e e e e e e what's that fin who this oh it's working I that's all right
e e e e e e e e e e what do the
signal on okay we're good all right good evening everyone and welcome to the Hillsboro Township planning board meeting of February 13 2025 please join me and salute to the flag United States
stand indivisible andice please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised coin section 5 of the open public meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 otherwise known as Sunshine Law notice of the 2025 annual
meeting schedule has been has been provided to the officially designated newspapers the Township Clerk post on the Township's website and available here at the Hillsboro Township municipal complex in addition application documents and plans have been made available on the township Civic clerk
website at least 10 days of this evening's meeting complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection according with the public meeting notice and with that may have a roll call of board members and also board and
Township professionals Please Mr pean Mr flag Mr Vitali Mr devb and currently mayor Chelli are absent Mr Wagner here Mr rowitz here Miss Smith here Mr Smith here commit in the py present here sarach here Mr
pres here here here here myself and the videographer here okay thank you and welcome everyone we have a few meeting minutes for consideration three apparent we do have three that's what I said that's a
few it's all good the reor huh the reorg regular and the 23rd first up is the reorganization meeting minutes of January 9th 2020 five assuming everyone's eligible everyone's eligible okay may have a
motion to to approve I'll make that motion thank you okay any comments from the de hearing none roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Miss Smith
yes uh committee the py yes uh and CH Raji yes okay next the regular meeting minutes of January 9th 2025 believe everyone so moved second comments from
D roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Miss Smith yes Mr Smith yes commit leani yes Cher yes and lastly the uh meeting minutes of January 23rd 2025 who's eligible please everyone is
eligible but the chair I wasn't here for that you weren't here skipped out so moved second comments roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes M Smith yes Mr
Smith yes commit in the pony yes and that's it no that's it I remember where I was but okay next up uh consideration consideration of resolutions we have one this evening Western Road LLC
gella file number 22- pb-3 D mspv eligible members Mr chairman or Mr Wagner Mr rtz Miss Smith committeeman leani and yourself okay thank
you any motion to approve so move Mr chairman thank you is there a second second okay comments hearing none roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Miss Smith yes
committee Le Pon yes chair sarach yes okay we do have planning board business it's fourth round fair share affordable housing obligation believe going to be discussing the township committee's resolution and this is for informational
only what it is for information it's a heads up for mine's on it's a heads up for what's to come because the next piece of the puzzle is the housing element Fair plan that you're all going to have to adopt in the spring but this to give you an idea of
what we submitted to the court to the program as to what we believe our proposed number is subject to further review during the housing element process and Mr K would like to add anything he's more than welcome just that the uh the adoption of
the housing and fair share plan has a deadline of uh June June 30th I believe 2025 yes June 30th and it will require the endorsement also of the governing body prior to June 30th so so just from a a logistical
standpoint we just in terms of uh identifying the meeting that it would have to be and also with the township committee we'll we'll do that coordination okay thank you any comments from the de more to come
yes do we have to take an official action or not this time not this time all right thank you for the heads up okay we do not have consideration of ordinances so I will go to business from the floor for items not on this evening's agenda if you like to address
the board uh provide any comments feel free to come up state your name and address for the record five minutes yep five minutes nothing involving yes okay I'll go to yeah and and no comments directly or indirectly involving
warehouses stop me if I can't ask what I'm going to ask okay Rich Garmin Winding Way Hillsboro when an application comes to fruition and we're going to take a vote what are the choices is it just
deny approve is it approve with conditions deny with conditions what are the options it's approve approv with conditions agreements that were made during the hearings and denial is a straightup
denial all right okay when an applicant is denied or approved and it ends up in court does the public get involved in that at all or have a say at those hearings that's a good question does it if you feel the desperate necessity to
come out to Flemington you're more than welcome because that's where they're being held and it's open to the public but in terms of participation no okay thank you you and let the record reflect the mayor has joined us at
7:13 welcome May any other comments from the public or from the floor okay see none we're going to go to this evening's public hearing and applicant and I guess we can
start with objector number one well chairman I need to continue my recusal so I appreciate being here this evening and wish everyone a lovely evening okay thank you for joining
us let the AL record also reflect that Mr Smith is going to sit up on the day but he is not going to participate and he has not eligible to take action regarding this application so it is the mayor the committeeman the chair the
secretary and Mr Wagner are the remaining members M of the board to hear this application the Fab Five I would also point out from a logistic point of view Mr chairman that I have asked for an executive session this evening regarding a prior application before the
board that I have gotten direction from Judge Menan and need to spend some time with the members of the board who were involved in that application in order to get direction on going forward in conjunction with Council for the carrier so that will probably be around 9:30ish
right thank you so so up this evening is Homestead Road LLC file number 21- pb-2 DMS fact mspv time of decision March 1st of this year and lots of long
notes when are we carrying this since okay yep the application is continued from the December 12th 2024 without further notice I will ask you know Representatives uh for the applicant introduce themselves and all the
objectors are here this evening yes good evening chairman members of the board Craig janetti the law firm da Pitney on behalf of the applicant Homestead Road LLC thank you good evening Mike pisaro policy director for the Watershed Institute also known as objector number one Scott gross objector number
two Brian Tarantino representing SWAT objector number three Char of hand objective number four Lori Cleveland representing the sourland Conservancy okay welcome
[Applause] everyone uh Mr chairman uh if I may there are some housekeeping issues that we need to address before we move on to the application um I'm going to take one piece one
recommendation piece first and deal with an issue that Mr jetti and I have been going back and forth on from a technical point of view the last day and then the board can address the second piece of Mr Tarantino's issue which is the famous
model um Mr Tarantino on behalf of SWAT submitted a letter to this board dated January the 28th 20 25 regarding um three items one was the model issue we will discuss in a minute
another is the proposed updated testimony of Miss o and the third is the issue regarding the applicant standing uh let me take it in reverse order the board has already ruled on applicant
standing uh at least in terms of allowing the application to go forward if Mr Tarantino would like to raise that issue in his summation he's more than welcome to but the board is continuing to move the application along separate and apart from whatever that underlying
issue that we have discussed previously is secondly at the end of the December 12th meeting and there is nothing like sitting in a hospital to sit and read this um the board has ruled on Miss OSHA's testimony
previously uh it is my review of of the proposed of the document received from Mr Tarantino the board is also in possession of Mr ganet February 11th 2025 correspondence I will obviously leave it to the board to make the
ultimate decision but I do not see anything in there that is any different than the board's action already taken at the December 12th meeting which is to prohibit the testimony in question there is no indication the individual has become an expert over the last month and
a half on any subject that is testified to in terms of and since she is represented by the objector by being a representative of the objector she has given her rights as a fact witness to that of the objector so unless the board wants to
take a different tact than it took in December then we are left down to the issue of the model um and just for sake of clarity uh the reason that I submitted the uh contract
for sale was I was reviewing some of the old transcripts and um it was you know part of something you said during an early meeting that said if you know the obors want to enter uh evidence related to that issue so I thought I wanted to
make sure that you guys had that and I believe it was entered into evidence at some point along the way I don't know whether it came from one of the objectors or it came from from Mr Brooke but it did come from didn't come from Mr
gianetti that I can tell you um it is in the record and to the extent it is an argument that you all wish to make at the appropriate time you may so do so but the application is going forward so unless the board's on Miss O's situation
is different we're down Mr Tarantino to the model you want to put whatever statement you want on the record so Mr gianetti and then the or can decide what it wants to do yeah um just by the way the pronunciation is uh Miss oxy sorry I
apologize for the pronunciation so um yeah as as instructed at the December meeting I uh submitted a a report that describes the model since it's a physical object sorry the the replica it's not it is not a
model as as a you know a mathematical model you would have like for modeling ozone or air pollution or something like that it is simply a 3D replica of of the buildings and it's relevant because it helps to demonstrate the relative size
of the buildings um uh which speaks to the tecd size and um scale appropriate for the for the district and the concept of transition so um it's one thing to look at numbers it's another thing to see an actual model so we feel it's an
appropriate uh piece of evidence and important to to enter I believe that the report was thorough um in explaining uh how it was developed and the accuracy of it um I'd love the opportunity to present it I again renew my objection to it for
the reasons outlined in my letter and stated last time initially at the last hearing I requested to see the model we still have not seen the model we've seen pieces of models that he's taken pictures of but we have
not seen what this model is according to his report Mr Tarantino was the design replica designer and another individual was the replica Builder as far as I can see he didn't
show any experience in building building models or creating these models uh relying on Google Earth um measurements to determine uh the size of the building they didn't talk about how height of the building was
determined and with respect to the purpose of what he wants to offer it for it's frankly irrelevant I mean if he wants to say our buildings are bigger than the homes in some other buildings on the other side of Homestead Road we can see that I mean there's no just
looking at a picture it's clear but when he wants to get into intensity of development his own planner testified intensity development is not just the size of the building it's also controlled by coverage building coverage floor area ratio in relation to the lot
so unless this is a fullscale model of the entire area that we're talking about landwise to show what these buildings look like on that land it's not going to show you anything about intensity of development right a a 3,000 sqt house on a Halfacre
lot is way more intense than a 6,000 foot house on a 10 acre lot so just showing his claimed kind of replica of the buildings and what they look like we'll stipulate our buildings are bigger than the homes behind us and the two
buildings they identified in the report uh but to say it's a model that demonstrates intensity of development uh is not objection I didn't say that I didn't say that it was a model I didn't say it was a model and I didn't say it was intended to demonstrate the intensity of the
development I said it is a 3D replica scale replica that demonstrates the relative size in a physical Way shows the relative size of the buildings and I know we all want to see the model so I'm
happy to to bring to bring it out and put it into evidence that's what I've been trying to do um whether you whether you know whether there's a party that believes that it's not relevant I I don't know I think that it's extremely relevant because the
relative size is hard to Fathom from just looking at a set of numbers uh not all of us are Engineers so um but seeing a physical replica is is powerful and it's a piece of evidence
that uh uh that I think is important to enter again he was saying it was with respect to the purpose of the zone and they talked about it with their planner and they raised it at the last time about the purpose and they were referring to
it saying providing a traditional employment Jing development between the high intensity light industrial and corporate development districts in the existing nearby residential development and that's what he even said it was for so yes intensity is what he's trying to show it for the I'm sorry the
letter that I sent on January 29th says I'm saying what you just said right now the uh what I said the purpose of the of the model is is to demonstrate uh to to illustrate the the
the phrase in the tecd that all uses shall be provided at a scale and size that is appropriate for the district in addition the district is called a transitional it's a transition between light industrial and residential and
transition includes many things but it certainly includes size and scale and so the mo the the replica is intended to demonstrate that the the appropriateness or inappropriateness of that
transition again I renewed my objection it's it's not appropriate it's misleading as to what they're trying to use it for and I'm not even sure how they're going to use it they're going to show you a replica but they don't have a witness to testify about it other than
Mr Tarantino saying he prepared it because he's a replica designer or rep replica yeah replica designer so I object to it being used discussion Mr Tarantino in the presentation of the
models are they set on any type of landscape or indication of just ju to position on the property or is it just building a next to Building B building a next to Building B the intent was not to
show the the the full you know landscape and and the extent of um you know the the distances between the buildings the intent was to demonstrate the relative sizes and just kind of short circuit it
I'll stipulate that our buildings are a lot bigger so he'll stipulate what's the problem with bring let finish if you're going to stipulate finish let finish I'll stipulate that our buildings are a lot bigger if they'll stipulate our properties are a lot
larger of course I mean it's there's acreages that's that's not the point the point isn't that the point that I'm making is not the things that Mr GN edti is bringing up I'm not talking about intensity that would be a different demonstration not talking about this the
the you know the the impervious coverage how long is the presentation is you just basically buildings and we're done yes are we going like five minutes and we're out five minutes and and we're going to be done we're talking about it longer than it will take
okay I I would say it I would allow it just as long as we don't dwell on it too long just show the show the models and and move on to other things great I I will I I want to point out that I think two years ago Mr GN edti the
applicant or I'm sorry the opposition or the residents requested some type of 3D version of what these were going to look like which would include a 3D rendering on the site a flyover there's technology
that could this can be done and what we got was a side view of what the elevation was going to look like with it it did not fulfill what I thought the intent was on the other hand I don't really see the if it's not on a plot I I think I
think it would be much more impactful if it was so I I side by side I don't know what you know unless there's a surprise here I I don't know what you would be afraid of so I mean it's kind of a both I I I
think I think that that's what we were looking for two years ago and we never got you know I try and picture it when I drive by on the uh on the bypass and I I just can't so that's just my thought on
I I don't see why seeing it wouldn't be would be harmful but um uh kind of wishing it was on a full scale site full scale layout of the site so Mr chairman I
I certainly respect my colleagues opinions I don't see any use to look at it it's not to scale it doesn't give the whole picture other than two buildings uh I think we've discussed it you know in in detail I I say we just Mr
Tarantino brought it to our attention that's fine uh I'm not in favor of bringing it into evidence I think we just need to move forward thank you I have to Adit I tend to agree with I'm sorry um I tend to agree with
um the mayor and Mr leanny that it's not going to do any harm to look at it I think we all have a general idea of the scale of the building anyway I don't think it's going to influence us negatively or positively either way I think it's just going to be what it is
it just shows you know kind of I understand what Mr Tarantino is saying it's it's it's showing the um ju toos of the two buildings that are going going to be and the difference in sizes so I I don't see
any harm in it but then I'm not an attorney right the okay well it looks like the majority of the board so I don't need to add anything to it so please bring it up we'll note Mr gianetti's objection for
the record starting now yeah you could be the keeper of the clock okay we need the big clock again so uh first what I'll do is I'll
show you the um there I the report described how I picked these buildings and you use the front table here to put the building I'll put them there okay yeah do you mind um so the um the report that I submitted
uh describes how we picked these buildings uh that they were uh closest to and frankly if you know there was some argument about which ones we picked uh the other industrial buildings are similar to these similar in size so uh this is um this is uh 239 Homestead um
at 55,78366 Square ft and um this is uh lety Contracting which I think is just next to there at 10,800 FT okay so this is about the size when we talk about transition from light industrial to um
to residential you would expect something in objection all he's supposed to be doing is showing the model describing how he created the buildings what what's the scale that you use Mr Tarantino the the scale is um
uh let me just make sure I get it right uh uh 1 inch equals 14.3 feet um these four uh Mr barstein can I word him before he starts talking about
the model I guess uh Mr Tarantino in in your report you uh I guess I'm with respect to question two you have a a chart uh that has the width the length the footprint of the buildings um and
then uh you identify height uh with respect to the Lutsky Contracting 209 Homestead Road you identified 15 ft did you actually go out and measure the height of the building how did you measure the height of the building uh with a with a remote so you went on the
property and I was able to do it without going on the property what's the relevance of your question just how was a accurate if we don't know what the EXA exact height of the building is I measured the exact height of the building how so how did you measure it because you did you go on
the property and measure the height of the building uh no I did not go on the property so you didn't go on the property do you know how far set back from the road the lky building is um it's pretty far no the lety how far is it I'm no I'm asking you you seem
to think it's far all right I'm moving on yeah so I I don't we're trying do this in five minutes let's get to points of questions versus the banter back and forth let's all right well all right every if I could be if I could ask you
these questions if I could finish presenting as I've been instructed and then I'll let and then you can ask uh then you could in essentially cross-examine and ask me questions I'm allowed to V you about the model you're about to show yeah that's fine so that's what I'm about to do how about CH Mr chairman I would request that I'd get to
finish presenting the model and then he could askem the model model yeah look at everyone's going to get their questions yeah so these four buildings represent uh nearby uh residences um and I the addresses that are are are in the report the Pinter house um and then three three
houses near Winding Way of course uh I could have picked others but they're very close to that size I I thought we were just looking at the two buildings and now we have another building and houses that are being
and now obviously more stuff a bag that's coming up [Music] so the yes I I said I thought we were just looking at the two buildings and now we have another building houses and God knows
what this is so this is building two uh the proposed uh Warehouse building to which is 168,000 square ft [Music] this is building one 369,000 ft so we're demonstrating the purpose of
the model is to demonstrate that there is an inappropriate this is but you can't testify to about it you're not an expert all you indicated was this is what you prepared you want to show them the model you can't testify what it shows and what
it means are those accurate depictions of the sizes of the buildings in your opinion yes thank you that's fine anything Mr Gan any okay so we established well you claim to have measured the height of the lusky Contracting Building without going on
the property the Hillsboro Business Center uh you identified as 30 ft and ybc 239 Homestead you identified as 30 fet did you actually go on the properties and measure the height of the building I don't see the relevance of your question the Mr Mr Tarantino let me
make this exceedingly clear if I haven't over the last 15 hearings you don't get to object to questions people ask you okay yes or no it's yes or no no I did not go on the properties they were estimated from the from the uh
from the curb so exactly so this these models are showing you nothing because they're not based on real life okay do you have other questions okay thank you thank you thank
you all you guys want to I'm sorry is this entered as an exhibit we're going to have to yeah so I'm I'm OB entered as an exhibit okay if he can't establish the heights of the building because he said he hasn't gone there and measure it he just eyed it from the curb I didn't say I eyed it from the curb I said I
measured it and I got them the heights of your buildings from the from the drawings I'm not talking and the residential buildings I I was able to go on the properties to measure the heights Mark the buildings as objector whichever the next one is that Mr
Tarantino testified to he took the actual measurements Andor used the measurements provided by the applicant for the proposed building any other buildings no okay thank
you number is it michael9 thank you Mr 09 is the depictions of the proposed applicants buildings and Mr Co
will we do us all a favor and mark them well I wanted I just want to be clear then so Pinter house 2011 Homestead Road you identified at 15 ft you went on the property and measured that height no I was able to do that from the street can we knock that one out as
well you want to inquire do you want to inquire how he did it from the street how did you measure it from the street Mr Tarantino it was a it was a a remote uh measured device a remote measured device that's what is that the
technical term what did you use to measure the height there was an elect can you use the microphone please it there uh there's an electronic device that allows you to measure distances um you know from one point to
another point you don't know the name of this electronic device do you know what the degree of accuracy is electronic the degree of accuracy is well within oh in your opinion right in your opinion well I I was the one design I I designed the model I'm I'm expert enough to design
this this is the problem when we have someone that's not an expert trying to be an expert someone that's not an attorney trying to be an attorney let me let me can you provide the model number and manufacturer of the measuring device sure okay and please provide
specifications sure you're curious how they wanted to how we measured it so we're going to find out okay the two buildings are to be marked 09 the two because they are based on the
dimentions provided by the applicant how about the three res res cuz heo testified that he he went on the properties house he said he didn't 2011 home no the three Res three residences
53 Winding Way 51 Winding Way 52 Winding Way are you Mr Tarantino is your testimony you went on each of those properties and measure and measured the height of the building and how did you measure the height of the building how' you measure those homes yeah with the measuring
device and how far are you from the homes when you measured it I was right next to the right next to them on the property and each one was exactly 25 ft um it's the measurements are are within the tolerances that are described
obje I'm answering your question but you're not an expert you the measurements are are are within the tolerances that the models were that the models were built on and that's described in my report so let's say this are the square
footages uh accurate to taking out the height of the buildings the square footage is has does not take into account the the heights it's all about Heights so if we disregard the Heights and just take them as square footage would you be that just the size of the physically size of the building
how how do you do that looking at a 3D model that's has a height he's concentrating on the footprint which I think is the more important aspect of this if you want he's he's trying to denot the differences in the footprints of the building the height while it's not in
material it's still the sorry it's still the footprint that he's trying to show the impact of the height is based on the height that's allowable by the by the ordinance so correct right we know what that a footprint that has the impact on the neighborhood is what he's
saying so height doesn't have any impact on the neighborhood is that I'm not saying that I'm just saying he's focusing on the on the footprint that that these buildings take up on the land yes he's not focusing on the height because as as Mr leani said the height
is dictated by the town well again to my point then if if it's being used to its impact on the property because of the size well then we should have the building coverage for each one of these properties as well he's also what he's trying to
impart to us I think is the fact that he's bringing up that this is a transition zone so that is what his argument is I'm not I'm just saying that's what his argument is whether we agree with it or not is a different thing he this is just
what his argument is Mr chairman I really didn't want to get involved in this my suggestion we Mark the two buildings we Mark the houses because they seemingly depict housing in the neighborhood and we move on the four houses are all
19 maram 09 doesn't make difference to me I'm trying to move this along before I die and I would ask just by tomorrow he email the board and myself with the device
information that he said he used yep sure for tomorrow Mr Tarantino sure send it to miss pag copy Mr Co will distribute There's Hope for you
David and they're not aced because the heights you didn't go um if I may Mr Tarantino you you mentioned you used electronic device to measure the heights did
you measure a known height with that same device to determine the accuracy of that device I didn't do that but that is the that is how the device is calibrated and that's why you're allow that's why you
can make these measurements it's a it's a pretty standard uh realtor you know real estate agent device to measure you know room rooms and buildings and things like that but that's exactly how it works it it's calibrated based on a known uh a known distance and then you
can you know make other measurements I I understand I was just hoping that maybe you took a measurement with the device on a structure that you knew the height and that would help correlate or check the accuracy and that didn't occur
before or after some of your measurements it it I'm sorry to say it did not because I was relying on the on the the manufacturers uh um would it be inappropriate to provide that as part of your information tomorrow uh happy to do
that it would be helpful Mr chairman y now to provide evidence of calibration sure thank you I mean I would ask that the the that the industrial buildings also be entered as evidence they were measured in the same fashion I think we just take those and move on okay
okay your your past testimony would always question the results of of engineering and testing without having adequate backup and you are supplying it without adequate backup so I would move on put it to the
side okay so that completes that completes uh swats uh presentation okay Shan so we do have rebuttal uh well before you get to that just for the
record we if you recall at the last meeting there was a discussion about objector to submitting an additional expert Mr gross I will ask to confirm on the record has submitted a letter to the board indicating that they do not wish
to pursue that Mr play and therefore they will not be submitting any other expert testimony on Scott gross objector to uh Mr Bern I agree with that we will not be presenting Mr pla's testimony he's not able to present as a an expert witness
on the topic previously discussed do any of the other objectors have any expert testimony to present which should be obor four and five no no thank you now Mr janetti I apologize but I figured let's at least keep the record
sure I'm sure someone would have jumped up if they had another witness ready to go um so we do have uh two rebuttal witnesses to call uh we have our civil engineer here this evening uh to provide rebuttal testimony our traffic engineer
uh had a conflict and couldn't be here this evening but given how things have gone the odds of getting through one witness uh is probably slim anyway um according to a rumor I hear this is going to go on for a little while longer anyway that I heard an open court this
week so let's put it that way um from your office yep uh so sorry I just don't want to knock this over you got enough room for Mr Ford the I guess we we talked about and I know we emailed about I guess just to clarify on
kind of exhibits and and what gets I I will get from Mr lombardoi the last applicant exhibit number and we will Mark you and I will work out the markings of those we're not marking these three state or drcc
because we don't normally mark them they're just in because they're not your client's documents they're simply a an action of the state or the DRC the DP permits the D permit the waterers the drcc report is generally put into the
record without a designation of exhibit we will work on the other issue if there still is an issue we'll address it in March okay um you can tell me and I guess tonight to before we start our rebuttal testimony I kind of want to be clear
because there's been so many hearings um and listening to some of the objector testimony and on traffic and uh referring back to our Architects testimony from a while ago uh with respect to the
uses and recall we had uh an operations exhibit that we presented that you know basically identified as an S1 S2 uh storage building under the building code we want to be clear this will not
be a parcel delivery Hub as uh referenced in the it manual that had its own separate trips this will not be a sort fulfillment center which means individuals sort goods and and within the warehouse for
delivery uh as opposed to a non sort which is more robotic and mechanical uh because a sort fulfillment center requires a significant amount of more employee parking than what we're providing so this will not be a sort fulfillment center and this won't be a
transload Warehouse with a transload Warehouse being used for transfer of goods not storage of goods but the transfer of goods from one uh mode of transportation or one truck to another where it comes off of one truck goes
into the warehouse gets moved around and gets placed on either another truck or a van or something else uh where it's not actually taken off and stored on the property and and as our architect testified typically those type of buildings are narrow and cross doed uh
which our buildings are not narrow and they're not cross doed so I just wanted to clear on the record and it can be in any resolution that it would not be any of those three types of facilities councelor can I just ask a question what would it be used for you've identified
what it's not going to be well so again the other what other options so in basically all those three things um are from the it manual so referring off of that so there's general warehouse which
is just storage of uh Goods materials or otherwise uh it could be a nons sort uh fulfillment center um where it's more robotics inside as opposed to individuals hand packing and and
stuffing things um it's kind of and as you can see I'm sure through all the testimony there's kind of broad categories uh depending upon the business but and generally it's the same type of operation with respect to the storage of materials the parcel delivery hub
is a way different type of operation even though it's under the warehouse categories in it um but it generates a lot of traffic and we're making clear we're not going to be a partial delivery Hub like your UPS or your your uh fulfillment center or a uh FedEx or DHL
type facility so you know we heard a lot of these type of uses during some of the objection testimony and we just wanted to be clear what we're not now Warehouse is still you know sort or non sort fillment Center still you know broad
there's a lot of businesses that can fall into that category um but we just wanted to be clear as to those three items that it will not be so I'm not obviously I'm not a warehouse specialist and I'm I'm not I'm asking these questions to try to clear in my mind so we've identified it's not going to be a
sorting Hub it's not going to be this so I'm trying to kind of figure what you would do with a warehouse a truck would come in take something off put it in this Warehouse and somebody else would move it but what what would that be I mean what type of product or service I'm
trying to get a handle around you got to give me something to go on because I'm trying to Envision I know what it's not going to be and I understand that so in my view what the hell else could you use it for and I I don't mean to be disrespectful but answering that question but I don't know if other people up here have that question but I
do and I need to understand what you would use it for and I know you haven't identified a or somebody that's going to buy the warehouse and I know we've been up here for 3 years so I don't know if your client maybe in those three years hasn't
talked to anybody or there must be some idea of what we're going to be using this for so unless your the operation is a you know buying the property to use it for their facility Warehouse facility where
it's leased it's it's almost no different than apartment leasing versus buying a house right when you buy a house you're doing it months in advance you know planning ahead of time then you sign a contract and you probably don't close for another you know 90 to 120
days but when you're leasing apartment that happens within a week or two weeks right you you they don't you the tenant wants to move in right away they don't want to wait six months to whatever to see whether or not they're going to be able to rent the place well it's no
different than with these facilities I can can I object I'd like to object to this I'm Mr Genetti is testifying he's not a warehouse expert if he wants to If he if he wants to bring a rebuttal testimony Tarantino I'm just trying to get an idea
Mr Wagner has asked a question Mr Taran Mr gianetti is trying to answer it Mr gianetti and his client will live and die by whatever that answer is which may or may not be helpful it's up to him okay so I'm just and also too our our architect testified to a lot of this as
well as a different type of facility you you correct me if I'm wrong I apologize Mr Wagner you submitted way back sometime when I still did not have gray hair a list of possible tenants is that correct tenants in the sense of what
could be stored in the building uh as an S1 has anything changed from that list still the same Mr chairman yes may I provide clarification as my understanding what was submitted by all means Mr janetti can uh confirm or verify what I'm saying
my understanding is the document that was provided listed of all the types of materials that could possibly be stored and it has to do with the classification system that the building department used the uniform construction code in terms of how it distinguishes the differences between the different types of of
storage and they provided a list of all the types of materials that are listed in the different categories I can't go into the detail the different between them but my understanding is that that was one of the documents that was provided correct
uh and the document also was was qualified by saying may may include but not limited to this list so it was there it was not a limiting the document did not limit what it could be it just said it could include those but could be
anything Mr chairman again misrepresenting what's in the document I'm reading it right here propos s two uses include storage of the following I I I'll without boring everyone I'll restate what I just stated applicants
submitted we've had discussions about it board professionals will be giving advice to the client at some point at the end of this Mr Genetti and his client will live and die by whatever they submit regarding this issue
prefer to live but so I I and I I appreciate that I guess you know as a consumer which we all are so an example um if if I may so when I order tires for my vehicles I order them
from Tire Rack and they're in Delaware and they have a warehouse and they send the tires and they come ups and deliver them tell me is that something that I can visualize that this Warehouse might tenant might use that for I understand the packaging piece so the Amazon piece
I got because they come in little packages and and UPS I know that's not what you're suggesting is it something like a chewy like when I order dog food it comes in a bag would that be a potential use for this Warehouse or it could be okay that
yeah yeah I'm just trying to you know we're all dogs and tires I like dogs and tires TIR not so much the cat but no I'm just I'm just I'm just trying I and think about it though and and if you look at our A7 exhibit you know we talk about
the type of thing beverages cement and bags chalk and crayons uh you know empty cans food products Frozen Foods glass like there's a whole lot of businesses that could you you know use that type of operation in the e-commerce that's that's what you're
saying it's it's it's kind of hard to answer it's like you know when you get an office building approved right you don't you don't know who the tenants are when you're getting an office building approved was just try there could be a whole slew of businesses going in that office I was just trying to get an idea of what type of products would come because you said you're not going to
store things there I mean is what is the no no no we will store things you will store yeah the translo the transload doesn't store it basically comes and gets put on a and it's almost slid across the building to another vehicle okay so possibly my tires and dog food
Poss correct possibly tires and dog food thank you no cat food sorry m Mr chairman yes sir if I may um I just want to caution the board to be aware that the list that was provided A7 again it lists all the things that
can possibly be stored of the uniform construction code the way it uses the terminology of of use groups it's different from a zoning standpoint the use groups just mean in terms of how within the walls of
the building how the building is allowed to be designed for the materials or the use that's going to be functioning inside of there the building code doesn't have a warehouse uh use group uh they classify
as an S Storage and then they have the different classifications of all the materials that go in them I just want to caution the board to understand that while the building code regulates the different types of things that can be stored
perhaps what Mr gianetti is already trying to articulate that's going deeper into the actual use which is different or can be different while you might have materials that can be stored there how those materials are
being um taken off a truck packed together everything that he described before that's where it starts to get into okay what use is actually happening here what's the difference between the general warehousing and all the other
warehousing that it talks about so I just want to caution the board in that and that something has to be looked at right I mean you when you look at this and it's just adding to what Mr K was saying it's really just that it's either
low or moderate Hazard materials I mean it does stay here I do see something about inbound delivery of bulk items that will be support or sorted and prepared for regional distribution so you know it will be a fulfillment of sorts possibly it may be robotics because I
think that's what Mr gianetti said Not Human but so thank you okay so there's nothing further for me I'd like to call or recall uh Mr Michael Ford Michael
SAR [Music] in and though I refer to Mr Ford as rebuttal he's also going to be you know testifying to revise plans that were submitted um November 2024 and at least the [Music]
changes David can we get the HDMI do you want to switch seats good I can pick the plans yeah they didn't get any you want on The Closer side of the cable thank you [Music]
I want a piece I want a tire and I want some thank you Mr here we go great I good to go yes yeah
good yes I do Michael Ford FD with vancle Engineering Associates here in Hillsboro licens uh planner and engineer in New Jersey
there you go you want a green okay better better all right um and the the exhibit that I have up is uh a site
exhibit data November 20th 2024 it's a color let's mark it y believe we're up to 813 it's a color um colorized version U updated colorized version of the proposed
project and this is based upon the revised plans that were submitted to the board uh I guess both sets in August of 2024 and November of 2024 that's correct so maybe using what's been marked as exhibit
a13 uh if you can just discuss um some of the plan changes uh from the last site plan you presented uh many moons ago okay the uh plan changes that have taken place um are not going to uh have
been I'll say with so much detail um for small elements small elements of the project that on this overall color exhibit uh and perhaps easiest way to uh understand
it is to describe what hasn't changed the buildings haven't changed the parking hasn't changed the the driveways haven't changed um the only subsid of um area of impervious coverage has
changed is a trailer parking area behind building number two which backs up onto con rail and I'll highlight it on the exhibit now with with the cursor it's in this area you able to zoom in at all yes
there was a second row second row of trailer parking 33 spaces that was removed from that area is this so you'll see there there was a a second row of trailer parking spaces and a retaining wall along the west Westerly
property line that's been removed so the so the now there is no more no longer a retaining wall proposed at that location nor those 33 trailer parkings propo areas are proposed the other changes
that have been been made to the plan uh have been uh made um uh in in response to njd comments uh I believe when I last appeared here
in May of 2023 we had a pending or about to submit an njd permit application for the freshwood or Wetland disturbances as part of the project as well as the flood Hazard area disturbances as part of the
project I'll report to the board and and I think it was already referenced this evening that we have secured the njd approval for the freshwood Wetland delineation on the site that was
issued um in January of 2024 and then in uh October I'm sorry January of 20 yeah January for which which approval the freshwater Wetland
Loi oh was that May 25th May 25th 2023 so perhaps it was just after my last appearance and then in October or November of 2023 that's uh November 6 2023 the njd issued the flood Hazard
area approval which verified the flood Hazard area limits on the site that's the flood plane most people are familiar with characterizing that limit as as well as the disturbances within that regulated area the flood plane and it
also established the reparan Zone which is part of the current D criteria regarding impacts to streams what's still pending is our freshwood or Wetland permit application and that includes a a general permit to fill the
infamous drainage dish we've heard so much about correct so the I guess while we're talking about the de approvals in both or in the FHA permit did it find uh that
we complied with the njde storm water management rules yes and that plan they review does it have the same storm water management design as being shown here yes
uh okay proceed okay the um storm water management review included uh both or all three uh elements of storm water management quantity control quality treatment and groundw
recharge as part of the quantity control there were no subsid of changes to any of the three basins the board heard me describe um the last time I was here that is there's still three Pond constructed Wetland basins proposed as
part of the application uh as part of the DP Review there what I would report is there were uh minutia detailed changes made to the outlet structure controlled Outlet structures and no uh changes in the
footprint of the basins or uh where the basins are located with regards to groundw recharge there were there was a a groundw recharge uh facility added behind
building number one that is a small scale subsurface INF ation Basin there were three previously proposed on that site there's a fourth one um and there are two subsurface um infiltration or subsurface
infiltration basins um adjacent to building number two which have not changed although as part of the DP Review um in reviewing the um soil testing that was done for all six of
those areas uh we utilized pit bail test method which is actually give you an accurate infiltration rate of the fractured Shale which is typical of uh the septic system rags and I've done hundreds of not thousands of septics uh
over the 35 years I've been involved in engineering which utilizes the pit pail test however we proposed it as an alternate method for the two subsurface infiltration basins adjacent to number two the D P did not want to accept that
as a qualified um test for those subsurface basins so we uh have accounted for subserous or the groundw a recharge by the four basins that are part of behind
building number uh one but we haven't removed the two uh by building two so the and result was meeting the ground with a recharge qu uh criteria um with the four basins while
providing opportunity for about 40% additional recharge by the two subsurface small scale subsurface infiltration basins by building 2 um there was talk and uh and I think
uh some comments regarding the drainage areas to these subsurface uh basins uh and whether it exceeded the 2.5 acre limitation all of the calcul ations that were done as part of their analysis and
that would be the analysis that was on record at the time I last testified which would been before the objectors testified included calculations and Analysis that specifically Illustrated
that the design did not exceed the 2.5 acres we've uh as part of the DP uh review process have added additional detail to the drainage area maps that are in the appendix of the drainage
report and that was the drainage report that was submitted to the township and dated October 16th 2023 uh illustrating how the roof areas that drain to those subsurface infiltration basins don't exceed 2.5
acres and by simple math you could understand that the uh total area of building two uh with two subsurface infiltration basins connected to it doesn't is not over uh five acres the
building is uh actually the the those two basins have about two acres going to them and then the four basins by building one uh have about an average of 2.1 Acres you know going to them so
there's obviously a uh a um facility for the subsurface infiltration Basin so that they don't exceed 2.5 acres draining to them and we have had discussions with the project architect and while the detailed
construction plans are not prepared for the buildings obviously at this point we have um had discussions that when the uh detailed plans are drawn they would have to include roof drainage areas such that
those drain manage area limitations to the subsurface basins are complied with and and they uh uh can do that I guess while we talk about storm water uh reviews in addition to the D reviews
we've also gotten uh the Delaware and ridan uh Canal commission reviews as well and you reviewed those yes and I think the most recent was January uh 10th 2024 did you read that
one as well yes and in that review did the drcc also find that the storm water management was designed in accordance with d regulations yes um you talked about some of the changes for the storm water management
system we also talked about the removal of the trailer parking with the removal of that trailer parking did that any way impact or change your prior testimony on the waiver relief with respect to the two Road Crossings
uh for the stream Corridor and uh Texas pipeline easement no and your prior testimony that uh that relief could be granted and the justifications for it Remains the Same yes you have any more testimonies respect to
changes to the plans okay uh perhaps some additional detail just for the board's understanding um I've discussed the subtle changes to the detention basins I've discussed the details regarding the subsurface infiltration
basins regarding water quality again water quality has been reviewed and approved by njds part of our fresh our uh flood Hazard area individual permit uh and that is handled by porest pavement and manufactured treatment
devices I understand that there was objection about the um sizing uh and the analysis of the sub the uh mechanical treatment devices the board should understand that these mechanical treatment devices are supplied by a
vendor they're actually sized in coordination with a vendor um since I last appeared here we went back to the vendor we also went back to or discussed how they are ultimately sized with NDP additional detail was provided both in
the drainage uh report as well as on the plans and it illustrates compliance with those um uh requirements for water quality to be provided by those mechanical treatment devices but what I'd also like
to point out to the board is that um with any application um even you know past this board and at the time of construction there may be a change in a vendor type of uh Supply or
uh we specify one man mechanical treatment device from ads for example and the the uh contractor wants to provide a a system uh supplied by ctech it's not exclusive um but the standards to comply
with are the same and there is a process known as a shop drawing review process where at the time of construction whatever the contractor is proposing to be used they supply shop trollings to us verifying if you will an or
equal uh that there is being proposed or perhaps time is is uh passed and a year from now those materials are different and there's a check and balance in place at that time where the mechanical
treatment device is reviewed again uh and approved by not only our office but also those materials are submitted to the township engineering department for review and approval um think there was some
discussion uh at um hearing since I last appeared regarding the proximity or the retaining walls on site first the proximity of the retaining wall to the Conrail and as I've already described by virtue of those 33 trailer parking
spaces being removed the retaining wall in that area is no longer proposed and then with regards to retaining wall in proximity retaining walls in proximity to the uh subsurface infiltration basins uh as well as Porsche pavement uh uh we
have a detail on the plan that specifies um a a generic if you will modular block retaining wall again similar to what I just described with regards to Manufactured treatment devices retaining
walls could be Keystone anchor block you know there there could be different types of retaining walls um chosen at the time of construction any wall that's above uh 4T requires a building permit
or construction permit there's specific construction details that provided by that pre-manufactured block wall as well as structural calculations and the design of those and that's standard operating
procedure for projects where there's a retaining wall specified on a site plan but the specifics of the construction are provided at the time of construction and that's what we proposed here there's a uh notes on the plan to that effect uh
and the walls are set back at a distance from the retaining walls such that they would be Beyond any anticipated geogrid if you will that would be part of a modular block retaining wall and um would um be able
to be to be installed in function without impacting the operation of the subsurface infiltration basins nor the the wall itself uh your oh your battery is dying that's fine
so let me just I know there's been uh discussion about the the uh compliance of the storm water management proposal in accordance with the rules and regulations of the town Township in the state um and uh
it's not I'll say common for me to appear before this board where we have in hand njd approvals that illustrate that nor even uh a report that uh is a basically a final review by the delare
Ron Canal commission that also substantiates the design is in compliance with the storm water rules and in this case we have both of those aspect effects as you know the DNR the the D approval is a construction permit
for the regulated features within the flood Hazard area that includes the two Bridge Crossings the dischargers from the basins the connections to the existing sanitary trunk line that runs along the stream and then with regards
to NJ uh the Delaware RAR and Canal commission um the only outstanding um items that we owe them are a detailed plan of where signs would be placed along the um DNR Canal commission stream
quarter and um the uh County and Township approvals so they they always uh defer or hold their final um action until both the county and Township have taken action and uh
were you present in or heard on video or read the transcript of the testimony uh of the objectors um engineer that
testified uh raising issues with respect to the storm water compliance yes uh and Beyond what you've already testified to do you have any further responses to that yeah there there's a letter authored
August 8th 2024 that we submitted to the board it's on record and it's some 10 pages it includes the plans uh drainage report and the DNR Canal commission re uh report of
January um highlights some of the items um for example the there seemed to be an assertion that how could we establish a 05 inch per hour permeability rate for the design of uh an infiltration system
and um I find that uh disingenuous to make it sound like we're picking some number out of thin air when the code requires that when you do permeability tests in fractured Shale according to the chapter 12 BMP manual and the Basin
flood test is pass or fail it doesn't give you a rate and what the state says is when you have a passing Basin flood test you are to utilize 0.5 Ines per hour for your analysis so we've followed the state standards in that regard and
I'll say that um that I think uh has got a conservative aspect to it and our um actual um uh proposal where we have those two additional um subsurface infiltration basins to provide additional
opportunities for groundwood to recharge that are substantially greater than the required amount um provide for a very conservative design what I'd also like to point out is that the objector
testimony failed to recognize that the analysis for this project was done with the current rainfall data that is when we submitted this application and by virtue of submitting the application at the time as well as when we submitted
our D application in in advance of the changes in the D storm water rules in uh believe it was July of 2023 we didn't have to comply with the new rainfall data but even
before uh making that submitted to DP not because D suggested it we used the new rainfall data that is you know the um current adjusted and the future rainfall data and for the 100-year storm
for example the future rainfall data is about 50% greater than the design standards that really would apply to this project so again the project is uh I think I would I think it would be disingenuous to say that it's not a
conservative design when you apply the RS that would apply to this project and we're not trying to pull back that design and not provide uh uh a conservative analysis using the new
rainfall data we acknowledged you know the concerns um Statewide locally with regards to uh storm water management and the applicant acques to our suggestion to
provide a more conservative design and that's utilizing that new rainfall data and keep in mind you everybody here is has been at this for a while it's not like at day one when we submitted this we had an option of using that new rainfall data
at the time of uh the submitt and it wasn't really until 2023 I'll say spring of 2023 and officially in July of 2023 when that new rainfall data was available but there was always already talk of what that new rainfall data
would be uh in the summer of 2022 and we were already making those changes to the plan to update the analysis and the design to accommodate that new rainfall data and
provide for a conservative design and we did yet in any of the testimony by the objector or the written um documents by the objector engineer I don't recall seeing anything in there that acknowledged that the
rainfall data used in this analysis is substantially greater than what is required by virtue of when it was submitted both to the township and njd with respect um anything else on
storm water management or rebutting that testimoni I could talk for a while about okay I was going to start talking about soil testing but you we we've we've done all the soil testing in accordance with the njd chapter 12 BMP manual these are
linear bmps that dictate how many tests are done we did them uh we're not uh on this project uh encountering any soils where we're looking at reclassifying like you've heard on other projects the ground wer recharge is provided in accordance with the RS and like I've
described a a couple of times already the evening the groundw recharge opportunities on this project are about 40% greater than what is required we're not taking any credit for it same thing with water quality we provide for porest
pavement and mechanical treatment devices yet the pwn constructed Wetlands provide for additional water quality treatment again DP doesn't uh allow for those types of basins now with larger drainage areas to be credited for water
quality treatment so we we don't but the board should understand that that's an added measure that's not even in as as part of the analysis and that's for an 80% TSS removal and I understand there was some
discussion about the the and that that's kind of where I was going to go while we're talking about water quality uh in addition the objectors engineer in addition talking about storm water management talked about uh again this Infamous uh drainage ditch on the
property and uh even some questioning of Mr Mayu um I think actually maybe even opin that um that ditch is classified or or is considered a stream under the
town's stream cor or ordinance did you hear that testimony you also heard the testimony of our expert Ed cook on the subject matter as well yes and uh if you can just touch on um uh that issue of
not only uh whether it classifies as a stream uh under their ordinance or not um but also the difference in water quality between now and what's being proposed okay okay just quickly I'm GNA put a
quick objection uh and Mr Gan please correct me if I'm wrong sorry uh did Mr Ford issue do any supplemental reports talking about the stream water quality or anything of that nature yes he did
okay could you let me know when and what August 8th 2024 letter discusses it all right this the feature we're talking about and I lost the screen it's just oh there he is okay so just do it all for clarification this is
the ditch we're referring to if you can zoom in maybe a little bit sure on a uh 13 13 that good all right so the NJ DP freshwood or what land uh
verification um verified that that's classified as a ordinary resource value ditch no Wetland buffer and that's on the exhibit if I zoom in just a little more you could perhaps read that right here so
it's labeled as such uh the the pending NJ DP freshw Wetland permit application uh is requesting to fill a portion of that ditch the njd flood
Hazard area verification that is verifying the limits of the flood hasard area the flood plane streams the streams correct and the reparan zones associated with those streams did not identify this
ditch feature uh as regulated under the flood Hazard area rules and the um permit for the disturbances within those areas that they did identify on the property as
regulated areas has been approved the as to that point too we have a pending uh General permit with the de or we have a few different permits pending with the D including one if approved by
the DP allows us to fill that ditch correct correct and then uh the njd um best management practices manual under
9.3 grass swes if you were to try to characterize this ex existing ditch of having some kind of water quality uh significance um my opinion it would not qualify if I tried I I to to argue that
it did have some water quality treatment features as part of an NJ EP application I doubt that it would be accepted those standards require vegetated swes but with grass not with trees and an eroded
Channel with a um a fractured Shale or or a dirt bottom they also in let me I guess ask a question just to focus you know the purpose of this testimony so you Mr cook our expert testified that as
a stands today it's his opinion that the ditch is a source of degradation to the Royce Brook uh given that it's just collecting untreated uh drainage from that vehicle parking area and going right to uh the
Royce Brook and you recall that testimony yes and then the objectors uh engineer disagreed with that opinion in Mr cook and tried to make the claim that the ditch as it stands today is
providing some water some type of water treatment is that what you're talking about right now the what actual water treatment is being provided in that ditch yes yeah and then what I was just describing was the
nj's best management practice chapter 9.3 regarding grass swes and what does qualify um it also Beyond it having to be uh a vegetated channel uh it also
stipulates um flow rates in the channel and uh my review of the existing slope of this channel exceeds 5% so it's steep in the sense that it would not provide for an opportunity for
slow flow um you if you want to try to provide for water quality not only do you need the vegetation but you need the flow to be through that um channel to be slow and a a slope of of 5% is
substantial um typically water quality swailes are on the order of one or two% maximum so this is literally T many times faster the or higher in your opinion uh do you feel
the storm water management design post construction uh is better for water quality treatment and storm water management to Royce Brook than what currently occurs today yes and and another aspect of that grass Swale even
even if we were to take um a a position or or acques that that it met the njtp standards for a water quality Grass Grass Swale the DP standards only give
you 50% TSS removal credit for grass Swale so even a a Swale designed and con constructed in accordance with the standards grass lined not an abundance of trees around it where you have leaves falling into
the grass Swale that perhaps could clog it or shade out the grass from growing properly which in this case it it's it's in a wooded area um even if if it were um in strict compliance with the DP
Rags uh which it isn't in my opinion it would only be credited for 50% TSS removal where the proposed project I've already stated uh meets the 80% the higher level 80% TSS removal by the
manufactured treatment devices the porest pavement and even in addition to that there's added opportunity for water quality treatment by the water that runs through those manufactured treatment devices and and it eventually goes to
those Pond constructed Wetlands where additional treatment is provided that that is not even Quantified and then and then subsequently discharg to the Royce Brook so this is certainly um I I think it would be disingenuous to think that the
existing pavement that's just Upstream of that Swale um has anywhere near an 80% TSS removal by virtue of that existing ditch now moving away from the ditch and storm water management and lastly unless
there's anything else you want to touch upon this exhibit uh A3 uh has some Dimensions that appears to show uh basically the nearest residences in the distance from the
actual home to the building if we can maybe walk through uh some of those distances and identify it before we walk through I'm wondering if we can take a brief recess you want to go yeah it's just
going to walk through these three things and then that's it all right okay I've uh zoomed in to the rear of building number one this is the northeast
corner where you can see the dimensions from the building to the closest dwelling and I'm highlighting it now um over 500 ft to the dwelling at the in at the end of a Winding Way callede saac that's 514
ft 514 ft uh the next building on the west side of Winding Way and our next closest neighbor at that Lo in that area the
building is the the dwelling is 68.8 and this is from survey data to the proposed building and then I'll have to zoom out a little bit to see
this again still at building one the closest neighbor on white Meadow Road and I'm highlighting the building or the existing Residence at the top of the page
is [Applause] 1,00 83 ft from the building number [Applause] one and then I'll go to building n building number
two again uh building number two in the closest residence on Winding Way it's 976 ft to building number two and this ex exhibit also so shows other dimensions from the buildings to
the to the property line those existing buildings to the property line S yep [Applause] okay there anything else you have there that's all I have a direct presentation of this witness okay thank you so we'll
take a 10minute recess say we reconvene about 10 of according to the back clock so we this we could read this no I thought I thought this was the outline
e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e Frampton well we're 60s yeah so but I'm in my e did you guys disconnect me
hello hello there go it's can you hear me just got to project yeah can you hear me up there yeah I can hear it can you yeah what's that yeah all right the power of the G bang it okay we reconvening the whistle
okay now right do you have to give the uh signal we're on we're yes we're on okay we're back chairman I I apologize and looking at my notes there was two more questions I had for Mr Ford before I finish with him and I just a reminder
that we do need in at 9:30 tonight oh I was not aware of that I said it earlier I have an executive session I have to talk to them men wants me to talk to them um couple of things before one is from me and I thought one was from you Mr G and Eddie for the purposes of the
record I have a Township of Hillsboro certification by absent board member examination of record eligibility to vote uh mer Shelli indicated that he has reviewed the December 12th 2024 video recording and therefore he is
eligible to participate which I assume you would want because without that you don't have quum um I'm done okay um so I get I'll ask my two questions of Mr Ford and then uh just another comment
before we go to cross-examination U Mr Ford first um going back to the drainage ditch I guess if you could provide for the board you're how long have you been handling site plan applications in Hillsboro Township uh
since the early early 90s They're laughing at me ball ballpark how many applications have you handled site plan before the board hundreds in your experience has the board or the township on any of those
matters uh classified a drainage ditch as a stream under their stream court or ordinance I I'm going to object what the board did in a previous application any application is not presidential uh binding or in any way
binding on this board in this application it's immaterial that's a great argument but he's allowed to T Mr Ford has taken up permanent residence before the board is the only engineer who appears on behalf of applicants I didn't say whether they done it which though which though it seems that way it
did not in fact the case just to be clear my question was in any application I'm saying with respect to what he's worked on has the board ever or the town ever classified it for for what for what it's wor which is go ahead answer the question yeah no
in fact I think part of my testimony with last time I was here was you know the standards are written so loosely that you could classify a roadside ditch as a stream but the but the regs or the the town code also includes a clause that defers to
NDP and that njp will govern um and in this case I've already described JD's conclusion and then also to youall previously uh the board Engineers review
letter dated August 10th 2023 which had some uh storm water management comments and based upon the revised plan submitted the revised reports and your testimony have all those comments been addressed yes we believe they have that's all I have on that subject
um obviously Mr Mayu can ask questions as well uh and just before we get to that I I noted to Mr Bernstein uh Mr Tarantino was never sworn in uh when he provide the testimony with respect to the models if
we can maybe have him come up get sworn in and stay that all is prior testimony uh is the truth whole truth nothing but the truth any ttim you given tonight you will truth the whole truth truth I do thank you that's all I have a direct
presentation of Mr Ford okay Mr Mayu Mr Ford you testified that um you've removed the retaining wall on the western property line along the Conrail um property
line did you uh submit MIT the plan to Conrail for review no we have not it we're not doing any work in the Conrail right away how did you
determine an appropriate slope or distance from the property line for for the proposed improvements well right now the with the removal of the thir three trailer parking spaces the closest
trailer parking SPAC is substantially further away from the property line and that allowed us for us to do a natural grade not in excess of a 3:1 slope which is a maintainable slope without um
disturbance um on the Conrail right away it's still a you're still adding a cut to the great in that area correct correct um would there be any reason not
to as a condition in the future to have Conrail review it no well I would object to that being condition that's not a planning board issue well I'm trying to to um have the public confident that the this grading
and The Cutting of of the ground in that area isn't going to impact the railroad operation and I don't know any other way to do it without getting Conrail input for work being done on our property
correct I'm not sure what legal right they would have to preclude any sort of development on our property that's not within the right away that they don't have an ease man over our concern is because you're changing the grade below the elevation
of the rail bed okay so you're you would not agree to a condition to have the plan submitted to Conrail have a plan submitted to Conrail we can provide him a copy of the plan
yes but I'm not sure what we're not giving them any more rights than what they already have I I'm not a geotechnical engineer but I can't imagine that you could even if
it's on your property you couldn't just arbitr the excavate a 100 foot deep pit up against the property line not and expect conell to be concerned with the structural impact to the rail bed so again I think it would be
appropriate for Conrail to review and comment if the board wants to make that a condition they can make that a condition but I would object to it because there's no legal right to that yeah yeah our our grade differential there is only about 10 feet
and right now the our limit of disturbance even at the top of that slope where we get back to existing grade is 15 fet from the right the property line and the the the remaining trailer parking that's you
know still proposed is uh about 75 ft from the property line um Mr Ford would your office um be able to issue uh an opinion concerning the stability of that
slope and any potential impact on the con rail rail bed that would be something that a geotechnical engineer in our office could provide an opinion on so you would agree to have a a geotechnical engineer
I think it's from degree well that's what I'm asking Engineers I we could do anything so I'm asking is if your clients engineering wise if your client's not going to get input from [Music]
conr remove the retain one yeah yeah know we've had communication with Conrail uh back in uh the summer of 2024 when I think this somebody brought up this issue already uh they have a
Consulting engineer at the time it was cers we made communication with them um they were pleased that we were removing the trailer parking area and the proximity of the retaining wall and there really wasn't any concern you know
when that change was made so that was I'll say another positive aspect of the removal of the 33 trailer parking spaces in that retaining wall close to the so is there any reason we couldn't get a letter from Coler stating that
they take no exception to the improvements proposed along their property line will it be Conrail and whoever their representative is and I defer to our Council as to what that process would be again the the
site surveys don't include we we're we're on our property has been described already we're not in Conrail I've just described the changes that reduce the proximity of the improvements to the
Conrail right away and we're not aware of any rights or easement that Conrail has on the applicants the application property that's I understand what you're asking we'll get back to you on it but it's no
different than asking one person building a house here and saying you know you got to get approval from your neighbor because what you're doing may impact their property uh that's not an Ask of any other applicant yeah but we we we understand what you're
asking us and we'll respond to that prior to the next meeting thank you uh that's all the questions I have right now Mr chairman thank you course thank you Mr chairman um I don't want to keep keep going over the same
over the same item but I just want to make it clear that it was our office along with Mr mayu's office uh our understanding that we had Reed received information from um from
CSX that your prior proposal uh they had believed impacted them and I just want to make this clear and transparent to the public here and Mr I think Mr gnet is all due respect but Mr gn's you know example of comparing it to someone
else's property is is not really that fair in that we're dealing with a rail line and we just want to make sure as the public entity that if a planning board is going to take action to approve some sort of plan and then that plan is
in conflict with another entity like a railroad we just want some verification that whatever changes that you're making uh that it's not going to interfere with them so it's not really a question just wanted to build on what Mr Mayu was
saying and and where we're coming from we want to make sure that whatever is on the plans that it's not in conflict with with the rights of the rail line and the rail line had communicated to us that your prior plan they believed did
conflict with them with their with their rights so we just want to make sure whatever it is even though you're proposing to do it on the applicant's property we just want to make sure it's being done right so thank you yeah yeah I nothing further to clarify and I appreciate I think the the concern at
that time was that there was a retaining wall that was holding back Earth along the Conrail right away was in close proximity to the RightWay and just how it would be constructed and the geogrid and so on and so forth and now that that
retaining wall is eliminated and and it it wasn't I think a clear determination that there was going to be an impact it was proved to us that there won't be an impact the constructibility of that retaining wall and it would be a construction detail in
this case that that's no longer applicable because that retaining wall is no longer proposed but but what we've described already is going back to Conrail in touch and base with them with regards to the current plan we'll address that we'll address that
okay you board members I think I think they answered the whole so can I just be clear the reason you removed the parking was to allow this buffer between the property
and the railroad is that the main reason you got rid of that parking well no I understood that there was Prior testimoni or questions regarding the um Code Compliance of trailer parking with stacked parking okay so it wasn't that
was that was the other reason wasn't driven by the by the wall well they you no we didn't have an answer we didn't have Conrail telling us no don't don't take the wall out but that was an added plus to making that change and um I know you don't have the picture back up here
but is it about a 10t slope basically from the top of the right away to what the level of the parking will be is that about what we're looking at correct okay that's all thanks
cheor number one thank you very much um and thank you Mr Ford uh a couple things just to start off of and I'm not even sure how to group all of this um but the first time
you submitted your October 2023 drainage report to the township was with your August 8th letter August 8th of 2024 yes I believe that's correct so you had that report from October of 2023 to
August of 2024 and did not supply that until your August 8th letter to the township correct yes okay and you you talked about a handful of changes uh that DP required one of them
uh was and we can pull something up if we need to uh but in the northwest corner of the site you had a um time of concentration path that was basically a linear line on the top of it and D
required you to make that follow the topography correct yes and somewhat similar to what uh Dr Emerson had recommended in his testimony his report I think actually factually uh DP did not ask for that we made that change as part
of our uh review process with d to provide um and response to um the objector comment we didn't we didn't think that we didn't object to that and the analysis proved out that the basins as designed and the way they're sized uh
still provided for the required you know Peak flow reductions so that that was really trying to not just address D comments but all the comments we've received including Mr mayus and uh we think the valid comments that the that
the uh Mr Emerson or Dr Emerson made that was one of them all right thank you yeah um you spent a lot of time talking about the stream and likened it to a grass Swale under the BMP manual at no time did Dr Emerson or I ever suggest
that it be considered a grass whale from a storm water perspective did did they no I I use that reference because in order for it to qualify as a water quality aspect it would have to be Mr Ford it was just a yes or no question we didn't suggest it was considered a grass
whale we didn't suggest that it qualified as a BMP under the storm water regulations correct I understood it be it would be a water quality feature and the only way I know to analytically assess whether a
water quality feature uh meets the regulations or not is with those DP standards and that's why I referenced that but but I don't recall I watched the but I don't recall whether that was referenced as part of
Dr Emerson's testimony or not I I don't know you've never heard of DP classifying as a stream as a grass Swale for water quality perspectives uh I haven't okay heard of
theep classifying a stream as a water quality feature either all right you also indicated let let me ask this under the storm water rules the 80% TSS removal is a removal of the increase of sediment that comes off a site post
development correct it's a water quality treatment standard yeah right but you were removing 80% of the increase from the natural condition so you take the natural condition you do your development you figure
out you have your BMP and you remove 80% of that increase correct yes okay and so do you know how much TSS runs off that site into the stream or the drainage Stitch
currently um the no I don't know the thank you did you ever calculate how much TSS is is going to run off I think it's Warehouse one in into the stream even with the 80%
TSS removal there is no standard that would require us to make that okay analysis so I don't recall that it would have been in any of our reports all right so you don't know what's going in there now and you don't know what would be going in after the
fact that would be ACC that's not part of the analysis that's correct all right thank you um and then I apologize because I'm not sure I 100% heard you or understood with Warehouse 2 you have infiltration based in I think it's one
and five and did I understand correctly and I apologize if I didn't D is not allowing you to use as those as recharge that that's not part of our uh
qualifying to meet recharge that's correct okay those things still exist that's correct and D did require you to add a subsurface infiltration basein for building one yes part of the
d review process was um in chapter 12 there's an allowance for using alternate okay permeability I'm trying to just to answer your question well no the question was DP required you to add a
basin I don't necessarily want to know at this moment why they just required you to add a basin the end result was that they we we stopped arguing with the EP about the alternate test method using the pit bail test and acquiesced to
leaving those two Bas in and adding a another one by building one yes right so that was part of our D permit approval so before this process with DP what was it you had three basins and you added one for four
no before the EP process we had five basins we added one and made it six and and two of them uh we are not technically having credit for the recharge I I apologize I ordered a question poorly so for warehouse
one you had three subsurface infiltration basins and D required asked you part of our approval added a fourth one yes that was part of my test for warehouse one
correct okay and for none of these infiltration basins have you designed a insulating barrier uh from the bottom of the Basin to the ground surface correct that's something that you would do after the
fact uh the plans include notes regarding the fill material below the subsurface infiltration basins and the subsurface infilt the sub small scale subsurface infiltration
basins uh are um again similar to the mechanical treatment devices where they use those manufactured arches to provide for the storage so it's a unit that's supplied by A supplier like ctech or ads and again similar to my prior
testimony is regarding uh at the time of uh construction there's shop drilling submittal submitted uh alternatives materials might be available if and when at that time uh it's being constructed um and those additional
means and methods for construction would be provided okay but my question to you was and let me rephrase it at your September 2023 hearing you testified that you could design a barrier from the
bottom of the subsurface infiltration Bas into the ground to prevent that infiltration from leaking out into the remaining portions of the retaining wall I it wouldn't be a barrier at the bottom um if anything it would be a uh liner on
the side of the subsurface small scale subsurface infiltration Basin um coincident with the retaining wall but you haven't designed that no no okay you're still intending to do that but you just haven't done designed
that's a mechanism that could be implemented uh to provide additional comfort that uh there's not going to be any lateral movement of groundw and it would go down below the basins and these subsurface infiltration small scale subsurface infiltration basins have
material below them that's very permeable which would be indicative of the water traveling down not sideways okay but again yes that was part of my prior testimony all right
um and we also you going back to the grass and I apologize for jumping around a little bit uh and I believe you testified to this back in June or September of 2023 you're not a Wetlands expert and you did not do the delineation of the wetlands in this
instance correct I'm not a wetland expert but the uh Wetland mapping uh was done by our office as well in in concert with u Mr cook okay but you did not do that personally no no okay thank you
and okay so this is two separate Lots correct correct and each building has their own storm water BMP system correct correct and in post construction is it
three different drainage areas you are proposing well there's one point of analysis uh where the Royce Brook uh leaves the site along the Northerly track boundary you know if you wouldn't mind again I can pull it up if you want but I
think your colorized drawing May suffice um I don't have control y a13 so okay so on Warehouse 2 you have two green lines running well
let me let me rephrase that you have a wet pond in the southern portion and a green line referencing the drainage pipe to the stream correct correct then you have one just in the corner of the building again on the southerly
Southeastern side again I'm presuming that is coming from the porest pavement um right here to the stream correct no that's uh a sanitary sewer lateral connection my apologies uh but
you have another drainage pipe to the Royce Brook in the northern portion correct okay these are all on site all right and for building one you basically have one discharge point to the Royce
Brook correct so you have at least one tributary to the Royce Brook receiving discharge uh and then Royce Brook it's main portion is getting to is that
accurate correct okay um and the I apologize but lot 32 you're not doing any recharge um on lot 32 as part of the
overall site design uh the um there is recharge at building number two but again it's not being taken credit for or granted credit uh acknowledge that with regards to the recharge correct all the recharge is
happening on lot 33 correct and all right did you likewise heavy load water quality treatment on one lot
versus the other or is the water quality being met on both Lots water quality is being met by by virtue of the porest pavement or mechanical treatment devices and that's specific to the motor vehicle
surfaces that drain to those facilities so it's not analyzed in a sense where they're it's right at the inlet but each lot is getting water
quality treatment correct all right well it's it's not a lot it's the motor vehicle surfaces and quantity reductions are also happening you're reducing the water quality not apologize you're reducing the water
quantity or the rate reductions on each site you're not front loading reductions on one site versus the other so you're not doing more than required necessarily on one site so you could do less on the other yeah no we there was no intention to to do
something like you're characterizing and and this is an overall site it's you're you're seem to question it as if it's two different projects it may be two separate Lots but it's it's you know reviewed and and analyzed in
totality but there are three different drainage areas I believe post construction correct no there's one point of analysis which is our my question is what are the drainage areas so well there's multiple drainage are well there's there's drainage areas to
each Basin there's drainage areas to each catch Basin or Inlet on the site so there's but overall so on your plans you don't have drainage area one drainage area two 2A and three well you just
described what I just said is that there's drainage areas for the three basins that's the way they're analyzed and then they're merged for an impact yes actually I think that is all the questions I have thank you Mr
Ford perfect two minutes to spare oh you know what I apologize sorry too soon talking about going back to the drainage and I again apologize for jumping all over um you heard and spoke with Mr cook
and you heard his testimony yes and he testified whether it may be hearsay or not that he spoke with uh the property owner and the property owner is the one who drug dug that ditch do you remember that testimony
I you're getting into details I I believe that's correct I I don't know do do you know when the property owner took possession of the property no so if it was I told you in 1989 you wouldn't know one way or the
other yeah okay haven't made a judgment of how the origin of that ditch okay thank you very much yeah okay minutes spare so I think we have some housekeeping to continue yeah
housekeeping is the next hearing um I think at the last meeting we spoke about March 6th we currently have uh March 13th available just checking right now obors will be [Music]
available Mr Ford will be available he would be available I would just ask um you know these plans have been submitted in August and then the one removing the stack trailers in November uh if we can have the if the board engineer is going to do another review
letter if we could have it well in advance of that March 13th hearing uh so so I don't have to call back Mr Ford again to address anything in a review letter as to that issue as
to yeah as yeah have come back just to address the review Mayu I believe is going to be doing a more comprehensive overall letter you however are asking for a review letter of Mr Ford's paperwork that he has testified to this evening well and what was
submitted yeah the revised plans everything in advance to the Mar 13th correct Mr may you we will strive for that I think it's only fair we we need to respond if there's going to be
questions he's here to testify I don't want to have to bring him back for a fourth or fifth time after he's already testified we talking about Mr Mr Ford's exhibits and Mr Ford's testimony only as it or if there's anything I mean
there's been a lot of testimony since his August 10th 2023 letter and I am sure that Mr Mayu will at some point address all of that in his overall letter to the client I'm trying to get you the letter you want and limit it to the extent that Mr Mayu is going to tell
me I assume we tell the board that he's not going to be able to do a full-blown overall letter between now and March well I guess what what I mean anything engineering wise he has a question or concern about we would like it before the next meeting so we can address
it we will have another review letter before the next meeting great doesn't mean you won't have to bring him back again uh no guarantee so March
13th we need an extension the time of decision by the way Mr Genetti is Mr Dean going to be available on the 13th I know he's available on March 6th um I'll have to check on the 13th all right the point is M can I suggest we do
a time of decision to the end of April and let's stop dealing with this one month at a time on the hope that maybe because I hear rumor supposed story that's when the supposed thing will be over is there a date
after the 13th like if we can get a second date after the 13th I'm willing to give an extension to that second date you want to do this one I'll just we have April 10th on the board April 10th was that I think ail 10th
I think I'm away that day that's our spring break happens just sit quietly Robert after that we have May first wonderful got it April the potential for April 3rd it's just my only
concern okay yeah March 13th and then April 3rd potentially but is that not enough time in case there's things that come up well I'd like to keep that April 3rd date and then if we have to change it on
March 13th we can change it on MAR March 13th the board like to hold that yeah let's get this to the Finish Line right March 13th next date April 30th time of decision Mr Jed I think it was April 3rd no I'm asking time of decision oh no I
thought when you were saying the second date I thought you said April 30th I'm I'm saying one date okay March 3r yes Mr chairman a motion to extend this he to continue this hearing without further
notice Thursday March 13 2025 at 700 p.m. or soon thereafter the matter may be heard and the time of the decision R extended through April 30th 2025 okay that may have a
motion so moved second can we do by affirmation or we got to do roll call roll call it's a short roll call yeah roll call please Mr ran yes M Smith yes yes yes
yes if I may just ask a housekeeping question just so I Mr chairman unless there's anything else on the agenda um I would ask that the board go into executive session
yeah yeah yeah who he I just wanted to get clarification obviously Mr Ford will be coming back at the next hearing what other rebuttal experts does Mr Mr G
edti Mr Genetti correct me if I'm wrong the other rebuttal witness you're planning on calling is Mr Dean is that correct correct and will there be a supplemental report maybe maybe not yes Mr Dean will be we will be
submitting more information from Mr Dean in the usual 10 days in advance of the hearing which goes to the next issue if you PA plan on coming back with testimony rebuttal the same rules apply
experts thank you um thank you all Mr chairman if we're available for the conference room I would ask that the members of the board who were involved in the Harvard way application along with Mr Mayu miss ball and Mr
KO he thought for a split second he'd be excused but no uh attend Mr Smith is excused Mr chicarelli is excused so be the four people on this side because Mr because
Mr chiarelli was excused from the original application and Mr Smith has not reviewed any of this so he gets to go home all right so do we need to do a resolution to go in executive session we already what did we already do a resolution for what time of decision no
to go to go executive session uh I'll do it because usually yes I Mr chairman I'm asking that we that the hillsbor township planning board pursuant to njsa 10 4-6 at SEC most notably njsa 10 colon
4-12 B8 prob me B7 attorney client privilege impending or anticipated litigation in this case Harvard way JM j4 LLC formal action mayor may not be taken at the conclusion of the executive
session we will recommence here okay is there a motion to go to Executive so moved second can we do all in favor all in favor all we'll be back executive thank you all um