see we lost David and not DAV we lost right we're going to wait someone made him no but he and was you
know here he is all right right Dave can we you ready to start yeah we'll start and while the AV te team is there we go we just get
started all right okay ready no no okay good evening everyone and welcome to the hillsbro township plane board meeting of March 13th 2025 please join me and salute to the flag
to the flag of the United States of America and to the for it stands Nation indivisible with liy and justice for all please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised according to
section five of the open public meeting meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 19 75 otherwise known as Sunshine Law notice of the 2025 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers Township Clerk post on the Township's
website and available 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 prior or in advance of this evening's meeting complete application files are
available in the Planning and Zoning departments for inspections in accordance with the public meeting notice that may have roll call of board members and also board and Township professional [Music] please mayor Chelli Mr flag Mr RTS and
Mr Smith are absent Mr Wagner here Mr Vali here Smith here Mr de here Le present present Cher rajie here Mr pres here here Mr May here and myself and Mr
Palace are here thank you welcome everyone first up we have consideration of the February 6 2025 meeting minutes eligible members are Mr Vitali Miss Smith Mr Deb the vice chair and the
chair thank you may I have a motion to approve these minutes so mov is there a second I'll second okay any discussion from today hearing none roll call please Mr V yes M Smith yes Mr Deb yes Vice chair
PE yes yes next we have resolution for consideration Hillsboro 206 Holdings LLC with a file number of 18- pb-7 mspv it's a 2024 amended site
plan everyone everyone well good is there a motion to approve second okay any discussions roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr Vitali yes M Smith yes Mr Depp
yes Le yes Vice chair PE yes chair srir yes okay we do not have any planning board business no considerations of ordinances so I will go to business from the floor for matters not on this evening's agenda if anyone would like to provide any comments to the
board okay moving on to public hearing and I will in invite the applicant representatives and I'll let the uh objectors fight over the two seats so Mr chairman while
the applicant and the objectors are arranging themselves I have a couple of housekeeping issues I am in receipt of a certification of absent board member from elig examination of record eligibility to vote from Mr Pon who has
indicated he viewed the video recording for February 13th 2025 I would indicate that both Mr Deb and Mr Vitali are not eligible to participate in this hearing this evening if they
wish to sit on the deis they are more than welcome but they cannot participate and they cannot vote which means that we have the be quarum for tonight's meeting okay unless Mr Pon wants to pull back his examination of record and
therefore makes him ineligible and therefore we don't have a quum Last Chance Rob uh okay so this evening we have Homestead Road LLC file number 21- pb25
DMS back SL mspv with a time of decision of April 30th of this year um it's block 20010 Lots 32 and 33 otherwise are commonly known as 200 two 3 Homestead
Road and 189 Homestead Road uh this application is a continuation from February 13th of this year without further without further notice and I will uh allow everyone to uh introduce themselves and put themselves on the
record yes good evening chairman members of the board Craig janetti the law firm day Pitney on behalf of the applicant D Pitney I'm sorry the applicant Homestead Road LLC good evening Mike PCY director for
institute sorry Mike pasaro policy director for the Watershed Institute objector number one Scott gross objector number two Brian Tarantino representing SWAT John lanan objetive number [Music]
four Lori Cleveland of the sourland Conservancy okay um I have a couple of other housekeeping items Mr chairman uh if you recall Mr janetti raised some exhibit markings at
the last hearing the last exhibit that was marked for the applicant was number 13 uh we are proposing that number 14 is the Dolan and Dean traffic
study dated December 22nd 20 21 and the supplemental Dolan and Dean letter that is not what is that it does not include what I believe Mr Dean will be testifying to later this evening so is that one exhibit or two
exhibits we're going to do two exhibits that'll be A14 will be the supplemental and the supplemental is dated May 9th 2023 what was all year uh May 9th 2023 23 thank you a 15 will be Easter States
at Cook Eis 5923 letter will be a15 a16 will be the 22024 Eis
supplement a 17 a 18 and a19 will be the cfone planning memos a 17 will be September 26th 2022 a 18 will be November 16th
2022 a 19 will be August 17 2022 23 pardon me a20 will be the community impact statement dated March 2024 and a21 will be the M&H architect
letter dated May 9th 2023 so there were two M&H letters one dealing with building one responding the board engineer review letter one responding for the board and the date planner and the date on that one is it was the same date May 9th 2023 we could
either make that we'll make that a 22 so the next exhibit from the applicant will be 23 and then we have a May 11th 2023 van c
letter all right a23 May what was the date May 11th 2023 mhm another van CLE June 5th 20 24 which would be a24 yep and then his uh August 18th
2024 uh letter as well be a25 yeah and that was a25 is August 8th 2024 letter m 2 August 8th 2024 will be 825 and then do we want to
handle the exhibits that were submitted well I guess we do it when Gary Dean comes up okay it'll be slightly out of order and as I indicated previously the D drcc materials Etc are not marked they're not normally marked usually for this board
they is part of the record those are outside entity I believe Mr chairman at least my reading of the transcript was the objectors will still cross-examining Mr Ford I think Mr Pizano had finished when
we came to the end of that which would at that point leave it to Mr gross in the number two slot if he has any questions uh I'd ask that Mr Ford be reworn in just for purposes of the record
Mr lomber DOI um Mr chairman just if I may just one really uh short item um since Miss oxy wasn't permitted to testify uh one of the things she was going to do is bring the petition the citizens petition that SWAT had um
sponsored and um so there's no other real time for us to present it I understand that it's not something that can be entered into evidence which is fine we just would like to present it um as an expression of the community um uh opposition to to this
application so if I could have three minutes to to just describe the petition um and then I have copies Mr chairman I think we let Mr jet have his moment that he's desperately waiting for and then I'm going to make a recommendation
depending on what I hear so I'm going to object it's standard practice and and uh land use law staple that you cannot present letters or petitions as part of
any presentation of objection I don't have an opportunity to cross-examine anybody um and not knowing you know how it was prepared and how they were gten and it's not appropriate there's plenty of public here we've heard a lot from the public already and they'll have an opportunity again to be heard when the
public comment comes I would also indicate Mr chairman two parts one this is really not the appropriate time even if it was the appropriate time to introduce that petition if there is an appropriate time for Mr Tarantino to have this conversation with
the board it would be at closing presentation of any comments he has the end of the matter once all the testimony is in and the public is spoken I would also advise him and I am this is not legal advice that if you are
representing a group of people people who have signed this petition somebody's liable to argue that they're all disqualified from coming up and speaking on behalf of the public if they've all signed a petition on behalf of an of a group that already has designated itself as an
objector well the signing the petition doesn't doesn't make them a member of make the argument Mr chairman I would suggest that if you want Mr Tarantino wants to make that presentation it should be done during the closing arguments from the objectors
I I don't have a problem with that okay you good so we're back to Mr Gro again I have no questions for Mr Ford okay that leaves Mr Tarantino next Tru truth truth yes I
do [Music] sure Michael Ford FD uh licensed engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey with vancle engineering Gap since the last time you were here yes okay thank
you okay um good evening Mr Ford um at the um at the last meeting at the February 13th meeting uh do you recall your testimony regarding the removal of the second row oh here we go go uh
that's quite all right um do you recall your testimony regarding the removal of the second row of trailer parking behind bilding 2 yes that was one of the plan changes that I described that's right um do you recall um you mentioned that it was
pointed out that that compliance with ordinance 188 68b which doesn't allow that second row of parking um you you I believe you mentioned that it was someone from the public do you recall uh who that was no it's um we were directed by the
applicant to remove that second row and I uh as I recall it was after discussions with their planner um do you recall that it was actually testimony from Mr Bill Martin who's a local resident on uh on July
11th 2024 I know there was testimony about it but I've just answered your question why it was removed okay um now are you familiar with the information required by the hillsbor
Hillsboro ordinance 18875 C4 that's um ordinance 18875 C governs the disturbance of uh disturbance to land near pipelines um yes um uh section
C4 um requires a certain set of information being be provided do you you recall where this information is provided in your drawings I can tell you what the the items are that are required
sure um these include location size specified minimum yield strength maximum allowable operating pressure location class and operating hoop stress as a percentage of the specified minimum
yield strength of all Pipelines ated upon the subject property um as surveyed by a professional land surveyor um to answer your question yes I recall that information being required in fact it was uh brought up as part of
the initial middle of the application uh and I believe it's on sheet two of the set of plans okay um can you uh uh the one piece of information that I don't see on sheet two because I and I've looked through all of the sheets to see if it was any
place else is the operating hoop stress as a percentage of the specified minimum yield strength can you point out where that is on sheet two I I can't answer that right now no do you believe it's on that that
sheet uh again as I stated the during the completeness review of the application that question as I recall back in probably 2021 was requested and asked by the township staff uh and we
replied to it with providing that information and that was deemed acceptable so a you said you're provided that information on sheet two as I just stated I can't answer your question about the Hops strength specifically
um I don't know I don't recall now after these years whether that was something that the pipeline company couldn't provide or did provide in a different Manner and we related it on the plans um okay I I mean it's a missing
piece of information objection we don't need commentary he asked a question he answered it in fact I object to the line of questioning because it's beyond the scope of his rebuttal he already testified he was already testified on Direct this is not a second flight at the Apple to ask whatever you want it most certainly is no it's not see this
is the problem it most certainly is as Mr Bernstein has informed uh us all that when you bring a rebuttal witness anything they've anything they've test testified to is is fair game at rebuttal not anything he's testified to ever you can only ask him
questions about what he testified to in rebuttal you already an opportunity cram no different than if it was on direct and cross this is simply direct and cross on rebuttal related to rebuttal items okay I have no other
questions chapor four any questions and objector five okay public oh that's right oh yeah yep I'm going a little slow caffeine hasn't kicked in right well actually any comments from
the from the board members well I'm going to get out of order a little bit okay no Mr Mayu no Mr chairman I asked my questions at the last week thank you okay thank you Mr CH thank you Mr
chairman can you hear me I can hear you I I have no questions thank you okay thank you can any motion open to public please second all in favor I I okay if there's anyone from the public who's not represented by one of the five objectors and would like to cross-examine Mr Ford
on his rebuttal please only right rebuttal only okay please come to the mic state your name and address for the record please Rich Garmin 53 Winding Way I'm not affiliated with any
obors at your last rebuttal or testimony you mentioned a fourth retention Basin could you explain how that one's going to work yeah that was U an underground Basin or
a small scale subsurface infiltration Basin by building one there were already three under the parking and paved areas at that site we added a fourth one and that's for groundw recharge okay so there's no outflow pipe into the stream
or anything that would uh continue and be connected to the on-site storm water collection system and run through the main above ground detention Basin uh on that site all right so that main retention Basin if I can ask this that
outflow pipe exits where in the Stream I that hasn't changed and it's uh to the rear of building one um Downstream of your property right but it it's at the base of the stream or is it up on the
hill or no part of our Somerset Union Civil Conservation District approval was demonstrating stability at that discharge and they required that it be right at the the stream itself so it's right at the at that tributary if you don't mind could you explain a little
bit how that works my understanding right you have the pipe you have the retention water's held back when the stream water is over the pipe it's not going to release into the stream is that correct or no it still would it's uh it's a hydraulic question you're asking
and there's there's a substantial head if you will a differential and elevation between where that Basin is and where that discharge is and part of our analysis of the discharge at the Basin is taken into consideration what you're
describing which what I I would refer to as tail water you know the the water surface Downstream of the Basin well I'm concerned about those retention basins we've all agreed there's a 70 foot elevation difference in the property so
you've got let's just conservative say 100,000 gallons of water sitting up there applying pressure down that pipe water flowing Downstream picks up a great force so isn't it going to dump into that stream regardless of the water level and just add to it how are you
controlling the pressure that's created from that water being 70 feet higher than stream as I just mentioned is as part of the analysis the the computer modeling takes into consideration that headwood and the
outlet structure discharge can considers what's flowing into it and then what is Downstream of it that might restrict its flow out so that's already been taken into consideration as part of the model okay so what was the reason you you sort of briefed over it for the fourth
retention Basin um it was part of our um njd review of the flood Hazard area permit that they've issued uh in order to satisfy uh their questions regarding uh
the groundw a recharge element and also um there was um prior comment I Believe by the objectors um engineer that with three underground
basins by building one mathematically there could be more than 2.5 acres going to any one of those basins so by providing a fourth one mathematically you that that demonstrates that there would never be more than that 2.5 acre
threshold to any one of those basins all right a little little bit of my concern here is why we should be trusting of any of it because I spent a lot of time going through all of your testimony which you've done quite a bit and you were always stressing how
conservative you were and how you were nowhere near the limits of what you could be discharging and now it goes to d review and all of a sudden it change plans yeah that so I mean you know you know should we trust everything you told us for the last six testimonies yeah let
me so the the uh the technical issue with njd and this has evolved over time too with the chapter 12 stormwood soil testing criteria um the two underground basins that we still have by building
two were we considered as part of our reacharge element and uh in support of those uh two areas there was what was known as a pit bail test done at in the fractured rock at that location uh and
that's an alternate originally in D's rules it was actually chapter e or pending C of the BMP manual that dictated storm water testing uh permissions and the pit bail test was on that list subsequently DP made a change
in their criteria and took it off the list that was the only test that we could do there because we were in groundwater and you can't do a basin flood test in groundwater and as part of our D application we asserted that under their current chapter 12 regulations
that would be an acceptable alternate test rather than to continue go back and forth with d to try to substantiate that uh and have them accept that we also at the same time went out and did supplemental testing to find a force
site for an underground Basin on chapter on on behind building one so again it we didn't take away the two that we provided before and we're not taking any credit for them um and we added the the fourth one to basically take the path
that uh DP uh had no disputes with and was consistent with their updated soil testing procedures where they took off that one test okay so so it's it's a matter of overtime uh really regulations changing
we've been working on this for a little while and DP has made some changes as well and and part of the guidance documents are uh dictated by policy and even D policy changes from time to time and we have to adjust to
it okay one last thing and I don't know if you'll know this or not but there must be a flow rate somewhere listed for that stream right the uh Roy Brook some kind of standard flow rate or something on how much volume of water it can
handle is there something like that I'm not aware of any analysis says how much it can handle i i as part of our DP submittal we did uh identify the flood Hazard area along the Royce Brook
tribute or the Royce Brook yeah the Royce Brook tributary at that point as well as the other tributary on site and that was part of the D's review not just the storm Water Analysis but the flood Hazard area elevation or or water
surface in in all the streams regulated by DP on site all right my concern there is you know if it goes back 30 years for the last time they check the flow rate you know the sewage Authority maintains a RightWay 30 60 feet wide along that
stream and when they take down debris and such they pile it up next to the stream so every time there's a flood it ends up in the Stream that's going to impact how much water that stream can hold cuz I never see anybody Clean cleaning the Stream So I've noticed in
the time I've liveed there the water's getting closer and closer to my house and I'm sure that has a big impact so it could skew all of these you know figures if that hasn't been checked so that's it thank
you thank you any other [Music] Merill bisberg for Hickory Hill Road not R represented by SWAT um I just want to ask a question that
actually preceded your testimony Mr Ford uh the at the last meeting but just has barely preceded it it was stated that um right before introducing you that um uh not by an expert witness but that this will not be a sort fulfillment
center um won't be a transload warehouse and um not a parcel delivery Hub so uh this was not stated by a subject matter expert the operations person uh this is by the this is by Mr
gianetti so I'm going to ask you do you know do you understand why this was stated now when we've when we completed operations testimony a year and a half ago prior to your being a witness last meeting I'm gonna any object because
it's beyond his scope and he didn't testify to it and B as I stated at the last meeting it was a confirmation of basically testimony that was previously provided by the architect that in our traffic this isn't designed to be a transload facility or this isn't
designed to be a parcel Hub so we wanted it clear on the record that we're standing by that that as any condition it can be this will not be a parcel delivery Hub or a transload facility or a sort fulfillment center okay so I I was one of the people
that asked the questions of Mr valenza at that meeting when it was first stated and that's why I'm bringing it up now because this seems to be a restatement of operations testimony it's not operations testimony it's what the applicant is agreeing to this board well the questions I remember being asked of
uh the operations of Mr valenza whether or not and I have the testimony right here whether or not it could be a high Cube whether it could be bonded whether it could be cold storage those don't really track what the warehouse types you're talking about I there's crossover
so you know I understand why for instance M Mr Wagner said well what could it be because everybody uses a different classification for warehouses and it seems like all of a sudden a year and a half later we're the testimony is different and this is you know it's a source spot because we
don't have the information on operations and I do wonder how if you could State clearly what it's not going to be it has to mean that there's some idea of what it will be so uh Mr chairman with all due respect Mr gianetti is not going to
give testimony on what it will be or what it won't be I believe this was stated at the last meeting as well that the statements are being taken for what they are and that when the board deliberates it will look at the evidence
before it or does isn't before it and attempt to determine whether or not it qualifies or doesn't so I don't really think a rehashing of what it won't be versus what it might be
unless there's going to be testimony specifically about it is going to be any different than what we've already heard okay I would just like to recommend to the board that that testimony by Mr valenzo was September 14th 2020 it this is strictly just questions
on Mr Ford's that's an issue can raise during the public portion at the end okay thank you um I I did want to ask Mr Ford how he determined that he could include trailer parking in the design I realize that
goes back earlier but there was an issue about trailer parking as recently as the last meeting so I I believe it can be crossed um seeing as there no Provisions for trailer parking in our Min in our building code in Hills Bros building
code and the Tec the tecd zone is silent on trailer parking the only definition for parking in our code besides the specification for dock trucks is uh a 10 by 20 foot um parking space which
clearly is not appropriate for tractor trailer parking or trailer parking so I guess my question is how did he come up with the um Dimensions I'm going to object on two things one it's already been asked and answered why he changed the plan plans we disagree with their
legal interpretation that it's not permitted but it was raised and he already testified based upon Consulting with the planner and the applicant we decided to remove it but we don't agree with the proposition that trailer parking prohibited or stacked trailer parking is
prohibited okay I did not say it was prohibited I said there's no specification for a trailer for trailer parking in the code so I was asking how he determined what size The Parking Spot should be since the only parking in our code is 10 x 20 Mr Genetti are you
advising Mr Ford not to answer the [Music] question that question that question she he can answer okay thank you yeah the the you're right the the the code is silent on it and
from our experience on other similar projects that's a suitable um parking uh area for that type of vehicle okay thank you do you know if they've ever been approved before in
Hillsboro um yes we've had other projects that have uh parking spaces for trailers and when they of the same Dimension um or generally yes I I'm not sure what another application has to do with this
one so we're going to let this one stand on its own well he's explaining how he determines I asked size I'm telling and he answered the question thank you very much thank you any other
members and don't be shy you guys can stack up so we don't David Brooke Winding Way I I have a bunch of maps but obviously I don't have a Podium or place to lay them out so I'll try to cover this without going
through all the maps and hopefully it's understandable from everybody's point of view and if we could actually get the drawings up it would actually be helpful question please Mr Ford you've been the engineer of record for Homestead Road LLC since the beginning of these hearings before
the planning board I think it was April of 2022 is that correct yes okay and it's safe to say that you've actually been involved even prior to that time in order to formulate the engineering drawings correct yes
okay and it's also correct to state that your you and your engineering firm have been responsible for any of the changes or updates that were submitted to this board as it relates to the two proposed warehouses regarding the site plans yes yes that includes the revised engineering drawings that were submitted
to the township on November 20th 2024 correct I don't have the last submittal date in front of me I don't dispute any document that was submitted by our office and is of record on Civic Clerk
and has been marked as applicant exhibits okay um it's also safe to state that you and your firm follow all state federal County local and other applicable engineering and land use
requirements for this proposed development correct yes okay so in the proposal for subdividing the property that you've shown on the revised uh November 20 2024 map 5B there's a proposed lot line change
that basically goes from home Dead Road North to the property line is that correct uh part of my rebuttal testimony didn't have anything to do with the subdivision aspects of the application
very true very true but it did have to do with drainage correct I reported to the board our um securing of the njd flood Hazard area approval which included stormw review as
well as the Delaware and raren Canal commission's review and then also discussed um comments relating to the obor engineering report okay so I think I'm allowed to lay a
little bit of a foundation so hopefully we will agree that this create this this lot line would create two New Lots is that correct again I'm going to object he did not testify in his rebuttal anything about the subdivision
your I was getting there I'll get there in a minute okay so we'll just jump ahead a little bit uh as to that subdivision of the two part properties again I'll note on
drawing 5B that you show the drainage from the northernmost Pond constructed Wetland that goes from revised lot 32 into revised lot 33 was there any change in the drawings
for that update no okay um and I guess my question for that is is it a good idea to subdivide the property and then have one property owner drain their storm water on another
owner's property because ultimately those will be two separate Lots that's not uncommon and it can just be handled by an ement do you propose a drainage easement since without this one could consider it to be a
trespass yeah I don't recall as part of the subdivision whether we proposed an easement or that was one of the comments from the board engineer that we agreed to deal with um as any condition of approval so I don't
recall would you have made a note on the drawings with regards to any easements that were added in to the to the um proposal yeah again at the last hearing I was dealing with the changes regarding
the trailer parking the D approval and the comments regarding the objectors engineer I didn't speak to the subdivision and I don't recall now again uh whether we showed an easement at that location or not but certainly um that
could be provided and it it was agreement between two properties that the applicant has control over so let me just clarify there there is nothing in the drawings that you're aware of that identifies any easements
that you're adding to the proposed development subdivision no there's there's several easements identified with regards to um or I should say uh trains where um discharges for the the
basins are located um we agreed to provide uh conservation easement in accordance with the township uh and DNR Canal commission requirements um I don't know that the limits of that easement have been finalized or shown on a subdivision plan
yet okay um you mentioned that with building number one you are adding a new subsurface drainage um recharge is that the right term for it uh the uh technical d uh
terminology is small scale subsurface infiltration Basin and yes we've we've already added that fourth one to the plans and um I I didn't see on the drawing um how close is that to any of the retaining walls that you're
constructing on building number one of that is um not any closer to the retaining walls than any of the other basins but do do you actually have a measurement I just wanted to clarify
proximity to the retaining walls for that specific Basin that we've added correct okay over 50 ft okay um as it relates to the retaining walls there are roughly
um the the prox let me just rephrase that from the Westerly side of the building footprint there's approximately 250 linear feet to the
stream and it's an approximately 30 foot drop is that correct I don't think I can answer your question because I don't know specifically where you're referring to but there is
a um strong slopes along the street you know the drainage features on the site yeah this is just a clarify this is a drawing 5A um that had elevations on it um so as it relates to those retaining walls
there were symbols on the walls that uh were not uh in your um in the chart and I just wanted to clarify what those meant uh there's a tww does that indicate top of the wall yes and BW
indicates the bottom of the wall normally it's BW or bottom of wall were there any changes with regards to this um recharge no is it I'm sorry recharge
Basin uh were there any changes to any of the wall Heights as it related to this new drainage uh facility I don't recall any changes to any of the detailed design of the grading around the walls there may have been spot shots
added to collect verify grading that was already on the plans regarding those walls okay and then one question about the other wall I guess it's on the Northerly side I'm I'm seeing a tww 93 and a
BW of I'm sorry a tww of 98.35 and a BW of 78 which is indicating that that wall is 20 feet tall is that correct based on those two numbers that would be correct okay um just to give
the board a sense of it do you have any idea how tall the ceiling is in here or let me try it differently would you agree that the ceiling in this room is 9' 11 in or would you believe that that's an accurate measurement I thought you were
asking let's try it differently is what's the point yeah just get to okay right I just want to clarify Mr Ford the ceiling in this room is 9' 11 in which means that that wall that you're referring to is twice as tall as the ceiling is that correct going to object
he's assuming facts not in evidence that the ceiling height is 9' 11 in I brought my tape measure Mr gianetti and I'm more than happy to show to you no I can just push it right up the wall it works okay the point is it's a tall wall is that
correct the retaining wall yeah yes okay yes thank you I'm also going to understand that these are not simple ril road tie walls like we do at our house so I'm guessing they require very careful Engineering in order to withstand the tremendous
pressures that are exerted by The Fill on one side of the wall is that correct again this wasn't part of what I testified at the last hearing I believe it was our previous hearing and we did have I as I recall the discussion about
the retaining walls and um and perhaps even I outlined it at the last hearing that as part of uh any retaining wall design there's a building permit a construction permit required the board can't issue the
permit to construct the wall the there's actually a specific construction permit that's required for a retaining wall anything over four feet high and that includes structural calculations uh for the wall and again I think
I uh shared at the last hearing that uh the between now and the time of construction the available type of materials for a modular block retaining wall or the type of wall that the applicant may choose to install could
change and that's why you know there's not details provided at this time but there's details provided in advance of a construction permit okay thank you building number two you've revised the plans to eliminate the retaining wall I believe you testified to that at the
last hearing yes uh that's next to the CSX railroad tracks correct correct this means that now there will be a declining slope of approximately 14 feet drop uh I I measured it over about 50 feet does that sound correct yeah it's a I
described at the last hearing uh by virtue of eliminating that second row of trailer parking well that was the question well I'm trying to I'm just asking you if it dropped let answer it if you have a followup to the answer he gives you you're more than
welcome to try you're trying to make sure that I'm doing this as briefly as possible I'm trying to instruct the witness to do the same instru get instru the witness you don't get to tell the witness the answer
you want God knows we all like that in the legal profession MRN I'm not trying to do that but just ask just ask him the question and if you don't like the answer ask a followup okay thank you for your advice yeah the the the grade is a
gentle grade now without a retaining wall uh three to one or less it's a mowable uh grade okay that means that you will need to excavate within some proximity of the railroad line is that correct
I recall my testimony the last hearing is our limited disturbance is about 15 20 ft from the property line which is common with the railroad right away and then from there the disturbance onto our site would include um Excavating
existing material correct okay I also note on your revised plan this is 6B that it shows no Landscaping of any kind on that slope is that correct I don't dispute that we I don't believe we had any Landscaping in that
area already um all the proposed Landscaping our tree mitigation has been concentrated in the uh areas along the the streams and that area would be lawn I'm sorry that area would be what Lawn Lawn
okay um do you have any plans to permanently stabilize this sloping Hill to prevent erosion along the CSX tracks again that would be lawn that would be stabilized with grass okay uh Mr Ford you're familiar with the CSX
public project manual and the CSX requirements for preliminary engineering reviews uh no I'm not familiar with that specific document okay well page 12 States any project proposals that may affect or be near the CSX objection if
if he was going to be wanting to ask our witness about a particular document he should have submitted it beforehand or at least provide him a copy of it I'm sorry but this is a public record uh and this is an engineer who deals with all sorts of issues I I guess I could ask Mr
Ford have you ever dealt with any projects next to railroads but strike that we're not going to go there I'd like to ask a question as it relates to this development along this railroad track he but he's asking about a document that he said he's not aware
of you might want to consult with your client before we go there but I'll just keep going if I may I was going to read the language from the manual no nope Mr chairman if you if the witness has
indicated that he is not familiar with it if at a point in time during the Public Presentation Mr Brooke you would like to make that as a Salient Point relative to the validity or the propriety of Mr Ford's testimony that's
when you get to do it I I would disagree with Mr Mr Bernsen via simply because of the fact that we have an engineer of record in indic you he's indicated he's not familiar with it you can't you cannot ask him I will be more
than happy to hand these particular pages to him so he can look at them nope okay well that makes things interesting so Mr Ford are you aware of an email that you received from the engineering
company that represents CS CSX Mr Kevin leowski Canna object again as to relevancy and Beyond any testimony he provided as to CSX at the last meeting it relates to
the change of the grade which he testified to this is is extremely relevant well State the question including whatever the relevancy is ask him don't ask if he had to just get to
the question I'm asking if he is familiar with the engineering firm Kevin leowski I'll be more than happy to give him the email if he needs it what's the question what's the question well I didn't hear an answer are you familiar with an email
communication from Kevin Luan dowski from Coler engineering dated August 8th 2024 okay yeah as as I stated at the last hearing um there was some
discussion about the changes we made next to the rail line and our uh communication with the representative of the rail line back in August of 2024 and I indicated that we shared with him at that time the propos grade change
which alleviated and and I had a discussion with him in in addition to the the gentleman I believe you're referring to in addition to the email communication and that alleviated and this is what I reported to the board that alleviated his concern immediate
about the potential impacts of the retaining walls close proximity to the retaining wall or of the the retaining walls close proximity to the railroad right away and that um the grade the the I'll call Gentle grading slope down from
the RightWay was uh much better and that I believe Mr Mayu said at the last hearing that should the board Grant approval with the applicant agree to addressing any c the rail line applicable uh requirements to the
board's engineer you know the board's engineering uh satisfaction and as I recall our our uh statement was yes yes let's just go back to the email because I'm not sure I heard an answer
to that you're familiar with this email right from August of 2024 and the fact that in it it simply said that OB objection again he he's referring to an email he's asking about
an email that's not a record we don't know what he has or what he's looking at right now uh and it's not relevant to his testimony at the last meeting no actually that's not the case and your
client's representative just testified in fact to the opposite response he indicated that there were Communications there were conversations there was material
discussed I also believe he did indicate while I split this thing right down the middle is that he did indicate that he was familiar with emails he may not have been familiar with the date per se but he was
familiar with the emails therefore I believe he's answered the question and Mr Brooke can move on to the next one sure okay so as it Rel relates to the
question that I'm asking on March 11th I believe you may have received another email from the engineer Mr lowski asking you to a
year this thank you March 11th 2025 thank you if he's going to testify about an email he's claiming Mr Ford has seen he should show him the email well give it to him would you like a moment to look at it um first Mr
Brooke you may have noted I was CCD on the email yeah and I wasn't you just referred to a March 11th 2025 email that I would have received uh and it looks like I don't I
don't see my name on that email I do see the March 8th email to me august8 August I'm sorry August 8th 20 2024 email and yes we haven't had any further communication I stated that the last
hearing as well just like any other Outside Agency we've gotten to a point with um the plans where we feel they'd be acceptable and we would agree to address any applicable requirements
okay that's great I I stand corrected March 3D of this year was Kevin lewandowski's email to you second page yeah and that the the document you just handed me doesn't have the heading on it
that that has my address on it my email address so I I don't recall I haven't seen I don't recall I'll say factually I haven't seen the March 3D email and again I don't dispute
that we haven't had further communication with the cmx engineering consultant since August so if I could turn your attention to the August 8th email 2024 would you agree that the language
in there on the second line says the project will impact CSX T and we will need to review plans to ensure the safety of csxt operations I don't dispute what you've just read and I'm at this juncture not
sure that the August 8th communication is the last communication we had with the representative from cmx and like I said earlier the communication with cmx started with um I
think the town staff's referral of the project to cmx them bringing that uh issue to our attention um us sharing with the cmx representative that we were removing
the trailer parking and the retaining wall and pulling back the grades and uh that document being shared with them and discussion I had with the cmx engineering representative that that
was uh alleviating the major concerns that he would have had with the retaining walls proximity right it I'm I'm sorry CSX is you're referring to corre CSX yes okay um you also note in this email that the representative Kevin
leowski is saying that you or someone as the applicant needs to ex execute an agreement with them for them to review it are you aware as to whether you or anyone at vanle engineering has in the
last three years executed any agreement to have a review of your plans by CSX I not aware of it uh that would be uh typical um just like
um any other utility company impact um often um an applicant would uh wait until board action before they address all of the Outside Agency approvals like I said
I think at the last hearing because we've been at this some time that we were able to process and secure the D approvals uh for the freshwood Wetland or for the flood Hazard area but Mr Ford are you familiar with SE do
doent which document sir the document that Mr Brook just asked you familiar whether or not you or van CLE ever submitted section document it's a yes or no question yes the the the agreement and what what CSX
asked us to do prior to construction yes I'm sorry I didn't understand the answer are you saying that you have executed an engineering agreement with CSX at this point no that would be that would be uh an executed agreement between the owner
or the Builder or or project owner uh and that entity and to this is unique because it's next to the railroad and CSX is what we're talking about but this is not any different than New Jersey American
Water where you have to execute an agreement to uh for a W Main extension but that comes with its substantial costs and you know as far as the sequence of uh project reviews typically an applicant would wait until board
action before they go on with those types of agreements so it's not uncommon I'm also going to draw your attention to the next sentence which says I encourage you to review the CSX public project manual do you remember
reading those words in that email I read the whole email at the time sir so I don't dispute that and again like I stated earlier this may be an earlier email in the sequence of communication with that
entity um and as I recall the the discussion ended with the cons serious concerns being alleviated and yes prior to construction you need to perhaps go with this uh agreement in fact as I
recall the discussion with Mr lowski it was uh for example the question was how far away from the rail right away do we need to be with our disturbance to not trigger this type of review and there
wasn't really a specific answer um because perhaps we would you know Endeavor to even limit the disturbance even further back and and that I recall there being a a statement on his behalf that now that the if if indeed the
grading is revised per the sketch I provided to him in the way we've reported to the board we've made that change there may be even a determination at the time this agreement stage is entered into that it's not even applicable anymore because the
disturbance is so uh minimal and and far away from the property well now I'm glad that you remember Mr lowski you are referring to what type of communication is this an oral on the phone or is this an email communication with him I like
I've said already there are both I would only encourage that those Communications be provided to the township so they can see them um as it relates to building number two with the change of the slope and the
elimination of the retaining wall the other retaining walls were not impacted I'm presuming by that no okay and would you also agree that the heights of those retaining walls that remain are still anywhere
from 10 12 15 as much as 21 fet tall for building number two I would have to review the plans to give specifics as part of that prior testimony this wasn't part of the rebuttal but yes they're tall retaining walls okay and um with
the change of the retaining walls I don't know if You' ever given a total lineal footage um but I did a quick count and do 2,75 ft of retaining walls sound correct for the change that took place I don't have a number that we
provided a cost estimate as as I recall couple of years ago about this application but whether you I don't have a total linear foot of re any wall okay um on drawing 4C that was also updated
uh 22724 you've made a notation on both sides of the Texas Eastern pipeline currently embridge that states 7 in quote 75 ft pipe easement setback is that correct if that that refers to a
Township standard not the Embark standard okay um I believe that 75 foot is based upon the township ordinance 18875 that uh Mr Tarantino had talked to you about
prior you're asking me the same question again I just said it was part of a town uh ordinance I'm trying to be brief correct but I want to make sure we're in the right one section 18875 correct I don't have the number
memorized it's a Township standard sir and this was not part of the rebuttal testimony but please Mr Brook can you have a question that's related to the 75 ft it is yes um
that also includes Mr chairman responses the questioning so it may not have been raised during the direct but it was raised during cross so if he knows the answer fine if he doesn't he doesn't Bo I think he's looking for
something Mr Brook no I I was trying to just refer to plans and look at him while was waiting for the next question so just for clarity ordinance 18875 C1 St objection ask an answer he he asked the question he said he doesn't recall the number he just said the Texas the
setback designation was based upon a town ordinance and as he stated this was not within the scope of his rebuttal testimony he did not talk about the easement or the setback he did talk about changes that took place
on the proposal I think the point's been made and I think the board's aware of it I'm trying to get to the ordinance and if I can simply ask the question as to the wording it's kind of important to carry on I can just if you have the
ordance you can show it to them can either show it to them or ask about the wording specifically here's the or sure thank you it's 18875 C1 yeah Public Utilities is the
title correct section c is regarding pipelines would you like to read C1 or should I read C1 I that's no building construction or land disturbance shall be permitted with 75 ft of the RightWay of any distribution Gathering or
transmission line as defined in this chapter right so you follow that restriction when you delineated the 75t setback for no disturbances is that correct that would that's why we're delineating that uh area on the plan I
also noticed that you proposed not plant any trees or shrubs in that 75t setback is that because of the ordinance prohibition uh there may have been other areas of restricted uh restrictions with within where those trees were designated
so it might not be exclusive to the 75 ft it could be you know because of the along the stream there's the htmua sewer line okay um if you
had so if you had wanted to plant anything in there I'm assuming under the ordinance you would need to get some kind of hardship to intrude upon that is that correct for planting of trees
I would say at the you know that the town ordinance um or planting of trees might not be considered as disturbance and you know just the disturbance is usually changing of grade or
um filling or cutting and with a tree you perhaps don't have to change the grade okay and I guess the simple question that I want to ask as it relates to that is is there a particular
reason why you haven't sought some uh hardship waiver as it relates to the road crossing that you're proposing over the 75 foot buffer and know
say we he didn't testify to that he previously testified to the waiver we saw as did our planner we did not address it any further on rebuttal because there was no change to it as to the waiver um if I may Mr gianetti
apparently you made a statement at the June 22nd hearing that stated that you were going to have that additional testimony provided by the planner do you recall that in a report that was going
to be submitted and I'd like to ask the board or Mr Ford if he's aware of any additional testimony that was provided as it relates to this since the planner wasn't in a position to present that
testimony and if you would like I will read that short little section from the transcript because because that's to me extremely important it goes like this Mr G NTI at this point it's been asked and answered this was referring to me he's
asked it five different ways he may not like the answer but it's been asked and answered we do have additional planning testimony that will address the relief being sought Mr Bernstein has the planner provided that information Mr gianetti not in a report yet that will
be submitted 10 days prior to her testimony so I've read the planers letters and heard her testimony and she never provided any explanation and I would ask Mr Ford is she qualified to prepare engineering drawings for crossing the
pipeline the when you say she I miss Kone my apologies yeah I'm I'm not aware of uh any that a li I don't know exactly what her qualifications are I really can't answer that question I know she's a licensed professional planner I don't
know what other qualifications she may have may I ask you if a licensed professional planner can sub in engineering drawings I think we both know the answer I'm going this whole our position is the testimony was provided previously in the record if his position
is no it wasn't then we can deal with that on uh summations if I may would somebody help Mr Gan Ed tell us all where that is in the record since I've never we weren't coming up address
actually if it's in the record we'll have to address it if it's not in the record then we'll take it accordingly very good thank you Mr chairman I'm going to grab my ordinance back if I may to keep
it no no thank you oh here thank you we need to keep them any other members from the public don't be shy don't look around if you want to get up get up because I see
people looking around so all right so we're done with Mr Ford I see no new takers how you doing Mike you think it's probably is because we're going to be moving okay we are going to take a minute
recess we'll reconvene 8:35 coing to Black back clock e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e e uh TV
on there we go we're back okay we're back in session Mr ganet folks thank you chairman um at this point we'd like to call our traffic engineer uh Gary Dean up for rebuttal
okay and Mr Dean we'll swear you back in yes I do certainly Gary Dean D an and any changes to your uh no Mr chairman still uh licensed engineer credentials are uh current and in good
standing okay thank you sir Mr Dean um since your last testimony uh did you have an opportunity to read or hear the testimony of the
objector uh traffic engineer yes I did and since since that time did your office prepare a report uh in response to that testimony I did and that's uh submitted and address to the board in the form of a letter dated February 28th of this
year do we want to have that marked as an exhibit now why not my list I think we're at a a 26 26 C Mr lber
do was that already submitted as a15 did this was not part of the ones ear in the meeting so the next exhibit is I think it's 26
a26 and we indicated date and the who the author was I authored the letter Mr Bernstein from Dolan and Dean correct 826 so Mr Dean using uh or based upon what you heard uh can
you just provide your response uh from a traffic engineering perspective as it relates to uh truck trip generation that was testified to as by the objectors witness as well as you know the the use
of it information with respect to that certainly uh my recollection of both the obor's written report as well as his testimony uh was trying to posit that by looking at a warehouse facilities the number of loading docks that a given
building might have that that would be a better predictor of the truck traffic that could be generated and we looked at the data that we had collected and previously submitted to this board for roughly uh
10 or 11 different Warehouse sites in New Jersey and one site in Pennsylvania we inventoried the number of loading docks at each facility uh which at the time of our study each one of those buildings was fully occupied and
leased and even though the objectors expert could have done the work himself uh he nevertheless speculated that well it might yield a higher statistical model our exercise looked at the data and in our February 28th report
summarized the data and found that there was essentially zero correlation between the number of loading docks that a given Warehouse might have and the number of TR truck trips or truck traffic that would be
generated and I guess at the end of your report you basically took what was previously marked into evidence as exhibit A10 which was your truck trip comparison and included that same chart but added another table for loading
docks is that that is correct yes you can just discuss some of your findings with respect to that certainly and to summarize very succinctly appended to that uh report a26 we provided a the same statistical
sampling that the Institute of Transportation Engineers or it uses when they publish their data and what you will see presented uh on the screen and in the report are two charts first labeled morning peak hour Warehouse
truck trip generation and the number of trips per loading dock and and then the second chart is evening peak hour and you you will see uh in the bottom right hand corner is a is a number it is uh R
uh squared and that is a statistical representation of how close the equation the model predicts the truck traffic and you will see there's
no correlation whatsoever the R squar value in the morning peak hour is 01749 and in the evening it is [Music] 0.99 what that means in engineering or
statistics is there's no relationship in the data in terms of truck docks being able to accurately forecast traffic in fact the data shows particularly in the morning peak hour there are some very large buildings a a
building that is uh having 100 loading docks generates the same truck activity essentially as a building with 10 loading docks so and we get into the evening
peak hour you will see buildings that have same thing a lot of loading docks and very little truck activity ranging between four and six Vehicles generally so in terms of traffic
engineering I look at this data I I am uh refuting the objectors expert that there is any relationship between the number of loading docks and the truck projections and that I have continued to rely on that has been buttressed by the
collection of data at actual warehouses in New Jersey that the uh equations and predictions and the statistics the actual numbers of truck trips is fairly
consistent and consistently low throughout the sites that not only we have studied but that I has studied based on the size of the building and so whether that building has a lot of docks or whether it has a few docks it's the size of the building
that is a better predictor of projected traffic and as a result of this analysis the independent statistics that we have presented to the board specifically for New Jersey sites and finally the it data
that I will submit that our findings uh are reliable for the purposes of this board's consideration that the truck traffic is not overly significant in terms of it being orders of magnitude
and volume we're not talking about a 100 trucks or 200 trucks per hour it is a volume that generally ranges fairly minimally between five and 10 trips per hour which
equates to five in five out uh and with that I I find that the obors expert has really U raised an issue uh we appreciate the opportunity to review it though again that could
have been done on his own um but I cannot find any evidence to support his conclusion and I will continue to stand by my initial findings and as part of those findings it was your opinion that the uh standard
of practice or recommended practice for it is to use square footage um in their land use code categories for estimating vehicle traffic truck traffic it it shows the highest statistical
correlation um and and for a very good reason is that when when we Traffic Engineers study we know what a building is anytime we study it we know exactly the size of the building what varies over time is how many people may be
assigned to the building how many people may actually be in the building how many people may be employees of the building but are not on site and and that varies at every location so there is no statistical accuracy we can glean from
that and and I will continue uh to in my practice to use building area as the most consistent variable that can be measured and recorded uh in terms of a projection of
anticipated traffic and I guess there was also a submit uh an exhibit we submitted do you recognize this document if we can mark it a 27 yes and just simply I guess for ease of reference it
looks like you took the various land use codes land use it codes in all the various vehicle and trip Generations associated with it is that basically what this document is showing yes what this document shows and and the board may recall I know it's been some time
there are roughly five different Warehouse categories in it much in the way we can say it's a restaurant but the Ryland in is very different than McDonald's in terms of they're both restaurants but they have very different characteristics the information you have
on this chart is for different types of warehouses and in our study um we have excluded the applicant has excluded two specific types of warehouses from this particular application simply because
the building is not designed for those warehouses nor is there sufficient parking and uh truck accommodations for those buildings that generate substantially more traffic actually it was three it was the parcel Hub the
transload and the sort fulfilment Center yes that is correct those those were I'll say taken off the table and what this chart was intended uh to provide the board with is a bit of an education an understanding of these different
Warehouse types and as applied to the proposed building areas of 530 7,290 Square ft what the projected traffic both for for overall traffic as well as trucks would be for each of uh
the different Warehouse types and as we exclude the ones including the the parcel Hub category the Sorting fulfillment center and the uh what was the the transload thank you
sorry um from the equation the category we used which is land use code 150 warehousing yields the highest projections of traffic and for that reason to provide a cons this board with
a conservative traffic study we use that category in our analyses to the extent this site is occupied by the other categories all will have lower traffic characteristics that's all we have a direct examination
of Mr unless you have anything else you'd like to add I do not oh I'm sorry no there is we uh at a prior meeting or actually during the cross-examination I believe of the objector witness there was questions
about your chart and whether um uh those buildings were occupied and was your testimony uh that based on your recollection of the research those buildings were
occupied and there was a question in about a particular building where an objector relied upon an internet listing um that a building may have been not
occupied do you recall that vaguely yes I I don't recall which site and do you recall there is a uh do you recall there being contact with the uh real estate broker for the building uh in question
I'm bringing up and is marked as exhibit a 12 already regarding 111 kbry Road yes uh in Clinton at the time we conducted our studies we asked attained that the buildings were fully leased and occupied
if they hadn't been we would have used the occupied square footage in our calculations so that the data we collected was accurate for the building area however in each instance we confirmed through the owner Andor the
Brokers that the buildings at the time of our studies were fully occupied the only reason I can surmise that a an internet listing may have shown available space is that it was anticipated that a tenant would be at
some point at the end of their lease and the premises at some future date would become available just marketing 101 but at the time we conducted our studies each of those buildings was fully occupied and I
have here an email dated October 31st 2024 from Chuck Fern uh from kushman Wakefield who was a listing broker to you uh do you recall this email yes and in that email did he confirm that the building has been 100% occupied for the
past 10 years yes now that's all we have me you any question of the board sorry that I forgot I gotta go to the objectors first sorry guys uh do we go to the board first or
the obors first whichever is your preference we'll go to the objectives first Scott gross subor number two Mr Dean did you submit a letter to the Hillsboro planning board on February 28th
25 I'm sorry did did you hear my testimony yeah I'm just yes in that letter did you include a revision to your original traffic accounts of local warehouses in New Jersey and Eastern PA that now includes number of truck docks yes did you
compare the number of truck trips to loading docks yes we go to uh page five of the letter exhibit [Music] 826 is something going to show that uh page five please of the
letter great I guess you're controlling my letter we grab that are you showing it or oh I'm sorry I'm got the wrong exhibit up yeah that's it there it is okay he's got it that first graph please so uh this first graph do you agree this is a a comparison of the
number of morning truck trips to the number of loading docks that's what it's labeled as and you have an R squ value of 01749 yes based on that value of R squ 1749 you uh conclude there's no correlation between loading docks and
morning truck trips for the DAT collected correct correct if you go to the second graph similar question for uh evening truck trips uh you have a r squared value of 0.0099 and you've therefore concluded there's no correlation between loading
docks and afternoon truck trips for the data collected that's correct So based on that you said there's essentially zero correlation between loading docks and truck trips in in terms of being able to forecast based on the number of loading docks yes that is my
conclusion I'll pause you used a very specific statistical method for refuting uh the hypothesis that loading docks are related to truck trips and based on our squared uh r to refute it at least for the data that was
collected I'd like to bring up uh an excerpt of Mr housman's report uh exhibit 07 it's uh title 2011 Homestead Road Traffic review supplemental dated 827
2024 while he's bringing that up Mr hman presented that to the board in September of 2024 it has set of two graphs using data from empirical traffic counts conducted by you Mr Dean uh for that sorry what what 07 tell me
when I don't have the page keep going it's there I know it keep going please 07 that's it right there here that one right there so Mr hman took the data from your study Mr Dean
local uh warehouses in New Jersey and Eastern PA and then graft that data the morning one above and the evening one below and was Warehouse size versus uh the number of truck
trips for that first graph or Warehouse sizes compared to the uh am truck trips do you agree that Mr Housman shows an R squar value of 045 no I can't read the document and I don't recall it at all uh that was reviewed during uh Mr
hman testimony there was no dispute as to Mr hman housman's mathematics that was uh that was accepted can you zoom in on that so we can read [Music] so this is have a paper copy of the report to show
them yeah [Music] so while you're taking a look at that Mr howman took the number of truck trips versus the number of uh of the size of the warehouse and graph them for the am peak hour and the upper
graph and he did a similar uh uh comparison for the PM truck trips in the lower graph in the upper graph he calculated an R squar of 045 indicating as we discussed earlier that there would be no correlation
between Warehouse size and morning truck truck trips for this data set do you agree Mr Dean I'm only seeing this for the first time so no I don't agree at this moment did you review Mr housman's report as part of rebuttal uh yes this was part of his
report is there a question there was no objection to his mathematics so I'm saying that Mr hman used your data and and uh computed an R squar value of 045 for warehouse size versus uh morning truck [Music]
Trips Again is there a question apparently you don't agree with that but I'm stating for the record this is what Mr hman testified to and for the PM hour he calculated an R squ value of 0.110 if 045 were an R squar value for a
a comparison would you agree that that would indicate there's no sta statistical significance well I would need to compare this with the it data which apparently Mr Housman took exception to so I I to for him to cherry
pick the data that we compiled merely to I'll say provide supplemental information to the board um I I'd have to put all of that data together to draw some conclusion okay well um using Mr housman's
hypothesis um that truck docks were related to truck traffic you know we cherry-picked those numbers and compared them for your small data set of 8 to 10 warehouses and came up with no correlation I'm just going back using the exact same methodology using a
different column from your chart that you that you collected and we're indicating there is uh a very low r squared values for uh Warehouse area versus truck trips and you're recommending in your letter that we use your empirical
data uh to uh understand what the impact of truck trips would be from these from this uh development sure and I still believe that that's accurate because I look at the actual truck trips I don't care about r squared and statistics I look at what the data says and if I look
at a building for example which which I've said 10 and 30 nox Drive in Piscataway which is almost identical in size to the subject applic that actually generated 17 a.m. truck trips in the
morning peak hour and two so I'm sorry excuse me five five at night so I I think that's the relative number that this Board needs to consider eight trucks in and nine trucks
out over the course of an hour is is that likely to have a material impact I I don't care about the statistics as much as I care about the actual numbers in terms of relevance if you're going to dispute Mr housman's hypothesis
based on statist statistics I I believe uh your analysis should also hold up to the same methods and it does not I'm saying that your R squ values are below essentially zero in your own terms uh and there's no correlation for the data set that you collected that
shows an indication or a correlation between Warehouse size and truck trips sure I I looked at the data trying to back it into some statistical model that quite frankly you know a a limited number of
professionals understand I think doesn't have a lot of relevance on is 17 truck trips and a half a million square foot building material okay we'll move on Mr Dean in your traffic impact analysis conducted by you and D
1222 21 uh you predicted the number of uh Peak morning and evening truck trips by the project did you not I I don't recall and I didn't testify to that this evening do you recall in your original
traffic impact analysis you testified to it earlier today that you use the it trip generation manual L use 150 yes uh does this data from this manual compare the warehouse size to truck trips yes do you recall what the R squ
value is for warehouse use 150 for uh morning and evening truck trips I I do not no can we bring up uh uh Mr housman's report I'm sorry it be Mr Dean's report
same same exhibit page 30 and 32 I'm sorry what do you want me to bring up I'm sorry the original Mr Dean uh traffic report dated 12 2221 page 30 the 12 I can bring it up if you want
1222 2020 21 yes just plug good display we have it so I'm just just look like your report that you submitted in December of 2021 Mr Dean yes we are talking
about uh Warehouse use 150 you've got that on page 30 this is uh for morning truck trips and on page 32 this is the correlation uh Warehouse use 150 for evening truck trips going back to the morning can you see
what the R squar value is there no it's not reported if I go down to cars it is reported at 0 65 I'll keep going and this is the evening do you see the r squar for the evening there's no value I think there's no value I'm saying there's no
statistical correlation between uh Warehouse size and truck trips uh using this data set from Warehouse use 150 would you agree that based on no r squared value that the statist the statistical significance is low I could
you articulate that again please would you agree that based on no r squar value being reported that there is a low statistical significance between Warehouse size and truck trips for for this data set yes I have no further questions
okay other obors uh Mr Dean uh the analysis that you did of the traffic impacts on Homestead Road and the intersection of Homestead in 206
were they based on these um these it uh truck trip generation estimates yes so um does um does that does the fact that they are
don't meet the statistical significance that you laid out in your most recent report um call to question your uh analysis of traffic not at all okay they comport with the actual data of truck traffic associated with warehouses in
New Jersey so the statistics become irrelevant when we have actual data and actual truck counts so the the analysis that you did the statistical analysis r squared in your most recent letter is is not pertinent I I I'm saying the actual
data and and again I will refer to 30 and I think it's 10 and 30 KNX drive with a total the highest truck trip generation of all the sites we studied had 10 entering trucks and seven exiting trucks so single a single Warehouse
you're talking about a single Warehouse with the highest truck trip Generation all of the others were lower yeah so so no statistics then it statistics are irrelevant I'm talking about the actual volume that gets input into the modeling I don't have any further questions okay thank
youor number one no number five number four okay Mr Mayu thank you Mr chairman um Whoever has control of the of the screen maybe
could you help by moving to Mr Dean's most recent um report I think it's I'm looking for the evening peak hour chart so you're really close
um and I think Mr Dean you've testified that this is a plot on the left is Total Truck trips and along the bottom is number of loading docks um and these blue
dots are taken from your firm's infield um how can of reference this exhibit that you have where there's yes it's the there's 10 warehouses your your firm
went 810 right A10 810 which was replicated in a26 as well okay somebody's moved it to that so you took the data from your field information and then please go back to
that to the plot I'm just trying to help people understand and so that's where these blue dots came from from this this spreadsheet that's it based on the number of loading docks at the research
sites the blue dot represents for example the one furthest to the left is a building that has 10 loading docks that generated five truck trips and then moving from left to right the next research site had eight truck
trips for I'll interpolate maybe 25 or 27 docks the next one had 10 truck trips for 30 loading docks and so on and so forth as we go from left to right yes thank you you're welcome I just wanted
to help people understand I I don't have anything electronic but I have 12 paper paper copies that I can hand out it's going to look very similar to this CH of what
it's truck trip count I'm curious we've asked for a review letter and you not provided it but you were able to put this together and show it to us for the first time tonight yes that seems real fair this sh is Mr Dean's
D and I just want to place my objection on the record that the board engineer who told us we would have a review letter before this evening so we'd have an opportunity to have it in review didn't preva a review letter but apparently prepared exhibits to cross examine our witness
and didn't even provide that to us before tonight's meeting that's outrageous so Mr Dean um this exhibit is purely taking numbers from your um exhibit of the field study of your
warehouses and on the left is truck trips and along the bottom is area of Warehouse in thousands of square feet um and what I I want people to notice is um when you put a curve through this data and
calculate the r squared comes out to be 0.004 um again as we've been and this is an engineering number that we've been throwing out tonight uh in your opinion wouldn't this show the lack of
correlation between truck trips and the area of the warehouse I'll go back to my testimony which is I look at this data and I look at a 530,000 sqare foot building for which
there is one data point excuse me and it generates Five Truck trips that's what that one data point that is closest to this application in size shows I'll concede its one data
point I'll also concede that the highest of all of these sites generated 10 truck trips that's the relevant number that's what we used in our study we exceeded that number in our study so we can talk about math all night I'm actually
looking at what we used in our reports and our data in terms of assessing the impacts of this proposal the rest of this is addressing issues raised by objectors and now Mr Mayhew but the number 10 is on this chart to me is the
most important five trucks in and five trucks out is 10 trips per hour one every six minutes that has no impact on traffic but would you agree on this chart which
is from your data there are some warehouses let's take the 200,000 square foot data point producing in your data 8 truck
trips which is more than the warehouse that had the 500 let's interpolate 535,000 Square which if I'm reading this correct is five truck trips it's less so this is purely I'm asking a
mathematical question of your data would you agree in those two data points the warehouse that was twice as large at 5 some Square ft is reporting a lower truck trip count correct could it be something else is
driving these numbers besides simply the area of the warehouse I think you had mentioned maybe there was potentially the number of employees at the facility could also be a driver in
in terms of total traffic yes terms of truck traffic no could we go back to the um well I got one other exhibit U Mr Dean have you done traffic studies in Pennsylvania
yes um this isn't meant to be a trick question but I'm um I'm I'm going to hand out a pend do policy and procedure guideline for trying to identify the land category of
Warehouse I'm sorry what what is this document what what what is going on here no I'm instructing you not to answer the question if Mr Mayhew wants to testify even though he's not a traffic expert he can feel
free but to try and cross-examine my witness without providing any of these documents or what he's referring to is ridiculous I understand the board's just going to let it happen because well I think we all know why because no not Mr mayew is
cross-examining as asking questions and hasn't he hasn't provided us a review letter in like two years the objectors asked you questions Mr Mayu is asking questions and he's and he's asking him to look at documents for the first time tonight Mr ask him the
question without the documents Please Mr Dean wants to answer without reviewing the documents that's up to Mr Dean or Mr gianetti to tell them whether to answer them or not um the the discussion goes to what parameters are
impacting trips at a facil IL um and we've heard the applicant state that they're ruling out three types of land use categories our offic is concerned that
we don't know how you physically do that um and so we're trying to understand what might be the real traffic um on this facility and when pendot looks at applications for warehous say they look at different
parameters of the facility the actual facility they look at the square I'm sorry he's you're testifying you're not asking a question you're asking about Pennsylvania Dot and how they handle the question Mr Mayu please um well let's let's turn to an
exhibit that our office received four hours ago from you Mr gianetti it's the um Dolan and Dean chart a27 which identifies different land use
categories including 150 Warehouse 154 transload I think this exhibit was on the screen a little earlier I'll give you a chance to put it back up yeah that look like it yeah I know I just for some reason keeps clicking away and maybe you could zoom in to help
help people read it Mr Dean maybe you can help the there's a lot going on down the left hand side would you agree is a listing of the different it land use categories 150 to
157 for for what is categorized excuse me as a warehouse use yes and then going across the top uh you've broken this into six columns the first three have to do with total trips that would include trucks
and veh cars and vehicles correct any movement of a motor vehicle in and out of the property and then the right three columns are specifically Just Trucks correct and Mr Dean you've the chart
will give you um am meaning the peak trips in that one hour identified as the peak hour in the am correct correct and similarly whatever is the identified peak hour in the PM and then the third column in each
group is is a total for the 24-hour Peri correct yes so just to help the public and the board understand under warehousing 150 it's anticipated there's 350
315 entering trips 34 14 exit for a total of 629 trips in a 24-hour Peri period anticipated versus am I reading this correct if it was something more similar to a fulfillment center it' be closer to
3,400 trips in that 24-hour period correct assorting fulfillment center and if it was the facility was uh operated similarly to a partial Hub code 156 then the trips could be closer to
2500 per day correct and I just want to point out I guess the most significant from a truck standpoint is that partial Hub um amak could be 48 potentially
versus the rest of the codes are fairly similar at around 11 is that am I reading that correct you are so I would it be safe to say then that when
you're analyzing the truck trips on a facility understanding the use of that facility would impact the numbers you're going to estimate will be generated I'm not following your
question so when you're calculating the vehicle and truck trips anticipated for a facility you are going to take into consideration what type of facility that is yes that's
correct and different Warehouse facilities as you're shown here would produce different types of daily and Peak rates correct for trucks or all vehicles um for both no as
I look at every Warehouse category for example in the in the morning peak hour with the exception of parcel Hub they're virtually all equivalent same in the evening peak hour yeah they range from 5 to 16 Total Truck trips the parcel Hub category stands out
as generating three to five times more traffic by and large the rest are all consistent and there is though a difference in the total truck traffic uh warehousing 150 and partial Hub
or three times let's say the Fulfillment center sort for the total anticipated truck traffic during the day correct on a 24-hour basis yes yes y okay that's all I have Mr chairman thank
you you I have no questions Mr chairman board members no that's Mr Dean um so obviously engineers and math everybody can make a number look advantageous um we talk about you try and break it down
to the most smallest denominator to prove a point but realistically the total traffic on a daily basis is really the number versus the am peak hour because that's the traffic that is being on that
road or in that area of town on a whole day every day during 65 days so you can say that the in your little chart there or continue to say it's it's 10 truck
tricks an hour on Peak but then you have as our engineer stated possibility of 322 total trips in a 24-hour period so wouldn't you consider that more impactful to an area as opposed to
trying to break it down to a 1H hour segment in Peak AM and PM time it's a very good question uh Mr leani the reason Traffic Engineers focus on the peak hour is
because that's when the system when the infrastructure is busiest and typically most constrained so we evaluate roadway conditions and operations when traffic is at its
worst I understand that there are 24 hours in a day but if we look at that and isolate the am Peak and the PM Peak which represent the two busiest times of traffic in the day and we conclude that the system can
appropriately accommodate that traffic what a what occurs at other hours of the day when the system is not so Contra constrained are not of consideration in
in what traffic engineering evaluates and what you're asking me is is there an effect of having that traffic at off peak hours of course there's an effect it's more traffic but because I looked at it when the system
is most constrained to me that is why the the practice of traffic engineering focuses on peak hours it's not to give you a low number I'll accept that 322 truck trips per day sounds like a
lot it's it's more than 10 truck trips an hour on a 24-hour basis it's probably closer to 15 but I'm not as concerned as a design professional in evaluating the
suitability of your roadway infrastructure what's occurring at 11:00 in the morning when there's 30% traffic on the road that there is at peak hours so that's why we specifically isolate
those hours it is not to dilute a number but it has to be put in a context of what does that number that total daily volume mean over the course of a business day or 24 hours so it's done for different
purposes and if you're asking me what kind of impact 322 trucks by way of example has over the course of a day I that's social engineering not traffic engineering so I I don't have an opinion on it we didn't study it all right did
you do a and I don't recall I apologize give us a number of what the existing traffic is on that road is total I did I didn't testify to it tonight but I went and I described how we measured the existing truck traffic uh and that has been presented total traffic truck
traffic yes all of the above um and I I could ask you what the Delta would be but you didn't testify tonight so I'll I'll leave it alone but would you say based on your testimony it was significantly increased no from
again uh this is a permitted use you and the governing body specifically said we want a warehouse in this Zone this applicant is fulfilling that directive that you prescribed when you enacted zoning
so an applicant has the right to rely on that decision to make a use permitted with the assumption that the infrastructure was deemed at the time it was made a permitted use could accom accomodate it you hold that police power
and that planning discretion we're just fulfilling the blueprint that you laid out so yes there will be more traffic because of this development but in our analysis that I believe has not been refuted there is capacity to accommodate
it safely and efficiently for the use that is proposed uh one last question and not um I know so the warehouse that we has been testified to the type of warehouse but
no tenant so could the type of tenant dra um based on the it150 generate more or less traffic than one another as far as in the general warehousing even though the square
footage is the same but the tenant is different the tenants differ whether it's an office building a retail space that is the nature of commercial development it's available for leasing MH so tenants are never known so with
that being considered we need to estimate the Max and that is precisely why in this exercise of all the different potential Warehouse categories we isolated land use code 150
because it yielded the highest traffic projections not the lowest right to the extent a cold storage operator were to take the building and I'm not suggesting that is the case it would have lower traffic characteristics than the than the use we proposed that is the nature
of traffic engineering we are inherently conservative and it is it is for this practice because we don't want to be caught I'll say lowballing these projections and that's why we rely on industry standard information from it
and in this instance that has been supplemented because of I'll say a general not General but an a frequent distrust of it let's look at what happens for warehouses in New Jersey and we've provided you with that data and it is
consistent if not lower than the it projection so to answer your question expecting that out of 10 different research sites for multi-tenanted buildings there may be tenants that generate more and there may be tenants that generate less but overwhelmingly
the data supports the conclusions I've made in our report okay thank you you're welcome uh I had a question um any of our professionals or anybody on the board is this a
24hour uh operation or are these hours restricted we haven't come to that point okay so if it's not a 24hour operation and say it's only from you know 6:00 a.m. to 9900 p.m. whatever it is and
those hours are compressed would that make a difference in traffic generation moving Goods in and out when there's not 24 hours to do it and the studies that you've done were those 24hour operations or unconcluded well in
the studies we did we focused on peak hours none of the independent research we've done evaluated 24 hours data for the reasons I explained to Mr leani it has no I'll say I don't want to say relevance but it has no relevance to the
specific type of analysis we do to evaluate your infrastructure that's done at the finest level and I should point out even more in traffic engineering studies when we do our counts we do them in 15minute intervals within those counts we find
the highest 15 minutes when traffic was the busiest and we calculate capacity we assume that that demand over the highest 15 minutes over the course of 2 hours in the morning and 2 and a half at night we
pretend we assume that that Peak Peak demand is sustained over the course of an entire hour so when I say that these calculations and studies are conservative it is precisely under that set of parameters so to to your
point I'd have to look at the underlying data that it developed and and you know we've shared one number of 322 I don't know whether that was a 24hour a day business or a 12-hour a day business but in terms of the analysis and my
conclusions it's not relevant okay so your it may be informational the board and I'm sorry to interrupt so your more more is is geared towards congestion rather than just constant traffic correct okay and and and it's to assess whether your infrastructure can sustain
The increased traffic loads that's why we do it it's why do does it that's that's the art of and practice of traffic engineering nothing further good anyone else okay
well so Mr you made a when you're answering Mr lean's or committee lean question you you talked about that the governing body wanted warehouses did you speak to anyone governing body that passed that ordinance I I can only infer from what I
read in the plain language of the ordinance okay so you don't know what they were thinking so your comment was not accurate they specifically included Warehouse as a permitted use so someone thought of it I didn't verify that they thought of 150 Warehouse a a warehouse
is a permitted use in the zone a 150 Warehouse please a a warehouse period so I just want to be clear though the Zone just s speaking on the same thing the Zone permits warehousing shipping and receiving and I know we had other discussions and there was a lot of De
baate on it but you did not speak to anyone governing body I did not no okay so um okay so with the different types of warehouses here you said you chose to 150 for your
analysis since we don't know what the businesses are going to be in there that you know this there's there was an unprovided why wouldn't You' have taken the worst case scenarios of fulfillment center of the sort type or a parcel Hub yes
because out of respect to your concerns and in light of the much higher volume of traffic that those two land uses generate and thirdly because the specific building design would not allow
those uses I'll defer to Mr gianetti but that they have been excluded voluntarily by the applicant even though arguably the Zone permits it this applicant has taken the further
step to say they will not seek tenants of that ilk for this building or these buildings okay to negate that what if scenario right and I guessing you're say because you you made a mention that you used other New Jersey
warehouses to do your evaluation correct right what I think the right word here I guess how do they compare with what the proposed business here is what were their businesses they are speculative
Warehouse that were not u i I'll say end user built but I thought you got an email that said it was 100% occupied 100% occupied correct what's the business oh I don't know at the time at the time of the studies I couldn't tell you I I know who's in 10 and 30 knocks
right now right but that could change tomorrow but at the time of the data but it could be a a future tenant that comes in here since we don't know who's coming in here could generate higher that that's why we look or lower that's why we look the data and we and
we try to we try to figure out the highs and the lows and as we look at a warehouse use you you will see for the New Jersey warehouses with one exception and that's the one in Piscataway every single one of those buildings was lower than it so I think that should give you
a level of comfort that the tenant that ultimately occupies is not going to negate my conclusions are they going to move into this one I trying to question I didn't hear the question because I'm trying to get he's trying to correlate you know other
warehouses to this empty one right now and I'm just trying to ascertain what those businesses are and how he would feel confident that's the type of businesses would be in here without going to worst case scenarios here well I have to look at not only the it data
and I don't have the chart but I mean I believe there are dozens more studies than we've compiled and that we have now looked at 10 different sites multi-tenanted some with multiple buildings that represents a spectrum of
I'm venturing a guest but I'd say 30 maybe 40 different tenants and tenant types and and the data is all the same I understand the public and you you don't like it I get it but I mean I'm I I don't don't put words in my mouth I
didn't say I didn't like it right Mr J three and a half years of hearings I can draw my own conclusion I'm no don't yet don't don't say but I look at the data Mr chairman and and it and it and IT addresses your concern that what if scenario nothing in any of the data
whether it or what we've collected shows an outlier o of of such an enormous magnitude that it negates my conclusions there's there's nothing to support that hypothesis in fact as I've indicated arguably we have overestimated the
projected traffic okay all right we're still still open to the public okay no one says we're not so I'm going to open up to the public and we're in our last 15 minutes so please feel free to come up state your name and
address stating that whether or not you're represented by the objectors or any of the objectors and just please keep your questions to Mr Dean rebuttal because if they are they can't ask that's true good evening uh in aive
River 2 for talo trail uh I'm not represented by the objectors uh Mr Dean I just wanted to clarify you said you studied 10 warehouses in New Jersey that were where
the same square footage no not the same we studied 10 different Warehouse locations let me just verify one two three four five six seven eight nine 10 actually nine were in new New Jersey one was in uh
either Northampton U or Lehigh County in Pennsylvania okay U Mr Den but did you study all the warehous in the vicinity how can we know that you didn't Cherry Peck your nine wareh 10 ware houses just
to have a nice data to present I I I will refer you to the data that was submitted they range in size from a small of 120 to the largest at 730,000 FT they are strewn throughout the state uh
Northern New Jersey but ranging from Mercer uh through Somerset Hunting County so I don't know how many warehouses are located in New Jersey but you chose specific 10 so my question is how did you choose
this specific 10 and not other specific 10 if you had any statistical data for the whole Warehouse you could say look this is the minimum this is the maximum sure right and you have 10 warehouses that you chose and I'm just asking how
can we be sure some of these were chosen for us and I will say I had a very similar application in a different community and uh that particular mayor of that Community doesn't believe in it
doesn't believe in statistics so she said I I'm going to choose some warehouses I want you to study so we did and and it's data that we had already compiled for an identical exercise so over the period of time from starting in
2019 and continuing through October of 2024 we have periodically updated our findings when we are asked to look at a warehouse so that's what we did okay uh thank you and um so you said that you
conducted of study um based on loading docks right just and found that there is no correlation between um amount of loading dogs and um the traffic am I right that was my testimony yes and you said that you chose one warehouse in New
Jersey and another in Pennsylvania we chose nine in New Jersey we studied we didn't choose we studied nine different warehouses in New Jersey and one in Pennsylvania so this was for your rebattle right and to show that there is
no correlation between loing dogs so it's my question is again the same maybe if you chose other warehouses you would find that there is correlation between loading docks any obor is welcome to do
that okay um but I'm just asking how can we be sure that you didn't Cherry Peck them for your rebuttle go look at the sites we've we've been transparent with where they're located if if anyone in this process felt that they were not
comparable to this application I'd welcome that criticism no one has I also want to be clear the original comparison did not have loading docks identified he only went out and got that information based upon the objector testimony so he didn't cherry pick based
upon number of loading docks that was even what they looked at in the original study okay and um and another question so you are saying that um it is right to look at the square
footage of a warehouse to find out how much traffic it will generate right it it it it is but one method and in my opinion it it is the most reliable method to look at the traffic for a given building yes right so you talking
about square footage but you're not talking about volume so if you have one story high warehouse and this particular Warehouse will be four story high so it probably could be up to four times more Goods but you still looking only on the
square footage correct that is the industry standard practice and and for warehouses each one of these has different descriptions as to ceiling Heights that is included in the definition of each of these under it so I I can't speak the
volume it's you're the first person in 41 years of practice That Ever Raised that it's a novel approach okay but doesn't it make sense that a warehouse that has one story and another that has 10 story high will have more goods and
probably more uh traffic I I don't know of a 10 story Warehouse five story I don't know a five story Warehouse that's Self Storage particular one will be four story there not four stories it's a single story as I
understand I but you could put many many I don't know shelves so you have a lower warehouse and a taller Warehouse so in a taller you could put more shelves and more Goods sure I I will I will defer to the architect and his testimony as to the height of the building and and the interior
clear uh volume and the last question I don't know if um that's relevant to you um you mentioned that uh the client said it won't be specific type of warehouses correct um
is it a promise or it's how can we be sure it will happen after it's built how can be sure great legal answer for that uh indeed keeps his promise you're about to hear the legal answer for that so when we say we'll agree to that as a
condition of approval that's assuming and that's a big assumption that this gets approved it would be a condition of that approval that it cannot be a parcel delivery Hub
a transload facility or a sort fulfillment center and it will be a condition of approval zoning officer would have that whenever a tenant goes in they would have to apply for a zoning permit as well as certificate of occupancy and if UPS tried to come in
and seek a zoning permit Mr K would say no way there's a condition of approval for this property that says parcel hubs are not allowed okay thank you correct Mr Co I'm sure you would do that thank you Mr Dean out of sheer
curiosity which town which mayor asked him East Brunswick anyone who's been involved in land use I I would have thought it would been another East but I'm sorry not East bronck my apologies East Windsor that one that one was the
one I expected notoriously difficult Community thank you Ana U live on 3 I'm sorry your name again kit 3D run I'm not associated with the
obors Mike please oh go in um so a question I um you talked about uh or this of the applicant you talked about that when the actuals were collected um the warehouses were um occupied or
leased I was just trying to assess whether um it was evaluated whether they were being used utilized at 100% of the capacity or you know at what percentage capacity those warehouses were actually being utilized as a matter of practice we don't study empty buildings or underperforming sites and and the reason
is obviously you know this is an important concern for the community and and I you I've been doing this for longer than I care to admit I just did but we want to be consistent and and I want to present to this board and the public facts and information uh that I
believe is helpful and understanding so I can't tell you and and when when we're directed by a certain mayor in a certain town to look at a particular building it's because there is an opinion or a thought that it is a a busy building and
and so is it fully occupied is it fully least yes I I I don't have the means I don't know that anybody does to assess whether they're using every square foot under their lease I but what business
I I yeah and that's why because I mean at least in my head I was thinking you know I may have a I may have rented a home but I may not be there and so if I might anyway so I I hear your answer I appreciate it um and then the second part was you talked a little bit about
the methodology the 15minute increments and then using that to extrapolate um can you share some details about over how you know were what kind of duration that data was collected you know like weekday weekends certain holidays over a period of days months weeks sure we we
typically uh sample count um on on a on a representative weekday am peak hour PM peak hour as a general practice we don't do counts on Monday morning and we don't do counts on Friday afternoon why people are away they vacation they're not
they're coming into work late for whatever reason generally speaking we don't even do it on on Monday evenings or Fridays for the same reason so we traditionally stick to M uh excuse me Tuesday Wednesday Thursday to collect our counts we do it when schools are in
session when it's not a religious or federal holiday representative of typical traffic conditions in this instance we we have studied 206 and Homestead I've lost count how many times we've put machines out on the road we've put cameras out on the road so we have
compiled data over multiple days over multiple weeks over several years through about the duration of this as well as other applications in the area so um this is not a a onetime only
snapshot got it so yeah so all of the numbers we're seeing are kind of averages across that not excluding certain like certain data that's collected but maybe excluded for certain reasons we don't collect data if it's not a representative day it's it's a
normal traffic day you know there isn't an accident on 206 that might affect or any other local Road you and and and that's why and again I'll say the benefit of an application that takes this much time is that we're constantly
refreshing to ensure that our original findings are still consistent all right thank you you're welcome Mr Dean is are the numbers in 827 it numbers from the it manual I I don't know what 827 is the
last the last um the last grid I I I I believe so yes 11th Edition it's entitled 11th Edition it trip generation calculations yes Mr Bernstein thank you Mr Dean Rich Garmin 53 Winding Way I'm not
affiliated so Mr Dean is the it governing body it is an international professional Society uh that among other charges or tasks uh provides guidelines and Direction on the conduct of traffic
studies the design of traffic signals and a host of other transportation and traffic related uh practices okay so they don't enforce their categories they don't mandate that a sort facility has to be this design or you can't build it
you can't call it that right the it provides a description of what a sort facility is but there's no law regulation ordinance that says this building has to meet this in order to fall under this category well there are rules and regulations and practices
whether it's by zoning whether it's by building code whether it's by uh other state local or federal guidelines that the fire protection code that dictate how a building is used and constructed okay but it doesn't Define
assort building has to be constructed in this arrangement in this setup with this travel area around it with these parking spaces with these loading docks they don't lock you into that who's they anybody any governing body determines
specifically what assort facility must be designed as uh there may be some somewhere I I'm not a building I'm not a building designer so exactly okay that was going to be a question you're a traffic expert not an architect or building management right we've covered
that okay great so you did testify that these three things were not really designed for that but yet you're not testifying as an expert I'm testifying as a traffic expert yeah but you're saying wa hold let me finish let me finish his answer ahe that wasn't his
testimony who has observed those specific buildings and categories in terms of how much parking is needed how much truck parking is needed and the operation contained within the building so I have expertise in the traffic and
operation characteristics of each of those land use categories okay but you're not an expert on whether a building even though it wasn't optimized for one of those categories could in fact if a tenant wants to use it as such could use it as such not not true at all
why is that for example some buildings are what's called dual loaded they have loading docks on both sides of the building because they serve an entirely different function than the building that is proposed on this site so a building that for example just has parking in front for employees can never
be used for for example a transload facility which is a long skinny building with a very short space in between docks a Cross Dock facility as it's known were you here on September 14 20123 for the testimony of the architect I have no
recollection okay I may have been I may not I just I'll just let you know and I have it documented that the architect did indeed say those buildings could be used for those things if the tenant so decided and he is an architect if the tenant's willing to use it in that configuration it can be done again again
this his argumentative he's misrepresenting the testimony during public comment he can present it and I can present what he testified to as well I will all right so I just have one more question you stated building square footage has no
correlation with loading docks as far as truck traffic right that's what the data okay shows so hypothetical 3 138,000 Square ft is the first building I believe I I don't that sounds about right about right right I'm close enough
so 338,000 ft² building no loading docks 338,000 Square ft building with 50 loading docks no correlation who's going to generate more traffic sure if a building has zero loading docks it can accommodate trucks but you just said
there's no correlation which is it well there's a big Corel between Z and 50 okay there's no correlation between 20 and 50 you said there was no correlation between building square footage and loading
docks I just presented you with a case there's a correlation if a building has way or the other I agree with you if there's no loading dock you're not going to bring a truck in there because it's not it's no longer a warehouse it's an entirely different land use can't have a warehouse without a loading dock sure
you can absolutely not and that'll be my testim I'm not going to argue me neither we start niaa 3 de run uh just to follow up on the methodology question from earlier um for
the 10 warehouses that you did study can you explain um how frequently you collected data on what days that data was collected all of that is documented and contained in our analysis as to the date that the data was collected so was on a
single date well for each Warehouse studied it appears to be a single date they were all done on different dates with the exception of it looks like March 15th of 2022 was a busy day
for us we studied three locations on that particular day and then another location the following day and then another location 5 days after that but each one was only studied on a single day correct at the morning peak hour and
the evening peak hour correct okay so when we're looking at graphs and we're looking at actuals and data you're asking us to trust the data but you've only looked at it each Warehouse on a single day versus weeks and weeks of
time to say okay over 3 months over a quarter Etc this is what we're seeing the actuals be and you're asking us to disregard it statistical models not at all I'm I'm I'm buttressing it with specific New
Jersey data but you said many times I don't care for statistics when it comes to the truck traffic I look at the highest research site we counted in one hour had 17 truck trips 10 in seven out but that was one
day and there's I have no basis to assume one day is any different than the next I don't know about that you're welcome to con collect your own data and take a look at it I've done tens of thousands of studies I will stand by my testimony as a qualified professional in
the field and I've comported with it data the more data you have the more accurate it is why we supplemented it now you're saying that's misrepresenting his testimony that is not what I said at all other people don't trust
it we prove them wrong I don't think so one day for each site is not proving anybody wrong collect your own data and let's have a discussion otherwise sure send me a check I will that's that's my issue as well right and just to be clear on
that Gary Dean's study originally was entirely on it and he said that is the exact methodology to be using it was the board members and the objectors who said it's not reliable and he used this data
to support that it is not only a good uh the appropriate measure but it's conservative Bill Martin 237 Hillsboro Road uh first Mr ganeta you misrepresented what the tecd Zone has as a permitted use Mr Martin You' got a
talk up maybe I can raise this Mr we should hear all right you misrepresented what the tecd Zone says is that a question Mr GN edti just made this statement he said the dur public comment
if you want to argue that where warehousing shipping and receiving is not permitted in the Tec data Zone be be my guest folks it says warehousing shipping and receiving located Martin for purposes of the record as a whole engaging in argument with the
witnesses doesn't do any of you any good because ultimately neither you nor the witness are ultimately going to decide to approve or disapprove this project it's these five people so let us be reminded of the fact that you're
basically talking to the board and not the witnesses or Mr gianetti who we all know where he feels on the project and Mr Dean feels on the project let's try to focus in on where you find the faults
with the testimony and with the project and not so much with the PE with the personalities and stop reading into things Mr Tarantino um as I can see on your face are you saying I can't say that Mr
gianetti just said Mr G Mr with all due respect to Mr gianetti as a member of the bar Mr gianetti's statements aren't worth the paper they're not printed [Laughter]
on he can say anything he wants but it doesn't bind anybody but Mr gianetti including he the at home including his CL including his client by the way all right let ask a
question okay uh Mr I think you also brought up the permitted use right as a warehouse we wouldn't be before this board for three and a half years if it weren't a permitted use all right but it's a permitted use but it's a warehousing shipping and receiving located completely within an enclosed
building are you asking me a zoning question or a traffic engineering question question well I'll get into that in my public comment then the the enclosed building part of it but that's what was misrepresented all right you said this can't be a sort facility because of
parking correct is that employee parking yes all right are you considering one employee parking space for one employee one to one is it that's generally the ordinance doesn't prescribe that but yeah that's what you
assume correct if we look at Robinsville if we look at the site I referenced on Randol Road in Franklin it has hundreds if not a thousand more spaces than this facility okay but you can have on average up to five people per car right
not just one I all right two three people per car uh all right sword facilities and fulfillment center can and do use shell buses don't they at peak times they have been known to yes but they still have to have a
location so that changes the number of employees it also reduces the traffic but oh we digress more shuttle Vans means less traffic on the road I don't know what Asos to single
occupant Vehicles I'm saying it increases am can we just Dean answer for the purpose of the record because depending on what happens out of this nobody's going to want to read this transcript so ask the question let them
answer ask the next question all my question was that you're aware that sort fulfillment centers can use Sho buses correct okay and that adds to the number of employees and you're saying that you don't have enough parking for the the employees
I I I've posited that this site design does not have enough parking to be operated among other criteria as a sort fulfillment center all right guess that's it thank
[Music] you I ch Joe oconnell White Meadow Road might want to move the right there we go okay uh Joe oconnell White Meadow Road um just a couple of real quick questions um when you stated that it was
the they must have known what they were doing because they put warehouses into to the the zoning and whatever how uh is it possible that what maybe that the the the definition of or the thought thought
of what a warehouse is maybe has changed drastically over the last several long years since I I can't dispute that okay H however zoning can always be amended
right I understand that that has not occurred here and well I that's just right in time for anyway um and and my other question is is when you're looking at your traffic things and you tended to
focus on the peak times is it also possible that maybe the peak times are not maybe what might make a difference to the neighborhood for example 3:00 in the
afternoon traffic coming through and 3:00 in the morning traffic coming through making backup noises and stuff like this could have a totally different impact depending upon what we're
thinking about it um as traffic impact it it would have a different impact in terms of noise light on the community that is not my field of expertise I but but it would
for traffic it it could work both ways is my point if if there's less ambient traffic on the road it has it has the ability to ACC odate more site traffic okay so there's a in other words
there's a benefit to an operation in terms of infrastructure not quality of life not any social standard but in terms of the ability of a roadway to accommodate traffic there's a benefit to an operation that exhibits impacts at
off peak times right from from your perspective thank you you're welcome Merl bitburg for Hickory Hill Road not associated with SWAT I just wanted to ask and this may be in your original documentation but so I apologize but how
many of the sites these 10 or 12 sites that you measured um had trailer parking where the trailers were used for Trans shipping I I don't know how they were used I see a tractor trailer and it's
parked on a site it's assumed presumably for Commerce the the the movement of things that go in a truck so if I see them on the site the site's being used for that activity I I don't know it's origin it's destination or what's in the
box do you know how many of them had more than like a couple uh trailer parking spaces sure that's all been documented in our in our findings they they ring from 10 uh loading docks
to just under a 100 loading loading docks correct I'm asking about trailer parking yeah I don't I don't know for these sites I I haven't tabulated that and that wasn't documented the trailer parking no okay good evening
um Craig Berlin I'm not represented by SWAT um I've been listening to the testimony tonight and the um the first thought that came to my mind was where in the report is the reflection that the warehouse is entrance and
exit uh feeds into a one lane road as opposed to a road with many lanes across sure that that is reflected on the site plans that Mr Ford's office does it affect the traffic sure um how does it affect congestion a better word for you
I'll do my my best answer your question our report reflects that it is a uh a two-lane road one lane in each Direction I believe and it's been a while I believe the proposal includes Frontage
improvements for a a widened section of Homestead Road directly in front of the property where traffic would be turning in and out but it would remain one lane in each Direction 100% correct yes okay then it's 100% correct also that there's
no left and right relief so I'm asking does that affect your report in that there is there is no way for trucks to come out and make a left so would 10 trucks coming out to the right be the equivalent of 20 trucks coming out to right and left as far as congestion goes
I I I believe Midstream through this application an ordinance was enacted to prohibit trucks on Willow Road correct so that uh as a result of that restriction the truck traffic from the site can only turn to and from the West
cor correct so I'm not understanding your question that if trucks turning left from the if you normally have 10 I'm talking about congestion only now the effect on the roads so if you normally have 10 trucks coming out let's go back to averages let's say five go
east and five go west the cars that are coming west east to west have to wait Behind These trucks these these trucks have to stop they're going to come to a full stop and they're going to proceed in a safe uh what would you say they have to get up to speed and
trucks take a little while to get the speed it's not an inordinate amount of time but it's a time to get the speed if I'm driving west to east on Homestead Road as an innocent do I have to wait for that truck is any consideration in the report given to the fact that traffic has to
wait for that truck I don't believe there's going to be a traffic light there I haven't heard there's going to be a traffic light there that's correct Okay so is any consideration where in the report is any consideration given to existing traffic that's going west to east because these trucks have to get up to speed sure um I don't agree with your
premise that a truck necessarily stops if there's no oppos they can I finish can can I answer if there is no westbound traffic and which a truck can see because they sit at a higher elevation there is no reason for that truck to
stop on Homestead before turning left into the driveway but more importantly whether it's a truck or a car and whether they're turning into this site or any other driveway on Homestead Road if a vehicle stops to wait for opposing traffic if you're following that vehicle
you have to stop you have to wait I I think you're proving my point it's it's going to have an effect on the traffic correct and we have studied that and the levels of service which are the operating standards and I'm deviating from my testimony tonight but we had
very favorable levels of service meaning the the likelihood of you routinely being stopped and the creation of congestion is remote well that that road is used to get to school by a lot of people in the mornings I'm
going we we've spent a lot of time on the traffic routes and the levels of service he has a whole report on it and he's testified at length at a prior hearing and there was an opportunity to cross-examine him on that I'd like to I'd like to continue if you exit into a
road that has say two lanes going in each Direction and I'm coming from west to east I can avoid this truck entirely by staying in the the let's say and go right by it it has no effect on my traffic can you make that a question please we're not having
comment the subject matter is not what he testified to tonight it was in his report at a prior meeting when he testified previously I guess my question was was any weight given to the fact that it's a on Lane each Direction road which is not accessible from one side that the trucks
don't have access to and also um I wanted to know if there was a traffic light and I wanted to know if the trucks are going to have to stop I have all of my answers to those questions okay thank you and this is going to be our final question because we're running into
overtime at this point good evening Chris mck 30 ancha Drive I'm not affiliated with any of the objetives with this application um Mr Dean Gary how you doing good to see you Chris um sort of but
go I'll make this um when you say that you analyze the infrastructure of the system uh in Hillsboro specifically what infrastructure did you analyze we we looked at Homestead Road we looked at the intersection of Route 206 where
there is a traffic signal and we looked at the easterly intersection at Willow so you didn't look at Rader Boulevard no once we get further removed from the site and you know as a permitted use again that becomes a a
very far off trck intersection I I didn't testify to that this evening so I I'm going to limit my answers to what I addressed tonight okay yeah because you you did in you did indicate that you uh analyze
infrastructure um during the uh peak hours during for a worst case scenario correct um and so you know my thought is um when you talk about Amo Road when you talk about arton Road milstone River Road so you you didn't analyze those at
all I didn't not specifically for this engagement okay thank you you're welcome thank you so we've reached the end of the evening know how many more people have questions just so I could plan for the next
meeting members of the public you're going to pay for his overtime no I just want to see how many people there are is there anyone else that's going to be interested in asking Mr Dean
nope no got three four well we got to have Mr Dean be available so okay I'm not gonna debate back there so we we know what the process is you want to leave it open for till 11
and let Mr Dean get asked as many questions you want it's up to you 10:30 or 11 your call doesn't mean doesn't mean that Mr it's up to then that's up to Mr gianetti as to whether he plans on bringing Mr Dean back what's
that I know but Mr Dre's got to come back so anything we should continue to the next meeting okay Mr Dean are you available for the uh what do we have April 3rd is our next one you're good all right so we're gonna since there's
so many we're gonna bring Mr Dean back on April 3rd Mr Bernstein I know there's some oh I want to take care of this piece first Mr chairman okay uh at this point we need a motion to continue file number 21 PB
25-ms MSP penv perin Homestead Road LLC block 20010 Lots 32 and 33 hearing to Thursday April 3rd 2025 at 7 p.m or soon thereafter as the matter may be heard and I would suggest
to the board they consider a long evening well hopefully not so moved second okay roll call please Mr Wagner yes M Smith yes leani
absolutely Vice chair P yes chair sarach yes CH I would just ask that the objectors if they're going to have well any response where I've made my position known since ARA buttal is addressing
their objections uh they shouldn't have an opportunity to represent their Witnesses but if they're going to do that or attempt to do that they have them ready for the next meeting they submit whatever they're going to testify to and then we can argue whether or not they
have a right to testify you want to be heard counselor I don't have any I will argue that when time comes no no we're going to argue that right now no let me let let me let me take part one of that if
you are going to introduce sir rebuttal testimony and plan on having a report regarding it that report needs to be in at leas 10 days prior to April the 3 not one second
thereafter however let me make the following further point it's sir rebuttal for those of you who do not understand that word of which there are very few of us who actually do it's not new evidence it's not new testimony it's
responses to the testimony that was presented by Mr Ford and Mr Dean at the last hearing and tonight period the only thing I would disagree with is it would be if we're responding
to their testimony they won't get a chance they shouldn't have an opportunity to response back because it would just be a continuous back and forth of who's going to get the last end up being the issue we'll deal with on the third but when you tell people that you want a report
in I want them to know the report you we want to have in correct you can then argue whether or not it should in fact come in and the testimony should be taken but I want the objectors to understand who are not members of the
bar that this is not an opportunity to reopen to bring back your witness and testify as to it's related specifically to what was testified tonight by Mr Dean and tonight and at the last hearing by Mr Ford
period don't come up with new Witnesses don't come up with new anything other than a response to what you've heard at that point you all can make your arguments as to whether or not the board should entertain this ongoing who gets
the last word from a testimonial point of view the next thing after the testimonial point of view will be the Public's portion related to
the application as a whole so if you all feel the desperate need to come up and tell all the things you don't like about this as you have tried throughout this entire and I get to say it under than Mr gianetti the 20th hearing
tonight this is the moment at some point this board is going to bring this to an end and deliberate accordingly so don't come and say oh well I thought I I can't be here tonight
can I come later the night is the thir we'll see whether it goes on beyond that no we're done with Mr Ford I'm talking about the objectors responses to Mr Ford that's what we're talking about okay should we all
so go down the path about April 10th no why not we have no try try not to anticipate Mr chairman um also point out that reports from the board planner and the board
engineer need to be in prior to at least 10 days before the next hearing if they're not in before so I can anticipate Mr gianetti's next comment and we have a hearing on the 3
and we have other hearings in April and we'll see where we are and to keep in mind as Mr Bernstein called us the Fab Five if I don't have five people who can participate we can't have a hearing right well and
also to eventually if we come to a vote after deliberating that is correct it will and the deliberation is not going to be five minutes so that's why I was starting to anticipate another meeting past the third um apprciate because we're going to need a
substantial amount of time I anticipate multiple potential past the third but I'm not going to discuss what we're going to do and when at this point um the other that is all for this item I do have one another item for the board and
actually the same fab five um as the board is aware judge Mian has remanded Harvard way back here for a re-review of the resolution Etc that the board adopted back in
2022 I would like the board to agree to schedule minimally May 1st and May 22nd at 700 p.m. for hearings on those so that we can advise councel for the applicant councel and councel for
the insurance carrier to be here so I I'm going to ask for that to be formally done yes I'll make a motion before you do that can I ask co question I'm sorry no
I I I promise it's a procedural question for those of us who are not familiar with the proceedings so that I understand correctly when everybody rests and pens are down can Mr Mr L can we get this part and then you can ask question I thought before he was GNA adjourn no no no no we're not adjourning
yet we're having too much fun like he was a joury I'm making a motion to to get the two meetings that we need for the REM the minimally the two meeting meeting the two meetings yes Mr lomber oh thought it was May 1 or I'm so sorry can you May 1st May
22nd so we need we need two votes for both of those no har har har Harvard way J mj4 LLC Michael yes Mr
vital wait no Mr Mr P Mr srai Mr Smith that's the magic PR for that one tooth yes Le P yes shair PE yes shair srra yes now sir now I've gotten past
that part I promise when pens are down the order is public objectors applicant is that correct that is correct thank you okay Mr Mr janetti in a rare Moment Like many of us gets the last word it
doesn't happen too many other places but here we are all right motion to um wait we're gonna yeah can I have a motion to cancel the March 27th business meeting so move second do
we got to do a roll call all in favor I I okay that canellation that's the last one you get yeah so with that I will entertain a motion of adjournment second okay all in favor I we're adjourn see everyone April 3rd
10:35