##VIDEO ID:TQftml_fkbU## okay good evening everyone welcome to the Hillsboro Township planning board meeting of November 14th 2024 please join me and a salute to the flag plge algi to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stand one na indivisible liy [Music] andice please advised this meeting has been duly advertised according to section five of the open public meeting act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 otherwise known as Sunshine Law notice of the 2024 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers the Township Clerk posted on the Township's website and available here at the Hillsboro Township municipal complex in addition application documents and plans have been made available on the township Civic clerk website at at least 10 days before this evening meeting complete application files are available uh in the planning and zoning department for inspection according with the public meeting notice with that may I have a roll call of planing board members and also board and Township professionals Please Mr Vander is absent Mr Wagner here Mr rtz here Smith here here de also abent committ in the p presi here herei here pres here thank you here and myself and the videographer are here okay thank you welcome everyone uh we do not have any meeting minutes for consideration however we do have a couple of resolutions this evening first up is the Evergreen Foo Hills LLC file number 24- pb-05 DSP Mr Bernstein who's eligible the eligible members are Mr Wagner Mr rtz Miss Smith committee men leani Deputy May chicarelli Vice chair p and yourself okay thank you may have a motion to approve the resolution so moved Mr chairman you is there a second second okay any comments from the de hearing none roll call [Music] please Mr Wagner yes yes Smith yes the pony yes yes yes Ro yes next RB manufacturing LLC solar array file number 24- pb-8 SPV eligible members same same group may have a motion to approve this resolution so move second any comments roll call please Mr Wagner yes mrtz yes Smith yes yesy mayor trell yes sh pey yes chaj yes we do not have any planning board business nor ordinances for consideration so next up we be business for from the floor for matters that are not on this evening's agenda and I will ask you to reframe director indirect comments involving warehouses if you like to provide commentary please come to forward state your name and address for the record please and please limit comments to five minutes to oh okay okay good evening my name is inessive River 24 talio Trail um I've been to several planning board meetings and I see a reoccurring theme which I would like to talk about um and this is their behavior um it was at its worst uh last week and it's not about Warehouse it's about how people talk so specifically last week but it's it wasn't the only occurrence the attorney of the client spoke in very disrespectful Manner and I was very upset and angry because I don't think anyone should be bullied or threatened so whatever the attorney has a bad temper and cannot take care of it or he uses his temper to intimidate but I please ask the board to enforce some kind of basic rules how the dialogue is going on in this room so if it's cross-examination there should be no statement like oh thank God we didn't take you as our expert it should be a question and in general it would be really nice that people don't behave and talk like Angry baboons thank you thank you and I [Music] agreeed Gale Martin Hillsboro Road I was at the same planning board meeting that Ena was talking about and I stand behind her statements the representative for the applicant was aggressive condescending and tried to intimidate the objector and his witness as a resident I am disappointed that no one from the planning board stepped up to stop it moving forward I hope the planning board will make sure there is not how hearings are conducted in all fairness we are residents of the community not lawyers we do not do this for a living and we demand the same respect that we and extend to others thank you for your time [Music] you David Brook seven Winding Way I I just want to support what both Gail and Ena said and provide you with another little thought so good evening Mr chairman and members of the board staff applicants and objectors last week at the planning board meeting during the one hearing I also observed excuse me rude and disrespectful Behavior addressed by the applicants attorney to the objector members of the public and their expert witness as the board has stated this is a quasi judicial proceeding and as such this bad behavior concerns me as I'm sure it does all of you a little aside I teach a course at ruter in ethics and one way I believe it helps to instill a stronger sense of moral character in my students is a discussion topic that I call the word of the day my students Define it and discuss it in each class the hope is that they build a sort of toolbox of their own moral characteristics by adopting the basis of each word words like kindness respect Integrity dignity and courage to name a few so it's in that Spirit of instilling a sense of compassion on the part of the board and especially the applicants and unfortunately especially the applicants attorneys that I would like to introduce my word of the night and that word is civility civility by definition is a choice a choice to treat others with respect dignity and consideration it can also be defined as a form of politeness and courtesy in speech or behavior civility is more than just being polite it's about how you engage with others when you disagree or have opposing views I ask the planning board members Mr chairman and the board attorney and the board attorney to affirmatively act to establish and Implement civility as the overriding theme for every meeting and hearings held in these Chambers as you know well I will simply say that I believe was not the case last week as the applicant's attorney continuously badgered and belittled the objectors and their witness my observation was that little was done to reign in that unnecessary condescending and disrespectful behavior and and honestly I think it degraded the Integrity of the hearing process we live here you live here and honestly they don't I think it's safe to state that all of you as members of the board and all of us as members of the resident public all want what is best for our community I I think it's also safe to state that many applicants while professing to want the same are really acting in their own financial interest and sometimes sometimes it seems they are doing us a favor when the complete opposite is true I ask that everyone in the room act with civility towards each other whether or not you agree with their position and if that speaker does not that Mr chairman or members of the board or Mr Bernstein wait or Dr Bernstein as one of our more arrogant applicants attorneys called you while he disparaged a real PhD doctor all each Act to affirm that commitment towards civility by reminding that person to behave with greater civility I believe we will all benefit from that example that each of you set in future proceedings within this solemn room thank you for your consideration of Civility as the norm going forward thank [Music] you Maria janc 720 East frck Avenue Manville New Jersey I'm also a Hillsboro Township property owner block 86 lot 3 2155 camplan Road um in regard to uh each application that comes before this board whose responsibility is it to provide accurate information as to the uh legal legal information um of an of of a property that is who should know and provide information as to any leans The Zone EAS any kind of legal information pertaining to that property whose responsibility is it to make sure that that is provided accurately I'm not you want to take this one y the applicant's responsibility and or objectors were applicable with no pun intended but it's not the board's responsibility it's not the board attorney's responsibility or the board engineer or the board planner it's the applicant and where applicable the objector so the applicant's attorney and the applicant's engineer are responsible the I said the applicant I didn't say which you stated applicant right so it's the applicant so the applicant must come forward and provide that information or is that provided by his by his the the uh people that he hires uh for the application it's either Prov provided prior to the application being heard during the application process or where it is an issue potentially during testimony of one or more of the witnesses you're there is an issue you're saying before the application is heard when would that be when they submit the application and the paperwork and it's reviewed by Mr K's office or Mr Mayu and or when it's posted on Civic clerk thereafter such as the plans the surveys so whatever information is provided by the applicant and the uh professionals that he hires uh that is not checked by by any uh Township officials by Mr coise or by you as the board attorney or by the uh the board's engineer that is not checked by by any of you that wasn't the question you asked the question was Who provided it the who responsibility is to see that that is accurate it is ultimately up to the planning department the engineer my office and the board to look at what the information is and see if there are issues that need to be addressed regarding it including whether it is appropriate or proper or legal for lack of a better phrase so what happens when at some point after numerous hearings something comes up that should have been provided right from the now now you're at tonight's hearing so let's move on thank [Music] you you almost okay see no one else we're going to move on to tonight's hearing we have the one application I'm going to invite the representatives from both the applicant and objectors so tonight at Weston Road LLC gella file number 22- pb-3 mspv with a time of decision of November 15th of this year block 185 lot one Weston Road this application is being continued from the September 5th 2024 um meeting without further notice so I will allow a applicant um representative and and also objectors to please introduce themselves uh good evening members of the board Michael ogrodnik sa shock law fir on behalf of the applicant Weston Road LLC good evening everybody Jordan Ash with rer danig on behalf of the Hearthstone homeowners association and Coons Michael sovich with liman bler and sovich okay thank you Mr chairman for purposes of the record I have two certifications by absent board members examination of record eligibility to vote I Reed such from Deputy M chicarelli who viewed the September 5th 2024 video recording I have the same from Boyd secretary Patricia Smith so both are eligible to participate in this evening's hearing okay thank you I believe Mr chairman that where we were was still with Mr Ash and Dr Emerson and we will re you [Music] in he Mr chairman just very quickly I just wanted to note um obviously we had submitted some a letter on Mr grodnik did as well about a jurisdictional issue that we believe exists regarding the easement um I don't want to blabber the point our position was in the letter I don't know if the board wants to hear any more on that now or wants to move on is my recommendation Mr chairman of the board that we complete the testimony and the record of this application and that at the appropriate time at the end of the record Being completed that the board will address the issues raised by both Council on the issue of the eastment as well as other issues that may be before the board at the appropriate time the concern is if we attempt if we stop potentially this application the middle and it goes up to court and we end up having to come back because the record is not complete that we would rather have a complete record than stop it in mid form get it at least on the record and then the board can make its decision relative to what is before I concur board members everyone else concurs okay [Music] right I do yes uh clay Emerson e m r n [Music] thank [Music] you Dr Emerson so you were here um June 6th and um gave some testimony all right Dr Emerson was here on June 6th I believe was the date and gave uh began his testimony um I'm not going to re-qualify him he still qualify before this board as I understand [Music] it okay all right [Music] going hook it up all right so I see we're trying to get us up there with some exhibit should I wait for Mr CH to come back well Dr Emerson is there any change in your degrees qualifications licensures Etc since June 6 uh no sir okay all right I will ask Dr Emerson to catch us up to where he is in his testimony and then continue soon as we have ready to [Music] go my favorite part of Technology [Music] [Music] have tell me which one I'll have to do okay [Music] all right so in the interest of moving along while we're getting set up here I'll ask Dr Emerson if you can just sort of give us a brief uh recap of of um the testimony you've given just to catch us up to where we are so you can continue and then finish your testimony please certainly um we started uh kind of we we began by um primarily walking through uh my letter of May 22nd 2023 in uh somewhat chronological fashion through the uh through the letter addressing the various aspects of storm water management um uh requirements um and uh that included um groundwater recharge um water quality and I believe we just started discussing um Peak flow control uh requirements when uh when we ran out of time uh so as far as the groundwater recharge is concerned my um my remaining concern there is that essentially the applicant had disagreed with the nrcs soil uh mapping and from from my review of the information and the testimony that was provided um it's not that they disagreed with the mapping it's that they disagreed with the um the nrcs's uh classification of those two soils in particular uh and and not just a question of where the line is drawn on the map and as I pointed out I think in the testimony my opinion that's a um a bigger burden than just disagreeing with you know where one soil series is mapped versus another in terms of water quality I believe I shared an exhibit um the number um escapes me at the moment [Music] um but the the gist of that exhibit was that um was that uh the water quality um design uh was not compliant because the systems that were proposed um oh thank you would not capture the drainage area that um that they were purported to capture and that was um a series of exhibits beginning with 01 um 02 and and finally exhibit 03 um and and that's uh that's that's where we were um when we ended try this again [Music] thank you um so again those um I believe this exhibit was marked 03 and this relates to uh water quality compliance and the point of this was to show that drainage area wouldn't wouldn't be picked up by the proposed bmps um and then we also um as we got into Peak flow control requirements um we displayed 04 05 and exhibit 06 uh just I guess just 04 and 05 as it relates to that point and the point of uh 05 is just to show that the drainage areas that um that the storm water management calculations assume will make it to the Basin won't um so that that was an oversight that that will cause runoff to not be captured by the proposed um by the proposed storm water system and it would it would bypass and Flow um directly to to Weston Road and ultimately through the uh through the Hearthstone property and again that was uh 05 I believe um and then I think I had just begun talking about to to pick up where we left off um is is talking about um 06 through through 8 and I'll just skip to what I believe was marked as 08 um and this is yeah 08 uh their existing drainage area map um and what I've added to it is some everything that's in color here is is all annotations that I've added and this just displays um the approximately 4.2 Acres uh of drainage area that currently flows to the existing uh State open water regulated area here um about 320 ft west of the clubhouse the Hearthstone Clubhouse across the street that uh currently um flows into the detention Basin on the opposite side of Weston Road and the point of this um exhibit and the the most significant uh point of of my objection to this um to the approval of this application is that this is um under proposed conditions going to be captured and brought to the proposed BMP and ultimately tied into the uh existing uh storm sewer under Wesson road that flows through a series of uh manholes immediately adjacent into the clubhouse uh under the improvements there and out an existing retaining wall and um and and that's a that's a problem to me uh from from my perspective for for a number of reasons uh first it's obviously an intentional diversion of of flow um and it's not insignificant um and when you when a site is is laid out like this a land development project of this size um you may never perfectly match the drainage area but uh this this is a big this is a big difference this over four acres represents an additional 30 to 35% depending on how you calculate it um diversion of additional drainage area uh to the pipe in question and um and it's not uh it's not necessary it's a design decision that the applicant Andor their engineer uh presumably made um it is not a requirement um it it it is a choice that they made um and unlike the existing detention Basin across the street that has an emergency Spillway the existing pipe under Weston Road that again flows through a series of pipes and manholes on the Hearthstone property that system has no quote emergency Spillway so if for storms larger than the 100-year storm or in situations where the proposed Basin Outlet structure um perhaps gets clogged or needs some other kind of Maintenance um this 4.2 acres is is coming their way and it it doesn't under current conditions and that's a that's a big a big distinction um so I I also in my experience this is a unique condition um again it's not unusual to have slight variations in drainage area but to intentionally divert over 4 Acres um which is not insignificant more than a 30% increase in drainage area to this pipe that in my experience is is unique I haven't seen a diversion of that nature um before and the fact that it goes through a privately owned closed pipe system compounds that um that issue in my opinion and um the storm water management rules are not are not quiet on this topic um the goals set forth in 7 8 2.2 state that all storm water management plans and storm water management um Control Ordinance shall be uh designed to and it lists a number of things I'll mention three of them reduce flooding including damage to life and property minimize to the greatest extent practical any increase in storm water runoff from any new development and protect Public Safety through the proper design and operation of storm water management um basins uh but I this design Choice um flies in the face of those goals set forth um and in the design standards if we want to get a little bit more specific um again coming straight from S callon 8 the design standards for storm water management measures um are as follows and this is from 78 5.2 i1 uh storm water management measures shall be designed to take into account the existing site conditions including a number of things um including drainage area and drainage patterns and this approach this design does not take into account the existing conditions in my opinion it IGN it ignores the existing conditions and [Music] what's you know as an engineer I try and understand these things I try and put myself in in in the perspective of the design engineer how would I approach you know um a site like this with these existing conditions and if I if I can switch to what we'll now be a [Music] new exhibit [Applause] 09 09 thank you which we will um can you tell us what 09 is before you talk about certainly this is uh an earlier um rendition of the the same document that a portion of which was shown in 08 so this is the existing drainage area map uh just an earlier version of it this has also been submitted and is on uh and is a ailable so again if um if 7 call 85.2 the design standards for storm water management measures shall be designed to take in account the existing site conditions nothing can be more important than understanding those existing site conditions before you lay out a site and and and come up with a design approach um and so what we see here in' 09 is at that time the the applicant's understanding of those existing conditions and one thing the re the reason I I I want to point this out is you can see the same general limit of disturbance the same general shape as I flip back from the earlier exhibit you know this this General outline of the limit of disturbance shown in 08 you can see that kind of transposed into uh same general shape in 09 but there's a key difference and that is that in this um uh exhibit in 09 and I've just temporarily marked up uh this dashed Arrow here that shows that this entire drainage area flows into the Basin on the harstone property um and that's not that's not true that's not the case that's not where this entire area um currently flows um and we understood this shortcoming because uh uh because we as soon as we were involved in this the attorney gathered information available information from the township on the uh earlier approvals for the uh previous development here so we understood that this was um was an error and so when the um when the applicant first proposed this this layout um it's hard for me to believe that they let the existing conditions speak to them or designed it in context with the existing conditions because their understanding of the existing conditions from the most basic level where does this site drain to was incorrect um but what happened after this um uh eventually at some point I would guess in late uh 2022 early 2023 um prior to the next um revision uh they realized that this uh connection was wrong and but but they didn't change the design approach they didn't decide to respect the existing drainage divides and maintain a large portion of this site flowing to you know over 300 ft away from the clubhouse they stuck stuck with this this site layout for reasons that you know I can I can uh offer guesses at but I'm I'm not I'm not here to do that um but large lger storms happen um I I've been I've been clear in my letter in my previous testimony that the applicant from the engineering standpoint they have the harder job um I just have to review what's in front of me and like I do whether I'm working representing a municipality representing an applicant or in this case representing an objector I have to look and make sure that it complies and in this case um this diversion uh doesn't comply with 7 co8 it was a choice of the applicant it may have stemmed from an initial misrepresentation of the existing conditions um and I think it's a problem and I think it's a problem because uh as we know in Hillsboro and other municipalities larger storms will happen I've been very clear that you know they did the numbers the for the 100-year storm despite the earlier um or not withstanding the earlier issues that I showed that the drainage area won't actually the Basin won't actually capture all the drainage area but other than that on on paper the numbers for the 100-year storm work out um but the storm water regulations in 7 colon 8 [Music] um go go beyond that and in this case the intentional diversion this 4.2 Acres directly to the Hearthstone Community through a closed pipe system on private property um is does not comply with 7 call a um and that I I think you know I've mentioned other problems but um this is a critical error in my in my opinion um it's a significant diversion I'm not trying to split hairs and and and uh you know it's a 30% increase to a closed system pipe on a private property um so uh that's that's where um I think this application is critically flawed um they they do have an emergency Spillway that was proposed on the uh on the on the on the The Basin that they're proposing right at uh the the site Frontage on Weston Road um it's not exactly clear where that uh emergency Spillway is to be located um because on the current set of plans it's absent on one sheet it's on the left side of the Basin on another sheet and on a third sheet it's directly along Weston Road where was in previous versions so I I frankly don't know where where the emergency Spillway is is is set to go but um but when that emergency Spillway overflows and I say when not If eventually that will happen whether the outlet structure gets clogged or just a a bigger storm comes along you're going to have an extra four acres of pavement going straight towards the improvements across the street at the Hearthstone community uh that otherwise would go um over 300 ft away um towards the Basin where where they currently go and and that doesn't that doesn't live that doesn't meet the goals of 7 8 that doesn't meet the design standards outline in s colon 8 that I won't um rehash that's a that's a critical problem and and why it became that way be because of perhaps an initial misunderstanding of the existing uh configuration um it doesn't matter uh that that's that's what's before the board now and finally I just turn to what I guess we will label o 10 and this is a zoom in of the same exhibit 09 that was just shown showing the early understanding put for forth by the applicant that this drainage area did go away from the clubhouse and towards and into the Basin um so I think that um brings us to where we [Music] are um thank you Dr erson and just to avoid any conclusion is it your opinion that this application does or does sorry the microphone is there we go just to uh avoid any confusion Dr Emerson in your opinion does this application comply with the storm water management standards no it's my opinion that it it does not right and then quickly before we uh turn over to cross-examination to hopefully get a few points on or off the table however it's best phrase um can you just briefly outline for us uh your history as a testifying witness in the field of storm water engineering sure um working um at the firm that I do we we do um all things Water Resource related um and I have testified on behalf of objectors before in in fact in front of this board and I've testified on behalf of applicants in not in front of this board um and so uh uh you know the majority of the day-to-day work that I do is is not for objectors um it's it's you know 90% or more for applicants or or other people building doing things um and when I review applications Land Development applications in New Jersey or in in Pennsylvania whether I'm working on behalf of an applicant an objector mun IP ality as I mentioned before my my purpose is the same um I objectively review an application and ensure that it complies with the local ordinance or applicable state regulations it's um it's it's a it's a black and white process in in my mind all right and other than your work as an expert witness um can you briefly outline your work in practice as a professional engineer please sure um all things hydrology hydraulic um related whether it's um storm water management uh design storm water management review in this case um hydrolic studies hydraulic studies uh flood plane mapping um you know design of flood mitigation projects um and kind of everything everything in between [Music] all right I'll reserve for uh I'll reserve and uh pass the witness along okay scor thank you Mr chairman good evening Dr Emerson um we're gonna ultimately introduce Mr Ford as our rebuttal witness so I don't want to get too far into the weeds with your expertise or Mr Ford's expertise you're far more versed but I do have a few uh AC cross-examination questions I first want to give I want to discuss some comments related to the soil testing um and my first question is does the uh dbmp manual provide hydrologic soil group testing procedures for establishing the hydraulic soil conditions of a site yes okay and is it correct that um chapter 12 of course I've been reading a lot today soil testing criteria from the NJ storm water management practices manual pages 7 through n uh as well as the nrcs national engineering handbook P part 360 hydrology chapter 7 uh are those two of the more relevant documents that you would look at related to the soil testing yes okay and we we talk we keep talking about the nrcs mapping and and and I don't understand it maybe you could educate me I are is this mapping reliable or not reliable yes I think it's I think it's reliable I I rely on it quite often I I use it regularly what's how do they do it how do they map soil units well that's a that's a objection please not nrcs uh member um to the extent he can answer the question I'm sure he can but I think it's a little outside of the I'm just trying to understand the methodology that you're saying is so reliable so if you don't know it that's certainly an acceptable answer but no I I I welcome guys to the extent you can I'm I'm just placing the objection on the record what's the objection Clay's not here to represent the nrcs I didn't ask that I didn't I I'm just asking about the processes and the methodology how do they do it the applicant can if the witness can answer the question please answer sure in in short in in very short um they dig test pits they look at sample uh hand auger borings they interpret aerial photographs they look at vegetation they combined all these things together and they get um and eventually someone draws a line on the map but that line on the map is not you know a precise line you have to understand to your point the data that goes into that um uh mapping and then understand the Precision of the mapping and within New Jersey I think there are still two different scales of soil mapping that if if you dive deep into that you'll you'll you'll uncover um all kinds of supporting information that would would more thoroughly answer your question but in short they look at soil profiles and aerial photos Aerials okay uh does the BMP manual have a depth to seasonal High ground water that soil must be classified as dhsc hsgd uh yes it does um can you repeat the question does the BMP manual have a depth to seasonal High ground water that soil must be classified as hsgt I don't know if it uses the word must or not but but there is a depth um and if if you know you're able to classify it according to the BMP manual um depending on where you find seasonal High relative to that that death and I I do have copies if you need them but is it is it that 24 Ines that we've been talking about that sounds correct okay is it your understanding that uh classifications of sites um being ordance with nrcs national engineering handbook part 330 630 hydrology chapter 7 hydrological soil groups dated 2009 yes okay um and that chapter of the nah has a table that I know I've seen in multiple reports table 71 titled criteria for assignment of a hydraulic soil Group which is used to establish the HS G for the site um no not not for the site but it does have a table that uh for a given test pit yes okay um does the chart State the depth to a water impermeable layer which represents the soil to be classified as hsgd yes okay is it correct to state that according to the best practices that HS GD soil classification is less than 20 in 20 in for impermeable air and seasonal high water of 24 in or less uh that's not completely true no could you just try to explain that to well the the table is a little more it's a little more complicated um depth to water impermeable layer less than 20 20 in it gives a D um depth to water table uh less than 24 in um in the undrain condition it is is it is a d there's compound uh classifications as well do you recall how many soil logs were performed by the applicant on this property initially or after our involvement total uh no okay I'm sure you can I I'm I'm I'm gonna represent you there was 96 I believe that okay and since you don't have it in front of you I'll ask I'll ask this as more of a directed question were you aware you can you dispute that you know 83 of those 96 tests those logs um were found to be within the criteria of of the declassification I can't I can't no I I can't say that they are or not without without digging a little deeper how many tests are required when you're looking to reclassify soil is there a specific number is there a [Music] sample uh I think that in the BMP manual they offer some guidance on that um but I don't have that in front of me what what happens if there's discrepancies I mean I I would imagine that properties large and small have multiple soil different classifications on a on a property is that what do you do if there's a discrepancy what do you mean a discrepancy a discrepancy between between what the map or between the different between the actual yes between the different tests well in general um you make S conservative engineering assumptions and and move [Music] on based upon your experience 20 Acre Site do you think 96 soil tests is a reasonable amount of soil tests um I think if someone is is yes I think it's reasonable I think if someone is trying to um alter their design approach Ro and in effect um not do any groundwater recharge uh when you have a community immediately Downstream I don't think that it's unreasonable for someone to do if if you claim 96 soil tests in order to argue that they can avoid doing any groundwater recharge because I think you have people um who live Downstream that depend on you doing the right thing are you aware that board engineer Mayhew drcc and Soil Conservation have all agreed uh with the reclassification of the soil no I I am aware that that some of those have yeah okay the penon uh report dated July 5th says the applicant has demonstrated that the site exhibits type D soil characteristics in various locations Etc um in [Music] fact do you think they're wrong do you think John Hutchinson and drcc and Mr Mayhew and Soil Conservation Engineers are are incorrect we going to just object really quick I Mr meu is here to speak for himself I'm not sure he's submitted quite a few letters I'm not sure he's fully agreed with the applicant here but he is here to speak for himself okay referring to a May 30 2023 drcc memorandum States open quote soil expirations were performed on site by the applicant in accordance with chapter 12 of the njdpb andp manual chapter 12 which support reclassifying the on-site soils to hsg rating of D do you recall reviewing that yes y one I do remember in your qualifications you list that you teach soil science to professionals and I recall that you're an Adjunct professor correct okay fanova yes okay um I had the opportunity of reviewing one of your classes um through Princeton Hydro entitled enhanced storm water management ordinances on November 7th 2023 you recall that class I I believe it that was not an adjunct uh that was not a class I taught at Villanova to be clear oh that was just through Princeton Hydro for other professionals sounds like it yeah I don't recall specifically my apologies and you emphasized in that in that dissertation that quote you have to look at existing different soil series independently in your analysis you still agree with with that can you what was the context of that the context of soil classifications you said you stated you have to look at existing different soil series independently I'm just going to object quick he's pulling out out of context something that clearly was a whole class we're pulling out one statement here but to the extent Dr Emerson can answer he's certainly able to I would love to answer I I don't quite understand if that's a direct quote I I don't know what I was trying to say in that moment and if there was more context you could provide I would I would be glad to answer your question sure um maybe this will assist you you had indicated um you were asked about modeling and how it relates to seasonal water tables and and you answered um that test pits are important when designing these systems obviously agree with that statement correct yes yes okay [Music] and you had earlier you said that um the mapping is is reliable what about the dbmp guidance for soil reclassification is that a reliable methodology in your opinion for for reclassification um I I would say that I'm not going to say that it's unreliable but the nrcs the people who decide what a pen soil series is or realville soil series that's the reliable resource D is relying on nrcs so what you see in the D the BMP manual is them again relying on uh the national engineering handbook and the nrcs the people who decide what a pen soil series is or what a realville soil series is like those that are mapped on the site how important are V are visual inspections of soil samples and test pits and and soil classification analysis how important are visual visual inspections very important okay why why is it important um color things like I just yes color texture um moisture conditions yeah everything that uh that's how you conduct a soil test pit or a soil profile you look at the soil you feel the soil and you look at things like color uh that you mentioned that gives you indications of that depth to seasonal high water these are all important things when the applicant uh invited objectors professionals on site to observe the additional testing did did you personally attend I did not I was out of town town but I saw photographs taken by our representative and I talked to her uh directly and while she was in the field as well so you haven't personally observed the soils on the site or the test pits no sir and um I guess you're you're paid hourly by the objectors I would assume or objection I'm not sure how that's relevant move on you can ask an expert witness how they're compensated I'm not sure that specific question is relevant or appropriate but believe it all right let me ask let me withdraw that question is it correct that you were hired by Hearthstone to oppose this project time um I was hired by Hearthstone to review this project I don't agree with your wording were you hired with the goal to have this application denied no sir so you're just an impartial soil expert no but but frankly when an objector hires me I I don't make any claims of what I might find in an application and I don't have time to do the homework to dive into an application and say oh yes there's a problem with this one or there's not a problem with that one when I'm hired I am an object objective reviewer of what's put forth and at the point that I'm hired I don't know whether I'm looking at a compliant application or in this case one that's not compliant how many soil t were performed by Princeton Hydro on the subject how many did we perform yeah none okay uh just quickly on water quality we had provided some green infrastructure Manu manufactured treatment devices um are those certified by D to provide the water quality needed uh those systems uh when designed and installed properly are approved units correct are you aware that drcc stated the water quality requirements had been met [Music] um eventually they did yes again you keep testifying about the nrcs maps and how they're reliable but in the webinar you stated quote these maps are not perfect and your colleague Mr Pisano stated quote nrcs maps are broad generalizations of regions you then stated these lines on the maps are not finite they are not perfect do you recall that sa absolutely okay absolutely and I stand by that but I I think um to to further answer your question the um the information that's been submitted by the applicant does not question the mapping it questions the nature of pen and realville soil themselves in other words if you review the documentation and you look at the colors you look at the profiles they are pen and realville soils and if you review Ford's uh Mr Ford's earlier testimony you'll you'll you'll see um that that supports us so again the lines on a nrcs map are not precise you need to know how they're they're they're laid out but and how those maps are created to your initial question figure two in your report uh didn't excuse me let the uh witness finish the answer I'm sorry I didn't know he was so just just to wrap up I I apologize for the longer response than you wanted or expected but I'm not here to say that the applicant is questioning the mapping in my opinion they're not they don't doubt that there are pen in realville soils there what they're questioning and all I said today was that they they have a higher burden because they're saying pen soils are not SE soils pen soils are doils because all their other observations support support the mapping itself so I'm not questioning the mapping you're not questioning the mapping the applicant is questioning what nrcs thinks of the soil series that they Define so it's it's a we can talk about the m all you want but it's not my point it's not relevant figure two in your report didn't include any reference to the final round of testing that was done done in April 2023 which was done to resolve you know these initial questions that had been raised uh by you and and and other profession why didn't you look at the 2023 testing I'm sorry did you say April 2023 I believe that April 2023 that is not when we were out there believe there was a final round of testing after that after the after the testing that was done with no I think I think our initial I think there was another round of testing that was done prior to I think we asked that we be included I think there was another round of testing that was done without including us and that might be what happened in April um but then the third or fourth round where the applicant did notify us I believe was actually in in August if I'm not mistaken is that what you're referring to Yes um yeah so I we did issue another letter in in January uh to that point uh you know the the the May 22nd letter was issued prior to the April testing prior to the August testing and it didn't know that either of those two rounds testing might occur in some point in the future so I'm not sure I understand your question you recommended a limit of disturbance be uh disturbance be delineated to determine to parse out the C and D soils can you point to a section of the regulations that would dictate delineation as you had suggested in chapter 12 um [Music] no it would just be in chapter 12 it's in the BMP manual um I would look towards uh I think there's a table uh in chapter 12 that that talks about that in in in not in clear terms I I guess my question is um chapter 12 doesn't require that every every pit um be classified as C or D isn't that correct I'm paraphrasing if there's you know my understanding is there there's discrepancies you do additional testing right right and like I said at some point you have to make Sound Engineering assumptions and that might mean looking at um your test pits and kind of connecting the dots if you will you know these showed one thing these showed another yeah it's not overly prescriptive and doesn't say every 10 square fet or every 10 ft on a grid you have to do a test pit and then connect the ones that are C's and connect the one that are D's no it doesn't say that would you agree um again with other professionals that the soil is predominantly hsgd um ja we could Define predominantly lots of different ways here yeah yeah I don't it if you can you don't know what the word predominantly means I guess I guess it wait wait wait it's a fair point Mr Excuse me audience the reason I placed I just want to get into because I know Mr Brooks brought this up in the beginning about civility no commentary from the floor please okay we'll referee these guys up here so I'll I'll explain my objection the word predominantly does have a common meeting we're talking about very technical things if there's a point at which for 80% 90% could be important in this situation so if you want to clarify the question that's that's the reason for my objection Mr okay um I I'll withdraw the the question what so what would happen if you design if you assume for this site it's D soils why wouldn't that be a conservative estimate wouldn't that be wouldn't that be wouldn't that assist flooding if the Seas if the if the soils were all sea soils wouldn't it be conservative to assume they were d uh as opposed to the opposite no that they are D soils and you assume they're C no no the opposite is true okay can you explain it to the to the lay people in in in the audience so if you assume that a site is all doils means it generates more runoff and that's what dictates your the limits that you can discharge so if you pave a site that's all d you're creating more runoff but not a lot more compared to if you had a site that was as soils and all sand and you paved over sand you're that Baseline if you assume do soils is higher so you're raising you know lowering the bar so to speak so yeah I would I would say the opposite of your statement is actually true [Music] okay because it's your existing conditions that set your performance levels you stated uh in your report that the application fails to meet the rules outlined in njac 78 5.6 [Music] um your your finding section support this claim listed to speak to an increase in volume in in two out of the three [Music] findings um where where under the RS does the regulation limit an increase in runoff [Music] volume um let me just get to where um so this is an interesting point and it's and it's true um that the the rules do not specifically say that you cannot increase volume however and and so um when you replace a forest with pavement and and rooftop obviously there's going to be a dramatic increase in runoff volume um and and the numbers bear that out um but keep in mind that you have to think about the perspective of who's experiencing this increase in volume so you're you're right the the rules nowhere does it say you know you shall not increase the volume of runoff it does say uh that you should reduce flood damage it does say that you should protect Public Safety it does say minimize to the greatest extent practical any increase in storm water runoff from any new development and in 5.2 the design standards it says shall be designed to take into account existing site conditions so if you want to talk about the pipe the closed privately owned pipe system that goes through the Hearthstone Community they're experiencing not the the dramatic two or threefold increase in runoff volume that I point out in point one there of the May uh 2023 letter but they've got an extra 4 Acres coming to them and that's not because of anything other than your application decided to intentionally divert over 4 acres to that pipe so that's an increase in volume that's not specifically enumerated in 0.1 but that's that's the problem with this application yeah and I and I think that's really really at the heart of this dispute because the code it does not limit the increase in volume provided right that you meet the reductions at the property line so wouldn't so if you comply with the the regulations you're saying well the regul you might comply with the regulations but there's other things that we that you should consider no I didn't say that objection mischaracterizing testimony all right well clarify what what what you what you meant by that simple they have to comply with 7 Co 8 included in 7 Co 8 are the two statements that I read that they don't comply with but it does not limit the increase in the volume right no okay you also talk about at Great length this idea of redirection okay the the drainage area the 4.2 Acres where specifically in njac C7 colon8 does the regulation limit the redirection of drainage areas [Music] I again 78 2.2 and 7 co8 5.2 did the catch all that says what it says reduce flood damage protect Public Safety minimize the greatest extent practical any increase in storm water runoff from any new development and storm water management measures shall be designed to take into account the existing site conditions including draing patterns had had you have a chance to review the applicant's off-site impact report yes okay you didn't mention that in the reported lists of the documents that re you reviewed or your findings do you have any opinion on that opinion on the fact that I didn't mention it well why didn't you mention it uh again you know they they they did the analysis that was uh you know I I think we I think we reviewed it at the time of of this letter um in fact yes it's listed on page two the last bullet point list I assume that's the one you're talking about March H 20 March 8th 2023 I'm not sure the date I apologize yeah off-site storm water impact analysis so we did we did reference it in the letter was that your question uh well it it wasn't discussed or wasn't he didn't analyze the conclusions or is there is there a question in that I don't know why didn't you analyze the off-site impact report that we had produced oh I'm sorry I reviewed it I analyzed it okay all right and I referenced it you your report theorizes that the project will result in flooding and damage Downstream um a report which is listed in the review document section of the letter was submitted showing the benefits of the project on the existing Basin across from Weston and [Music] uh again you didn't you didn't mention that in your report either wh which report are you referring [Music] to your May 22nd 2023 report no but you you I believe you were referring to another report in addition to the one entitled off-site storm water impact analysis dated March 8th was there another report that I'm not aware of I'm not sure IW that question okay um and I understand the Public's concern about flooding obviously um why didn't you perform any offsite or Downstream analysis um well two things I want to point out about the the report that you referenced I think once or twice there and and the calculations uh those only go to the 100-year storm and those assume that the storm water management Basin that's going to be built should this be appro approved uh will remain clear and and and not clogged so um my concern as I think I was clear in my earlier uh Direct was that larger storms will come they do come they have come they they will come again um and that report that you referenced doesn't look at storms beyond the 100-year storm neither does the storm water management calculations that were submitted for this project so but have you performed analysis to support um your claims of the increase and severity of Downstream damage is expected during a flood well yes and no uh early on in the question I would have said yes and then you added some things on that I you know that I haven't done but um that that conclusion is based on the diversion of uh over four acres to this location right which is not prohibited by njac I disagree with that statement okay would you agree that the the peak flows will be reduced can you be more specific because my answer is no if you're not more specific my answer is no I'll allow my engineer to get a little more technical on Peak flows um you also mentioned in one of your reports uh about the class 4 dams or walls is there a regulation or a section of the rag that disallows the use of class four dams or walls some as a hazard to Public Safety no your your uh your report States it's important to note that Hearthstone Basin was designed with the sole purpose of managing storm water for up to the 100-year storm as is dictated by the storm water rules how however as the residents of hills are aware larger stor storms will occur close quote does the design of the project utilize the revised Rags or was this grandfathered under the old RS um it uses the revised rainfall data I don't know if that's what you mean by RS the calculated rainfall amount right it's the it's the new it's the new data correct the current and and and new data yes the environmental commission stated in their review that detaining 90% of the 100-year storm by at least 14.5 hours after the 100-year storm would be benefit IAL to mitigate the increase in volume uh would you agree with the EC's recommendation it sounds like they've done some pretty detailed work um I have not done that same analysis uh so I I'm not going to agree or disagree with that then um okay would you know the answer or I should say is it correct that the applicant detained 1.48 times this volume for 17.5 hours when 14.5 hours was recommended by the EC isn't that above and beyond the regulations uh those numbers may be above what they asked for and and and but it it doesn't change the fact that that when a larger storm comes larger than that 100-year storm you're going to have an extra four acres of pavement that's not going to be attenuated by this basin at all going to this pipe which at that point will be largely overwhelmed and going to the clubhouse how do you know that how do you know it'll be overwhelmed or clogged well I because it's designed for the 100-year storm and I know as an engineer that larger storms will come and their job your job as an applicant is not to prevent the downstream Community from flooding but it's not to make that worse and that's what this application will do how many storm Water Management Systems have you personally designed let's say you know per year so again as we kind of ended up with um I'm not a Land Development engineer I I do not do um this is not a day-to-day task of mine our firm it is not in our mission statement we just we don't when we're offered land velopment applications we don't do it so I've worked on over the years uh I've designed storm Water Management Systems dozens um okay but how many this year you think you've you've designed yourself I don't know zero 10 somewhere in between how many storm Water Management Systems have you designed in Hillsboro Township zero are you aware that Mr Ford has designed hundred if not thousands of storm water management system I'm going to here we've kind of we we've made our plan we know Clay's history it's a valid question and Mr I'm asking him are you aware that Mr Ford has designed hundreds of stormw Water Management Systems any of Mr Ford's other applications or designs are not before this board right now okay look we can talk about my experience um my background as much as you want tonight but the fact remains that you you came with an application that had a critical misunderstanding of the most basic aspects of this site and the configuration as it relates to storm water management so you can tell me how many dozens of systems he's designed this Township and I don't mean to take anything away from from Mr Ford but these are the facts um and and that's a critical misunderstanding here um and I think it may have led to this diversion of water towards the community that wouldn't have otherwise happened so you can go on about his qualifications um as much as you choose [Music] to are you aware of a a single storm water management system designed by Mr Ford that's failed I couldn't point to a single storm wire management system that he has designed and built okay have no further questions I don't have redirect at the moment so I'll turn it over to the board y [Music] May for those standing in the back there's a whole row here in the front that's empty the second Pew if you'd like to use it it says Reserve but it's not we're not we won't bite thank you Mr [Music] chairman um Dr Emerson we touched a little bit about the volume of runoff from the site um does the stormw report submitted by the applicant demonstrate that there will be an increase in storm water runoff volume in the developed condition versus the existing condition uh yes yes it it [Music] does just note my objection for the record my objection is based on [Music] relevance um Dr Emerson we we talked a little bit about um the D stor Water Management regulations and you've quoted njac 7 colon 5.4 and then there's 5.5 and 5.6 I believe 5.4 talks about groundwood recharge is that the correct section uh yes that sounds correct yes sir and I correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the de requires an applicant to demonstrate sufficient groundwater rear uh by one of two methods and one method would be to calculate the pre-developed and the postd developed runoff from the 2-year storm and to make sure there's no increase in the developed condition is that correct yes they there there are two options and most applications go with the um no no loss of groundwater recharge from pre to post so you jumped ahead on me so the other so the first method available is calculating the runoff in the existing condition from the 2-year storm and to calculate the volume and then to make sure in the developed condition that twoyear storm does not increase the volume of runoff is that correct that's correct that's the first option and then the second method would be to look at the runoff uh and from an annual budget standpoint correct and I believe the applicant has chosen to use the second method is that correct correct and I believe if um a dooil a hydraulic a hydraulically classified soil of D in the existing condition the DP would consider Ed that to produce zero recharge correct yes so if an applicant can reclassify the existing soil to a d then they essentially can meet the annual recharge budget without having to do any recharge because the D will assume that there's zero recharge today correct that's correct and so when an applicant States he's met the recharge criteria would you say it's a little bit of a misnomer because there's really no recharge occurring yes that's that's correct in in a sense it's a a get out of jail free kind of card you uh if it's a d there there is nothing for you to do and I believe this is the method that was utilized in this application and I believe this is the method that the Delaware and rare ton Canal commission has uh signed off on on this application correct yes okay but if we return to the other method which is looking at the 2-year existing runoff in the developed condition and post um I believe you've already testified and I believe the applicant and it's in the applicants report that there is going to be an increase and runoff volume from the 2-year storm would you agree that there would also be an increase in volume of runoff in the 10year and the 100-year storms please note my objection for the record same same [Music] objection yes uh there is more than a um two-fold increase in the two-year and there would be increases under the 10 and 100y year as well um if if in your opinion if if an area was flooding Downstream and it experienced additional volume of flow would that increase the severity of flooding [Music] yes and [Music] um and if a site restricted the peak flow rate but didn't restrict the volume of flow couldn't that increased volume impact Downstream flooding yes this is a topic that I've spent a lot of time working on um published papers about this is this is a this is a true statement did the applicant off-site analysis continue all the way down into Manville no no it didn't it did not did the applicant calculate the travel time from the proposed Basin Outlet structure through Hearthstone down to Royce Brook and down to Manville now so um could it be possible that even though the applicant is delaying the peak rate from this Basin is it possible that that when the flow is exiting the spacin it may be entering Manville while Manville is flooding uh no my objection for the record [Music] speculation uh yes it's possible well I'll I'll rephrase this [Music] it's um if flooding is occurring in Manville and we haven't calculated the time between the site Basin and Manville do we know if we're exasperating the Manville flooding or not when we release we don't know so in your opinion it would be a safer for the public to minimize the increase in volume of runoff that we're releasing from this [Music] site please know my objection LAX Foundation well I think we we established that an engineering opinion if a site is flooding such as Manville and Upstream areas contribute additional volume of runoff to the flood zone it's going to increase the flooding it's a question for Mr so um yes if you are increasing uh the volume of runoff and uh even if you're attenuating that runoff in other words um there's more of it but you're slowing it down a little bit and you do that over um a large area with a series of uh sites that were all designed independently in an uncoordinated fashion the net result is you will increase Peak flows and and flooding Downstream and and I've demonstrated that on a on a real world application that that is a fact um Dr erson I think you're alluding to the subject site is just one subw shed within a larger wers shed contributing to flooding in Manville correct correct as you go Downstream there's a larger and larger drainage area um and when we're specifically talking about the drainage area for the Royce Brook um and I think you've alluded to there are hundreds if not thousands of of subwatersheds contributing to the flow and they're all the timing is different in all of them and therefore the impact Downstream occurs at different times correct correct and um I think we've already answered this question we don't know if the release from this Basin is going to contribute or minimize the flooding Dash do we we just know that it will increase the runoff volume and that at the point of analysis as theyve chosen um uh that they've they've done calculations at at those points um and none [Music] other I'm going to change directions a little bit um when a soil scientist is doing a soil test pit and they look at groundwater and they um or seepage and they need to classify it as either perched water or a seasonal high water um in your opinion can that sometimes be a gray area as to whether the the seeping is observed is perched or an actual Regional seasonal high order table yes it it it can be uh difficult to discern uh depending on the time of year that that you're doing it or the um nature of the soil profile um yeah it it takes a trained trained eye is it possible in your experience that sometimes a soil log that identifies water as seasonal high water could in fact actually have simply been perched water [Music] yes that's all the questions I have Mr chairman okay we're gonna take a brief recess will reconvene 5 up okay at 5 of to the big clock in the back okay we're back in session I thought it was just no I've heard from [Music] other I would hope okay Mr Mayu had just completed Mr Co we close the door please in the back thank you thank you hello Dr Emerson the uh the proposed drainage is there any negative impact that that can have on the wetlands on the property um you referring to the diversion of the correct the drainage area um yeah so the uh that's a possibility when you a wetland is is a wetland because of uh the soil the groundwater conditions and a large part of that is the surface drainage area Watershed that that feeds that Wetland so diverting that or trying to engineer that in some way um Can impact um a wetland negatively thank you okay thank you board members uh Dr Emerson um you testified there is no emergency Spillway in the retention Basin at at uh Hearthstone um no there is an emergency Spillway in the Basin at Hearthstone and if I I may have misspoke but my point when I said there is no emergency Spillway is um that there is no emergency Spillway to the pipe that goes past the clubhouse in other words water that flows to that Basin on their property um in in large storms in storms larger than the 100-year storm there's a emergency Spillway an armored intentional area where that system will overflow but on the contrary to that now that we're taking that 4 acres and not and and taking it away from the Basin and putting it into this closed pipe system now if that pipe is is under pressure and more flow is coming to it than it can handle there is no controlled engineered place for it to overflow it's going to pop a manhole up if it's under pressure and water's going to come out of the manhole for example um so that's what I meant when I said there's no emergency Spillway there's no quote emergency Spillway for the pipe it's has a limited capacity and anything beyond that all bets are off so that pipe or or the end of the pipe that would overflow where would that be located the pipe the like where would the problem be in that case uh the problem would be centered um in the location of the pipe which is generally just adjacent to the clubhouse I think it physically runs under some of the recreational facilities and ultimately discharges out of the retaining wall so if if there were a situation where the pipe were receiving more runoff than it could convey or if there was some physical problem in the pipe you know some kind of failure um water's going to come out wherever and whenever it can at the at the lowest point um which the most furthest Downstream point would be um I think there's a series of a a few manholes on the Hearthstone property the pipe itself on the Upstream side could back up and water would just flow directly over Weston Road towards the uh improvements on the Hearthstone property but that pipe is in very close proximity to the building and and actually takes a couple um turns there to work around it and then that eventually goes into the retention Basin where there is an emergency Spillway no it it it never does it it it flows um out of the retaining wall there's a um uh what's called a pre-formed scour hole there where the pipe discharges and then it flows into the ultimately into the Royce Brook and the small tributary that works its way through the community okay so that basement uh Basin that we see on Weston Road that has nothing to do with this flow of water that's correct okay thank you thank you hi Dr Emerson um can you clarify for us through all this talk about reclassification of soils just what is the reclassification in this application from C to D is that that's that's what we're talking about okay so in any prior applications or anything any any subdivisions of that the site prior to this would have been classified as C unless the engineer attempted to reclassify as this one has yes it by default that's what the the mapping is here okay um is it what would what could cause a soil to go from C to D and I anything is it is it over time can it naturally happen does it have to be surcharged can you expand on what would cause soil to go from C to D or vice versa it's not that it um it's not that the something with the soil physically changed that and and that's in in their defense that's not what they've argued that that it it once was a c and is now a D um you know soil forms over thousands of years based on climate vegetation geology a conglomerate of of of factors go into soil and then the nrcs you know tries to break what's really a complicated system down into these four first four letters of the alphabet um and for these soil series they think that they're best described as a c they being the nrcs and the applicant disagrees so it's not that there's in time some change that that occurs it's in this case that the applicant um disagrees again not with the the mapping in my opinion but with the um nature of those specific soil series uh the pen and realville soils thank you that's all thank you thanks just have one question Dr Emerson the the pipe that everybody was been made reference to what is the size of that pipe is it 12 in 2436 do we know what uh yes we do know it's contained in the plans it's a little bit unusual in that it's an elliptical pipe so it's not a uh I I believe it's a a concrete elliptical pipe and and not a uh a standard round pipe so it doesn't have a diameter per se um it has a height and a width that I don't want to misquote but it's contained in the plans okay so it varies in with I guess I'm trying to Envision what an elliptical pipe oh it it's an oval uh cross-section instead of circular okay thank [Music] you Dr Emerson where is the can you hear me back um the line or the responsibility of the statute and regulations weighing in the other Clauses that you mentioned and the best interest Clauses where where does where does that mesh and how does it mesh when evaluating and designing um or engineering what you're talking about yeah those are kind of um I look at them as from a storm water standpoint or an engineering standpoint as kind of the the common sense Clauses you know um but they're a little more specific than that so they're kind of the the overarching theme I mean it's literally that section is is is called the goals you know of uh storm water management plans and the design standards these are the basic design standards so the later on in the regulations they get into the nitty-gritty the numbers but these are the overarching themes and goals and and purposes of the rules so uh they they can't be overlooked um in my opinion and um so they they're a theme that that runs throughout the rules um but you know they're the they're the the basis or the foundation of a sound design so they they're they're not a vacuum they need to be considered together correct okay thank you okay thank you y anyone else okay I have a motion open to public no [Music] moved okay all in favor I I okay if there's anyone from the public who is not represented by the objector attorneys and would wish to um ask questions of uh Mr Emerson onest testimony please feel to come [Music] up okay we have no takers [Music] okay and again please state your name and address for the record [Music] please Maria Janus 720 East fck Avenue Manville New Jersey also Hillsboro Township property owner um in regard to the soil uh so is the soil C or is it D what what's actually in the in the um in in the in the information regarding this property uh because it would be more beneficial for the excuse me for the applicant to classify it as a [Music] d well I guess that's a that's a a question for them uh but if you were to look this site up on the nrcs web soil survey um website which is a a website that maintains all the nrcs mapping it would be listed as a c uh but the engineer has argued that um based on the uh based on some of the test pits that they have done that it it should be um classified as a d you're saying the engineer that's the uh applicant engineer saying that it's a c d so if it's a c then it's it it absorbs more water um they're arguing that it's a a d um but the mapping listed as a c and to your the second part of your question um a d is a soil that is more likely to has a higher potential to generate runoff so a c would generate less runoff so a c would absorb more water a d would not so in terms of how much um this this application would uh uh allow water to to run off it wouldn't really matter as much if it's a d because you're saying you're not really making that much of a change is that what's what what's being said uh that's a a simplification of it but yes so so then it's to their benefit to call it a dooil to their benefit in that [Music] it enables them as Mr Mayu uh question me um to comply with the groundwater recharge requirements you know without specifically designing a compliant groundwater recharge system so it if if that's what you mean by makes it easier for them then I would agree um you mentioned intentionally diverting for Acres um could you be a little more um like put it in a little bit simpler terms for you know for us to understand sure um their approach to the the site design um has taken four acres um which is about 30 a 30% increase um so the pipe the same pipe that um we were just discussing um now is going to have to convey uh 30 Port 30 over 30% more drainage area than it does as we as we stand here today and um that additional four acres is also going to be paved under the proposed condition is going to be paved roadway parking and and Rooftop in a in a large part uh so the reason I use the word diversion specifically is that um that that that 4 Acres isn't going to flow through the pipe at the Hearthstone um Community uh until and only until they construct the site as designed so it's a change that they're in deciding to make intentionally diverting um so it's it's taking runoff away from the state Open Water the regulated area you see on the left side of uh the figure that's that's still up and uh away from the Basin and putting it to a place where it it doesn't currently flow so that's why I use the term diversion so uh okay so what you're saying is that there's a there would be a design where the water intentionally goes somewhere that that you want it to go versus this just going wherever it's going to go based on uh the runoff off the roof and and all of that yeah I I guess my my main point is that when you and I think what your question is is getting to is that their responsibility is is is not to ensure that a downstream property doesn't flood um their responsibil is to ensure that whatever existing flooding issues may exist they don't make them any worse worse and one way to make them worse is to divert additional drainage area to that area and that's what they're proposing to do okay what what what does nrcs stand for natural resource conservation service it's a division of the uh USDA another acronym USDA okay um okay I think that's it all right thank you thank you yeah [Music] good evening excuse me good evening my name is Amil DeVito I'm the staff scientist at New Jersey conservation foundation in Far Hills New Jersey and I live in middlex County um Dr Emerson this uh area that was sort of mismapped you said it was about 4 acres in terms of the way it drains does much of it drain toward that Wetland on the left side of the diagram yes the entirety of that roughly 4.2 Acres currently drains towards that feature would it have been possible to design a system in that area of the Wetland and the Wetland buffer that would have directed the water from those from that acreage toward the Wetland so that it could be filtered and then eventually leave that Wetland and make its way toward that emergency Spillway that you've talked about uh yes um that's all no further questions thank [Music] you any other [Music] members mayor Richard on derco 325 North Main Street in the burough B [Music] under NSA 40 colon 55 d-2 it states that the purpose of New Jersey municipal land use law include and I quote to ensure that the development of individual municipalities does not conflict with the development and general welfare of neighboring municipalities unquote Dr Emerson it's always good to see you I have a question leaving this site in its natural state or developing it which is better for the environment and flooding does the site plan of this site contribute more to flooding or less to flooding in your opinion um any anytime you're converting a forested area to a a developed area and increasing the runoff volume [Music] um you're you're generating more runoff that that that has to flow Downstream uh there's there's no groundwater recharge that's that's been proven to um that this design is going to address and so adding adding additional runoff volume um can only um increase flooding uh Downstream and I think the most acute impacts in this case are going to be uh right at the the property line right at the the downstream end where this additional 4 Acres but that impact um you know goes travels Downstream as well to your point thank [Music] you David broke seven Winding Way uh Dr Emerson just a curious component of this C versus D thing um does a storm waterer recharge basin per square footage cost more than a storm waterer detention Basin if you know no that depends on uh on a number of factors so I can't I can't say that one by default is necessarily more expensive than the other okay one other question then with regards to C versus D is there a particular reason that you can think of why an applicant would prefer that it be D versus C and present information to convince a board that it's impervious as opposed to perious um as as we discussed uh in in the questions from Mr Mayu if if a site if an engineer argues that a site is uh deoil then then they don't need to design nor include any um groundwater recharge features and and then prove that those groundwater recharge factors are are going to are going to function uh so that's the best I can do to answer your question all right thank you okay anyone else okay see none do we close I leave it open until then okay I guess we are for now done with Mr Emerson or Dr Emerson sorry thank you thank you Dr Emerson you can take that all right uh Pam gri [Music] court repor is goingon to swear you [Music] inuth I do uh Pam grigas g r i g s live at 71 Weber [Music] Avenue here is all right you're good uh Miss grigas just uh to confirm that address you gave you're a member of the har still and homel Association is that correct yes I am all right I understand you have um uh testimony to provide about uh this application yes I have a PR a prepared statement uh good [Music] evening get the mic real close to you it may move the mic to the side so I can get close to your because people in the back closer to me yes okay okay as I stated I live at 71 Weber Avenue with my husband Nick and three cats I retired in August 2023 as the senior managing director of operation for an engineering firm in the Princeton acoustic engineering firm in the Princeton Junction area my husband reti in July 2023 as a product line manager from the same firm we have three adult married children and five grandchildren I have lived in Hillsboro for 37 years with 17 years at the Hearthstone development but first at tutor Court in kimberwick and then Longfield Drive behind this municipal building our youngest child her husband and two grandchildren live in Hillsboro on Rivendell Road I brought my newborn daughter home to tutor Court in August 1988 and she brought her newborn daughter home to rivendale Road in November 2022 my husband and I plan to remain at Hearthstone as our forever home the dream of retirement did not include living across the street from a giant Warehouse a comment was made in a previous planning board meeting that those of us that live in Hearthstone should have known that the property was for sale and zoned for a warehouse I am an original owner from 2007 our only reference point for a warehouse was 17 years ago and those businesses that were on Weston Road none of those businesses were or are the size and scope of this proposed giant Warehouse the proposed Warehouse is 27 ft wide by 501 ft Deep by 38.4 ft High which is approximately 130,000 Square ft the volume of this Warehouse is in more than 5 million cubic feet we understood it was zoned as light industrial we could never have imagined that the monstrosity Warehouse proposed would fall under light industrial if we did most of us would not have purchased our homes this 247 365 day Warehouse comes with traffic noise backup alarms dust fumes lights and additional redirected stormw water runoff if this application moves forward a segment of Hillsboro senior population will live directly across from this Warehouse it will impact quality of life safety and health for all of hearthstone residents which is 185 homes I have many concerns about this giant Warehouse application but my main concern is about safety and the quality of life living across from this type of warehouse and the impact on not only on us and marstone but to Hillsboro and Manville I drive on Weston Road every day it is the road that accesses my development this Warehouse has 20 truck docks 28 trailer spots 99 vehicle parking spots and is designed for 8 and 1/2 ft by 73t long tractor trailers it will impact traffic on the narrow existing roads and tight intersections currently traffic must stop and cars must back up to allow a tractor trailer to make a turn small box trucks have difficulty remaining on their side of Weston Road and often cross the double yellow line I've had to move all the way to the right side of the road to avoid a collision one of the latest incidents occurred on May 9th 2024 at 4:30 p.m. when a tractor trailer for a national Shipping Company crossed the yellow lines on Weston Road at the 90° Bend between Falcon Road and sunny me Road and came within inches of hitting my car headon I swerved to the right as far as I could without hitting the guard rail I've never been that close to a tractor trailer on the road before I was shaken for a period of time after the incident my husband was with me luckily my grand children were not each time I drive around that bend I think of how close I came to a head-on collision with a tractor trailer those in my community have similar experiences Weston Sunny me and Falcon roads have very tight narrow intersections and these roads have no shoulders with deep ditches and utility poles in the ditches there is little space to avoid void a collision with a tractor trailer that cannot remain in their Lane additionally Sunny me School is located a mile from this proposed warehouse this is a grammar school how can these roads be suitable for a warehouse of this type school buses will be on these roads daily to and from the school I am concerned for my safety the safety of my family friends and those in my community avoiding a tractor Trail or crossing the double yellow line means driving into a ditch or guard rail and possibly hitting a pole headon injury is probable death is possible in my previous position as senior managing director of operations the safety of the employees and the general public was the highest priority it drove my day I knew the number of employees working their shifts and those who were at customer sites we encouraged employees to stop work if there was ever a concern about safety no matter where they are we manufactured equipment that listens for defects and materials and provides an alert before the asset fails which could cause injury or death it was my responsibility to ensure that everyone went home the same way they came to work a safety con concern was never ignored before I get the question I'm not a safety expert but I don't need to be to know it's unsafe when you get run off the road by a truck coming from the point of safety I don't understand how this type of Warehouse given the location with no easy access for these types of trucks and indicated operations will be safe for the public yet the traffic report States the is particularly well suited for this Warehouse how can that statement be made because it only counts cars and trucks and does not account for safety at all according to Mr Arif the miracle Brand's business was launched in 2019 in 2020 the business experienced 29% growth in in 2021 50% growth in 2022 70% growth and he expected 2023 to be 100% growth Mr AR estimates that at the current facility his company is utilizing about 25,000 square fet of storage the proposed Weston Warehouse is about 130,000 Square ft when questioned about operations at the Weston location most of the answers are I don't know Additionally the applicants experts presented conflicting information for on-site operations and traffic generation for example the number of truck trips per day and there appears to be no business plan yet somehow the business has operated and experienced growth in my role as operations director for my previous employer I was aware of my my division's business business plan without it how could I run the business how would I know what parts to purchase what products to build how many people are needed to build the product sales support shipping engineering quality you do not guess at operations it's planned so the question is since we don't know Miracle brand operations what's really going to happen with the Weston Warehouse I have sat through planning board meetings and listened to the applicants expert Witnesses State how they believe their warehouse plans meet Township codes when these expert Witnesses are asked questions regarding the impact on nearby communities they avoid answering the question and again State what they are submitting in their opinion is according to the code the warehouse will not exist in isolation and the impact should be considered beyond what is documented on a piece of paper as the applicants experts testified I'd listen incredulously and wonder who is the expert of Common Sense and when will that expert be called and then Paul gleets testified and we finally had someone who has considered all aspects of this Warehouse application and what the intent of light industrial truly is the realworld issues that result from the applicant's expert testimony need to be addressed since these experts will be gone once their job is done I will still be here I live here the group behind me we live here we will be left with the safety issues the noise pollution and flooding from a huge Warehouse that supposedly meets a code but never made common sense as referenced by Paul gleets I quote from new New Jersey distribution warehousing and goods movement guidelines page 25 truck traffic can present substantial safety issues collisions with heavyduty trucks are especially dangerous for passenger cars motorcycles bicycles and pedestrians these concerns can be even greater if the truck traffic passes through residential areas school zones or other places where pedestrians are common and extra caution is warranted whatever the level of review the analysis of all such Traffic Safety aspects should be a requirement of the developer all such analyses along with information as to the upgrades needed to address impacts should be presented for review approval end of quote I listened intently to the applicants expert traffic testimony it only encompasses encompasses Weston Road which is 3/4 of a mile in total length and only references the entrance to Hearthstone and the proposed Warehouse yet the report and I quote has further examined the roadway system to safely and efficiently accommodate the new traffic demand but what is the traffic demand as we've heard the appli experts are inconsistent when discussing truck traffic what about other roads such as Sun meat Falcon and Kennedy Boulevard it is our understanding that Manville is prop is proposing weight restricting Kennedy Boulevard and other Manville roads as testified by the applicant's traffic engineer 48% of this proposed Warehouse tra truck traffic would have used Kennedy Boulevard with the weight restriction on Kennedy Boulevard in place all truck traffic for this proposed Warehouse will shift slow solely through Hillsboro when questioned about roadway width shoulders proper clearances fixed obstacles and a turning radius for 8 1/2t by 73t tractor trailer tractor trailers the applicants traffic expert indicated that it is beyond his scope of work and up to the governing body to consider as an original owner in Hearthstone I decided to purchase my home based on those businesses that were currently on Weston Road there were no existing buildings on the property so there was nothing to reference had there been an existing Warehouse of this magnitude I would have been able to assess the risks of living near a large warehouse and the resulting truck traffic and then decide if I want to live there we cannot lose sight of the fact that this proposed giant warehouse is located directly across the street from hearstone at Hillsboro this includes 185 homes the Condominiums where our most senior residents reside the clubhouse which is a gathering place for our community this is where the pool botche ball court and tennis and pickle ball courts are located who could think that a warehouse of this magnitude would be deemed light industrial and be before this planning board the reality is that there are 185 homes across the street from this proposed Warehouse application and the impact on safety health and quality of life must be considered public safety and well-being are the utmost priority surpassing any code is a human life less important than that code I hope that for this giant Warehouse application we never lose sight of the people who live here I sit before you as a long-term resident of Hillsboro now three generations and one of the chosen representatives of the Hearthstone community and I respectfully ask the Hillsboro Township planning board to deny this application thank you for your [Music] [Applause] attention thank you um I just have one comment um actually one question um when did you say that you moved into the to your home 2007 2007 and speaking to the mic though 20 2007 were you aware that on October 4th 1990 a 13 unit industrial Warehouse project was approved for the site across the street no do you recall receiving a mandatory disclosures when you purchased the home that talked about the surrounding area I do not okay do you deny that you would receive those or I objection she answered the [Music] question no further questions [Music] it's going to go around Mr Mayu thank you Mr chairman um I guess my first question is to Mr Bernstein for help and clarification uh there was a discussion about trucks maneuvering along Sunny me Road and at the intersection with Falcon Road and Western Road and recently our office took a look at truck movements through those intersections U I'll defer to Mr Bernstein as to whether or not it's an appropriate time that to introduce those or would it be better to make that a separate yourself this witness with all due respect is not qualified to be questioned on the issue of truck movements turning radius or related items and I don't think she's being presented here I don't think she's being presented here for that testimony to clarify any confusion Miss grias is here as a non-expert witness and I've made no attempt to qualify her as an expert no uh nothing to say about her intelligence just not qualifying her as an expert I have no further questions course I have no uh questions okay board members okay to the public we're open to public if anyone from the public please come [Music] forth that was guar that was guaranteed I don't know Maria janusek um you were just asked a question by attorney Michael ogrodnik of whether you were given any information uh about the site across the street prior to buying your house um did you get any information uh about that uh site I don't recall receiving that information um information was provided that there is an easement on that property that's owned by Hillsboro Township did you get information from the township that there's an easement on that property did the attorney don't answer the question Miss Janice for the purposes of the record the township is not required to advise people whether there is or is not an easement on an adjoining piece of property in any shape or form the notice that Mr ogrodnik alludes to is a requirement established by the legislature to notify people who are buying property in the surrounding area whether or not there are other items that may or may not impact upon their purchase so move on the property owner well who who does the property owner have to provide information the the owner of the property have to provide information or I'm assuming you're not familiar with the law then I'm yeah no I'm not I'm not I'm I'm not the property Mr ogrodnik attorney ogrodnik asked questions uh Mr negatively impact this this community but he didn't say anything about the easement that's owned by Hillsboro Township that should have been provided uh to the thank you Mrs Janice for purposes of the record one until the legislature requires municipalities counties the state Etc to notify ajoining Property Owners of easement or related items on their property there is no such requirement the requirement that Mr ogrodnik asked about which the witness testified she I believe did not recall is a requirement that was imposed by the legislature a number of years ago ostensibly on real estate developers and real estate agents to make sure that they did not fail to disqualify what may or may not have been in the public realm the witnesses testify she doesn't recall otherwise that's the end of that you any other members of the public that would like to question this witness on her testimony okay thank you thank you m ggas [Music] thanks Jim Jim vanderhorst [Music] Mr choice I think he's wants to plug in if that's okay [Music] yeah I think it looks like it might be on this side [Music] all [Music] right you you frozen you're with me one second there you go all right uh the court reporter is going to swear you in Mr vurst swear any testimony you give tonight is going be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth [Music] yes oh I'm sorry uh James VOR V is in Victor o n is in Nancy D is in David e r h o r s t all right Mr vorse uh can you uh tell us your position at the hearstone homeowners association well I have to make uh a correction right away because my slide says I'm president of hearthstone at Hillsboro I was up until January of this year and then after three years um I decided not to return or or run again for the position however the current board asked me to continue to lead the effort to oppose the warehouse so that's what I'm doing here I still represent all 185 families of hearthstone and I understand you have uh testimony to provide on the application on behalf of the association yes please proceed thank you and I do have a slide deck if you'd like to follow along with me um already explained that I'm no longer president but I'm still representing the the 185 families at Hearthstone we're an over 55 community um we're directly across the street from the proposed Warehouse as you already heard I'm 73 years old I'm about the median age of the folks in the development about half of them are older than me half are younger um half of us are retired on fixed incomes the other half are still working God bless them and they still have to uh look forward to retirement all of us though along with many of the other citizens surrounding our development uh are opposed to the Western Warehouse tonight I want to share with you the impacts on the community um if the warehouse is approved but first I want to share with you something real quick something I learned after 40 plus years of working with management Boards of Johnson and Johnson and Mercedes-Benz Etc on making decisions because in essence that's what you folks will be doing uh sometime tonight tomorrow within the next week or so um and one of the things I found is is uh how leaders make good decisions there's really two ways you can do it you can make decisions by doing things right or you can make decisions by doing the right thing now that may sound like a play on words um what's the difference allow me to give you a quick example of what I mean uh I did work for Johnson and Johnson for a good number of years and many of you may have already know this case because I'm sorry we have required every witness who has appeared before this board whether it was the applicants witness the objector WT Witnesses Etc to provide slides presentations to the board at least 10 days in advance of their testimony so that everyone was a aware of it and B in case there were issues regarding same they could be addressed Mr Vander horse does not is not an exempt individual from that requirement so there are two options here well Mr Bernstein if I can uh interject we did provide this and it's on on Civic clerk uh board I don't believe have I've I've seen this I have some objections based upon hearsay and other objections but I did receive it I I raised this is I'm not so sure some of the board has seen all of this Council can you give me an an idea of the date when that was submitted and have to look I don't recall 9:21 I submitted it to the to the board Clerk and I I believe I copied your office Mr Bernstein uh you may have but I don't recall seeing it so you may have sent it but I didn't get it but if the answer is the board's received it the board's seen it I apologize to Mr Vander hor in my advancing age as well which is not too much younger than yours uh [Music] and I have copies if you need copies that's fine the answer is my concern was the board had it it was on the priv Mr Ash has said it Mr ogrodnik has indicated he received it we have no objection we have objection continu as long as the board either has it or will have it I apologize move on thank you Mr berstein please proceed Mr V thank you all right so the difference between doing things uh right and doing the right thing Johnson and Johnson 1982 Tylenol was the number one over the counter pain reliever of the market in other words it made a lot of money for J&J um what happened in September of 1982 um some folks died in Chicago after taking Tylenol the First Response of J&J was to go back to regulations and rules and guidelines that they actually had put together themselves a number of years prior to that and uh they went through those guidelines they wanted to minimize impact on profits they wanted to control negative publicity they were doing things right they were making good decisions based on their own guidelines that they created years ago however shortly after they came up with their first plan the Johnson and Johnson CEO at the time basically said wait a minute are we doing the right thing for the customer here yeah we're following the guidelines and the rules and the regulations but are we doing the right thing does this solution make sense for the long term so what happened shortly thereafter is Johnson and Johnson the CEO went on Nation white TV and basically pulled out all the J&J product from all the stores not that just the Chicago land stores they pulled out all of the uh all of the merchandise and they wound up making the um tamperproof packaging that we all love to try to deal with when we're opening up things in the middle of the night but the point was is that they just didn't do the uh do things right they did the right thing and that decision is still taught in Business Schools today so you're probably saying what the heck does this have to do with this proposed Warehouse so what i' like to do is um uh you know we've we've heard a lot of testimony over the last 13 14 meetings whatever it is we've heard expert testimony from both sides some of it's conflicting in an effort to do things right of course I personally think our own uh experts are are correct but let's examine some of the testimony so far and the impact on the citizens of hearthstone if the proposed Warehouse is allowed and I'd like to focus on six key areas traffic roads Warehouse operation quality of life flooding and environmental and I'll try not to repeat too much what you've already heard from uh Pam gregus let's first look at the impact of the additional tractor trailer traffic the applicant traffic expert says there is no real impact with the tra with the tractor Trail and on traffic and besides additional traffic is allowed under the guidelines the area is zoned appropriately to allow tractor trailers for a second let's look at the reality of the roads that these tractor trailers will be traveling the roads are narrow there are no curbs there's no sidewalks there's draining ditches on both sides it's aligned by utility poles it's traveled by the school buses that are going to the elementary school that's one mile down the road Road and all of this is in the middle of a residential area not just our development but residential homes up and down the street here's some examples of what the um trucks will be traveling by uh here's a pole now I I I agree this slide looks makes it look like the Pole's about one inch away from the road it's actually about 12 to 18 in but it's still pretty close when you're driving a tractor trailer let me give you another example here's another Pole right outside our development on the other side of Weston and you can see not just the pole there but the very deep ditch that uh runs alongside Weston uh and on both sides usually another example of the road this photo was taken over a year ago and you can see that already the road is starting to deteriorate and um makes it hard to travel making a left turn on to Sunny me road from Falcon Road I'd like to show you a quick video Pam mentioned earlier about uh this truck that she had to uh avoid quite a bit I'll show you where that is in this video we're making a left um from Falcon under Sunny me if you'll notice here's what the road looks like there's uh quite a bit of items on the side of the road there's ditches on the side of the road residential and here comes that curve that referred to there she almost got hit it's pretty tight as you can tell and this continues going up the street so let me take it one step further and go a little further up this is where whoops bear with me one second here we go [Music] now we're continuing on Weston up toward where the warehouse will be built once again noce where the residential area bses and you can get the gist for this I'm I'm not going to continue I'll stop here but it's a pretty dangerous road it's pretty thin in the last N9 months I personally have witnessed eight situations of tractor trailer problems in and around Weston Road some examples in April of 2023 there's a stalled truck on Weston Road and Boyd Boulevard this is right in front of our development uh it stopped traffic in both directions for about 15 minutes here's another example May of 2023 disabled tractor trailer on Sunny me heading towards Falcon Road and you can see there that it doesn't leave very much room for uh other vehicles to get by June of 2023 right in front of our development you can see the sign there says Boy Da that's the entrance to our Dev elment disabled truck on Weston and boy Boulevard uh that actually required that Amazon Prime truck to be towed out and it obstructed traffic for over two hours on Weston Road um in March and June of 2023 uh I personally saw two instances of tractor trailers turning from Falcon onto sunnyme both had to use the opposite lane waiting cars had to back up and then coming home one night I was coming up from Manville getting ready to make a right-hand turn into the development on Boyd Boulevard I had my right turn directional signal on and all of a sudden this massive tractor trailer passed me at approximately 40 45 M an hour um you talk about my heart being in my throat on October 12th 2023 a disabled New Jersey American water truck got stuck in the drainage ditch on Weston um and Boyd again right in front of our development um I asked the driver what happened and he said I tried to avoid a deer that was crossing and he swerved slightly wound up in the ditch he had to be towed December 23rd 2023 uh believe this is my last example disabled tractor trailer entering the fabricating shop that is uh just up the street from our entrance on Weston and Boyd um the backup was to Sunny me and lasted over 45 minutes now keep in mind that I was not sitting around waiting for all of these examples to happen there have been many others seen by members of our community but they have not been documented I also stopped documenting because I was expecting to do this testimony in beginning of 2024 so that's why I've stopped at 2023 in addition the city of Manville is attempting to weight restrict as you heard from um Pam that Kennedy Boulevard might be weight restricted and of course that's going to cause 100% of this traffic to now come through Hillsboro so allow me to post a question in regards to the impact of traffic uh on this on the citizens and on Hillsboro you got to ask yourself does this make sense are we doing the right thing for our citizens if we allow this Warehouse I'd like to take a look at the a third impact of the warehouse and that's its operation although we have heard from uh a number of different experts after the applicants Logistics expert testimony we still don't know the actual hours of operation the days of week number of employees number of truck trips Etc we are also told by the logistics expert that the applicant will save money by hiring their own employees rather than an using an outsourced Service as they currently do I have to be honest with you when I first heard this T testimony my first reaction was you have to be kidding me in 40 plus years of working with organizations I have never seen one situation where hiring and managing your own employees was more cost effective than Outsourcing now don't get me wrong there are plenty of good reasons for hiring your own employees and managing but saving money is not one of them if the applicant is relying on this as a facet of running a successful operation his company risks success success so again regarding traffic I have to ask that same question does this make sense if we allow the Ware Warehouse to be built are we doing the right thing for the citizens if we allow the warehouse let me move on to the fourth impact that I want to talk about regarding the proposed warehouse and that's quality of life this Warehouse if built is directly across the street from 185 homes occupied by senior citizens with our community center our pool two condo units consisting of 24 families directly across the street within 200 ft of the entrance our condo residents tend to be the most V vulnerable of our residents they're generally older more health issues many have lost their partner Etc their relatively quiet environment will be replaced with diesel fumes traffic noise bright lights shining into their bedroom windows we are also told by the applicants planner that measuring air pollution from trucks is difficult and toxic diesel fumes would not be a problem yet in April of 2023 Consumer Reports conducted the following study the study showed that residents in close proximity of warehouses object to this line This is here say we have we didn't receive any reports or data supporting these uh quotations I would concur with the objection in the absence of a backup report the board should not take this slide into consider the board should not take this slide into consideration the absence of the backup reports Jim I'll advise you can speak to the substance of the slide in your point here but quoting from the report is what the board has that we have not provided the report okay I can provide the report if that would help not now but you're you're going to not only need to provide the report you're going to have to provide the person who drafted the report he said we would have to provide the person who drafted the report it it's it's why don't we move [Music] on okay so go through it avoid quoting from the report though you you you can speak to the issues that you're trying to present here okay um if you're unable to separate that we just got to move on we'll move on uh there is the cover of the report and if anybody wants I can make copies available to everyone um but the biggest point is is that what they were saying is that it does create issues and problems especially for older people and that um the ability we were told that the ability to measure um toxic fumes and air pollution in neighborhoods was difficult uh however what consumer reports are saying is that uh the ability to do that is increasingly available to neighborhoods and to governments so regarding the air pollution and the toxic fumes does this makes sense if we allow the warehouse to be [Music] built let's move on to water and flooding the planner admits that the volume of water exiting at the intersection of Sunny me Road and weav than feeding into Royce Brook will be higher but when asked what happens to that water the response was we're not required to determine that I can tell you as long as well as other folks have said that the Royce broke will flow Downstream and floods our Manville neighbors the reality is we've had two 100-year storms in the last 12 years and that intersection has flooded both times in addition just earlier this year we've had two heavy rains which also flooded and Clos Sunny me sunny me is our emergency exit we only have that exit as well as the exit on on Boyd so how bad is this flooding in case you haven't seen it I have a video I'd like to share with you here we are this at the bottom of our street here in Hillsboro it's 2011 August 28th and you can see here it's flooding out there's the stop sign this is sunny me which is at the bottom of our development so you get the idea 10 years later hurricane Ida hit this is what Sun September 2nd uh about 7:30 in the morning right after Hurricane Ida and I'm walking down the street from my house house at 88 Weber down to Sunny me and you can probably see the water Sunny me is totally flooded there's a car here that has been uh [Music] flooded here's the street there's our stop sign that's no longer a stop sign and the water is going into the woods behind our development and of course that water is going into Royce Brook and heading down to Manville keep in mind that the um flooding that I'm showing you uh is basically outside the community uh I'm not going to address internal flood um my colleague Rich Koozie will address that after I'm finished the one thing I want to make sure that you're aware of is in a worst case scenario worst case scenario would be sunny meat is flooded for whatever reason and there's a stuck truck uh at our other entrance as I've I've given you some examples and and traffic is backed up so how does emergency vehicles then get into our community when one of our residents is sick who needs to go to the hospital hospital or there's a fire that's worst case scenario and it could possibly happen so again when looking at flooding in our area again I have to ask does this make any sense are we doing the right thing how is this protecting the health safety and Welfare of the citizens of hearthstone as well as our neighbors in Manville one additional thought on the flooding of rybrook not building this Warehouse will not stop the flooding I get that but any additional volume of water will add to the problem and not lessen the problem and knowing that how can we possibly justify building this Warehouse the sixth and final impact that I'd like to address is environmental a total of 28 trees that will be removed the applicant is offering to replace 282 trees on site and contribute to the township for an addition 374 trees however when you clear this kind of forested property keep this in mind one tree produces about 260 pounds of oxygen per year 720 produce 187 over 187 pounds of oxygen photosynthesis removes carbon dioxide sulfur dioxide Etc and a total of 720 trees remove 18872 tons of these pollutants from our air per year so we'd be missing that but there's also other impacts of the tree removal it removes the natural buffer between the airport the railway and our Hearthstone Community this additional noise when combined with truck noise at 100 DB will affect residents all day [Music] long so my question is have we become so focused on doing it right in other words adhering to outdated some cases dangerous ordinances rules regulations have we become so focused that we ignore changes in the environment that it's preventing us from doing the right thing for the citizens of Hillsboro and I'll conclude by simply saying that this board and the township as a whole have has already demonstrated some really good examples of doing the right thing and not just doing it right you've passed recent ordinances to limit both warehouses and flooding in Hillsboro and that's doing the right thing your recent resolution of wanting to provide high quality of life for Hillsboro's aging populations that's doing the right thing I'm asking you tonight to do the right thing to protect the health safety and general welfare of the residents and deny this application thank you for your [Music] time okay so we're at 10 after 10 I I'm going assume Mr granik's got a series of questions or I was G one [Music] question if you just want one I'll give you one okay Mr Vander hos vonder horse vonder horse excuse me um are you aware that that this area has has been an industrial zone for 40 50 plus years um I not aware that it was 40 or 50 years I was aware that it was light industrial area when I bought the house did you know that the Builder of your community sued Hillsboro in order to build this project in an industrial Zone jaction irrelevant outside the scope of his testimony AB no it isn't no I'm not aware okay no further questions okay oh I I know it's past time we're trying to adjourn this is a non-expert witness so maybe if if the board only has one or two questions and want from the public we can get Mr vandor uh done before the night is over okay Mr Mayu I have no questions Mr Co I have no questions board members [Music] public okay thank you thank you Mr VOR thank [Music] you okay Mr Bernstein well the time of decision rule is tomorrow uh Mr [Music] ogrodnik where we're at of time we're at of time for now [Music] okay I will say F the record what my clients are expressing now as we do have one more non-expert witness that we intend to present before our testimony is over yep understood I mean reluctantly uh we're amendable to another adjournment to finish this case off we would like a special meeting and um we don't want to share the a meeting with Weston because we really need to finish this application Homestead I'm sorry Homestead you don't if you don't want to share it with won that's fine but that's kind of complicating I know that feeling as well well if the answer is you don't want to share then I believe in Mr Mr qu can correct me the next available meeting is January 9th which is reorganization night for this please be quiet in the audience yeah we would ask for a special meeting then to get this done in December well last week your colleague asked for the same thing and the answer from the board at that time was no so I we finished our case and chief in in February what we we finished our case and chief in February every night this goes on it's tens of thousands of dollars in fees it really becomes burdensome some uh to the applicant if we just continue this it's burdensome to everybody Mr including the board because this is the 15th hearing that this board has heard on this application because of the various changes and twists and turns if your my understanding is that Mr Ash and Mr sovic have one more witness my understanding is you intend to call Mr Ford as a rebuttal which means going to have everybody cross-examining and redirecting Etc if you think you can get this all done in one meeting then I'll recommend the board to the January 9th meeting after the reorg be all Weston Road so you can get your dibs in first before your friends at Homestead get their dibs in because they're not going to be done can we get a meeting in December the board right now has two meetings in December and they are packed if you're not interested in sharing the only time they have right now is a small portion of the December 12th meeting after [Music] Homestead journ all right January 9th 7th actually January 9th what time is rorg start 7 or 6:30 hold on is it I thought it was 7 7 yeah extend the extend the meeting to January 9th 7 o' or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard which will be after the reorg meeting which we no longer break we just simply go into it without any further notice and the extinction on the time of decision Mr ogrodnik till we'll extend it to uh the 10th of January and just this is going to be the last one we're not extending it anymore well we can't do it let me put let me put it this way so that everybody's aware if the board Madam if the board the hearing is not concluded by the close of business on the 9th the board will determine the application or decide based on what is before it including whether or not it has everything before it including members of the public who will not be allowed to testify not be allowed to comment on the overall application which is what we usually do after everybody is done doing their thing so we're talking about folks about a two hour and 15 minute meeting that night so plan accordingly the only Advantage is that most of the people here tonight are represented by Council and therefore cannot speak on public comment and I would just if we're close to finishing we'll take next meeting we can extend we'll look to to the concept of extending beyond the 10:00 hour thank you Mo okay with that I have a motion to extend the hearing to January 9th 700 p.m. or soon there after the matter may be heard without further notice and the time of decision has been extended to January the 10th 2025 so moved second roll call Polie Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Smith committe the P yes mayor Chelli yes PE yes CH yes and with that just a reminder our next meeting wait do we need to cancel the business meeting no you don't have a business this meeting because Thanksgiving not unless not unless you're going to meet on Thanksgiving that's right so I will not be here our next meeting everyone is December 5th we have full that I'll entertain a motion of adjournment so moved second all in favor [Music]