##VIDEO ID:LijEuaXIo_E## e she so they have you on now test test they're working all right everybody ready okay good evening ladies and gentlemen this is the reorganization meeting of the township of Hillsboro planning board for Thursday January the 9th 2025 at 700 p.m my name is Eric Bernstein I'm the planning board attorney I calling this meeting to order before before we have the salute to the flag which I'll ask Mr KO to lead us in I'd like everybody to please stand and observe a moment of silence in honor of the 39th president of the United States James Earl Carter Jr Mr Co aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with libery and justice for all this meeting has been duly advertised according to section five of the open public meetings act chapter 231 of the public laws of 1975 also known as the Sunshine Law notice of the 2025 January meetings scheduled have been provided to the officially designated newspapers the Township Clerk posted on the Township's website and available at the Hillsboro Township municipal complex meeting documents have also been made available on the Township's website at https doubl hillsbor nj. portal. Civic clerk.com for those of you who do not wish to be sworn and here's your last chance uh Oaths of office seat number one John chiarelli Mayor seat number two Robert Wagner Jr class two seat number three committee MSHA Leon class three seat number six Jason flag class 4 seat number seven Bruce rtz class 4 seat number eight Angelo Vitali class 4 seat number nine Patricia Smith class 4 alternate number one sarra Deb alternate number two Jason Smith for those of you who are all here would you all [Music] rise Raise Your Right hands and repeat I state your name and I don't want to hear state your name uh do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States will support theit of the United States and the constitution of the state of New Jersey and that I will with true faith and Allegiance Al to the governments established government establish in the United States United States and in this state and in this St I do first further solemnly swear I further Solly swear that I will Faithfully that I will faithfully impartially and justly perform perform all the duties of the office ofice of planning board member it's like it's like you know zoom and and the pledge of allegiance to the best of my ability the best of my ability so help me God congratulations folks I don't have anything some point O O out of O Okay we took it out of the budget Michael roll call please Mr FL here Mr Smith here pres here here here here pres here I'm not sure but here he's in the back technically we do not have a chair a vice chair yet uh so the first order of business now that everybody has been sworn in and is the roll call has been taken is the election of chairman to have a nomination for chair for 2025 for the planning board I nominate Carl sarach for chair are there any other nominations other than by Carl srai hearing none uh motion to close nominations so move second all in favor of closing nominations please signify by saying I I Mr lber DOI please call the rooll for chair for Carl srai for 2025 Mr CL yesth yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes you say no it won't matter Mr sarach it's all yours [Applause] now I do not have an agenda yeah thank you that's helpful [Music] so B I don't have to sign anything do I I don't have to sign anything you're official it that's it okay SAR you later if You' like no that's okay well thank you everyone um appreciate being reappointed you know for allowing me to have the privilege to uh lead the team again in 2025 so with that I am going to open the floor for nominations for vice chair I'd like to nominate Rob Pon okay are there any other not nominations for vice chair okay hearing none I have a motion to close nominations so moved second all in favor I I okay roll call for the election of Mr P and as Vice chair yes yes yes yes yes AB stain you know chicken welcome back Rob thank you okay next up I'm going to open the floor for nominations of board SEC of secretary i' like to nominate uh Patricia Smith as secretary I'll second she has a nice signature not qualified yes any other nominations for secretary hearing n may have a roll call to close nominations so moved all in favor I I have a roll call for Miss Smith as board secretary yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes sure why not sure why not [Music] okay next up is appointment of the master plan subcommittee unless any of them oppose I'm going to renominate the same members of last year let's see how well my memory Mr Pon is chair mayor chiarelli two for two's see Mr RIT Miss Smith I think Mr RIT you're gonna be alternate right yes yes and then myself second now we don't have to vote on it that's one that's the one thing I get to do without anyone's permission so took me enough years to realize that go you got power the pen on that's it okay next up resolution adopting the 2025 uh meeting schedule I have a motion I'll move that Mr chairman second okay any discussions from the day hearing none roll call please Mr FL yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes okay um Mr bson can I do all these in once because I've watched the township committee meetings now or do we need to take any I know you like but not set up for consent agenda we're not set up okay okay as much as I'd like to be all right so we're going to take consideration one at a time first one resolution ratifying the fair and open selection process I have a motion don't mov second any comments roll call please yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes resolution appointing the board attorney fair and open proposal received was from our Eric and Bernstein and Associates there were no other so may I have a motion okay to approve Mr burnen as the board attorney so moved Mr chairman second any comments roll call please yes yes yes last chance Eric no yes yes yes yes next resolution appointing the board engineer here we had competition so was through fair and open proposals that were received from penon Associates Mr Mayu CME Associates Mr Samuel and I believe uh do we have to have someone to nominate one or we're going with the score score okay so Mr our penon Associates Mr Mayu was the highest score uh receiver through the evaluation so may have a motion to appoint penon Associates Mr Mayhew as board engineer so moved second okay any discussions hearing none roll call please yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes welcome back Mr Mill thank you very much next resolution extending professional service agreement with tnm uh Associates Mr y this is a 2020 contract for an ongoing 2020 application I have a motion so move second comments roll call please Mr FL yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes next resolution appointing the alternate board engineer the fair and open proposal received received one proposal from CME Associates Mr Samuel may have a motion so moved second okay any comments from the day hearing on roll call please Mr yesth yes yes yes yes yes yes resolution appointing board court reporter through a non-fair non-fair an open proposal received by Mr Lombard oie may I have a second Michael it's up to you yeah or n man of confidence like it okay any comments hearing none roll call please FL yes Mr Smith yes yes Mr yes Mr yes yes yes yes yes yes welcome back thank you okay resolution adopting Rules of Order may have a motion so moved second comments roll call please Mr FL yes Mr yes Mr yes mrag yes yes yes yes yes yes next resolution designating the officially designated news or the offic yeah resolution designating the official newspapers may I have a motion so moved second comments roll call please yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes and just you know for the Public's edification the Hillsboro Beacon and Courier News were the newspapers that are officially [Applause] designated okay next resolution F fixing charge for notice of meetings some second comments roll call please black yes yes yes yes yes yes yes res resolution of of open meeting policy I have a motion so moved second second okay you get to settle that tie too any comments hearing none roll call please yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes and our final resolution resolution of administrative procedures may have a motion so moved there you go another tie any comments hearing none roll call please yes yes yes yes smithi yes yes yes with that we'll move to comments from the public for items not on this evening's agenda there's anything you like to address the board please feel free to come up state your name and address for the record okay seeing none we I will now entertain a motion of adjournment for the reorganizational meeting so move Mr chairman second all in favor I I we are adjourned Michael do you need aak well you know I I don't know fire okay you know what I need to fire up my laptop real quick so I get to so I get to have my agenda take a sip that's it you know there's only one person there that had perfect attendance just looking at you on side now I know I got [Music] a what at least all the kids with blue shirts you know you two didn't get the memo ex perfect that was actually [Music] perfect the side did they make it all the way down take one for your ready yeah yeah keep that the peppermint the peppermint different flavors yeah well it's because my announcement of the meeting notice I don't do I have to redo the announcement of the meeting notice continuation continuation okay we don't and we're not well I don't know no I do yeah yeah no but we're gonna but we're going to salute again yeah the Dark Chun you want [Applause] that back to okay all right this is the last pass we ready okay right all right okay welcome everyone to the uh January 9th 2025 regular or the regular portion of this evening's uh planning board meeting we've already made the announcement a meeting notice is just a continuation uh from the reorg meeting so with that I will call to order and salute to the flag congratulations to the flag the United States of America and to the republ for one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all okay I may have a roll call of board members and should do Township professionals again someone may have skipped out of here right no no no we're going to do it I'm saying they may have skipped that so we want to do the all right um sure uh Mr flag here Mr Smith here Mr V here Mr Wagner yes here Mr R here Miss Smith here commit in the P pres mayor Chelli here Vice chair PE pres chair sarach here Mr K pres M ball here Mr Bernstein yes Mr Mayu here and myself and supposedly the videographer are here okay so welcome again everyone um uh but first I just want to formally welcome Jason flag and Jason Smith welcome aboard so appreciate you willing to uh commit your time with us you're not committed but you're committing okay first up we have consideration of the December 5th 2024 meeting minutes Mr Bernstein mayor chiarelli Mr Wagner committee leani Vice chair P yourself Mr rtz Mr Vitali Miss Smith eligible okay may have a motion to approve so moved second any comments from the deas hearing none roll call please yes Mr Wagner yes yes Vice yes yes Mr yes yes yes okay it's all good keeps everyone under toes we do not have resolutions for consideration we do have one item planning board business draft the 2024 U planning board's annual report Mr go thank you it is basically your yearbook um so it's a summary of all the activity from the prior year and it's a requirement for this to be adopted there's any uh comments or recommendations to make any changes please let us know now okay I have a motion to approve the 2024 annual report so moved second okay any comments I I do have one comment okay um Co I I was wondering if in the attendance sheet item D you could possibly indicate by an asterisk when it when in when a board member was absent but reviewed the transcript and was eligible to vote from that meeting so for example I was absent on let me pick a here uh June 13th but I reviewed the transcript submitted a proper form and I'm eligible to vote for the matters that were heard on that day so I think it's something to consider okay I would actually suggest you do it we have had a request for confirmation of people's attendance regarding another application and I have a feeling they're going somewhat off that report report okay okay we can add we can add asterisk in the final version in the final version okay perfect thank you thank you so with that amendment I forget who made the original motion Mr aritz yes I I would make the same motion again with the additional comments of the mayor to amend the report okay thank you and Miss Smith okay excellent any additional comments okay hearing none roll call please Mr flag yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes we do not have consideration of ordinances so now we'll move to business from the floor for matters not on this evening's agenda okay please come to the mic state your name and address for the record please refrain from any comments or directly or indirectly regarding warehouses and please keep comments to a five minute limit uh good evening Maria janusek 720 East fck Avenue Manville New Jersey I'm also Hillsboro Township property owner block 86 lot 3 2155 camplan Road um the property 303 Amwell Road was approved for Pur purchased by the Hillsboro Township committee the governing body so why is that still an application before this board no I guess we'll find out when we move to that part of the meeting because that's on the agenda well that's the thing why is it still on the meeting why is still on the agenda we will address it when we get to that part of the the agenda that will be addressed thank you I checked it I'll check it David Brook seven Winding Way happy New Year everybody um two thoughts or one question and one thought um there used to be a videographer is it now being recorded from the main cameras so that means I can get all the different viewpoints great um I'm interested in having a conversation with you as members of the planning board um as you know when applications come before the board there's a process whereby an applicant presents their case and at the end of the application we as residents have the final or maybe final opportunity to present to you our thoughts on the merits or lack thereof for an application through the public comment portion sometimes due to a large number of people who want to comment there may be a need to limit the time each person can speak sometimes there is no limit maybe so I do not know you're thinking on the limits you may be considering for applications that are coming potentially tonight or maybe next month and so I'd like to propose to you a different approach to the public comment portion what I propose for your consider itation uh should there be a need to limit the time that each person speaks um is what has been termed the establishment of flexible time limit or FTL here's how it works or how it could work as members of the board you establish a time limit and chairman Sriracha you mentioned five minutes earlier for comments tonight um so you set a time limit let's say it's five minutes right as comments are presented and if the chairman and members of the board determine that the comments are noteworthy and relevant then I would ask that you wave the time limit as long as the information will allow the board to make a more informed decision In fairness to the board and in full disclosure you provide a caveat to us the public that says the flexible time limit if you put it in place you reserve the right to end that person's FTL should their comments no longer be relevant or become duplicative to me it's a win-win situation for both the public and the board because it allows you to gather the best information available and the public the opportunity to help in that process without being cut off in mid sentence not that it's ever happened to me but it has so I'd like to thank you for your interest and your willingness to consider this proposal and I'm certainly available to answer any questions that you may have uh should you be interested in this idea I think it's imminently workable and I think it allows you to do the best job you can do and it also allows the public to feel a real part of the process so any questions thank you for your time thank you any other members of the public okay see now we're going to move on to to public hearing on this evening's applications first up is 303 Amwell Road jmj 4 LLC file number 21- pb-1 17- mspv time of decision March 28 should that be of this year it's showing in my notes 24 y the agenda it's on the agenda is 2 no it's on online is 24 so just for the purpose of the record 25 it's 25 okay excuse me the application's been adjourned from the December 12 2024 meeting agenda due to a date to a date determined by the board without further notice application to be scheduled only at this meeting extension of time provided okay through March 28th 2025 and I believe Mr grodnik you're representing good evening members of the board Michael OG grodnik sa sh law for on behalf of this applicant um as Miss jusc pointed out this is an application that um is still in the contract phase of the purchase and sale agreement um there was an isolated portion of an environmental concern there was some dumping on this lot and um the my my colleague Miss Gillespie and Township attorney Mr Willard are still working out the scope of the remediation necessary to convey this property for open space so we've engaged numerous environmental professionals I believe a phase one and phase two has been completed so um we would just ask for an adjournment um and the reason for the adjournment is um we want to keep this application uh alive uh since there's been zoning changes that uh impact the permitted uses in this Zone uh so uh although there is a resolution to purchase this uh property it hasn't closed yet so we would just ask for an adjournment to allow uh the parties to work out some of the details again related to the environmental contamination and I was M I don't know if Mr Craig Berlin's in the audience okay because I know he's the objector so but he's not here okay so do we need to pick an official date probably in March we have official dates now in March March 6 and March 13th the time of decision was signed to uh March 31st 2025 28 down okay so which state I mean we I think we should push it a few months further it's we're certainly not intending to proceed on this application uh unless there's you know one party backs out of the deal so we would ask that it be adjourned to June and I could certainly extend time of decision till that time okay that's fine just want we could give a we'll have him a sign of an extension and so for June what do we have in June we have June 5th and June 12th let's make it June 12th okay June 12th okay and with the time of decision to June 30th that's fine yeah okay with that may have a motion to extend this application to June what I say 12th of this year at 7 p.m. or soon after when the matters may be heard without further notice without further notice sorry I think and with the time of extension extended to June 30th of 2025 thank you Mr chairman tell you I absorbed a lot sitting the net sitting look what we absorb so moved second okay any comments roll call please Mr yes yes yes yes yes yes okay next is Weston Road LLC theor Representatives please join us file number 22- pb-3 D mspv with a time of decision of January 10th 2025 block 185 lot one uh this application's being continued from November 14th of 2024 without further notice and I will let the participants Mr chairman yes sir um maybe Mr Bernstein can explain or allow our two new members to um who have probably not done a homework and read uh transcripts from the past two years um and say that basically excuse them from this or more there more than legal it up well let's deal with a whole group of items uh Mr Vitali have you had a chance to review all of the this goes back to February 23rd I'm still not up to dat on this okay all right members of the board who have who do not qualify who have not either been present for or have reviewed the either the video or the recording of the meeting are not eligible to participate in this hearing as I have indicated at previous hearings that does not preclude the individuals from sitting up on the day if they so choose so long as they understand that they cannot ask questions make comments and related items I do believe however that Mr flag has a double issue uh which I think he'd like to place that part on the record uh yes one of my colleagues um is uh representing the applicant uh so I'm recused from this matter okay so you're going to have to step down off the day you're more than welcome to sit in the audience but um therefore I believe from Mr P down this is the eligible portion as after I put people's certifications on the record of the members of the board who are eligible to hear tonight's meeting in terms of taking an action asking questions and the like okay thank you um with that Mr chairman as long as we're on that issue let me place on the record the following okay we have received a certification of absent board member examination of record eligibility to vote by then Deputy Mayor John chiarelli for the September 5th 2024 hearing which he viewed the recording we have a simil certification of absent board member examination of record eligibility to vote having view the video recording of September 5th 2024 by board secretary Smith I have Mr Vitali has gotten himself to meeting six but has not gotten all the way yet so I will indicate he has certified for meetings three four five and six um we also have I believe one more uh and that is Mr Deb who is not here this evening and therefore is not eligible so with that Miss Smith and the mayor are now eligible to continue to participate as they did before um and uh the matter can proceed okay you guys going to hang with us thank you okay D David you'll collect these later Mr aric I believe that we are still at a public comment portion uh related to Mr Dr Emerson's testimony that's I believe where we left off there I I I don't think that's correct okay I think that we were we had presented a couple of our lay Witnesses and we had one more to go okay I think Dr erson was finished okay um has everybody placed everybody's on the record we are all you guys want to place yourselves on the record uh yes uh good evening members of the board uh Michael ogrodnik savos shock corini Warner glp o' grodnik and Fischer Summerville New Jersey on behalf of Weston Road LLC the applicant good evening members of the board uh Jordan Ash with rer Dani on behalf of the objector Hearthstone at Hillsboro homeowners association and good evening everyone I'm Michael sovich from the law firm of libran bler and sovich on behalf of hearthstone okay and before we have one more witness one more lay witness um before we call Mr Koozie um I did raise well I have two sets of opening questions I guess that I wanted to raise to the board if that's appropriate and ask um the applicant um one was addressed addressed in a letter that we sent on January 3rd um and it concerns um it has come to our attention that uh Mr Arif who testified on behalf of Miracle brands in May of 2023 um has sold his interest in the company um to the extent that that's accurate which I believe it is the question that we have is whether Miracle Brands is still going to be the tenant um and then if so uh whether Mr Reef's testimony with regard to Miracle Brands is still uh I guess relevant or valid or accurate whatever the proper term would be I believe Mr chairman that the board has received a copy of Mr covich's letter dated well actually yes dated January the 3 uh I believe that the next comment if any should come from Mr ogrodnik if he wishes to comment um so as you know this application was filed over 3 years ago during the pendency of the public hearing portions of this application Miracle Brands was sold as such there is no specific tenant under lease for the space and will be constructed on spec I will note that unlike a use variance where the concept of intensity of a proposed use or proposed tenant is relevant the municipal land use law allows for mun Municipal regulation of the uses of land only not only not regulation who of who may own the land or tenants or what legal form that ownership or other possessory interest may take it's quoting Cox and kig aarn Treatise conditions that make a land use approval for a permitted use personal to a property or specific tenant are invalid quoting d fiz v Board of adjustment um so just like you know any any warehouse in town or any industrial use in town I would submit that the tenant that's here today is probably not going to be here in 100 years or 500 years so uh Miracle Brands was sold uh and and there is no specific tenant identified however in reviewing uh prior testimony and prior cross-examination from both the public uh Mr Tarantino and Mr sovich uh this was hashed out and addressed squarely with our traffic testimony Mr Dean who testified that he did not use site specific tenant specific data in his conclusions related to trip generation rather he relied on The Institute of Traffic Engineers and the data uh as if this was uh a quote unquote general warehouse so uh yes the the business has been sold and uh there are no tenants uh currently uh well certainly a building wouldn't of this even if it was approved wouldn't be built for years so there's certainly no tenant in place and uh I would refer to uh prior testimony related to uh on-spec construction versus uh site specific tenant specific construction and that um obviously the majority of construction in the state of New Jersey and anywhere is built on spec okay Mr think is the applicant or the the owner is still purchasing a third of the of the warehouse as far as um I mean we obviously he's not part of milco Brands but who's now running the application so I actually don't know the specific ownership interest but I I can but I don't I don't really have a yeah I believe that him yes that he will be an owner of the of the proposed project well the only reason I asked because obviously they're the one that's presenting the application if the ownership should change then we have obviously the standing issue um no they're we're still under contract with guastella and um the applicant is still intending to construct this project okay I guess my only follow-up comment to that um not to belor the point is that this board has throughout this application and my understanding possibly other similar applications required um identification and explanation and testimony regarding the tenant the operations are going to occur in that space and now it appears uh we don't have that um so I don't don't know what else to say about that frankco it wasn't the response I was expecting um but uh but I I do think it's it's imperative and important that this board um and the community at large understand exactly what's going to happen in this uh Warehouse to the extent that it's approved I'm just going to quote uh an Appel at division case that just came out this year uh and it and it really addresses this issue quote the weariness of ownership restrictions stems from the constitutionally protected right to own and dispose of real property a right that was is within the protective scope of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1 section one of the New Jersey Constitution that case is New Jersey Realtors versus Township of Berkeley citing Upper Deerfield Township versus Seabrook uh Corporation um again the use is permitted and that's the relevant point so uh while unfortunately due to uh years of hearings the business was sold in the operational testimony related to Miracle brands uh may may be altered by an on-spec building um it's really not relevant to the board at all to consider a specific tenant for a nonuse variance application again not to belabor the point one last comment I promise and that is you know our professional planner and our planning analysis went into a lengthy description and Anis as to whether this technically is a warehouse use or another use such as I believe it was truck terminal I could be quoting that wrong a lot of that analysis had to do with exactly what was happening within the operation how things were packed and unpacked and being shipped Visa V trucks and things like that so I do think it goes not only to you know disclosing what's going to happen in the warehouse but to the actual planning aspects of it as well um so with that I'll move off that issue I do have one other quick question um also uh came to my attention um even more recently about an hour ago um something else that may have been represented but has since changed or I'm not sure that's why I want to ask the question uh actually at the same hearing on May 4th 2023 we had this long discussion about that it's block 187 lot 7 it's that donut shaped lot with within the middle of the property um at that time it was at least my understanding and I'm hope I'm uh recalling correctly that the applicant was in the process of whether it's the applicant or a related entity to the applicant was in the process of foreclosing on that doughnut-shaped um property um but it is my understanding and it is another question for the applicant to my understanding that forclosure has not gone through in the past few years so I know there was a supreme US Supreme Court case that sort of changed the way tax sale foreclosures occurred um but I just was wondering if we could be apprised of the status of that property and its ownership um Etc the Foreclosure has not been perfected as of to date based upon that case which essentially says that anytime you're foreclosing property you need to notify uh every potential Heir this property has an interesting history way before guastella way before was a Township dump there were hundreds of tiny little lots that were actually given away as part of newspaper subscriptions and this entire area had you know I mean like I don't know 50 foot by 50 foot Lots there were roads and um all of those lots have been uh you know the title has been quieted except for this isolated lot which uh is under tax certificate foreclosure so uh we assume that ultimately the uh the lot will be foreclosed as a tax certificate foreclosure there hasn't been any objection uh by any uh by any potential errors but again um the Supreme Court has made clear that um notice is a priority when we're dealing with tax certificate foreclosures uh so we're going back chain a title of you know a century and uh unfortunately that leads to a mess for attorneys trying to quiet tit cuz there's potentially hundreds of claimants um that's my only comment so it's not perfected yet just one last F do we have a timing do you know of timing I don't know if you're handling it or not okay that's all I have Mr chairman okay we call our witness um we' like to call Richard Koozie Heartstone resident and this will be our last Witness stand upth Richard Koozie cou zzi one steel Place Hillsboro New Jersey I'm usually let me just start Mr Koozie can you just um you are a resident of hearthstone is that correct yes and how long have you live there approximately five years okay and have you attended um the hearings in this application everyone and and following attendance of the hearings do you have some comments that you'd like to provide to the board yes please go ahead I'm usually not at a loss for words but after what I just heard I'm going to give my present some of it might not be applicable now because I didn't know of these underlying story soes bear with me if I do say something that's not accurate I should not say but you know I'm not going to change this on the Fly largescale Regional warehousing if not properly cited and scaled will result in significant negative impact to air water quality of life public health safety infrastructure and transportation n networks emissions of air pollution and greenhouse gases from diesel power delivery Vans tractor trailers represent the most substantial environmental impact from Warehouse facilities reducing diesel pollution has become a public priority and needs careful consideration of where intensive diesel sources of pollution should be located and mitigated traffic can present substantially safety issues collisions with heavy duty trucks are especially dangerous for passengers cars motorcycles bicycles and pedestrians these concerns can be even greater if truck traffic passes through residential areas school zones and other places where pedestrians are common and extra caution is warranted the noise Associated logistic facilities can be among the most intrusive impacts on nearby sensitive receptors thus residential areas schools parks and other places where pedestrians groups of people are residing various sources such as unloading activity diesel truck movement can contribute to substantial noise pollution that can cause hearing damage after prolonged exposure here we go how much traffic again this is done before we don't know who the who's buying the property it's a secret applicants stated they operate out of Jacksonville Florida I remember all this and utilize five Bays the next logical question is why build 20 Bays room for growth until they grow to accommodate 20 Bays they probably rent out the remaining 15 Bays to who nobody knows I doubt they will leave 15 Bays empty we have still not been told of how many employees they will be at this location again we don't even know who's buying the property now they're proposing 99 parking spaces when Township requires 45 spaces plus they're proposing 28 parking spaces for cars applicant has not submitted a business plan that was requested by the board I do remember that also how in the world do you finance a $20 million construction project without a business plan you can't the hours of operation have fluctuated over the years again over the past three years it was 5 days then it was 7 days now it's 24 hours a day 7 days a week right AC cross from a 55 and older retirement community Weston Road is a secondary road with drainage ditches on both sides our car on Weston Road does not have the capability to move onto the shoulder or to make way for a tractor trailer there's no shoulder it doesn't exist additionally having an O operation in which trucks terminate at the warehouse coming from Elizabeth to Hillsboro and returning to Elizabeth that has been described this fulfills the definition of a truck Terminal A Truck terminal 100 ft across from the street from Hearthstone if Manville is successful in denoting Kell K Kennedy Boulevard is a weight restricted road that means all the trucks going to this operation will come through Hillsboro down Western Road there's no other way to get there trip C calculations from the traffic study presented are based on the size of the building that's my assumption which is large enough by square footage to foot fit two football fields inside that building this building is 501 ft long and 275 ft wide however in the trip in the calculations we were talking about with traffic there was no mention of 20 Bays therefore any mention of traffic needs to be calculated by 20 Bays not five cuz originally the applicant stated they were going to use five Bays their experts stated that there would be 20 to 40 trips a day according to a calculation the it projected 79 trips so 79 Time 4 is 316 trips a day 100 ft across the street from a 55 and older community how much light my company has 455 locations just like this and even larger the lights will be on 24 hours a day no exaggeration how much noise again my company has 455 locations unloading activities backup alarms diesel truck activity and increased noise pollution will cause hearing loss after Pro exposure again across from a 55 and older retirement community I just know my objection for the record related to um alleged noise and Diesel and any type of other emissions pollution not been qualified as an expert no experts been submitted on behalf of the obors witness cannot testify that there is an increase in pollution or or any other um detrimental impact expert testimony can I ask no audience please attorney for the purposes of the record I would advise the board that the individual is not here in any expert capacity is not providing I assume any expert testimony but that his testimony cannot be considered as part of the board's deliberation as expert in nature I was going to agree with M berste I'm not an I was going to say the same thing but I've been here for three years I've listened to every bit of conversation I've read everything I could I can read again I'm not an expert this is my opinion I'm a resident and I live there and I'm going to smell this stuff when they drive down Western Road okay storm water under the current application the applicant and two other properties are contributing storm water the hearstone the Basin and the pipe during 100-year flood storm which is happening more often as we speak the proposed development will be contributing additionally hundreds of thousands of extra gallons of storm water onto our property I'm not going to quote the number but it's hundreds of thousands of gallons Mr Mayu might want to say something about that the increase in volume due to the structure is a significant increase in volume which will wreak havoc on our community applicant is required to reduce or at least meet existing flows to each point of access POA the the uh catch Basin and the pipe that goes underneath Weston Road the catch Basin and the pipe that feeds into our property applicant totally changed their storm Water Analysis based on the new drainage maps and reports dated September 28th of 2023 to essentially make it look like they're reducing flows to our Basin which they are but they're also doing what they're doing is routing more flow to the tennis court pipe which should be a controlled release to which it is not applicants should be obl ated legally and professionally to fully review the existing hearstone property and model the impact due to the additional volumes specifically a downstream analysis for the pipe below Weston Road and the stream which ultimately flooded during a storm hurricane Ida not an analysis that was completed 20 years ago I'm almost done if I correct there seems to be no evidence of any documentation which allows or controls the storm water flow on our property some people might call it an easement Mr Ford stated that he is not relying in any documentation to allow applicants to direct storm water onto hearstone property again I was here that's that's what I heard a logical assumption is that their asserted right to use the pipe under Western Road in any manner would need to be based on the existing written and recorded document or agreement without this how can they utilize a pipe which they did not install and they have no control over Weston Road to significantly increase the storm water being directed off their property onto our property applicants should be obligated to obtain an agreement from Hearthstone if they're going to change or increase the use of the existing pipe our property already floods in moderate to Heavy Rain 30 houses flooded during Ida including my house the proposal the proposed large increase in volume of water is certainly going to cause flooding issues at Heartstone during I Hada Sunny meet at the end of our development totally flooded with multiple floating cars not to belabor the point appan is proposing dumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of water onto our property directly through Hearthstone to Royce Brook river which dissects H Sunny me a flood prone area the proposed increase use of the pipe and Basin will place unreasonable burden on our property what is our recourse when our property floods or the Ravine erods who who do who do we go see who do we talk to what recourse do we have without a written document clearly spelling out the terms clearly enumerating limitations this application should not go forward let them remediate this huge increase of storm water on their property that can be done if they want to pay for it I hope that Heartstone Community is treated in the same way as two other purchased properties in so far as the voices of those community members were clearly heard however I understand that this this board is not the township committee and that the board must decide on the application presented the application as presented is flawed and dangerous for the reasons denoted tonight and by our community members our concerns are supported by reliable expert testimony this community will be adversely affected by the huge increase in flood water traffic noise and pollution all we are requesting is fairness consideration and compassion in this application of the relevant laws and ordinance that are placed that are in place to protect the safety welfare of the residents of hearstone this application should be denied thank you I go back oh okay I have no questions for the witness that was Mr burnson do I have to so unless anyone else has questions of the witness open it to the public okay any comments from the day or questions of the witness okay may have a motion open to public thank you is there a second all in favor I I if there's anyone from the public who's not represented by the attorneys please come forward and you may ask this witness any questions no okay I don't think there's any takers thank you thank you I'd like to call Michael Ford before you call Mr for gentlemen you've rested we've rested thank you very much for your time and consideration sorry to interrupt Mr or but make sure for the purpose of the record before you got Mr Ford up here this is your rebuttal test testimony Mr grodnik yes sir thank you sir and this will be our only rebuttal witness um before I hand over the mic Mr Ford um can we swear we swear [Music] y Michael Ford FD Mr Ford have have you had an opportunity to review um some of the testimony uh as well as some of the documents presented before we start I realize that Mr Ford has been here before as part of this application and has semi-permanent Residence at this board but for the purposes of the record can we have him place his qualifications on the record and be qualified okay yes um Michael Ford with vancle engineering um 34 years as of this past Tuesday I appeared before this board numerous times I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey for more than 30 years licens are current Mr Ford yes no no changes since the last time you were here no okay so there's no objection we will approve or accept please continue yeah I'm I'm just going to let you kind of respond uh have you had an opportunity I know you were you were here last meeting you heard the testimony from Dr Emerson is that correct and you've prepared uh a rebuttal report dated to December 27th yes and uh yes and could you just identify uh identify your report and any exhibits for the record okay yes um we prepared an letter dated December 27th 2024 that was submitted and uh should be on record at Civic clerk as well as uh a couple of exhibits regarding the overall um drainage area of the Royce Brook could you please um for the edification of this application go through uh some of the some of the salian points related to the storm water management the issues that were raised by Dr Emerson okay in general in general uh the report and the testimony that uh I've reviewed and and witnessed uh is riddled with numerous uh opinions or uh judgments that are not substantiated by any reports uh or analysis uh that are you know are part of our submitt on record with the application um in addition um the the report really neglects those substantial reports and documents that are on record as part of the application that have been submitted uh most specifically with regards to storm Water Analysis and the downstream analysis is that in March of 2023 so nearly two years ago there was a report submitted prepared by our office and submitted uh with the application that wasn't site specific just the drainage from the specific site but actually included a storm Water Analysis for both this site and the Hearthstone community site we uh and this was part of my prior testimony and in summary basically that report Illustrated that with the on-site storm water management mitigation that's proposed as part of the project uh the peak flow at the downstream location of that analysis through the Hearthstone Community would be reduced and that's including a report that takes into consider ation all the runoff from the site this site including the assertions that there's additional volume of runoff from this site and it's going to have an adverse impact on the flood elevations uh at other areas and this report um illustrates that even with the increase in volume because of the on-site stormwood mitigation that is the detention Basin which is upon constructed wetland that has a storage volume to hold back water and release it at a slower rate such that the peak flows are reduced demonstrates that that that storm water facility um reduces the peak flow in the proposed condition and therefore would reduce the flood or any the 100-year water surface elevation uh at that analysis or that point of analysis this Downstream of the hardstone community so I think it's important to note that while they're you know certainly you know we've all experienced uh flooding um there's there's concerns about flooding um putting the emotional side about as well as the over 5,000 I'm sorry 11,000 virtually 11,000 acre drainage area of the Royce Brook as it enters Manville so you know the but but what I want to board to understand is without um uh just relying on opinion or my experience there was actually a detailed analysis done and that was you has been on record with the township since March of 2023 and to date I haven't had other than listing it in a review comment by the objectors uh engineer enger or even the township you know board engineer I have yet to uh be be aware of any acknowledgment of the results of that report or a comments on that report that's one with with regard to groundw recharge we've spoken at length with regards to and there's been a number of hearings where I've provided testimony regarding the soil logs done at the site um regarding the classification um of the soils the hydrologic soil group classification and I want the board to understand um factually the the published data that identifies uh the anticipated hydrologic soil group classification for a soil is not based on site specific studies at the site that we're talking about and in this case there's been uh a substantial amount of soil testing done to and in my opinion not to reclassify it but to classify it accurately with site specific data it's just like is if I look at published um documents from aerial maps that uh assert a wetland area on a site and I rely on that instead of a site specific study that gives you the limits of wetlands any development application U that we've been involved with um certainly U provides greater cre Credence to site specific studies and then specifically unlike other review agencies the objector report and testimony fails to acknowledge that that same data that they're reviewing and aing on has been reviewed by the Delaware Maron Canal commission the somerset Union Soil Conservation District as well as the board's engineer and in my December 27th letter I cite the specific reviews that each and every one of those reviewers have acknowledged the classific as a result of the soil testing that um I think is enough but certainly and we'll get to this tonight hopefully the the review report that we received from the board's engineer this afternoon um suggests that uh and knows that there's Wetlands on the site that'll be uh disturbed by the project and we need a njd a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection uh approval for the disturbance of those Wetlands part of the permit review uh for the disturbance of those Wetlands will include stormw runoff analysis and um we'll get to the January uh report but it's suggested um that while there may be a determination that the hydrologic soil group based on that site specific study is uh d uh that's certainly a sub je to D verification that's another agency in addition to the de Delaware Ron Canal Commission in The Soil Conservation District as well as a prior report by the board's engineer and certainly we don't disagree with that we understand that that'll uh be a requirement and that I think gives everybody a greater understanding that the critique of our detailed analysis site specific studies including the quantity to review that I uh referenced earlier is yet again going to be reviewed by another review agency njd then lastly with regards to the three criteria for stormw management we're providing for Onsite um groundwater management or water quality runoff uh uh treatment by manufactured treatment devices these are um uh devices that are located a adjacent to catch basins and intercept the initial flow off of the motor vehicle surfaces or the dirty water surfaces and we're providing for that and again the Delaware and Mar Canal Commission in their review of December of um not 2024 but actually 2023 so over a year ago acknowledged uh that the project design is in compliance I think that also the objector comments with regards to the Basin is undersized or it's not big enough um I would like to remind the board is part of my prior testimony that not only when this project was submitted uh in 2022 there was uh one rainfall criteria and that basically for a 100-year storm was 8.2 in of rainfall in a 24-hour period um since then uh as the state was I think in certainly as as part of their um assessment of impacts after the hurricane storm Ida adjusted those rainfall data points that we use for analysis and before even before the new standards were adopted by njd uh uh we revised the design of the project to accommodate those new rainfall data and that actually included not one additional analysis but two additional analysis both for the what they call the current adjusted and the future projected basically projected flows and uh that 8.2 in run you know runoff in or rainfall in 24 hours as uh increased by nearly 150% in the new analysis and the design of the Basin accommodates that and this again was not acknowledged in any of the review reports nor was the fact that and this is part of my prior testimony as well the Basin since initial submittal has been uh expanded and provided additional storm water uh storage volume so that the runoff rates were not only reduced by what the required reductions are for the 210 and 100e storms but the release rate was slowed down to a point where in accordance with the environmental commission uh recommendation to hold back even a greater volume and release it at a later uh time than uh what is basically there's no requirement for we met the peak reductions this was meeting the peak reductions but also send that Peak out at a later time which requires a bigger detention Basin so I think it's misleading to on one hand say you know the basin's not big enough yet uh and and that's in a statement like well there's going to be storms bigger than the 100-year storm but there's no factual basis and design if if I had another regulation that said I had to design it for another uh higher storm the 500e storm certainly we would do that so I think it's misleading to say that it's not big enough but there's really no target or regulation that says it isn't big enough then there's also a misnomer to say that it's it's um using retaining walls or a dam just the statement of a dam uh feel might cause some fear in people but every single detention Basin has a a dam we normally call it an embankment and uh they're only uh very large dams with great uh drainage areas that would require any kind of njde permit so while certainly it's correct maybe is in accordance with um the state regulations say that this is class the embankment is classified as a dam I think it um I can't conceive that it that it doesn't do anything other than potentially present some fear in people's minds uh and not acknowledge that well you know this is not a dam that rises or an embankment size in a drainage area that rises to the point where it warrants any D permit and even if it did we would certainly have to secure that permit just like any other Outside Agency and it's I think um a conflict for an applicant who's being suggested to make the Basin bigger by environmental commission to provide for a later release rate and a later time of discharge and in order to accommodate that they not only since the initial application make the building smaller move it further back from Western Road to accommodate or bigger Basin but then utilize retaining walls uh you then uh criticize the fact that retaining walls are used which again is a common element in detention basins um drive down Route 206 and across from United reyal you see a detention Basin right along where they're widening Route 206 for for the Brook Haven project there's a detention Basin right along Route 206 designed by our office years ago has a retaining R retaining wall along the edge of the embankment and someone was talking and can we stay quiet please in the back thank you so as far as the overall goals of storm weaer management and um even in considering not specific ific criteria like the reduction requirements for the peak rate runoff for the 210 and 100e storm but more vague comments about uh Downstream flooding and impacts offsite um there's been no analysis that substantiates that claim but there has been an analysis with the downstream Hearthstone Community included in the analysis that demonstrates just the opposite and that's that March 203rd or March 2023 report that we provided the pipe that the detention Basin is connected to drains Weston Road to my knowledge there's no drainage within the Hearthstone Community it's connected to it it trans uh um runs through uh the Hearthstone community and as I recall it was uh a pipe draining the south side of Western Road to the north side of Western Road that is from our project site under Western Road onto the Hearthstone community and as part of the Hearthstone project it was uh constructed and rerouted basically to accommodate some of the improvements on the Hearthstone Community namely the tennis courts and the community center in that area it's a closed pipe like has been stated um it right now today um is not adequate for the runoff from this existing site our site because and by virtue of the stormw management facilities that would be implemented as part of the project the flow to that pipe would be reduced the peak flow would be reduced therefore the the operation of that would be uh improved and that's even with the change in runoff for our onsite area taking some of the drainage area and one portion of of the subject site and putting it through this detention Basin and stormw Management Facility and then connecting to that and discharging to that pipe so the so the the the thought by just changing drainage areas has some adverse impact uh has been completely addressed by virtue of the detailed analysis and yet there was no comment on on um the peak flows being reduced at that pipe and this um assertion that you can change drainage areas uh it's the this is our site today the subject site the applicant site drains toward Western Road there's two pipes under Western Road one going under Western Road and connecting to the Hearthstone stormw management uh basin another one as I just stated earlier which was improved and and rerouted around improvements on the Hearthstone uh site but drains Weston Road the end result is our site will drain to Weston Road the fact that a portion of the applicant site has been designed uh so that it goes through a stormw Management Facility to control Peak runoffs is a Improvement and the result of that also was a reduction in the peak flow uh to the pipe that uh goes under Western Road and connects directly into the hardstone Basin and these were changes that were made uh after the initial application submitt and it is my recollection that there was substantial concerns about additional flow to the Hearthstone detention Basin and the changes in the design um changed that and reduced the drainage and the peak flow to the Hearthstone existing detention basin excuse me these are uh not new numbers these are numbers in the stormw management report dated uh September of 2023 um this was part of my prior testimony but I just want to highlight a couple of numbers now so what we're calling poa1 or point of analysis one is that existing pipe coming from uh the subject application site under Western Road and eventually connecting to the Hearthstone community and uh detention Basin and point of analysis or po2 is the um pipe where the proposed detention Basin is connected in existing conditions the flow from the site to POA one is 28 um excuse me 25.858223 [Music] that larger virtually 12 Ines per hour or 12 inches and 24h hour storm in the proposed condition that 25 CFS is reduced to 1.71 CFS for po2 the pipe that a closed pipe goes under Weston Road routes around the improvements on the Hearthstone community and then drains and discharges into the same tributary that the Hearthstone Community detention Basin discharges to so those drainage areas meet up right there on the other side of the Hearthstone uh Basin so for our POA 2 in the existing condition the flow to that point is 50.5 CFS whereas in proposed condition it is reduced to 27.7 CFS so nearly half and I'm sure you've heard me at many other applications we talk about the required reductions for the 100-year storm and that's 80% so this is substantially less and when you total the two of those P A1 and po2 together in existing condition the peak flow is 76.4 CFS and in the proposed condition the peak flow is 29.4 CFS so nearly 40% of the existing condition so I said early some of the improvements and changes that have been made by the applicant the building reduction ins Side by by in has been reduced in size by near 10,000 ft to 13,418 Ft the number of parking spaces has been reduced from 139 as previously as part of the initial application down to 99 parking spaces or reduction in 40 parking spaces and this was uh in response to suggestions and um and and concerns that the appli can heard the reduction in the building size increased the front yard setback that is the distance from the building to Weston Road um increased it from basically 160 feet back from Western Road as initially submitted to 20 and2 feet from Weston Road while 50 ft is the minimum required so the building at its current location is four times further back from Weston Road than what's required I spoke to the enhancements of the detention Basin uh to uh further reduce the peak flows uh the analysis has been done and is part of the record and was in that September 2020 3 report that included um an analysis of the existing pipe the elliptical pipe under Western Road and demonstrated the improvements that would be made by virtue of the on-site storm water management facilities that would be uh constructed and um every detention Basin has an emergency Spillway in this case the eer Spillway was also shifted from facing Western Road to face the West the easterly access driveway to the site and certainly any backup in that existing elliptical pipe uh because there's no um inlets on the Hearthstone Community or connections from the Hearthstone Community into that elliptical pipe it wouldn't have an adverse impact on them it would have an ad if anybody it would have an adverse impact in backing up onto the applicant's property perhaps now we can uh go to the review reports that we received today how you doing Michael okay so I think we're GNA take a 10-minute break reconvene at 8:50 according to the black clock e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e are we ready where's the cameras all right look at that he's telling us we're back okay we're back in session everyone because the TV is back the the man behind the curtain has turned the cameras on powerful that's right okay good yep okay before Mr Ford continues if I could just ask for the sort of point of order I guess seems like we're moving past the rebuttal testimony now to addressing the letter um from today in the board's preference of course would we want to do the cross exam of the rebuttal testimony and then do the letter testimony or do we want to just let Mr Ford go through everything he has to say because I think are you going to be rebutting I guess the letters you're you're we received two letter right we received two letters from the township today yeah okay and typically we would I don't think it'll take long for us to get through them yeah I'm yeah I'm not even arguing for a preference asking okay because I mean one way there we're going to he's going to get to those two letters but um so what's what would be more effective just to take it one at a time Mr if as long as Mr Ford's under oath and he wants to testify relative to Mr Ko's and Mr mayu's letter he may that simply opens up just one more round of things to deal with but that's okay I well State for the record we're going to reserve our right to put on testimony to address this new testimony in these new letters then we're not going to agree to it we're not we're not going back and forth again and again and again into perpetuity so we're not going to address Mr mayu's letter you can cross-examine okay however I reserve the right to cross-examine Mr Mr Mayu uh last time I looked I believe I asked that question before and was told no no the only witness I'm going to call is Mr Ford if you want to cross examine Mr Mayu you need to advise Mr Mayu Andor Mr K you're planning on examining them and obviously it opens up examination from everybody else and I still I happen to re-review the transcript from the last meeting it's my understanding that tonight's the night so how you plan on getting that in in the next hour I wish you all the best because at 10 o'clock this meeting unless the board extends it is over and the board's going to make a decision if there's no Extinction of time so I leave that to you Mr Oger all right we're we're ready for Mr uh Mr Ash's cross-examination of Mr Ford go ahead Jordan all right thank you very much um I was hoping to get a connection to the computers here I'm confident yes there we go go all right and I'll try to not let this go to sleep so I don't have to do this again when I get to it all right so Mr Ford thank you again for coming out tonight I do have a couple of questions for you um you are here tonight am I correct to but um Dr Emerson's May 22nd 2023 and January 18 2024 letters is that correct uh as well as uh the testimony right and the June 6 2024 and the November 14th 2024 testimony is that correct don't have the dates okay so in your um December 27th uh 2024 letter um you allege that uh Dr Emerson failed to acknowledge um uh the more recent submittals uh to this board and that's on page two of your letter if you want to take a look at that is that correct you could be more specific there's there's several points sure I'm referring to the last sentence of the first paragraph on page two it says to our knowledge pH Emerson has failed to acknowledge these materials on record with the application that's correct all right and you did review Dr Emerson's testimony is that correct yes were you here for that testimony I believe I was here for one and and watch the other one all right so I'm going to read to you real quickly from that testimony on June 6 2024 um I asked Dr Emerson the question have you had a chance to review the application that is pending before the board tonight answer yes I have question and have you developed an opinion as to that application answer I have developed an opinion that is summarized in part in my letter of May 22nd of 2023 question and in the interim from May 22nd 2023 do you understand there's been additional testimony additional submissions to this board with regards to this application is that correct answer correct question and have you reviewed those submissions in that testimony answer I have and I've been present at most of the hearings with maybe the exception of the previous one which I was able to watch question okay and has have those submissions and testimonies substantively change the opinions presented in your letter of May 22nd 20123 answer no they haven't so Mr Ford is it still your testimony tonight that uh Dr Emerson has failed to acknowledge those submittal yeah the the uh last page of the letter the December 2 7th I'm sorry the December 27th 2024 letter I issued to Mr Oran at the bottom of page two the one you refer to um it states that therefore the soil and all the review agencies documentations were issued prior to Princeton Hydro Emerson January 18th 2024 letter to you I'm sorry where are you reading from I'm on the last page on the last sentence of page two I see it so he in other words Mr uh or Dr Emerson wrote a letter to you on January in January of 2024 asserting to this board that no new submissions had been made when in fact there was a September 2023 uh storm waterer management report issued that included all of the new soil test data and again to my knowledge there hasn't been any acknowledgement of that new soil data uh nor any review comments issued by Dr Emerson since that date and you and and then in addition let me finish I'm I'm speaking to the the documents on the record nor was was the testimony or the or the prior report uh issued acknowledged the Outside Agency approvals okay and that's your testimony displayed what I just read to you from Dr herson's testimony objection asked an answered okay um on page four of your letter just trying to um let see here you also state that uh phm fails to acknowledge the results of an off-site stormw impact analysis dated March 8th 2023 as provided by the applicant that's on the last paragraph at the bottom of the page you see that yes all right I'm going to read to you a much shorter exchange from the November 14th 2024 testimony which you have reviewed correct yes okay this is a question by Mr ogrodnik why didn't you analyze the off-site impact report that we had produced answer from Dr Emerson oh I'm sorry I reviewed it I analyzed it question okay all right answer and I referenced it so is it still your testimony tonight that Dr Emerson has still failed to acknowledge that report yes and and here's why is you're taking a snippet of testimony and reviewing the whole context of the testimony I don't recall one point where Dr Emerson acknowledged the results of that report or disputed the results of that report okay and he he I my impression was it was listed on in his May 2023 report to the board but yet there was no mention of it anywhere in the review or context of the May 20 23 report by Dr Emerson and again nor was there any um additional analysis or um uh critique or uh supplemental or a report of any kind that disputed the results of that report so to your point if if um the assertion is that Dr Emerson's um testimony was acknowledging the results of that report um I think that would be uh what the record then would result because there has been no dispute or counter testimony regarding the results of that report that demonstrate that the project has no Downstream impact when analyzed together with the Hearthstone project well we'll talk about that characterization of of the testimony in just a minute but but just to be clear the testimony that I just read to was that he analyzed the report and that it hasn't changed his opinion is that correct objection asked and answered I think he's looking for clarification thank you Mr Bernstein you can answer Mike I could you repeat the question it doesn't change my opinion I I just uh you know I think that uh you know someone stating that they you they acknowledge they listed it in the report but failing to offer any uh comments regarding the report specifically um shows uh a lack of having any you know done any detailed analysis or review of that report and and I appreciate that and I just want to clear record because you ask me to repeat the question can you read back my question and then can we get an answer to the question just to be clear the testimony that I just read to you was that he analyzed the report and that it hasn't changed his opinion is that correct that's what is the testimony uh on the transcript I don't dispute that okay so in your letter then on page two again um you discussed the several other review agencies that that uh were failed to acknowledge um one of which I believe is the drcc is that correct are you're on page two of the December 27th report yes sir yes letter report yes sir okay and the drcc is the um agency that did change its mind at least once with regards to this application correct I I would not characterize it as changing their minds I would characterize it as they had review comments they requested to be a j rest there was never for example um to to my knowledge a a a result in the drcc review that said um that the the soils couldn't be reclassified based on site specific testing they just asked for additional data after previously saying that they were satisfied is that not correct I bet because the the project changed the the Basin got twice as large because of Environmental commission comments and the other items that I've enumerated okay and there's a second um review agency the somerset Union Soil Conservation District correct okay but they don't review the storm water do they I they are provided with a copy of the storm water management report um and uh specifically Within Chapter 12 of the BMP manual it suggests that when you're classifying the Hydra soil group you consult with the local Soil Conservation District which we did and after their review of our submitted materials concluded that the project uh was approved by them right and that approval says and I quote this approval is limited to the soil erosion and sedimentation controls specified in this plan is that not accurate that that includes all the storm water management aspects correct so but just to clarify your testimony there soil erosion and sedimentation controls you're testifying involves the storm waterer management plan yes for example the somerset Union Soil Conservation District is going to be concerned about a Swale that you're designing or an outlet from a storm water discharge and whether it would provide would cause erosion uh Downstream uh and that if that erosion is addressed or not and that erosion out of that pipe is based on Peak flows um so they do look at storm water management all right and then you said several other review agencies I only see two listed here is there more well I also rever refer to the May 1st 2000 if you're if you're still on page two yes okay I also refer to the May 1st 2023 review letter by the engineer that acknowledges uh the soil is considered as a hydrologic soil Group D and this is specifically under that uh review of ground with a recharge and are there any other agencies you're referring to in several no okay that's because the the D which you also referred to in your testimony has not yet reviewed this this plan that's correct okay and the D's review does not relieve this board of a substantive review is that also correct objection that's a legal [Music] conclusion you can answer it I'm not sure if I understand the question but uh you know subject to any approval the board May grant that doesn't absolve us of having uh to gather and secure all Outside Agency approvals including the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection okay all right I want to move on to a little bit of the substance um and I want to go through as quickly as I can um with regards to the recharge is it true that you're continuing to disagree with the nrcs regarding the characteristics characteristics or categorization of the pen and reval soils present at this site I would not characterize it as a disagreement I would characterize it as a site specific determination instead of uh published data determination that's not based on site specific testing such as the nrcs okay and recategorizing the pen and reval soils at this site from hsgc to hsgd is it true that that avoids the requirement to provide recharge I it it's a again I would not characterize it as avoiding um if if you look at the recharge requirements um there's uh different options and there is a spreadsheet where you enter data and the result of that data determines whether you have um satisfied the recharge requirement and we've done that and by classify just to clarify as classifying by hsgd you are required to provide zero recharge that correct that's what the analysis showed correct okay all right I want to go on to water quality uh oh oh there it is all right um so in your December 27th 2024 letter um you have two numbered paragraphs about water quality at the end of the first one you say quote the grading units has been revised and then in the penultimate sentence of the second one you say structure elevations have been added for mtds at low points has there been a new revision since September of 2023 no so these has been revised and has been added that's referring to the September 2023 okay so that's not then directly rebutting Dr Emerson's testimony well I'm pointing out that uh the testimony and the report failed to acknowledge that the plans have been rised to provide specific data that shows and ex and explains that the mtds on either side of the catch basins are at a lower elevation a slate L lower a grade elevation than the catch basins themselves so uh in order for water to get into the catch Basin it it would first have to that low flow first flush water quality would have to go enter either one of the mechanical treatment devices right I want to show you what's up on the the screen here this is uh what was marked as O2 it's an excerpt from from your uh site plan sheet seven the blue markup is um uh added by Dr Emerson for his testimony and I help me understand this here so can you see my cursor on the screen I can see it okay so these boxes here are the treatment devices correct correct all right and this right here is a basin correct correct all right so water that falls into this triangle maybe specifically right here at this blue arrow that's going to go right downhill and even some up here it's going to flow down this way right into that Basin and miss these treatment devices why is that incorrect you just at the very end there you were in error please elaborate yeah the the the catch Basin itself is slightly above the elevation of the catch BAS great is slightly above a tenth of a foot above the pavement so the water would not be able to flow into the catch Basin because the catch Basin is slightly higher than the entrances to Mechanical treatment devices so the water would not flow into that catch Basin it would flow to the sides of that catch Basin into the treatment device cor is that your testimony correct okay and I this is on the plans in detail but again if there's further detail to acknowledge this and make it Crystal Clear we'd be glad to add that to Mr Mayo's satisfaction but that's on the plans already that was one of the comments that was issued uh previously and as part of our September plan September 2023 plan revision or or a prior plan revision that those details were added and and acknowledged all right I I want to move on then to the uh the the peak flow on the runoff issue um on page six of your uh December 27th letter at the end of the I'll call it the third paragraph here you state that the emergency Spillway called out in objector letter is currently situated to direct flow toward the easterly driveway you see what I'm I've read from there I understand yes all right so I oh no it's not GNA all right so this is your uh preliminary and final major site plan from um September 26 2023 and this right here is sheet 7 and I see it's kind of tough to see I don't want to keep zooming and make this go slower but I see right here it says 40ft wide Spillway and I'm going to zoom a little bit because I think this is important all right and we can see that this does point to right here which is uh pointing towards the easterly driveway is that is that correct correct all right and the easterly driveway just to be sure these are the elevations flowing downhill to the north 66 65 64 towards the Hearthstone uh property is that correct towards Weston Road right and then to hearstone property right across Western Road well no there there's a crown in Western Road so water can't flow over the road it would uh hit our side of the road and flow along the edge of the road either to the East or West how much water is that Crown control I haven't done an analysis for that okay so going back to the spillway I'm going to scroll down to if it allows me to here sheet I'm going to go to sheet nine there we go and there's the Basin again and on this uh sheet nine I don't see any call out of the emergency Spillway is that accurate uh What's the title of sheet nine Mr Ash yeah utility plan okay so it's with regards to utilities not grading and drainage and the the detention Basin aspects it okay so it's your testimony that you wouldn't normally put that call out on this cheet not necessarily uh it's really just a a graphic you know sheets get crowded and that's why we split things up into separate sheets and maybe not label every single item on every single sheet it makes it more difficult for people to read it okay you know the fact that it's not labeled on that sheet doesn't mean that the other Sheet's incorrect that's that's where it's at all right I want to scroll down then to sheet 12 and I will show you the name of this sheet for reference Weston Road plan and profile sheet 12 you agree with me that I'm correct about that yes all right and on this sheet we have a call out for 100 foot wide Spillway at elevation 6515 on the north side of the Basin if that's the same set of plans then that's an error okay so it's your Tes and and please be clear that that plan sheet is int intended for Weston Road you're pointing at a site feature that's on site I'm just looking I'm not disputing that uh it should be labeled correctly and consistent with the other sheet I'm telling you that that looks like a human error that is a human error because the the intent to address some concerns about where the Basin overflow this is the emergency Spillway it's never anticipated that flow would be over that other than for a a situation where the outlet structure is clogged or um uh you know and I actually uh have never witnessed the situation where the emergency spill W was overtopped even after making visits to several detention basins throughout town uh in the time subsequent to Ida but again that that doesn't I don't dispute that that label is not correct all right so first just to clarify something you just said in all your years of experience you've never seen an emergency Spillway have to be essentially used correct okay um and then to clarify your testimony it is that sheet seven what shows it on the easterly side this emergency Spillway that is that's correct and this needs to be corrected correct all right but we also established that the easterly driveway slopes downhill to the north is that correct ason objection ason answered yeah it's my answer hasn't changed all right and water does flow downhill is that correct yes sir okay that's so I wanted to go over some things that I think we agree about before I finish up um I think we agree I did have a board member in Franklin Township once once that asserted that order did run uphill though he said that there was something in California but it he thought it might it was like an optical illusion but it looked like w ran uphill but that doesn't change my answer I haven't figured out a way to make W run downhill by gravity so again I just like a clear record just to be clear we agree that water runs downhill on this record yes okay and I in Hillsboro the the planning staff says all right so I think we can agree based on your testimony um that your storm water management system and your pond constructed Wetland is designed to accomodate storm water from up to when including the 100-year storm is that correct correct okay and I think we can also agree that your site plan does propose to divert about 4 Acres of drainage to the pond constructed Wetland is that correct correct all right however I think where we disagree and tell me if I'm wrong is it's your testimony that despite that the reduction of peak flow for the 100-year storm makes the conditions better than they currently are is that correct our our analysis actually demonstrates that because we uh in as part of our September 2023 report includ include uh in our drainage analysis the flow through the the pipe in question all right and you said earlier that you're an engineer and you look at things analytically remember saying that correct okay you also say on your December 27th letter on page six at the end of the last full paragraph that in the event of large rain events any backup would be on to the subject property and not the Hearthstone Community isn't that correct I I actually said that earlier this evening as well okay all right but as we just established and the reason for that is because there is uh the pipe that we're talking about goes under Western Road and and through a portion of the Hearthstone Community but there's no it's all manholes I think um as I recall the the testimony of Dr Emerson was that it's a closed pipe system so any backup in that pipe would have nowhere to flow out but other then onto uh the subject site during a backup with the manhole covers over the pipe not rise up or explode or whatever word is proper there uh I think that uh there would have to be an hydraulic analysis to show that but I would my without having done a hydraulic analysis I would think that it would be unlikely since there's an Avenue for the uh any uh excess of water to um escape on the inlet on the subject property side of the Western Road all right so so and the water that you're claiming would back up onto the subject property isn't it correct that it would flow downhill toward WS the hearstone property yeah and I think the the the conditions aren't changing we're not doing anything to that pipe we're not changing um the condition other than the flow to it so the in a in a a storm like Ida if if that pipe was exceeded and flow from that exceedence uh ran along Western Road it would run along Western Road in the proposed condition too but the thing that I think needs to be acknowledged is that the the flow from the subject site would be reduced its peak flow well and I just want to get this so the conditions even in the ader in the proposed condition even at the extreme conditions beyond the design requirements of the 100-year storm say a 500-year storm uh by virtue of having a storm water management basin and a controlled release you're providing better attenuation than the what is there today no attenuation but if your Basin is not designed to control those larger storms which maybe it doesn't have to be you are directing four additional Acres of water that is now flowing beyond the control of the Basin is that not an accurate statement no it's still flows to the same Basin and it discharges to uh pipes on our side of Western Road it's not it's not but my question is that your Basin cannot accommodate that uh there hasn't been an analysis for that because it's not something that's required it's a it's a um what do they call those you know a wh if situation but it's not what if because you put four acres of water back to this Basin it's not what if it's real no I don't agree okay all right uh just very quickly then with regards to the wetlands um H you you will seek a njde permit is that correct think you stated that yes all right well that sought permit include for the disturbance of the Wetland that you're draining water away from that'll include all aspects uh under the jurisdiction of the njd land use regulation program for a wetland disturbance is it your opinion that that aspect requires njd jurisdiction that's under their jurisdiction and we haven't made the sub of permit yet okay let me just check my notes very quickly I don't I don't have anything else right now thank you okay thank you Mr may ask question um Mr Ford if the New Jersey D does not agree to reclassify the soils to hydrologic Group D uh would that require some adjustments to the stormw management plan that's another what if that I really haven't reviewed or analyzed um but that same wh if would be attributed to all aspects of the storm waterer management that is the assertion that there is some concerns about Downstream flooding from the site that's under the jurisdiction of DP um and I realize there there are comments regarding storm water in uh uh the most recent report um and they would all be subject to njd review and approval and we um acques to that is any condition of approval this board May Grant not only DP looking at the hydrologic soil group classification but the peak flow discharges from the site as well as the water quality measures that are implemented all in accordance with the state standards that we've talked about other agencies D would have to review as well well if the state didn't agree with the reclassification in your opinion would you be able to design the site to meet the storm weer quiteria that that's I believe objection it's speculative but you can answer yeah it's like that's why I'm saying it it's not a question that can be answered I um we have done such extensive testing at the site um to to demonstrate uh the hydrologic soil classification based on on-site data um that I in a in a case where you're describing it uh it could be a case where um you know we just don't get the D permit for whatever reason and therefore we don't satisfy a condition of approval that this board May Grant with which includes all Outside Agency approvals so I that question could be answered multiple different ways it really doesn't change the conclusion that we need their approval thank you I don't have any questions Mr chairman thank you board members okay are we already open to public still yes so okay if anyone from the public who's not represented here tonight excuse me please come forward if you'd like to uh question the witness on his testimony please state your name and record the record your name and address for the record gr colmer uh Taylor Avenue not a part of hearthstone um I have two very quick questions or maybe just one were you in contact with Miracle Brands during the planning and development of the site plan at all no so this building from the Inception was built for spec no matter what no no I'm I'm saying as an engineer site engineer I'm dealing with the site engine engineering the ownership and operation I'm not dealing with who's I mean certainly uh I was here for the testimony uh by the uh owner or part owner of that and I'm aware of it when you I was dealing I was answering your question like a Gearhead engineer I never dealt with Miracle brand or had discussions with them I'm aware of them and it it's it's fair to say that there would be no updates to a plan now that Miracle brand is not a part of the the equation is that from the site civil standpoint no okay thank you yeah David Brook seven Winding Way excuse me Mr Ford as part of the work that you did on this application were you involved with the issue of the easement on the property and the realignment yes what role did you play with regards to that um first I was involved with the um prior owners application for which created the the or worked with in the easement um I was part of a team that sought D approvals to build that road that would have been within easement including the Wetland permit uh with eal sciences that uh didn't meet the criteria and couldn't be permitted and then specifically for this application I was involved in uh looking for Avenues where the access to the Township landfill at the rear of the property uh could still be achieved through an alternate route for an easement and avoided the impact the environmental impacts of the existing easement which includ included disturbances of the township stream quarter as well as uh substantially more well more Wetlands than what the current route which uh is proposed the current proposed realignment will impact Wetlands is that correct correct Yeah Yeah we actually laid it out and designed it so that it would cross the wetlands that was part of uh 2022 freshwater Wetland Loi so it was a new Loi um that uh had additional Wetlands on the site but it was uh targeted for a Crossing to to access the Township landfill at a point where it would reduce the disturbance of wetlands and cross basically at the Le a narrow point of wetlands and excuse me um as part of the role that you played with regards to that easement or the realignment of that easement did you have communications with the township with regards to that alignment that you're proposing yes you want me to if you could elaborate should I wait for the question or okay yes so uh uh uh during the development of the project the concept plans we had meetings with the den Township planner David masi and there were alternate routes for the um access to the Township landfill that that he commented on and suggested uh weren't weren't appropriate and we changed it to to the current location and I know the applicant uh contacted the township uh I'll say this is a governing body issue to to change the easan not a planning board issue but there was Communications on behalf of the applicant to the governing body as well well were you involved with any of those as far as providing advice uh just the the engineering aspects of it again what I've discussed with you already the details of where the easement would go um the aspects of the permitting of it okay excuse me and as it relates to a different topic block one 87 lot 7 that little square lot that is in the middle of the property have you played any engineering role with regards to the design of the building as it relates to that lot only in the uh aspect that that's not you know the applicant's property so we have to treat it as such so the building was designed as if you would not be touching that property is that correct well we would we have to meet the building setback criteria from that lot so we do so there is a setback requirement for that block 187 lot 7 is that correct correct do you know what that setback is uh it's shown on the site plan I don't recall if hand so you're saying that the building the current proposed building is beyond that setback is corre correct okay very good thank you you're welcome any other members Maria janasik um there's been discussion about the reclassification of the soil what is the current classification of the soil uh according to the nrcs uh publication it's hydrologic soil Group C and so um has there anything been has anything been sub submitted to reclassify this soil yeah the uh discussion this evening included an acknowledgement that there's uh data that's been submitted to the board uh site specific soil testing as well as the Delaware Maron Canal commission and the somerset Union Soil Conservation District it's it's in the drainage report so any agency that's re seen the a uh drainage report includes that data excuse me so all of those agencies have to um say say if if they're reclassifying it or not I I've uh have a December 27th letter to the board or to the uh applicant attorney that's been provided to the board that it uh include well actually those those reviews and approvals are on record at the uh on the Township's uh Civic Clerk including the drcc the Delaware R and Canal commission um letter so has there has there been a response from all of those agencies yeah those the December 5th 2023 so it's over a year ago Delaware maritan Canal commission um review acknowledged uh that the site soil should be classified as D and that was who I'm sorry Delaware and r k Al commission okay and who are the others that did you get get a response from The Soil Conservation District the somerset Union Soil Conservation District approv the application including which included the soil classification as well and and a prior uh review Memo by the board's engineer acknowledged that it should be classified as D so then that's what's been accepted that this is the CL that is the classification of this soil that it's CL classified as D well by those agencies and we've discussed this evening that the the um gen the I'm sorry the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection will also review that aspect of the stormw management as part of a wetland disturbance permit so that's the only one that you're waiting for is from the New Jersey Department of envir this board right here approval of the planning board of the application so this board has has to agree also that it's the soil is D is that what you're saying well that's part I think that is part of the application it would be part of their approval so it's just the board and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection that you're waiting to hear if they are reclassifying it as D yes thank you any other members okay okay M Ford's done Mr granik are you done uh I have no further questions for Mr Ford thank you Michael any other Witnesses Mr ogrodnik no sir gentlemen we don't have any other Witnesses with that it's public time just to set the ground rules is it everyone and anyone regardless representation no okay ground rules are as they have been all along if you are represented by objector Council you cannot come forward and make comments regarding the overall application others can and you need to indicate when you state your name and address for the record that you are not represented by objectors Council and or the client the objectors represent would that go for the same for the applicant uh if I would assume if anybody is here on behalf of the applicant they also cannot comment accordingly okay thank you okay this is the final bite at the Apple please free to come up state your name and record name and record wow I guess whatever I guess whatever you acquired here is gone it's gone no I switched to decaf that's what happened please state your name and address for the record and also indicate that you're not represented by either Council gr colmer Taylor Avenue I'm not a part of anyone just myself how about that there you go I'll State the objection on the record just that I don't think that this is a great property to build on for multiple reasons I don't need to belabor all the things for all the two or a half years plus testimony that I've had to sit through that you have as well um but it it seems to me there's enough evidence to to deny this application uh and save and protect the residents not only for the town but of of Heartstone as well Gail Martin Hillsboro Road I'm not represented by it represented by it got got it you switched to decaf too I see I do not live in the Hearthstone Community but I have lived in Hillsboro for more than 33 years and feel the need to speak out I review the township website and press releases and enjoy reading the accomplishments of the township and the accolades that they have received they attest to the administration's focus on keeping Hillsboro one of the best places to live in America by providing residents with an unsurpassed Community experience quality of life and ensuring the health safety and well-being of every member of the community both young and old I was especially pleased by the administration's proactive leadership on behalf of hills girls elderly C population in securing re recognition as the first town in Somerset County to join the aarp's network of age friendly States and communities I was also encouraged by Deputy Mayor and planning board member John sarelli noting that by joining the network Hillsboro is reaffirming its intention to incorporate age-friendly principles into the Master Plan update while planning for the needs of the residents to ensure people can stay near their family friends and comfortably age in place over the last two plus years I have attended many planning board meetings and have become disheartened and disappointed to think that this proposed Warehouse could become a reality if built this Warehouse will be directly across the street from 185 homes and approximately 300 senior citizens who live in the Hearthstone development I am concerned about their health safety and well-being they will suffer the consequences of the stench of diesel exhaust piercing beeping from backup alarms hundreds of tractor trailers on the roads and some idling awaiting their turn to load and unload light and noise pollution all near their forever home that they have purchased they will be on able to enjoy sitting Outdoors enjoying the pool their neighbors friends and other activities at the community Clubhouse we all know that Weston Road is a narrow winding dark local road with no soldiers and drainage ditches and utility poles on either side I do not see how it will be possible for trucks using this facility to safely coexist with The Pedestrian and automobile traffic that is consistent and normal for this area these trucks are over 8 ft wide 72 ft long and weigh over 80,000 lbs these trucks barely fit in the lane on Western Road there is no doubt in my mind of drivers and residents driving in or out of their Community a recipe for disaster that will expose these senior residents to severe injury and possibly loss of life this application will destroy the quality of life for the heart St residents and nearby neighbors it undermines the policies priorities and practices that the current Administration has fostered to have Hillsboro among the best places to live in America Hillsboro is a wonderful town and the Hearthstone Community provides a perfect environment for its residents to enjoy their golden years years that will be tarnished by this Warehouse please do the right thing by remaining true to the principles of this Administration and especially demonstrate an authentic commitment to the designation as an AARP age friendly Community by denying this application for the Weston Road Warehouse project I also have one other comment after hearing tonight about Miracle Brands Brands being sold I asked the planning board what other information is inaccurate missing or invalid thank you for your time [Applause] good evening Brian Tarantino Fairfield Lane uh I'm not part of hearthstone um I wanted to uh we've been talking a lot about storm water we've talked about the easement um there's a lot of sort of current issues and but this application as you well know has been going on for years and I think it's appropriate to be reminded of some of the other testimony that's been that's been made and um just to bring it back to memory um and some of the conclusions that I think is are appropriate to to uh draw from that um of course it's news today that um that uh Mr Arif um will not be operating Miracle Brands as part of the warehouse um but I do believe that the uh the usage rates that he described um especially in terms of truck generation rates probably are representative of the kinds of of activity that we can expect from a warehouse like this and if you recall the number of trucks uh that he talked about 10 a day uh but they would be dropped by a um by a a um a trailer by a cab and that cab would uh half the time leave empty all that testimony uh ended up uh representing 60 to 80 truck trips per day ding on Weston Road and um and so I think it's important to remember that and to compare that to Mr Dean's estimate which is entirely theoretical based on it um and inappropriate um uh regression data that he provided um further if you recall Mr Dean's traffic analysis um and his testimony with regard to that was really in utterly inadequate he testified that he did not consider the impact Act of nearby proposed developments did not consider the maximum number of trucks per day did not consider the suitability of Western Road for truck traffic did not evaluate turning radiuses at nearby intersections did not assess the increase in Road repairs due to truck traffic and did not evaluate the impact of likely truck routes on the overall Road Network in Hillsboro objection for the record I'm mischaracterizing testimony the New Jersey Planning Commission outlined at least 20 elements that should be included in a warehouse traffic study Tarantino before you go on just for the record this is public comment Mr ogrodnik you can characterize it for whatever reason you want it's testimony these people are giving public comment at the end of a meeting your your comments are noted go on Mr tarantina thank you uh the New Jersey Planning Commission outlined at least 20 elements that should be included in a warehouse traffic study Mr Dean didn't include even one of these recommendations Mr Scott the applicant's warehouse operations expert is only a licensed real estate agent and has no educational or professional expertise in Warehouse operations or Logistics he admitted that he did little research with regard to the application and didn't visit the 3pl that currently processes miracle brand materials his entire testimony should be disallowed as a net opinion given that it was simply based on his personal opinion and not on any specific analysis or information testimony from the applicants air quality expert Mr aen Nord on July 6th 2023 indicated that he did no air quality sampling on or near the site nor in Hillsboro nor anywhere he relied on air quality sampling done by the njd in other towns but provided no basis for his claim that this sampling would somehow represent the air quality impacts of the facility or impacts on the township he testified that he failed to consider mobile sources including diesel trucks and did not assess air emissions from the building heating equipment any conclusions that Mr afen Nord may have made regarding air quality impacts should be invalidated testimony from Mr zura the applicant's noise expert showed that the truck's backup alarms would exceed the Township's noise ordinance level at night Mr zor's solution to this problem is to require that each truck be retrofit at the gate with a quieter back alarm this suggestion is entirely untenable and likely violates OSHA rules on backup alarms consequently the operations of the facility will exceed ceed Hillsboro's noise limits and be a continuous noise Hazard to its neighbors and finally I know I'm going on in quite a while finally the applicant has shown a has not shown a good faith effort to work with the neighbors Township residents or nearby municipalities despite new the New Jersey planning commission's guidance that outline 15 different actions that can be taken to improve Community engagement the applicant has initiated exactly zero of these efforts the clear message is that the applicant is uninterested in the community's concerns or welfare and I would just as uh my testimony here is is to just remind us of some of these other experts that have testified some of these other issues that have come up Tarantino yes sir you want to be put under oath because you indicated you gave testimony you testimony but if you like to be placed under oath in your entire comments subject to cross-examination by Mr ogrodnik and or Mr Ash and Mr sinkovic we can do it right now um I'm fine thank you but I urge you to deny this application thank you y good evening chairman board members and mayor I have a statement I would like to read into the public record how about a name and address sure I'll get to it a statement from Richard mandero mayor burrow of Manville 325 North Bain Street in the burough Manville mayor before you go on I just want to make sure for the record so in case this doesn't go well for somebody and it gets appealed are you speaking on behalf of the buau of Manville mayor and Council or on behalf of yourself in your capacity as the mayor I'm speaking on behalf of the mayor and the bur Council thank you so we are in opposition to the warehouse application filed by Wesson Road LLC regarding the property situ ated at Weston Road in Hillsboro New Jersey my name is Richard andero and I serve as mayor of the burough of Manville in the county of Somerset New Jersey the statement is submitted in opposition to the application presently pending before the Hillsboro Township planning board filed by Weston Road LLC seeking approval to construct 13,418 Square ft of Warehouse base the Weston Warehouse application on West Road in the township of Hillsboro New Jersey applicable New Jersey statutory law at njsa 40 col 55 550-2 states that the purpose of the New Jersey municipal land use law include quote to ensure that the development of individual municipalities does not conflict with the development and general welfare of neighboring municipalities unquote the Western Warehouse application as currently proposed would have a detrimental effect on the development and general welfare of the burough Manville the property in question is located almost directly adjacent to the burrow of Manville and in close vicinity of the Royce Brook which drains into Manville may I M mayor I hate to interrupt you it's 10 o' your honor come on you got to give me minutes here I I have to take a action first because I know we passed that even though meetings send at 10: we have the option to extend them but I need to have the board members all in favor of that so do I need to have a motion made to a motion to extend the time on the application at 10:30 okay I'll make that motion second okay roll call please flag no no Mr P Mr P Mr P yes mayor chiarelli yes committee man leani yes Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Miss Smith yes chairman srai yes thank you okay please continue thank you the proposed use of the Weston Warehouse proposal is an inappropriate intense level of development for the property in question The Proposal would greatly increase impervious cover and detrimentally affect the flooding dangers in the burrow of Manville by increasing storm water runoff volumes and by cutting down over 2,000 established trees expert testimony provided by Mr Dr Emerson highlighted The increased threat of localized flooding around the site due to inadequate storm water infrastructure public reports state that the Western Warehouse application is projected to result in as many as 420 truck trips per day which would on a daily basis place a very large volume of large trucks on local residential neighborhood roads in the burough of Manville to avoid a low clearance underpass on County Road 533 which is manvel's Main Street it is only a guess that 40 38% of the trucks leaving the facility would turn right into Manville I think that percentage could be much higher potentially traveling past two of Manville schools along residential streets where school children walk to and from said schools this is a very serious safety issue in danger to our children since Manville is a walkable School District with no busing I therefore recommend that the Weston Warehouse application be disapproved and denied by the Hillsboro planning board or if not withstanding the many objections made if the proposal is nonetheless approved then in the interest of sound traffic planning those truck trips instead be directed to a safer traffic pattern toward Highway Route 206 in Hillsboro as the mayor of the burough of Manville together with the unanimous support of the Manville bur Council we object to the application of the Western Road LLC and on half of the burough Manville We join in and Associate the burough Manville with the objections and factual and legal arguments and Exhibits filed on behalf of hearthstone at Hillsboro and we urge that the Weston Warehouse application be disapproved or in its alternative that if the Western Warehouse application be approved that the project be scaled back to the smallest reasonable size given the site and location constraints and that it be approved only with a condition requiring all trucks leaving the property they must turn left so as to enable those trucks to continue to Route 206 which is part of the truck network of roadways this will result in safer traffic patterns and stop unnecessary truck traffic through the burrow of manvel's residential neighborhoods and past our schools respectfully submitted mayor Richard mandero and on another note I want to speak to the board tonight as a resident of Somerset County not as acting mayor so my name is Richard and dero I live at 921 Lewis Street in the burough of Manville I'm a lifelong resident where is the common sense who in their right mind would pick this location for a warehouse the road network is just not it's terrible it's a country road double lined yellow lines windy and I can guarantee if this goes through most of those trucks are going to be headed right into Manville and that's not fair to my community how can one argue that this project is a positive for the Royce Brook Watershed cutting down thousands of trees and increasing the flow of flood waters that's going to end up in Manville Manville has a very serious flooding problem and this problem this project will make it much worse not better I can only ask each board member to have empathy for the 11,000 residents of my hometown that will be adversely affected if this project is approved you have many reasons to justify a no vote this evening please have empathy for Manville and thank you for listening to my comments mayor can you mayor can you can you provide a copy of uh thank you thank you so we can have it for the record thank you hi good evening my name is inessive River 24 talo Trail in you have to get closer to the mic in River before talo Trail in Hillsboro um as we've seen from the testimony the roads near Hearthstone Community are narrow making making it difficult for the trucks to turn and one person was almost killed in such situation more trucks means more of these potentially little situations also the roads flood during serious rains which we get more and more of trucks got stuck blocking the road making it impossible to leave or enter the community so emergency ve vehicles cannot help the residents of hearthstone Community more trucks means more of this potentially little situation do people need to die to show that this Warehouse is not a good idea in and if that happens who will be responsible please deny this application thank you David Brook seven Winding Way is that loud enough Mr Bernstein I hope so I've been here for the meetings um and I guess Here's my thought for all of you how do you decide to approve or disapprove an application that's going to be your challenge first the applicant has the burden to prove that's I think critical right their burden is to prove to this board that it conforms to Hillsboro's land use ordinance and that the information that they provided is accurate and truthful so how do we evaluate the accuracy and ultimately The credibility of the applicants professionals and their testimony well as of tonight's disclosure that this application is for a total speculative use I will argue that all of the traffic and the use impacts and all of the other information that's been provided to each of you is kind of out the window that's not the best way to make decisions when you don't have accurate information I will also argue that that we know less today about this application than we knew 15 hearings ago that's not great either now about the honesty and credibility of the applicant wait who is the applicant isn't it the obligation of the applicant to disclose ownership interest accurately I have the original one here and there's three owners how many owners are there now and who are they how do we know if a less than desirable entity isn't the current owner and has strange plans maybe we're going to get a marijuana production factory there will we get a discount so we don't know that information since the applicant's attorney has failed to update any of the information presented to all of you that's a fatal flaw the current easement question right it runs right where the building is being proposed how can you as the planning board approve an application that needs a renegotiated easement I do believe that your attorney has indicated that the applicant cannot build a building unless the easement is moved and that's not your Authority major problem so until the easen is moved the answer is no you can't right the only authority to renegotiate the easen is between the applicant and the township committee kind of like the old cart before the horse thing how are you as the cart going to be moving the horse or something like that okay the other thing Mr ogrodnik tonight glossed over the signif against of block 187 lot 7 oh it's okay no problem we got it all under control I do believe he said that about two years ago the real issue is that this matter is in Superior Court and I have the docket and the other information and I took a look at it today there's no indication I repeat there is no indication that the applicant or its design is going to be able to take control of that lot seven as of August of last year the attorney representing the plaintiff in the matter made it clear to the court they're not doing anything until there's a resolution of this particular Tyler case Supreme Court case they're not doing anything because they don't want to spend the money to provide personal service to the 56 heirs that were involved with this piece of property and I'm more than happy to provide you with that August 8th certification from Elliot J alanzo Esquire who made it so un until the applicant can demonstrate to all of you that they have control over all of the property it's kind of hard to build the building there when they don't own all of that property and still don't so if you give approval they can't start building until they actually have that um that foreclosure in place and it appears they're nowhere closer now than they were before I checked the docket I have a copy of it there's no more recent entries they go back to August 8th of last year with regards to the objectors in Hearthstone their testimony think about the information that they've been providing so much more credible so much more informative with regards to the impacts that this application is going to cause to the community and to them directly so my thought on this is that you cannot give approval to an application for development when the applicant does not provide this board and the public with accurate current information the full process going forward is in Jeopardy and I don't think that you as the board have the ability to approve it right so going back to this issue of Burden appr proof I believe and I hope you all agree that the applicant has failed to sustain its burden of proof they've not been candid they've not been honest with this board in fact they've been arrogant and disrespectful to the public and to many of the folks who have attempted to raise questions I don't think that's illegal but I don't think it's also proper so we know less today than we did at the beginning of the application and for this and the other reasons that um have been presented I think the board should act to deny this application and make a clear statement that we in Hillsboro need to have a clear understanding of what the use of this building will be it's in our ordinances and that we need to have a better understanding of the kind of impacts that are going to occur and who is actually doing this we don't know any of that right now and I would ask each of you to vote no tonight thank you for your time hi my name is Judy hus I live in Hillsboro I'm not part of the Hearthstone group uh I wasn't going to speak tonight but sitting here and having been here from the beginning I really feel betrayed and misled and you know I actually questioned the owner at one of our earliest meetings on this about why somebody would move a warehouse from Jacksonville Florida to Hillsboro weren't there any other more productive places in between and it was because he wanted uh he wanted his Warehouse near where he lives well now he's not working for miracle Brands anymore but he's still an investor in the property so I think we need to stop looking at this as a warehouse for a nice company that wants to be a good citizen of Hillsboro and you know bring their company here and utilize the square footage and and be an active member of our community it's not an economic development now it's a real estate investment and the community under these circumstances gets the loss in this they get the winwin they get the um real estate investment they get whatever tenant they could get in there don't have to care about the community um and you know it's really funny because there was plenty of square footage at the time available in Franklin we still have a half a million square feet of space on 206 of warehouse space that has gone empty like forever um and um we we're going to add to the empty Warehouse real estate in this town because a warehouse on Weston Road arguably is not as productive as one on W on 206 for transportation purposes but yet that hasn't been able to be rented in several years that it's been on the market so I don't think the planning board of this town or the public needs to support a real estate investment that three people will make out from while the community has to deal with police problems flooding problems and an eyesore um and um you know having trucks drive through our residential streets yeah I I agree totally with the mayor of Manville that we shouldn't be impacting Manville but everybody in this room knows that that turn on Weston Road that people need to turn trucks need to turn to go to 206 one of the worst in Corners one of the worst turn radiuses in all of Hillsboro and the other proposal by the traffic engineer that the traffic should go to 206 by way of passing Sunny me School an elementary school with no fencing in the front and it is a very poor proposal from from that point of view so anyway uh further the other little surprise for me tonight anyway I can't believe an owner would proceed to have a building designed on land that is literally bisected diagonally by an existing easement as well as a dnut hole piece of property owned by somebody else without resolving those problems first it seems a little presumptuous to me so um I I won't go on I'm just going to say having gone back from the very beginning we've wasted a lot of time on this and you know you guys have put in an incredible amount of time on this already uh and all these people in the audience you know one of the things that needs to go on the record because it doesn't show up in the transcript is that every hearing on this has had a packed house from the people in hearth Hearthstone they care about their Community they have a right to peace and and their own welfare and some privacy and some quiet in their retirement and I really think there is no other thing to be done but to deny this and get this done thank you very [Applause] [Music] much what no the request the request folks it doesn't help it doesn't get any better don't applaud please or anything else for that matter the decision is going to be made without it Maria Janus 6 720 East fck Avenue Manville New Jersey uh this property is zoned in the i1 light industrial district how does a warehouse the size that was proposed uh qualify as something that's light industrial at one of the earlier uh public hearings attorney Michael ogrodnik had chastised the residents of hearthstone saying that they didn't do their due diligence when they were buying their properties because uh I think the the the Hearthstone was also zoned i1 but but uh permission was given from a planning from the planning board to build that development so that's a very scary situation when you buy in a residential development because you would assume and we know what happens when you assume but if you assume that everything is okay you're buying a residential property because it was approved by the planning board and then you get someone who comes and says hey you guys didn't do your due diligence so what are you complaining about the i1 light industrial Zone does not include massive warehouses if it does well then what does a a a general industrial Zone uh um allow now uh today there was a um uh um subcommittee for the master plan U um um members were elected for this uh subcommittee for a master plan so so what is the purpose of that subcommittee um as uh mayor andero said the master plans show state that a a municipality cannot allow something that's going to cause detriment to a an adjoining municipality this this uh application is a nightmare for Hillsboro and and for Manville that road is is a narrow narrow road no way can massive tractor trailers travel down that road safely the road is narrow you've got ditches on the side the turn to go on Sunny meet or the turn or the further turn turn there's no way that this this whole thing was ludicrous now also cutting down thousands of trees when there are serious flooding issues both in Hillsboro and in Manville during Hurricane Ida people died in Hillsboro in the flooding and and to allow this is is is uh unbelievable that that would this would even be considered so because of the safety issues uh and the and the um flooding issues and also the detriment to to Manville this this application uh should be denied thank you any other members of the public so motion to close all in favor I clo last closing arguments who goes first obors first Mr ogrodnick gets the quote unquote last word y all right members of the board I appreciate J oh I'm sorry maybe a new year but not new my I was trying to see my notes um so members of the board I I I appreciate uh your time your engagement in this process I know that you guys are all volunteers this has been a a a long application several hearings and and I I do respectfully appreciate your time and as I said your engagement throughout this process um as I've said previously my name is Jordan Ash I'm with the law fir rer Danzig we represent the Hearthstone homeowners association my co council is Michael sovich he's with the law Fir liberman bler and sovich representing the same client the Hearthstone homeowners association is a 55 plus Community has 185 member units and it's directly adjacent across Weston Road from the subject site what the hearstone community offers to the residents of its Community is quiet is community is safety is low traffic in other words what I think I said in my opening is a countryes type setting this proposal brings the opposite of that it brings traffic it brings flooding it brings a destruction of wetlands and air pollution it brings impacts to the overall quality of life of not only the hearstone community but a lot of Hillsboro and that's not to even mention the safety aspects that's been discussed throughout these hearings um and the Aesthetics which which are important now on behalf of the Hearthstone homeowners association we did from we did hear from three Representative members I'll note that those three Representative members were exactly that all 185 of those Members Plus others in the larger Community are impassioned and they've been here throughout this process and they care as far as the application goes it relies on i1 zoning to claim that it's a permitted use i1 zoning is for quote small industrial facilities with quote modest operations it requires shipping and receiving to be an enclosed building entirely it requires that uses within the i1 Zone be similar to other existing uses in the i1 zone this application fails to meet those definitions at the most basic levels as a result of hearstone involvement significant changes have been made to this application including correcting the original storm water management plan that somehow showed Collective runoff discharging from the Basin to harston's basin which is not the case even with that correction and perhaps because of that correction and diversion that is most likely created from that correction it still falls short in terms of storm water management and in other ways including as it not being a permitted use it falls short again in storm water in its use in its traffic analysis and its air pollution and noise and its environmental destruction and for other jurisic reasons including the easement that bisects the property that we believe takes away the jurisdiction of this board to approve this project now Hearthstone provided in its evidence several reasons for the board to deny this irresponsible application in addition to the non-expert testimony that I already spoke of we presented uh two expert Witnesses we presented doc uh Mr gleitz who is a professional planner and we presented Dr emers uh and who is a storm water engineer through that testimony we've given you significant reasons to deny the first of which as I touched on is a lack of jurisdiction most simply said this proposal is not a permitted use under the 1982 ordinance it is not a small industrial facility it does not have modest operations and the the testimony for the use that we thought was going to be the use did not have in uh all shipping and receiving it an enclosed facility it's in other words it's not your grandfather's warehouse and to speak to that what is now a lack of ATT tenant and now lack of use testimony that's been provided that undercuts the applicant's position that this is a permitted use this building the way it's designed can and well be used as something other than a small industrial modest use warehouse this is shown by the overp parking by four times the four times more Bays that and more belies the applicant's position and it's supported by as Mr gleit testified to the SPC guidance and the IT definitions of modern warehouses including major distribution centers large fulfillment centers Last Mile Centers High Cube and automated Warehouse these are much much different buildings and uses than the 1982 definition of Warehouse again it is not in line with the other i1 Zone uses which are as Mr gleit testified to Office Buildings research facilities medical facilities this is more akin to a truck terminal what your ordinance defines as an originating or terminating point for trucks which may include servicing facilities for trucks and Comfort facilities the existence of storage or warehousing of items transported by trucks shall not be deemed to change the character of a use which meets the foregoing definition of a truck terminal Mr chairman now 10:30 I would suggest the board extend this for one more hour to 11:30 to 1 hour for to 11:30 what no no my M I'm on double time it's overtime now you need the motion y I have a motion to extend the meeting till 11:30 so move okay roll call please sure yes Smith yes y yes sure yes okay please proceed or continue thank you very much I promise I won't take a whole hour um so again this is more akin to a truck terminal as defined in the ordinance now speaking of that ordinance as we have submitted to this board ordinance 20238 which removes warehousing from The i1 Zone does apply to this application it is is an ordinance that is created quote to protect public health safety and Welfare as we have argued the municipal land use law at 40 col 55 d-105 explains that the time of application rule which would save the application of that ordinance from this application does not apply where the ordinance is created for health and safety reasons as this ordinance expressly is the case law as cited in Mr covich's November 2nd 2023 letter supports this analysis that being the dunar case the 520 Victor Street case and the shipyard case I will also note that though I stand by the position that that time application rule does not apply because of what I just described even if it is deemed that the time application rule does apply this board can look to the factual findings supporting that ordinance as guidance in deciding this application also with regards to the jurisdiction the easement that bisects this property means that the applic that the building as designed cannot be constructed as shown on the application as we have explained in our letters to the board and in argument um and as discussed in uh the letters received today from the board's professionals this cannot be a condition of approval because the easement is a third-party property right it is not an outside agency approval as the applicant has suggested it is a third-party property right that this board does not have jurisdiction over that's supported by the case law cited in our letters being the Susa case the American dream case and the Klein case now if we get past all of those jurisdictional issues and we start talking about the substance of the application the the planning aspects of the application it still fails as Mr K laid out in his letter from today the justif there's no justification provided for the sought variances and design waivers the applicants conclusory statements that they deserve those variances and design waivers are not justification they are just like I said conclusory statements in order to get those variances they need to show very specific things they need to show for C1 variance uh they they must show hardship and they must overcome the negative criteria or for the C2 variant they must show there's a specific need that advances the purposes of zoning and the benefits substantially outweigh the detriment for each of the sought variances and waivers the building height the buffering for the loading docks the parking space sizes and and and and the others the applicant simply has not made these showings beyond the the the planning analysis I what's really important here is the reality of the storm water management plan as I stated before when this applicant came to the board the plans incorrectly showed that the drainage would flow from their Basin to the Hearthstone Basin as a likely result of that error the current plan continues to divert 4 Acres of what is now natural permeable surface from the Natural State open water along what is now going to be imperal surface to the pon constructed Wetland which has been testified to over and again is designed to control up to and including the 100-year storm what Dr Emerson's testimony focused on and what Mr Ford's testimony did not address is that when larger storms occur the design of the system is not ready to handle not only the larger storm but now the additional 4 Acres that's coming its way and all of that water is going to flow downhill and it's going to flood the Hearthstone property as we have demonstrated the application fails to meet three out of the three performance standards it does not meet the recharge it does not provide any recharge it does not meet the water quality because there is an amount of water that will not be treated as shown in Dr Emerson's testimony and it does not meet the peak flow analysis the practicalities of the Basin design show really the fault of the diversion there is no reason for the diversion other than to fit the current designer site plan and make no mistake about it diverting nearly a third of the drainage area of the site to a new location away from the state open water which mind you is going to drain that Wetland of water is not something that is commonly done sure drainage areas are shifted a little bit in applications but to just completely take four acres and put it in another Direction that's a significant change that is not something that's done in the normal course of things as I said before this four plus acres will now flow to the Basin which will overflow in any storm beyond the 100-year storm even even if we're using the future projections that storm greater than 100-year storm will occur we know that this is inconsistent with not only njac 7 colon 8- 5.2 but with Hillsboro ordinance 262- 9 and I will also note that the as I said before the diversion will add the requirement for an additional permit which has not been suggested by the applicant because by draining the Wetland they are disturbing the water level and they've not suggested they intend to go get that permit from D So In Sum this application fails for married reasons it is not a permitted use this board with all due respect to the members of this board this board does not have legal jurisdiction to approve for the reasons I stated and the the the the planning justification is not provided and lastly the storm water system is designed to fail designed to cause flood directly onto my client's property I thank you again for your time and for your engagement during this process sincerely thank you thank you SC well I I I do have a prepared statement but I I wanted to just uh speak directly about my experience here in Hillsboro uh I've been practicing law for 19 years now much of it with Mr Ford and for a myriad of reasons I get calls every single week with developers that want to develop in Hillsboro Township almost an unlimited supply of venture capital of Industry of residential of all different types of uses and many of those clients that consult with me and Mr Ford uh I plainly say that will never happen that will never happen in this part of town that will never happen in that part of town it's too big it doesn't fit here and and that's the type of knowledge that I've gained uh in in spending many many hours before this board I don't lead these clients down a road to make a quick buck and to get turned down and in fact I have never been turned down uh I've I've never filed any litigation until the Harvard way application post Ida yeah all right until Harvard way I'd never and i' I'd never filed any litigation against this municipality and I had never appealed a board of adjustment denial where I understand the proofs and the Court's rulings I appreciate your volunteers and I appreciate the thoughtful consideration for the last two 2 and a half years we've provided extensive and detailed information about this project addressing the key concerns and demonstrating how this industrial building complies with all relevant zoning and regulatory requirements we recognize and appreciate that there are concerns from some members of the community about the potential impact of this use whether related to Traffic storm water or changes in the character of the area these are valid concerns and throughout the planning process we've made every effort to address these concerns through adjustments to the design buffering and operations we've Incorporated feedback to minimize potential disruptions and to ensure that this project aligns with the local planning zone zoning laws and regulations as well as State Environmental guidelines we've decreased the building size we've decreased the parking we've realigned the driveway to avoid disturbance to the stream stream cor Tor we've increased the setbacks we've decreased the lot coverage well under the allowable lot uh lock coverage um we've limited this the disturbance we've reduced the peak flow and specifically I wish these were all engineering considerations and perhaps not uh matters of public opinion we increased the Basin from one 23,46108 19 cubic feet we've increased substantially increased buffering we've provided emergency access Lanes we've received Outside Agency approvals etc etc fundamentally I believe that the applicant has demonstrated the legal right to build this project since the proposal is entirely consistent with the zoning ordinances owning and developing property in central New Jersey is incredibly onerous expensive and risky i' submitted a letter to the board indicating our outof pocket expenses through October 8th one ,on 381,000 including over $144,000 in escro fees the ability to build on your land is a fundamental expression of property rights aligning with the notion that ownership grants the freedom to determine a land use as long as it does not unreasonably infringe upon the rights of others permitted uses limiting these rights is an interference on individual liberty economic freedom and government overreach I know that I can't get all of the corporate citizens of this community to appear but they're out there and they're paying a lot of taxes and working in this town is incredibly challenging even with the approvals it takes sometimes years to get a shovel in the ground there's no citizen that can afford this process anymore as a society we must have a system under which property rights are protected contracts and ordinances are equally enforced and land use applications are are viewed fairly and impartially regardless of public opposition the courts have reinforced this edict over centuries of real property law in his essay entitled property written on March 29th 1792 James Madison wrote the protection of property as well as personal rights is the primary object of government Madison argued that a just government must Safeguard personal property rights and that restricting in this right infringes upon the individual autonomy and contradicts the principle of private property which is a Cornerstone of our Democratic Society Madison concluded that the right to develop one land is a significant aspect of individual liberty Thomas Jefferson in his letter proposals to revise the Virginia con Constitution dated July 12th 1816 stated quote the true foundation of Republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management throughout this process the applicants professionals have demonstrated that this pro project conforms with the municipal zoning and site plan's ordinances the pro proposed use is not only allowed under the zoning but is an also alignment with the goals of the master plan and the permitted uses in the zone although not required by the application the application was revised multiple times at Great expense we had an an unbelievable amount of testing and testimony and experts and lay Witnesses the development represents a substantial Economic Opportunity it will create jobs meet Market demands support local businesses increase tax revenues and will not generate school age children all of which benefit the community notably the authority to consider traffic conditions and site plan review they're frequently and erroneously interpreted by branding planning boards to deny approvals on the basic basis of traffic generation when the applied for use is permitted in the zone again a planning board has no authority to deny a site plan because of its anticipated detrimental imp impact on off track tra off tracked traffic conditions as planning for traffic patterns is an exercise of zoning power vested in the governing body Supreme Court has upheld this principle multiple times in many cases including prb Enterprises versus South Brunswick Tennis Club Associates versus tck Dunkin Donuts versus North Brunswick and the seminal case of stockle V Edison as with all proposals we present before this board this project has been carefully vetted to meet the highest standards of safety environmental responsibility storm water management and Community impact we are committed to working collaboratively with the community as this project moves forward to ensure that it integrates smoothly we are confident that once operational it will become a mundane use and a valuable asset to this community consistent with hundreds of other similar uses and contribute positively to the economic growth and sustainability this project is located in a long-standing industrial Zone and is adjacent to an airport a railroad and other industrial uses as such this property is clearly appropriate for an industrial building as detailed in Prior hearings the warehouse use this of for this site was approved by this board on October 4th 1990 for 13 Industrial flexware warehous Lots this property has been been in zoned industrial for 40 plus years and was sold by Hillsboro to be developed into an industrial use which was approved it must be underscored that Hearthstone and by proxy the residents and I don't say that lightly Hearthstone was built in an industrial Zone as the result of a lawsuit against this municipality that lawsuit settled on March 21st 2002 and provided for 185 residential units which was 12 years after the approved Warehouse use buyers of the unit of the units in hearone were provided mandatory disclosure statements that specifically inform inform them of the improved industrial Warehouse p park on the applicants adjacent parcel if you sue a municipality to compel the construction of residential units in an industrial Zone next to a property that is an approved Warehouse you cannot legitimately complain when the owner wants to construct the approved and permitted use albeit in one building instead of 13 this is especially so with the nearest Hearthstone residential apartment building approximately 950 ft from the proposed structure providing over four times the minimum setback from the road furthermore the site is heavily buffered with mature forest and an oversized Pond constru constructed Wetland ba Basin in the front yard the applicant is provided extraordinary expert in fact testimony in years of hearings this application was filed on February 15th 20122 which is many months ago at a cost of more as I said of more than $1.4 million we've had extensive testimony from Mr Ford testimony from our traffic engineer Gary Dean our architect Steve Randy our planner Keenan Hughes our environmental professional Tom offord our sound Engineers Jack zabur our air quality engineer Glen Glenn Bodner as well as general warehouse operational testimony from Mr Scott we have taken great care to ensure that this project fits within the context of the permitted zoning significantly reduce the square footage and impervious coverage and its final form represents an appropriate and responsible use of the land additionally we have worked to address all of the technical aspects of the application and we have complied with all relevant codes and reg and regulations we understand that responsibility comes with approval we are committed to maintaining open communication with the board professionals local stakeholders The Hearth Zone and the Hearthstone Community throughout the process it is Undisputed that this application complies with the bulk standards of the zone as detailed in Mr fort's testimony furthermore the use as uh contrary to Mr Ash's closing according to Mr CO's review memorandum States warehousing shipping and receiving completely with an enclosed buing are building and office are permitted uses we understand that decisions regarding land use and develop development can be complex and that they EV evoke strong opinions from the public however it is essential that a planning board in its quasi judicial capacity remains neutral and objective in carrying out its duties this IM impartiality is not only required by the law but the oath taken tonight faithfully impartially and justly it is a corner cor Stone of public trust that the business Community places in this board whether there is one person in the audience or a 100 these property rights are fundamental and important developers have a right to rely on the ordinances and spend a million and a half dollars to build a project that's consistent with the ordinances we respectfully act ask that the planning board board make your decision based on the facts and the law as you deliberate we encourage you to focus on the clear evidence presented over many hours of testimony which unequivocally demonstrates that this project complies with the relevant regulations by doing so you will ensure that a decision reflects not only the letter of the law but also the values of fairness upholding the fundamental property rights of this and future applicants with that said we respectfully request the planning board's approval of this project and we look forward to working together to bring it to fruition thank you thank you Mr chairman for purposes of the record unless anyone has an objection Mr KES and Mr mayu's reports of today are part of the record as provided uh if either of them have any additional items I have a few comments before the board deliberates but I'll to either of both of them no nothing from that anything you've heard impassioned arguments from all sides the applicant the objector the public the neighboring town and and let's talk about what is really before you no matter how many times applicant tells you how much they've spent on the application it's immaterial they could have spent $1.98 on the application and it's still immaterial in terms of whether or not they meet the the requirements for you to decide whether or not to approve or deny the application I will advise the board that no no matter how many times Mr Ash and Mr sovic contend that somehow there is an exception for this project under the time of application rule that the safety and health provision doesn't apply in here and therefore you are bound by the time of application rule in relation to the ordinances that were in effect at the time that the applicant per perfected their application I will point out it it's not necessarily been mentioned tonight but has been mentioned multiple times prior to tonight that the granting of a completeness determination does not in and of itself approve the application or the underlying requirements of the application any more than a quote permitted close quote use is an automatic guarantee and now you've got another wrinkle you've heard testimony you've heard not testim you've heard representation tonight that the applicant or at least the proposed tenant and the reason why you got all of that testimony regarding the proposed tenant is that Hillsboro doesn't provide for spec warehousing because if you provided for spec warehousing there was no requirement necessarily to put any of this on the record all of that testimony is immaterial now because you've been advised that the project is not going to go forward in the manner upon which it was proposed that doesn't totally negate the expert testimony of some of the witnesses it may negate most if not all of others except for the fact that we do not allow for spec warehousing property rights in and of themselves are not guarantees of getting what one wishes to get approved or not get approved there are multiple requirements and as indicated in both Mr Mayu and Mr K's reports of today there are a number of issues relative to requirements under the Township Code that are an issue related to the application itself leaving aside some of what has become part of the additional aspects of this application the donut hole as I will refer to it the easan issue which as everybody has acknowledged requires a approval that is not within the jurisdiction of this board I would also argue that this board does have jurisdiction to hear and render a decision on it and if depending on what you all do objectors contend that you didn't have the jurisdiction there's a place and a time to address that but I think it's a little disingenuous from that side of the proverbial a to raise the issue of jurisdiction 17 hearings in the sense of there were ways to if if objectors truly believed that this board did not have jurisdiction it belonged at the Zoning Board of adjustment there are judicial avenues that were available throughout this rather extended process that could have been dealt with if this board doesn't have jurisdiction we believe this board has jurisdiction we believe the time of application rule not the time of decision rule applies but we also believe the board has a number of other things it has to consider as part of its overall decision in granting or denying this application I will be happy to provide any other advice the board may wish during its deliberations if it so chooses thank you Mr chairman thank you okay board members thoughts comments yeah we we're deliberating now so it's deliberation time folks taking notes and we got 32 minutes so I'm not going to take all of it um well thank I I do really want to thank everybody for uh dealing with this I'm an expert witness on construction matters so I know what all these Witnesses have gone through what the what both sides are trying to do to one another and and cross-examination is the worst thing in the world so um I appreciate all the time that everybody's put in um but we've heard hours of testimony during the last couple of years uh details from numerous expert Witnesses uh from both the applicant and the objectors uh debates over legal matters legal issues um that continue to emerge even this week actually tonight um now at the end here the end of the application uh there's three focal areas that honestly give me pause to the underlying application and the three areas are property access issues master plan and Warehouse use and the technical issues revealed during various technical issues re revealed during this process so for property access I'm trying to wrap this up and focus from day one we've the applicant has relied on a position that the board's completeness completeness determination required that this application be brought to a vote which flies in the face of the fact that we had two years of testimony but the completeness determination is really is separate and apart from an application and determination on its merits of this application itself so the application and the completeness determination is still conditioned on the applicant receiving the approval for access to or permission to move the township easement that currently splits the proposed building to my knowledge no action has been taken on this condition and the applicant in fact said that they would not pursue it when this was raised several months ago now I also consider the easement with the lot 7 dut issue the property there is not so now we have not just one but two property owner ownership access issues that remain unresolved in this application master plan and Warehouse use this also goes back to day one it was stated that the site was always zoned industrial we just we just heard that as it relates to the Hearthstone Development Across The Street and this actually relates back to the property access issue in that yes Hearthstone has been informed or should have been informed when they purchased that the pro that the property this subject here as planned was planned as a subdivided Industrial Park not a single structure Warehouse and notably the industrial park would be similar one to other industrial developments in town which would have multiple individual users separate pad sites and access roads and this Access Road main Access Road designated for the township easement which is discussed in my prior issue so these two things are now related and there is an existing pattern of of small industrial siiz facilities modest industrial operations throughout our current iones in Hillsboro and this application does not align align with those existing Community design Provisions in the master plan um and is in no and is in Contra contravention to multiple goals of the master plan can I go on third technical we've heard a multi multitude of technical issues facts a lot of things may still be unresolved but the applicant admittedly when it came to some of the technical testimony did not talk to the residents came out that those words came out of of the witness's mouth they did not talk to the residents did not consider the road conditions outside of the immediate Frontage because this was a permitted use and did not consider the potential restrictions to trucks that may emerge on Kennedy Boulevard or Manville I know it's a what if but what if um a variance is needed presumably with res respect to the height and the applicant submitted that a variance is Justified because granting the variance would be this is quote granting the variance would Advance certain purposes of the ml to the benefit of the community and those benefits substantially outweigh any detriments end quote at the end of all this testimony I do not see any clearly presented or definitive way in which this is demonstrated other than I said so the purpose of the building height and and the size of the build the proposed Building height size of the building amount of parking and loading docks in this structure is a structure in use that is more intense than anticipated in the zoning that was approved uh in the zoning and in the 1990 approval that was just discussed of the property and as invisioned in the industrial zoning code so when I look at the totality of the application consider the testimony the application material and the reports the conclusions and recommendations of the reports from the board professionals and focus on these three considerations I that I've outlined and the cud which is tonight that we no longer have a tenant and are addressing a SPEC Building I'm confident that I can make an informed decision and hereby make a motion to deny this application as presented thank you mayor anyone else want to I'll uh I won't go as lengthy as the mayor did but I'll want a motion um a motion second first of all thank all the residents who came here um and for the most part behave themselves uh and very emotional uh and I get it it's emotional and also to the to both attorneys for putting out uh I think a very uh professional uh application to the witnesses um they're never easy right these are um properties that are are going to be bring out um aemotion either way but this go about some facts fact um it is industrial it is Zone industrial i1 or whatever it is so that permitted use grants them the opportunity to have a hearing not necessarily approval um there is as the mayor said a couple issues not resolved I.E with the easement and the donut hole there was um a effort to reduce the size of the building because obviously the scope of the project I think they realized was too large from the beginning so the intent of our ordinance um going back to the settlement agreement was never for a single use building but was for 13 smaller buildings um but the scope of the project after hearing the testimony and all the amount of uh escavation outp to make the the grading correct for the building which caused the raise of the building and caused the problem with requesting the variance for the height um is part of the part of the planning process to see if it meets the planning um environmental it's which is I'm using I'm escaping what the word the term is but to make sure that the plan it makes sense both um environmentally structurally and um for the benefit of the community right so it's not like they just took the existing grade and popped a land on it they're moving the ground around which changed es the drainage which we've heard testimony on which I think we've all become a a tier degree in engineering on Water Management now after hearing all this but the variances for all the trees and the the hardship mitigation for the amount of trees that they're looking for again the variances and the buffers um the extra parking uh in in all um you know when when this application first started truth be told we look at these and you know we're it's it's a warehouse and Industrial Zone on on the face of the of the project you go in here and and you're trying to be as impartial as we take our oath to be to listen to all the testimony and let let the facts come out where they are um I've been on this board now for longer than I want to admit probably 20 years almost um and uh there are applications which are more more more complicated than others um which we've approved and denied both but I believe in the end you have to mute our charge here is to make sure that it meets our scope of what we feel is good planning for hillsbor what is good for the residents and also what's good for the property owner I mean a property owner has the right to develop his property as Mr grodnik stated very eloquently um if it was your property and you UND to develop you have to ex protect their rights also but good governance is part of of why we're here is to make sure the vision of the township is preserved to the best of our ability and that the project fits the scope and intents of what we envision in the master plan what these zones are for and in my opinion I think that this building um doesn't meet that scope for a lot of the same reasons that the mayor suggested and um would also say it would be denial for this project so I would second that thank you any other thoughts comments Mr chairman just a a couple of things um I appreciate everybody's time I think in my career up here on the planning board this is so far the longest application I've I've I've sat through and I I think uh councilman Ash I believe your child may have started school at this at this point um I remember when you were expecting and that's where it seems like it was many many uh years ago uh this problem um that we have is not unique to Hillsboro it's Unique because it's it's Hillsboro however Statewide um you know it's not unusual to see applications in the newspaper all over warehousing warehousing warehousing and how did we get here you know are we kind of a victim of our own success you know the last couple of months with the holidays how many times did we see FedEx UPS Amazon people delivering packages at 4: or 5:00 in the morning because that's society that we've come we don't use brick and mortar anymore we see something at 8:00 at night and oh yeah let me go ahead and and get that and then people talk at parties yeah you know I ordered something I had it in three hours isn't that great well that stuff has to come from somewhere it's not stored you know somewhere it's got to come from somewhere but everybody participates in it um you know where I live it's a constant uh Vehicles up and down so I understand the traffic they're just smaller trucks everybody knows the size of a UPS truck and you can tell the noise when it's coming down that's the UPS truck CU it bangs along and it's got a certain Rumble to it same way a tractor trailer does when it's making a delivery down 206 so I think it kind of speaks overall to kind of a bigger issue of what we're faced in New Jersey we're the most densely populated state in the nation it's not going to change it's not all the sudden we're going to wake up 5 years from now we're going to be less than what we are it's only going to continue uh speaks to our I won't get on my Soap Box about affordable housing and mandates that were forced upon us uh and soon to be for was it round three I think that's that's coming its way um but I did want to just thank everybody for their uh for the time and just you know some thoughts as we take kind of a broader approach to this it's not just a Hillsboro problem it's not just a Somerset County problem or a Manville problem it's a New Jersey state problem but we all benefit because we want stuff sent immediately so how do you correct that I don't know I don't know what the answer is to that but we all participate in it I I could venture to Guess that anybody in here in the last I don't know four or five months didn't have something delivered to your house I think everybody does so I just kind of wanted to mention that I appreciate everybody's time tonight thank you thank you all right I'm going to wrap it up then um just a couple of things to Echo I mean I think there was a lot that has already been said I think but just a few fundamental items for myself beginning with our professionals here and our memos um the memos didn't contain really anything new it was knowing that we were going to most likely go to a vote tonight just gave us a status of some of the open items so and there were a number of items that they listed that were unsatisfied so for me I would be derting my duties ignoring my professionals you know at that level um the other you know yeah as it was stated that we don't do spec warehousing and all because we want to know what we're going to get um obviously now we don't have a tenant there were some things that you know that we can address you know like safety you know entering and exiting that facility or that location because we do not know who's going to be there we know that there's some limitations on the road we have another application going on and there's discussions on making those Road improvements by the applicant here we don't have anything at this point um I know the traffic study I know that there was some flaws in that uh particularly because I did ask the traffic engineer if he recognized the what was going on with 206 and how that would change and that did not come into consideration is part of his traffic study so uh cannot assume that the you know service levels as he describ are going to be reflective in the very near future we know 206 there's going to be jug handles there it's going to direct we're going to have the jersey barrier so it's completely changing traffic patterns so um so I think you again those are what highlighted me but I do concur you know with my colleagues up here particular you know the mayor and commun in here as how they described so um you I'm not leaning towards this you know being approved so with that I'm just going to one last bite of the Apple by anyone up here here cuz I know we have a motion in the second right now to I want to ensure that the motion in the second includes not only the statements on the record but the reports provided by the professionals the various testimony indicating regarding the application at hand and the failures to meet the criteria of the Township Code and related law I do have a question Mr Co from for the purposes is this an amended site plan application uh thank you for your question Mr binstein I don't have that answer I believe the I believe the answer is no okay is that correct Mr gnik that's correct not an amended application I point to reference the comments made in both the professional reports regarding a settlement agreement regarding this property it does impact the overall application uh does the maker the motion and the second agree to the additional comments relative to the resolution yes yes thank you uh you have a motion Mr chairman you have have a second apparently you do not have any other member of the board who wishes to make comments on the record Mr Co and Mr May who apparently are relying on their various reports I'm relying on what I've advised you unless the board has any other questions of me silence means no then I would suspect Mr Mr lber doy can call the role okay but just before we go I I failed to thank everyone for their participation in this ongoing I mean obviously this is what one last item Mr chairman I would ask that irrespective of how the board rules that there be no response from the public please right can you can you clarify what we're voting on you are voting to deny the application you're voting to deny I gather correct me if I'm wrong mayor you are voting to deny the application 22 pb3 mspv preliminary and final major site plan approval with C variances and waivers for Block 185 lot one Western Road LLC gella and Weston Road a yes is in favor to deny a no is against denial okay with that may I have a roll call please Mr Wagner I guess we're not going in alphabetical order I would vote to deny I vote Yes Mr rtz uh although I didn't have any comments to make before because I will rely upon what was previously said I want to thank Mr ogrodnik I want to thank Mr sigovich Mr Ash and all of the members of the public that participated in this process um I would also be a vote to deny uh which is a yes vote to the motion that's pending Miss Smith I vote Yes committe in the P yes mayor Chelli yes Vice chair peason uh I'll take my comments uh right now not to be laborate but uh I would like to thank everybody up here on the deis I don't know if ladies and gentlemen you know we have three former mayors on the de as well as our current mayor so you have a lot of um experience uh and talent uh I would like to thank the applicant and the objectors uh I'd like to thank uh the audience for uh being civil and polite uh so I therefore am going to vote uh yes and to deny thank you and chair sji voting yes on the motion so that's it motion carries to deny we're still going okay let me just make a quick we still have business to conclude thank you y so our next meeting is January 23rd is a business meeting do we need to have that Mr Co yes okay so everyone we do have a business meeting meaning no is there there's no application this is for the ordinance right just no applications correct no applications that's the question he's asking no amended no amended plans yes no no no warehouses no affordable nothing just business all right so if anyone's not able to make it just please let the planning office know but with that I will I will entertain a motion of adjournment so moved second second all in favor I we [Music] TR