##VIDEO ID:MHP_PZ0NekA## all right good evening everyone welcome to the Hillsboro Township planning board meeting of December 12th 2024 please join me and salute to the flag Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for [Music] all please be advis this meeting has been duly advertised coining to section five of the open public meetings act chapter 2 31 Public Law 1975 otherwise known as Sunshine Law notice of the 2024 annual meeting schedule has been has been provided to the officially designated newspapers the Township Clerk post on Township's website and available here at the Hillsboro Township municipal complex application documents and plans have been made available on the township Civic clerk website at least 10 days of this evening's meeting complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice with that may have a roll call of planning board members and also board and Township professionals [Music] please Deputy Mayor Chelli Mr rtz Mr vanderfleet Mr vital and Mr Deb are absent Mr Wagner here Smith here in the P present chair PE here sarach here present here mayh here and myself and the videographer are here thank you welcome everyone is he really here we never hear him first up we have consideration of meeting minutes first up is November 7th 2024 meeting minutes councelor all the members of the board excellent I have a motion to approve so moved second any comments from the day hearing none roll call please Mr wager yes M Smith yes commit in the pony yes chair PE yes chair sji yes next meeting minutes of November 14th 2024 same group okay is there a motion to approve no moved that's it okay any comments roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr Smith yes commit the pony yes Vice chair Fus yes chair sarach yes we do not have any resolutions for consideration nor ordinances however we do have a couple of items under planning board business Mr Co thank you Mr chairman uh we received notice of um Mr Vander resigned as the planning board leads onto the environmental commission uh seat number three and also his planning board seat or No Yes planning board and environmental commission he has resigned from both to inform the board and it's been reported to uh Administration okay thank you and then I see we have an applications that's been withdrawn yes so uh 1170 Millstone River Road that property uh the township has a deed in hand that's a one of the properties that was purchased and uh it has now officially been withdrawn okay excellent nothing further uh if the board wishes to take a motion to acknowledge the withdrawal and the acceptance of such a can you're all uh you're all eligible for that is that something I can do roll call do we need to do or a motion second on roll call okay anyone uh like to offer the motion recognition of the application withdrawal I'll make that motion I'll second okay roll call Mr wag yes Mr Smith yes yes chair PE yes CH yes okay moving on we're now at business from the floor for is not on this evening's agenda if anyone would like to come up and address the board on any matters please state your name and address for the record please keep comments no longer no more than five minutes and just a reminder this is not a Q&A session Maria Janus 720 East frck Avenue Manville New Jersey I'm also a Hillsboro Township property owner block 86 slot 3 2155 Camp Lane Road uh I was present at last week's planning board hearing uh for the application of of in regard to the application of Campus Associates uh that property is now under a new owner um I asked the attorney representing the new owner if they had obtained permits from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection because there are numerous freshwater wetlands on the property uh the attorney stated they are doing what is required uh he gave that same answer twice he never gave a yes or no answer um which department in in the township is responsible for making certain that uh applicant uh gets the required permits from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection CH uh through their um resolution compliance there could be a number of uh prior approvals agency approvals so it those could be approvals that are already within the file um if you wanted to give our office a call I could I could personally go through it and try to answer your questionss I don't know them off the top of my head I'd have to go and look in the file if you wanted to contact me so the department that makes sure that there are permits from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is the planning zoning department only or is it also an engineering department or construction which department initially it's the planning and zoning department as it's relates to anything that's related to the approval on the final approved plans uh so there would be um in order for the plans to be signed there would have been certain approvals that would have had to be shown to the township and become part of that file there could be other departments such as the engineering department that's further monitoring any other uh any changes that could possibly happen so it could not only be my department but it could also be the engineering department happy to answer those questions if you if you contact me okay and now do these uh per from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection do they have to be recorded in the county I am not familiar with that I don't believe so okay uh there was another um applicant I think was Hillsboro 206 Holdings at the last at last week's uh planning board meeting there was a hearing and uh they've made changes uh in their application from retail buildings to residential buildings uh does the applicant have to show those renderings um to the board they did last week you were there he showed copies copies dis them you were there buildings yep okay all right thank you thank you to be fair he said they're the exact same buildings that are being built on on site now okay any other members of the public okay see none we're going to move on to public hearings first application 303 M1 Road j mj4 a b LLC file number 21- pb-1 17- mspv with the time of decision of the end of this year appears the applicants requesting to be adjourned to a date to be determined by the board without further notice and they FY provided an extension of time to March 28th of next year let the record also reflect Mr chairman that we have received the certification of absent board member examination of record and eligibility to vote by the chair regarding this application and a review of the September 12 2024 transcripts which makes you eligible to vote tonight okay thank you take it there's no one rep any Representatives here from 303 so I not see Mr grodnik so do we need to make a motion to extend extend the extend the application requ to extend the application hearing to a date to be determined by the board without further notice have to take an action at a subsequent board meeting to sort of at least set the date and the extension of time provided through March 28 2025 okay Mr course just just to be sure that we do have time on our openings in the calendar first quarter of next year we do okay okay I have a motion so move Mr chairman okay second okay comments roll call please oh goad I take com for those in in the public this is the property that uh the township is finalizing purchasing that's why they're extending it out because it hasn't officially closed yet okay thank you roll call please Mr ragner yes Smith yes commit in the py yes Vice chair PE yes CH sarach yes okay moving on to Homestead Road LLC file number 21- pb-2 DMS mspv uh time of decision the end of this year and this is a application being continued from November 7th 2024 meeting without further notice and I will allow everyone to introduce themselves yes good evening chairman members of the board Craig Janet the law firm Dave Pitney on behalf of the applicant Homestead Road LLC thank you all the [Music] objectors Brian Tarantino representing of Swat Scott gross objector number [Music] two John Lan obor number [Music] four Lori Cleveland from the sourland Conservancy okay welcome everyone so chairman I guess you know for the record uh since the last meeting our office or actually our Engineers office uh submitted um updated site plan Set uh generally the the main changes to the plan is respect to uh Warehouse want make sure Warehouse 2 which is on lot 32 um they removed the uh stacked trailer parking so there's no more stacked trailer parking on lot 32 for warehouse number two and as part of that since it's now going uh the set back there to that parking area going from 20 ft to 75 ft uh they also removed the retaining walls that were proposed um up along the property line in that area uh at some point we will have rebuttal testimony uh which will include our civil engineer that will address those plans specifically okay so I assume Mr Ford's testimony will come once the obors testimony is over correct thank you Mr chairman before we get too far if I may um at the November 14th um planning board meeting we had three members from the public comment on the rude and unprofessional way in which uh Mr Housman was cross-examined at the November 7th meeting and um I believe those members of the public really asked you know for sort of a renewal on our uh sense of Civility and uh uh conducting these hearings with uh treating people with respect and and um professionalism and I just thought I'd mention it since it's app propo I don't know if you want to say anything but just thought I'd bring it up yeah no I I I think we had discussed it and and you know at that meeting so we will do our best here and I know the you know there's a lot of emotions behind this so I think you know we'll do our best to keep things calm [Music] so okay I have nothing further I think it's uh the uh objector presentation I think believe they have a planner to testify uh there's two other Witnesses they've identified that we've objected to um so when it gets time to call them I guess we can address that issue I we would like to just comment on Mr pla report he submitted a report actually we submitted a report that he wrote on behalf of local citizens against traffic and SWAT um Mr G responded um about the the topic of whether Mr pla should be allowed to testify as an expert witnessed uh in case it's not obvious I'm not an attorney I haven't had time to fully review Mr ged's letter there's a lot of information in there that requires research I would like to defer the discussion of that topic that is whether or not Mr pla should be heard as an expert witness until the next meeting uh if it's if it's determined that um that he is able to testify we'll have him ready and able to go so there we know we don't waste any time at the next meeting I mean we're we're fully confident that uh Mr gianetti's letter is without Merit and that Mr pla is a is an expert uh in his field that he has relevant testimony that um that I think is will be important uh important for uh the case of the objector case and um and that um that we think it would be inappropriate to deprive the planning board of the opportunity to hear that and weigh that testimony so but we we're prepared to provide a written response 10 days prior to the next meeting and then be ready to have that conversation um at the next hearing so we brief the issue um the board attorney Mr Bernstein is well aware of the legal standards uh we raised our objection at the prior meeting I'm not sure why they need additional time as they noted they're not lawyers so I don't believe they're going to try and practice law uh it's a legal stop people H never stop people that is true that is true uh it is a legal issue and and to be clear and and the law is clear he he's not an expert um and he cannot provide expert testimony if he wants to come up during public comment and speak during public comment and give his perceptions that's fine but he can't be qualified as an expert he can't be giving expert opinions to this board oh when you're saying he's not qualified to be an expert witness in what area are you objecting his expertise I believe he's trying to classify himself as an expert in uh traffic safety with respect to tractor trailers unless they offering it for something else Mr chairman from what I'm Gathering is that Mr gross is not intending to produce the individual tonight because he believes that he needs to submit another writing the process and this board has gone through it innumerable times before if a applicant or an objector is calling a expert witness he or she needs to be qualified as an expert subject to cross-exam mination as to their expertise and is ultimately the determination of the board as to whether or not to accept the individual's credentials as an expert um if Mr gross does not plan on calling his individual tonight he needs to be aware that submitting another writing isn't going to necessarily change other than he wants to put it on the record isn't going to change the ultimate determination of how that decision as to expertise is decided Ed which is the five of you and whoever else is eligible at the time he's produced ultimately determine he is not qualified as an expert then he's not qualified as an expert and can't testify as one as Mr gianetti did indicate there are other available avenues for same other as an expert witness so it's up to the objectors as to how they want to pursue the individual tonight if they don't want to produce him because they want to produce an another witness and they hope that they will be able to have him available for the next meeting then so be it but I want everybody to understand that submitting another document um and I've read Mr gianetti and I've read the report uh and I look forward to seeing Mr gross's non-legal legal document um but ultimately everybody needs the objectors need to understand I know Mr gianetti understands the obors need to understand that if he is not considered qualified by the board he can't testify as an expert even if he's potentially an expert um so so I'm gathering Mr gross correct me if I'm wrong that you're done with your piece for the moment I'd like to close that piece for tonight yes thank you we then leaves Mr Tarantino yes I'd like to call uh Mr Mr Carlos Rodriguez here hoping that his [Music] AC another night [Music] Craig s right swear me in you this you be truth the whole truth truth I do Carlos Rodriguez r o d r i g u s into the mic please seat here little tight [Music] can that's fine you going to need to get the mic closer yeah and speak into it yeah Mr R we these mics don't carry very far okay how's this that's good [Music] okay I'm sorry say your name and spell again uh Carlos c a r l Rodriguez r o d r i [Music] GES Mr janed that's the new plans that's not that's not my screen I don't know what screen that's the revised PL from Mr Ford working hard [Music] there [Music] okay so do you need to qualify me as a witness yes so um Mr Rodriguez Could you um share with the board your uh your qualifications as a professional planner um of course so I have a masters in city and Regional planning from uh the blasin school at Rutter where I have also spent many years teaching I've also taught at Columbia in the planning program at Columbia University and uh at Princeton um I am a past president of of the um New Jersey chapter of the American Planning Association I'm a fellow of the American Institute of certified planners and I am the editor of the latest edition of the complete guide to planning in New Jersey I've also just for the record testified before this board previously although not recently okay I guess just to follow up on that were you accepted as an expert in the field of planning when you testified before this board of course okay any objections Mr ganet no objection okay any objections from board members no you heard a bunch of no so any questions from any of the objectors that's true now I have to open up objectors okay so a lot of non-verbal CU so excellent okay we accept please continue okay thank you um so uh Mr Rodriguez you um you produced uh two reports um and uh maybe you could just uh um talk about the uh the two date the dates of the two reports sure so the original report was presented uh J June 21st 2023 and then the second report which essentially is the first report plus additional material was submitted on August 6th of this year okay U and um great so early on in your report you discuss uh that the application uh for Homestead uh Road should not have been deemed complete due to missing elements what are examp examples of missing elements well the architectural floor plans the proposed hours of operation the number of shifts the number of employees on each shift uh emissions of potential emissions of noise glare vibration heat odor air and water pollution safety hazards and whether or not they include Comfort stations um and has the applicant provided any of these elements in the two and a half years since the application was made actually maybe it's more like three years but about two plus years not to my knowledge and and why are these important why would they be uh necessary well because if the board approves these buildings with no understanding of how they will be used there will be no further public scrutiny of these issues as the next steps will only involve the applicant and the construction code official and there is no public review of the construction documents so the board would be handing the applicant a blank check to do as they please with no safeguards for the public um so uh what are the implications of if the application um is not uh deemed complete uh well that's really not um for me to determine right there that's not my call uh I'm suggesting that that there are missing elements and that the board could legitimately throw it out but it's you know it's out of my hands sure understood um you uh lay out in your report um very thoroughly the intents and purposes of the tecd Zone uh based on the doents related to the Zone's adoption and the tecd ordinance itself what is an example of the type of wording that captures the intent of the tecd zone so I'm quoting here the purpose of the tecd district is to provide transitional employment generating development between the high intensity light Industrial in corporate development districts and the existing new by residential development so that's one and also all uses shall be provided at a scale and size that is appropriate for the district um you also um mentioned um in your report and you could see it up on the board there um perhaps you could share um the the second uh paragraph there um if you would which was um in a letter uh well I'll let you I'll let you share about that reference the pages as you go to them sure this is on page eight can we mark this document please this this is in the docket already I mean no it well Mr Tarantino you you God knows you've sat through enough of these hearings uh it may have been submitted as part of Civic clerk but for purposes of the record we Mark all the exhibits of anyone who testified before the board whether it has been in Civic Clerk or not so Mr lombardoi do we have any what the latest o exhibit is the 08 08 and the date on this document is uh the date on the document is um August uh let me just the on my second report yeah August 19th your current trying to testify from yeah this is August uh 6th no no it's August 19th August 19th yeah oh that's interesting you have a different version no it's the same version maybe a better version no so uh what's the date August 19th 2024 thank you and your and your witness is the author of this document correct thank you so on page eight um you mention uh uh rationale that um uh Mr ringelheim provided um explaining the rationale behind the Tec designation can you would you mind reading that's the second uh the second bullet there um yeah I'm sorry are you referring to uh does not permit uses which are not compatible with with residential uses and limiting potential nuisances such as lighting and noise to the extent practicable um Mr Bernstein I'm going to object um I mean he's reading from his report but he's reading from his report that he's claiming to read from a letter from 2011 that I haven't seen and is not part of his report [Music] I would suggest Mr Tarantino that you try to set some foundation for the existence of the letter how it came about where is it Etc and how it came to be part of the report I mean the it it's your your witness is going to have to it's his report well all of this is part of the public got to get closer to the mic sir all of this is part of the public record it's not part of the record to this application it is now no there's no letter I've yet to see a letter from January 28th 2011 I'm sorry when you received the copy of my report was were you curious about that letter and did you make any efforts to uh obtain a copy of the letter or you waited until we're here to bring that up are you acting as attorney answer to that question um the issue is if the witness would please try to indicate to the board because the reparte between all of you is wonderful but it's the board who's making the decision how you came into possession of the letter where you came into possession from the fact that it's a public document unless it's somewhere that that everyone had access to you got the access from somewhere so if you can please advise the board honestly I don't remember this was a long time ago I'm under the impression you got to get closer to the mic I'm under the impression that the various documents that I refer to were available through the planning board's websit I'm under that impression I didn't come and do any uh investigation in your archives uh at that time I I'm not even sure that the building was open because this was during covid so I think I went to the the to the website and I dug up these documents but I to be honest I can't say with 100% certainty that that was what I did but what I can say with 100% certainty is that if you like me to produce these documents I would be happy to do so good okay I mean thank you no this this is I think he saying you turn to me he's raised the objection let finish the objection the board will then have to deal with it this is a pro I'm not aware of this letter on Civic clerk in connection with this application I know there's a lot of stuff on it but I pour through it before all the meetings I'm not aware of this letter nor is it an exhibit that's part of his report part of his report uh in this issue of every meeting oh we'll submit it and then we're going to have to go through this all over again similar to the the the issue we just had with Mr gross he was told to have his witness here tonight and that we were going to address whether he was going to be allowed to testify let's just focus on the current objection but it's the same it's the same not the same you're objecting they should be ready to present everything tonight no let's focus on your objection of this report because it makes reference to a Township letter letter addressed to the township committee what's complete the objection it's referring to a letter that was sent to the township committee that hasn't been provided to the board hasn't been provided to me and he's using it as part of his testimony that's objection you shouldn't be allowed to um we're we're happy to provide happy to produce that letter I we're just hearing that objection tonight so we don't have it on hand but we certainly can provide it in uh in a matter of days I'm just going to make a general comment for to all objectors for future hearings because we know we're going into next year any reports that make reference make sure you have a copy of those documents are being referenced and submitted as part of the reports so we can get into soic clerk sure and to the and to the applicant well and to the the usual submitt it's going to be an attachment to to the report to be fair you have Snippets here that are not shown in context so that is you know this may have been stated but we don't know what the surrounding senses were before or after sure so it's in in all due respect that's kind of what we're providing and I think the ejector is providing we don't none of us were here in 2011 I was on Town committee no no no was I didn't read the letter in another error we were here Mr so so I Mr I have here the 2010 December 2010 master plan Amendment land use element which I'm guessing I downloaded from the planning board's website uh and in the back um in appendix D well there there are a number of appendices and this entire document deals with the the question at hand uh and in appendix D is a resolution of the Hillsboro Township planning board uh approving adoption of the master plan Amendment land use element December 2010 yeah but sir to follow up on the Chairman's comments the fact that a document at some point in time was approved by this body how many every year could have been last week could have been last year could have been 10 or more years ago it's got to be part of the application before the board in spite of the fact it's a public document in order for the board and the applicant and everybody else to take into consideration what the document is the mere fact that something's been adopted over the last fill-in-the blank years doesn't make it part of this record in this application and you don't get to subsume that any document ever approved by this board or the township committee is automatically included in any subsequent document without the backup so if you're going to produce the master plan Amendment if you're going to produce Mr Ringle heim's report because you're not gonna be able to produce Mr ringelheim um afraid not without a seance uh or any other document that you're planning on testifying to in regard to your report the same issue applies whether you were the applicant's plan or an objectives plan or anybody else so so it's it's going to be it it's not going to be a hard it's not a hard request and I understand uh uh Mr Lani the the need to see things in context it's perfectly fine it's part of the so we can absolutely um produce that in a matter of days and get it copies to anyone that's interested and put it in the docket so um I suggest I didn't make this stuff up let me just let me just be very clear I didn't make this stuff up this is all part of the official record and and and unfortunately no no one's stating you're making it up no no I I understand Mr chair everything needs to be fully documented it's uh it's an unusual Pro if I may it's a little bit of an unusual procedure because if I'm referring to the master plan I have to produce the master plan and introduce it into the record if I'm referring to a housing element I have to produce and introduce it and it seems a little laborious and I'm not used to uh I'm I'm not used to dealing with boards that follow this procedure if I had known that this was the adopted procedure we would have made sure that these documents were entered into the record two years ago but I was unaware I would disagree though that it's it's standard procedure if you're going to revert to a letter and quote the letter you got to produce the letter okay so um uh in um in your report um you talk about the that the tecd specifies that any development be at a scale and size appropriate for the district um as a professional planner and architect what do you see what do you see the term scale and size mean in this context well now did you take my little notes no I didn't be did you did you say as an architect yes I do have an architecture degree you was not qualified I'm not licensed to to to uh to uh practice architecture in New Jersey and I'm not representing that I am practicing architecture record I do have I do have a five-year architecture degree and so Mr Tarantino refer to me that way understood but you're not you want to object to I'm objecting because you were not you were not offered as an expert in architecture you weren't accepted as an expert in architecture you don't have a license okay as a professional planner what do you see as to see the term scale and size mean in this context okay so the building footprint very important the building height the building length the spatial relationship between buildings that sort of thing and considering that the frame of considering that the frame of reference for these buildings will be the single family housing located to the north and east um I would take that to mean that the desired scale and size of the buildings in the tecd district should not be such that they will overwhelm their neighbors so this is what the tecd district language is calling for it's not calling for buildings that are 700 feet long um what about uh what about miss cfone the uh planner uh retained by the applicant what about her assertion that simply meeting the bulk standards meets the definition of scale and size I I disagree I think that's a reductionist interpretation that does not take into account the stated intent for the district or or the the many many design standards adopted for the district I think and I to be honest haven't thoroughly researched this but I suspect that this this district has more design standards than any other District in in in Hillsboro because it went through this this this special gestation period um anyway the all of the design standards adopted for this District calls for a human scale environment that's respectful of pedestrians it's not the autod dependent truck oriented monolith depicted in this application thank you um as you know out yeah um as you know we uh a local Artisan has developed uh scale models for these buildings um that we'd like to introduce as a um uh as an exhibit um would you care to discuss them now I'm happy to tell me what to do I'm going to object before you even look put it on the record have has this been provided to the board and the applicant prior to tonight the exhibit yes no it's a physical it's a it's a a physical model it's being introduced as an exhibit as we speak did you prepare it me yeah I'm not a local Artisan I I'm asking did you prepare it no okay I haven't even seen them was it uh was was it time out there's there's an OB excuse me there's an objection on the record let the board handle it my my question is uh Mr Rodriguez did was it built to your specifications in accordance with the with the dimensions we we discussed in general terms uh yes we discussed in general terms what we what we wanted to see here and for what [Music] purpose I don't build models I'm not a a model maker objection they're trying toce introduce an exhibit that he did not prepare and he generally discussed with someone else that did prepare it I don't see how this can get introduced I'm going to ask the and I know the answer to this question do you have the person who created that present y I believe she is you know yes she's here and we have the specifications that she followed and uh Mr Rod Rodriguez has reviewed those specifications and is you know supportive of it I think she's going to have to come I think she's going to have to come to testify as to the model before he can even testify as to them to ensure that in fact those models meet the requirements folks you can't this is I I I've lost track of the number of times I've said it and the boards it this is a quasy Judicial situation you don't get to bring models on the night of the hearing and say we'd like to introduce this as an exhibit and you sat through this is the 18th hearing of this application you know what the rules are Brian it's not like this is a big surprise so if you're going to introduce models you're going to have to bring the model maker to testify as the models before your planner can testify as the models he has clearly indicated he didn't create he didn't make and he gave specifications to without understanding for the board how the models relate to the specifications so um other exhibits were not produced ahead of time which other exhibits were not produced ahead of time um many other you know presentations give me one um uh presentations that were were give me one Brian uh everybody's working under the same rules here okay nobody has that I'm aware of unless you'd like to produce an exhibit that shows that this board's rules regarding the presentation of exhibits and the time frame to review it has not been followed by some people but followed by others okay um I I'd be happy to i' happy to have our the builder of the of the model um testify I'm sure she why why don't you finish this planner's testimony and then we'll get to the model issue separate and apart if we get to that point at all he's produced two reports I'm assuming he's going to testify as to the two reports for the board to consider the rationale upon which he came to the conclusions in his report just like the applicant brought Miss Kone who I see has nothing to do tonight here tonight to be here so the same rules apply there are two reports okay so let's keep going yep um [Music] so um your report notes the inappropriateness of locating a large Warehouse on a narrow and Rural Road like Homestead um can you elaborate on this why is this location inappropriate for two giant warehouses because the appropriate infrastructure to support the proposed heavy industrial use is not in place and will likely never be in place you have limited rideway roads that may be appropriate for agricultural vehicles and low density residential uses but cannot handle the high-intensity industrial uses proposed here and I would think that both the New Jersey state Planning Commission the New Jersey do and Somerset counting engineering would all agree objection objection call objection call for speculation he can't speak for what the do or the county would say unless he's gone to them and had him opine on the issue in writing please please continue yeah um you also note uh you discuss in your report that the town originally planned to build a connector Road um as shown on page nine uh let me go to that we're still on the 21 report that's correct thank you uh as shown in this diagram if you guys if that can be seen um uh as you note that Connector Road was never built uh what does that what does that plan the the original plan to build the Connector Road what does that tell you well it tells me that there was a recognition back then that as this tecd District developed there could be the need to put in place infrastructure capable of providing relief from Industrial in other traffic on the local network understanding that what I believe was anticipated in the form of development in this District were buildings of a much much much smaller footprint than what is being proposed here so even though the nature the fabric of the development that was anticipated was much less intense than what is being proposed here still there was a recognition that perhaps we need to put in place this additional infrastructure and and what does it mean that the Connector Road was never built it means that you're dealing with the same uh Road system that was in place when the pilgrims uh were you know farming okay great um uh can you um can you share uh what the on page 17 let me go to that so um can you uh talk about what the tecd Zone requires regarding changes to topography and mature vegetation sure so the design standards adopted as part of the tecd district require uh what's known in planning as a designing with nature approach this is a publication that came out in the 1980s by a very famous uh Scottish landscape architect that taught at upen in the planning program and was also a partner in a major planning firm in in Philadelphia and what this approach means is that you try try to develop a site with minimal disruption to its topography to its vegetation and to other natural features that's why it's called designing with nature now this is much easier to accomplish with small footprint buildings and impossible to achieve with buildings with giant Footprints the size of Three City Blocks surrounded by giant parking lots the design approach exemplified in this application could be characterized as designing against nature okay and and specifically what does the tecd um I believe it's it's um F1 A1 State about uh topography and mature vegetation well it so the the clear intent of the district is that you to minimize these disturbances right and this site has lots of physical features now the applicant has not to my knowledge provided an estimate of how much Earth movement in the form of cut and fill it would take to build the two proposed buildings but one Telltale sign is the extent of the retaining walls required now I did this exercise based on the prior version of the site plan and I understand that the the latest version of the site plan has slightly less retaining walls um but I estimated on the basis of the prior version of the plan that there would be 6600 linear feet of retaining walls on this site that's a mile and a quarter that's a lot and that is sort of The Telltale sign if you need to put in place this much structures to make the site work for you then you are well first of all you're brutalizing the sites you're completely changing its features and you are not adhering to the requirements of the tecd district yeah and specifically um what what how is that how is this exacerbated by the fact that these are very very large Warehouse buildings well if you were dealing with any other building typ or most other building typologies you you could have large buildings uh on multiple levels right and warehouses don't work that way the the entire thing has to be on the same level at the same level so you have to you know brutalize the site to make it conform um one could argue that this for that reason alone that this site is not appropriate for for this use great thank you um your your report also uh discusses um ordinance uh 18875 C3 requ uh regarding the crossing of underground pipelines um would you kindly um read out what that uh what that section says the Hillsboro ordinance precludes the crossing of underground pipelines unless no other means of access is possible or permitted or the crossing of a pipeline is required to provide utility service to the property um has um has the applicants planner or or other professionals address this requirement in any of their reports or testimony not to my knowledge uh and um is there you know based on your review of the site plan do you see that there is a a an an alternate for routing of the of the one of the access roads for building two that would not cross the pipeline sure you could have one access road instead of two that would that would take care of it the same Access Road would have to give access to both buildings now they don't want to do that because they want to suby the property and sell the buildings to two separate owners but you could avoid a wetland Crossing by eliminating the second point of entrance but if you did need two roads which I because I believe it was a it was a um fire department uh request that there be two a requirement that there be two access roads do you would you you based on your review of the plan do you see a way for those that uh those that road to be routed so it doesn't cross the pipeline you would move it to the West I believe yes that's the the orientation right yeah I think [Music] so so you um so there's what you're saying is there's an obvious alternative to crossing the pipeline the pipelines and that there's a lack of any attempt by the applicant to demonstrate the need for any encroachment um let's assume that there are no other problems with the application would this one requirement be enough to deny the application that's up to this board in your opinion it might it could I mean they're clearly disrespecting the a section of the ordinance they haven't even asked for permission to do so it's just this is the way we want it this is the way it's going to be well I disagree um on thank you on page 18 um uh you uh you discuss um the issue of the application being for a truck terminal um and your report addresses uh the prohibition on truck Terminals and Depots um what what elements of the truck terminal definition at [Music] a long-term storage because you don't you're not going to be moving the tandem parking trailers every 10 minutes right so and then the likely presence indoors of the famous Comfort facilities which obviously in the absence of any floor plans we can't independently verify but their expert witness testified that there would be Comfort facilities um and just back on the parking uh the the truck parking the extensive truck parking um you know the the latest revision to the plan appears that they've reduced some of they got rid of the tandem parking spaces and they've reduced the number of parking spaces for building two there still are 75 parking spaces for building one would that still raise a concern for you in terms of it being a truck terminal I think it does I I don't know how else to interpret it okay for the purposes of the record Mr Tarantino changes in the proposed plans are not yet officially before the board so you need to be aware of the fact that testimony regarding it is not appropriate at this point so we'll just ignore the the the latest version you'll have to deal with it at the appropriate time introduced it has not yet been introduced sure but either way we're saying that the you're what I understood you're saying the um the any the the 75 parking spaces for building one would also indicate a truck terminal for you it would okay um so given that a portion of the development plan meets the ordinance's definition of the truck terminal would this be an appropriate plan uh anywhere in Hillsboro it would not and why is that because it's not a permitted use anywhere in Hillsboro anywhere in Hillsboro even before this application was filed okay uh on page 20 you uh you discuss um so your report notes that no noise Hazard study was conducted nor a noise expert provided to testify how big of an issue is noise from a 247 Warehouse adjacent to a residential neighborhood it can be huge depending upon the configuration of the buildings and the loading docks relative to the residential neighbors and also whether there are pallet breakdown operations carried out outside it can be very very serious I've seen more than one case where warehouses have to build sound barriers to contain the noise most Warehouse applications that I'm involved with and I'm involved with more than you can check a stick at you have a noise expert testifying frequently on both sides but in the absence of a noise study it's impossible to know for sure until it's too late and and what noise mitigations um did you see in the plans for the two warehouses I I didn't see anything and the loading docks of Warehouse one face directly towards the residential neighbors to the north and east so they're directly exposed okay um your report um discusses generally um and I think you've shared some on that tonight um but maybe maybe speak more generally about meeting the intent and spirit of the tecd Zone um how does this proposal meet or not meet the tecd intent and I think your report was talking about um sidewalks and bicycle lanes and um interconnected uh interconnected Pathways um so maybe you could just just uh talk in general about those sure so the intent of the tecd zone and of the numerous designs standards that it contains is to create a relatively smallscale granular development pattern that respects human scale encourages pedestrian activity respects the natural features of the land and contains a variety of uses that's very clear that's all in the intent now this proposal makes no attempt at addressing any any of those concerns the two buildings on stair steroids are surrounded by parking lot objection he he keeps using this flammatory Ward warehouses on steroids and complete disrespect I mean if he has an opinion expert opinion give an expert opinion but keep using inflammatory words uh like vulgar or you know everything else he's saying he can keep it to his expert planning [Music] testimony so we we're going to strike the steroids from the record we're not striking we're not striking anything from the record the application is the objection is noted let's try to keep this relative to expert testimony I I think that if you think about it two buildings on 80 acres two buildings on 80 acres that's the scale of what we're dealing with here that is the diametrically opposed to what the T what both the master plan and the Tec zoning call for um diametrically opposed 100% 180 degrees so uh your your report States unequivocally that the application should be denied um in summary what are the main reasons as a professional planner that this development should be not approved well this application in in the proposed location in my opinion is a textbook example of very very bad land use planning the intensity of the proposed uses will completely overwhelm the surrounding infrastructure and the surrounding land use pattern both the applicant seems to think that because the use is permitted or was permitted at the time of filing that that's all that matters it's not it's not in my report I explain why focusing just on the use is insufficient and inappropriate the tecd district allows a wide variety of other uses including child care and adult care centers medical offices and others these uses might be compatible with warehouses with a 50,000 SQ foot footprint but they're clearly not compatible with the warehouse with a 370,000 square foot foot so um let's do some additional parsing on the intent behind the tecd district first the transitional aspect indicates an intent to provide an an ordered transition between more intense industrial uses and surrounding residential uses and that intent is clearly foiled when the more intense industrial use is brought to the very doorstep of the residential uses and second there is the economic development aspect now warehouses of this type may be confused for economic development in Appalachia in other parts of the country but in Somerset County New Jersey you have to understand these warehouses are the sweat shops of the 21st century they operate non-stop they have terrible working conditions frequently no climate control OB employ a minimum wage poorly educated labor force objection again inammatory language he has no expert he's a planner he's not no experties on warehouses if he has some political issue with warehouses and minimum wage jobs that's his issue but it's not a planning board issue or a planning issue is a warehouse not a land use isn't land use the province of [Music] planning I'm not really sure what you're objecting to I'm almost done by the way so if you object less we'll move along faster I was just going to all right Mr Rodriguez what happened what happened to like the uh you know har and being respectful I will take care of Mr Rodriguez stick to the facts Bland language is preferred that's the message I was going to refer to a May and I understand that this has not been introduced into evidence and we'll make sure that it is a May 2024 study of working conditions in large warehouses Nationwide conducted by the University of Illinois Mr Rodriguez has it been provided to the board and the applicant prior to tonight it was referred to in my it's referred to in my report I don't think it's been provided to the the report that's not in evidence at this point because the report you're the only report in evidence that you have is the one from 2021 so if no no no this is revised August so the I was maybe I misunderstood there were two reports did I not hear at that so what he did was he his first first the second one so there's only one report there's only one report one's from from 2023 and this one is from August 2024 it's it's the same thing he just under where the changes are this is the report for the 2024 thank you again it's referred to the same issue as before no no he I have an objection I understand you have an objection it's the same issue okay which you have an objection to from earlier that the board has the same issue with which is if you're going to refer to a document that you want the board to consider as part of its deliberation When It ultimately gets to that point the board has to have the document we will produce the report so until you produce the report you can't testify about the report he's not coming back to testify when he's done he's done he's not they're not coming back for another bite at the Apple to present again on stuff they failed to bring well I am you you were stick to where we were and not telling the board when it can and cannot hear a witness again so let's stick with where we are the stick with what we are is the board has indicated that if Mr Rodriguez wants to testify as to items related to documents not in the possession of the board of the applicant he's going to have to produce the documents and come back again Force same that will be up to Mr Tarantino if he wishes to recall him and he may Reserve that right to recall him regarding those issues so let's try to move [Music] on um so let's just uh close with um uh Mr Rodriquez can you go I would just like you to highlight the one comment you just made with regard to transition um and and can you can you highlight can you can you expound a little bit more on the transition the that the intent of the tecd is transition between light industrial and residential correct and the transition uh implies that there's a gradation right so you're going from this over here to this over here they're different and somehow you're there's there's a gradation there's a now what is being proposed here is not a gradation what's being proposed here is something that is completely different from what's at either end right you're going from single family homes that have 2500 square feet and then you've got a 370,000 foot building where's the transition that's an AB an abrupt it's an Abrupt transition okay thank you um that's all that's all we had uh for direct testimony objectors objectors first okay objectors any cross-examination nope jet your witness thank you if the board professionals have their questions they'll ask them after [Music] you referred a lot in your testimony just now about uh the intent of the zone or really you're referring to the purpose section of this Zone correct correct and but you also stated that this Zone probably has the most standards design standards zoning standards of any Zone in the town is that also correct yes I mean that is a bit of speculation on my part but but it has a lot of standards and regulations within it it's unusual it's unusual to have this these many standards and to with the specificity that you find in essentially what's a business part kind of an environment so Mr ringelheim obviously took that very seriously he must have been reading please let's not talk about other individuals letters or their you ask the question he's answering he's not answering the question I asked if there's a lot of regulations and now he's talking about Mr ringheim is there a lot of Regulation it was his original testimony he is answering your question no he's not answer the question as they're proposed it was your testimony that this Zone has a lot of regulations in it design standards yes are you aware of any planning principle or legal principle in the connection with land use uh that's States effectively uh you shouldn't consider the purpose a stated purpose of a Zone when there are clear defined standards within that zone I'm sorry you got me there are you aware of any planning or legal principle related to land use when dealing with the zone that you do not look at the purpose of the Zone when the Zone has clear standards outlined in that zone no I think the I think the standards are there to implement the purpose to make it actionable so if you comply with those standards you're fulfilling that purpose presumably and the town was pretty deliberate with its standards uh in fact you noted that they they made reference to the fact that being a transitional Zone uh there should be an enhanced buffer when you uh above a residential Zone isn't that true that's a pretty standard but yes that's true and in this case they actually have a specific standard in this Zone that has a 20 foot minimum uh setback or rear setback but it increases to 100 feet objection this is a statement not a question I said isn't it true no you well let me get to the end and then you'll hear it isn't it true that the town the Zone has a minimum setback of 20 feet but it increases to 100 ft when you abut a residential Zone I I'm I believe so I I I didn't memorize all of the standards but that makes sense that they would require a a deeper separation and so clearly in adopting the zoning they felt increasing it to a 100t setback for residential would be an appropriate buffer for the types of buildings that they were anticipating not for the typ of buildings that are propos finish the answer very different but Mr let me finish the answer you finished sir are you aware of what but um the setback is for warehouse number one to its property line not even to the residences to the property line I don't remember what if I told you on the plan it's 375 ft would you consider that a significant setback if you say so would you that's a significant setback and what about another portion of the building uh being several hundred ft from the rear property line would you consider that significant it's better than nothing and it's better than the 100 ft required in the zone isn't it the 100 feet as I've stated more than once anticipated buildings that were a fraction of the footprint of what you're proposing here well let's so let's delve into that then that setback makes sense if you have a building with a 10,000 foot square foot footprint it does doesn't make sense if you have a building with 370,000 square ft so in in your zone or in your report and even now this evening in the report you use the term modest and that the Zone anticipated a modest size development where in the ordinance does it say that the minimum lot size is 5 acres is is for every use and this and this is zone for every every use yes are you aware there's another standard for uh industrial parks in this Zone another standard for industrial parks that industrial parks are PR permitted conditional use are you aware of that in this Zone I I believe so it allows for all sorts of things and it it is a transitional Economic Development zone so it would make sense that back in the day uh industrial parks would have been U permitted but then again industrial parks back in the day and the warehouses that are being proposed here are completely different animals do you know what the minimum lot size or track size is for industrial park in this Zone I don't remember I'm going to read from ordinance 18817 point2 Tec transitional Economic Development Zone B9 for industrial or Office Park this is a Zone it's not a report and please no comments from the audience minimum track area 20 acres okay that's bigger than five acres isn't it but smaller than 80 they they anticipated you could build an industrial park with a minimum loss size of 20 acres isn't that correct well or were you aware that antip me answer the question what they anticipated was that you would take 20 acres and you would carve it up into a you know smaller areas you would have multiple much smaller buildings that would either be sold individually or conduis or whatever you're you're getting this all from he was done whatever give him a chance he didn't even take a breath come on Mr Rodriguez do you finished I did okay all that it seemed like you finished let's have a you know give everyone app pause so you you got all of that what you just stated from two lines in the purpose of the [Music] zone I'm sorry can you repeat that everything you just testified to about what you believe the town envisioned that they didn't want or they anticipating it being brok out into smaller Lots um you glean that just from those two lines of the purpose of the zone no no no there's there's extensive discussion of that and they you have all the design standards that are associated with the Zone which all lead to the same conclusion it's not those two lines well we comply with those design standards right we comply and the Zone again if you do the forensic on how the town reached the The Zone the resoning and what they did prior you you understand you know what they were looking to achieve but you have to do the forensics all right so you so you testified that they anticipated it would be broken out into smaller lots to have I guess smaller buildings but I'm reading from page eight in your report uh where you talked about kind of what the uh the purpose was for this Zone and it says create larger minimum lot sizes than the LI District to decrease the potential buildout intensity so in fact weren't they actually looking to do the opposite of what you claim the intent was I I don't think [Music] so uh now again you refer to uh in your report about um based upon your review of the purpose that they intended modest siiz buildings isn't that true that how you refer to it that is true and that that was their intent that's accurate but you also testified that they have a lot of specific standards in this Zone correct they do from a planning perspective aren't there means for towns if they want to control the size of a building aren't there means to control that there are is floor area ratios one could be yeah building coverage could be another could be did they include a FL Ratio or building coverage standard in this Zone they did not and so that's why I in my report I gently uh point out that the zoning is flawed because it's well-intentioned but it doesn't have the guide rails or the guide posts that would prevent uh this type of development application for example in other words you have minimums but you don't have maximums right you don't establish a range because you think that you don't need to because you think that what you've seen and what's likely to come is all of a modest size suddenly the the industrial uh real estate has metastasized and has gone from 10,000 square feet warehouses to a million thousand square feet warehouses which happened fairly recently and certainly after all of this took place well they didn't anticipate that did not anticipate that so I'm looking at here right now uh which is attachment three of the burrow zoning ordinance have you seen this it's the zoning chart for the town I'll show it to you I'm sure I've seen it yeah it's the table of bulk standards and in that bulk standards I count 1 2 3 4 five 6 7 eight nine zones that have floor area ratio and building coverage standards so the town is aware there is a means to control it because they have used it in other zones for sure but bear in mind that that's that's all my question was uhuh on page 10 of your report you suggest the planning board should quote feel free to impose its own upper limits with respect to laot area are you aware of anything in the municipal land use law uh that or are you familiar with the Cox book Cox on planning I have it in my briefcase if you'd like the 2024 Edition what are you aware of anything what page page page 10 of your [Music] report Mr Taran third suggest you might want to put the report back up on the screen sure page 10 of the report third paragraph why don't we wait a second why don't we wait a second Mr [Music] gianetti so what's the question he ask me to wait all right that was big which paragraph you page 10 uh third paragraph stting last basically the last line uh the planning board should feel free to impose its own upper limits uh when referring to uh the lot area and building size why don't we read the entire sentence for the record if the intent of the te the planning board should resist if the intent of the tecd zone is if the intent of the Tec tecd zoning is to facilitate the creation of a modest scale Business Park environment that we established nowhere do they use the word modest uh then the planning board should feel free to impose its own upper limits and reject any oversiz development proposal that is not consistent with the intent or intent for the zone are you aware of any thing in the municipal land use law or in the Cox books that says a planning board can deny an application based upon its own standard that is not in the zoning ordinance uh well no this this is in the zoning ordinance it is in the zoning ordinance it wouldn't be something that the planning board would be making up on on the Fly uh they would be enforcing the intent of the zoning ordinance not the int I'm referring to standard excuse me he's not finished with this I'm not I'm not aware of anything in either in the municipal Landy law or in the Cox book that would prevent a planning board from taking that position so so for instance uh it says minimum lot area 5 acres and you comply with it right in this instance we comply with it you do it's your opinion the board can deny it because they're saying well the lots are too big which allows you to to build too big a warehouse that's right even though there's no FL area ratio that's exactly I'm saying that's exactly what I'm saying and what's more just to finish up it's been done it's been done now we established they don't have uh a building coverage standard they don't have a floor area ratio standard and and that deals with intent intensity of development uh but they do have a maximum impervious coverage standard don't they I I believe so yes I mean you're giving planning testimony in connection with this project in the zone are you familiar enough with the Zone if there is a maximum impervious coverage standard I read the zoning when I wrote my reports yes I didn't memorize all the standards in there so I mean did you look at it in refer me back to the to the zoning I well did you look at it in junee of 2023 or did you look at it in August of 2024 I looked at it probably both times do you have the zoning ordinance in front of you I don't so as we stand here now you do not know uh if there's an impervious coverage standard actually I it turns out Mr Tarantino has the but isn't that a relevant issue with respect to intensity of development wouldn't a planner want to know that standard the what standard are you referring to but I'm saying as a planner wouldn't you want to know that standard if you're testifying as to intensity of [Music] [Music] development I can help you it's 60% is the impervious coverage you see that I see that yes do you know what we're proposing for imp impervious coverage it doesn't matter it doesn't matter it doesn't matter so the 60% applied to a lot of 5 acres is going to give you a very different outcome than the 60% applied to a lot of 80 acres 80 acres so wait time out the stand at minimum lot area 5 Acres it didn't say you have to have a lot area of five acres that's not correct it's a minimum lot size yes it's a minimum so you can have more right just like it said a minimum setback of 100 ft we have 367 ft is it your opinion we're too far back we should be closer because the minimum is 100 ft it's that is not my opinion no bear in mind that the bulk standards in for this zone are were established independently of the uses right the OB objection therey to that you cannot testify to that how they determined the the standards and it was independent of use well they specifically outline the permitted uses the permitted there there's a wide variety of permitted uses but the bulk standards don't vary depending upon the use do they so okay I'm just just pause Michael do you need a break we're about an hour and a half in well I think we're almost over here take a break all right so we'll take about 10-minute break we'll reconvene at 8:50 according to the back clock okay we're back in session Mr janetti I think we cut you off at your next [Music] question [Music] yeah [Music] actually okay [Music] um I'll use this in a minute um I just wanted it ready so we were discussing um the fact that the Zone has a minimum lot size uh in the zone that we conformed to and they also have a five acres correct correct and uh a minimum lot size of 15 acres for industrial parks and it was we were talking about the comment in your report where you said that based in so many words the board should feel free to impose their own upper limit but there's no standard for an upper limit in the zone how did it not currently so you should oh sorry how do they determine I mean 15 acres is already in for an industrial park how do you determine what the upper limit is 20 acres appropriate for a minimum lot area 30 Acres I you're asking me I'm not the board planner well you're the one who this is the planning board the planning board works with their planner they reach a consensus on what it is that they're trying to create it's not an arbitrary number it it it's directly keyed to the fabric of what they want to see happen there so it's your testimony the board can just create their own uh upper limit lot size standard that they want they're the planning board do you know the role of the planning board I'm sure you're going to educate me do they not uh author the master plan does the master plan not serve as the foundation for the zoning I think planning boards have plenty of [Music] authority let's talk about you mentioned uh at one point in your testimony that you've been involved in a lot of these Warehouse applications is that as an objector planner that's correct uh have you ever provided planning testimony on behalf of a warehouse application you mean on behalf of the applicant or a developer have you have you ever worked with a developer from a planning perspective on designing a warehouse I have not uh have you ever been engaged by a warehouse operator uh with respect to planning testimony no have you ever or worked at a [Music] warehouse I have not so your involvement hasn't been in designing uh and uh laying out warehouses it's been providing objection planning testimony against Warehouse applications correct against ill-advised Warehouse applications yes uh you you referred in the report [Music] uh you refer to this as an oversized Warehouse uh no I I'll skip that [Music] [Music] question you with respect to the uh some of the design waivers and I I'll bring up uh the exhibit I have up right [Music] now this is A4 that I have up which is a color rendering of the site plan before it was updated uh most recently and we talked about um the design waiver uh for crossing the uh Texas Eastern pipeline you recall that testimony I do uh and you stated and correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you stated uh when Mr Tarantino was talking about any relief uh or or justifications for you indicated we didn't provide any justifications and it's because we want two warehouses was that your testimony you want to be able to subdivide and sell them individually that would be one motivation so can you highlight on the plan where uh the design waiver is for crossing the Texas pipeline it's the the building to the West I I don't remember Warehouse 2 Warehouse 2 the um driveway that is the furthest from the western edge of the property so there are two driveway right one one is runs relatively parallel to the property line and then the other one to the east that's the one that crosses over the the the pipeline and you aware there's already an access road where that road is shown Crossing that pipeline to the back of the property I'm not aware of that no did you hear the testimony of uh Mr Ford that that was one of the justifications for uh the waiver I I wasn't here for Mr Ford's testimony I've only been here the last uh three meetings are you aware that there's transcripts on Civic Clerk and that there's YouTube videos that you can also watch so you didn't you haven't seen everything then you've only been you just from when you started attending that's what you're aware of no um that's not exclusively what I'm aware of with respect testimony I didn't go to a site uh walk if that's what you're asking me my clients drove me around and pointed out various features but I didn't go trespass on the property I'm not asking about the property but you just stated when I said do you recall Mr Ford's testimony and it was I didn't hear it I wasn't there because I've only been coming to the last few meetings that was your testimony well then how can you say our Witnesses didn't provide any justification when you didn't hear any of their testimony because my clients provided me so they told you they didn't provide it no they've been here at every hearing and they told you our Witnesses didn't provide justifications so that's the basis for your expert planning testimony that we didn't meet the justifications because they told you that you didn't ask for a waiver from that specific provision did you well again if you were here for all the meetings yes we've noticed for it and we provided engineering testimony for it and we provided planning testimony for it from Miss cfone were you here for that did you did you listen to that it's not true I did not I stand corrected perhaps that's objection that's that's that's not factual no no it's not factual it's a you're making an assertion that's not factual I didn't make any assertion he he made the assertion you might not like what he saying but he said it you your your your uh your question included uh a non-factual uh piece of information that that the applicant has applied for um a waiver from the pipeline Crossing ordinance and it has not I'm sorry did did well I'll let that go I mean he's saying it's not factual so I guess he didn't hear Mr Ford's testimony as to the Texas pipeline waiver or Miss kon's testimony as to the pipeline waiver the record will reflect the testimony and what was advised to the board let's move on so I guess that means then you weren't here for the architect's testimony either correct that is [Music] correct so in your report where you talk about the fact that we didn't provide any information as to operations or projected employees uh you make that statement without actually hearing the architect architect's testimony on that is that your testimony this evening I didn't hear the architect's testimony that's correct I I guess I I still get confused because in your report your basis for saying we are a truck terminal is because you said our architect testified there would be Comfort facilities how could you make that statement you didn't hear it not the architect it was the operation same guy same guy yeah um please no coaching the witness no but I think that was a clarification you you I should have actually St architect operations manager or expert so you may have confused the witness that that's fine but if he didn't hear the architect testify then he didn't hear the operations person testify either because they're the same person multiple personalities perhaps I wasn't here for the testimony of the the uh operation architect person so there's really then no foundation for your testimony that we didn't provide any testimony on it um well again then with respect to objection that's a statement not a question you state in your report and you stated here tonight and you specifically referred to him now you stated we didn't submit floor plans have you reviewed the architectural plans for this application I have you also stated uh and this is page 18 of your report [Music] you stated Mr valenza the applicant's operations expert who is also the architect provided direct testimony in SE September 7th 2023 that such facilities referring to comfort facilities would be provided for truck drivers so if you didn't hear him testify how can you and you didn't watch the tapes and you didn't watch the transcript how can you make that statement and testify tonight that he didn't testify as to it I'm I'm relying on my clients who were who've been here for every meeting well let me ask you this very very very careful notes so with all your testimony tonight that we've heard how much of it was given to you by your client not much [Music] so I'm going to read from the transcript and this is Page 96 um what date I'm sorry the September September 7 testimony or are you asking a question I'm going to read the trans cript then I'm going to ask him a question the September 7th 2023 [Music] transcript uh page 96 starting at line 15 and this is Mr Tarantino asking a question of Mr valenza so you testify that there would be typically be for truck drivers a break room and couches in a restroom answer yes then Mr Tarantino ask okay and would you characterize those as comfort facilities answer no it's a place to sit while trucks getting unloaded so did you hear that did you read or hear that testimony at any part in preparation for this evening didn't hear the testimony I I may have read it I may have read it but honestly I I don't remember [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] sh [Music] [Music] you made a comment this evening but a little more derogatory but it was in your report as well that referring to the fact that warehouses would be minimum wage jobs uh as opposed to entrepreneurial opportunities from your report um and higher paying knowledge-based jobs do you think it's the role of the planning board to determine an appropriate use based upon the wages earned by the people working at the [Music] building it's an economic development Zone warehouses are not Economic Development they're not they're not you you referred to the state Planning Commission report uh on warehouses doesn't it talk about how vital warehouses are to the economy in the appropriate places okay like where it's zoned no okay not [Music] necessarily I have nothing further thank you Mr [Music] Mayu thank you Mr chairman [Music] [Applause] Mr Rodriguez you've um talked about in your report um item 188 107.2 B which is from the transitional Economic Development District ordinance um I'm quoting a section from the ordinance which has been quoted tonight or what section U I just want to look at it sure 188 107.2 b [Music] m um so Mr Rodriguez we've heard from you discussed that in your opinion the scale and size of the two warehouses are not appropriate for the district can you help the board better understand in your opinion what would be an appropriate size I would say up to 50,000 Square fet um and to further help the board H how do you come to that number because that is a footprint that uh first of all you can locate on a site with this type of of features uh much more easily and without the need for you know all the cut and fill and the retaining walls and etc etc etc you can work with a 50,000 SQ foot footprint and much more easily place it on the site in a way that doesn't damage the underlying uh natural features um and also that's a that's a pedestrian scale um building footprint um you can you can organize um the outdoor realm in a way that facilitates pedestrian movement um you can have frequent interconnections whether you've organized the the uh site uh in a block structure or a modified block structure or some other form of spatial organization you can you can achieve much more easily a pedestrian scale environment you can't do that with buildings of this size it's just physically not possible um in in arriving at the in your opinion the appropriate scal building of approximately 50,000 Square fet I just heard you mention addressing the site topography and I believe I've heard you earlier discuss one of the ordinance requirements about topography um I'll refer to um 188 d17.1 excuse me [Music] item f one a yes one and um I think it's already been quoted that that section States buildings and site improvements shall be designed to minimize changes to existing topography and mature vegetation um to help the board understand what in your opinion what would it mean to minimize changes again you're designing with the land not against it you are you are designing placing the building designing the building in a way that requires the least amount of cut and fill uh doesn't require retaining walls none of that stuff right if you continue to read that section further down number two the primary entrance of each building should shall accommodate pedestrian access from the streets from the streets not the driveway not the parking lot from the streets as well as from the parking lots and then number three secondary and public secondary public entrances if provided shall be designed in a manner consistent with primary entrances if visible from public streets or parking lots so there's a series we don't need to belabor this but there's a series of standards in this ordinance that are calling for a particular type of fabric um that is a much more um modest scale than what is being proposed here otherwise these pedestrian amenities would make absolutely no sense nobody's going to walk on that site to go where right you have to have a variety and coupling coupling that with the variety of uses that are permitted in the zone research and product development Labs uh offices and including medical computer centers um child care and adult daycare centers I mean these are uses that don't require 380,000 SQ foot footprint buildings right these are uses that fit in modes size uh Footprints I think the inclusion of warehousing uh can be explained because at the time they were anticipating warehouses of a similar scale otherwise why would they have grouped warehouses child object aside from aside from calling for speculation again as to the intent of the town it's in no way answering the question of Mr Mayu he asked him about what do it meant for uh designing to minimize changes to existing topography mature vegetation I think I I think answered it in the beginning and then we went off I do want to State thank you Mr gned I want to stay focused on F1 A1 and I think I heard you say Mr Rodriguez that minimizing changes to theography would mean not utilizing retaining walls um there's certainly a difference between zero retain zero retaining walls in walls that are in this particular case I believe there's significant amount of walls that are 9 10 15t tall on this site do you recall that I could not from the plans that I examined I could not uh identify how tall those retaining walls were okay well you know during the review of the plans by our office we've identified sections of walls um that are 9 10 15 ft tall okay that's those are tall some tall retaining walls so to help the board you know at what point in your opinion is a wall significant and and is no longer um working with topography would that be a 3 foot or 4 foot high wall or is it does the breaking point once a Wall's 8 9 10 ft tall 10 ft tall retaining wall you're building on a slope in Hong Kong you can't justify it here um in your work as a professional planner have you noticed in certain townships and municipalities within New Jersey that some municipalities limit the height of a wall allowed are you familiar with that I I honestly am not but um I could see that being a case maybe in the Palisades or you know in that part of the the state but I I don't have a personal experience of of that so when you arrive at a conclusion that this is U not a minimal change you're basing it on and I'm asking you a question are you're basing this on the height of the walls proposed and the length of walls proposed well the height of the walls I didn't know until you mentioned it so it was not on the height it's on the length I mean 1 Point 25 miles of retaining wall really to me that is the red light if you didn't need any other red light that would be the red light that would that screaming wait a minute this this this site is is being devastated um I'd like to return to another section in within 107.2 and that is uh item a uh the purpose uh and as it's already been quoted I think a couple times this evening the purpose was to um generate development between the high-intensity light industrial which as we know is to the west and um existing nearby residential development which is towards the east in your opinion if you were providing in transition would that mean the buildings within the tcd should fall somewhere smaller than the buildings that are existing and proposed within the light industrial district I'm going to object to this line of questioning I mean it's clear Mr Mayu has an opinion about this and when the time comes he can give his opinion about it but to try and Lead their witness through it I think is inappropriate he can I'm expect we'll get another review letter on this and he can raise these issues in the review letter but to lead this witness down the path trying to get an opinion about the impact of retaining walls when the witness already testified that he didn't know about the height or the length of the witness of the retaining walls it's not appropriate the the question was about um was about transition and that is addressed in his report so I think it's an appropriate question for uh for Mr Rodriguez to answer if he wants to ask him about his opinions in his report fine but leading him to a conclusion is not Mr May will have an opportunity to give his opinion when the time comes about if I rephrase when someone is when a development is transitioning from what from area a to area C what Mr Rodriguez would you look for what type of things would change as you move from a to c well if a is the industrial park and C is the single family residential neighborhood I would be looking for something obviously in between so less intense than the industrial park more intense than the single families but um organized in in a way that um suggests that you're going through a transition right and if you look at the other uses that are permitted in this Zone child care centers I mean you have to design an environment that accommodates and is sympathetic to those types of uses um having a child care center close to a residential area is excellent less less distance for the parents to go drop their kids off right um so I don't want to focus on other uses I mean there there's a list of uses allowed so what I'm just trying to ask is if you were trying to transition from a which is industrial Light industrial to C residential is the size of the structures one of the items you would gauge whether it's transitioning yes definitely [Music] um one of the B can are items required to address on the site is Park uh loading um and I'm not sure you have a copy of but would you'd be surprised if I told you that for warehouse number one the zoning requires 12 loading docks I'm going again this is out he there's this number is on I believe it's on Van C plans it is but it's not in his report he's not testified to anything about loading docks I don't know why you're asking him a question about that yes he did it goes to he talks to he talks in the reporting not the number not the number of loading docks yes he does it's in it's in his report what page Mr [Music] Tarantino it's in section where describe at the beginning right [Music] well I see the word loading doc on page 16 you mean when he's just factually stating that there's a loading dock he's listing the amount of loading docks yeah he's not he's not opining on it he's just stating a fact yeah well if I need to I'll I'll I'll rephrase it I've already heard discussion and I believe Mr janetti you brought up the term intensity of use for the site and that's why I want to talk about the number loading docks because I believe that is a metric of the intensity of plant use um and as shown on the site planes by Van CLE the warehouse number one which is 370,000 squ ft requires 12 Loading Docks but in fact there's room for 133 trucks to be parked on that site which if you agree with my math that's 11 times the ordinance and your opinion is that therefore more intense and a more intense use than what was projected for the ordinance I'm I'm going to obure mischaracterization similar there's a minimum standard you can't say what was projected by the ordinance they said if you want a warehouse you have to have at least X number of docks not but you can't have more than this because that's too intense nowhere in the ordinance doesn't say it no but he's inferring that's what it was I think we should let Mr Rodriguez answer the question this this is inappropriate Mr Mayu has opinions he can give them when the time comes but to try and get it through this witness who didn't testify to and didn't address his report is highly inappropriate the number of loading docks is and parking spaces is noted in his report on page 16 stop trying to play the games Mr Tarantino just because he refers to it as a fact he doesn't give any opinion about the loading docks and intensity of use he how about I reward this as a planner in your [Music] opinion would a project with 11 more more 11 times the amount of required loading docks potentially produce a more intensive use oh undoubtedly thank you that's all I have Mr chairman Mr Co thank you Mr chairman good evening Mr Rodriguez in section 188 107.2 of the tcd and uh B permitted uses um actually pardon me in uh section A under the purpose says the purpose of the tecd transitional Economic Development district is to provide transitional employment generating development between the high-intensity light industrial and corporate development districts and the existing nearby residential development my question for you in this purpose it is St stating that the light industrial Zone and the corporate development zone are high intensity that's what it seems to say in in your professional opinion is this proposed development more intense than what the lii or the cdz allows oh exponentially [Music] thank you board members I also have some followup questions when you're done Mr Rodriguez um focusing on intensity and your in your defense of your planning report is your professional opinion intensity based on the size of the project pre of all other factors how it fits into the property or the proposed use of the project upon all factors or how do you marry the two together so I and looking at this for example you take a building of the same size that is I'm just going to throw a use out that's one big giant daycare you know with inside but it's the same size building is that include intensity or is it based on the application how do you define intensity that's a good question um get close the mic um and and bear in mind that it's it's it's a it's a relative thing right so um a facility of a certain size might be too intense in a certain location and not be too intense in a different location so it's it's relative um I mean how big can a child care center gets um or or another use I mean so you're focusing and just to be clear I mean that seems to be big Crux your of your is the size of the building is too intense for the for the transition between the high light industrial or so and the residential right so the and obviously the scope of the project is creating the need for all the retaining walls and everything else that you've that you've brought up as far as changing the Topography of the land so that's why I'm asking is the site specific um more of the intensity that you're describing in your professional opinion or the the use the I I think the intent here and it's articulated in um the purpose is to go from is to have a gradient where you start with the business Parks um you would go through this transitional area and you end up in the single family neighborhoods so this area would be somewhere in between and I don't know exactly what that proportion would be but because I haven't studied uh you know I haven't thought this through um that far uh that's not my mission but um if I were to if you were to come to me and ask me to interpret and develop standards that operationalize this purpose then I would have to go investigate those business Parks I don't need to investigate the single family residential because you know they 2500 3,000 square feet I don't know what the lot sizes are but I'd have to go investigate the business parks and then come up with something that is in fact the transition that's in between this is not in between this I mean it's physically located in between but it has nothing to do with either end of that Spectrum okay and and correct me if I've if I've not seen this but you didn't address and I'm going to say that you know the orientation of the of the buildings and where the truck bays are located on the side closest to the the residential side in your professional opinion is you think that is sound planning as far as a development of a of a project no absolutely not okay that's all thank you any other members I just wanted to clarify one thing um you said it's definitely not something that's in between but yet you said you don't know what the other uses are of the properties adjoining in the LI so I'm just curious how you on the other side of the railroad RightWay that business park over there yes the recit Biser and uh other businesses that are in there I didn't go there when I did my site inspection with the clients because I didn't think to go there but I I did look at it quite carefully on uh you know aerial photos and so I I have a a sense of of the fabric and it's like a 1960s business park right where the build things are relatively modest scale and they have businesses that um don't need to grow a whole lot and um it's a business it's a business uh model that was popular in that in that period of time and known as commonly known as the business park so and business Parks can have all sorts of uses um fabrication uh coffee roasting printing you name it right right it's a diversity of uses so but I I didn't go there to inspect that okay I was just following up by Mr lean's Question of how do you know if it's in between or not in between and you had stated definitely wasn't uh a transition based on that but you don't know what the businesses are to the West I don't know what the businesses are to the west but I know that the building Footprints are a tiny fraction of what you see here M okay um and I know that the ordinance calls for a transition so even those buildings to the West which are a tiny fraction of what you see here were deemed too intense for proximity to the residential and so they were looking for something in between and that would explain why the the other uses that are permitted right child care centers that kind of thing adult dayare centers right again following up by Mr leani about the intensity compared to say again a giant Child Care Center or let's say it was a indoor Recreation or something to that effect so I'm sorry what's the question the question is is it the size matter or does the intensity matter well the intensity uh to a certain extent to a great extent is relative to the size right if you have a 10,000 foot warehous you've got two people working there and a Truck comes every once in a while you have 380,000 sare foot Warehouse you've got hundreds of people working there and trucks coming in all the time so the intensity is a function of the size then it's also a function or can be a function of the use um okay that's the answer to your question then thank [Music] you okay Mr shanet go ahead sure I guess along those lines um you know we keep focusing on a the purpose but after stating the purpose they gave a bunch of Standards the town and included an industrial park minimum track 20 acres and you're permitted to also have imperious coverage of up to 60% so do you realize look at warehouse number two okay that that the impervious cover we have there and we can walk through the math if you like but you could build that size building on a 15 acre lot with 60% 60% [Music] coverage so in your opinion is there a difference so using that warehouse at 168,000 Square ft it permits it's an industrial park with a minimum L acre of or minimum track acre of 20 AC of 20 acres if it was and you said a 50,000 w foot uh square foot Warehouse is appropriate if it was three 50,000 square foot warehouses in an industrial park that complied with the minimum 20 acres that complied with the 60% coverage is that any more intense than one 50,000 ft Warehouse I I'm I'm not really sure what the question is you want me to compare what apples with oranges or three well you said if there were three 50,000 sqt warehouses on the property as opposed to one 150,000 ft Warehouse I didn't I never said that no I'm ask I'm I'm asking you is there a difference in intensity [Music] help me understand how you measure intensity well you've been testifying to it all night in fact you answer Mr Leon's question which I was going to follow up on with Mr Pearson of how can you make that statement you've been talking about intensity all night that's why I asked the question well there's the you can answer that question in in various ways right there's there's an intensity of um how much of the site uh a building occupies right that's one measure of intensity there is a measure of intensity that's based on the activities that take place inside the building another measure of intensity is the number of people in vehicles that it attracts so I'm I'm thinking that you add all of those together and that gives you probably a true measure of intensity so I guess in following that logic but but but understand that unless you have a standard for measuring it it it could be subjective right and it's and and it's also subject to location location is absolutely critical what might be two intense in one location like here might be perfectly fine in a different location but this is in the tecd zone which is a pretty prescribed area they they pick this location didn't they they didn't pick they didn't say nowhere in the in the zone here does it say that 380,000 sqt warehouse buildings are welcome but they created a standards that allow it didn't they they did I think unwittingly following up on kind of Mr uh P's letter or letter question on intensity and Mr Leon's question on intensity I'm sorry and I think it was Mr Coy's question as to um the language about the high-intensity light industrial and corporate development districts in the existing nearby and somewhere in between and you testified that this is more intense than those light industrial and corporate development districts do you know any of the standards in those zones or in those districts not off the top of my head so then how can you give an opinion as to what's intense for those districts because well I'm assuming that that the those districts were developed according to the zoning and so you're guessing let him finish I'm assuming and the the footprint of those buildings is modest they're modest Footprints my dad used to say something to me about assuming but I won't say it here um [Music] when you talked you you also stated that a 50,000 foot Warehouse would be I think it was Mr May who asked a question what would be appropriate and you stated 50,000 Square ft and then somehow when he asked the question about um the supplemental regulations talking about minimizing changes to topography started talking about pedestrian access [Music] um and are so are you aware there are sidewalks uh around the entire building and out to the street yeah that lead absolutely nowhere so but you said and in the nowhere leads to the street and in the earlier PL versions of the plans there were no sidewalks but their sidewalks on the plans [Music] now there are but you you also made the comment well all right there's sidewalks but no one's going to walk there right wasn't that your testimony if it's a 300,000 ft Warehouse if it's a 150,000 ft Warehouse or if it's a 50,000 ft Warehouse which you said would be appropriate wouldn't that be the same no it would be sidewalks to Nowhere no absolutely not all of a sudden because it's 50,000 s foot Warehouse more people are just going to want to walk to that warehouse 50,000 SQ foot buildings not build Warehouse create a fabric that is not antithetical to pedestrianism how do you come up to that conclusion what basis do you have for that there's a whole discipline there's a whole discipline of within City Planning that deals exclusively with pedestrianism I'm sure it's going to come as a big surprise to you but I'm just telling you that so let's agree to accept that there are people who do nothing but pedestrian studies all day long every day of the week and and it says part of it has a lot a large part of it has to do with the with block structure and with the kind of environment that you're creating you cannot create a walkable environment with these types of building Footprints no matter how hard you try it's never going to work it's just never going to work how does the size of the building matter because you're walking for 10 minutes staring at a blank wall that has absolutely no visual interest whatsoever and there's nothing to engage you and and by the way there's no destination wouldn't that be the case if you built a 50 year the one you said could be permitted here 50,000 foot no not at all you have breaks between buildings that are much more frequent so things can happen uh it's a much more porous environment you can get around uh there's only you know you you can circumnavigate that building but if you broke that down into uh whatever 50,000 square foot Footprints you'd you'd actually have a little some kind of a network that could have interesting things happening in between between the buildings Landscaping ameni Street amenities things to look at benches you stated um in response to uh board member lean's question that it's not sound planning to have truck areas facing the homes whoops sorry I don't mean [Music] to now really that's only on warehouse number one the one on the right correct that's not dealing with warehouse number two that's the warehouse that I identified and Warehouse I'm using my cursor here's the truck activity up here and over here my MK froze [Music] [Music] whoops up over here are the residential homes do you know how far those are no idea do you know much veget vegetation is in between those homes and I do not listen there's no that's all my question was that's all my question was noise report here so asking me these stupid questions and wanting me to speculate isn't going to get you any what happened to all the you know everyone being lovey doy and being respectful where Mr Tarantino can get people to pick it in front of the building and chant at us while we walk in and he can start saying questions are stupid all right let's calm down any more questions cuz we're running up and I really want to open up the public running out of patience too I have nothing further excellent and I have a motion open to public second all in favor I I okay if there's anyone in public that would like to ask any questions of this witness of their testimony who is not represented by any of the objectors you may come forward please state your name and address for the record and also state that uh or verify that you're not represented by any of the objectors Gail Martin Hillsboro Road I'm not a member of swap but I support what they do in your report you mention and I quote just west of the proposed site on Homestead Road is a steep railroad overpass with limited sight distance a location ripe for potential accidents between 80,000 lb truck and teams that use the road to access the high school in your opinion since there will be inexperienced drivers traveling on Homestead Road throughout the day and at night for high school activities doesn't this become a safety hazard for all Hillsboro residents well I would think so but um actually microphone that I would think so but that question uh is better directed at the gentleman the other gentle geman who is going to come after me who's specializes in you know that kind of that basically what he does so I don't have any particular expertise in that intuitively I would say I would I agree with you but that's as far as I'm going to go in your report you speak of the development should offer employment areas near residential neighborhoods with design that assures the peace and Solitude of resid in your opinion how do these buildings increase truck traffic and noise and air pollution ensure the peace and Solitude of Hillsboro residents they don't they absolutely do not that's it thank you thank you [Music] okay uh Bill Martin 237 Hillsboro Road and just state if you're I'm not affiliated with any of the okay obors thank you all right regarding truck terminals that you previously discussed on I have at 914 but you says 97 that Mr valinda testified okay um I asked Mr of lenza who was covering operations at the time if a tractor trailer could drop its trailer in a parking space and pick up a trailer that's been moved from the warehouse to a parking space and his answer was yes it could pick up drop off one and pick up another I then asked if this would have to be pre-planned and coordinated by a dispatcher his answer was yes I then asked him if this would make it a Depot his answer was I don't know what the definition of a Depot is and Mr Rodriguez since this tractor trailer would drop its trailer in a parking spot and pick up another trailer from a parking spot without ever going to the warehouse would this be either a Depot or a truck terminal objection it's beyond the scope of his expertise he talked about truck terminals earlier he truck time out he talked about truck terminals in the ordinance definition he made very clear he doesn't know anything he never designed one he's never worked in one doesn't know how they operate he can he's a planning testimony a LIC I'm out he's quoting from our operations witness who said he doesn't know what you mean by a Depot a planner who's admittedly has no experience with warehouses other than objecting to them can't give an opinion as to whether or not it's a deot I disagree he needs just to know how to read he's a planner he knows how to read ordinances there's a definition in the ordinance and and that's what we're he didn't ask him about a definition in the ordinance he asked him about Depot you would need to be able to read the definition in the ordinance and interpret it and as a professional planner that's the exact skill that he brings to the table no Mr Martin would you like to try to rephrase your question well can I mention that Mr Rodriguez is an architect and your guy he's not an architect he's not an architect no warehousing experience I said you okay want to try to keep to the testimony that he's given today okay now are you saying I can't ask anything about the the 2010 master plan amendment that created the tecd zone as it relates to his testimony if he used it in support all right um okay for the tcd Zone I know this has been discussed [Music] it's supposed to be generating development between the high-intensity light industrial and corporate development districts and the existing residential [Music] development in this context do you believe the word intense has to do with intensity of use I know this has been asked awesome does it mean intensity of use would you agree that the tecd Zone should be less intense in use than the LI Zone since it is Transitional well that's exactly what this purpose States and no un certain terms just stay close to the mic please okay it defines the light industrial as high intensity I don't know on the basis of what but but it does and and it throws in the corporate development districts for good measure so those are the the two ends of the spectrum and then the other end of the spectrum is are the nearby residential developments so it's clear to me that the plain reading of this of this purpose means that the the the intent is to have something that's in between in between I the LI District does not have parking for 53ft trailers but this application has parking for over a 100 trailers and the LI Zone does not have the multiple mule trucks that will move these trailers around as an expert isn't this more intense in use than the LI Zone well what's being proposed here is probably more intense than most everything else you have in town so I would I would have to agree but with the provisor that I I have not specifically looked at the um standards for the LI District so we have to take that with all right question they don't have parking for 53 foot trailers but this would for over 100 trailers so that is more intense it would appear to be on his face all right on 71424 I asked miss cfone about intensity and her response was quote well I don't know that we can compare the use of this proper property and say it is not appropriate based on what's going on in another Zone isn't this comparison exactly what they should have done since the Tec zone is supposed to be less intense in use than the Ali Zone well if their intent was to abide by the stated purpose of the tecd district but clearly they have no intention of doing that otherwise they would not have come up with this plan right and they made no comparison to the LI Zone that it's contiguous to correct I would I would think so all right and the applicant keeps saying that this Warehouse is a permitted use but the tecd Zone States warehousing shipping and receiving located completely within an enclosed building and also with the manufacturing process finishing and assembly of products completely within an enclosed building isn't completely enclosed within an enclosed building descriptive of something that's not just a warehouse um well let me clarify yes please all right the 2005 Phase 2 master plan amendment that changed the tecd to that was changing cdz to tecd has this description under conditional uses light manufacturing finishing an assembly of products provided that all products are kept within an enclosed building would this description also apply to [Music] warehouses that is all products are kept completely within an enclosed building um yes I think so so in other words if you were if you were breaking pallets in the parking lot right and moving uh merchandise around in the parking lot that that would not fit within this description right that goes well beyond and that would not be permitted and that's why they um that's why they they Define that it needs to be located completely within an enclosed building meaning there's nothing else going on elsewhere on the property okay this application has over a 100 trailer parking spaces which will be used to store material before being moved to the warehouse dock or they've been processed at the dock and moved to a parking space to be picked up later this is like having over a 100 separate storage units for material so this this storage of materials is not completely within an enclosed building is it it's not all right in your opinion would storing materials and trailers violate the zoning ordinance I think it does all right this is a different subject now all right the Township's all street parking ordinance 18868 e has dimensions for vehicle parking of 10t by 20 ft and this application reflects over 100 trailer parking spaces of 12 ft by 55 ft should no waiver or variance be required for trailer parking I mean technically I'm going to object this is nowhere in his report yes it is technically it should um just as a matter of U housekeeping but um as a practical matter everybody understands that the failure of the of the of the town to have adopted a standard for large vehicle parking while allowing uses that rely on large vehicle parking is that that's an absence in the zoning ordinance that you can't hold against an applicant so that would be you know that would be my way of responding to that but the off street parking doesn't have dimensions for trailers precisely so I think that technically they should have requested a waiver but it's not um a big deal because there is no standard even though the zoning ordinance allows for uses that rely on those types of vehicles well the LI Zone doesn't have trailer parking [Music] I didn't look at the LI zoning okay thank [Music] you Merl bisberg for Hickory Hill Road can you hear me um in addition and you do talk about the trailer parking on page 18 fairly extensively um The tecd Zone does not have trailer parking defined either right uh not in the not in the section of the ordinance that deals with the with the the zoning no I don't think so not in the ordinance for the zone right so is the town obligated to accept this application when uh there is no there's neither a truck I'm sorry there's neither um uh trailer parking defined in the zone trailer parking defined in um in the township land use code and um and also an admonition against um truck terminals because on page 18 you talk about the um building um and the Extra Spaces and you say this strongly suggests that the applicant is proposing to use a site in part at least as a truck Terminal A use expressly prohibited so I guess what I'm saying is from the uh code perspective all these things kind of line up together but the application came in with a lot of truck parking so doesn't this go to the intensity and the use as a truck terminal which you say is expressly prohibited I I think it does okay um before the question was asked by I think Mr leani um comparing um Let me let me sorry me go back to another thing um we were talking oh I'll go back to that I'm sorry um Mr leani was asking about would there be a difference in intensity between you know 500,000 square feet of warehouse and 500,000 square fet of child care or another use would there be any need for docks or trailer parking or any of that with any of the other uses that are there not for the child care for I don't think okay unless the kids are being brought in tracted trailers okay and if you do have warehousing taking place totally within a building as Mr Martin uh read from the Zone then do you need trailer parking by having OB objection again it goes to operations of a warehouse and how a warehouse operates can't testify to that he's not an expert on how they operate I'm sorry but he addressed this uh that's fine but he also just testified he doesn't know how they operate he's never designed one he's never been engaged by someone so to him to opine how trailer parking is used as part of a warehouse operation is not appropriate how out of his expert witness Was An Architect who and operations who designed and operations who design designs strictly warehouses okay but you provided no operations information in your application Miss bisberg questions of the witness yeah so move on move on to another question okay um I think that's it thank you [Music] okay anyone else okay we've come to the witching hour thank God it's yeah well I started late so l i i I do want to address a housekeeping matter because at this point we're prepared to start our rebuttal they have uh the one witness that uh Mr gross was going to present he was supposed to be here tonight uh and and address this issue of whether he'd be allowed to testify I think it should be addressed tonight because that would then allow us to be prepared to present at our next meeting uh whether or not he'll be permitted to testify as well as uh and I apologize if I pronounced her last name wrong Suzanne Mo oxy oxy see um with who Mr Tarantino plans call to testify who's a member of SWAT she's strictly a fact witness not an expert SWAT is represented they'll be able to make their arguments um um but she shouldn't be allowed to present testim it's not even testimony it's just basically argument and then irrelevant information about warehouses make sure you were still here I make sure you were still here sneak out Mr chairman I I I think the first two items on the agenda for the next meeting should be the witness regarding Mr gross which mayor may not take that long we'll see if he qualifies if he qualifies then it's a whole different issue if he doesn't then we move on to the second witness for Mr Tarantino and whether or not she'll be permitted to testify in some expert capacity so I would have Mr Ford here I understand but we have a few different witnesses to bring as rebuttal and we're prepared to bring them we were told this would be addressed this evening okay and and he should he was specifically told to have his witness here ready and he did he had his planning expert no not the planning expert uh Mr gross's witness yeah I mean it's all what what we're trying to do is give um some Credence to the letter that you sent on Monday Mr Tarantino please stop with the games that's it's not a game at all I didn't have to send in a letter I could have just made the argument and asked the board to decide tonight I want to give them the benefit of a letter it's clear law that well that's your opinion Mr Burn yeah it's law that Mr Burnstein can easily that's not the issue regarding Mr Tarantino's second witness the issue of your letter relates to Mr gross's second witness and the expertise if the board at this hour wants to deal with the issue whether or not it will entertain M swatt's second witness then the board can do that now the board can do that the next hearing I'm also am I now hearing Mr Taran Mr Regan that you're going to have more than one rebuttal witness we could potentially have Mr Ford and Mr Dean come back as rebuttal okay that's one more witness than I recall the discussion about I believe it we I I can't say who myal witnesses are until they finish I'm not I'm not limiting you I'm just saying you're now anticipating calling Mr Ford and Mr Dean okay it's up to the board whether I want to entertain the the second SWAT witness uh I'm not aligned to doing that tonight we've reached the witching I think in fairness I think the obors should be able to U digest you know Mr Janet your letter um an objection to it well I I point out Mr chairman that Mr gianetti's letter relates specifically to the second witness being called by Mr gross right Mr gianetti's letter has nothing to do unless Mr gen wants to disagree with me has nothing to do with Mr Tarantino's second Witness because that's not an expert issue per se he has argued before that he does not believe that an individual who is merely a member of SWAT should be testifying if the board wants to wait until the next hearing that's the board's prerogative but I'm just saying to you digesting Mr gianetti's letter isn't going to change that [Music] issue for which witness now you got me confused are we talking about Mr gr's witness so miss oxy is a so that's the one that okay because I I was hearing a lot about Mr gr's wi because there was you know expectation he'd be here he's not here so that's not on the table right now no okay that's the next the issue is whether the board wants to address whether or not it will permit Mr Tarantino's witness to testify or wants to reserve until the next hearing but understand that the letter I understand I just didn't know witness issue I didn't know which witness we wanted to talk about we're talking about the second witness for SWAT okay and she would be a fact witness in in the same manner in which um uh Mr vanderhorst and um the on the Weston Road let me address that yeah I would not use that as a necessarily comparison the fact that Mr OG grodnik took a position contrary to Mr gianetti's should not be seen as an acceptance by the board of a blanket agreement on that issue so if you got an argument I wouldn't argue that the board heard fact witness testimony in the Western Road application because the attorney representing the applicant chose to I assume take a different t for whatever reason he took and I'm not into reading Mr ogrodnik mind uh I don't believe and Mr gianetti will correct me if I'm wrong he's going to take the same tact when it comes to that provision so I I guess it's confusing because I I would expect that a fact witness would be allowed and it's an important part of our case well it's not fact but it's not fact it's all argument it's argument she's a local residents she's a local resident providing direct uh her experience and um and observations from being she lives a half a mile from the where the building is proposed which she could have potentially done as a public member except for the fact that she's represented by you correct she would not be permitted to to give public well that public comment so that's that's the Box you put yourself in she also the report also talks about whether we complied with the Eis that's not fact that's argumentative he Mr Tarantino can argue that in his summation it includes news articles about Warehouse fires throughout the entire country over the last 10 years completely irrelevant to the application uh well the the fact the warehouse fire in Hillsboro which was observed by Miss oxy Mrs oxy um is is certainly would be would certainly be appropriate by as let's go this way I think I I I think the committee men's comment was right on point yeah when you when you put yourself in an objective position and you have people you're representing you are relying they are relying on you to represent their interest separate apart from expert witnesses to try to now shoehorn them so to speak into the concept because they have fact testimony because they can't testify otherwise because they're not permitted to because they became a member of the objector class sort of defeats the whole concept of the objector class which is that people who agree to become represented by the objector agree to do so because they are allowing the objector to represent their interests it's up to the board or do you want to deal with this I would think obviously the Mr plaw will we can determine after letter but for the other witness I would I would say that she is represented by SWAT and that should that should suffice and she's not an expert is that in the form of a motion that's a motion I'll second is there any comments from the dayas roll call please Mr Wagner yes Smith yes commit in the pony yes Vice chair P yes yes therefore Mr Tarantino at least it relates to your presentation I assume you are complete at the moment well I would like to submit a an exhibit um in in anticipation of a of part of my closing arguments I I think could I interject and make a recommendation similar to reports I see exhibits in the same category sure I think what would be helpful for the next hearing is to actually provide obviously you can't provide it physically and we can't get that up on Civic clerk but photographs and perhaps Dimensions reference Dimensions so that in the credentials of the person that prepared it and their experience in providing engineered models yep whatever you can provide whatever you can provide on whatever their qu supports the introduction but he's not an attorney so he has no idea and then we're going to run through this circle again but that's fine the issue is not got to provide can we do that can we stipulate to what he has to provide so we don't have this discussion for next 30 minutes we show up next time I agree with Mr I understand the frustration on the applicant I understand Brian's frustration so what are you what are you proposing Mr what I'm proposing is that we have a little meet come on can we at least can we at least do some type of meet and confer and just come to an agreement on I get what R janetti is looking for and I understand that I appreciate it but to avoid his frustration at the next meeting quite frankly my frustration at the next meeting perhaps we can get together and decide what is needed to satisfy the requirement Mr janed is going to look for and what Mr Tarantino can provide and then maybe we just save the board this aggravation at the next meeting because he can either they can either agree what they need or they can't and if they can't then at the next meeting the board can decide what's permissible what's not if the parties can't then it's got to be the requirements that the shair just elucidated need to be provided 10 days in advance pictures diagrams specifications ex all Inc res as to the expertise as the individual I would recommend to the board that if applicant and objectors can come to a conclusion on any remaining exhibits or reports that avoids the board having to get in the middle of it is always better but if you can't 10 days before sure be happy to do that okay I'm happy to leave the models here too no no no no uh Mr chetti do you intend to provide any updated reports from Mr Dean I'm assuming you're relying on Mr Ford's plans for purposes of testimony correct we might have a will likely have a supplemental exhibit from Mr Dean then you know 10 days in advance uh I will point out to the objectors that once Mr Dean and or Mr Ford are done testifying you have cross examination rights and the right to supplement your own reports so long as they're also submitted 10 days in advance of the hearing just um can you clarify that last Point Mr Ford has produced a report correct he's provided new plans if any of the experts wish to provide an amended report relative to the new plans within their purview they're well within their rights to submit a amended report your client is amending his plans they have the right to submit an amended report the same applies for Mr Dean when he submits so if Mr Gro who I believe had the part traffic expert wants his traffic expert to submit an amended report relative to Mr Dean's amend see that that I would disagree with Mr Dean's going to rebut and respond to the testimony of their traffic expert the removal of the trailers and the uh removal of the retaining wall has nothing to do with Mr Dean's traffic testimony but Mr Dean is submitting anything to the board they have the right to submit a response they ALS I disagree with that I disagree with that uh I would we play this game we'll play this game for five years let's just cut to the chase yes or no is Mr Dean G to submit a supplemental or revised report will submit a uh an exhibit that he'll testify to well then their witnesses will have an opportunity than to amend their SP it's rebutting their Witnesses testimony but if if that exhibits introducing new facts or evidence last time I looked counselor in an judicial setting sir rebuttal is clearly is equally provided you don't get the last word when you you're correcting their report and not allowing the individual you're contesting to have not have the quote unquote last say that's a call you'll have to make but the point is I'm advising the objectors that if you're going if Mr Dean's gonna get called Mr Ford's gonna get called Miss Shan may get called that if you want your experts to testify after same they better be here at the next hearing otherwise depending on where we are you're not going to get a chance to oh can we have another date sure so plan accordingly did you explain if you don't mind can help it so if you're going to talk toic come to the microphone there there and you need to place your name on the record thank you you just this now I got to say it into the mic nice sorry I don't think it does work you want to next to Rich Garmin 53 Winding Way I'm not represented by anybody he asked to if his witness is going to do another report to rebut them he has 10 days to get it in they're not going to necessarily get it on this side 10 days before so then they if they want to submit another report it's 10 days before the following meeting right I think we'll have to cross that bridge when we see what we'll see when everything comes in Mr Dean does Mr gianetti has indicated that Mr Ford's quote report is the plans he submitted correct correct so be guided accordingly folks and if you're in communication with the Watershed people advise them accordingly uh we're now looking at another [Music] date February 13 2025 Sor February 13 what's the next date after that March March 6 2025 can we get both those dates we have other applications I could offer you February 13th do we have the whole night would you like the whole night which which dat are we we could have the whole night I I the question maybe is really for the board February 13th they would like the whole evening I I I and I think that would be wise okay but what about we're only we're only tentatively scheduling one date or you or talking about the March date I think for right now we don't even technically have a 22 schedule until the reor adopts the full schedule so tely yeah and I Mr we looking for a mar Mr chairman can I make the following suggestion if M Mr gianetti speaks to his client and his experts we meet the first and second Thursday of every month if there is a date in March that you would like the board to consider the board will consider it once once it has it schedule in place and where we are with other applications I will point out this is not the only thing on the agenda and we're back to that magic time of year called affordable housing Etc that we need to address so that's my suggestion understood and we will reconfirm all the dates we have given to people at reor correct and then um the time of decision right now that would have to be extended right now it's December 31st 2024 mark one Mr G sure March one okay okay so I'm going to I'm going to give this a try I'm going to say may I have a motion to extend the application hearing to February 13th 2025 at 7 p.m or soon after soon after as the matter may be heard without further notice subject to subject to confirmation by the board as at reorganization and the time of decision extends toch decision is March 1st so I may I have a motion so move Mr chairman second roll call please Mr Wagner yes Smith yes M Le Pon yes M chair PE yes chair sarach yes okay with that I just going to remind everyone this was our final meeting of this year so thank you everybody for your service yeah thank you guys yes yeah what what the extension yes we did with no further notice uh Mr chairman based on the fact that when the meeting is not over folks the fact that this is the last meeting the next meeting of the board is scheduled for January 9th no that's Township ladies and Gentlemen please keep it down while you exit thank you we're still in a meeting still meeting Mr lahan you're blocking the camera sorry so now the next plan board meeting would be January 9th 2025 that's our reorganization meeting that starts at 7 pm and as soon as that concludes we will go right into our first regular meeting of the year which is Weston Road Weston Road so seven and then we go right into bring you Dr [Music] Denton's so with that may have a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second all in favor I I happy holidays everybody yep and happy New Year we'll see you next year