Montgomery Township. NJ Route 206 already operates under significant strain during peak hours and the introduction of additional heavy truck volumes may exacerbate existing issues including delays, noise, and potential hazards to local drivers,
pedestrians, and bicyclists. We respectfully urge Hillsboro Township to carefully consider the broader regional traffic implications during this review and approval process of this project. We also recommend the following. A comprehensive traffic impact study that includes intersections and road segments
within Montgomery Township, particularly those along Route 206 and FedEer roads. Coordination with NJ DOT to assess and mitigate potential effects on Route 206, including signal timing, turn lanes, and truck routing. coordination with Somerset County to assess and mitigate
potential effects on Route 601 and potentially other county roads, including signal timing, turn lanes, and truck routing. Consideration of truck access limitations or route restrictions to minimize disruption to residential and school areas, and ongoing communication and coordination with
Montgomery Township throughout the planning and permitting phases. Montgomery Township is committed to working collaboratively with Hillsboro Township and other stakeholders to ensure responsible development that considers the health, safety, and quality of life for all area residents.
We will welcome the opportunity to meet and discuss this matter further at your convenience. Signed, Mayor Nina Singh. Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] [Music] Bill Martin, 237 Hillsboro. Mr. Martin,
I'm going from memory, so I apologize. It was your wife, but not you this time, so it's your turn. It's my turn. You have the list. All right. Thank you. Okay. All right. The 2010 master plan amendment that created this transitional
zone states, quote, "Therefore, it is recommended that a new land usezone designation should be considered, which would serve as a transition between the existing nearby residential development and the more intense development permitted in the LI district to the
west." Dr. Sirichi, a member of the planning board at the time, said, quote, "The word transition is not to mean a transition of time. is meant to indicate a transition of intensity between residential and industrial. When I questioned the applicant's planner, she actually
responded, quote, "Well, I don't know that we can compare the use of this property and say it is not appropriate based on what is going on in another zone." This is exactly what they should have done. The TECD is supposed to be less intense in use. At the very least,
the applicant should have done a truck traffic count in the LI zone and compared it to their projected use in this application. They should also have identified the type of trucks used. Their application is for tractor trailers. The LI zone is predominantly
box trucks. The LI zone does not have parking for 53 foot trailers and does not have the mule trucks that would move them around. There's no Hillsboro ordinance that includes dimensions for tractor trailer parking. The applicant has known this since at least July
2024. As far as I know, there are no waiverss or variances requested, and their testimony is complete. The applicant should have requested a waiver or variance for trailer parking. It's not a given that since you can process a tractor trailer at a dock that you automatically get a
parking space for trailers. It doesn't matter that other warehouses in other zones may have gotten away with trailer parking. The TECD zone is supposed to be less intense in use than other zones. The applicant kept saying that warehousing is a permitted use. The
Hillsboro General Industrial Zone called for warehousing, shipping, and receiving. The TEZD zone calls for warehousing, shipping, and receiving located completely within an enclosed building. This is a major distinction in definition, a
qualifier. Both the Hillsboro ordinance 188-112 entitled Economic Development District and the 2005 phase 2 master plan chapter 8 list conditional uses for light manufacturing which uses the same
terminology as TECD warehousing quote located completely within an enclosed building. Bose state, quote, provided all products are kept within an enclosed building. This would apply to enclosed warehousing. All products kept within an
enclosed building. If you have products within an enclosed building, a tractor trailer would go to the dock, be unloaded, be reloaded, or leave empty. This would be two trips, one in and one out. When you introduce trailer parking,
it only benefits the operator, not the residents. It creates over a 100 storage units on site which are not within an enclosed warehouse. It also doubles the amount of on-site traffic. For example, if a tractor trailer comes in, drops the trailer in a parking space, then a mule
truck moves that trailer to a dock, and after processing, a mule truck moves that trailer back to a parking space to be picked up later. This would be four moves for that trailer, not two, as described for an enclosed warehouse. All this movement takes place outside
the building and in the parking area using backup alarms for every move. This does not promote the peace and solitude of the residents as required in the amendment that created the TECD zone. The pipeline also creates an unbuffered corridor for noise to
travel. Trailer parking also introduces mule trucks. Mule trucks are not included in the TECD ordinance and not included in a land use development code 188. The applicant should have requested a waiver or variance for mule trucks which the LI zone on one side does not
have and obviously the agricultural zone across the street does not have. The use of mule trucks makes this much more intense in use. The applications operations expert will not give us a count of how many of these trucks will be used. Some of these warehouses are almost
exclusively mule truck operations. If you look at this photo, you'll notice that none of the trailers at the docks or in the parking spaces have trucks attached. All of these trailers will be moved around by mule trucks. You can see four of them in this poster. Mule trucks will idle in the
summer for AC and in the winter for heat 24/7. The applicant's operations expert cannot tell us how they would refuel the mule trucks. If you can show the other poster if they plan on refueling with a tanker truck on site as in this example,
it's environmentally dangerous for residents, wellwater and a Roycebrook and should be prohibited. And when it comes to the use of this complex, the applicant's operations testimony confirmed a tractor trailer can come in, drop its trailer in
a parking space, and pick up a trailer that's been processed at the warehouse and move back to a parking space. This would be a dispatched operation. This tractor trailer will never go to the warehouse. This will make this a freight terminal, truck terminal, or truck depot, which are
prohibited uses based on Hillsboro ordinance 188-97. Homestead Road is a rural two-lane road with no shoulders. The traffic traveling west to east will be traveling at least 45 miles an hour. All the trucks exiting this complex will
be making a righthand turn west to 206 and will be traveling at between 1 to 5 miles an hour when they make their turns. Right? Depending on which traffic study you use, if only 10%, which could be 30 to 70 trucks per day, misses the
mark for a p perfect right-hand turn and crosses over the center line into oncoming traffic. This will cause a dangerous safety hazard that Hillsboro would be responsible for if this application is approved. And I'll close with the following
points. In December 2022, I asked the applicant's planner, Miss Kafone, this question. It seems to me this tractor trailer warehouse complex and potential distribution center is larger and more intense than anything in the LI district.
Can you tell me how this development is transitional between LI and residential homes? Her response was quote, so we are not here to speak about the development. We're not at that part. This applica, this applicant has never answered that
question. On May 25th, 2023, Miss Capone testified that she appeared before 400 different planning or zoning boards. I then asked her, "Have you ever encountered a TECD zone or transitional economic development zone in any other
town?" Her response was, "No, not by name." At the same meeting, Miss Hos asked Miss Capone, "How do you define the word transitional?" Her answer was, quote, "In between two things." Was there any communication with Mr. Masky or Mr. Kois about the
definitions in a zone she has never encountered before? Did the applicant ask any questions about the definition of transitional, the distinction between a completely enclosed warehouse and just a warehouse, and what conforms or is appropriate to
the TECD? There's nothing in civic clerk to indicate Miss Capone asked any of these questions. I'll repeat her quote from July 2024. Well, I don't know if we can compare the use of this property and say it is not appropriate based on what's
going on in another zone. The residents of Hillsboro should not have to suffer with this industrial complex because the applicant did not do their due diligence. This application does not comply with the requirements of the DEC zone and must be denied. Thank you for
your [Music] time. Thank you. Chairman, do you have an issue if I excuse Mr. Dean? No, Mel Bisber for Hickory Hill Road. I have sat in about threequarters of
these many meetings, three years now, and have watched the testimony for most of the rest. Like many, I marveled at the sheer size of the projected facility so close to residential neighborhoods on one side and secondary roads on the other. Our land use law has many
protections for our residents, from limiting storage vehicles due to fire hazard to being able to reside here with quote unquote peace and tranquility. When you really read through our land use law, you are made to feel like people have a right to live here with some level of quiet, some level of natural light and dark, some level of
fresh air. And that is likely why truck depots are completely banned in our township. So I keep asking myself, why can't this application just follow Hillsboro's code? Number one, the application was incomplete from the start because it is entirely speculative without any particular owner operator in
mind. Our land use law 18831E.1 specifies, quote, "There shall be included a written description of the proposed uses and operations of the buildings, including the number of employees or members of non-residential buildings, the proposed number of shifts
to be worked, and maximum employees on each shift, expected truck and tractor trailer traffic, emission of noise, glare, vibration, heat, odor, air and water pollution, safety hazards, and anticipated expansion plans." incorporated in the building design, but
no such description was provided and technically the application was incomplete. Over time, the developer submitted hypothetical operations information that more or less maxed out the building size, over 500,000 square feet, 281 parking spaces, um, three
shifts 24 by7, 90 docks, 137 trailer parking spaces. It was their applicant's architect, not an operations manager since they had none, who stated that the building could be customized for just about any warehouse function, including a high cube Amazon style warehouse.
Still, three years later, there is no known tenant who has testified to the operation they will actually be running. No detailed floor plan has been submitted. If the developer is going to insist on these highintensity upper limits, then they take a risk that their application has too much noise, light, and air pollution and too much traffic
for in for a transitional site so close to residential areas. Two, there is no connection to the bypass. The TEC uh DZ zone, transitional economic development zone ordinance was passed in 2011, but the zone was proposed to have a connector entrance and exit to Homestead
Road from the bypass, but was then passed into local law without the bypass. This is documented right in the TECD zone definition in H Hills Hillsboro's land use code. Homestead Road is not only a narrow secondary road, not recommended for truck traffic, it also has a lot of changing elevation.
At the rail overpass, there is no visibility to the other side and there is already a warning sign posted that says hill blocks view quote unquote. Any truck, excuse me, any truck on that overpass could endanger any vehicle coming the other way and couldn't follow
the 4-oot clearance law for bicycles in either direction. There is no direct access from Homestead to the bypass. Traffic will be exiting Homestead onto Route 206 or worse yet across Route 206 where there is now a pending warehouse application and a super shop planned
near that intersection. Three, trailer parking. The TECD ordinance is silent on trailer parking. Our land use law code never defines trailer parking per se, only loading parking, which would be for loading docks. For the warehouses, there is only a minimum requirement of parking
spaces of normally 10 by 20 feet, which is for a car basically, and loading spaces, which are 60 feet in length. But no parking space size is specified for park trailers. Perhaps this is why the TECD ordinance, just like the light industrial ordinance, is silent on
trailer parking. It's not really allowed in our town with at least a variance for the parking space size. However, our code has very strict rules banning truck depots, truck terminals, and the like. Once you add trailer parking, especially when the trailers can be picked up and dropped off directly to the trailer
parking without ever going to the dock, you are in effect creating a trans shipping operation, which is considered by many transportation engineering definitions to be a truck terminal function, which is banned in Hillsboro. Hold on. Four, double stack trailers. One of
the warehouses was designed with double stack trailer parking, taking the back row right up to the property line. The architect has already stated that the mule trucks would have to be used to pull the trailer out from the front row in order to pull out the trailers in the back row. Again, our code in section 18868C does not allow double parking if
both rows cannot be accessed directly. quote, "Individual loading and parking spaces shall by shall be served by interior driveways and be designed for vehicle access without requiring the moving of any other vehicle. Spaces shall not have direct access from the public streets or major interior drives
and roads." unquote. The applicants engineer has since updated the design to eliminate a second row of parking, but it's kind of shameful that the public had to point out this infraction and that in removing the second row of parking to meet code, they also removed a retaining wall when they are so very
close to the CSX railroad tracks. Five, um, this zone is not transitional. I'm sorry, the project is not transitional. The TECD zone described in 18810.2 to is transitional between light industrial/corporate
development and residential. Since this development backs up to residences and residential streets, it stands to reason that the plan should be of an even lower intensity than a commercial zone which could be neighborly to residential zone. The TECD ordinance refers to the master
plan. The TCD zone was established in the 2005 master plan phase two to encourage quote to encourage the development of employment areas near residential neighborhoods with design that assures the peace and solitude of residents unquote. How can two buildings comprising nine football fields of
warehouse space, 90 docks, 137 trailer parking spaces, 281 regular parking spaces, and a 24-hour operation assure the peace and solitude of nearby residents when this project would be several times bigger than almost any warehouse in Hillsbor in the light industrial zone and bigger than most
pending warehouse applications around the state. Six, pedestrian and bicycle access. The TC district zone has the TC district code has provisions for pedestrian circulation in 18810724F. Originally, the developer announced that they were not planning to
implement such circulation both inside the property and going out to Homestead Road because they felt the road was not really residential and didn't warrant it. There were no I think there were no homes on the road. At the next meeting, they relented and put in walkways around each building, but still declined to
provide an interconnection between the two buildings, crosswalks every 20 or so cars from the parking lot to the sidewalk at the building, or any bicycle path at all, despite what is specified in 18810F6. Quote, "All portions of the development shall be linked via sidewalk
and pathway network as approved by the planning board or board of adjustment. The site shall be pedestrianoriented with a design that enables and encourages pedestrian bicycle circulation with linkages to surrounding areas. The applicant shall you utilize a master plan in developing a pedestrian
bicycle pathway network. Any sort of protective covering over the walkway to the main entrance or shelter at the corner of Homestead Road is simply not in the plan. And in 18810.2F4 to F4 supplemental regulations to the TECD district. Pedestrian scale
lighting, rain protection in the form of awnings, and use of landscaping overhangs and canopies are suggested to pro and suggested to protect from the sun are all suggested or required. We see none of this in the plans. Seven, the operation does not take place
completely within an enclosed building. The developer has stated that trailers could be dropped off and picked up from the trailer parking area. In that case, the truck itself would never pull into a dock, as Mr. Martin said, and the items in the trailer would be processed without going through the warehouse. So, contrary to the stipulations of the TECD
zone, the operation would not take place completely within the building. It violates the zone A, the pipeline crossing. The developer is is violating section 188-75C of the township code regarding building near or crossing pipelines.
quote, "No new building construction or land disturbance shall be printed within 75 ft by right of way of any distribution, gathering or transmission line. This applies to any land disturbance or construction involved in the crossing of a pipeline to provide access to a property when no re
reasonable access is permitted." I think an end quote belongs there. Could this have been designed better? Is there more reasonable access? Probably. Nine. Stream quarter. The stream quarter section of the natural features clause 188-64D states among other things that the purpose of the stream quartered
protection is to quote ensure that only appropriately placed development on a property will not increase the danger to human plant or animal life and that it represents an acceptable use of the land in relation to the hazards involved. There is nothing acceptable about the
use of land if it involves warehouses. Permitted uses in stream corridors include farming, wildlife sanctuaries, game farms, fishing areas, unpaved hiking, biking, and bridal trails and the like. So, apart from the zone, how can we possibly put a warehouse right on top of a stream corridor? 10.
Subdivision. The developer is seeking approval of a subdivision with two separate land owners. One property governed by the licensed uh site remediation professional LSRP and one not governed by the LSRP as part of the applications. Also, one of the buildings crosses the original property line
between the two owners. The planning board could have required the applicant to go to zoning first to have the land vacated before property lines were redrawn for the application to be heard, but for whatever reason, they did not. This is really not a subdivision of one property. It's a redivision of two. Can
anyone site examples in our township history in which two property owners have shared an application? The planning board had a whole executive session on just how to handle this topic in September of 2022 and concluded that the developers planner would need to submit a report about the subdivision only. But
a full report was not written, only a few disjointed memos that did not even reflect a full understanding of our land use code as Mr. Martin said. Either way, in order to vacate the property, it seems that the planning board has has to make some determination on subdivision before it can go forward and approve the
application. What justification is there to vacate two properties and rearrange them except to fulfill this ill-founded application? Note that the township passed an ordinance now almost two years ago that banned warehouses partially in order to protect the health and safety
of the residents. I understand this application is grandfathered, but protecting the health and safety of the residents is vitally important. And this application already not conforming to our code in so many ways is also not proving in to be good for the health and safety of our residents. All the
residents, not just the ones who live behind the warehouses, the ones who drive our township roads, the school buses that use Homestead Road, people walking or driving through the town center. The increased truck traffic in town will literally completely change the character of our town. the developer clearly doesn't care that they are in
violation of so many of our laws. The planning board has no choice to put but to turn this down and and um even with what I consider a lot of extra time that they've given the developer, they have not come around to conformance with our code. I thank all the planning board
volunteers as well as the public who has sat through countless meetings. A no vote is the only choice in this matter. [Applause] [Music] Good evening. First thing get to the close to the mic. Sorry, it doesn't count. I want to say is what they said.
Um I'm My name is Pat McGee. I've lived in Hillsboro Willow's Edge for 23 years and I completed a graduate degree in geoscience in 2019. I am not represented by SWAT. My home is about a half a mile
from the applicant property. I'm here to share my opposition to the proposed warehouse. I'd like to make six brief points pertaining to the physical aspects of the warehouse proposal. The footprint and rainstorms,
the impervious nature of the footprint of the warehouse itself and the parking lot and the chemicals that will leech from the trucks and tires and asphalt will percolate into the surrounding soil and contribute to the runoff toward the
Roycebrook tributary system. The topography. The proposed site is the highest elevation in the immediate surrounding area. Using the Hillsboro topographic map as a source, the proposed warehouse average
elevation, the land itself is approximately 36 meters above sea level or 111 ft. The White Meadow neighborhood behind the proposed warehouse is about 27 meters or 88 ft.
Willow's Edge, my neighborhood, is 26 meters or 85 ft. So from the warehouse to the surrounding neighborhoods, everything's downhill. Light pollution. Lights in the proposed parking lot will be easily visible at night from the lower
surrounding neighborhoods and contribute to light pollution. Noise pollution. Traffic from the proposed warehouse will be easily heard in our neighborhoods. Air quality Neighborhoods along Willow Road being
east of the proposed property or in the path of the west to east prevailing winds carrying diesel fumes into our neighborhoods. Homestead Road being a narrow and hilly road has no shoulders. The road is used by commuters, school
buses, and young drivers coming and going to and from the nearby high school which is about a mile from the proposed warehouse. The presence of large trucks from an Ad Bay warehouse could introduce risk to this local traffic. In my mind, I
imagine having a home on the White Meadow neighborhood and looking out the kitchen window up to a four-story warehouse so close to my home. What's going to happen to property of ours in our neighborhoods? For the above reasons, I oppose the construction of the
warehouse. Thank you. [Applause] Oh, do I have to do the thing? If there only a podium, [Music] huh? Mr. Brooks, I got you,
man. All right. Sorry, Grant Culmer. Uh, Taylor Avenue, not affiliated with any of the objectors. I apologize for just looking at my screen. I'm just going to read, so I apologize. Uh, long time coming. uh I've been attending to watch every single meeting relative to this application and I'm come before you to
express the profound and deeply troubling concerns with the application and there are six major areas which I want to touch upon tonight. First, the excessive intensity and scale of the application. The applicant proposes two massive warehouse buildings with a totaling of 500 million square feet. Uh
we know these are not small modest structures. They are enormous buildings uh proposed for a property in the TEDZ uh TECD zone. Uh I know you're aware of the stated purpose of the zone and accordance with the 2010 master plan amendment was to provide a transitional
employment generating development between highintensity industrial areas like the Larkin properties to the west and the existing residential development to the east here. specifically aiming to minimize impacts on neighbor uh nearby neighborhoods and assure the peace and
solitude of residents. The sheer scale of the proposed building one, which is noted to be 1,025 ft long, is argued to be highly oversized relative to the zoning requirements and incompatible with preserving the site's natural features. While the applicant argues warehousing isn't identified as a
highintensity use, causing concern for the master plan's discussion of the zone, it is clear the proposed size and scale are utterly inappropriate and do not fit the intent of the transitional zone. Uh, I would respectfully disagree with the notion that this project is in
current form a truly by right, as was testified when its dimension seemingly violate the spirit of not the letter of the zone's intent and design standards. Next, the issue of traffic safety and instructional limitations is really paramount. We've heard testimony
acknowledging the current pavement width of uh Homestead Road varying between 22 and 26 ft is inadequate to accommodate the anticipated increase in truck volume uh traffic volume from this project. The project expected to generate a significant truck traffic estimated by
Penonia to be approximately 160 trucks per day with a total daily volume potentially reaching 200300 trucks. When suggested a widening of the road was required by the board's engineer, the applicant simply ignored uh ignored the issue, providing evidence that they do not care about the health and safety of
the residents within our town. Concerns about potential off-site traffic conditions have also been raised and the proposed use of discretion description is required to include except truck and trailer traffic. The safety hazards posed by the large trucks navigating this road and the surrounding network
are again indirect concern for the health and safety of the public. We are still waiting for full testimony on the tendency of the site and operations to truly understand the project's traffic implications. The assumption that suitable infrastructure exists simply because the
zone permits industrial uses is contracted uh uh contradicted by the very recommendations for road widening and the clear limitations of Homestead Road. Third, uh we cannot ignore the significant environmental impact and stream corridor concerns. The site is located near the Roycebrook as we know.
Uh the proposed involves clear cutting a massive number of trees. Uh this is a level of deforestation inevitably requires extensive changes to the existing typography and has been argued contributes to climate change and releasing stored carbon. Furthermore, uh there are ongoing concerns regarding the
the applicability of the township stream corridor ordinance to this property and potential violations of the freshwater wetland protection act. There's not minor technically these are not minor technicalities. They are critical issues affecting the ecological health of our community. The environmental commission
has expressed concerns and the watershed institute has urged the board to delay the action until the environmental issues are resolved. Uh we need to ensure that any development does not exacerbate existing drainage issues or negatively impact sensitive environmental areas. Le uh to the fourth
major concern to store water management deficiencies. The project proposes uh proposes a substantial increase in impervious surface coverage over 900,000 square feet. While the applicant states their detention basins conform to the state and municipality regulations, questions have been raised about the
inadequacies of the soil testing for the storm water system designed. There's also been discussion regarding the points of analysis for storm water flow into tributaries of the Royce book. While the applicant states the NJ DOP approved was granted based on a single point of analysis should be concerned about the potential scoring or erosion
of other discharge points. Effective storm water management is critical to prevent flooding and protect downstream properties, neighboring towns and natural resources. And we as a town need to assure uh the assurance that the proposed system is truly robust enough to handle the increased runoff from such
a vast imperous surfaces especially considering the sensitivity of nearby areas and the past concerns about storm water discharge and the exacerbated flooding that we experience in Hillsboro and that of Manville. Fifth, the development of the fundamental incompata the the development is fundamentally
incompatible with the community charter. Uh the master pans s sought to incorporate employment areas near the residential neighborhoods in a way that is preserves for their peace and solitude. This project with its massive buildings, const uh uh constant truck
traffic and destruction of the natural features is arguably to be in opposite of that goal. It represents an utterly inappropriate sky scale and size that will severely impact the neighboring residents health and well-being and lead
to the diminished quality of life. In the submitted community impact statement, there's analysis on the pro population cohorts, but the impact goes beyond demographics. It affects the very fabric of our community for safety and our environment. The lack of pedestrian or bicycle connections on the site and
along Homestead Road further emphasize the autocentric model that is incu incompatible with the pedestrianoriented community goal. And finally, for the speculative nature of this development leaves significant questions unanswered. We still lack critical details regarding
the proposed uses and operations of the buildings. We do not know the exact number of employees per shift or the specific operation details that will dictate the actual traffic generation noise or other impacts. This lack of clarity makes it incredible difficult, if not impossible, for this board to
public uh and the public to fully assess the project's impact. The applicants council acknowledges that they will provide testimony on tenency and operations and that requirement for this information has been ongoing. After years of hearings, this fundamental information remains elusive. Approving a
project of this magnitude without clear understanding of its operation reality is akin to buying a pig and a poke. Good one, right? I didn't know that one before I researched it. Uh we won't know the full consequence until it's too late. As the planning board, you obviously have a duty to perform the
diligence site planned review and vigorous enforcement of the principles and standards embodied in the master plan and land development regulations. Based on the evidence presented, this proposal, in my opinion, does not satisfy the intent and purpose of the TECD zone or multiple design standards.
The concerns raised regarding excessive scale, traffic dangers, environmental destruction, storm water issues, incompatibility with our community, and the speculative nature of the applications are not minor. They strike at the heart of whether this development
is appropriate for Hillsbor. I implore you to consider the overwhelming evidence demonstrating the fundamental de deficiencies and negative impacts of this proposed warehouse development. Please listen to the concerns of the residents who will bear the brunt of these impacts. Do not let this incompatible, oversized, and speculative
project to proceed. Deny this application for the health, safety, and welfare and the uh the character of our community. Thank you for your time. Good evening. Good evening. Keith Sherman, 16
Walnut Grove Road, not affiliated. Uh we've heard all sorts of facts and figures, data referencing studies, manuals, charts, graphs produced by various local, county, state, and federal agencies, as well as
professional and scientific entities. None of that is relevant to this specific case because all that tells us is that the average for hundreds or thousands of studies is X. They can't give us specifics because there is no
actual tenant. So everything they're telling us is theoretical at best and certainly misleading. I'd like to introduce some reality. I have decades of experience in field of warehousing, distribution, logistics and trucking. I have hands-on
experience. I was involved in warehouse productivity studies, site location project management. I functioned as an internal consultant for a number of major retail companies. As an example to show why the numbers are irrelevant, I
had one case where I was assigned to a half a million square foot building, a 100 doors. We generated a thousand truck moves a day and that was just a typical day. I was assigned to a million square foot building. I was director of logistics.
We had 50 doors and I moved 50 trucks a day. Million square feet. So you have two opposite ends of the spectrum. And all we know is that the building is going to be x square feet. Uh Mr. Dean himself at the last time he testified said himself that
there is no correlation between the number of doors, the size of the building, and the number of truck moves a day. And what I've just told you is an example of why we need to assume worst case scenario. They'll tell you anything. I used to do what they do. You
can make the facts say anything you want, but we have to live with the reality. They're going to go home and we're going to be left with the results. Mr. Dean also mentioned that there would be no security entrances. Every building
I was assigned to had security gates, assigned uh security guards. There were uh schedules, receiving times. Everybody had appointments and nobody was allowed in without one. At one point, we had so many trucks waiting to come in for their
appointments, we had to pay to widen the road leading to our facility. Uh Mr. Dean also said that there was no need to widen Homestead Road. There was no reason for a turning lane and there's no problem with the trucks exiting the
facility, making right turns. He thought that they'd be able to stay in the one lane. building of this size just doesn't belong in that location. At any time in my experience, if I had recommended that site for that kind of a facility, they
would have shown me the door. And at I come to all these meetings, meeting after meeting, I changed the words. From a professional standpoint, that location for that type of a facility, the only word that comes to mind is stupid.
Let's see. Uh, Mr. Dean also stated that the traffic study they did was at both ends of Homestead Road. I don't believe he mentioned anything about studying any traffic upstream or downstream from 206
to neighboring communities. We've had the the mayor of Manville here to protest. Now, we've had Montgomery here making their case known. There is no intention to do anything to widen the intersection at 206 in Homestead Road.
And as you know, if you've experienced driving around here, the trucks cannot make that turn without ending up on the other side. And the same thing is true even on Hillsboro Road, which is wider. Mr. Dean said if there was any need to change that intersection at 206
in Homestead Road that that's not their problem. It's the state's problem. And the planners who planned the bypass obviously didn't think Homestead Road would ever be used for this type of facility. There's no entrance, no exit. And now hundreds, if
not more, trucks daily are now going to be using what we've designated Main Street Hillsboro. Willow Road and River Road have now become main north south corridors because nobody wants to deal with 206 or the bypass for that matter. Rush hour is
a nightmare if you have to turn onto Willow Road from 206 um from uh Hillsboro Road. And it's not unusual to see large trucks parked on 206 in front of Burger King, The Diner,
McDonald's. Now add hundreds of trucks. The drivers need some place to stop for lunch. They need some place to spend their eight or 10 hour sleep breaks. Where are they going to park? When I was driving, I parked at the Lowe's. I had permission to park
there over the weekend. How many hundreds of trucks can park at Lowe's? New Jersey does not have any truck stops in the area. 206 is the road to nowhere. My experience driving take me sometimes an
hour to get from here to Princeton. Warehouse and distribution centers of this size should only be located along major highways. And as a driver, there were times I had to call for police assistance because I found myself on a residential road. I couldn't
maneuver safely and they had to back me out. And finally, the proposal doesn't make sense even from the developer point of view. I don't understand why they're maintaining the adeimacy to have such a facility. Why not make it something more
conducive to the neighborhood? And as a professional and as a neighborhood resident, it's frightening to think that that could happen here in Hillsboro. Thank you.
[Applause] Nathisha three deer run. Anyone who comes to Hillsboro knows that this is a special town. The streets are safe, the air is clean, and it's beautifully
green. This is why families move here. This is why we have so many homes here. And in this part of town where they want to build a hair the warehouse, you can still look up and see a sky full of stars. This is what's at stake in this
application. This is what's at stake for the families who live here, the families who've poured their life savings into homes here, and the ones who look to make a future. This warehouse will irreversibly change our landscape. It will increase
flooding risks to nearby homes. It will fill the air with pollution and noise because of the daily barrage of truck traffic. And it is this road that our school buses use to take our kids to school, to high school, to middle school, to intermediate school. This is
the road where the new shop will be built. Anyone who lives on this side of town or comes here for school or groceries will have to contend with truck after truck after truck just to complete their daily responsibilities. You need to get to Walgreens, you're
going to have to deal with the trucks. You need to get to the doctor, you're going to have to deal with the trucks. The increased traffic, the noise, the congestion, it will make an already busy route even harder for families, students, and shoppers.
And we know from testimony two sessions ago that the truck traffic forecast in the report was based on observing similar warehouses for just one day. Just one day. There is no way that report can reliably predict what we will actually
face. Beyond the environmental and traffic concerns have we fully considered the cost of the application. First and most obvious, our roads will need constant repair from the truck traffic. We'll need more police patrols to keep our school buses safe and keep
our residents safe. Who is going to pay for that? And then there's the impact on our homes. How attractive will our homes be to potential buyers with a warehouse in our backyard? How many families will want to spend their life savings on a home in this
area? And how will this affect property values and the tax revenue they generate that fuels our town and keeps our streets safe? And what about the rest of us who have built our lives here? We've invested in our homes, our schools, our community. Are we just accept are we
just supposed to accept the financial hit when our property values decline? And what percentage is that going to be? And when you compound that for home after home after home, how much of the revenue is going to be impacted when nobody wants to move
here? And long term, what happens to our schools, our services, what happens to the quality of life that makes Hillsboro such a special place to live? This is what's at stake. It isn't just business. This is personal, and
it's as personal as it gets. We urge you to reject this application because it is wrong for our town. Thank you. Hi, good evening. Uh Jim Magged, 18 19 Beetle Street, Belmeid, New Jersey, Montgomery Township. Not represented by
anyone here. Um I've only been here attending the meetings about for the last nine months or so. Um, and I applaud all of you for enduring this long process of of considering this community, this development. Um, but I just from our perspective, from the
Montgomery Township perspective, the downstream perspective, if you will, um, I just wanted to echo some things that have also already been said very eloquently. Um, but I just want to reinforce what's been said. Um, the traffic studies that that I'm familiar with that were done here were done
really at the 206 and Homestead Road intersection. Um, and I don't think that that was a very extensive study from what I understood, but anyway, the the studies were done there. Um, but there was no consideration that I'm aware of of the the bypass intersection with 206,
which in itself is a disaster of a design. And um it there's just, you know, inevitably going to be accidents there in the near future because in the last two weeks, I've seen two or three truck track tractor trailer trucks uh come down from going south on 206 and
making a left at that intersection at Mountain View. Now, you know, off off the road onto the side shoulder and really disrupting traffic flow as that happens. So, as we generate more traffic of that same nature, um it's a real concern in that intersection. Um, going
down a little bit further, you have the the 601 exit uh off of 206, which um is being used more and more by uh commercial traffic, tractor trailers, dump trucks. Um, and typically they are unfamiliar with the area and traveling
at a pretty strong rate of speed. And when they make that right hand turn onto 601, um if you're sitting there waiting at the traffic light, it's a pretty pretty scary uh adventure to have this tractor trailer bailing down on you. So, um it's another thing for you to
consider u with this additional traffic. Um, and the fact that there's no bypass entrance on for Homestead Road is really, I think, a deal breaker here because when you're forcing all this traffic now out on the 206, um, there's a lot of a lot of concerns that were
expressed here tonight in terms of just those large tractor trailers entering onto 206. And with ongoing traffic there, what's the impact going to be with the residential vehicles that they're encountering? Um, and and again, most of these tractor trailer drivers are probably going to be unfamiliar with
the area, so they're not really sure which way they're going. They're not really sure how they get back to the main artery potentially. So, there's there's a lot of consideration there. Um, it's interesting that um, for some reason, we haven't been told what the
actual use is for this warehouses, these warehouses. We've been told that it won't be this and it won't be that, and it won't be that, but we haven't been told what it will be. And if I was going to buy an automobile, you know, if I'm going to buy a car, I I want to know what the car's features are. I want to
be able to drive the car. I want to understand and appreciate the car and and therefore be able to more educatedly select that vehicle. I don't know how the board could could consider this application without really knowing what the end product's going to be. I mean, other than the fact that it's a
structure, um what's going to happen inside and how's that going to impact the community that we represent? And finally, I think that that's a major reason why in all these months of attending these meetings and talking to various people who have been here and endured the three years, um I've never
heard anybody come in here and say I support the application. So that's a that's a huge indication to me that it's just not the right fit for this area. So with that in mind, I thank you for your time. I appreciate it and I hope you will consider denying this application.
Thank you. [Applause] Good. Good evening. Paul Mlei. Uh, I've been a I'm not affiliated with anybody here. I've been a 40-year long resident of Hillsboro at three different
locations. Most recently for the last 22 years at at White Meadow, one of those houses that I'll be looking out my back door at at a warehouse. Excuse me. My backyard, my fence line is approximately 1,300 ft from from the uh projects that
are being built. My home, especially my backyard, has been everything to my family since we moved in. We built a real b real nice oasis out there. Still love it. We chose to raise our family here despite commuting into New York for
30 years because of the safety, support, and the overall country-like setting in Hillsboro. Excuse me. Everything that's allowed us to hang these signs on the front of the building and in this room. All the changes if these projects go through, everything that that all
changes with all the the the loss sacrificing public safety, congestion, noise, pollution to our roads and our neighborhoods. The project will be releasing hundreds of trucks weekly that will have to access and exit these facilities through
residential developments that border willow ammo roads and other residential roads to in order to access Western Canal Road for points east. The alternative is a steep rise up Homestead Road to Route 206 that is traveled by me
many residents, high school and middle school students via cars and buses. We don't even know the the final uses of these warehouse until they are built. These are spec warehouses, deratables from these projects. It's not worth it
in a long time time. I said before that we had to deal with a lot of pro problems uh in the community over the years, the bypass 206 widen, but we understood what these projects were all about. They were part of the master plan and they were good for the community.
We understood that they were all good for the community and the township and the master plan. They helped the township gain all these accolades that uh we've been able to post over the years. My family and I don't understand how these projects, hundreds of trucks on already crowded roads is good for
that master plan, no matter how high the variables will be able to get. We heard from a New Jersey law enforcement officer last month who spent his entire career dealing in law enforcement and trucking industry. His comments on how
truck drivers will just ignore road weight limits on Willow Road for a ticket. That's scary. and the driver and when a driver hits his maximum hour meter and have to park wherever they are and can only and that parking can only
be enforced by state agencies. Again, that's scary for community having trucks parked all over the place. Short and to the point, these projects if these projects go through, warehouses mean more trucks passing through our neighborhood create creating more congestion. More trucks and warehouses
mean more of everything. traffic, noise, pollution, lights, and deterioration of our roads and the potential flooding that we've seen before with the uh building of the warehouses. More trucks mean fewer safe roads for pedestrians,
cyclists, and children. More trucks and warehouses mean our property values go down. And it won't be long that we'll be have we'll have to change these signs there. Um that's why I'm recommending to the board here that we not approve these projects.
[Applause] Hello, Natalie Garmin, 53 Windingway, Hillsboro. First off, I want to thank everybody for their time behind me, in front of me, all around. I know it was a lot of time, a lot of time well spent, a
lot of time maybe wasted. Um, first I want to say I agree with the points that have been made by my neighbors and uh and the remarks that they made. So I'm going to try to not rehash anything. I've been crossing things out so that I don't go through things that have already been said. So for contemplative
question that I have first. So sitting as just a a layman listening to the expert testimony and responses to questions and thinking about it from a speculative perspective. There's forecasted reports
on traffic, on environmental impact, on all different kinds of things. How often do we go back and say, were those speculations and predictions correct? And what happens if they're not? Because the cost is already there. the
warehouse, the building, whatever it is, is already there. We can't knock it down. It's there. So, the impact is already done. Who takes the responsibility for that. And when does it go away? It doesn't. So, once it's there, it's there forever. Whether or
not we have an occupant, whether or not it's partially occupied, we have an occupant and we have a building and we have whatever traffic comes along with it. Some of the neighbors brought up things um certainly that I I had on here and I
crossed off. I want to go back to the subdivision because Mr. Bernstein actually talked about the sub subdivision early on. The subdivision is not required but it's a huge profitable benefit to only
the developer. I specifically asked about this early in the process and the developers witness, I think it was the planner or something like that, clearly articulated the one-sided benefit. At that point, Mr. Birdstein advised them that they were proceeding at their own
risk. Quotes. There was no compelling reason or guarantee that this subdivision would be granted. However, they chose to proceed without revising their plan in any significant way that impacted their request for a subdivision on two
separate buildable lots. The subdivision approval needed for the plans the way that they were submitted is totally unnecessary to have anything built. It only benefits the developer and the seller while causing irrepable harm to the land and the community
surrounding it. So therefore, I'm strongly, very strongly against a subdivision that primarily benefits the developer and not the taxpayers, not the residents, not the businesses in town, but yet the developer. It will very likely strain
our local resources, as you've heard about, reduce our property values, which you've heard about, and disrupt our community cohesion. I'd rather encourage solutions that offer clear benefits to the broader community and not just the developers
profits. This approach safeguards the well-being of current residents and ensures any development aligns with the town's long-term vision and our values. Promoting responsible benefits every propose proposing responsible development benefits everyone and
prevents short-sighted decisions driven strongly by profit alone. So steering clear of development centric plans and advocating for the community's best interests is key to long-term success that page. So I do expect and I
hope for very thoughtful and very um full development and disclosure amongst the planning board as you're making your decision. Things that respect the way of our life and our well-being of future generations as well. Let's protect our neighborhoods
from industrial encroachment and champion sustainable growth. Let's stand firm in safeguarding our community's character. We as local residents and taxpayers reject the proposed warehouse plan. Championing responsible
development that honors our shared values and future is really most important to this board. So, let's work collectively. We're not against each other. We are working collectively together um to ensure our community's voice shapes its future. By working together, we can create a future that
respects our past and embraces that sustain sustainable growth. Let's act now and ensure his Hillsboro remains a place we're proud to call home. So please, please deny this proposal. There are no solid reasons
that the proposal should be accepted. And when it goes to court, which we've been hearing all along, oh, it's going to court. It's going to court. So, when it goes to court, we want to stand firm and we want the judge to understand all of the valid points that we bring so that it's not argumentative. Thank you
very much. [Applause] Rich Garmin, 53 Winding Way. I'm not affiliated with anybody but my
wife. Uh so here we are three years into these meetings. I believe me and my wife have been here throughout because this impacts us probably more than anyone. We're adjacent to this monstrosity of a building. Okay. our property borders the
biggest warehouse. All right, we will be directly impacted. All right, I understand that you know the landowner has a right to develop their property. Well, this zone was originally CDZ zone which was 50 acres zoning in 2010 and
2011 in front of some of these exact board members. You convinced it to go down to five acres zoning. Now they bring up that they want to subdivide the land into bigger pieces. I I believe you know the intent was to keep things
smallsized. All right. The there's no hardship if the subdivision were denied which it doesn't have to be approved. There has to be a benefit to the community as well as to the land owner. Okay. So with that in mind, I'd like to
know because I've seen no reports. Has the town done its due diligence on home valuations when warehouses or buildings of this size are put next to residential areas? I haven't seen any research reports. Another thing I haven't seen is
any reports on crime rate increases. Uh you know, when you put in warehouses of this size, have we done a research to see what happens to crime in the area? I haven't seen those. We've listened to testimony throughout these proceedings, some good, some bad, and some just
utterly ridiculous. A few points I would like to stress. I already hit the subdivision. Uh the land can be developed as it is without the subdivision. So there's no hardship to be rendered there. Okay. Now, we heard testimony on water management and the
elevation of the water basins, the retention basins is going to force pressure to downstream even when Roycebrook is above flood stage. So, water is going to empty into that stream regardless of how much flooding is
already occurring. Okay. So, now through all of this, I believe, like my wife said, it's going to get to the courts one way or the other. When it does, I believe it's going to come down to what was the intent of this zone. Okay? No judge can tell you what this board
intended for this zone. But luckily for us, we have two members, Mr. Sarra and Mr. Wagner, who were here in 2010, in 2011. And I encourage all board members to reread those transcripts from those meetings because there was board
members, some of them no longer with us, but they represented the board and they sold the zoning to the residents at that time. They made promises. They spelled it out what could and couldn't go there. And I'd like that to be reviewed by you
guys to make sure that there's integrity amongst the board and what you sell things to the public. I think that's it. Yep, that's it. So, thank you for your time and I do hope you deny this application.
[Applause] Out of respect for Hills, I'll go last. Good evening board members, chairman. My name is Richard Anderero.
Um 921 Lewis Street in the Burough of Manville. I'm not associated with any of the objectors and I'm not speaking tonight as an elected official. I'm speaking as a resident of Somerset County and a lifelong resident of the
Burough of Manville. This is pretty simple to sum up this application in two words. Common sense. Where is the common sense? Similar to the Weston LLC
warehouse application, dislocation makes no sense. A yellow doublelinined single lane country road in each direction does not fit the
intense use of the proposed project. I worked in Piscataway for over 30 years. So that may make me a traffic expert to some degree. Took me eight hours to get home one night.
Piscataway warehouses are next to Interstate 287, Clover Leaf Exchanges, and have wide doublelaned roads leading to and from. We all know Route 206 is a
complete disaster. This project adversely hurts the Roycebrook watershed, sending hundreds of thousands of gallons of runoff to my town during more more intense rainfall
events. So I ask, why this location? That is something only the applicant can answer, but it's clear to me they have no common sense in selecting this location. Board members, please use your
common sense and deny this application for so many reasons previously stated. It is a serious quality of life issue that harms our environment and surrounding homeowners in the area.
Please deny this application. unanimously. Thank you board [Applause] members. Elaine Welsh, Orchard Drive. I
live on the whole other end of town, but I'm here and I've been here a lot and I'm not really I don't have a prepared statement and everything else. I'm just kind of speaking off the cuff. Why did we build the
bypass? It was to alleviate traffic in our downtown area. This warehouse, just like we were saying here, is not in the right place. I'm not against warehouses. Warehouses are necessary, but not in this location, not
in a neighborhood, not with roadways that have no access to highways. The bypass has been in proposal for many, many, many years. Let's face it, for anyone who knows the interstates, there was supposed to be an interstate coming down the route of 20
206 joining 287 to 295. That never happened. 206 was here. The bypass had been proposed for many years. It was supposed to have a different pathway, but over the course of time that's changed and we know Pike
Run was built. There are a lot of reasons for it. I understand that. But here we are with the bypass. The state designed the bypass. They put in access ramps on the bypass in various locations. Did they put an access ramp on Homestead Road?
No. because there was no foresight that that would be an area that would be accessible for warehousing or traffic volume and trucks that's proposed with this proposal. There's no reason why we should be diverting all this truck
traffic into our downtown area. The bypass is wasted money, wasted effort if we allow all these trucks to go through our downtown area. I don't think I've heard anything from the prop the people who are proposing this about talking
about access to the bypass. They could have proposed to the state, hey, let's build an access point at Homestead Road in the bypass. There was none of that. There was no access road to access what's the next road down that
has the interchange. Hillsboro Road. There was no proposal for an access point from the warehouse to hit that so they could hit the bypass. None of that. All of this traffic is going to go into our downtown area. Every reason that these other people have spoken about I
agree with. But my thing just to talk about is why did we build the bypass if we're going to put all this traffic on our town? Thank you. [Applause]
David Brookke winding way seven. I don't know these people. As as you know, I've been here the whole time since the first hearing
and have, as most of you members of the audience tonight who have also been here, I've watched, excuse me, I've watched, I've listened, and I've questioned the applicant's witnesses in an attempt to understand
how these two giant warehouse monoliths could possibly conform to the requirements of the EC D zone. I've not been convinced and I think the planning board should not be either. But first, I want to thank
Chairman Sarra, the board members, township planner, David Kois, our township engineer, Mr. Mayhew, and township attorney, Mr. Bernstein for your patience, for your
insightfulness and your willingness to listen to not just the applicant, but also the five formal objectors and the public as we search for the answers to the ultimate question. Nobody knew that
the ultimate question was going to be presented in Hillsboro. I know that all of you realize we're not here for the entertainment, but it has been good as much as the simple fact that we
care about the future of the township and are willing to work collaboratively to protect it. And I think you've heard that from everyone who's spoken. The common denominator for everybody who
has spoken so far has simply been that we care about this town and we want to make the best decisions so that everybody can be benefited and also everybody can be protected. Second, as strange as it sounds, I want
to thank the applicant for proposing these two outlandish, giant monstrosities and Mr. Geianetti for his condescending, disrespectful, and intimidating
behavior. This proposal in the uncompromising manner he's making notes. This proposal and the uncompromising manner in which it has been pursued has only acted to
crystallize broad-based and fact-based community opposition and that has been incredibly motivating. This arrogant approach and behavior towards us has become a unifying force across
Hillsboro, bringing both Democrats and Republicans together and independents who have all worked tirelessly through these last 23 public hearings to object and to fight this illconceived proposal.
Third, I want to thank the growing list of all of my friends and neighbors who have generously provided their time and creative energy to participate, persevere, and push for what is best for Hillsboro. I also want to thank the five formal
objectors who have tirelessly rallied their resources to present their critical probing questions of the applicant's experts and providing their own experts whose testimony has overwhelmingly demonstrated the app that
the applicants engineering, traffic planning and others testimony cannot be trusted to provide honest information. These objectors have played a unique and an instrumental role in the
search for the truth and each has played a critical role in aiding the planning board, aiding all of you to now be able to make a fully informed decision as to this application. So, what's the idea of an acceptable proposal for this
transitional economic development district zone? You've heard a number of people talk about it. I kind of describe it a little bit differently. I think of it visually like steps in my house. You have my house nearby with my neighbors
as the bottom step. The next step is the intermediate one. That's part of the TECD. And the final top step is the higher intensity use on Striker Lane appropriately. I'm sorry. appropriate use in TECD is bigger than
the intense use on Striker Lane and the commercial spaces and thus named transitional as defined in part A of section 188-107.2 of the code and the legislative history from page 12 of the
planning board minutes from December 9th, 2010. quote, "It's meant to indicate a transition of intensity between residential and industrial." Here's the problem. If you place the applicant's proposal on the
second step, instead of it being transitional, I think it's like placing the Empire State Building on that second step. It just doesn't fit the zone. It's way out of proportion. It's simply non-conforming in every way. Too big, too intense, too much truck traffic, too
many cars, too much noise, too much air, light, and storm water pollution, too non-conformingly disruptive as to its disrespect for the lay of the land and our neighborhoods. Literally on the property line that we live on next to it, and too visually out of place considering size
and scope by packing nine football fields of buildings. So, you've heard the testimony of memory of many other members of the public who have spoken on unanswered and unresolved issues with this applicant's different topics. So,
in addition to the basic common sense conclusions that this proposal was too intense for this zoning location, I'll briefly mention two other issues with the application in the TECD zone. First, as I mentioned, size and scale. The applicant is proposing to
build the Empire State Building and it does not fit the requirements of the zone 188-1072B. All uses shall be provided at a scale and size that is appropriate for the district. That's not happening. Second, the applicant has ignored the
other requirement in TECD that quote, "Buildings and site improvements shall be designed to minimize changes to existing topography and mature vegetation. Cutting down hundreds of trees, creating a,000 ft by 350 ft tabletop monolith and
a second one that's 300 by 450 ft. and the need for almost 3/4 of a mile of retaining walls up to 21 feet tall fails to conform to the requirement to say the least. Uh and that's in
188-107.2 F1 small A1. I know you all know that. So we need a good neighbor and an applicant that work wants to work with the township to develop a use that is complimentary to the
community. The applicant has offered nothing to the community and has not been willing to compromise on anything. In addition, the applicant has failed to be fully candid with the planning board and the public, failing to follow the requirements, as was mentioned before
about concerns on the railroad, failing to even seek a waiver under the pipeline buffer ordinances 188-175 is not acceptable, and who knows how many other things that the applicant has been playing cat-and- mouse with the township on. Let's also not forget about
whether the applicant is Homestead Road LLC or Enhance Acquisitions LLC. And this is also a non-conforming subdivision as other individuals have mentioned. I'm only going to say that a
scorched earth approach or we'll fix it later on by the applicant does not make a conforming application. Um may I also state that the applicant doesn't tell us what it wants. It has to conform to the application and the
required criteria. I believe the application and the applicant has failed to do so. One last thought. You may recall at the very first hearing I brought a sign that read say no to Amazon and it asked the
question as to who was proposing to build these giant warehouses. The applicant was quick to state this was not going to be an Amazon warehouse. And I asked the board now after 23 public hearings and roughly 70 hours of
testimony, do we know more than I'm sorry, do we know more with any testimony clarity that this applicant is not building an Amazon warehouse? The answer is a definitive no. Since after all this testimony, the applicant has only told us these warehouses are being
built on speculation. So, it could be an Amazon warehouse, especially since the applicant has not been candid or even honest as to who is actually the developer or if it even has the right to subdivide the property. My understanding under section
188-31E is that speculation uses, including warehouses, are not allowed. In many respects, we know less today than we did when the application was begun. I also want to reiterate which I'm sure other people have said under the municipal land use law it is it is
that the applicant has the responsibility to set before all of you members of the board the evidence necessary for you to decide whether this application is approved. meaning the applicant has the burden of proof to convince the planning board to act
favorably towards it based upon all the testimony presented in the cross-examination of the applicant's experts and the objectors I will say credible expert contradictory testimony and Mr. Kois's and Mr. may use detailed
final reports. I believe the applicant has failed to meet the burden of proof and I therefore asked the planning board to vote to deny this application. I thought about how I could summarize and focus on all that has transpired throughout these three years of hearings. It's not easy. I decided to
sum it up a little bit differently. And so I've drafted a closing poem for your consideration. Since I'm thinking and hoping that maybe, just maybe, this summary brings a sense of poetic justice
to these proceedings, as well as a candid acknowledgement of what has transpired. The poem is titled Homestead Road LLC and the infamous TECD. This is the land of the transitional
economic development district. The applicant has made it sound like its proposal is as simple as Bisquick. Their plan is to build two giant warehouses on Old Homestead Road,
but the location is totally unsuitable and we all know it can't handle a load. The Homestead Road topography is really hilly. So building the equivalent of nine flat flat football fields is pretty darn
silly. The problem is giant warehouses don't fit in this TEC zone. However, Mr. Gianetti says it will be better than a tasty ice cream cone. He has brought his experts who say no
impact and the birds will fly in the skies and trust us since we really know how to pull the wool over your eyes. The fact of the matter is their experts are just hired guns who have developed objection chairman. This this
is achieving nothing other than insulting the applicant and trying to call us liars the whole time. This is achieving nothing. This is public comment to present testimony on the application from the public or comments with respect to it, not some theater to just insult the applicant the entire
time. It's a story and I believe I have the right to finish my poem. Didn't think we'd have a debate over poems, but I will continue. The fact of the matter is their experts are just hired guns who have developed a
lengthy reputation of speaking in forkid tongues. Their experts don't care about the harm it will cause as they speak in their high-priced suits since they get paid to shine the rotten apple while trying to convince the planning board that it all
computes. Never mind the facts since they say it will all be great. They want us to think we have no other fate. Well, that's not true. And the residents in this town are up in arms since they know the land would still be better if left
as farms. We residents hope the planning board will recognize the absurdity of it all. And after the objectors and the public have spoken, we hope the board will heed the call. We are told you can't stop development but if it doesn't
fit then as the saying goes it should not ship or in this case be approved by now it should be ob should also be obvious that the applicant has failed to meet its burden of proof so we think that means that the planning board
should not be spoofed or make a goof plain English translation is it's time for the planning board to vote to deny the Homestead Road LLC application mess. This warehouse fiasco can finally be
denied and everyone in Hillsboro will feel blessed. Thank you for the privilege of providing this semi-poetic diddy. I'm only hoping it will get us thinking on the best way to help protect our city.
Respectfully submitted, and I do mean that. And I want to thank you all for listening and most importantly voting to deny this application. Thank you, David Brook. [Music] [Applause]
I know we're coming up against the uh witching hour. So I I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that Miss Hos be the last witness or last public member for this evening. I do have a rather lengthy discussion with the board
who I'd like think would like to go home before the midnight hour. So, um the board's current time of decision is the end of July. We have a July meeting at the end
of July. fourth meeting. Well, this believe there's a business meeting scheduled. I know the chairman hates this proposition, but there are no meetings in August. So, I think we need to get at least another meeting in
before the to so we can deal with what comes from that thereafter. And the July 10th meeting is currently scheduled for the Harvard Remand. Okay. Mr. Bernstein was not expecting you to um to ask about July.
We currently have some other applications that we're looking to put on there. Um the alternative is to take a piece of the July 10th meeting, but not a lot of it because
you've got the remand and at some point you're going to have to though it is pretty much the same cast for Harvard that it is for this application. So that's the alternative. Mr. Chairman, is this start meeting are
are we looking to get before time decision just a complete public and closing arguments? I think to close the public then we'll see. I'd rather power through now. What I'd rather power through because I don't think we're going to get a July meeting
in Yeah. I I'd like to get a see who from the public still would want to comment on this application. Okay. So we I just want to say call Mr. Chairman I'd rather power through to get the public done. We're
going to do the three that raised their hands and that that'll be it. Okay. Yeah. And I would like you to just get up and be in line so we can get through. All right. Yep. Are we good? Yep. Okay. Judy Hos,
Titus Corp at Hillsboro, not associated with anybody. Four score minus 77 years ago, this application was brought to the planning board and the then planner David Masky demonstrated incredible vision by saying, quote, so good evening
everybody. First of all, it's highly unlikely that this will be decided tonight. If you don't get your chance tonight, there'll definitely be two or three additional hearings and we'll see how that goes. That was May 12th,
2022. Well, he was right. Uh 23 1020 and tonight the 24th meeting on this abomination which never should have been accepted for hearing. Continuing that evening, there have been some fundamental problems that have really
bothered me. The then attorney at the time described the property as being boarded on the north and south by agricultural properties on the west by Route 206 and the railroad TSX railroad. I think that was a misrepresentation. Property on the north
and east is clearly residential and that wasn't mentioned. You've seen all the people at these hearings. West is the 206 bypass, not 206. And it seemed to me in retrospect that the whole issue of this being a residential area was
ignored. Then they talked about the lots. Lot 32, which was 68 acres, vacant, formerly housed the hog farm. It also housed some school buses, we found out, but I'll move on from that. Approximately half of that was
supposedly a Q farm, which stands for qualified farm or maybe questionable farm. and paying under $100 a year for in taxes on 30 plus acres. Lot 33 is 20 acres and contains various agricultural
and commercial buildings. Uh that was a little bit of an under representation since it also contains a hazardous waste site as defined by Hillsboro's natural resources guide and a house and a business. Uh, we learned in the sales
contract that it also may or may not include a cemetery or some easements to a cemetery or other rights according to that contract. And nobody has said one word about that until right now. Hopefully, somebody will address that
before cement or asphalt is poured over a cemetery. Then we were told told that for purposes of the subdivision, the applicants proposing to move the existing lot line separating lots 32 and 33 resulting in a
lot of um 39 acres and another lot of I'm um condensing this uh up to 49.10 acres. So the plan was to add property to a hazardous waste site with a business, a house, and a cemetery
already on it. So I don't understand how people are able to subdivide properties that are owned by different people without merging them first under a new ownership, which was never done. But throughout this application, the plans,
the reports, and everything else moved forward with a property line in the middle of a proposed monster warehouse. And the proposals should have been bifurcated and presented on their own merits in two applications. There was no
merger, no subdivision, no bifurcation. And frankly, the two separate applications because they were never intended to be unified. That's why you don't see the pedestrian connections within the property. So, I find that
whole thing exceptionally presumptuous. And then two other little minor issues. You shouldn't sign a planning board application as Homestead Road LLC of Boca Raton, Florida, when in fact the contract purchaser of one of the properties was enhanced acquisitions
of New York City. You shouldn't have your attorney state that they are both single member entities when your own website and various sources of information mention other names as a co-founder and managing partner and another director of acquisitions. Do we
want to talk about Evan Dolan and Benji Shanzer here? I guess not. And then of course there was a matter of having the so-called oneowner of enhance assign the contract to the so-called oneowner of Homestead Road LLC of Boca Raton who of
course was the same person. Wow. How do you do that? Then we learned there was a prior contract purchaser for one of the properties who was s suing the owner for bailing on their agreement and I think which I think was for housing which
really would have been outrageous on a hazardous waste site and nobody on the planning board knows anything about the larger of the two pieces of this property because we've never seen the owner. We've never seen the contract which should be available especially because of this ownership confusion.
Then we learned that the proposal was not to build one but two massive warehouses in a zone where size and scale matters. Massive is the nicest word I can use. At the risk of having their new attorney attacked me like he attacked
Brian and Ena for doing their best to provide a visual representation, which the developer should have done, I'll make this real easy. Building one alone is humongous gigantic Titanic. Actually,
it's more than Titanic because the boat by that name, if anybody wants to cue the music, was only 882 feet long and 92 feet wide. So technically this building is 1,025 by 360. You could park three
Titanics in the square footage of this one building on this property. The length alone is the height of the Chrysler building in New York and the Eiffel Tower in Paris. If you know any
of those buildings, they are large. As lovely as they are, does that fit in Hillsboro? I don't think so. Then we heard about the fiscal surf surplus of 164,000 or 171,000 if you take Art
Bernard's report or Chris Croone's report um for the township 950,000 to 915 for the schools. actually um they have slightly different numbers,
but I'd say 164,000 or 171,000 will not pay for any street in our town to be reconstructed or repaved from all of the truck traffic that this project will clearly create. Nor for the police coverage that will be necessary, nor for
the emergency services and public works assistance for the property damage from flooding that this will cause. and $950,000 will not benefit the schools at all other than lowering the tax rate because it's meaningless when you have a
cap budget and reassessment raise taxes around here for residents no matter how much new development goes on. The whole methodology of this report is ridiculous and it's based on a cost per employee which not for the cost of infrastructure
impacts and damage and repair. None of the developers ever went up to the microphone to present and question and be questioned about their project. I saw many developers do that when I worked in New York. They provided beautiful detailed models and brochures
and they had a lot of pride in the reasons why their projects would benefit the city. They had lawyers, too, but they didn't speak for them. If you can only speak to a false amount of surplus money um that the township will not truly reap, I have a problem with you.
This does not do anything positive for Hillsboro. There are no public amenities included, no redeeming qualities, and no mitigation effort on any of the huge impacts. So what was proposed in a transitional zone transitional between
residential farm and open space to a light industrial area with 330 square feet of space. 330,000 square feet of space in 33 small buildings. We get nine football fields of warehouse
space, 90 docks, 137 parking spaces for trailers, 281 other parking spaces, and a 247 365 operation. Thank you very much. I know you're going into deliberations. Please vote no for the
following reasons among others. One, application incomplete us to tenant and potential problems with noise and pollution. That's speculative development contrary to 18831E1 size and scale. Number two, size
and scale absurd by all definitions. Three, master plan goal for the TECD for design that quote design that assures peace and solitude of residents. Four, list of possible tenant types labeled
lowhazard and moderate ha hazard but not limited to not very reassuring. and an evolving number of employees and shifts pulled out of let's say the wind based on nothing. A plan next. A plan with
maximum square footage only stopped in one case by a gas pipeline and in the other case by an active railroad track. Next, lack of coordination with the railroad company and the pipeline company for preapprovals. Next, storm water issues in an area that regularly
floods. Next, violation of stream crossing and a gas pipeline for roads. Next, no water man beyond the Nicholls property, which used to be the board of ed building. Installation will impact current pavement of much of Homestead Road. Water connections will also have
to cross the pipeline and stream. Next, no formal planning report, only a few memos saying everybody else is wrong because KAF said so. Next, no noise report or evaluation. Next, no pollution reporter or evaluation. Next, an
operations guy who said he was not an operations guy. Um, next, no connection to the bypass and no connector road. Next, no consideration of off-site road improvements or road widening from
Willow to 206. Next, trailer parking contrary to code. Next, dangerous intersection over the railroad bridge. Next, no pedestrian or bicycle access. No pedestrian or bicycle circulation connection, demonstrating once again
that this should have been two separate applications. Next, no consideration for the trees and wildlife that'll be destroyed by this intense plan. Next, rear of the building loading docks facing the homes. Great idea. nine
football fields of warehouse space, 90 docks, 137 trailer parking spaces, 281 other parking spaces, and a 247 operation. This is a hateful application. It is oversized. It is
overparked. It is overloaded. Please do not listen to pay for paytoay consultants. Please listen to your truly dedicated staff. David Ko is a wonderful township planner. Mark Mayhew is a
wonderful township engineer, thoughtful, thorough, careful, and caring about the community. Um, our residents have all spoken and I really thank all of them as well as representatives from Manville
and Montgomery who came here in recognition of the regional aspects of this proposal. We don't deserve this. Hillsboro doesn't deserve this. It doesn't belong here. Please protect our health and safety and deny this
application. Thank you for your time. [Applause] Maria Janusk. I'm a Manville Burough resident and a Hillsboro property owner. So much valuable information has been
provided by each of the prior speakers from the public. This information demonstrates the very serious negative issues associated with this application that is speculative and technically still incomplete. I am joining my name
and my voice with all of them. I am requesting that you planning board members pay strict attention to what was presented and vote to deny this application. [Applause]
Hello everybody. Um, my name is Debbie Petrock. Um, we live at 1246 Milstone River Road um, in Hillsboro here. And I didn't hear much about the traffic issue that is potentially uh, going to happen
on Milstone River Road. Um, already it's very bad. We have heavy dump trucks that travel down that road at 50 to 60 miles an hour between Amwell Road and Manville. And it's it's a hazard. And we've been working with traffic safety
to try and curve curve that, but um you know, it comes and goes. They can kind of get a handle on it once in a while, but it's very dangerous. These big dump trucks already go there very fast. I've already had an accident pulling into my driveway. Thank God not by a tractor trailer.
Um, if this warehouse goes through, I hear that that will be an access route out to 287. Um, and I just uh hope that you take that into consideration. It's already a very busy, dangerous road. It's all residential. There's driveways
leading out to uh Milstone River Road. There's um developments that lead out there. There's no commercial anything. It's all residential. And um I really do feel that if this is approved um that that traffic can't those tractor
trailers cannot go down Milstone River Road. It's too much of a hazard. So anyway, I just hope that you deny the application because I don't think it's good for the town and I love Hillsboro. Nick and I have lived here most of our lives and you know, we own a business here in town and we love it and we love
all the residents. So, thank you. [Applause] Mr. Bernstein. Yep. A motion to close public hearing. So moved. Second. All in
favor? I. I. Mr. Bernstein. Next. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated previously, I do have a extended period of time to talk to the board about items totally and completely unrelated to this application in terms of the pending a
decision. Uh as I indicated the ex time of decision at the moment is July 31st. Uh I would suggest the reconvening for a portion and only a small portion of the July 10th meeting based on Mr. Quo's
comments uh for the objectors and depending on where we are the applicants closing statements and then we'll have to reassess where we are in terms of the board's deliberation issues.
That's that's fine. I guess we just clarification. Will will each objector be giving us summation? I think they have the right to object. So the answer is I don't know if they will and I don't think they necessarily have to commit this evening. Uh I
suspect some will and some won't but that's up to them Mr. chairman and um I would indicate to the board that because of the nature of the other matter that is before the board I don't think this is going to be more than an hour hour and a half tops and then
you're going to have to go into discussion uh along with your other attorney who will be here as well as me your carrier's attorney relative to that application so um if the board is so inclined
uh I would suggest that a motion to continue this hearing to Thursday, July the 10th at 700 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. Um, not to exceed 90 minutes on that evening and we'll see where we are. Is
everybody available to be here on that meeting I guess would be the next I would hope because most of those people who are here for tonight will have to be here for Harvard Way. Yes, there's going to be at least the core five. Yes. the FAB five. It's good to be that
group. Actual. Actually, yeah, it is. It is five. So, I'll make that motion. I'll second. Okay. Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner. Yes. Miss Smith? Yes.
Committee? Yes. Pen? Yes. Chair? Yes. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would ask for a meeting to go a motion to go into executive session pursuant to 10 NJSA 104-12 B7 and B8 attorney client
privilege related to pending or anticipated litigation regarding Western Road LLC and affordable housing to be moved over the conference room. We will come back to we will probably adjourn from there and no formal action is going to be requested this evening.
So moved. Second. Do we need to do roll call? Yeah, because it's a resolution. All in favor? I I Okay, we're in executive session.