I'm not I'm not here till 8:30. [Laughter] >> Okay. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Hillsboro Township Planning Board meeting of September 4th, 2025. Please join me in salute to the flag to the flag of the United States of
America and to the which stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised according to section 5 open public meetings act chapter 231
public law 1975 otherwise known as sunshine law. Notice the 2025 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers. the township clerk posted on the township's website available here at the Hillsboro Township Municipal Complex. In
addition, application docu application documents and plans have been made available on the township civic clerk website at least 10 days in advance of this evening's meeting. Complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspections in accordance with the
public meetings notice. With that, may I have a roll call of plane board members and also board and township professionals, please? Mr. Rderitz, Mr. Vitali, Mr. Deb and Mr. Smith are absent. Mr. Wagner >> here. >> Mr. Flag >> here. >> Miss Smith >> here. >> Milani >> presentelli
>> here. >> Here >> present. >> Here >> and myself and the videographer here. >> Okay. >> Bless you and welcome everybody. Okay. We do not have meeting minutes for
consideration. We do have a couple resolutions for consideration. First one is Eminem Realy Partners Hills LLC, the West Track with a file number of 21-PB-16-MS. Eligible members are Mr. Flag,
Committeeman Leani, Mayor Chikarelli, Mr. Pson, and the chair. >> Okay. Thank you. May I have a motion to approve? So move >> second. >> Any discussion? Hearing none. Roll call, please.
>> Mr. Flagani. >> Yes. >> Tricky. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Pen. >> Yes. >> Chair Sarra. >> Yes. Next. Connie International, Inc. File 24-PB-04- SPV. >> Same five. >> Same five.
>> So moved, Mr. Chairman. >> Is there a second? Second. >> Okay. Discussion from the Okay. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Flag. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mayorelli. >> Yes. Vice P.
>> Yes. >> Shar. >> Yes. >> They were heard both on the same night. Mayor. >> Okay. We do not have any planning board business nor consideration of ordinances. So, we will go to business from the floor for matters that are not in this evening's agenda. If you would
like to provide comment to the planning board, please come up. State your name and address for the record, please. David Brookke, Winding Way. It feels like it's been so long since I've been here. And thank you.
I wanted to ask a question about process for the affordable housing um matter, I guess, for lack of a better term. Um we know the township said 223, the state says 565.
And I guess my question at least the first one is how does that get decided with regards to what the actual number is the target that the town is shooting town is required to uh construct or be
involved with. >> You want to provide a cliff notes. I could say that if I could flip a coin and that's about the the number at the moment of 565 has been established by the court. The township
has appealed it to the appellet division and we are in the process of the briefing schedule. We have submitted ours being the townships. We await the filing of fair share housing and possibly one or two other parties. In
terms of the 233 223 that is what we believe we are obligated in accordance with the 2024 law in addition to the credits. We will see at the as the process moves along how we how we do
accordingly. >> Along that vein challenges to the plan. We heard about this from July through August. There were >> and we all know there were I guess I
guess right is the proper number nine or 11 I don't know is it timely is it not >> something for the courts I guess sorry >> 12 >> 12 okay fine so what's one or two here
or there so again just process if it's at the appellet division how does the trial level address those 12 that you're talking about? Do they wait for the number or do they just
start? How's that scheduled? If if if you could try to explain just so I understand. >> According to the law passed last year, the issue is supposed to be addressed and purportedly resolved by the end of the year.
That's what the legislation says. So, so in other words, by the court, those 12 do >> the pro the program will be dealing with the objections as they dealt with the numbers with recommendations to the Mount Laurel judge who is Judge Menon
and then ultimately his honor will make a decision or decisions depending upon what's before him. >> Does the township have the opportunity to chime in on that other side of each of those 12? Oh, absolutely. >> I'm sorry. >> Absolutely.
>> Yes. Okay. And >> a busy next four months. >> The the the other question is more a matter of I guess conceptual and maybe it goes to the planner, maybe it goes to all of you, but based upon at least some
of the challenges, it seems like we are almost getting more and more sprawl. And I guess my question is, is there not the opportunity to try to concentrate the construction of of these housing units, including
affordable, in the town center where we already have development that could be redeveloped. We know the shop is going bye-bye, at least down the street. There's no discussion with regards to what's going to happen there. Is there any role that the township planner
committee planning board can play in trying to sort of direct the units there? It'll be part of the process, but remember that the people who are objecting want it built on the property
they own. >> I completely understand that. I guess I was just wondering whether the township can play a role in trying to promote the development in the places where we would like to have it as opposed to the sprawl. >> I'll just answer it's where you might like it.
>> Yeah. So that's that might be where you might like it, not where maybe it makes best sense for the township. So I'll just without going too deep into the weeds, Mr. Bernstein. It is a process that we're looking at ongoing and it we have to go in front of the courts and if you think it's going to be done by the
20 31st of December, buy a lottery ticket. It's not going to get done. >> We're all buying lottery tickets. >> Yeah. >> But thank you for your question. >> Anything you don't have to worry about these problems. Um >> that's true. So then the other last kind
of question if I may. Um, so when you look at the challenges for those who may not have seen them, if you do the numbers, there is apparently proposals for a,02 units just on Homestead Road.
And so if we don't do something or if we do do something with this gentleman here and his applicant, right, is there some guiding force that says a thousand units on Homestead Road, thousand2 units on Homestead Road is not in the best
interest of the township or how does that play out? >> An advice of council, we won't respond. We'll deal with it as part of the process. spoken like a true >> attorney >> diplomat. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you for your time.
>> Anyone else? >> Okay. Seeing none, we're going to move on to tonight's uh public hearing. Homestead Road LLC file number 21-PB-25-MS backsp.
[Music] >> This is not correct. I think the time of decision is September 30th >> of this year. >> It should be September 30th, folks. >> While they're going down two by two down
the road, >> what needs to be adjusted? >> What >> a date needs to be adjusted. >> I can't hear you, Samantha. Over the wall. >> Is there a date that needs to be adjusted? >> Yes. The date on the agenda says 7:31. It was changed to 9:30. >> Okay.
>> Yep. >> Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. >> Okay. So, block 20010, lot 3233, commonly known as 203 Homestead Road and 189 Homestead Road. Um,
I don't think I need to read all of this. This is a application I think everyone is well aware of that's continued from July 10th of 2025 without further notice and do we need to have everyone introduce
themselves because I'm >> since since Mr. She and Eddie felt the need to come up. I assume everybody else feels the need to come up or at least get close enough to a mic. Place your name and representation on the record.
>> Good evening, chairman, mayor, members of the board. Craig Janetti, the law firm, Dave Pittney on behalf of the applicant, Homestead Road LLC. >> Good evening, Mike Pisaro, policy director for the Watershed Institute. Good evening, Brian Tarantino
representing SWAT. >> Good evening, Scott Gross, local citizens against traffic. >> John Lanahan, objective 4, >> Lori Cleveland for the Sland Conservancy. >> Okay,
welcome everyone. Mr. Bernstein, >> Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of the July 10th, 2025 meeting, the board closed all public comment. Everyone had their closing arguments to make for and
against the application. And what we are here for this evening is board deliberation. Anyone want to disagree? This is the moment. >> I would maybe add and vote at the end. >> Uh, no. This is it. Hearing
none. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, it is now within the hands of the board to review the or to go over on the record what I believe all of you have been doing for
the last few weeks, which is reading and rereading and looking at exhibits and testimony and the like regarding a number of issues that were raised, including in
opinion letters provided to you by both Mr. Mayu and Mr. Kis. Um, and I think at this point, Mr. Chairman, you might want to start how you want to see this progress.
I think gonna first start with our professionals and to review uh their summary reports or memos specifically focused on
let's say what's the right term you say items that are not satisfied open items uh any areas that the applicant seeking relief and then we will move along from there, you know, to the
board members, but feeling this first part may take a little bit of time. >> So, who wants to go first? I see Mr. Mayhew's pointing fingers. >> Don't don't don't don't immediately run into the middle, folks. >> Uhhuh.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kois. Mr. Chairman, I would bring the board's attention to a Penoni review letter dated 28 August 2025. The letter addresses, as you said, Mr. Chairman, items that our office believe have not
been satisfied. Um, over the course of this application, several review letters have been generated. This is labeled number eight. issues that have been substantially satisfied in prior review letters in order to decrease the amount of printing
have been removed from the review letter. So we're left with items that our office believe are not satisfied or items that um either are ongoing issues or issues that the applicant in their
last submitt agreed that they would as a condition if a condition of approval was granted they agreed they would address them. Um, I'd be pleased to point out a few maybe of the more pertinent items that we've
identified as not satisfied if that would be the board's pleasure. >> Yeah, please do. >> Uh, I'll bring your attention to the first one, page two, under wastewater management,
item number one. Um it's our opinion that um capacity has not been reserved or created for additional flow specifically for this
site and that if there was ever any consideration of approval this um additional flow would have to be addressed. Um, under item two, also under wastewater management, the applicants proposing a substantial water mane extension through Homestead Road, which
would create a trench in the pavement. And if there any approval was considered, our office believes it should be the applicant's obligation to repair the road properly. Uh continuing on page two under storm water management.
Uh we believe that the applicant has not satisfied a couple stormwater sections. Uh specifically section 262-4D as in delta.
We believe the increase in volume of runoff from the site between the pre-developed and proposed developed conditions has not been minimized. Um, and we point out some substantial increases uh utilizing the applicant's calculations
identifying the increase in runoff for different storm events. Um, continuing on page three, we believe that Hillsboro Code 262-4.B as in Bravo has not been addressed. That
section requires runoff to be released in a manner so as not to overload existing drainage systems, create flooding, or create a need for additional drainage facilities. We believe due to the greatly proposed increase in runoff from the site
that there would be requirements downstream to address that increase in flow. And as exhibits to the review letter, we've included some information on the existing flooding that occurs downstream uh and the impact to some of the local
roads downstream. Uh, continuing on page three, second from the bottom paragraph, we believe the applicant has not addressed township code 18864D as in Delta 1B as in Bravo, which
requires applicants to protect significant ecological components of stream corridors such as wetlands, flood plains, woodlands, wildlife, and plant life habitats within stream corridors. Um, within those paragraphs, we
mentioned how the applicant's proposing to divert existing runoff from some of the Roycebrook tributaries and redirected into storm pipes and into detention basins, therefore bypassing significant sections of the existing
tributaries, which would lead to a decrease of of groundwater, surface water, um, and then impact specifically the wetlands along those tributaries. On page four, under a similar section of
the ordinance, we believe section 18864D as in dealt has not been met. We believe the applicant has not maintained the quality of the robbrook triputaries as I mentioned before due to diversions of flow. I turn your attention to page five, the
top paragraph, which is labeled number nine. We believe sections of Hillsboro Code 26210. C, as in Charlie 3, has not been met. Uh we have concerns over the uh large detention basin behind
warehouse number one uh that has significant retaining walls surrounding the perimeter of the basin which would provide difficulty for for people who might be in that basin at the time of flooding events.
Continuing on page five, if you move to the traffic section under paragraph one or comment one, I'm sorry. We believe the applicant has not satisfied section 188-67. We don't believe the applicant has
adequately identified the projected truck traffic. U we've heard testimony from the applicant's expert and also from objectors experts. We've reviewed the um applicants submitted documents and believe that there has not been a
clear correlation or presentation of what the projected truck traffic may be for the warehouses. Um on page six, still under traffic, we believe uh comment 9 has not been satisfied. We were looking for a
lefthand turn warrants, which are calculations to demonstrate whether left-hand turn lanes are necessary on Homestead Road. Those would be on the eastbound lanes to provide an area for trucks or other vehicles to wait for
appropriate turning into the proposed driveways. Um, and no calculations were submitted. Uh if if I continue under that same page, comment number 10. If any consideration of approval was to be granted, our office would like
additional analysis be provided on this the bridge over CXX. It's the only road since there's a weight limit on Willow Road. The only approach to the proposed warehouses would be on Homestead Road
from 206 and the trucks would have to cross the CSX bridge. And as that's the only approach, we would want to make sure that prior to construction um it was demonstrated that this bridge could handle the projected traffic.
If I continue on to page seven, I'll bring your attention to um stream corridor protection section 188-64D as in Delta. uh has been has been demonstrated in the correspondence from our office in the
past. We believe the water feature running through warehouse one from the Robrook tributary meets the definition of a stream per the Hillsboro code and therefore would have a stream corridor buffer associated.
Uh, I bring your attention to the Hillsboro code 18864 D as in delta 3 E as in echo. Um, that section discusses prohibitive
activities with a stream and corridor and some of those prohibitive activities are parking lots, driveways and buildings which the current application proposes to construct within the corridor. Uh the code's very specific that a
variance would have to be um issued in order to allow that work. There are other streaming stream quarter um encroachments and the board would have to make a decision whether those could be granted. Um there's under the
stream quarter section I mentioned E which talks about prohibited activities. If you move up one category to D as in delta the ordinance provides waiverss for activities that if denied would be a hardship.
And then one category above that is C as in charlie. uh it grants the board the ability to grant waiverss for activities uh that are reasonable. So the board will have to decide about the other proposed encroachments. There are two
driveways for warehouse number two to cross the stream corridor and there are two detention basins that have outfalls um impacting the corridor. Um, moving on to page eight, there's a section on the transitional economic
development district, which is known as code 188-107.2. Um, the first area that our office believes has not been satisfied is won't read the whole. So, I'm going to read several of these sections and they all start off 188-107.2
two under F as in Foxtrot 1 B as in Bravo 6. The code requires the development to provide a network of sidewalk and um pedestrian connections to adjoining sites and joining roadways and linkages
to the surrounding areas. Our our office believes that this has not been accomplished. Um, under F1 B3A of that same code section,
um, the code talks about limiting the curb cut opening on Homestead Road. It talks about limiting the opening to 25 ft. The applicant proposes 110 to 125 foot widths, which are significantly
greater than the code allows. Um the applicant has discussed about having safe turning radiuses on these openings. Um our office would certainly want to review and approve appropriate um openings. We believe the code's intent
was to limit the throat opening to provide a safe and efficient way for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross that opening which is an impact area with motor vehicles. And we believe that uh an order of magnitude of four is a significant
increase. Under the same code section, item D as in delta parenthesis one, we believe the proposed and required landscape buffers do not meet the ordinance requirement.
Um part of the reason is these the two warehouses are on significant elevation areas of the site. they're higher than the surrounding residential areas. In our opinion, the proposed um plantings will not have a significant buffering
impact on the buildings and therefore does not satisfy that section. Turn to page nine. And that same code section um subsection F as in Foxtrot 1 A1.
We believe the proposed warehouses and site improvements do not minimize the changes to existing topography and therefore do not meet this section of the code. The Appen's proposing significant grade changes over significant lengths.
Um and he's accomplishing this with significant amount of retaining walls which we have an exhibit attached to a review letter. Uh some of these walls are 16 feet tall. There's over 4,500 feet of wall proposed and most of these walls are proposed at
the limits of disturbance. So rather than transitioning into the existing grade, there's an abrupt change at the extents. If any uh approval was considered at some point, our office would strongly
suggest that some of these retaining walls be tiered um to minimize impact, safety impacts of someone falling off the wall. And we would suggest something like a maximum a seven foot high wall and say a five foot
terrace area between the tiered walls. Uh if you continue on the same page down the comment 8 and still in the same section subsection F as in foxtrot six, we do not believe the loading and storage areas have been adequately buffered.
Um the applicant is proposing a retaining wall and a aesthetic wall. We'll say at the rear warehouse number one. Um there's an existing proposed I don't want to say existing on the plans. There's a proposed 14 foot high
retaining wall between the parking area and the detention basin. In order to provide a buffer, the applicant's proposing a 14t high wall on top of the retaining wall. So you'd end up with looking at a 28 foot tall wall.
We do not believe this meets the intent of the ordinance or the buffer requirements. Um if I'm still in still on page nine, comment number nine, and refer you to Hillsboro code 188-107.2B as in Bravo.
Um it talks about permitted uses should be of a scale and size appropriate for the district. There's been a lot of discussion about how to quantify is a use appropriate scale and size. Um and
the applicant has discussed impervious cover and other bulk standards. We believe an additional appropriate standard to look at and parameter is the amount of truck traffic that a use would generate and using it numbers
as the applicant is suggesting. Um they're proposing approximately 322 truck trips a day from this site. To put that in context, the applicant did a traffic study and says there's about 16 trips per day on Homestead
Road. So, they're proposing 20 more times the existing trips on the roadway. In our opinion, this is not an appropriate scale um for the site in relationship to the
residential to the east and the existing LI to the west. Um turn to page 10. Uh we begin comments disrupting landscape, lighting and sound. Uh if you go to comment number four,
um talks about providing buffers for material which to be stored outside. In our opinion, tractor trailers that are not attached to uh the tractor are just simply trailers and could be considered they're being stored
outdoors and they would need appropriate buffer. And as discussed earlier, in our opinion, the buffers are not satisfactory and do not provide the required buffering from the residential sites. Um some of it's because of the great change in elevation between the
residential areas and the site and also there's some existing deciduous um vegetation which during the winter will not provide the appropriate buffering. If you go at the bottom of that page 10, comment number five talks about
code section 160-5.E as an echo parenthesis three in our opinion and a sound impact study has not been included in the noise impact to the surrounding site has not been demonstrated to be addressed and we believe the applicant has not met that
section of the code. Attached to our letter, Mr. chairman were several exhibits um to help explain some of the reasons we believe items were not satisfied and I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you chairman. For the purposes of
the record, Mr. Mayu, there were two other notatisfied uh items in your report. First one on page one or page two I believe at the top under general comments.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Bernstein, that's comment under on page two, general comments, item number one. In our opinion, the applicant has not demonstrated um or not provided clear understanding for us as to what the proposed use of
the the buildings are intended for. And I'm sorry, Mr. Bernstein, where >> and that's on bottom of page eight, top of page nine, I believe. that relates to last two lines on page eight and into
page nine. That's the noise in the orientation. Thank you. Yes. So this is um page eight the very bottom comment number four. This is under the TECD district which is code 188-
107.2. Um, in our opinion, the applicant hasn't demonstrated that they've looked at other alternative orientations, nor have they necessarily provided the best orientation for the township and adjoiners. Um,
we haven't heard any testimony as to why the buildings couldn't be turned maybe 90 degrees or even 180 degrees in order to turn, which probably the noise generating area of the site will be the loading areas and as of now the loading
areas are for warehouse one are directed towards the residential units. Um and we believe that turning it 90 degrees at least would generate that noise westward or there could even be consideration
turning it 180 degrees generate the noise towards the agricultural district. So we don't believe that item has been satisfied. Thank you, Mr. Bernstein. >> Thank you, Mr. >> You want to hear from Mr. Kis next?
>> Thank you. So, some of the areas I wanted to touch on this evening um related to the report that I issued on April 2nd, 2025, I wanted to start with uh the size and scale. Section 188-107.2
of the ordinance states that all uses shall be provided at a scale and size that is appropriate for the district. I wanted to point out that, you know, during the 2010 master plan, um, you know, the intent of the TCD zone was
to encourage the development of employment areas near residential neighborhoods with the design that assures the peace and solitude of the residents. When it came to looking at what they considered intense uses,
uh it needs to be pointed out that warehousing, shipping, receiving was was not identified as a potential highintensity use that would generate concerns like the other uses that are that are identified. Um
it should also be acknowledged that within the code there there is no specific definition related to what warehousing, shipping and receiving is. Uh as we have learned um warehousing has
has evolved and some of the concerns that we also have is that the use proposed has been described in a very generic way. No specific use uh no specific tenant uh
has been identified. Uh, I could say from an administrative standpoint, if the applicant came in for a zoning permit, we wouldn't have enough information to issue them a zoning permit to say, "Hey, yeah, this is this
is the use that you can have. Yes, you have provided enough information for us to understand what you are looking to do there. Um, so right now there's just not there's not enough information uh for for us to
make a determination just coming to issuing a zoning permit. Are there other uses that the TCD zone has? Yeah. And each one would be evaluated um as they would come in. But when it comes to
uh when it comes to this use um the applicant has indicated that it will not be a parcel delivery hub, a fulfillment center or a transload warehouse. They've provided multiple examples of what the facility will not be yet continues to call it a warehouse
a name. Um again someone could keep calling calling a use by a name and what we have to start doing or or to do as a result from that is start asking asking the questions okay at at what point is a
warehouse no longer a warehouse? So, I've laid out some guidance for the board uh to consider to consider that and to look at what the intent of the master plan was. And when we also start
to look at the intensity that's being proposed when it comes to the the size, the number of loading docks, you know, the site is over parked uh by 61. that's overloaded by 69. It has accessory
trailer parking that's proposed that's nothing like currently exists in Hillsboro. Those are all the types of things that start to make me as a professional planner concerned as to
what is this use? Is this use really a traditional warehouse in which I believe was the intent of the planning board and the township committee had when it was a principal permitted use? Um,
in totality, you know, this is a use uh that in my professional opinion is is beyond the size and scale that the township had anticipated. And although there has been some discussion that
there are regulations that were not included to further limit certain sizes and things like that, it's absolutely essential to point out that uh a provision was still put in into the
TECD as I first started out saying uh that it is a requirement that the development has to be at the appropriate size and scale. Um, let's see here. So, the proposed size and scale leads me to the conclusion that the proposed use
is not a standard uh warehouse that the Hillsboro Township Master Plan anticipated or that the code permits. Um, therefore, the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed development is at a scale and size that is appropriate for the
district or permitted by the township code. I believe Mr. May you just so that we're not repeating uh touched upon other parts already that were also in my memo.
I believe I believe that's everything I wanted to highlight. >> Unless Mr. Bernsteeen has a start. I'll be the first to go since appears to be I'm on the old man on the on the
board. So, um first off, we're going to have a lot of conversations here. So, I'm going to ask the public to keep quiet through the proceedings because we do have someone taking recordings here. So, I would ask everybody just to remain silent through the whole process.
As I was starting to read this two and a half years of testimony, I started to realize how long this is that I was actually mayor. We've had three different engineers through Penoni, two different planners, and five members of the board who aren't
even on the board anymore. So you can appreciate the time that was given to this application and to the public to make sure all the testimony was given to give it the fair shake that it deserves. I believe it was Mr.
Lanahan that stated in his testimony, if you own a piece of property, you have the right to develop it. But the planning board is here to decide if it fits the purpose. And that's what we're here for today. So I'm going to start off. Obviously the planners have given some of their things
to talk about but um in 188-2 which nobody talked about because I got became very familiar with our land use even though I've been doing this for two years li um but states basically a purpose of why
we bring applications to the planning board and one of the sentences I'm going to read it's halfway down the paragraph is to Regulate the bulk, height, number of stories, size of buildings, and other structures. Avoid a conflict with the
development and general welfare of neighboring municipalities. The county, the state establish appropriate population density, concentrations, contribute to to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities, and regions, and the
preservation of the environment. also discourage location with garden traffic of such facilities and routes which result in congestion of blight and promote desirable visual environment and open space for the community.
So this is kind of the charge of what the planning board takes into a decision amongst all the things that we have. And I have to say this is of all the 20 years I've been here, this is probably the most complex application I've been
ever been a part of. But I go back to in my question to the board is the applicant has been insistent that it meets all the bulk variances, but it was only reason it meets the bulk variances because of the the lot line change. If we left the if
they didn't get the lot line changed, they couldn't put this big building on it or even if they didn't move the lot line so far to the I think that's the east on the other side of the wetlands to take advantage of all the open space they can't build on. Then they probably
wouldn't be able to fit this building in and meet all the bulk criteria. Um because the lot line would have to be moved over to the other side and then they wouldn't meet the side buffers. They wouldn't meet the impervious. they wouldn't meet all the other things that they were able to do by moving the lot
line out so far away that they could take a building of this size, stick it in the middle and meet the criteria. So, in my opinion, what we're talking about here is they're trying to make a lot big enough out of two lots and use
wasted area that can't we know we can't build on, but make it a parameter that allows them to put a building on the size that they did. So um obviously if the lot line wasn't there
they couldn't put nearly the size of this building that be here though they had the ability to ask for it but in granting that lot line or not granting that lot line this whole building would not be able to be built in the size and
scale that they're asking for. Um, so that part of that is kind of disingenuous to me because yeah, they they able to fit it in there, but most of the time those bulk variances are
designed to put an orientation of a building on a land on a piece of property that is not nearly as big, but they don't want it right next to the neighbor's property. They don't want it over impervious. And
Also with the resp respects to the teedzone in all due respect I don't think they had envisioned in coming up with the bicycle paths the walkways you know a a campus type environment one
big monolithic building and then some walkways around it to satisfy the the statute of asking for a walkway I think they've envisioned maybe a couple small buildings with some common space, some green
space, a nice campus, so to speak. Um, so again, just putting in some sidewalks around the building to quote unquote satisfy the code to me does not, in my opinion, in the spirit of the TEC zone
um, satisfy it. Um, so I'm going to I'll start with those conversations when and the board can can add to those conversations if you want and then we'll try to maybe take each section maybe at a time as to
try and keep the the testimonies together before I get into or talk about some of the other engineerings and and things. But just that in general the um the reason why we see these plans though they may meet the the naked eye the the
the bulk variances I think that the size and scope which we've said probably a thousand times in the last two and a half years is is really what I'm I'm struggling with here. I guess I was kind of continue to I
think where you started off reading our ordinance and thinking of you know trying to put that more I'm going to call into my own layman's terms is I'm going to use my car tire analogy
you know where I'm going with it so there was a lot of discussions about what meets you know zoning requirements So, you know, it conforms, but you know, there there's a whole element of what the master plan vision is and intention.
So, the way I kind of look at it is everyone has a has a car and you go get new tires, right? What's the first thing they ask you? What size tire? To me, that's the zone. You want to make sure you get the right tire for the size tire to fit on your
car. But then Anna's next question is what type of tire? It's kind of the tread. What what what do you plan on traveling in? To me, that's the master plan. That's the vision. And you're race. Are you going to race the car? You going to go up to the Rocky Mountains through
snow and stuff? Off-roading. So, even though there's a lot of tires out there that will fit your car, you kind of know what the purpose of that is, what kind of tread do you want on it. And that's the kind of what I'm looking at this is not only does it just
have to fit, but is it going to carry you to the mission? So that was my layman's term on that. Um what was that? >> The car. >> The car guy. So that's the way I'm kind of look and I look at any applications
going forward like that. It's um and I think it may have been touched upon maybe Mr. Qu was touching upon it um or Well, and I guess it was touched upon during, you know, during some of the testimony was
um what's the right term? Um the infamous checklist. It was conform um no the satisfied completeness. That's it. There was a C word somewhere there. So
again, just because you know applicant, you know, it gets deemed complete doesn't mean that the plan board doesn't have the oversight to decide whether or not it meets, you know, the requirements of the master plan zoning because if it
did, there'd be no purpose of the plan board. Then you the plan could just then sign off immediately. So no disrespect. So, so I know that that there was some of that argument out there and again it doesn't mean that it may or may not be,
you know, it may be, you know, appropriate. We still have to evaluate that u for all intents purposes. So trying to see where I want to go with this next, but u
I guess you know the way you know a lot of testimony was was being portrayed or or being provided was this was going to be automatic. There there was nothing to dispute. Um I think Mr. Leani was going through there you
know part of some of that vision. So one of the interesting things and you know usually a lot of judiciary bodies quasi judiciary sometimes don't have the benefit of knowing what those who had passed legislation in the past what they were thinking of here this board doesn't
have that necessarily as I'm looking at you Mr. Wagner because as Mr. Koi said back in another era, um there was a couple of us here uh that actually were the ones that, you know, did the master plan amendment and actually uh developed
and voted on and passed the u the ordinance in question. Actually, we had one other member and he was one of the ones that started on this and he's left town. So, but um and then actually we have a fourth one in the building. you know, administrator Ferrer was with us.
So, you know, one of the things I know I had raised a question with Mr. Dee and I think you may even asked some along that line with Miss Cafone is whether or not I had reached out to anyone that may have been involved in that and clearly
there wasn't at that. So, um so I can provide you know some of the insight in there and you know Mr. Wagger you can jump in. Well, now I feel very old that you pointed that out because that goes back >> Well, you are a month older than me. So,
>> yeah, but it goes back along um a long time ago to what the intent of that zone was. And you're right, chairman. This was when you used your analogy of the of the tire to kind of put it in layman's terms so people can kind of relate to
it. I mean, I don't know what else you can really say about it. The intent of what the the zone was when we went back and and did that was a transitional zone. When you think of a transitional, it's kind of a transition house. Do you
describe it? Not, you know, going from a single family home to a huge, you know, threetory, two building warehouse. So, um, >> yeah, I mean a little I mean a little bit that that zone was originally our
old uh CDZ CDZ zone. It was corporate development zone. Interesting enough, you know, it had minimum 50 acre zoning. The reason why that wound up not occurring or why we had to revisit that was there was, you know, for so folks
that know some history here know that there was supposed to be there were a couple of proposed major highways to go through there. Ironically, if they had gone through, you know, who knows what have been built there. You know, this application may have come up a long time ago at that point, but no, it just
seemed it was indefensible at that time. And so, you know, we look back at that zone as to what we wanted in there. Uh, you know, some a lot of the land there had started to be preserved. So, that's where the genesis of this transitional zone was starting to come through. Um,
interesting enough, you know, you're looking at the list of what was approved, some of the stuff that you would have thought, oh, why not any retail in there? Well, because at the time, we're also working on our main street concept. Obviously, you don't want to be cannibalizing, you know, that area. So that's why some of those areas
were excluded. Um so you know and and I'm gonna ask Mr. Wagner to jump in as if my memory has faded but I know that you know that that topic was about warehouse and how it stood alone. But if you notice in there it said warehouse and then comma
shipping receiving. Yeah, as we know a lot of businesses, organization or no, I could call them organization businesses may have detached shipping receiving warehouse areas to help their businesses um to store product. They're not
generally fully enclosed. So that was, you know, from my recollection, the reason why that was sort of just stood along as an approved versus an accessory use. So it didn't create any type of conflict. I guess. Yeah. >> Yeah. I think that was the the intent.
You have businesses, people have stuff that come in, things come in, things go out. Any business has those. And you look at the concept of what we have here. You know, describe it. You know, you have the warehouse. That's not the
intent of in my opinion of what the zone was originally established for. If I if I might, um, when it comes to the transition, Mr. Wagner, you you said residential and then this warehouse. I
actually looked at it from the other direction, right? We're going from the industrial light industrial zone that's west of the bypass and the trains and this property transitioning to the residential. So I
don't know you do math you can do a curve you know this is intensity of the of the uh light industrial zone you would expect it to go down to residential and there was a lot of questions about intensity and how it's measured and we can talk about that a
little bit but rather than coming down it goes up like that and that's I just don't think that that was the intent as as you described of the transition the transition should have been smooth down to a residential area. Uh I think a
lot of the comments that were in the Penoni report are rooted in the fact that it's not suited. The project is probably not suited for a TEC zone. And when the TECD
zone was was developed, you had two lots that were at least in that on that side of the road. And If it was one lot that was the size of how they're proposing to change it, you might not have called it a TECD zone.
So, you may have called it egg or RA or something else. So, you had something in mind and I don't want to put that in your in your head. You can confirm it or deny it, but the size of those properties dictated now how you develop the TECD
zone. By changing the lot line that it it it exposes that zone to all these other um inconsistencies and and problems that according to you know Penoni are not satisfied right now and and size and
scale issues that Mr. Kis cited. So I think the transition from what the the ind the light industrial is and and again we can talk about intensity and how it was measured here. Um,
I think that's like flipping what what Bob had said, like it still comes to the fact that you have a a large warehouse now right next to residential as opposed to something that's in between what was on the other side of the the railroad tracks and the residential. So,
>> I agree with your thoughts have been the same as my thoughts. I mean, I've struggled all along with the sense of taking the transitional. It's an in between stage. What we have here is not in between. What we have here is not in
between light industrial and residential. You're having now increased tractor trailer traffic. That's nothing to just dismiss and say, well, that's nothing. I mean, that's only because it's a substantial increase. Now, you're talking noise. You're talking pollution.
You're talking an effect on people's lives every day. It's not occasionally it's an everyday wearing down of of people's happiness in in my opinion um and the pollution as well you know I
mean again these are this is not the term transitional is just that and I don't believe that these two buildings fit that criteria >> I I guess I'll jump in a little bit. Um, just to stay on that subject of the TEC
zone, uh, that it should be transitional. Um, I've been on this board for quite a few years and, uh, when I first got on, I I asked, why don't we just why don't we just make all the zones what everybody wants? Let's
just make pretty much everything agricultural and where the houses are, just make those houses and then get rid of all the other residential. We can stop any future residential. Nobody wants more houses uh put in. And the response was,
uh, it doesn't work that way. Um, you own a piece of property, you have a right to develop that property, you have a right to build on it, you have a right to do what is allowed in that zone for that property. Um so I I concur with my
colleagues. Uh I think the transitional is the word. Uh size and scope uh I don't think fits uh in the TECD uh district. >> No well I had a few more things to say. >> So but in fairness you know we had to
take everything in consideration. I was waiting a year for someone, you know, for testimony to convince me, you know, otherwise that maybe there was something we had overlooked. Um, didn't see that. Like I said, I think there were opportunities Miss Capone did have. Um I
think she avoided much discussion with regards to MA master plan kept emphasizing the zone that it fit the zone cited I think parts of the M ml as reasons but avoided discussion of the
master plan on that. So I think you know those you know did re you know reinforce I think you know what you know we had recalled as to the original intent of that area and just even looking at the amendment I think it was brought up by
Mr. Mayheu talking about, you know, pedestrian and bicycles access. I mean, in the amendment, um, it it for, you know, we specifically, you know, stated out that pedestrian bicycle access should be encouraged and parking should
be screened from a joint residential existing dwelling. So right there there was a vision that this was going to be pedestrian friendly bicycle you know that people could get to it without their cars that there was going to be economic benefits uh to them um you know
by just taking a walk over there because I think you know we had farm stand or something you know similar you know in there as an approved uh use. Um one of the other I saw that was in
here again that reinforced about I think about what the mayor was mentioning about intensity. Um I'm just let's get back to that point. Um, you know, we had a bullet in here about
what the, you know, you know, the, uh, the consideration should be when we're developing the plan or the zone for it was to decrease maximum building height to be more in line with surrounding residential development. Um, so, you know, this is complet, you know, very,
this application is is inconsistent with that. Again, um, you know, again, you know, with the vision, you know, It may be a fit to zone, but again, it just it may not have met the vision,
yeah, of the master plan or its amendments. Um, I'll just add now that I've had some some conversation here. The other things is I mean obviously there's like and I think it was brought up when this first was right like there's 17 or
18 different sections of the TECD zone you and they say we we fit the one that we're we're permitted use or warehouse but all these other standards is what allows us to make sure that it fits within the scope of scale of what the master plan envision. You can't cherry
pick out what you want to use and what you don't want to use or just kind of say, well, we kind of had some of this but not some of that. Um, so yes, do they meet some of the possibly some of the standards that are in the TDZ zone? I think they do. That's why they came in
front of us for us to see that. Um, but just for example, and I know that Mr. Mayor, you talked about that the buffering requirement. How do you buffer a building that's 40t high? that's 80 feet above a a house that you can't and
I'm a tree guy. You can't put big enough trees in there in that buffering zone to hide that building from the neighbors looking out their backyard. There's there's no way you've you're working against you're working against
the geo the earth. Uh the lights the noise are all going to come over that. So there's there is a buffering requirement. Yes, you may have meet the requirement that you put a buffer in as per the code, but it's in it's a buffer
that's not going to work. So you might it's it's it's not really a buffer. Purpose of a buffer is to give a adequate screening of noise and visual visual deterrent to the affected properties and I don't think that they
in any way can satisfy that at all. unless they lower the building 60 feet. So, um that's just one subsection of the requirement that Mr. May you talked about. Um that yes, do they meet the
code? They put a buffer up, but it's really doesn't doesn't meet the the intent of what needs to be done. You want to move on to the next time? You want to talk about traffic because I know we spent a lot of time.
>> Yeah. the the uh so the transitional district specifically says that uh uses with extensive lighting signage and traffic requirements are not intended for this district and I think
that's relative to the traffic testimony uh surely is um so you know we've heard we heard a lot about traffic uh we heard a lot about level of service of intersections and ultimately I think it
comes down to 322 trucks per day. I think that's something that at least Penoni and the applicant a number that was pretty consistent as a while we still never nailed down the number of employees. I
think I in my review I saw three or four numbers of how many cars were going to come in because of the number well that was another number relative to the number of employees. Um but the trucks the the the increase in trucks contributes to the intensity number. Um
again we talked about the number of ways that intensity can be measured. Um you know one of them is coverage. That's the one that Miss Cavon stuck to, but other the other witness uh planning witness talked a
little more about use and impact on the surrounding community uh which is another element in our re-examination. Any non-residential development should be compatible with nearby residential neighborhoods. I think that ties in as well. Um so there I'm kicking off the
traffic discussion if anybody else wants to add to it. Um, I think Mr. Dean, you know, stuck to his expert analysis and what he did. He may have strayed from it a little bit on a couple of comments he made, but as far as the number of of of vehicles and the
service level, I mean, unfortunately, se level of service D or E is acceptable. As ludicrous as it sounds, it is because traffic is still moving. It's just not moving that fast. So, um, and I find it
interesting that we can't talk about things offsite, but then we can talk about the level of service at 206. So, um, you know, he he he's a polished witness, but ultimately
I think what he's leaving it up to us to determine if 322 trucks is going to fly, all of which go to 206, I'm sorry, truck trips. It was 161, right? All of which go to 206.
All of which kind of flies in the face of what the bypass is supposed to do. So that's a starting point on traffic. If anybody wants to contribute, please do. >> I think um you know it's interesting
that you mentioned um traffic and studies. I've been up here many years as as well and you know to your point you know the experts testimony you know the numbers the averages the national whatever um you know you want to refer
to the traffic studies are um the interesting thing is you know those I guess maybe in a real world uh perfect scenario um so as we all know we're in September school opened today and That
road is heavily traveled east west, high school students, um kids, uh parents taking kids, and it changes. the traffic in Hillsboro when school is in changes uh no matter what part of town you're in because you know we have the
high school that's in early and I can't even remember which school finally picks up their kids at like 8:40 or something like that but from like 6:30 to like 9:00 there's school buses and large school buses and going to the middle school and the elementary school but that changes in September and that ends
in June. Um that road uh is pretty heavily traveled east west because it's either that or Amwell Road. If you're going to the high school and you're on the east side, I refer to it as the east side of 206 where I live. Those are really kind of your own options. You're
not going down through Montgomery to come up 206 to get to the high school. You're traveling Amwell Road or you're traveling um you know the roads. It's just heavily traveled. So, uh, John, to your point about about traffic, I just wanted to mention that.
I'm sure we're all aware of that when we woke up this morning, and I don't have kids in school anymore, but for those of you that do, uh, life in Hillsboro as far as getting from one section of town to the other changes a little bit with the additional traffic. So, I wanted to
mention that is something that, yes, you can look at the numbers and you can say, "I'm going to have x amount of truck traffic, but now factor in that not only from a you know, students that are driving, parents that are driving, but the school buses, obviously, that's the the safety
issue. We've all traveled that road. We've all gotten to the bridge. You can't see over the bridge on what's on the other side. God forbid there's somebody on a bicycle. There are people that do run that road early in the morning, uh, that are out there jogging and and that sort of stuff. So, just
something I just wanted to mention. So yeah, the bridge is narrow and it's it's a blind bridge. Obviously, Mr. Mayheu had concerns whether that bridge is it's old and can handle the increased truck traffic, which wasn't there was never any testimony provided, nor was
there any information provided by CSX that who owns the bridge if they believe it can handle that kind of traffic. So that is a concern. Uh, number two is um, and I only know sex because I just came back from Europe. It's dark in the morning now again at six o'clock when
the school buses start rolling to school. So, um, and then obviously it only gets worse as the fall comes and we lose a dead. So, you're traveling that road in darkness um, over a road with increased truck traffic. So, it is
becoming uh, dangerous. Uh, it's a narrow road as it we know with no shoulder. Um but uh also with the amount of truck and there was a testimony provided by Mr. Mayhew and I believe I asked the question to the um engineer
why they didn't decide to move at least the flip the building around 180 degrees so at least the trucks aren't backing into the side of the building near the residence. Um which would mitigate the noise and the lights and and everything else. And I think the answer was we
don't want to or no. So, there really wasn't a um a real concern for the residents as to what might help mitigate if there was a a application that was approved that the noise from the
increased traffic um and the lights um which a buffering would have been more effective because it's only the same level of the building, but um they straight out just said no. Um, but the
uh the road is yes, we deemed it a TEC zone. I think that's what Mrs. Kafone said and and Mr. Dean, the township felt it was okay to have a homestead road with the zoning of of that, but that wasn't the intent again of what we felt
that road would need to have as far as use uh based on the T-zone as an intermediate area or a transitional area um with mostly automotive traffic or small delivery trucks, UPS, FedEx,
that sort of thing that would associate with those businesses that were listed in the uses in the TEC zone. So, um I lived on a road when the brick factory was active
um back in the 80s, Hamilton Road, uh and there were trucks that would go up and down my road every four or five minutes. They would come in, get loaded, and leave. That was all day long.
So, and that's a narrow road that So, I've I've witnessed what that kind of application is. You unfortunately you just kind of lose the the noise over time. It becomes white noise. It's like having a train in your
backyard like I have now. Don't hear the people train at 4 in the morning. Um but uh it's still there. It's still a hazard, right? Um so, with regards to the traffic and Mr. Dean has the joke a traffic engineer's never found a road
that was uh unsuitable for the traffic they proposed or intersection that couldn't handle the traffic that was proposed. But um in in due respect um again we're dealing with as and I'm not an engineer you know the respect to them
with the IT manual and and and innuendo and taking graphs and and meeting X points like I was backing calculus where the two graphs meet at at X and Y. This isn't a calculus. This is real life right? We don't know
what is actually coming. We don't know what times they're coming. We don't know if there are going to be trucks sitting queuing on the side of the road because they can't get into a dock because a guy showed up early.
Um, we don't know if the tractor trailer makes a wrong turn into the first warehouse and needs to go to the second warehouse and NAZA come out and now have to make a left into the next one because we talked about making no left turns I think out of the out of the one and they said why? They're only coming into the
the warehouse that they need to. Well, we've seen in the news there's a lot of truck drivers on the road that can't read signs uh without getting too deep into the woods. Um Google Earth will take you wherever it feels it needs to take you.
Um even down a road that's restricted to weight traffic. Um so the again that the traffic is much more intense to use the mayor's words how we
measure intensity than I'm thinking that was envisioned in a TECD zone. If you look at all the other principal uses that were on that, there wasn't nearly as much need for truck traffic in any of those use those
uses. Warehouse happened to be the only one that would allow that kind of work, that kind of use. Um then we didn't think the warehouse back in 220 whatever was what the warehouses became after the Amazon
craze, right? And this isn't in an area that is off of 287 or 78 or East Windsor off the Parkway where it's a direct on and off. These trucks have to travel through Manville. Hello, Mayor.
Through Hillsboro Roads, down a road and into a warehouse that is directly in the center of our town and then go back out. So 322 trips is not just 322 trips into
the warehouse, but 322 trips through town. >> Yeah. And that you brought up one of the inconsistencies I think the comment was that by Mr. Dean was that if the township
governing body zoned the property as such, it must believe that the roads are able to handle it. But meanwhile, the applicant is going to improve the road along the entire course of the site. So if the road could handle it, why would they be widening the road
as part of the application? I that to me that just flies in the fa I think it's a copout personally is that comment by him. I've heard it multiple times. I've never said it to his face, but next time I will. Unless So, so I I I think, you know, again, they're they're
improving they were improving the road only along that spot. And oh, by the way, not in front of where the house was, but every place else. So, I I I find that an inconsistent bit of his testimony,
kind of echoing um Mr. Leani was saying is um I know I was coming back from Pennsylvania last week with my wife and we were driving up through Hopewell and into Montgomery and we were on a really narrow road and there was a tractor
trailer in front of us and saying to my wife, I said, "Honey, I I don't think that guy is on the wrong I think he's on the wrong road." And sure enough, about 10 seconds later, he brought down power lines and sparks all over the place and
it was it was mayhem. Uh I I don't think you know these trucks are going to come out Homestead, make a left and a left, go down Hillsboro, hit the bypass. They're they're going to go where they're going to go. Um also to echo Mr.
Wagner, uh we were talking about it's the school season now. um you know calculating these truck trips uh you know using it and and square footage and size etc. um but what the use of that
warehouse may be they may have their high season and low season. So we don't know if those 300 plus trips may be 400 or 500 or they may only be 100 or 50. We you know we really don't know. Uh but we
have to you know go with the information that we have at hand and uh make the best decision we can with the information we have. >> As all my colleagues have just stated the traffic is definitely a problem. I mean you're you're it is not going to
improve the conditions of the surrounding areas whatsoever. We already have a lot of traffic in Hillsboro. It will exacerbate that to a great deal. Um the pollution again now now you're at 322 trips a you know that that's a lot
of pollution right there too and that affects people's health affects their their you know sense of well-being and that can't be dismissed. So yes, I mean that that you know again the word is transitional and I think is
a very important word in the description of that zone and to go from 16 trips per day to over 300 per day that's that's not transitional. All right. Okay.
So, I may be going off in a few different directions here because I had a lot of thoughts and read a lot, you know, with the traffic and all. So, I guess the first thing just kind of start off the use of it. I mean, as it's been testified, it's just a book of data.
It's it's to help spec applicants to try to guesstimate um you know service levels at intersections.
Um, I think that kind of brings back and again I think both of our professionals touched upon it, but I'm going to call it the wisdom of why we have an ordinance is we we want full details of the business going in there so we know exactly what's happening. Now whether or
not there's already a tenant, there's nothing stopping the applicant to place um requirements, guardrails, whatever we want to call it, um you know, on those um operations could be days, hours, you
know, any type of restrictions they would on there. And I know, you know, we have another one that all of a sudden made an offer to add some restrictions after the fact, but you know, so so there's so, you know, there is flexibility in that ordinance. We're not
saying you must have a, you know, a tenant because obviously they come and go, but if you put restrictions on to what those operations are, uh, and be, you know, specific, we can get accurate understanding of the traffic. And I know one of the things
and now I'm going off on a tangent because it's a little bit but let's relate to traffic. I had asked straight up if there was going to be a security gate around there because you know with most of these type of facilities there's security to check there. You know
they're checking the seals on the back of those trucks what's coming and going and it was flat out the applicant said there will not be any. So Mr. did not take into cons into account or did any studies about truck stacking waiting to
get in. Um now I I'm not I don't believe a security will you know wouldn't someday go there because yeah even if this was you know to be approved with the condition of no
security gates there's nothing stopping future owners or you know to come back I I need the security gates because otherwise I can't rent out this property. Um, so have to be very cautious as to, you know, what you may
be agreeing to along those lines. And I think that that that's a huge omission that Mr. Dean did not put in there as an option for us to consider because particularly with the um I don't know which one's the eastmost warehouse one. It's the one that's
closest to the road. >> No, >> building one. >> Building one. Yeah, the one closest to the road, that's building one, right? Yeah, building one. Yeah, I I think that that one will have stacking there. And I think to take into account I think what
some of my colleagues have said, you know, we've got narrow roads, we've got, you know, you know, now how traffic there and um you know, whether or not you know, you want to state their safety, there's going to be inconveniences
um in there. um you know the roadway currently as it stands you know does not take that into consideration um and again getting back with the IT again it's just a book of just data uh
there was a lot of discussions going on uh from both sides about statistics and and and correlations and and what variables should be used shouldn't be used and you know you could shake that up and get whatever results you want. Uh
you know I I think you know and that's what happened you you know you know happened I mean to some extent to both sides you know decided what uh variables to use and but I think in Mr. Dean's case he stuck to the one variable
you know that gave him the you know you know a very good outcome that he had wanted to convey. Um I think there was even at one point he just kind of threw the whole concept of statistics out the door. Um whether there was correlation
or not and just said I I I'm just plugging in data and getting my results. So um so so I think right now or you know my view is again this goes back again to to our requirement of you know
not while we don't say no to spec we basically state that we want spec and understand what's um you know coming in so that again that
we can accurately understand the impact um of any application will have. In this case, we're going to talk about traffic on our roadways, you know, the infrastructure itself and of course most importantly, you know, is to uh the safety and welfare to the general public
that is on those roads right now. >> Are we done with traffic? Okay. So, we will take what you need 10. We'll take a 10-minute recess. We'll reconvene 20 of and not Yeah. 20th.
>> I would point out to the board that I'd ask you not to interact with the public, the applicant or the objectors during the break so that we're not you're not accused of having been uh >> yeah
or talk amongst yourselves. There we go. >> Oh, okay. >> All right, we're back in session. All right. Okay, >> Commander Leani, I I will let you lead
off to the next. >> I I'm I'm the leadoff man. >> Um, so we've we've kind of talked just about things, so I' I'd like to talk a little bit about Mr. Mayhew's storm water reports. Um
in in particular which is most most concerning um because I I am not an engineer. I rely on you guys but uh is the effect of the downstream flooding and the um and
the flow of water um and peak and release um and the Roycebrook. Um, so I'm going to ask Mr. Mayu if if he could just explain to me a little more
in detail what what your concern is on that as far as the downstream flooding and and and the calculation. >> Thank you, Mr. Leoni. I'm assuming you're talking about our review letter page three. Uh, Mr. continuation of the comet began
under storm water management comet one on page two. >> Yes. >> And um in it's a long comment but I guess the the key point there is to discuss the total volume of runoff that will be
generated by the project. um agencies and review agencies in particular nowadays look at three different parameters um when you deal with storm water they look at uh peak
rates they look at the volume of runoff and they look at the water quality um in in this particular section of our review letter we're discussing the volume of runoff um and because
there is a significant amount of proposed impervious cover. There will be a significant amount of additional runoff. This is runoff generated because it can no longer infiltrate into the into the woods or meadow fields.
Um now applications can address that by creating um significant um infiltration facilities whether they're bio retention or underground infiltration systems and the applicant
has proposed some but even after taking into account the proposed infiltration structures on this site there are significant ificant increases in the total volume of runoff generated by this site.
And that runoff has to go somewhere. It's going to go downstream on the tributary of the Roycebrook and work its way into the main branch of the Roycebrook and then into Manfield burrow. And as we state in our review letter uh and we included it as an exhibit,
this stream has been studied by FEMA and has been identified with a flood plane. and that flood plane at certain road crossings is already impacting those roadways. Um, and in our opinion, adding
additional volume of runoff to those impacted roadways will increase the frequency of flooding of those roadways and it will increase the time that those run roadways are impacted. as an example, and most people are
familiar, a storm event has a beginning, a peak, and an ending. And so sometimes roadways hit and flood a few inches for an hour or so, and then it recedes. But when you add more volume of runoff, the
depth of that flooding will increase, and the time period that the roadway is flooded, in our opinion, will also increase. And so we believe that the applicant has not addressed the code which requires
the applicant to minimize the amount of volume of runoff generated by the site. Does that help explain? >> Sorry. So in your opinion there is more engineering and retention required to
mitigate the the runoff correct. Okay. Um in retrospect to the uh the large retaining walls and the uh underground biodetention basins also that you mentioned that was there then
concerned about the how that would affect the integrity of the walls. Um and obvious and I believe the testimony was that when Dr. uh Clay questioned and they really hadn't engineered them yet. So how do we
adequately understand if they are engineered correctly at this point? >> Um correct. Um that that's discussed in our review letter as as well at the top of page four. There are um there's a proposed
underground infiltration system that is very close to a proposed retaining wall. And as Dr. Emerson had pointed out and as we pointed out, we have concerns about what would be the impact to the retaining wall if the ground area is
saturated. Um, normally when you build a segmental block retaining wall, you try to prevent the groundwater from saturating the retained side of the earth and usually you provide drainage along the wall and
but if that's done then you're bypassing the groundwater infiltration. Um, so certainly there would need to be more detailed design addressing how that's going to be handled. Okay. Um
and the and I'm also concerned and you you don't have to answer this but in the cut and fill and the changing of the grade and how water is being moved and changed in its topography away from the wetlands and
recharging there and directly into the into the Roycebrook. I think you mentioned also um is is that something that would add to more flow into the rowork because it's not adding a chance to to percolate into the
wetlands properly. >> U that's a great question. Um and it may be helpful when you're reading that comment to refer to exhibit C as in Charlie. Um that's um
we marked up a plan uh that's called existing drainage area map and the blue and red text that you see on the plan are comments that were added by Penoni Associates. Um as an example as you're talking about
um in fact Mr. Lana, you've talked about this tributary that runs between the two lots um sort of ds to the center of the site that's called the Roybrook tributary C and it runs from Homestead Road north
towards um the Roybrook. Today there is runoff approaching that tributary from the east and the west from the fields and the woods but the applicant's proposing to build um building and roadway improvements
with stormwater management which will collect all the runoff and direct it to a detention basin at the rear of the site which is the north end of the site and then discharge it into the Roybrook.
So the that stormwater flow is then bypassing the Rober tributary sea uh bypassing the wetlands that exist along that tributary and we haven't seen an analysis to say that that wouldn't be impacting the the
natural habitat and the natural hydraology of that tributary. Um, we have the similar concerns with the tributary B because a significant amount of runoff is collected for building number two and sending it
directly to a detention basin at the rear northern corner of the site. Thank you. So those those are my concerns chairman. Okay. >> Thank you. Anyone else?
I think may maybe comment I do want to make is that Mr. Ford did um respond numerous times to comments. It was really an iterative process. I
think in going through my review, I think three or four times he came back with another analysis whether it was uh uh calculations or or actual changes in the design um the civil design. So one I
commend them for doing that. Um but it also leads me to question whether we're done and uh whether he is done and that there will be more to be addressed as as this project would develop through the
engineering process. So um again I I do think Mr. Ford did a went through the ringer and uh responded to a lot of changes but the but therein is part of my
um I don't want to say inconsistency but part of part of what makes me uncomfortable is that we did go through that many iterations and and I believe there's still more there would be still more to come when it came to storm
water. Um, so I I'll just add a special thing because obviously in in my opinion, we still haven't uh addressed or came to a conclusion on the the stormwater buffer through the uh I'll call the common
ditch or whatever the applicant would call it. Um that seemed to have been in there from pictures back in the the 50s uh aerial photos. Um and whether it uh is classified correctly by us and our storm water buffer versus what the
applicant claims it is. Um whether it's man-made or not man-made. Um, I believe the the topography shows that it it all kind of leads to that area. Um, so I find it hard to believe that and I've been here a long time that
that wasn't there in some way or form in the past. The picture seemed to to prove that. And uh, again, it's all part of the overall ecosystem of that property. So, I don't think that was the applicant
feels it's been addressed. I don't I don't know if our our ordinance should take into effect on that. Mr. Of course. I just want to I'm going back to your memo with regards to the Texas Eastern pipeline.
Can you just review how that um I don't want to call it interferes but yeah how the issue that correlates with our township code. >> Yes. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh the
code states in let me see C Five. Let me just get the full number. Section 188-75 C5. It states, "The approving board may permit permit the encroachment upon the buffer provided for in this subsection
upon a demonstration that the service application of this subsection would result in particular and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship caused by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowess or shape of the
property, or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or physical features uniquely affecting a a property or by reason of extraordinary and exceptional situations uniquely affecting a property or the structures
lawfully existing thereon. So, the board would have to consider if the testimony that was provided meets those requirements for you to as board grant a crossing. >> Right.
>> And I guess I'm going to be looking to Mr. Wagner. I think another one of the from a era long long time ago. This was one of our ordinances. >> How many years you want to go back Carl?
>> So I mean I know that we took this one you know very seriously and getting it implemented you know to you know again more from a public safety standpoint. I mean, if folks do remember, you know, what went on in uh Edison,
>> I think that's what kind of brought it on. >> Well, that's what Yeah. >> forget the name of the development that it that it destroyed, but >> then I can't really recall us, you know,
looking to find, you know, have opportunities to waver that. I think that's one of the reasons why we wrote it, you know, as strongly as we did. And I just can't recall and I don't know if it's appropriate to ask Mr. Quis. I
just don't recollect us waving this since it's been in place. >> I don't recall, Mr. Chairman. I don't I don't have that I don't have that information. >> No, no, it's Yeah. >> Yeah. It I mean, my my recollection is we haven't waved this requirement.
Well, my advice to the board is based on what I just read, you'd have to then consider if the testimony that was provided by the applicant and the reasons why they're providing >> a second access point or an access point to cross over
>> um doesn't meet the standard for you to grant it, >> right? Okay. >> Basically, have you heard testimony that indicates that this is the only way to cross >> or that there is
no other reasonable access permitted >> or that the the undue hardship caused by not allowing the crossing is more problematic than the allowing of it. Uh I would also indicate to the board that
a little more confusion added to it is there's a section of that same which is 188-75C2 and it comes into play because as the board asked and asked about what was or was not going to be in the
proposed structures. C2 indicates no building or structure or part thereof which is used for the manufacturing, processing, generation or storage of corrosive, highly toxic, oxidizing,
pyrooric, water reactive, highly combustible, flammable or explosive materials that constitute a high fire explosion or health hazard, including loose combustible fibers, dust and unstable materials shall be constructed within in
125 ft of the right of way of any distribution gathering or transmission line. Um, one of the rationale for knowing what potentially is going in the structures is to address the issue of whether or not the 125 foot
buffer becomes an issue versus the 75. And the board has to in its review look at whether or not you've received sufficient information to address both the width of the right of way as well as the
exception as to why the waiver needs to be granted. And it's my recollection, Mr. Chairman, the pipeline only comes into play on the number two >> on building what we have euphemisally
referred to as building number two, right? So, one one of the things I'm kind of circling back to a little bit earlier this evening just kind of some of the disc the discussion that was centered around the completeness of applications
and along those lines and you know those who were around at the time. So, you know, our our prior planner, prior to Mr. Kois, Mr. Masky was the planner that had deemed this to be complete. Um,
one of the important factors in here too is Mr. Mr. Masky was not the planner uh during the other era when we were doing the master plan amendments and the TEDC zone. So, you know, so you know,
Mr. Masky may not have been fully familiar, you know, with um the intents or views um or wishes you of the township committee and planning board at the time. Now I know for a
matter of fact for this application I know he didn't he did not reach out to me to seek any consult you know at the time Mr. Wagner I don't know if you recall anything yourself. So Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out for
the record that being deemed complete is just that it's a basically have you met the requirements of the checklist or do you potentially get a waiver from the requirements of the checklist. Having met the checklist doesn't mean that the
board is therefore thereafter formally and completely forbidden from ensuring the provisions on the checklist and not just the issue of what is or is not going to be in the application but a myriad of other items
that deem one complete are still subject to board review and consideration including many of the items that the board has discussed. I will point out and applicant has given you a rather interesting set of
responses to the issue of 18831 E1. Is it the code provision says the application must include at le hopefully by the end of the hearing a written description of the
proposed uses and operations of the building. The number of employees or members of non-residential buildings. The proposed number of shifts to be worked. The maximum number of employees on each shift. The expected truck and
tractor trailer traffic. The admission of noise, glare, vibration, heat, odor, air, and water pollution, safety hazards, and anticipated expansion plans incorporated in the building design.
I believe the board in hearing the testimony has heard testimony on some of these rather extensively, some of these marginally or tangentially and some of these not at all. And one of
the issues among many others the board has to look at as to whether or not in fact it meets that provision of the code along with many of the other issues raised by Mr. Kis, Mr. May you and the board
in a lonely action. Mr. Chairman, I'll add one more item if I may. >> Certainly. >> Lawyers are regularly accused of playing planners and engineers. Planners are regularly accused of playing lawyers and engineers.
And engineers are regularly accused of playing lawyers and planners. If you recall during the testimony of applicants planner, Miss Capone raised the issue that the application meets the criteria
under the municipal land use law and she rattled off three. Um what she's talking about is a provision of the municipal land use law found at 40 col 55D-2 which we all tend to forget when we
start to talk about these things. But the various letters that are set forth in that statute are what are euphemistically called the criteria. And she indicated that there were three. One was criteria G, one was criteria I, and
one was criteria M. For purposes of the record, I would like to read into the record what they are. Criteria G under the statute to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential,
recreational, commercial, and industrial uses and open spaces, both public and private, according to their respective environmental requirements, in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens.
Criteria I to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. And criteria M states to encourage coordination
of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping land development with a view of lessening the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of land. Those according to applicants planner
are the three basis under the municipal land use law why this application meets the MLUL. One of the issues the board has to review is whether or not any or all of them actually do. I'm not a planner. Um I don't tend to be
one, but um I design a visual environment. I don't think that that's quoteunquote been proven very well um with talking about the buffer issues. Um
letter encouraging a uh an efficient use of land. I'm not sure I buy that one too much either. Um so I mean it is our decision right to to accept those ration as a as a from their planner. Right.
Well, you're you you've been provided what their planner believes are the rale which we can accept nor >> you can accept reject or or or raise a more than cautious or not cautious eye as the case may be.
>> Gotcha. Um now of course obviously G about the size. I don't even want to talk about that one but I will. Um, obviously I said that I think in the beginning of my testimony that the whole purpose of moving the lot line was to make the size
bigger. Um, as opposed to taking the existing lot line and make a smaller property. So yeah, you can justify that you can move a line to make something larger, but I don't justify the visual impact or the encourage efficient land
use um, for this property. Again, I'm not a planner, but I think they're they're stretching. >> I I I I'm struggling a little bit with the concept of us trying to come up with
quantitative measures for let's say intensity and usage and proving with metrics and numbers. But what you just read is very qualitative, subjective. And
I say I'm struggling with it because as an engineer myself, you want to have some metrics. You want to have something you can can go with the 322 trucks a day. So um you know what was just the gauntlet that's laid down there flies in
the face of that. So which do you pick? You pick the qualitative? You pick the quantitative? You pick a little of both. And so I I you know, having your cake and eat it too. Use every proverb you want. Um it's I I
you know, having to address all three of them specifically, should we or shouldn't we? I I think we've talked around them already on the deis um on on those criteria. Um
I I a note in one of my one of her reports I said on what basis was this made just qualitative opinion. There's no there was no um analysis. It's just a gratuitous sentence that says this application
meets all the requirements of the TECD and master plan. But then to say that we can't if we choose to reject it based on what the master plan says flies in the face of that testimony. So
I I I like I said I I kind of struggle with not struggle I embrace it for that matter. Should I do it now? a couple more >> but I you know kind of going back I
think that's why we may have purposely made the language as is to be >> qualitative >> qualitative so you know so that it provided some flexibility but I mean there's a lot of judgment there >> I wrote this three years ago qualitative and quantitative it's still here
so The board is sensibly asked to listen to the testimony provided by applicants professionals, by your professionals, by objectors professionals where applicable by the public
and basically weigh them. You are not planners even though some of you have are engineers. You are not the engineer in this case. You bring certain understandings of what
the application is and where the application fits within, but you're also well within your purview to rely on the comments and recommendations of your own professionals. And I'm leaving myself out
mostly because as I said I I only play engineer and planner. But that's what you're required to do. You're required to balance all of the factors and use your own
knowledge and experience in being a a board member and being a resident in this town and come up with your own conclusions without necessarily accepting. Well, you can accept some things, reject others, and find others to be
problematic and come to a conclusion without having to necessarily have an absolute So, I mean, I guess you one of the other things I just kind of again want to go back to when this was all originally, you know, the the the amendment was done
back 2010, the ordinance in 2011. Um, well, let me take this back. There was a lot of discussion early on in this application about again about defining what a warehouse is. Um, obviously that
term, you know, we we got creative, pulled a lot of things out, some dictionaries I never knew existed. Um, you know, with their definitions, but yeah, again, when the ordinance was created, you know, it was really with
what warehouses were perceived. um for a community like Hillsboro in 2011. Um I think you know the the fulfillment centers or large scale distribution centers or just large scale warehouses were left to the likes of on the
turnpike and I alluded to earlier that you know maybe another time another place if you know those that were you know the powers that be actually you know may have ran the Somerset Highway through here the 95 extension. Again, this might have been a different story
that application may have been here, you know, 15 years ago. Uh, but it didn't. So, um, yeah, and I was looking here to see, you know, again, I had a very open mind during this process to see if I, you
know, if any of the testimony would have, um, given me a different perspective. And again, I'm going to go back to Miss Capone, I think, was, you know, really had that ability to play that impact and
and based on her testimony and again where she didn't go or avoid it, you know, I I think and Mr. Wagner may you know perhaps for yourself too it reinforced you know the um the vision we had you know and it hadn't really had
changed uh or we were not um I call it um yeah just hadn't changed the other thing I just kind of want to mention getting back to the lot line adjustment and again when the master plan was amended
uh and making the recommendations for the zone zone and what was taken consideration, you know, it was a handful of properties and I think the zone was developed with the lot lines as they were established. So, um, kind of going along those lines, you have to, you know, I think what
commani was saying that, you know, that that there was really a u a different intent for having the lot line just than what is traditionally done or traditionally for um that I don't think any of the properties, you know, whether
these two specifically or any that are in this zone um are undevelopable, you know, as the ordinance is written today. Anybody else want to chime in? I think you're itching. >> Well,
>> yeah. >> Okay. Um, you know, having considered um testimony, everything that uh advice of council on that last item um corresponds, various professional
reports, testimony up here or comments from colleagues on the DEAS, our professionals we have to rely on as well. Penon's report, our planning director. Um, I'll acknowledge that even in the
Penoni report, the applicant did satisfy many comments. They went through a lot of work, responded to a lot of things. However, um, there remain, I believe there remain enough questions and inconsistencies as
we've discussed up here. Those include the buffer issue um stemming from the TECD zone itself. Uh you know, you have to move the lot line to make to to fit this one of these
warehouses into the zone and a lot of the comments come out of of that. Um it's uh I don't believe it's transitional. It's a transitional in the wrong direction.
Uh we talked about the intensity of it from a lot of perspectives. Building height, uh the traffic impact. Um by the way, the 3 322 apparently doesn't change if you only operate 10 hours a day
based on the statistics. So think about that. Um the noise and pollution factors, we didn't hear testimony on that. There was a report, but nobody testified to it. Um the size and scale factors as as
illustrated by our planning professional. Um you know, we have a spec building where we don't know really the number of employees, the actual number of vehicles that are going to be there. Uh there are still questions on
storm water. Um now the inconsistency on on hydraological impacts on tributaries is something that that also needs to be ex explored and that's a significant storm water issue. Um routing of trucks to 206
defeats the purpose of the bypass. We you know putting this warehouse in the center of town as committee mentioned defeats that purpose. um it's counter to being compatible with neighborhoods uh the peace and solitude of residents
and and neighborhoods around there. And for that reason, I'm going to move make a motion that we deny the application. >> We have a motion. Uh, mayor, uh, you were very, uh, detailed as an engineer would be in and
in summarizing the, uh, things, but I' I'd like to just add that um, the underlying theme here is, and I think
that may is just um, it is too big, too massive, too many problems, who um is like they just instead of coming in
with a an application that fit the build the scope and scale of what could fit there and and be harmonious with the neighborhood and still be a a good building, they decide to go for the biggest building they could find and jam it in there. um that doesn't happen
often, but I believe it happened in this point and it created way too many problems that I believe their engineers could act adequately address to ease the residents and and the township of the concerns and the neighboring neighborhoods that it would not be problematic down the road because we
don't know what's here today if we should approve it, what's also here 20 years from now. Um also some of the engineering uh flaws that were mentioned by Mr. pen um by by Mark um in the pen
report. Um crossing a pipeline obviously it has a concern uh for safety reasons but um I believe that in the best interest of the safety and welfare of the population of Hillsboro, not just that live in this
neighborhood but for all of Hillsboro and the ad and the harm it would bring to this community. I second the motion. >> Is there any additional comments? Thoughts?
This is based, Mr. Chairman, on all of the discussions that the board has had this evening. its questions and comments during the proceedings, the letters from them, recommendations from their professionals, and the
testimony that you've heard and and and the exhibits you've reviewed. Is that correct, your honor? Is that the intent of your motion? >> You know, I don't use the word all. But yes, >> is that the intent of your second, Mr. Vani?
>> Affirmative. >> Thank you. Okay. If there's no additional comments from board members, >> just instruct uh what a yes means and what a no means. Mr. >> A yes is to deny the application. A no
is to approve the application or at least not approve the >> resol the motion to deny. >> It would not. Yeah. No would not be an approval. It just means >> no is not an approval of the application. No is a rejection of the
motion. >> And Mr. Flag obviously cannot vote since he is not eligible, >> right? But we appreciate him hanging out. >> Okay. So, all board members clear on what an a yes versus no.
>> So, one more time, Mr. Bernstein. A yes would be to approve the motion to deny the application. A no would be to reject the motion to deny the application, but does not in and of itself grant an affirmance.
That would take a separate motion or no action. Thank you. >> Last chance. Everyone's clear. Okay, with that I have a roll call, please. >> Mr. Wagner, >> yes. >> Miss Smith,
>> yes. >> Committee, >> yes. >> Mayorelli, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Pee, >> yes. >> Chair Sarra, >> yes. >> Okay. Motion carries. The application's denied.
[Music] >> Mr. Chairman, we will complete the resolution and get a draft copy to the board members in advance of the necessary time frame to meet the requirements for the adoption of the mo of the resolution which will be in October.
>> When would we have to have that in front of us >> by the October meeting? >> By the October meeting. Okay. Okay. Uh so with that, just to let everyone know, we do have a meeting next
week, September 11th at 700 p.m. Please let the uh planning office know if you're unable to attend. Make sure we do have a quorum. And with that, I will entertain a motion of adjournment. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I journed. Good night everybody. It's also David's birthday next Thursday. >> 29