Start recording. Are we ready? Is that the hand signal? There we go. Okay. Good evening everyone and welcome to the Hillsboro Township Planning Board meeting of July 10th, 2025. Please join
me. Please join me in a salute to the flagg of to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised according to section
five of the open public meeting act chapter 231 public 1975 otherwise known as sunshine law. Notice of the 2025 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers township clerk post on township website and available here at
the township municipal complex. In addition, application documents and plans have been made available on the township civ 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 inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice. With that, may I have uh roll call of board members and also board and township professionals, please? Mr. Smith, Mr. Ratowitz, Mr. Vitalian, Mr. Debor absent. Mr. Wagner here.
Mr. Flag here. Miss Smith here. Committee present. Mr. Pen here here. Here Angel will be here and myself and the videographer here.
Okay, fantastic. Welcome everybody. First up we have consideration of a couple of meeting minutes. First up is the May 8th, 2025 meeting minutes. May I have a motion to approve eligible members? Everybody on the day.
All right. So moved. Second. Any discussion from the deis? Hearing none. Roll call, please. Mr. W. Yes. Mr. Flag. Yes. Committee Money. Yes. Mr. Cley. Yes. Vice Chair Pen. Yes. Chair. Yes.
Next up is the June 5th, 2025 meeting minutes. The mayor is the only exempt. Okay. So, may I have a motion to approve? Is there a second?
Okay. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Mr. Flag, yes. Miss Smith, yes. Yes. Mr. Chair, yes. Okay, next up we have a resolution for consideration. It's the Somerset
County Improvement Authorities Solar Ray file number 25-PV-09- INF, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Flag, Miss Smith, Committee, and Vice Chair P.
Is there a motion to approve? Mr. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none. Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner. Yes. Yes. Smith.
Yes. Yes. Okay. We do not I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Who was the second on that? Miss Smith. Thank you. Okay. Okay, we do not have any planning board business this evening or
considerations of ordinances. So, we will go to business from the floor for Adam for Adam's items not on the agenda. If there anything you'd like to provide comment to the board, please come up, state your name and address for the record and please uh avoid any
discussion regarding warehouses direct or indirect. Maria Janusk, 720 East Freck Avenue, Manville, New Jersey. I'm also a Hillsboro Township property owner, block 86, lot 3, 2155 Campla Road. Um, as the
owners of property on Camplain Road in Hillsboro, I and my husband uh received a letter dated June 2, 2025, via certified mail with a return receipt request uh from Environmental Technology, Inc. ETI. And that letter is
in regard to an application for Freshwater Wetlands letter of interpretation line verification extension. And the applicant is Eminem at Camp Road LLC. with that letter uh is in was included
an 11 inch by 17 inch wetlands mapping plan which states block 86 lot 21. Um and it's in regard to um block 86 lots 21.01 and 21.02
formerly uh lot 21. the uh wetlands mapping plan states block 86 lot 21, but there no longer exists block 86 lot 21 because that um property had been subdivided several years ago back in I
think maybe 2019 and um that property block 86 lot 21 had been purchased by the Hillsboro Township governing body uh for purpose of affordable able housing. Uh it was
purchased with funds from the affordable housing trust fund and so it was subdivided and block 86 lot 21.01 uh was sold by the township uh for $1 to
a developer and and that property has been developed since then. So that's a separate owner. And then there's block 86 lot 21.02 which continues to be owned by um Hills Hillsboro Township. Um but that parcel
had been before this board as an application for affordable housing. Um and that um application that property is also uh part of a settlement agreement between Eminem realy and the township of
Hillsboro. And that property um combines with an application for the Glengary Quarry where there's a a development for homes that was uh approved. So both both the application
for the uh block 86 lot 21.02 2. Uh that application was given approval by the planning board and the application for the Glengary quarry development was also given approval. But
that Glengary project was given approval based on the approval to uh build affordable housing uh by Eminem. And that's already been a few years and nothing's been done on Camp
Lane Road. And that property actually has no no uh road frontage. But meanwhile, Glengarry is uh is is is going forward. And uh how how is it that
block 86 lot 21.02 2 was uh uh approval was given for that for that project to Eminem when Hillsboro Township owns it. There's a property record card for
block 86 lot 21.02 2 and it shows that the value of that property is $2,347,500 and that property was supposed to be sold to Eminem so that that that project could then go forward and the Glen Gary
project could go forward. But meanwhile, nothing's been done here. Hillsboro continues to own that property even though Eminem got approval for their application. and now they're building uh or go rather going forward with a lot of
things with the Glengary project. So I I'm wondering why how is it that Eminem got approval for uh building on a property that Hillsboro owns continues to own. Nothing's been done with it. And
uh meanwhile the other project and all of this all of this is supposedly under the umbrella of affordable housing and uh Eminem has a settlement agreement with with Hillsboro. Nothing's done with that except that like like I said, the
only thing that's going forward is the Glengary project. And what what how how is this how is this being done because uh I I I think your best course is to perhaps make an appointment with the planning office and they can go through
this. I mean, this is not the appropriate forum for that to explain. Well, okay. This is where Eminem got approval for a project off of uh Campla Road for
property that's owned by Hillsboro. This is the body that gave approval. So I I I'm just wondering how is how is that all done? And then and then it's it's this is not going to be going into that. I don't have any materials in front of me. You could probably take a look at the meeting minutes or or you know or
the resolution and it'll provide full explanation. But I I was at the Hillsboro Township meeting on Monday. Uh I brought this up to Mayor Chikarelli and to uh um Committeeman
Leani and the rest of the uh uh township committee and I was told that I should bring this up uh at the planning board. So that's why I'm bringing it up. I'm suggesting to do it to the planning, you know, to make an appointment with the the planning office and they can go
through the details. I don't have any material in front of me or you know to to to provide this and this is just comment section. So it's not a you know Q&A session at this point. So I think you've got some concerns with the you know the movement
on that application or or some of the legalities around that and this is this is not the uh forum to address those concerns. I yes I do have and that's why I suggest that you make an appointment with the office. How how
is this letter coming to to my husband and I regarding a property that adjoins us? Again, I would suggest to make an appointment with the planning office. We're getting a bill like this. So, so I think not only the planning board, but I think also the mayor and the the township committee should be looking at
this and see what's going on. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else comments? Okay, we're going to move forward. Mr. Bernsteeen, I believe we're going to be going to an executive session. No, we're going to be going to executive
session after this after our homestead. Okay. Okay. So, I'm going to ask objectors and the applicants representative to please come forward.
Okay. So, we're moving on to our first application. Public hearing this evening for Homestead Road LLC with the file number 21-PB-25-MS backsp. Time of decision is July 31st of this
year. This is block 200.10 lot 32 and 33 commonly known as 203 Homestead Road and 189 Homestead Road. And I will turn it over to Mr. Janetti for
introductions. Yes. Good evening, chairman, members of the board. Craig Janetti, the law firm, Dave Pittney on behalf of the applicant, Homestead Road LLC. Good. Good evening, Mike Pisaro, policy director for the Watershed Institute on
behalf of objector number one, Scott Gross, local citizens against traffic. Okay. Brian Tarantino from SWAT. John Lanahan. Objector 4. Lori Cleveland for the Sourland Conservancy.
Okay. Welcome everyone. Closing arguments. That's right. Public portion is done. Closing arguments starting with the objectors in whichever order they wish to take it. Okay. And then Mr. and Eddie
I will go first. Is it possible to get connection to screens? We spend more time prepping. Good evening. Um, you know, this has been a long time coming and I want to thank the board, its professionals, the
public who have been here. Michael, sorry, a little little louder. It's been a long time. um and all the experts who have participated in this process. It's been a very good process. It's been a long process, but it has been good. The board has taken its obligation to ensure
the public is able to participate in the hearing to heart and has truly provided it. So, I want to thank you for that. And I want to strongly suggest that after all of the hearings in the matter, all of the testimony, all of the documentation, all the facts, there's
one logical conclusion. the board must deny this application. And I don't usually say things like this. I usually say it should be modified. It should be reduced. Um, but it should be denied. And while my fellow objectors will have
reasons, and I'm sure the board professionals will have reasons, I'm going to focus on three main issues. First, the application does not comply with the storm water requirements. Second, the application does not comply with the requirements of the TEC zone.
And third, the application does not comply with the township stream court ordinance. So, the board is obligated to independently evaluate a project storm water management plan. You've heard a lot of testimony. Well, D has looked at it and said it's okay. DRCC has said
it's okay. So, conservation district has said it's okay. But this board has an obligation to independently review it and make its own determination. Our case law provides that the board has responsibility for determining such compliance and that's
save Hamilton open space versus Hamilton. In addition, the township's municipal separate storm source system permit or MS4 permit which is the permit all municipalities have that obligates it to regulate control storm water to
review development applications. The MS4 permit comp specifically says the permit is required to review and analyze development plans for compliance with NJAC 78 even if a permit is required by the department for the same or similar
activity. So yes, other agencies have looked at it but you are the first and last stop in making that determination of whether this complies. And while it may have been common practice to leave unanswered questions
to resolution post approval, that's not what the MS4 permit really requires and it's not appropriate. And I would suggest these aren't mere typos or mere um clarification issues. These are major fundamental aspects of the storm water
management plan that are left unanswered or just not compliant. The MS4 also permit requires that the permittee shall ensure that the major development projects are constructed in accordance with the approved development plans. The board cannot approve a
project where there are details undesigned. In Dr. Ambison's June 2023 and June 2024 letters as well as his testimony on June 11th and cross-examination on September 12th, 2024 clearly set out his findings
of non-compliance with the stormwater design. In this case, there are several, but one of the big issues is the design of these underground infiltration basins. According to Mr. Ford at the June 2023 hearing.
He has not designed the subsurface infiltration basins under the parking lots of warehouses so that they would not create a hydraulic impact to the retaining walls. If you remember the testimony that far back, uh Dr. Emerson raised concerns that we're trying to
infiltrate water in a system that is trying to remove water from behind the wall. And so the concern was it was not going to create a hydraulic impact. Design of the retaining walls hasn't been re uh has not been finalized. Uh and that
testimony is on June 23rd, 2023. Dr. Emerson testified that the retaining walls need to be designed to relieve the hydrostatic pressure and that their stability depends on that. So you kind of have like I said, and this is quoting
Dr. conflicting interest in close proximity to each other. If your goal is to infiltrate water or is your goal to relieve the hydroric pressure of said infiltrated water, Mr. Ford's subsequent uh submissions and
testimony are devoid of any changes or additional design showing how that would be accomplished. And I think the board's engineer has some concerns. you know, the infiltration basin number five, for example, will be at least five
to six feet above the surface of the site. So, as you recall, they're building retaining walls and filling it. And then they're hanging these infiltration basins above the current surface. While Mr. Ford testified he would design the
isolation later, he hadn't done that. Dr. Emerson clearly rejected the ability to design this after the fact. and quote, "I don't see that function in the way that he outlined in his testimony, nor have I seen the design for." Dr. Emerson testified, "There are
significant concerns with how these subsurface basins will work in relation to the need to relieve hydro hydraologic pressure building up behind the retaining walls. So, you have something that you're being asked to approve that no one knows right now how that will
work and will it work? You know, infiltrating storm water is one of the main requirements of the rules and one of the main aspects of this plan. If that does not work, you cannot approve this plan.
Mr. Ford also testifi testified that he has made a lot of assumptions when calculating the time of concentration. So, how fast water will sheet flow over the property or over the the uh parking lots? But he calculated the he estimated the assumptions for concentrations for
the excess of 50 filter systems. So these are tree wells that are supposed to accept storm water and treat it. But how those things are designed and what those are how they're going to really work. He's made assumptions and Mr. Ford
testified well that's yeah that was an industry standard with that many different you know in excess of 40 of them. There were specific there were typical assumptions made and we've agreed to do or have the supplier do sight specific for each and every one of
them and that was on June 23rd 2023. Again, we can't assume this is too important. Dr. Emerson testified that the rules in BMP manual will require the sizing of the MTB the manufactured treatment devices these filter systems to be based on actual
calculations uh uh of times of concentration and that was on July 11th. not assumptions. Mr. Ford also testified on the February 13, 2025 hearing that all of the recharge requirements are going to be
met completely by building one systems. At first, in prior testimony, it was I'm going to meet it at building two and at building one. Um, but those plans changed. There were three discharge points for this project.
the three drainage areas in the post development site. According to the township's ordinance, a drainage area is a geographic area within which storm water drains to a particular receiving water body or to particular point along a receiving water
body. The township's ordinance requires that the quantity, quality, and recharge be achieved for each of the drainage areas. We have three of them, and one of the buildings we're not going to use for recharge. This requirement has not been met. But there's also a practical issue.
So you have two buildings, two separate storm water systems. All of your recharge is going to be met with the system on building one. They're not interconnected. They're not relying on each other. So if building two is being
built first, which does not have the recharge requirements met, you don't have the requirements met. So the stormwater rules are not met because you're not re recharging. You never know if building two may ever
be built if building one is built first. We know that even if this site in stormwater management was designed in compliance with the requirements, which let me be clear, it is not. It is unrefuted that the volume running off this site will increase. Mr. Ford
testified to that on July 7th. So, as you increase the impervious cover, you're going to increase the volume that comes off the site. Is that correct? And Mr. Ford testified yes. So, we all know the Roycebrook floods. There's been testimony as to flooding. It's all in
our experience. The township code 188-43 requires no storm water runoff to overload existing drainage or creating flooding. The township engineer in his reports has determined this project as designed will exacerbate that flooding,
will cause flooding. So again, the storm watered design is just frankly incomplete with aspects to be designed later. It does not, in my opinion, in Dr. Emerson's opinion and if I may be so bold in your own engineers opinion meet
this requirements. The board is obligated to make sure that the system that they approve, if they were to approve this application, works and can be built, not something that will be resolved and fixed later. Mr. Ford um attempted this to discredit
Dr. Emerson's prior testimony and reports by pointing to revised plans. And let me let me point this out. Those were revised plans were dated October 2023. Dr. Emerson, if I recall correctly, now
it's been a while, testified in 2024. The plans weren't submitted to this board, even though dated and prepared in October of 2023 to October 2024, held on to for months.
So, Dr. Mr. Emerson testified in his in his report that the design was not compliant with the rules as there was not sufficient storm water systems to comply with a 2 and a half acre uh limitation. So for water quality and recharge requirements, you cannot set
more than two and a half acres worth of storm water runoff or or imperous surface to these systems. And there were not enough sufficient according to the plans that were available to us before october of 2024
to determine there there were not enough infiltration basins. Mr. forward and testified that well there's in fact enough because I've added them and that's in my October 2023 report that I didn't share with anyone
until October of 2020 August of 2024. uh it was added during the review and also he testified as to why well there was a prior comment I believe by the objector's engineer that with three underground basins by building one mathematically there could be more than
two and a half acres going to any one of these basins so by providing a fourth one mathematically that demonstrates there would never be more than two and a half acres of threshold. All right. And then the other thing and we talked a lot a
year ago at time of concentration and Dr. Emerson and I'm showing uh exhibit 04 talked about the applicant's time of concentration is taking a very linear shortest path
from one point to the stream. And Dr. criticized that saying the topography doesn't show that's how the water would run and that would give you an artificial number uh which means you are not having to do as much.
Lo and behold in the August 2024 submission that time of concentration had been changed to be very similar to what Dr. Emerson testified it should have been. um you know so there have been some corrections to this report to the
stormwater but majority of Dr. Emerson's concerns have not been met, have not been addressed. So from a stormwater perspective, I think we could go no further and say this application does not meet the requirements and should be denied. Second, and others will probably
talk more about this, but the application doesn't comply with the TEC zones on zone requirements. One of those requirements in the ordinance is to minimize the cut and fill. the applicant as they have shown in their proposal
creates significant changes to the topography. And I want to point out and we spend a lot of time talking about 3D modelings and stuff, but one thing the applicant never showed you was what this site would look like after construction, what these retaining walls would look like.
They showed you what, you know, a a rendering of the building, but not what this site would look like from Homestead Road. No architectural rendering of what these retaining walls would look like.
So, the retaining walls along the north portion of warehouse one is approximately 10 feet tall in spots. The warehouse to the retaining walls are somewhere between 10 and 15 feet if not not higher 16 feet in spots. The TEC CD
zone says the site building standards the buildings and site improvements shall be designed to minimize changes to the existing topography and mature vegetation. According to Mr. Ford. He believes he could take all the fill from this site
into backfill those 10, 14, 16 foot high walls. He doesn't know how much it's going to take, but he thinks he can do it. Uh, and in response to Mr. Mayhew's suggestion that he relocate a sewer manhole to avoid some impacts to some
regul regulated areas, Mr. Ford indicated that wasn't feasible because the manhole in the driveway would be 22 feet deep to reach the sewer line. We're talking significant topography changes to make this site um compliant with the proposal. I mean,
it's hard to reconcile the requirement to minimize changes in topography with retaining walls 10 to 16 feet high. And therefore, I would argue they have not met the requirement to the TECD zone. Lastly, the stream
Um, we've talked a lot about that. We have submitted um memos and reports on this and I can get this actually to show up.
Um, in our June of 2024 report, Dr. Emerson included an aerial from 1971
showing what would look like the outlines of a stream. And I'm sort of highlighting it with the mouse right now. The aerial photography shows the stream and I I think Mr. May who had a photo in his report from even earlier um that
there was a stream feature existing at least as early as 1972. There's visual evidence of that stream. Then we have the testimony of Dr. Emerson where he discussed the topography around the stream slopes to the stream and he testified when I was describing the
relative ridge line on the eastern side of the parcel and the one on the western side in this feature the stream was in between them. So this is an area where naturally I would have expected flow to converge and if I were to look for a first order tributary or small ephemeral stream this is exactly where I
would find it and that was in his July 11th testimony. And then we've we prepared and testified about lighter and just to highlight the topography. And this is exhibit six. The other one,
I'm sorry, was exhibit uh five. And again, this dark blue is the stream in question. All of the site or portions of this site, this lot
slopes to that from a high point of 106, 108, 106, 104, 94, all the way to when you hit the Roycebrook at 70. again something that you would expect a stream to look like and to be and
despite the aerial photography and this was hearsay but Mr. Cook testified who was the applicant's um environmental act uh expert testified that Mr. Shockley created the stream. Now we never were told when Mr. Shockley
owned the property. Um was it before 1972? Um Dr. Dr. Emerson testified it wouldn't be unusual for farmers to modify a stream uh in agricultural landscapes.
But u if Mr. Shockley didn't own this property before 1972, he could not have created this drainage ditch feature and it is in fact a stream. In the natural world, this this feature is a stream. The township ordinance defines a stream as a water course having a source and a
terminus banks and channels through which water flow at least periodically. There's been testify about water being here. The reports indicate that uh and the ordinance provides for 150 foot buffer on both sides from the top of bank. stream quarters are considered as
critical areas by the township and the township's ordinance um let me stop there but if the board finds that this feature is a naturally occurring stream that may have been altered by people at some point doesn't matter it still meets the definition
of a stream and if so the township's ordinance applies and this project cannot go forward as proposed The applicant has not asked for any waiverss or variances from that standard. The stream court sets out those
permitted activities. None of them are included in what is proposed. And the ordinance also for one of its purposes explains one of the reasons for the ordinance is to assure that only appropriately placed
development on a property will not increase the danger to human plant animal life and it represents acceptable use of land in relation to the involved. So we are going to fill in a stream. We're going to increase volumes of storm water on a system that may or may not
work. Um the hill the Hillsboro Township stream corridors applies to this situation and the applicant has not met any of the requirements for a waiver to build their parking lot and building on it and to
fill this stream in. And there's been a lot of discussion of saying the township's ordinance talks about not being in conflict with D. Well, I think it much it makes much more sense to view that not intended to conflict with D is not to allow less
protection. Our laws, our case laws clearly say from stream protection, municipalities can go stronger. And it doesn't make sense to say if D would allow it, the township has to allow it. Because if you think about it, if the if DP would allow an
incursion of one foot in a 50- foot buffer, but the township has a 150 foot buffer, are you obligated to give away that 100 plus feet of protection that your ordinance provides to your residents and to the environment? I
don't think so. I think it makes a lot more sense to say that not to conflict with means you can't go less. You cannot permit something that DP would not. Otherwise, why have your township
ordinance? It would make no sense. And we just common sense and legal um interpretation. We don't interpret statutes to have no meaning, no sense, and no applicability. Um
so with that, I want to say just reiterate the stormwater plan is not compliant. While other agencies may have found it, you are obligated as the reviewer, as the approver to
determine whether it does because we know if storm water fails, if it does not work, flooding will get worse. And one of the purposes is to protect our residents and um communities. So for that reason and for
everything I have indicated, I would urge this board to vote no. Thank you. [Applause] Good evening. My name is Scott Gross, local citizens against traffic, also
known as objector number two. I've been a resident and taxpayer in Hillsboro for 31 years. My wife and I raised our family here and are proud to call Hillsboro our home. One of the things that attracted us to Hillsboro was the lack of local highways. It's a bit out
of the way, but the lack of easy access to highways makes Hillsboro a relatively quiet destination and not just another stop on the New Jersey interstate highway system. When developers flooded our town with non-compliant warehouse applications a few years ago, I talked with other residents about their
concerns with these applications. One of the concerns was traffic and the effects of traffic. We also felt the township plan and uh planning board might not be in a position to adequately represent our interests. Therefore, I formed local citizens against traffic or
LCAT and registered as a formal objector to this application. LCAP brought forth a traffic expert and also question several of the applicants witnesses to specifically address traffic related issues in the application. Tonight I will briefly summarize
findings and conclusions drawn in the areas of traffic counts, effects of traffic on local roads, noise, and pollution. I brought Mr. Kenneth Houseman, a local traffic expert, to review and discuss the applicant's reports and testimony on the subject of traffic impact. The
following were reviewed throughout the planning board process. Dolan and Dean's 2021 traffic impact analysis report, exhibit A14, dated 12221. Dean supplemental traffic memo, exhibit A14.1,
dated 592023. Dean supplemental submittal of trip generation data collected for several local warehouses in New Jersey and eastern PA. Exhibit A10 presented on 1214 2023. Dean's testimony on those items at
multiple transcripts and multiple dates. Mr. Hman's original port date report dated 106 2022 and supplemental report dated 827 2024 included as exhibits 07 through 07.
Mr. Hman also uh provided testimony on those reports. Our traffic expert, Mr. Hman, provide a summary opinion of Dean's testimony as follows. The applicant used warehouse size and square feet and the IT trip generation manual to estimate the number
of truck trips generated by the proposed warehouse operation. For this application's original traffic impact analysis from Dolan and Dean, the IT trip generation data for warehouse size is poorly correlated with truck trip generation. Dolan and Dean supplemental submitt of
warehouse trip generation and local warehouses also shows a poor correlation between warehouse size and the number of truck trips. Mr. Houseman suggested that truck bays might be a better indicator of truck trips. Mr. Dean performed his own analysis using truck bays and had a
conclusion that is that both warehouse size and the number of bays are poor indicators of number of truck trips for the empirical data collected. Where does that leave us? The methodology results and conclusions of the applicant's traffic impact analysis report and
supplemental submittal are a poor indication not only of the effects of traffic during peak times but also of the potential number of truck trips that will be generated by the proposed warehouse. How many trucks will be generated by the warehouse? Since the warehouse was planned on speculation, the nature of
the operation is in question, but we've heard testimony that puts truck trips anywhere between two to 300 per day to as many as a thousand trips per day. We really don't know, but it will be significant. Mr. Dean's analysis, starting with a statistically weak methodology for predicting truck trips, focuses on
impacts to local roads and intersection intersections during peak hours. Whether it is hundreds or even thousands, the number of truck trips generated by this proposed warehouse will substantially change the nature of traffic in the area. Here are some examples. Homestead Road is primarily a suburban country
road, lightly used much of the time, but also uses an access to Hillsboro High School. Given the weight restricts on restrictions on Willow Road proposed in 2023 and passed by the township, all trucks need to use Homestead Road west of the warehouse and route 206's access.
This will make the already dangerous Blind Hill over the railroad even more dangerous. and as many as half or more of the trucks will use Route 206 north of Homestead Road, right into the middle of Hillsboro, clogging the town center with trucks and traffic. Other impacts of truck traffic include
noise. In addition to creating uh traffic, trucks from the warehouse will produce noise. The sounds of truck acceleration, breaking, Jake brakes, brake chirps, backup alarms, etc. all will have a noise impact on the local community throughout the planning board hearings. Concern concerns over noise
impact have been raised numerous times. The applicant has provided no technical evidence of the significance of uh noise impacts or what mitigations of noise will be provided. No noise impact study was performed or report presented. This was confirmed by the applicant's environmental expert Edward Cook during
his March 7th, 2024 testimony. Indeed, when the township created the master plan during the formation and early days of the TECD, the township called for the new zone to limit potential nuisances such as lighting and noise. Given the speculative nature of the
application and the cautionary language from the township when the TECD zone was envisioned and created as part of the master plan, noise impacts are inadequately addressed by the applicant. As for air pollution, concern over air pollution impacts has been raised numerous times throughout the planning
board process. There was mention of potential air pollution impacts of trucks buried in the thousands of pages on civic clerk, though air pollution data was not presented in testimony. Therefore, air pollution impacts are inadequately addressed by the applicant. So, where does that leave us? The
applicants traffic impact analysis and supplemental data do not adequately predict the effects of warehouse traffic on local roadways during peak times. Nor do they adequately predict the number of truck trips and the result resulting impacts. Coupled with the speculative nature of the warehouses's use, the number of
truck trips is unknown. It could be 300 or even a thousand truck trips per day. No noise study was completed. No air pollution study was presented. The impact of proposed warehouses on traffic, noise, and air pollution are poorly addressed and potentially much
greater than indicated by the applicant. The planning board should design this application. I do have some final comments. The planning board process has outlined numerous deficiencies in this application and a multitude of support for the board to deny it. Throughout the
entire hearing process, the applicant and their experts have failed to demonstrate adequate support in numerous areas, including the following: rail lines, pipelines, roadways, storm water management, pedestrian considerations, buffers, subdivision appropriateness,
not to mention traffic, noise, and air air pollution. At numerous points, the applicant was given the opportunity c to cure many of these items or to proceed at risk. The applicant chose to proceed and has still failed to provide support that the application should be approved. The
hearing process is going on three years and has called caused all of us, the board, the applicant, and the public to spend our valuable resources, including our money and time. By taking us all the way through this process and still failing to provide a complete application, the applicant has shown a
lack of respect for the board and the public and their valuable resources. It's time to stop wasting everyone's time and money and deny this application. Thank you. [Applause]
Good evening, Brian Tarantino from Stop Warehouses and Trucking. I would like to first thank the board for providing the opportunity for me to participate in this process. Um
um it's been an education and uh certainly it has been gratifying to be able to um have our voices heard and so we do really appreciate that. SWAT is an organization that represents the local community's serious concerns
over the development of giant warehouses near uh residential neighborhoods in Hillsboro. Our positions differ from the boards in that we are specifically focused on the real impact that these proposals will have on the health and safety of our children, our elderly, and
our neighborhoods overall. And SWAT has widespread support from the community at large. SWAT hosted a grassroots petition on its website collecting signatures from citizens who oppose this warehouse development. The petition says in part, "Join us now by signing this petition so
that we can fight this egregious, oversized, and ill-placed industrial development. Ultimately, as Hillsboro residents, our voices matter. So, the time is now. Let's act." 3,071 people signed that petition indicating
the broad opposition that exists in the community to this proposal. I would like uh in my remarks um I would like to address three areas. Um I would like to talk about six fatal flaws with the application. Uh the numerous
omissions with the application and ways that this development would impact our town. So six fatal flaws. Number one, there was no specific facility operator identified. The application should not have been deemed complete because the operator and use of the of the facility
was not identified as required by Hillsboro Municipal Code section 18831E1. The operations description submitted by the applicant is so general as to be not useful for understanding how the buildings will be used. Nor were Mr.
Gianetti's vague assertions that he made at the February 13th hearing valid given that he is not the operations expert nor qualifies to testify in this regard. I suspect that Mr. Jetti is planning a surprise reveal of a potential tenant
during his closing. While this will certainly be theatrical, it misses the point entirely and would do nothing to address this omission. The tenant and operations are needed so the board and the public can better understand how the
buildings would be used. This would need to be explored through testimony and cross-examination. Merely floating a potential name at the very last minute mocks the board's repeated request for a specific tenant in use. Knowing the specific operator is crucial
because the use of the buildings helps to define the extent of one of the most egregious aspects of a giant warehouse. the generation of heavy truck traffic. As a result, the applicant was unable to provide a realistic estimate of how many truck trips would be generated. Mr. Dean
could only offer a theoretical average truck generation rate, meaning that there is a 50% chance that a future tenant would exceed this estimate. Of course, Mr. Houseman established that Mr. Dean's method using the building footprint is an invalid approach for determining truck trips. And Mr. Dean
admitted the same in the cross-examination of his rebuttal testimony. It is our opinion that the number of truck loading docks is the obvious physical feature that limits the total truck trips from a warehouse. Mr.
Valenza testified that they put in as many docks as could fit because some tenants might require that many. He helped us estimate that theoretically the 90 docks could generate as many as 1,080 truck trips per day. Could be less
than that, but without a specific tenant, the board should consider this maximum when evaluating the application. The second fatal flaw is the subdivision. If you own a property, you can subdivide it. If you own two
properties, you could merge them together. The applicant is looking to to do not a double step, not a triple step, but a quadruple step. Homestead Road LLC to acquire the Midstate property. Enhance acquisitions to acquire the
Shockley property. Enhance to transfer the Shockley property to Homestead Road LLC. Homestead Road LLC to merge the two properties. And then Homestead Road LLC to subdivide into two properties. Despite the board questioning the
legality of this manystep operation and requesting a description of the legal basis, no such justification was provided. The applicant simply said, "We can do it." In our opinion, the application should have been denied back in 2022 when this issue was raised. The
board gave the applicant extraordinary leeway to continue despite this obvious flaw. Third fatal flaw is ownership. At the December 8th, 2022 hearing, Mr. O'Rnik, the applicant's lead attorney at
that time, stated that the applicant, Homestead Road LLC, has a contract to purchase each of the properties. This was not a true statement. Due to a lawsuit filed by Mr. Shockley, the contract for purchase of his property
was made public, which is to Enhance Acquisitions, not Homestead Road LLC. To my knowledge, no documents have been provided that establish any relationship between Enhance and Homestead Road LLC, and Enhance is not mentioned in any
application materials. Consequently, Homestead Road LLC does not meet the definition of a developer in 1883B and was not eligible to apply for the proposed development on December 28th, 2021. Any legal relationship between these
companies would have had to have been established prior to December 2021 in order to have any legal bearing. Even if this was the case, enhance as the purchaser was never disclosed by the applicant without a citizen's discovery
of the Shockley contract, the board today would still be misled about who is the purchaser. This failure alone to disclose crucial information like who is the actual applicant is, in our opinion, grounds for denial.
Despite this egregious issue, the board permitted the applicant to continue with its case. Fourth critical fatal flaw is the stream buff buffer. The small stream on the Shockley property where building one would be located
is regulated by the Hillsboro stream ordinance requiring a 150 foot buffer. As much as Mr. Gianetti has attempted to obfiscate the issue through the issuance of many letters and hours of testimony. The plain truth is that the stream is
not regulated by the NJ and therefore falls under the Hillsboro stream ordinance. The required buffer conflicts with the proposed building one and parking area necessitating a full redesign of the building. Mr. Mr. Mayhew, the board's engineer, has been
clear on this issue in an in at least three written reports. Critical issue number five, TECD compliance. The development proposal violates several key aspects of the TECD ordinance. The development does not conform to the
requirement at 1881072B regarding uses at a scale and size that is appropriate for the district. We have visually demonstrated this through our scale replica of the buildings. The development does not minimize changes to existing topography and
mature vegetation as required by 188107 F1 A1 warehouse buildings of 369,000 and 169,000 square feet with adjoining parking and driveways requires massive regrading and flattening of the
topography. The need for nearly one linear mile of retaining walls alone, some of which exceed 20 feet in height, shows how dramatically the topography will be altered to accommodate these gigantic buildings.
And then thirdly, the development does not meet the intent of the TECD as expressed by the planning director's memo of 1228 2011, quote, does not permit uses which are not compatible with residential uses and limiting potential nuisances such as
lighting and noise. The sixth and final what I call fatal flaw is uh relates to truck terminal. The applicant's operations expert testified that the building would be used to park many trailers, some of
which will not interact with the warehouse at all. He also testified that the buildings would include comfort facilities for drivers. Together, these factors mean that the facility would meet the township's definition of a truck terminal, which is not a permitted use in Hillsboro.
So any one of these flaws is dire enough to warrant the denial of the application. Together they make a potent argument for the board's clear decision. Besides these fatal flaws, the application is incomplete and has important omissions. It is missing.
Number one, it is a missing information in the traffic report on the development's impact on road networks and likely routes that trucks would take to interstate highways. Number two, the traffic analysis the traffic analysis was incomplete, inaccurate, and relied on chip trip generation rates that Mr.
Dean himself admitted were not statistically valid. Despite this, the report concluded that the warehouses would cause a dramatic worsening of the traffic at the intersection of Homestead and 206, in one case from a D to an E-
rating, but conceded no facility or operational modifications to mitigate these impacts. In fact, Mr. Dean testified at the January 11th, 2024 hearing that out of the hundreds of traffic studies that he has conducted, he has never found the
traffic impacts to be unacceptable. It always looks good to him. So, it appears that Mr. Dean isn't an impartial expert for traffic analysis. The board should consider any testimony by Mr. to be suspect because he implied that he
is not an impartial expert. The third missing element is the board requested that the applicant provide quote a visual simulation showing what the view of the buildings would be from the residential streets. Quoting Mr.
Masky from the 512 2022 hearing. The applicant produced a document but it did not provide a view of the buildings from the streets. The applicant is unresponsive on this request three full years later. An evaluation of the environmental
impact statement for the development showed that it only addressed 11 of the roughly 46 specific requirements of section 160-5. For instance, 160-5D and E requires an assessment of the probable impact of the project on a list
of topics that include air and water quality, noise, topography, demography, land use, aesthetics, and history. This was not found in their EIS. There were 34 other such missing elements.
Number five, the applicant submitted a phase 2 environmental investigation into 189 Homestead in June of 2022. That report indicated multiple areas of potential or confirmed soil and groundwater contamination. The LSRP
testified that additional investigation and data on these areas would be forthcoming. 37 months later, not a single report, analysis, memo, or letter has been submitted regarding this contamination.
Number six, noise pollution is a well doumented hazard of warehouse operations and a particular concern for the TECD zone. It is reasonable to expect that the applicant would affirmatively demonstrate that that the development would not create a noise hazard for the
neighbors. The only written discussion on noise in this application comprised less than 100 words in Mr. Cook's report and failed to address warehouse operations. Mr. Cook testified uh on March 7th, 2024 that he does not have experience evaluating noise from
warehouse operations. What's worse, Mr. Valenza testified that they never considered locating the loading docks on building one away from the residential community where it would have less impact on these homes. It
wasn't even something that they thought about. Honestly, the applicant's callous disregard for the nearby residents could not be more clear from this one issue. Number seven, air quality impacts from warehouse operations are likewise a
significant hazard with numerous regional studies documenting the dramatically negative health impact of diesel exhaust on those living near warehouses. Mr. Cook's report also spares less than 100 words on air quality with no mention of diesel fumes.
Number eight, inadequate planner evaluation. The applicant's planner provided no report, but provided three short memos that addressed a few specific design issues. Importantly, the planner failed to evaluate the development's suitability for the TECD
zone and conformance to applicable town ordinances. This obvious omission clearly illustrates the disregard that the applicant holds for the town's ordinances. and the board's planner and engineer both provided numerous memos outlining
the issues that need to be addressed by Ms. Caffone. Their recently issued advice memoranda are a compilation of the multitude of ways that the applicant has been unresponsive over the past three years. The outstanding issues are
too numerous to mention here. Number nine, no request for the pipeline crossing waiver. Section 18875 C3 prohibits the location of roads or driveways over underground pipelines unless quote no other means of access is
possible. If a crossing is proposed, a demonstration of the particular and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship that would result is required. The applicant failed to apply for this hardship waiver even after being prompted to do so by the planning
director back in 2022. Mr. Gianneti apparently is under the impression that they have applied for this hardship waiver, but no such application has been included in the docket. Further, the pipeline crossing is not even needed since there is an obvious alternative to rooting the
building to driveway so it doesn't cross the pipeline at all. Compliance with this ordinance crucial for the safety of the neighborhood and the town was not important to the applicant. If built, we as the neighbors would be the direct
recipients of a high-pressure gas pipeline explosion. Mr. Grief would likely be back home in Boca Raton. This application has been in progress for three full years and the applicant has been well aware of the need for
these missing components. They have had every opportunity to provide them and yet they have refused to do so. Finally, the proposed development would have an extraordinarily negative impact on the local area and the township. Truck traffic would overwhelm the
intersection of Homestead and 206. Truck traffic would overwhelm the town center, significantly threatening the entire concept of a town center. Mr. The dean testified that half of the outbound truck trips over 80 per day by his estimate would turn north on 206 through
the town center and that it would be difficult to enforce a ban on trucks going in that direction. We estimate that the number of trucks that would drive through the town center could be as high as 500 per day. Truck traffic would saturate every corner of our town
given the lack of ready access to an interstate highway. Truck traffic would bring long backups on Homestead and other road networks. There are no locations for trucks to park in Hillsboro. The planned 247 operation would bring unacceptable noise, air, and light
pollution to the surrounding community, and without access controls to the building's parking lots, trucks would be arriving at any hour of the day and night. The presence of highly flammable and otherwise toxic materials close to the residential community is an unacceptable
hazard. The applicant has proven time and again to be hostile to local residents and community groups, uninterested in collaborating with neighbors in equitable solutions to concerns and made numerous attempts at bullying meeting
participants and limiting public participation. Has the applicant reached out to SWAT or other objectors to discuss issues of concern and possible mitigations? Not even once in the past three years. They would rather bully than
collaborate. So in summary, they are not in compliance with the TECD requirements, with noise requirements, with the stream ordinance, with the underground pipeline ordinance, with the ban on truck terminals, or with the EIS requirements. Their storm water management plan is
inadequate. Their traffic analysis is inadequate. Their planning analysis is inadequate. Their operational data is inadequate. And they promised and their promised wildlife management plan is missing. There are serious questions
about their tricky subdivision plan. And they don't appear to have standing for the application in the first place. What did they get right on this application? What element is not fraught with errors and omissions?
Taking a step back, you may wonder why so many local residents would spend money from our own pockets, countless hours, and extraordinary effort attending hearings and pouring over literally thousands of pages of documents to oppose this development.
Why would we do that? Because this development is so ownorous, so wrong, so corrosive to our town and our neighborhood, we had to fight. We have no particular animosity towards Mr.
Grief or Mr. Gianetti. We are simply fighting to preserve our town. We had to do this on behalf of the Hillsboro that we love. Mr. Chairman and board members, on behalf of SWAT and our community, we
urge you to deny this application. [Applause] Good evening, Chairman Sarra, members of the township planning committee. Thank you for the last three years allowing us the opportunity to present
to the board and hear us. In the interest of time and also the board has expressed this before to not repeat what's been going on. I will try to make my comments brief. I am John Lanahan. Objective number four.
I'm your neighbor. Like Mr. Gross and other residents you've heard from. For the past 25 years, my family and I have called Hillsboro home. We built a life here, raised our children, made friends, and embraced the peace and character that
makes our town so special. The land directly behind my home is now at risk of being transformed into something that threatens all of that. A development that's wholly incompatible with our community's values and the surrounding area. Over the past three years, the board has
carefully considered a range of complex issues, voluminous documentation, public comments, bickering back and forth, issues that have come up, and you've handled it and given us all an opportunity to be heard, and we
appreciate that. But now, thankfully, it's time to bring it to a conclusion. Like I said, you've heard from the other objectors, dig in and address the numerous deficiencies and shortcomings in the applicant reports and documentation submissions. So, I'll try to kind of keep my comments brief so we
don't do a rerun. I think the overall issue here or the shortcoming is the applicant and his experts have failed to show how these buildings massive in both size and intensity are appropriate under the
TCED's express requirement that all uses be at a scale and size appropriate for the district. This isn't a technical exercise about how the application fails on its own terms and under all the applicable law and local ordinance. It's really about the future of our community
and do these warehouses make sense as proposed. No one would argue and neither would I as a real estate attorney that property owners have the right to develop their land, but you have to do it within the bounds. You have to do it within the rules. I cannot go out and put a meth
lab on my property or a gas station or a filling station or a pump for shale, right? There's rules that I have to follow. The TECD was never meant to accommodate these this massive industrial development. It was created as a buffer zone, a hybrid space to transition
between the light industrial and residential areas, minimizing the disruption to nearby homes and farmland. The TCD zoning framework is clear. It's got to be compatible with the residential surroundings. The building, the heightened scale must be appropriate
in size and scope. Buffers to protect adjacent properties. Noise, traffic, and lighting impacts must be minimized. You've heard objective number one refer to no changes to topography and mature vegetation.
The proposed construction of these two mega warehouses measuring 386, and 190,000 square feet ignores all of these mandates. These are not transitional uses. These are industrialcale facilities that would dominate the landscape and violate the
community design principles and undermine the very purpose of the TECD. The TECD was created in response to community concerns about development near preserved farmland and residential zones. It reflected a vision of scaled
down employment generating uses that harmonize with their surroundings, not a 247 logistics hub with continuous truck traffic and no known tenants. Under the community design of the TECD, it encourages employment
uses that preserve peace and solitude in adjacent residential areas. These warehouses would introduce non-stop noise, lighting, and traffic. Rather than reduce vehicle traffic, as you've heard from other folks, the project would flood the center of Hillsboro and
local roads with trucks, destroying roadways, air quality, threatening pedestrian cyclist safety. The introduction of trucks into the residential and transitional zones creates serious and lasting harms. I don't need an expert to tell me what to think about trucks one way or the other.
I can look at the corner of any street in Hillsboro to see tire tracks on the shoulder for evidence of the obvious hazards and dangers of trucks. Their size and turning radius makes local roads more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, and school buses. And over
time, the weight of these vehicles will deteriorate our roadways, causing potholes, shoulder erosion, and increased maintenance costs for the township and its taxpayers. The vehicles generate constant noise. You can divert the traffic away from Willow, but they're going up and down
Homestead. They're going on Amwell. They're coming down 206. They generate constant noise. They're going to disrupt the quality of life of surrounding neighborhoods. They emit the diesel exhaust, contribute to air pollution, and increase respiratory risks for children and seniors such as myself. As
a resident, I appreciate the township's efforts to restrict truck traffic on local roads. But if it can't stop drag racing on the overpass, how can I have confidence that will effectively enforce truck bans? Hillsboro's zoning was not designed for industrial truck traffic.
Let's not sacrifice community safety, health, and infrastructure for the convenience of speculative warehouses. While the warehouses may offer employment, they're speculative. No land, no tenant has been identified. So, it's hard to understand how it complies
with the TEC requirements that envisions a diverse economic base by permitting research office light industrial uses that integrate with the community, not massive distribution centers that clash with the surrounding land use. The scale and nature, the industrial nature of the
project is incompatible with nearby homes, farmland, and small businesses. Remember, the written description by the applicant submitted fails to meet the code. These buildings will dwarf everything around them. The hypothetical
uh the hypothetical list that they provided was evidence that the project is being built on spec. There was no reference to compliance with the township's noise ordinance. No submitted reports addressing glare, vibration, pollution, or safety hazards and vague assurances about regulatory compliance
without evidence. The project violates the letter and spirit of the TECD ordinance. Its scale, intensity, and speculative nature are wholly out of whack with the communitydriven intent behind the zoning district. The planning board has a duty to uphold its zoning
standards. That begins by rejecting a proposal that fails the most basic requirement of the TECD appropriate size, scale, and compatibility. Hard stop. You've heard from everybody talk about the plan, the town's planner,
engineers, and their reports. You've heard people talk about the storm water. You've heard him talk about the subdivision compliance with the stream ordinance. The applicant has had plenty of opportunity over three years Despite their frustration with the
objectors and constant complaints about filibustering, three years is a long time to provide their expert reports and to come back and correct the record and supplement it with the appropriate missing documentation. They have failed to do so.
As I started out and I'll finish, Mr. and Mr. Shockley and the applicant, they have a right to develop their land, but that right exists within the applicable zoning rules and Hillsboro ordinances. The Shockleys are lifelong Hillsboro residents, and like anyone else, they deserve to benefit from their property
so long as a development complies with the rules. Having lived here for over 25 years and raising three children with my wife, the more we live here, it's the town is more than where we live. It's our home. Our property directly borders the proposed development site. I get to live with it.
I get the noise now. I get to see it through the trees. I get the lights. I get everything. So, it impacts me personally. The land around the site reflect reflects the very essence of Hillsboro. Residential neighborhoods to the north and east, farmland to the south, light
industrial to the west. This balance is no accident. It's the product of deliberate planning. The proposed warehouses, like I said, one nearly 400,000 square feet and the other one almost 200,000 would obliterate that balance. After three years and multiple revisions
to his submissions, the applicant has failed to resolve the fundamental flaws, any of which, let alone together, is reason denied. It's massive in size and scope. The subdivision approval remains unresolved. The traffic noise and diesel pollution
which will harm the public safety and degrade roads and raid the character of the surrounding residential neighborhoods has never been addressed. You've heard the storm water and the steam protections have been ignored. The project itself is speculative with no tenants, no job plans, no measurable
benefit to Hillsboro economy or working class. The application lacks basic required disclosures as we talked about with the noise pollution and tenant operations and a credible plan for compliance. These buildings are not compatible to TCD. They overwhelm, they
disrupt, they defy the transitional purpose of the zone and bulldoze the very concept of scale and appropriateness. The township has a long history of working hard to protect the integrity of neighborhoods near the zone. Personally, I can attest that they relocated the
Willow Road ball fields after listening to the neighbors. They refused constant requests to put lights into those fields to protect the neighborhood quality around its the fields. They've limited truck traffic, not just in Willow Road, but in other places.
They've taken steps to preserve farmland. This project would undo all of that. It would flood our roads with 247 truck traffic, strain the local infrastructure, depress property values, and threaten the character of our community while delivering no meaningful
local economic benefit. The TECD was never meant to allow for speculative mega warehouses. It was designed to promote balanced, modest growth in harmony with the community. This application fails to uh address that
intent. I urge the planning board to protect what makes Hillsboro special. Say no to this project. Say yes to a vision of development that respects the people who live here, the land we preserved, and the legacy we're leaving behind. Let's keep Hillsboro a place where families can thrive, not just
today, but for generations to come. Thank you for your time. [Applause] Good evening, Chairman Sarra and members of the planning board.
I'm Lori Cleveland, executive director of the Sourland Conservancy. Thank you for your time and dedication to thoughtful and responsible development in our community. I appreciate the opportunity to share my
concerns regarding and to advocate for the long-term health and sustainability of our region. On behalf of the board, staff, and members of the Sland Conservancy, I'd like to express our strong opposition to the proposed warehouse variance
application for Homestead Road. We urge the planning board to deny this variance due the due to the significant ecological and environmental threats it poses to the Sland Mountain Region.
As you know, the Sarland region is an ecologically sensitive area that supports diverse wildlife. The Watershed Institute estimates that more than 800,000 New Jersey and Pennsylvania residents rely on the Sarland region for some or
all of their drinking water. A healthy forest reduces storm water runoff, prevents flooding to the Delaware and Ritan rivers. The entire Sarin Mountain region is a national Ottabbon Society designated
continental IBA that's important bird area macro site. As such, it is just one of 113 in the United States. Migratory birds who rely on the Sarlands as a rest stop impact ecosystems from
South America to the Arctic and everywhere in between. The Sland region is the most intensive carbon sink in New Jersey and 57 state listed threatened and endangered species rely on the Sland
region for survival. We are grateful to the Hillsboro Township Committee for recently adopting a resolution supporting the designation of the Slands as an area of critical state concern in the New Jersey state development and redevelopment plan.
The Sarin Conservancy works diligently with partner organizations and municipalities throughout the region, including Hillsboro Township, to improve ecological function by restoring degraded ecosystems, and fostering biodiversity.
These restoration projects provide critical habitat, improve the quality of our air and drinking water, reduce flooding, make our re region more resilient as we face new challenges brought about by climate change, and
improve human health and well-being. The Sland region's location in the heart of New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the nation, serves as a crucial habitat hub, connecting the state's precious green spaces.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection through its connecting habitat across New Jersey or change program has identified two corridors in Hillsbor Township as essential for maintaining biodiversity
and enabling species movement. The development of these warehouses in this location would effectively sever one of these two connections, endangering various species and compromising the ecological integrity of the region.
The warehouse buildings, mowed lawn, parking lots, and nearly one mile of retaining walls would stop even the most determined migratory or resident animal in its tracks. It will not provide healthy habitat, nor
will it allow safe passage between green spaces. Amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and even birds who might normally make their way to the stream corridor or from the Sland forest to Duke Farms would
most likely not survive the journey. Closing these crucial corridors and effectively turning the Sland Mountain into a habitat island would weaken our ecosystem and render wildlife populations vulnerable.
Birds, turtles, butterflies, and other animals would not be able to roam to keep their populations healthy. nor would they may be able to move if needed from habitat that was damaged by storms like the tornado that decimated over 200 acres on Bald Pate in 2021 or the
wildfire that recently destroyed over 270 acres in Hobel Township. Thus, the decision you make here will impact communities throughout New Jersey and beyond. The proposed warehouses also raise
concern regarding increased traffic, air, light, and noise pollution, potential contamination of local water sources, all of which could further disrupt the natural ecosystem here. Additionally, the warehouse proposal is incompatible with the existing rural and
residential character of the surrounding area, creating an undue burden on the community and diminishing the quality of life for all residents. I respectfully urge the planning board to prioritize environmental conservation and sustainable development by rejecting
this variance application. Preserving the Sarland region's wildlife corridors and maintaining its ecological balance is not only critical for our current residents but also for future generations of human and other living things who deserve to benefit from this
natural resources. Thank you for your time and consideration respond. I appreciate your commitment to responsible planning and the well-being of our community. Thank you. Okay, I think we need to take a break. Uh we'll give it about 10 minutes.
Reconvene at quarter of according to the back clock. Wait, wait. There you go. Planner. All right. Did we give him the wingspan? That's what it looked like. It was it was wingspan.
There we go. That Okay. All right. We're back in session. Mr. Janetti, floor is yours. Thank you, chairman. Uh, I too would like to thank the board uh for its time and attention to this
application. Uh though I have I disagreed with some of the actions of the board and we've had some debates on some of the actions taken on the board uh or by the board. I I appreciate the time commitment involved um particularly
where there's this much uh public involvement and and public attention on an application. And I also appreciate there's a lot of emotions with respect to an application like this. Uh, a lot of my work
involves warehouse development, involves affordable housing development, and so I'm used to being called names and and being attacked. It's it kind of is part of the job. And I recognize there's a lot of emotions involved, and when there's emotions like that, people tend
to lash out. But with respect to the board, your consideration and your vote cannot be based on emotion. It has to be based on does a permitted use comply with the site plan ordinance, those
objective standards of your site plan ordinance. And I agree with Mr. Lanahan that you know in some respects we're talking about property rights and whether it's the owners of the property or the contract purchasers of the
property as he noted you have a right to develop your property as you see fit so long as you do it within the confines of the zoning ordinance and requirements and that's what we have done here. Now,
it's not fair to say you can come in, you can look at an ordinance and and determine whether you comply with those objective standards, but we're going to take a different interpretation based upon what we think was meant by the ordinance, not the
specific standards in the ordinance, what was meant when they created this zone. Now, this application has been pending for a long time. I think it was submitted even not even by me. I I'm only here for part of the show. Uh but it was submitted back in December 15th,
2021. Uh and various resubmissions have been made. And this is an application for preliminary and final major site plan approval and minor subdivision approval to demolish the existing buildings on the property and to develop a 368,000
foot warehouse with 58 docks and 168,000 square foot warehouse with 29 docks. properties located in the TECD zone which we've had a lot of discussion about. Now the minor subdivision this is a lot line adjustment
and I know Mr. Tarantino in a summation went on about it and did at prior meetings. It is completely legal and it is fully conforming. We're not taking up lots and and carving them up and asking for a lot
depth variance or a lot area variance or a lot width variance with respect to the subdivision which is just the lines on the property. This is a lot line adjustment and both lots fully conform
with the subdivision ordinance and the standards for a lot within the TECD zone. and that was confirmed by miscapone in her testimony. Now, the TECD zone
which was uh adopted back in 2011 contains 15 pages of standards. 15 pages. So, that's not just we're creating a zone and here's generally
what we're thinking about. it is here is the zone and here's what we expect within it. And I'll touch on that more in a few minutes. But in the end, we comply with the standards within that
TEC zone. You don't just take my word for it. You heard it from our planner, heard it from our engineer. It was even stated in the original planners review letter on this application that we are permitted use and that we comply with
the standards in the TECD zone. Now the TC TECD zone has been modified and and the board appropriately is recognized even though warehouses have been removed as a permitted use. We are protected by the time of application rule. So, we're viewing this application
as the as of the date we submitted it when warehouses were a permitted use. And again, your role of the planning board is not to deny an application that's a permitted use because you think it really shouldn't be permitted. It's whether or not we comply with those
standards. And it has been a battle to get to this point. We've talked about the number of hearings um and there's been kind of a lot of other tangental battles. At one point the planning board refused to hear the site plan application
because it people were arguing we needed to hear the subdivision application first which we objected to and clearly because they're interrelated and they are every application I've been involved in heard it together because the
subdivisions are relevant if you don't do the site plan. They're connected uh as part of an application. Obviously, the township changes zoning to remove warehouses after this application was submitted. Um,
in addition, the township filed a complaint with the DP claiming that the property disturbed wetlands and the planning board refused to hear our application uh until that was resolved. And despite our objection saying it
shouldn't stop our application because a if you have that issue that issue is with the property owner not the applicant. We weren't doing any work as part of our application. In the end the D came back and said you didn't disturb any wetlands.
The township also then challenged the DP wetlands letter of interpretation issued for this property where it determined the infamous ditch which we'll talk about in a little bit that it was an ordinary resource value drainage ditch
with a zero foot buffer. Now, when it comes down to it, the only waiverss being sought and testified to with respect to our witnesses are the stream corridor crossing, but the crossing related to uh the existing road
that currently crosses the stream that we're using uh uh for our access to uh have to look to see how we identify the warehouse. house. Warehouse number two,
which is on lot 33, as well as the additional emergency access specifically requested by the fire official to provide. We provided the testimony of Mr. Ford
and Mr. Miss Capone justifying that relief. that there is disturbance already with the existing road and we're using that existing road and improving it. And the second point of access we're proposing is for uh the fire access.
In addition, the Texas pipeline easement that we've heard a lot about, it's the same relief. the only crossing is or the the only encroachment is that existing road that currently exists today that is being
improved. Now with respect to that crossing particularly with the stream corridor as noted we have our D not only our wetlands letter of interpretation, we have our D flood hazard area permit
which addresses stream corridors as well and they have approved that crossing as part of this application or as part of its approval. Now, to my point before about the zoning,
a lot of the things we've heard about saying we don't comply with on minimizing disturbance um and the buffer requirements. We've only heard about that till recently. This has been going on for three years. uh wasn't in prior review
letters, only came up in the most recent review letters in connection with this application. And again, from a property rights standpoint, we can only look at the ordinance and comply with the standards and those objective standards within it.
Now, in Mr. CO's May 28th, 2025 and April 2nd, 2025 letter. And we've also heard it from the objectors saying the specific uses have not been
provided. So that's somehow fatal. The uses have been provided. And not only did we say we're a warehouse that's permitted in the zone, we specifically identified what we're not going to be uh
to further kind of narrow down the issue. So we said we're not going to be a transload facility that's crossed and we had our architect testimony as to how those type of facilities operate. We said we're not going to be a sort
fulfillment center, which as testified by our architect, this property is not designed for because you need significant amount of vehicle parking in order to have a sort fulfillment center because you need a lot of people in their sorting.
We also said it won't be a parcel delivery hub like a UPS distribution facility, a FedEx distribution facility. So, we've been specific about the use The issue is you want to know the tenant and
hate to disappoint Mr. Tarantino but I don't have any surprise tonight. There is no tenant going to be identified because there is no tenant yet identified which is and as testified to by our architect common. That's how
warehouses operate. It's like many other leased properties. You find the tenant after you know what you have. It's not uncommon with office buildings. You sometimes approve office buildings, not knowing who every specific tenants going
to be. Shopping centers. There's retail uses often identified, but you're not necessarily going to know every tenant within a specific tenant within that shopping center. You just know it's going to be retail.
And even for residential, you can make the same case. If you have a three-bedroom townhouse, you know, you have a three-bedroom townhouse, but if you you don't know if that's going to be a single person that likes to have space and guests and use
it as an office or if you're going to have a fiveperson family, but you do know it's a three-bedroom townhouse. We also heard talk about size and scale. Now, with respect to size and scale,
and I'm not going to repeat the language because it's been cited before, referring to the preamble or purpose uh paragraph at the start of the TEC zone. Um and in the review letter it notes that
or or claims that we're not conforming with respect to size and scale. But again the purpose is they wanted
uses buildings and appropriate sizes and scale transitioning between the two zones and then our then here are 15 pages of standards implementing that purpose. This wasn't
just a a one page one paragraph zone. 15 pages of standards and we comply with respect to that too. It's extremely important to remember maximum impervious coverage one of the main standards for
controlling intensity of development on a piece of property. The maximum pvious coverage on this property permitted in the zone is 60%. One lot is at 21%.
A third of what's permitted in the zone. The second lot is approximately 31%. So half of what's permitted in the zone. There's a standard related to intensity of development and we are way under that
and in fact you know we talk about the impact to uh adjacent residential uses. The zone contemplates that it has a buffer requirement. I forget what the standard buffer requirement is. I think it's 50 feet maybe or 75 feet. But then
it specifically says if you above a residential property, this buffer increases to 100 ft. So the zone has already determined there will be development next to residential areas.
There will be impacts whether it's a a warehouse or some other use permitted in the TECD zone. There will be some impact and we're going to increase our buffer to a minimum of 100 feet to address those impacts.
Well, what are we? We're more than at least double that. We're a few hundred feet away on one side of the property and we're close to several hundred feet away from the property line
in the rear property line. So, we're far exceeding the minimum requirement for a landscape buffer required when you're next to a residential area. Now, this minimum minimize changes to
topog topography and frankly I don't know how you you address that. It's not no change to topography. If you're gonna develop a site and you're going to permit 60% imperous coverage,
you're going to have changes to topography. It says minimize it, meaning basically don't do more than you have to. Well, impervious coverage again is
permitted at 60%. We're at 21% and 31% for both lots. And there's a lot of discussion about, well, you're you need these you're doing these retaining walls. Yeah. You know what retaining walls do? They allow us not to disturb certain parts of the property. If we didn't have the
retaining walls, there would be more disturbance though there wasn't much discussion uh during the objector summation or maybe I missed it. Um, but there was a comment about the the the sidewalk and pedestrian nature and the plans were
revised for each warehouse to provide the sidewalk sidewalks around the building, put in the bike rack, the sidewalks leading out to the road. And the objectors were arguing, well,
you don't have a sidewalk connecting the two warehouses that are over a thousand feet apart. and separated by a environmentally sensitive area that we're not allowed to touch. So there's no way to make a sidewalk
connectivity without going through that environmental area with probably definitely over a thousand linear feet of sidewalk in order to connect it. But there is sidewalks added around the
building with the bike racks and providing sidewalks out to Homestead Road as the maximum curd cut. And I believe this one was in the the latest Penoni review letter. Mr. Dean provided the testimony of this literal interpretation
that the 24 foot curb cup dimension requires relief. We can't comply with that. Nor would any development be able to comply with that. That was specific st uh comment of Mr. Dean that it wouldn't allow for a proper
driveway radi, commercial, or any other type of development. And frankly, it was also Mr. Dean's testimony that if you did make us comply with that 24 foot requirement, it would be an unsafe
design with respect to whether it was an industrial use, residential use, or otherwise. The Penoni letter also addressed um the storm water ordinance and I'll get into more detail on storm water in a minute
saying no storm water runoff for natural drainage water shall be diverted as to overload existing drainage systems or create flooding or the need for additional drainage structure structures and again and Mr. Ford outlined this in his response letter.
That's not applicable to this property, that section. We're not diverting storm water that wouldn't otherwise be going here. And if the interpretation is
um anytime you're changing the direction of it, you're diverting of it, diverting it, even it's going to the same location. Well, then every application would not be able to comply with that ordinance. Now, with respect to the storm water
management, and I submit this, the only the only two independent reviewers of our storm water management plan have approved it. The DRCC and the NJD.
and it's the NJ's storm water management regulations. And even with the objector comments and necessarily we didn't comply, he said information hasn't been provided yet for
you to determine. It would be irresponsible. But Mr. Ford testified over and over again. These retaining walls have to be designed and constructed with a
contractor and we have to submit all that information when the construction plans and construction drawings are prepared and it gets reviewed by the town. and he has to demonstrate compliance
with not only the construction of the retaining wall but anything related to storm water management which is why the D approved it and found it in conformance with their own storm water regulations.
Now I know the objectors also take issue of well we didn't get the plan until later in the end should be concerned about is it a better design because it was changed as a result of a back and forth
with the D and some of the stuff that Princeton Hydro raised in this letter the D raised too and we modified it or supplemented it with the information that the D saw it and updated the plans
and updated the storm water management report and the D approved it. There wasn't another Princeton Hydro report saying well even those plans don't comply with the D regulations. Never submitted, no testimony provided.
The only thing they're relying on is the retaining wall. We don't know yet and you should have that information now. Even though res retaining walls are not designed until the construction drawings are designed and you're submitting for your permit which gets reviewed again by
the town before any work is done with respect to the application. Now, the the infamous drainage ditch, and there's been a lot of discussion about this, as Mr. Cook testified,
his vast experience in this area. He has done multiple site visits on the property with this ditch, and I know Princeton Hydro complained about it. They have not been on the
property and have not viewed this ditch. And I know Mr. Mayhew has, but Mr. Cook's been on there not only by himself, but with the D who has been out there multiple times
and it was clearly not considered a drainage or a stream. We have a wetlands LOI that determines it to be an ordinary resource value ditch with a zero foot buffer. That
means it's regulated, but they determined zero foot buffer. And in fact, we have the right to fill that ditch with a GP7 D permit, which we have applied for. And those are you meet the requirements,
you get to do it. There's no subjectivity to it. and on issuance of that permit, that ditch could be filled. Would the DP be issuing a permit for some stream corridor that had some ecological value that they thought was going to negatively impact the environment? And that's the ironic thing
about all this is they keep they're they're using the drainage ditch in the stream quarter ordinance as a sword and as a means to stop development, not protect the environment. Because as Mr. Cook testified to if you wanted to protect the environment, you would fill
this ditch and you would allow a new state-of-the-art storm water management system designed in accordance with D regulations because as it stands today, this ditch
collects or really just moves untreated water from a parking surface that contains trucks to the Roycebrook. That's what's currently happened today. No treatment, no management of that water, just going right in there. That's what
they want to preserve instead of a D compliant storm water management system that has treatment and controls the flow of the water to the Roycebrook. And I highlighted this. This is not the first time this ordinance has been used
to stop development in the town's affordable housing case and campus road associates had to challenge it where there was a similar use of this ordinance not to protect the environment but to stop development.
I just want to kind of highlight some key points in the testimony of our witnesses. And again, Mr. Ford and Miscapone both testified as to the stream corridor crossing, the one we recognize we need
to seek the waiver for, as well as a Texas pipeline crossing. And there's been a lot of debate of have you contacted them, what do they know, are you doing this, are you doing that? And we highlighted Texas pipeline
signed our D application which shows the development on the property. They are fully aware of what is being proposed and they would not have signed it if there were some significant concern about this development.
I won't get into, you know, there wasn't much, I think, debate on our LSRP's testimony, but in the end, we've acknowledged we'll have to comply with all D requirements, and we'd have to get a remedial reme remedial action outcome permit and getting a clean bit of health
for the property before development can start. Now again getting back to the ordinance, it requires you submit a statement as to the operations which we
provided and we recognize it's a projected operations based upon our architect who designs and is involved with warehouse development. as to what's typical for one of this
size and what's being proposed. And there's, as I mentioned before, a a conflating of use verse tenant. We have to identify what the use is. We've gone even further to narrow and
limit what that use is, but we don't have to identify the tenant. And it's simple reason why. And in fact, the IT Institute of Traffic Engineers has stated why. The very reason why they
don't use employees or or tenants as a projection basis for determining or or as a basis to project truck traffic. And this is in ' 08, which is the objector's traffic engineers report of August 27th, 2024.
on page eight where he included a page from the IT trip generation handbook 2021 and I quote and I even highlighted this for their own witness to kind of throw it back in his face when he was trying to say employees should be used.
The preferred independent variable should be stable for a particular land use type and not a direct function of actual site tenants. In other words, the values and measurements attributable to an infinite variable should not change dramatically with changes in building
tenants. And that's why we could give you all the projections and you know we could have a tenant tomorrow or presented one tonight and say here's the tenant. They're going to have x number of trucks. They're going to have
x numbers of employees. doesn't mean they're a tenant a year from now or two years from now or three years from now that's still permitted to operate there as a warehouse, but it's a different tenant. And that's exactly why it said you can't
rely on the specific tenant when projecting traffic. same reason why the ordinance doesn't say give us a specific tenant and how many employees that tenant has. And again, similar, like I said before, no different than an
office building where you might have multiple tenants in there. You don't know the specific tenants when they're approved because similar to an office building, you're not leasing it up until you know what you have. I want to come back to
one more point on the drainage ditch as again that's been a major major focus aside from it being untreated uncontrolled storm water flowing to the Roycebrook
from this parking lot containing trucks. As Mr. Cook noted, it's currently farmland activities on the property. And nothing against farming, as he highlighted, they're probably the most polluting of these streams in Brooks in
part because they're exempt from some of the buffer requirements. So all of that runoff, any pesticide spraying, all can run off in there currently as opposed to what is being proposed as
part of this application with a fully conforming DP uh compliant storm water management system. Now again going back to traffic And and I'll I'll use the phrase I used I think
the first time this came up. At no point did our architect testify that there would be a thousand truck trips from this facility. That was Mr. Tarantino's as I said that night voodoo
math of coming up with that number with this nonstop activity trucks running in trucks running out things flowing off every single second of every single day. Our architect was specific.
That's not how they operate. That is not reality. That won't happen. But Mr. Dean did provide testimony as to not only estimated truck trips and again indicating it is clear square footage
using square footage and based upon the data they've acquired is what you used and what we highlighted and I know everyone was upset when I was crossing the traffic engineer and may
have crossed hard but I was highlighting a point where he was either misconstruing misconstruing or misrepresenting information where he said we were trying to take the least conservative projection of it data. Not
true. And we showed you that the land use 150 category actually had the highest outside of cold storage the highest truck trip generation estimation. So our
estimate was conservative with respect to that. Now again their traffic engineer first the point was you can't rely on square footage. It's not reliable. Then it was and he suggested loading
docks should be it. Even though IT whose whole mission is to study and make these projections does not use loading docks. He said you should be using that. He also said if there's not reliability
you should go and do your own study. Well, Mr. Dean said well guess what? We've already had to do that because this is not the first warehouse application we've had to do. And we had a board require us to do that before. And here's the data. So, it wasn't even prepared for this board.
It was prepared in addressing another town's similar question. And actually, when you look at that study and the size of our warehouse and not the combined size, you not 500 and something thousand square feet. When you
look at comparable 368,000 square feet and uh square foot warehouse in 168 foot warehouse, the IT projections were higher than what
was actually shown in that study. So then he turns around and say, "Well, you can't use that. That's that's not reliable." Even though he specifically said that's what you're supposed to do. Then he goes back to loading docks and as Mr. point out the loading docks.
There's not much correlation, but still if you look at the facilities in that chart of similar size to us, 168,000 ft and 368,000 square ft, they have a similar number of docks
and their truck trips were lower than the IT projections. So again, Mr. Dean's testimony, expert testimony, and the data he relied upon showed his projections for truck traffic were
conservative. Now, and mind you, too, the objector's expert for traffic, no experience in warehouse, acknowledged he has no experience in warehouse development. and in fact tried to similarly to this
amount of time it takes to unload a truck relied on a study from Poland. Never provided it. I had to go search it up. It wasn't easy to find. But a study from Poland was the basis for his opinion.
Yet he didn't know what are what are the trailer size requirements in Poland? Are are there are they the same as the US? Are they different than the US? or even more importantly, the state of New Jersey did not know. Now, with respect to planning, from our
position, the planning testimony was pretty limited. We had to provide the uh uh what was the fiscal impact report which we did and Miss Capone a addressed the stream corridor waiver
uh that we were seeking and then some of the other planning comments we received and you know having that debate as to scale and size and whether she was using the right terminology where she said we were compliant with that.
But then they present their planner to com to combat her. Now again, their planner admitted that this district, the TECD zone, has more design standards, and this is a
quote, has more design standards than any other district in Hillsbor. I said, you're right. They were pretty pretty specific as to what they want and we comply with it. Now he then started talking about intensity of
development. And I asked him I said well you're aware of floor area ratio. I'm sure this board's aware of floor area floor area ratio. Doesn't that control development? Answer was yes. Is there a floor area ratio requirement in this zone? No.
But there are several other zones that have floor area ratio building coverage. Isn't that a means to control intensity of development? Said yes. Is there a building coverage requirement in this zone? No. But there are several other zones that have building coverage requirements. So it's
not like the town just, you know, didn't realize these standards existed to control development. But as I noted, there is one mechanism and the case law is clear too. The bulk standards implement the
purposes of the zone and control the intensity of development. They all work hand inand the setbacks, the buffers, the impervious coverage. That's a control in development. We are far below what's permitted for this zone.
What was most concerning, and it got to a heated point, but frankly I was astonished at what I heard. He claimed we haven't presented any proof as to the access road
or that this was not a truck terminal facility. Turns out he didn't listen to our planners testimony. He didn't listen to our architect's testimony. Wasn't at the hearings. didn't watch the videos, didn't listen to the transcripts.
Instead, what was his answer? Well, it was based upon what my client told me, Mr. Tarantino. And according to him, quote, they've kept very, very careful notes.
His testimony should be flushed down the toilet. That is, I've never seen that before. an expert getting up here to testify before a board, attacking me, attacking our witnesses
testimony and credentials. And just from a little poking, we discover he didn't listen to anything. He just listened to what his client told him. And I understand Mr. Tarantino and I had some
very colorful debates during this process and and he comes here today. We haven't spoken to them try and compromise and come up with with some sort of a plan that works for everyone. Seriously,
the name of the group isn't smart planning for Hillsboro Township. It's not appropriate locations for warehousing. It's stop warehouses and trucks. Stop it.
So any thought that we could sit down and come up with two warehouses here that work for stop warehouses and trucks, I don't see it. In the end, it comes back to what I talked about earlier and even Mr. Lenan
talked about property rights and the right to develop property consistent with the zoning and the case law is clear too.
You cannot rely upon a subjective vague general statement in a purpose section of an ordinance. particularly when there are specific standards addressing it. Not just specific standards, 15 pages of specific
standards. And I'm sure Mr. Bernstein is aware of PRB Enterprises v South Brunswick Planning Board Supreme Court case in 1987. And they had a very similar issue where they the ordinance purpose sections listed all these permitted uses for convenience stores
and retail, but it said the purpose was for low traffic generating uses. And despite the use being proposed permitted, the board denied it, saying, "Yeah, you're permitted, but you're not low traffic generating." And there's
probably hearing after hearing as to one side saying it's low traffic generating, one side saying it's high traffic generating, another side saying we're somewhere in the middle. In the end, the court said, "Can't do it. It's invalid." You need to have specific objective
standards for them to comply with, which makes sense. As a property owner, you're coming before the board and saying, "Your zone says I can do A, B, C, D, and if you comply, you have to approve that." It's not fair to say, "Nah, that's not what was meant by that zone.
That's not what was meant by that standard." And we think that drainage ditch is really a stream. It should have a 300 foot buffer. Even though the D environmental protection agency says
it this it has no resource value, no buffer required and you could fill it. So in the end we have demonstrated compliance with that ordinance. We have demonstrated support for the two waivers sought for
the uh stream corridor and the Texas pipeline and it's obvious there's no other means to to achieve compliance with those standards when we're dealing with an existing road over the stream corridor and the Texas pipeline and another road required by the fire
official. So, in the end, we ask that the board take this all into consideration, not vote on a motion, but vote on the standards and what has been presented as credible expert testimony in support
of the application. We ask that you vote in favor. Thank you. Just one Okay, Mr. Bernstein. Well, the next question is, Mr. Chairman, considering all that we have heard and seen, whether or not the applicant is willing to extend the time
of decision beyond the end of the month. I guess um what are our options? Well, options are the board you can say no and then I can the board will have basically between now and the end of the
month make a determination or you will have the ability to extend it in September or beyond regarding allowing the board the time to review all the testimony, the exhibits, the comments by its own professionals which
you may agree or disagree with but the board does have the right to rely upon them. Do we know when that when that hearing would be for considerate like when they would cons uh take action? Um
are we looking to have a hearing where it's only no other applications? I'll leave that to the board. I would highly recommend. Okay. And I wouldn't even mind that we start to move people around even if they are scheduled because I don't want to
see this dragging into next year. Okay. Uh so in September, let me see here. September 4th, we have two applications already scheduled. For September 11th, we have one application scheduled.
Um, then we go to October 9th where it's nothing. October 9th, nothing. October 11th, nothing. So, would the applicant be favorable to October 9th? Uh, I was I mean I
appreciate they'll probably, you know, I don't think the um I'm not a I don't want to speak for the board, but they're going to need a whole night to explain their reasons in voting. Uh if September
11th there's only one application on, I'm not sure what that application is, but if Well, the first thing I need to know is if our two township committee members can be here on 911 because I know there's usually true
stuff going on or September 4th. September 4th, I believe, are applications that have to be heard. Yeah, the tod Oh, September 4th and also September
11th, they're all the tods are right at the edge. Um, but September 11th is only one application. It's SPG, but we may not have a couple of members. Oh,
is there any opportunity for a special meeting just for the vote? Whether it be this month, next month, not this month. And the board does not meet in August.
In the September business meeting, I won't be here. What are the dates We got October 2nd. October 9th. October 9th and October 11th are what?
Why not October 2nd? Isn't that the first Thursday? That's why I was asking about October second. Let's see. Okay. Uh is the committee members available on
September 11th? All right. Oh, it does matter. No, I know, but I'm saying it doesn't matter your your abil your availability. So, who are the members here? So, it's gonna be the four of us, Mr. Peace and
who's number six? What? You have six eligible members. Without the two committee members, you don't have a form, September 11th. Uh so that application is just for uh adding parking space
delineations on the site plan. It's no new impervious coverage or anything like that. But I don't anticipate that application taking very long. You guys here till 8:30. Ending at 10. I mean is there a special I mean because we also are dealing with the unique we
need the six members here uh if there's a specific date all six are available to do a special meeting I know you don't normally do special meetings but this is somewhat unique
somewhat Sure. I mean, I got an idea. Is there any way to move the two from from September 4th to the 11th and free up September 4th. DOT folks changed.
[Music] Oh, there. Oh. I think Mr. Solve the problem. That's okay. Throw himself in front. Okay. Okay. All right. Yeah. The attorney representing the applicants
uh said to move them. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, board member September 4th. Excellent. Thank you very much. Appreciate the motion, Mr. chairman to continue this application to September 4th at 700 p.m.
or soon thereafter the matter may be heard without further notice and time of decision extended. Time of decision extended is September 30th. Mr. Gianetti. Thank you. Agreed. Okay. So move.
Is there a second? Second. Roll call, please. May heard me. Thank you. Mr. Wagner. Yes. Mr. Smith. Yes. Yes. Mayelli. Yes. Vice Chair Pen. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask at this point based on the agenda that the committee that the board move to executive session to meet with council on behalf of the carrier regarding the Harvard Way application.
Okay. Which conference? Conference room A. Okay. Is there a motion to move into executive session? Some moved. Pursuant to the provisions of NJSA 104-12B7 pending or anticipated litigation
Harvard Way 4 JM4 LJ LLC versus the Township of Hillsbor Township Hillsboro planning board. Do we do Mr. The mayor is recused. All right. Mayor is recused. Do
we got to do roll call? Both sessions. All in favor? All in favor? I. We're moving to executive session. 9:40. The comm the board will be back at the conclusion of the executive session. Does that mean we should stick around
for the Harvard way? Uh, yep. He did. Motion come out of executive session. So moved. All in favor? I. Let the record reflect that all members of the township planning board
eligible for this application as well as board member flag who was there for educational purposes only along with the board engineer, the board planner, the board assistant planner, board attorney and counsel for the carrier in the litigation were present during the
executive session. Legal advice was provided by the carrier's council to the board regarding this application. No formal action relative to the executive session need to be taken. At this point, Mr. Chairman, we can now commence the Harvard Way application
rem. But first, we need to extend our evening because passed the 10:00. Motion to go to 10:30. Second. All in favor? I I count uh Mr. Chairman might want to
introduce councel for the carrier for the record and I think she has a few comments to make. Councelor, good evening. My name is Natalia Angelie with the law firm Abata Angelie. I represent the township and the planning board in the Harvard Way litigation
for count. Except for count, we're going to begin the remand hearing. Um we are back here today pursuant to Judge Menon's order um specifically dated February 4th, 2025. The applicant
is here for the remand hearing. Um it's my understanding that they have uh limited information they may be providing to the board. Uh this application is for the most part the record is closed um subject to any
supplementation that may be provided tonight. depending on what the applicant is going to be doing is um dependent on whether or not the public may comment. If there's no supplementation of the record today, then there will be no public
comment as the record is closed. So depending on what you folks do is depending on how we move forward. Uh good evening uh chairman, members of the board, Michael Grodnik, Savos Shaw Law Firm, uh on behalf of the applicant
and fe simple owner Harvard Way, JMJ4 LLC. With me tonight, I have my law partner Matthew Flynn who has served with litig as litigation council in this case. We also have seated behind me uh Greg Readington uh who is the applicant.
Sorry about that. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Before we go forward, I don't mean to interrupt council. I just want to enter my appearance. I'm pleased to be here uh for the objectors Green Hill Community and Scott Armstrong and Tiger Cobin, I believe it's the surname. And
uh Mr. Ash is no longer able to represent them due to a new conflict that arose in his practice. So, I've been asked to represent the objectors. What I have to say depends of course as council just said as as far as how far the record goes but I just wanted to introduce myself and say hello.
Your name for the record council. Yes it is Bruce Afron A F as in Frank R A N as in Nancy. My office is in Princeton New Jersey. Thank you. Um, as the board may recall, this application seeks preliminary and final
major site plan approval necessary for the construction of 107,366qt warehouse at the southern end of Harvard Way on block 58, lot 1.09 on a vacant 9.1 acre parcel. Subject property is located in the industrial 3 zone and the
proposed use is permitted is a permitted principal use in the zone. As indicated in our numerous prior hearings, preliminary and final approval was granted for industrial development on 1.08 uh which was phase 1 and lot 1.09 phase
2 under application 88 PV16 SR. Resolution was memorialized by the township of Hillsboro on June 9th, 1988 granting amendment to a final major subdivision approval for the development of these two lots. However, only lot uh development on lot 1.08 08, which was
phase 1, was constructed, as well as the construction of a detention basin on lot 1.09, which was completed around that time. As previously indicated, there are existing uses adjacent to the subject property, including a plastics manufacturer in a laboratory.
We are here tonight pursuant to a remand order issued by the honorable William Menon, Superior Court of New Jersey in the matter of Harvard Way, JMJ4 LLC versus the Township of Hillsboro Planning Board at all. This matter was remanded to the board for a limited
purpose of providing additional findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the board's prior decision, particularly regarding the rejection of the testimony of both the applicant's engineer and the board's own engineer in favor of the objector's engineer on issues of storm water management and
drainage. The court found that while the board had full discretion discretion to accept or reject expert testimony, the resolution did not adequately explain the reasons for rejecting the testimony of two qualified experts who opine that the applicant storm water plan complied
with the applicable standards. The court has directed the board clarify its reasoning and supplement its findings so that the reviewing court can fairly assess the reasonleness of the board's decision. The court's statement of reasons in ordering the remand hearing
stated as follows. As the application before the planning board wore on, the issues surrounding drainage became more complicated and the testimony became more technical. Towards the end of the proceedings, the planning board directed its engineer to review
the various engineering drainage testimony and submissions to provide guidance to the board. The board's engineer did such an analysis and is and issued a report dated October 3rd, 2022, 10 days prior to the last public hearing
on the plaintist application on October 13, 2022. In that report, the board engineered agreed with the conclusions of the plaintiff's professionals and opined that a quote open quote the applicant has provided a storm water management design that meets the
requisite reductions in peak flows as required in the storm water management rules. It is our opinion that the applicant has satisfied the storm water quantity standards in the regulations. B quote the basin
volume used by the objector's expert in the analysis was incorrect and using the correct basin volume with the same analysis would actually result in a slight decrease in the peak flow rate. There would be no appreciable damage a ch appreciable change in the peak flow
rates to the downstream point as a result of this development. and C the board engineer agrees that the applicant's engineer conclusion that the subject site can be classified as HSGD resulting in no groundwater recharge being required. Close quote. The court
order then outlines the limited nature of the remand as follows. Open quote. A limited remand stands the best chance for a just determination rooted in a simplicity of procedure fairness and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and
delay. The board shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law based uh upon the record already aduced as same as permitted to be expanded with in the limited confines set forth in this order to better reflect and document its
reasoning underpinning decision such as they are enumerated in its resolution. where the board is compelled by this order to make additional decisions not previously made, the board shall employ that deliberative process it seems deems best. Having taken the more con
restrained approach, however, the court finds that it is fundamental fairness dictates that the plaintiff should be given the opportunity to supplement the record before the board on the issue of compliance with or relief from Hillsboro Township Ordinance 18831E.
Likewise, on remand, the plaint of shall be entitled to supplement the record record with any proofs that its storm water management plan could be made feasible and compliant with the applicable regulations without a reclassification of the site soils from hydraologic soil group classification C
to soil group D. On remand, the board's review and decision-making shall include, but not limited to findings that address its rejection of the two witnesses testimony in favor of the objector's e expert witness in light of a the objector's engineer utilizing the
incorrect basin volume in their analysis and b the applicability and whether they may be may be mere suggestions, examples or required areas of compliance adherence of NJD storm water best management practice. practices.
The court's order also allowed the plaintif and only the plainif as confirmed by judge men in a recent case management confir conference that we can supplement the record with evidence of client compliance with the storm water management plan following the board's
original denial in 2022. In 2024, the applicant ultimately obtained approval from New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for the project stormwater management design. The approval approvals were not appealed and remain valid and
enforceable. These NJ pre-approvals directly confirm that the applicant storm water plan satisfies the state's stringent storm water quantity and quality regulations, including the peak flow reduction requirements and other design standards that were at issue
during the original hearings. The court's remand order highlighted that both the applicant and the board's engineers found out the storm water plan to be compliant while the objector's conclusions were based in part on an incorrect basin volume. Now with NJDAP
independently reviewing and approving the the same design, there is an objective confirmation in addition to the board's own engineer that the technical standards have been met. The state's approval is significant because NJD is the authority charged with
enforcing the storm water management rules at NJAC78 at set which set the baseline for local compliance. Therefore, the subsequent NJD approval provides the board with additional assurance beyond the testimony already
in the record that the applicant's plan is not only compliant in theory but has also been vetted and validated by the state's environmental experts. This directly supports the conclusion that the storm water plan meets all applicable requirements, addressing the primary concern cited in the board's
original denial. Consequently, the NJD approval removes any doubt that the proposed divi design will manage storm water effectively and lawfully, which is precisely the standard that this board is required to pl apply under the municipal land use law and the
township's ordinances. The record has been supplemented with the following approvals from NJD which the applicant would like to hereby move into evidence as follows. The freshwater wetlands general permit one wal water
quality certificate dated September 12th 2024. The fresh lands freshwater wetlands letter of determination dated November 4th 2024. the GP6 non-tributary wetlands averaging plan dated November
29th, 2024 and the administrative modification for the GP6 dated December 2nd, 2024. Given these facts, I'm sorry. Is there any objection to moving those documents into evidence?
No objection. Okay. My apologies. It looked green. Sorry about that. Uh, we would just note for the objector that we will reserve our position before the board as to whether any of that requires
any additional comment or potentially evidence. And I would just note that I don't see in the decision the statement the council referred to from the chambers conference in which uh council said the court said that only the plaintiff may supplement the record. I
don't see that in the written decision and I don't know that what was said in the conference but as far as we're concerned if other evidence is offered I'd like to give notice of this by the applicant. Obviously, the public and the objectors in particular would have the
right to respond with cross-examination on their own potential witnesses. Okay? So, we're not producing any more witnesses. Uh these are D approvals and they speak for themselves. So, if you want to subpoena D Mark Harris, you can do so, but we're not offering that testimony and we're objecting to any
Mr. Broadick. And and normally I wouldn't The documents do speak for themselves as to what Mr. Afatherine will or will not do or what this board will or will not do based on those documents is yet to be
determined. So I know you'd like to sort of focus in on things but they're in and we'll that will be dealt with accordingly and if everybody's not happy I'm sure Mr. Flynn and the rest of us will spend a little more time in Fleming.
With that I will hand the remaining present presentation over to my colleague Mr. Flynn, who will present certain voluntary use parameters should the should the board approve this application? Uh, are we getting this in writing or
this is going to be Mr. Flynn? I'm going to put put it on the record, but if you would like it in writing after the meeting, I would be happy to supply it. Thank you. Thank you, Matthew. Yep. So, this deals really with two issues. one in the judge's remand order,
he talks about the requirement that we supplement or gives us the option to supplement the record as to section 18831E, which is a site plan design standard that is is called building and use plan
in the ordinance. This has come up uh in the litigation and the judge offered us an opportunity to address that ordinance section as it was not specifically cited in the board's original resolution of denial. Furthermore, it gives us the opportunity to offer the board certain
conditions of approval should you grant it that would demonstrate that what we're trying to do here is be a courteous neighbor and a developer that is not attempting to disturb the community on a massive scale in any way. And the reason those two things are related is the building and use plan
talks about in the ordinance specifically description of the use and operations of the site. The number of employees uh number including number of employees or or member of non-residential buildings. The proposed number of shifts
to be worked and maximum employees on each shift. Expected truck and tractor trailer traffic. Emission of noise, glare, vibration, heat, odor, air and water pollution. safety hazards and anticipated expansion plans incorporated in the building design. So, what we're
going to do is I'm going to list a few stipulations that the applicant is uh willing to offer as conditions of potential approval which also address these concerns in the ordinance and they're as follows. and they would bind all future tenants and run with the land
because they would be conditions of an approval should the board grant it. For the use, we're proposing what was originally permitted in the zone before the recent ordinance amended it, which is warehousing, shipping, and receiving within an enclosed building. Uh the
operation will be a warehouse facility, um which again was previously permitted in the zone. Um, work shifts. We are stipulating to a maximum of two shifts, not to exceed 50 employees per shift, and not exceeding the following working
hours, Monday through Saturday, 6:00 to 8, with deliveries limited to 7 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Sunday and off hours, a maximum of 10 people at a time on site with no trucking or delivery scheduled. a
maximum number of employee cars on the site at one time of 36. In terms of the trucking impact, we're proposing a maximum tractor trailers arriving and departing of 26 per day maximum and an additional maximum of four box truck
deliveries, FedEx, UPS, etc. We the user tenant applicant will meet all municipal, county and state requirements for emissions of noise, glare, vibration, heat, odor, air and water pollution for the zone. We will comply with all operational town, town,
county, state, and OSHA requirements. And there are no anticipated building expansion plans at this time. In addition to agreeing to those as a condition of approval, because it is in your site plan ordinance, we would be willing as well as a condition of approval to add these stipulations as
details on the plan that will be signed and bind the applicant in perpetuity. So again, I I want to emphasize that although I know the word warehouse has been um a difficult set of of circumstances for this town and the
public, what we're really trying to do here is is on the smaller scale. These stipulations will ensure that no large-scale facility like an Amazon would come in. It's not designed for that type of user. It's designed more for a local business to store and ship
products. And again, our intention here is to be a good neighbor. We're not trying to rip up the town. This application was filed back in 2021 when the use was permitted in the zone. And we're not proposing a square footage of 300, 400, 500,000. It's 107,000 square
ft. And we are uh committed to the original design that we presented this board with the additional assurance that D fully vetted this application. And we now have D, your board engineer, and our
engineer all stating that we comply with the storm water management requirements and that our storm water management design meets the regulations. And furthermore, that the only expert who apped in front of this board that we did not meet those requirements was an
objector's expert who admitted and the court notes it in its order admitted that he relied on an incorrect basin volume in running his quantity analysis. So, I'd urge the board to consider ending this litigation and approving
this application uh on remand and save the board, the township, the applicant, and the public unnecessary time and expense to continue litigating an application that was decided on the storm water regulations with every
credible expert who testified in this case saying that we met the regulations. Thank you. Uh I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. O'Gradnik, you have previously submitted the four documents you asked to be
moved. That's correct. They were submitted uh well well in advance of the hearing and they're on civic clerk. It's 10:30. a yes or no answer to the question. Mr. Fish, uh, Mr. uh, Flynn, sorry, sorry, Matthew. Mr. Flynn, when
will we be seeing this in writing? Tomorrow. Okay. May I also ask if the conditions that are proposed would also be submitted in writing or if you have a copy of what you read, I'd appreciate seeing it.
Appreciate that. Thank you. Right. With this new additional information, I do believe and it is of our opinion that we argued during the case management conference that for whatever you produce that our professionals would have a right to appine on them and advise the board on these technical issues. So, it is my
recommendation as well that from what you submit that our professionals take a look and advise the board. Well, that's respectfully the This is really a directive for the board
to look at look at the uh record that's already been induced. So uh these are conditions that are in addition to uh in addition to the testimony that was already the condition the conditions are in
respect to the argument of 18831. As to the issue of the four D letters, the court did opine. Mr. Flynn was present when the court opined that to the extent they are introduced into the evidence, the engineer has the right to
comment on the four letters and the four letters only. With the additional information related to the conditions, I believe that both Mr. Mayu and Mr. should be able to advise the board since
you are seeking for them the board to approve the conditions and comply with 18831 that they have the right to comment on them as they relate to the proposal. We're not talking about reopening an entire record.
We heard Judge Menon just as well as Mr. Flynn heard Judge Menon and your client heard Judge Mannon regarding same To the extent that the review is to the extent that the review is the four corners of the documents that I agree that's that's consistent with Judge
Menon's guidance to us at the case management conference. To the extent that we're going to reopen the storm water analysis, I vehemly disagree with that conclusion. If I may make a point, in my reading of the prior record, I believe Mr. Grodnik
made the very interesting concession that the board has an independent duty to evaluate these questions and is not dependent or bound to what D says or does. The board already did respectfully respectfully. If you're now profering
that D has said something, the only reason to do that is because you want the board to follow it and change its prior position. The very fact that the council for the applicant conceded that the board has an independent duty and it does under various case law means that
it's not a matter of accepting those documents and changing the prior decision. The board has to look at those. The engineer has to look at them. Our engineer has a right to look at them and even the public can comment on the very question of whether that's enough for this board to be satisfied by. It's
not just a simple question of here are four documents, give us a rubber stamp. There is a lot of substantive input the public has a right to have as well as this board. We're we're not so if you want that type of relief, you're going to need to file an intervention and get in the
litigation and get an order from the court because we are not going to allow you're not going to No, no, we're the court is absolutely clear that the the objective the the record is established. The record is reduced. This is really a remand for the
board to explain. It's not for the public to reopen this. Again, the court said we they're concerned about unjustifiable expense and delay. This application was filed on May 3rd, 2021, four years ago. We don't even have a
resolution yet. The board has the right and the recommendation relative to Mr. May you and Mr. Kois related to the limited documentation that's before the record and the comments of Mr. Flynn on the record on behalf of your client I
believe are within the purview of the court's decision related to advising the board. I would concur that if this goes any further than that and I think I made the comment earlier and it wasn't tongue and cheek. I suspect we will all be back in Flemington before his honor at some
point in time before the board hears this case again and Mr. Afron will or will not get what he wants and you or will not get what we want and the board will have an idea of what we can decide and not decide but for the moment
the board has heard your your profer has the documents we will await the reports from Mr. and Mr. Mayu and the board will schedule another hearing to deliberate andor either approve what
you've suggested, deal with it accordingly or see where we are at the appropriate time if the court so changes the ground rules. But right now, I would agree, Michael, believe it or not, that that the limited
issue here for the moment before this board are the interpretations of the Ford D letters and the profit from Mr. Flynn relative to the operation under 1883. That's fine. I agree that as long as
it's constrained to that, as I know you and I both, it's it's a night to remember. I would just submit that within those constraints, the objectors have rights and actually members of the public have certain rights. The judge was never saying no one can
comment. And I want to point out the entirety of that objector evidence came through my clients and they have a right to respond here to defend the position they staked out. Mr. Afron, with all due respect, at this
hour it is late. for your client to re-establish the rights you contend, you're going to need another party to reestablish them. Right now, the litigation is between the applicant
and the board and the township. The intervene, the objectors are not parties to this litigation. If they become parties to this litigation, then whole different situation. But for the moment at 10:38 and I'd ask, Mr. Chairman, the
board extend till no later than 11, which is the absolute end. So moved. Somebody second. All in favor? I
then we'll deal with it accordingly. But right now, council for the board has advised the board. I don't think you've heard anything differently from me as the board counsel that that's the current parameters. Well, I just wanted to preserve our
position and I appreciate what Mr. Bernstein has said. You for the purpose of the record have made place your comments and you have you know you I assume you'll deal with it accordingly. Well, we may very well seek to join that litigation, but irrespective of that, we
believe we have independent rights, but we can address that. Well, I I I would suspect that that will require some interpretation from his honor. We've gone down this road with his honor three separate times, Mr. Flynn.
No, it's three three times. Three times. Um, so Mr. Chairman, I would suggest at this point that the board look for another date for this hearing.
We are not under a time of decision rule. Council will, I believe, concur with that. Yes. So, um I believe that the next available date on the board's calendar is October
the 16th based on part of what happened earlier this evening and everybody else's schedule and I point out to all parties that this requires and Mr. Flag is out because he's not a eligible member. I
need all five here. We don't have a quorum and we can't make a decision. So this is the date they're all available and it's really not for for I mean it's really not acceptable. I mean it's been four years
then then you can address that issue with Judge Menon separately because when the issue when the issue was raised with the court at the last conference the court did not tell us we had a drop dead date though it was raised
and the court acknowledged the schedule of this board as well knowing flowing full well well I mean I it's really how much time does the board need this is This is really in your court at this point. We are not presenting any
additional testimony. The record's been established. It's really clarify how much time do you how much time does the board need for that? I mean, can't we just tack it on the end of another meeting? And uh not as of about an hour ago.
Um board doesn't have it available tack on because I have to have board members here. Board members not eligible on the 11th. What about in two weeks? Mr. Flynn is here on another application. Council's I don't know if council's available. And more importantly, I think
the parties need to have time to address the matter. The reports for Mr. Kois and Mr. May and Mr. Mayu. It's up to the board. You're not available on the 24th. That solves that problem.
Mr. Grodnik, you can I think we're going to have to seek relief with the court then. So be it. Go ahead. I mean, Michael, it's four years. Michael, yes. You just like with Mr. Afron, the same
thing. You don't like the decision, take it up to Flemington. Okay. Trying to comply. If the applicants do that, I'd appreciate notice as well. Perhaps. I think you're obligated to. Perhaps
I'll solve the problem. We'll advise we'll advise Mr. Afraim. Thank you very much. So, we're going to put on the calendar October 16th to continue. Do we need to do a motion?
It's a motion to continue this hearing to October 16th at 7, 2025 at 7 p.m. as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard without further notice. Okay. I have a motion. So moved.
Okay. Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner. Yes. Miss Smith. Yes. Bunny. Yes. Pas. Yes. Yes. With that, Mr. Chairman, the appropriate motion since we do have a meeting in two weeks is a motion to adjourn.
We have something two applications on including Mr. Flynn gets to come back. Motion to adjourn. We have a mo motion by Mr. Leani, second by Mr. Wagner. All in favor? All in favor? I I
Thank you. No one gets sick. Thank you. I know. All right. This is fun.