signal. Good even good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to uh planning board meeting uh May 8th 2025. Uh join me in a salute to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God indivisibley and justice for all. This meeting is been duly advertised according to section five of the Oakland Public Meetings Act, chapter 231, public law 1975, known as the Sun Sunshine Law.
Notice of the 2025 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers. The township clerk posted on the township's website and available at the Hillsboro Township Municipal Complex. Uh, application documents have been made available on the township's website at
least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice. Can I have a roll call, please, of all board members and professionals. Mr. Deb, Miss Smith, Mr. Radoitz, Mr.
Vitali, and currently Chair Sarra are absent. Mr. Flag here, Mr. Wagner here. Mr. Smith here. Want present. Mayor Cherelli here. Mr. Sheriff Pen here. Here ball here.
Rahu here. And myself and the videographer are here. Thank you. Consideration of meeting minutes. I see none. Moving on to consideration of resolutions. There is none. Uh planning board business. Business from the floor
for matters not on the agenda. Anybody from the public would like to come forward and uh state any matters that are not on the agenda nor anything to do with warehousing, please limit your comments to 5 minutes. Anybody from the
public? Okay, seeing none, consideration of ordinances. Uh none to consider and moving on to the application of public hearing. Mr. Chairman, before we get to that point,
um, while we have seven members of the board currently up, six members of the board currently up on the deis, the seventh member is necessary to go forward because he is the fifth member for the quorum for the hearing on the application. So, I would ask that the
board go into recess until the chair arrives and then we can continue the meeting relative to the application. Okay. Anybody from the recess? Okay. All right. We'll be in recess hopefully for uh not too long and
we'll figure our uh missing planning board member. Thank you. Okay, we're probably about 5 minutes away if any of the ejectors and the uh applicant wants to set themselves up and then we'll get going. We'll save a little time.
Yeah. Okay. You didn't rec. Nice to see you. Same here. Evening everyone. We're out of recess. Thanks for your patience. So, uh, Mr. Chairman, before you read the notification on the application for public hearing, uh I
point out Mr. Smith and Mr. Flag are ineligible to participate, but they are more than welcome to sit up here and entertain themselves. Uh I also have a certification by absent board member examination of record/eligibility to
vote from Robert Pson who read the transcript for the April 3rd meeting which means that he is eligible to participate. And with that and with your appearance, we now have a quorum for tonight's hearing. Okay.
Wonderful. Okay. So, we're moving to applications. Public hearing. Homestead Road LLC file number 21-PB-25-MSPV. Time of decision May 31st of this year. And I'm not going to go read the entire thing. I think we all know are familiar with the application.
Just all parties agreed that the um the application would continue from April 3rd. Oh, wait, that's not with no testimony to May 8th this evening without further notice. So with that, looks like we have our
representatives are all up. So I will allow everyone to introduce themselves. Yes. Good evening, chairman, members of the board. Craig Janetti of the law firm Dave Pittney on behalf of the applicant Homestead Road LLC. Brian Tarantino on behalf of SWAT. Objector
John Lanahan. Objector number four. Scott Gross. Objector number two. Lori Cleveland for the Sarland Conservancy. Mike Puro representing the Watershed Institute. Objector number one. Okay.
Thank you. Welcome everyone again. Mr. Bernstein, I'm going to let you kick this off. When last we were here, and the reason we were put off was Mr. Dean was supposed to appear.
Uh, please note, no, Mr. Dean. Uh, I'll have Mr. Gianetti address that issue. Sure. Good evening, Chairman. Um, and unfortunately, Mr. Dean is unavailable this evening.
Um obviously he's provided direct well he provided direct rebuttal examination. He was cross-examined by the public cross-examined by the objectors. There was some remaining cross-examination. Um he did have coverage but unfortunately Mr. Dean
needs to be here uh for the cross- examination not someone else from his office. So um he's not available this evening. I advise um Mr. Bernstein of that as well as the objectors. Um since
the April 3rd meeting, we've also submitted uh response letters from Van Clee Engineering and Dolan and Dean to the uh board professional review letters uh that were dated March 24th
and from Penoni Associates and just looking for in April 2nd uh from Mr. Kis. Um, these response letters are typical in these applications. This was a second, well, no, I'm sorry, not a second. This is one of several review
letters. These were the latest version of review letters. Um, the responses from Van Clee and Dolan and Dean uh is not new evidentiary evidence. They're either responding point by point to the board professional
review letters. And mind you, the the review letters came after they had already testified for a second time. So it's not like they could have addressed it during their testimony. And either it's noting where we agree as a conditional approval to comply with something. Um whether we disagree of
whether something's in the record or not and them highlighting either in a report or in a plan where such information is located. Um or addressing the comment as testimony has already been provided. uh as to that subject and providing a brief
synopsis of what the testimony was. Um so we would like these documents admitted into the record. Um and then I guess that's to the board's discretion uh with Mr. Dean. I know June 5th was an available date. We can have him come back if there's any members of the
public that still have uh questions for him for cross-examination. Okay. as well as any member of the board except as well as any member of the board. Um I believe the objectors have comments and you have received or they'll at least three of them will
address letters they sent to you or sent to the board the planning department in anticipation of this evening's meeting. Whichever one wants to go first. Uh this is Brian Tarantino. Um
so the if the reports only contain reminders of testimony that has prior has been provided before then those reports are not necessary to be entered in into
evidence. If they contain analysis new data new uh new expert uh analysis which they do then they are out of order. So I mean for instance Mr. Dean's report has over 10 pages of new data that he's
attached. So it's not it's not just a rehash of what's been said before. So they're they're it's beyond the time that uh the applicant has for providing new uh testimony um new expert reports.
It's out of order and we object to the inclusion of them in the record. Just to add to to to Brian's comment, Mr. Lahan, just for record acknowledge. I'm sorry. Objector number four. No, your name John Lanahan. Objector number
four. Sorry about that. The challenge that I have also with the responses is I I felt like I was on a treasure hunt. I couldn't find in other words, I was being asked to go back and to verify the testimony with no references to the testimony. So I my my
question my challenge is you know the veracity of those statements as testified as testified per my testimony as I testified as I testified now we're trying to go back over three years without the courtesy of a reference to as I testified on July
23rd 2023 on page 53 the transcript you'll see my testimony instead I'm I'm sitting here trying to go through both reports trying to tie it back and forth back and forth And I just it was very frustrating leading to the end of the letter when I
felt that Mr. Ford mischaracterized Mr. Masky's letter from way back in the beginning. So my challenge and my objection to the response is is just it's incomplete. And so that's kind of where I sit with it. And and and if I if I
might add um the the second one the first issue is that it's out of time, right? it's beyond the it's beyond the time that the applicant had to present its case. Um the second is that we're not being given an opportunity to cross-examine
um and it's not direct testimony. So it would be contrary to the procedures that that have been followed um strictly by this board that uh we don't don't allow um reports without oral testimony and without the ability
for direct oral testimony with cross-examination. Um so it it it would say set a dangerous precedent. I think Mr. Gross. My concerns are well summarized by Mr. Tarantino and Mr. Lenny and I have
nothing further to add. Thank you. A brief response. Initially, these responses are not part of direct testimony and frankly are not for the objectors. They're for the board in addressing the board engineers review
letters. It's no different than if our engineer was sitting here and Mr. Mayhew was asking him those questions or points in his letter and they were responding to it and there was plenty of opportunity to do
that. They've testified for multiple nights on multiple occasions and brought back on rebuttal where a lot of these issues could have been addressed. So you're saying wait I'm not wait Mr. Tarantino, I'm not
done with respect to it being out of time. Again, this is not Mr. Tarantino's application. He doesn't pay the application fees. He doesn't pay the escros and he doesn't make up the rules. So, any notion that it's out of time. When we get a review letter March 24th
and another one April 2nd and we respond within two or three weeks, that's not out of time. We're supposed to just let those letters sit when we disagree with a lot of the statements in there. So it's ridiculous and there's no support for an argument that we're out of time. With respect
to referencing transcript citations, first of all was a lot of it. For instance, the stream corridor, we spent a lot of time on the stream corridor and what he highlighted in there is what we've talked about for a lot of things.
Um, some of the stuff also references is where the board engineer indicated information is not addressed or information not provided and it's either in stating in appendix H it's there or on this sheet in the detail it's there.
Mr. Mayhew may disagree with that but our engineers are right to say no we disagree with you. we think it's here and here or there is a again even though it was in the board engineers review letter there is a planning comment about whether it was in uh in line with the
intensity all Mr. uh Ford's letter is highlighting is we disagree. Here's the coverage. Here's the lot area. Here all factual information, frankly, information that can't be disputed.
It shouldn't be on us getting review letters after they've already testified for a second time and should be fresh from most of the board members, I would think. Uh the testimony provided by them on that to
have to in a couple weeks go through the transcript after transcript and do the citation. We've testified to it and they've highlighted what it is. They can argue in court when it goes to court. they didn't provide testimony on it or they didn't do this or they didn't do
that. But to say it shouldn't be submitted to the record and they should have an opportunity again to cross-examine. This board is bent over backwards to give the objectors and the public every opportunity to be heard, but they don't have the right to have
ongoing questioning after questioning. Every subject in the in the response letters are topics that have been addressed at some point andor are new questions from the board engineer on technical stuff that our engineers
responding and identifying where the information is and we can argue whether Mr. Lanahan thinks uh or disagrees with our interpretation of the planners statement the the prior board planner
statement in his prior review letter but the fact is what the fact is of what was said in that letter and we can argue here and we can argue in court how you interpret that. We have every right to highlight that and note that in the letter that that was
said. So from our standpoint, these are responsive to review letters that were received after they testified. They should be reviewed by the board, considered by the board. They can take it for whatever it's worth or whatever they think it's worth, but it
should be part of the record. and to bring back our witnesses to go through the same hamster cage of addressing topics that have already been addressed and then having them get cross-examined over again. We're going to be into next year and we're not going
to do that. That's one thing I agree. We're not doing that till next year. I mean, I guess if you Mr. G. And Edd's statement is really quite confusing because if the um if the the reports
that Mr. Dean and uh Mr. Ford provided are merely uh like across the table responses informal, then they're not to be entered in informal communications wouldn't be put into the into the record. They're just informal like, "Hey, I'm not sure that you have this
right." um if they are simply restating what has already been testified to, they also don't des don't don't belong in the record. The the um you know it's there's not just unlimited you talk about unlimited opportunity to question there's not unlimited opportunity to
provide new reports. Just because the board engineer and the the board planner produced uh an advice memorandum to the board doesn't grant the applicant uh the rights to produce more reports and have
the board consider it. It's it's completely out of order. And if it's if it's going to be allowed, then we would be allowed also to provide an analysis um and response uh because you know to um to Mr. Kois's Mr. Mayhew's um reports
and you know we're trying to follow the rules that are laid down for us. We're not breaking the rules. So if if you're going to allow it, then you would allow us to respond as well. But we we think they shouldn't be allowed at all because it's really contrary to the rules that have been set down. and the procedures
that you guys have stuck to really quite strictly which we applaud just again these are not expert reports these are responses to board professional review letters even Mr. Dean notes what's appended to his report has been
provided in prior reports and it was specific information identified and requested by the board engineer that's not that's not it's all new data Mr. Mr. Bernstein, well, you can help us sort this out because I I I I wish to respectfully
disagree with Mr. Gianetti that these are not that Mr. Dean and Mr. Ford are not professional reports because that belies the issue of why provide them in the first place. They are responses to Mr. Mayu's last report which is by which
is the board's expert. And I would also agree that the back and forth and the back and forth and the back and forth. But if Mr. Mayu or Mr. Kois wishes to give the board another report based on all that has gone on after before the
board starts to deliberate. I believe that that's well within the purview of the board to request which doesn't then engender another round of reports from the applicant the objectors and anyone else for that matter.
Uh to the extent that the objectors have the right to cross-examine Mr. Dean because I believe he's coming back at some point. That's up to them. I think Mr. Chairman, no one is asking from Mr. J bring Mr. Ford back. I think Mr. Ford
has taken his fill etc on both ends and but if Mr. Dean is here and the objectors have something related to what is in his last report, then I believe that's within
their purview when he's here for the next hearing. But that's the summon substance of the back and forth and the back and forth between the objectors and the applicants and their non-professional professionals. I'm sure Mr. and Mr. Ford will be thrilled to find out, Mr. Gianetti, that they're not
professionals. Um, but I think that's the end. Now, does that prevent the board from asking Mr. Mayu and Mr. Kois for one last opinion letter? I don't believe it does. And it
also doesn't engender another batch of responses and sir responses and responses back because these gentlemen basically represent are providing you with professional assuming they're both professionals uh professional opinions
but I I would agree with everybody. I think Mr. Chairman where we are is Mr. Dean at the next meeting if objectors have specific questions related to specific items in his rep. Let me finish. Mr. Tarantino doesn't say anything. It's like being at
home. I get do get to finish occasionally. um that they can ask but otherwise we're done with examination and cross because I believe at some point the people out
in the audience who have sat in those benches and deserve all kinds of credit for doing that alone should have the opportunity to be heard and then the five objectors can be heard and if they want to read their
letters into the record, they can do that again, too. And Mr. Gianetti gets the last word, and then it's up to the board to decide what it wants to do with this application. And while I understand Mr. G's potential desire to torture Judge Menon with an appeal, we're not ready
yet for that and we're not there. That only assumes a denial. What? That only assumes it a denial. No, I'm assuming it's a lawsuit, denial or approval uh until otherwise. So, the point is, Mr. Mr. Chairman, my recommendation to the
board since Mr. Dean is not here and Mr. Gianietti is about to ask for I believe an extinction to another night for a meeting and an extinction of the time of decision that everybody understand that when that meeting happens it's Mr. a cross-
examination, public com public examination. We're done with examinations, public comment, board comment, whatever. Board professionals comment. And if Mr. Mayu and or Mr. Kois
wish to submit a supplemental last crack, their memo is it. And if Mr. Gianetti is not happy with that, he can add that to his litigation. Um, since everybody's talking about the
litigation that well sort of already exists right now. Um, that's my recommendation, Mr. Chair. I mean, because I look at our professionals letter or guidance or just
their opinion. I kind of feel they're going to supplement that. That's now giving credence to what's been submitted since our last hearing. No, I would argue it's not giving credence. Applicants gets to put on his
his his or her position. The board has the right to ask for its professionals to provide ostensibly a summary report as to everything they're going to do. I don't know if you're even going to get a summary report from at least one of them
and you may or may not get one from the other. But the fact is that yeah, I believe strangely enough they get the last proverbial professional word on this, right? Which we thought we had, but I probably chairman just and and I'm I'm fine with how you laid it out and
and if you want to have supplemental reports from professionals, that's fine. But just to understand why we did what we did particularly the board engineers review letter it's the applicant shall provide the applicant shall provide the applicant shall do this the applicant shall do that so that's we have to
respond to that and if the applicant has his supplemental supplemental supplemental supplemental report we'll deal with that but I think we're also looking for Mr. Mayu and Mr. choice as if they weren't here. Um to provide their professional recommendations
regarding same to the board on how to deal with what the what they have reviewed of this application through the now 20 plus hearings that Judge Men and so loves to ask every time he sees us on a related case as to how many hearings there are.
Can can I just ask a question please based on just to follow up what Craig was saying right excuse me Mr. genetic. So the review memos are addressed to the board and I understand the applicant sees that as
their application and their their desire to respond so that I understand correctly because I heard conversation before about then our ability or right to respond to his response or even the review memorandum. Is there something that I'm
missing about our ability to respond? You have I would assume Mr. Lanahan that in your closing arguments, okay, because neither of you are professional engineers or planners, nor are testifying as engineers or planners,
that you have the right to summarize what you've heard, what you haven't heard, what you've seen, what you haven't seen, to concur or not concur with comments made by, for example, Mr. Dean and Mr. uh Ford in their latest letters. That's all well within your
purview for closing arguments. And I had hoped to some extent that that would happen. But I got, you know, the letters are what the letters are. The board is going to take everything that's presented to them and take it under advisement and award it, you know, as
I've heard too many times by people in black robes, award it the um importance or the lack thereof it it merits. I'm not. So what I probably would be then asking and I know I'm be
speaking upon everyone else but you guys can certainly disagree with me but I would like if our professionals are going to supplement their reports I would like them to clearly state if they feel any portions of those submitted letters contain new information that
wouldn't be appropriate that hasn't already been presented and have them respond accordingly. Well, just to be clear, for instance, in the review letter now, and Mr. uh Tarantino was complaining about the the
left turn sheets that are attached to Mr. Mayhew specifically asked for that information. That's why it was provided. Uh we don't need to provide testimony on it. He asked for the data. We provided it. The the letters were
addressed to the board. So it was it was Mr. Mayhew's way of pointing out that information was missing. You don't know where if there is new information that Mr. Dean provided. So and Mr. Tarantino, if you believe that is the case in
closing argument, you can close among many things. I'm sure you will say that that issue is either not been met or the testimony is inappropriate or you failed to put adequate testimony on the record. all of those items because understand
when the when if and when this in Mr. Gianetti's wish goes to Flemington. And the reason I say Flemington is that's where Judge Menon sits and that's where he's hearing these. Then he's going to be not reviewing the tape. He's going to review the
transcripts and what's provided to him. So if you want it on the transcript, you need to put it on the transcript. And the best place to put it on the transcript is in closing argument when and if we ever get there. Well, do we have the right to do what the applicant did, which was hire an expert and have
an expert write a report? I Why not? We're past. Weren't they weren't they passed? They were passed the time, too, Mr. Tarantino. The difference the different the difference between you all and I if my recollection is correct and it fading is we had this
discussion two sessions ago about which I advised you all that if you wanted to supplement the record with your own experts you had the right to do so and all I got was
silence so now two sessions later we don't have a change of heart. He's responding. They're responding as the applicant has the right to do to the letters of the professionals. If you
wish to get your people to respond in letter form, which frankly they should have done all along. It's up to the board whether they'll even consider those. That's your call. I think you're better served by putting it in the record on
testimony as to your view of what occurred. As I said, I'll use the left turn example. If your belief is that they have not addressed the left turn issues that Mr. Mayu raised in his review letter, you have the right to state on the record why they didn't and
how they didn't. I I guess I'm just pointing out that your admonishment to us that you reference, you know, if you want to have an extra because there is a difference, Mr. Tarantino. The difference is they're responding to the Mayu letter. You could
have responded to the Mayu letter. You, not you. Objectors chose not to respond to the Mayu letter or submit a response. You submitted a response to Mr. G and Netti's client's responses to the letter. The letter has been in the
public domain now for a couple of weeks. And frankly, what you could have done is you could have submitted a letter disagreeing or raising issues Mr. Mayu raised. You can do that. It's just going to happen on it's going to happen on closing argument
and not on another round of reports and testimony unless the board decide they're not going to take the advice, which they are more than willing not to take the advice of council. And correct me if I'm wrong, but
typically with most applications, there generally is conditions that allow sub to provide information or whatever that professionals request. So, it's nothing out of the
ordinary to to for for something to be submitted after the you know, after a vote occurs as part of a condition. could be but again right the approp I think Mr. chairman, the appropriate time is on the is on closing argument, right? No, I I I would agree with that,
but I'm also, you know, again, with our professionals, I want their opinion in that guidance if it's if they decide to supplement whether or not they feel something either addressed or not or not, whether they would have considered that
new information that they would have liked to have cross-examined well the professional. Well, it'll help us because again, it's a guidance. It's re, you know, it'll help us decide whether or not something was submitted inappropriately. Well, whether or not you want more, not so
much inappropriate. Well, because I think that's what's here. And I don't think we're going to go line by line point. You know, what what might be considered new or not. I'd rather our professionals provide that to us. And I see Mr. Mayhew, turn the on button. Go
ahead. When would you like that? Well, we got to decide before our next hearing, you know, pick a date for that. So, Mr. Chairman, I believe the recommendation for the next hearing is June 5th.
Are we going to schedule a second date as well? Are we just going to do June 5th or we also going to try to put a second date on the calendar? Well, I the only reason I'm asking is now we're hitting the summer and I know people are traveling and I just if we're not we don't think June 5th is a date we're all
going to wrap up. I'd like to be able to put in my calendar the next date so that we don't all I think well I would appreciate that. Also what set another date thereafter? just didn't know what the next Yeah, just giving a problem just for everybody's
edification and unfortunately I know the schedule better than I really should. The board has an important item it must address on June the 12th. There will be only one meeting in July for the board and the board is
currently looking at a at a remand hearing on another warehouse application that night. can't ask of which I believe I have finally got the number of people I need to attend after that unless the board wants to have another meeting after July 10th
the board will not meet again until September because you take August off and I don't anticipate I'm watching the screen flicker I apologize I don't believe this board is going to change its routine and decide to have August
meetings so if the people want a guarantee then we're looking into September unless you do the July a section a second meeting in July after the 10th. Do we have David because it's on my
calendar like there is a placeholder for the 24th of July. I don't know if that's just a placeholder or was actually on the schedule. That's usually a business meeting, correct? That as a business meeting.
Three, the third, the the 10th. Okay. The only two July meetings. I think you address the the next meeting and then we if you wish to address the second meeting, that's your call or we wait until June. We also have some uh
two applications were recently deemed complete with another one coming through. So, we have to make sure that we're staying within the statutory timelines for them as well. We're we're basically no longer going to have a night of this application all by itself
anymore. How long is the important matter in June 12th? Is that going to take a whole meeting? Could I don't know what the board's going to do. I don't want to I don't want to give anybody any ideas that something is going to be able to be
heard when we need you all to focus on a very important matter that has to be dealt with that night. And I would assume you may have questions. Others may have questions. People may want answers. We'll see. But I'm not I am loathed to put any
application right now of this magnitude on for the night of the 12th. Now, there may be a reason to put another application on that night, but not of this magnitude. So, you got Jude 12th for one of the others if they can do it if it's small.
Yeah. I mean, if it's a simple application, let's get them in. Okay. I know we're going to have at least one application on the 5th other than this one. I'm sorry. We're going to have another application on on the 5th other than this one.
or at least a v a visit. Are we not getting Oh, uh yes, I believe so. All right. There's an application that has to come back uh from six months prior, right? On the 5th. On the 5th, it's a return of the old campus
associates. Correct. Can we write that one? But the proposal I believe is June 5th and the extension of the time of decision rule to July 31st. We agree. What? So we got June 5th and that's
we'll figure it out on June 5th. I mean realistically I I I think we're looking at September at this point. We'd all like to wrap it up on June 5th, but I just Well, because we have interest of planning, I just put it this way. The board can wrap this all up. The board has until July 31st to deliberate and
decide does the board I'm sorry. It'll be in public meeting but at that point once the once the matter is closed, testimony is closed, arguments are closed, the board can sit here and deliberate to the 31st without
any further comments from the public at that point. So for those of us who are not familiar with these proceedings, we start on the 5th. I know we usually try to wrap up by 10:00. I believe you like to quarter to 10. If we in the process
of wrapping up with public comment ends, objector starts. Do we extend that just to get it done or do we break and come back? Going to depend on what's going on. The board can extend it normally till 11. What is the normal? What's the custom
generally doesn't extend, but if the board senses and I don't wish to speak I don't want to sound like I'm speaking for the board but the the history in my involvement in this board is if the board believes they are close to a culmination they will probably extend the matter to as long as possible. Do we go extra innings? What we go extra
innings? Mhm. They'll go extra in extra innings with a man with a shadow runner on second. Perfect. Thank you. And I I would like to think we can get it done June 5th because as long as everyone's concise particularly with the
crossexamination and and you know by the way Mr. Gianetti no Mr. Dean we move on. I understand. Right. One thought I have just for consideration and it feels like they just turned the air conditioning on so it's a little more comfortable now.
Um, if the board wants to entertain starting public comment tonight, um, we can bring Mr. Dean. Mr. Dean will be here on the 5th. If there's any questioning of him, that can happen. I don't think that's going to re
I mean, he's testified a lot already and been cross-examined a lot. I don't think there's anything he's going to say that's going to change any member of the public's opinion. Um, so if we want to start public comment, so that's one less thing we have to do on the fifth problem becomes
and I'm not see is if they then want to come back because they've heard other things, etc. I understand. Yep. I mean, if there's somebody who wants to come up and tells you that they have no intention of coming back, that's one thing. But I suspect most of these
people will be back on June the 5th and will have things to say. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I will not be here on June 5th. So, we have to make sure Miss Smith is here. Yeah. And everybody else and I'll watch the videotape. Well,
we'll figure we'll do a deal with that also. Your call, Mr. Chairman. What you want to do with the public? [Music] I'm game for it. I'm I'm just going to urge the public to
lay it all out now. We've had opportunities. I think everyone has heard Mr. Dean's testimony, so I'm not sure what extra he's going to be, you know, that would raise questions and a cross-examination. I mean, the
cross it's going to be coming from the objectors. So, I think is it is it worthwhile? Camel, I'm going to ask this question. Is it worthwhile or can you ask? Is it on? I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Is it is it appropriate to ask the public
if there's anybody interested in cross-examining Dolan Dean? No. No. No. Because I think Okay. Yeah. Why not? Well, can can we si say if you speak public comment tonight, this is your
opportunity to speak. If if we don't then we might be if we're not going to do that if they can come up again then we might be wasting time. I'm not going to have someone come up and then another bite for another bite of the apple. So you know we would have to almost take a roll call and then if
they've they've spoken they would have to take a roll call as they speak and then that name would be take so they would not be able to come up again after the fact. That would really because otherwise it's just extending I agree. comment. I agree. So that's that's and
my concern is if we're even going to meet on the 5th because now we don't have our buffer. So that's why I'm inclined that we have people here tonight because I think we're what we're facing right now is even after June 5th, you know, we're going to be deliberating in September, I I'm just not seeing the
calendar opening up. Well, then if that's the case, Mr. Chairman, I would concur with Mr. Leani's recommendation to come up tonight. This is it. Their choice. Their choice. They can come back, but they can't speak. Can't speak.
Can you clarify that for us? We speak tonight. That's correct. That's right. And and so we just don't speak tonight until next time. That's right. Okay. The me the point of was to for those who
may not want to come back and just want to get they've been coming to these meetings with an want a chance to give their opinion to give their opinion and then therefore they are not necessarily need to come back uh and also would then uh speed up the next meeting when we get
to public comment that that person who has spoken has put their thoughts on the record. So I'll just ask as a show of hands is there anyone entertaining speaking tonight or they all pref that would prefer to speak tonight instead of wait there go okay there's only a
few okay so I understand if you speak tonight your name is going to be written down by our people so that you will not be able to speak again when we get to that point long as you understand that there's like three names back there. Okay. All right.
So, yes. Do I have a motion to open to public for the proverbial final bite for the comments on the application as a whole with the understanding and the conditions of coming before the board to make those statements is that you will not be permitted to come back before the
board at another time. So moved. Second. Okay. Can I do by acclamation? All in favor? All in favor? I I Okay. So, if any members from the public
want to put on the record their thoughts on this application, it's just statements. No questioning of anyone. Please state your name and address for the record and also state if you're represented by any of the objectors. Mr. Chairman, before
anyone speaks, I just found another document. I just want to make sure for the record that Mr. Wagner has also submitted a certification from the April 3rd meeting. So, he is also eligible. The short meeting. Thank you.
Gail Martin, Hillsboro Road. I'm not a member of SWAT, but I support what they do. I have a paper petition with 666 signatures against these warehouses. This is a grassroots project where we canvased the affected neighborhood
doortodoor and explained the proposed warehouse application and asked if they'd like to sign the petition. The following is a text of the petition for the record. Objection to inclusion of a signed petition to the record.
I think Miss Martin can indicate that she spoke to a whole bunch of people and this is where their opinions. I think however that the the board can take I hate those word but I will judicial notice that there is such a
petition but it is not part of the record for purposes of determining this application. So if she wants to give it to Mr. voice to keep for the purpose of the record. It will not be part of civic clerk and it will not be part of the overall record.
It'll be just be in it'll be in the planning department office. Will it be in the transcript? Whatever you state you say to read not names and addresses for the record.
If you wish to indicate what the petition says, yes, you may do so with the understanding that it is what it is. We, the under signed, are opposed to the proposed warehouse facilities to be built on Homestead Road, block 200.10,
lots 32 and 33. The developer, Homestead Road LLC, plans to build two mega-ized warehouses totaling more than a half a million square feet, the size of nine football fields and a 6,000q ft office
building. The larger 368,995 ft warehouse would have 60 loading docks, spaces for 150 trailers, and 188 other parking spaces. The smaller
168,34q ft warehouse would have 30 loading docks, parking for 62 trailers, and 96 other parking spaces. That is 90 loading docks and overall space for almost 500 trucks and truck trailers. We
are concerned that this will result in noise and light pollution, traffic, decreased property values, road deterioration, and or other possible issues affecting nearby communities and residences. TECD transitional economic
development should be reszoned to AG agricultural. That's the end of the text of this petition. If this application is approved, do not think you will not be affected by any of this. No, I I said that's that's this is my
statement. The following comments are yours. The following comments are mine. Thank you. If this application is approved, do not think you will not be affected by any of this. Trucks will be traveling throughout our neighborhoods, including
the proposed Main Street area. traffic, air, and noise pollution and road maintenance will be increased. When the ordinance for Willow Road weight restriction was approved, Mayor Leani stated, and I quote, "It's really about what is coming into Hillsboro, and this
is our way to try and keep our residential neighborhoods residential. If this application is approved, our residential roads will not be residential. There will be trucks everywhere like mosquitoes. I have attended all the planning board meetings
over the last three years for this application and have seen many flaws. As Mr. Leani stated at one of the warehouse meetings, the planning board is here to make sure it meets the scope of what they feel is good planning for Hillsboro, what is good for the residents, and what is good for the
property owner. This warehouse application is not good for Hillsboro or the residents. It is only good for the applicant who lives in Florida and does not care about living near this warehouse and the damage they leave behind. The applicant has not submitted
a noise report. Since the truck parking spaces and loading docks are facing the residential area, the noise from trucks being loaded and unloaded, backup alarms, and truck idling will be overwhelming to the residents, especially if it operates 24/7.
They will never get a good night's sleep. What other reports are missing from this application? Since this application is for a spec warehouse, doesn't this invalidate any information on traffic operations, noise, and light and air pollution since we do not know
who the tenant is? At one of the meetings, the representative for the application applicant stated these warehouses will not be used as a parcel delivery hub, sort fulfillment center, and a transload warehouse. Since they
know what is not going to be, they must know what it is going to be. After further questioning by the planning board, their representative could not clearly say what these warehouses will be used for. At the December 8th, 2022 planning board
meeting, a resident asked Mr. O'Gradnik, "Is this still an application without knowing the tenant?" The answer was, and I quote, "I'm not sure I would characterize it at that way." What is going on? According to Mr. Bernstein, Hillsboro does not provide for spec
warehousing. Why are we here? This warehouse belongs in an industrial park near major highways, not on Homestead Road, across from 1,000 plus acres of farmland, open space and residential areas. It is a two-lane road
with no shoulders and the main access road to the high school from the east side of town. You will have inexperienced drivers traveling this road and maneuvering around tractor trailers. It is an accident waiting to happen. It is not safe and Hillsboro
does not have the infrastructure. On February 15, 2008, the township officials strengthen the community impact requirements in Hillsboro. Committeeman Carl Sarra, the sponsor of the original impact statement, said, and
I quote, "It is vital to ensure that any significant housing or commercial developments proposed for Hillsboro are thoroughly reviewed for their potential future impact on the community and taxpayers. These warehouses will have a
major negative impact on our community and taxpayers. In closing, I would like to direct your attention to the taxpayers, voters, residents that are in attendance this evening and the others that signed this petition that could not be here tonight. This is your community
impact statement. I'm submitting the original petition and signatures to the planning board. If these warehouses are approved, Hillsboro will no longer be able to use the tagline, one of the best places to live in America, and removed from the list as one of the top five
destinations of the year. Do the right thing and deny this application. Thank you for your time. Thank you. [Applause] [Music] I'm a little taller than she
was. My name is Joe O'Connell and I live on White Meadow Road. My house is almost 250 years old and like Hillsboro has seen a lot of changes in that time. Some of the changes have been good, such as,
in my opinion, the additions and maintenance to my house since it was a small form room house, but some of these changes are much trickier. The TEC zone is supposed to be neighborhood friendly, but this project
is much larger and much more industrial than anything in the adjacent light industrial area and is anything but neighborhood friendly. Due to the topography of the area, everything including floodwaters, noise,
odors, and diesel fumes flow north down from the homestead property, and it permeates the entire area for extended periods of times. This was evidenced by the past practice of a noxious substance being
spread on the farm fields in the 1980s and the 1990s. That was the cause of complaints to the township by neighbors on Spring Valley, Winding Way, and even the far end of Valinor. White Meadow Road and Toll Brothers houses were not
yet built. The odor lasted for days on end. I couldn't be out in my yard. The stench was so bad. My home lies in sort of a depression, surrounded by trees, and the odors linger for days. Every
time my neighbors have a barbecue or light a fire pit or have fireworks, the smoke accumulates in my front yard. The same thing will happen with the diesel fumes from the warehouses. It will make
the air around my house intolerable. Noise from the backup be from backup beeping and lights from the intense 247 operations will disrupt the peace and quiet all night
long. Homestead road is a narrow country road with no shoulders. It is practically guaranteed that with the hundreds of daily trips from trucks entering and leaving the facilities, the trucks will cross the center line into oncoming traffic.
At this point right now, the only legal direction for the trucks to travel is over a very steep sighter restricted hill across the narrow bridge leading into what has been designated as part of the town center which endeavors to be a
pedestrianfriendly zone. Or they could go to Willow Road, which is weight restricted and would be a violation of the law. How would this be enforced? Would the trucks go that way anyway and just accept the tickets given to them if they were caught? And I bet you that
they're going to try and just figure that they're not going to get caught. Several properties adjacent to mine have conservation easements on their property. There is a reason for this. Van Clee knew exactly
what they were doing when they did the surveying for the work for the work the developer of White Meadow Road Houses and I was very involved in that. I've lived in my house for over 45 years so I know exactly what they were doing. They
had consultations with me. I was with the board and all that stuff. Okay. Just like with this warehouse property, there is a direct connection between our properties and the river that runs alongside Clerico Lane. I have personally witnessed this conservation
easement become a flash flood river flowing through my front yard, spanning 60 to 70 feet wide and 2 to three feet deep as it travels towards the farm on the far end of Clerico Lane. This is the end that used to be Angelo Clerico's
farm. Building this huge structure will also add to the flooding issues of the Roycebrook as it flows through Clerico Lane. During Hurricane Ida, the flooding that occurred on Amwell Road because of this geographic figure feature took the
life of one woman and almost cost another family their lives, except for the fact that they decided to get out of their car in the pouring rain and walking to Feeasants Landing instead of staying with their car. Their car was found the next day, 1,500 ft away,
dragged towards the Roycebrook, fully encrusted with mud and water. Through the Oprah Act, I compiled a list of 64 cars in this area that were left abandoned and flooded by Hurricane Ida. And there were another estimated 30 to
40 vehicles left in the parking lot of Feeasants Landing that night. I realize they only call it the landing now. This application also does not include the sidewalks and bike lanes that connect to the adjoining residential neighborhoods
as required by the TEC. Done. TZ do zone zone, sorry. It is not neighborhood friendly. It does not fit the TECD zoning requirements. We need to be good, responsible ancestors doing what's right
for Hillsbor, not just for the next 20 years, but for the next 250 plus years. I'm hoping my house will be there. I don't think I will be, but thank you. Thank you. [Music]
Good evening. Netor pla 18 stage coach way here in Hillsboro. Board members. Oh, sorry. Just and state if you're not affiliated. Uh yeah, I'm not affiliated. I'm just here to comment. Sure. It's N T O R and the last name is
PLA. P L A. Okay. Um, I'm against uh I'm against the uh warehouse uh on Homester Row because my family and I deserve better. My wife is a realtor and the night that I met her 14 years ago, she said that she wanted to live in
Hillsboro. I asked her why and she said because it's a great place to live. We moved from Morris County four years ago after finding the perfect house in a quiet section of Hillsboro to raise our family. I am very familiar with the trucking industry. I just retired this
past April as a sergeant first class from the New Jersey State Police. I was the assistant unit head of the commercial carrier safety inspection unit. The unit covers the entire state of New Jersey. During the during my 24 year career that included 20 years of
specialized enforcement of the federal regulations that govern the trucking industry title 49 49, I have stopped and inspected thousands of trucks and drivers. Due to my extensive knowledge and experience, I want the board to hear
my concerns. Number one, if the proposed warehouse was to open, you can expect heavy truck traffic 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Commerce never stops. Noise and traffic will disturb the residents. And once you let the trucks in, nobody can
stop stop them. Truck traffic will never stop. Number two, truck drivers make money when the wheels on their trucks turn. They will not follow restricted roadway signs because they would rather face a fine rather than be late with
their delivery. If police stops them uh happen to stop them uh for example on willow road they will say that they did not know that the road was weight restricted. Some go as far as knocking down weight restriction signs so that they can say that there are no signs with weight restrictions on them. Some
will simply ignore the signs because they know that police cannot stop all the trucks. Some will get through. They take their chance and break the law and not get caught. Why? Because they make money when the wheels turn. Number three, hours of service.
Truckers drive uh truck drivers have mandated resting periods that they must follow. These restrictions are listed in part 395 of title 49 of the code of federal regulations. Those regulations can only be enforced by New Jersey state
state troopers that are trained and certified to conduct federal inspections. Most truck drivers must use an electronic logging device to capture their movements. Because of that, when they run out of time to drive, they will park wherever they are to avoid being in
violation of the federal law. They will park on side roads even if those roads are restricted because they would rather get a parking ticket than receive a federal violation for hours of service. Again, a violation that only a federally certified state trooper can issue. So
unless Hillsboro is able to bring the state police, there will be no enforcement of these violations. Number four, noise. Truck drivers say their wear and tear on their brakes by using their engine to slow down. The engine brake, known as the
Jake brake, uses the engine compression to slow down the truck. The activation of the engine brake causes a deafening noise. As trucks trucks will come down Homestead Road over the railroad bridge, they will likely activate their engine brake prior to entering the warehouse
causing noise pollution to everyone everyone living in the area. Willow Road, White Meadow, and Winding Way to name a few of the impacted areas. Number five, truck traffic on Route 206 will be heavily impacted. Trucks start and slow
much slower than passenger vehicles. This will increase the time spent on 206. Route 206 is often backed up. The increase in truck traffic will make driving Route 206 a nightmare, especially during rush hour. I am making this I making all these statements not
because I think these problems will happen but because after 24 years working working as a New Jersey state trooper I have seen all of these issues across the state and I know they will happen on Homestead Road and the rest of the township if this application is approved. In closing, I also want to
mention that my understanding of municipal land use law is that the applicant has the responsibility to present to the board the evidence necessary for you to decide whether the application is approved. Meaning the applicant has the burden of proof to convince the planning board to act
favorably towards it. Based on all of the testimony presented and cross-examination of the applicant's experts and objectors experts, the facts witness testimony, I believe the applicant has failed to meet the burden of proof and I therefore ask the planning board to deny this application.
Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] My name is Candy Meyer. I'm from Fairfield Lane and I am not represented by any of the objectors. And I'm having
a difficulty time in seeing how this applicant the buildings proposed are consistent with the TEC zoning. And in particular, I have finded up what I think is called code, but it's
188-1072 and it describes the transitional economic development zoning for Hillsboro Township. Under section C, it says permitted accessory uses and structures. Item nine under there says
loading areas which are fully screened such that the screening material are compatible with the structure to which it is associated. I don't recall having heard anything in any of the testimony
regarding um the loading areas and how they were going to be fully screened and what material is screening that. The other item that I have pulled out is under section F. It says supplemental requirements to TEC
district and um item one says the site building structures and building placement and orientation. So building and site improvements shall be designed to minimize changes to existing topography
and mature vegetation. And I do recall in a testimony, and I think I have the numbers down correctly, something about 2,75 linear feet of retaining walls. And I certainly, from my understanding, with
a building that is the size of nine football fields, I don't see how that is fitting in the existing topography and minimizing interruption to it. So again, wanted to point that out. So thank you. Thank you.
[Applause] Good evening. In a civ river 24 Talo Trail. I'm not represented by the objectors. I'm sorry. Can you spell your name? INA. your first name or your last name. It's my first name.
Your last name Civ River. Can you spell that one? Siv. Can I proceed? Okay. I hear this opinion that because we all buy online, we should not complain about warehouses. First, there is already a huge warehouse just 15 minutes away from here in
Somerset, New Jersey. That warehouse is located a couple of minutes drive from a major highway uh route 287. Certain projects belong into certain areas. A huge warehouse doesn't belong in the middle of a town next to residential
area and between two schools. We are all using electricity daily. But I don't see a nuclear power plant in the middle of Hillsboro. So this uh saying that if we use if we buy a lot from buy a lot online that means that we have to have a
warehouse in Hillsboro. I don't think it's relevant. A mega warehouse should be in an appropriate location. We've been through a long process of listening to the testimonies of the experts from both sides clients and objectors. However, some of the expert of the
objectors were met with the very aggressive attitude from the client's attorney Mr. Janetti who tried to minimize the impact of their report. He went as far as being plain rude trying to sabotage testimony. You can watch this in the past videos. But if we look
at the client's reports first noise report, there is no noise report or study really for the warehouse that is operating 247 has 90 loading docks and 104 parking space for trailer trailers.
Um, the closest house is 90 ft from the warehouse fence and there is no noise report. Who is going to be held responsible when noises, especially during nights, weekends, and holidays will make the normal life of the nearby neighborhoods impossible? Who will be
responsible for that? Not the experts, not the not the experts, not the clients, and the damage will be irreversible. By the way, when asked if it was considered to rotate the building in such a way so the loading docks face the street and not the residential
neighborhood, the answer was no. So, they didn't even think about it. This is a clear indication that the applicant didn't give any consideration to the impact on the neighbors. Two, traffic report. Traffic report with no tenant. The traffic report is an estimate. The
warehouse that is operating 24/7 has 90 loading docks and 104 parking spaces can generate enormous amounts of traffic. What about air pollution from all this diesel exhaust? Who is going to be held responsible for ruined roads that will
need fixing using our tax money? Who is going to be responsible then when we have huge traffic on Route 206 and accidents with tractor trailer? Not the experts and not the client. and the damage will be irreversible. Flooding
the the warehouse will create many impervious areas and we get more and more crazy rains. During Hurricane Ida, one person died from flooding near the intersection of Willow and Enville Road. This development would increase impervice coverage by nearly 1 million
square feet. Who is going to be responsible when the nearby neighborhoods will be flooded even more? not the experts, not the client, and the damage will be irreversible. Job creation. Modern warehouses are highly automated and might not create many new
jobs. So in conclusion, all those experts from the client, they are not responsible for anything. The client is not responsible for anything. We will have to deal with all the consequences. This warehouse is a wrong building in the wrong place. This area is supposed
to be a transitional between the existing light industrial and residential. This warehouse, if built, will be a transition to hell. We have a lot to lose and very little to gain. Therefore, I ask planning board to deny this application.
Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Uh, Chris Dawson, Hunt Club Road. Um, not with the objectors. Um, Homestead Road wasn't constructed for sustained tractor trailer traffic. I don't want my taxes.
I don't think anyone here wants their taxes uh to be used for road repair. uh by the damage that's going to be caused by the tractor trailers that are coming out of this warehouse. Uh my question is, can Homestead LLC post a road bond to pay for future road
repair? Um the traffic study that was limited to Homestead Road. Uh in my opinion, the scope of the study was insufficient. Uh traffic will definitely be impacted on Route 206. The trucks can't easily access the byway.
uh Willow Road and 206 are the only possible exits from Homestead Road. And then lastly, while the 4,000 pound weight restriction on Willow Road was created with good intention, it's uninforcable. Um unless there's traffic
enforcement unit there patrolling Willow Road 247. Uh last week I watched a tractor trailer turn on to Willow from Homestead. Uh the truck wasn't pulled over. It wasn't ticketed. 4,000 lb. Uh, Amazon delivery trucks
weigh more than 4,000 lb. Landscaping trailers weigh more than 4,000 lb. SUVs weigh more than 4,000 lbs. School buses weigh more than 4,000 lb. It is a pointless restriction. That's it.
[Applause] Good evening. Jim Vanderhorst. I'll spell that. V is in Victor. O N is in Nancy. D is in David. E R H O R S T. 88 Weber A Hillsboro. Um SWAT does not
represent me. Um I've been a resident of Hillsboro for about 17 years now. And uh I appreciate the time uh you're able to give me the time tonight to talk about what I think is the largest of the warehouses that we've been looking at
over the last three years. I have attended most of those meetings over the last three years and this is the warehouse that scares me the most. I agree with all of the issues that my fellow residents have brought up. However, I think there's one Ena I think mentioned it a little bit, but I think
there's one that's really critical, and that's the issue of the enormous impact of hundreds, if not thousands of diesel truck trips every week on the health of both adults and children in the surrounding community of the proposed
warehouse. The applicant did produce an air quality report dated August 31st, 2022, claiming minimal impact from diesel fumes. However, this report was based on a single monitoring station in
Camden, New Jersey, and another in Trenton, but doesn't take into account the logistics of this neighborhood. In July of 2023, Consumer Reports in partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund issued their first of five
investigative reports focusing on the dangers of warehouse truck air pollution. Their studies encompass the use of multiple monitoring monitoring stations, not one or two, but multiple on a 247 basis. And guess where they put
them? in the neighborhoods close to the warehouse. The study states that residents in proximity of warehouses suffer higher levels of serious health problems caused by the emissions of tractor trailers. There are five key
findings. The first exposure to traffic related air pollution as measured by knock uh nitrogen dioxide increases the risk of the development of childhood asthma. And guess what's the leading cause of miss school days every year?
Asthma. Air pollution from trucks. Number two, air pollution from trucks raises the risk of pre-term birth and low birth rate. Number three, for adults, air pollution from trucks increases the risk of dementia, heart disease, and
stroke. Diesel trucks. Number four. Diesel trucks also emit other health harming pollution including fine particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide. And the last finding, diesel
trucks emit serious pollution at startups while idling and traveling at low speeds. In conclusion, I love Hillsboro. Been here 17 years now. It's a great town and I applaud both previous
generations of management as well as the existing boards about everything you've done to try to make Hillsboro the best place to live in America. I urge you to continue to live up to that and to deny this application.
Thank you. [Applause] Mr. Bernstein, I'd like just like place my objection on the record uh to reference in the record of an expert report that was not submitted uh to the
board and no testimony provided on noted. Sunni Bolar, 47 Windingway, Hillsboro, not a member of SWAT. My property is the immediate property next to the proposed warehouse at 189 Homestead Road, separated it from it by
Roycebrook. I'm very concerned about the deadly impact this warehouse will have on my home and property during tropical storm IDA in September 2021. My basement got flooded. A new water heater that had just been installed and had not even
been inspected had to be replaced. I applied for a FEMA loan for the damages. The flooding damage is in my basement whenever it rains a lot. The meadow on my property always gets flooded. I need it's almost knee deep in water. So with
this proposed warehouse uh and the extra flow the of water that it's going to generate, I can just imagine that Roycebrook will flood onto my property and my home and the homestone winding way will go underwater. I'm also concerned about the
extreme noise pollution. this proposed warehouse will generate. When this proposed warehouse site was rented out, there was the constant noise of trucks operating all day long. It was pretty deafening just to be in my backyard. With so many loading docks
facing the homes on winding way, the noise pollution will be a 100fold more. So, I'm kind of worried that I won't be able to sleep at night. This proposed warehouse site is so high as compared to my property. there's like a 120 foot uh gradient with
this warehouse being on the top of the hill and my home being at the base of that hill. Considering this huge uh gradient and adding to that a fourstory high structure with even higher walls and lighting, my backyard's going to look like a lit football field at night
and I'm not okay with that. I moved from New York to New Jersey to escape the noise, smoke and uh the light pollution and I bought this home in Hillsboro as it's one of the best places to live in the country.
This proposed warehouse in no way conforms to the TECD zone requirements as its um planning has given no consideration to the homes on winding way whose lives will be impacted by the flooding and by the noise, smoke and light pollution. Why were in the loading
docks facing Homestead Road? Why are they facing the homes and winding way? My backyard is a beautiful habitat for wildlife and birds. As an avid bird, I have recorded 68 species of birds on my property, including bald eagles. The
most recent visit by a bald eagle was on March 30th, and I have a video of it, which I posted on the Hillsboro public forum Facebook forum. This proposed warehouse construction will result in habitat destruction for
wildlife and many species due to deforestation. Hillsboro is in a flood zone and one life has already been lost due to Roycebrook flooding during tropical storm Ida. You can prevent the loss of more lives and more homes by voting
against this proposed warehouse. Thank you for your time. Thank you. [Applause] Hi, I'm John's Proviier, live on Homestead Road and have a house in
Montgomery. Uh, just a little bit of history. Can you just say for the record if you're affiliated with any of the objectors? I'm sorry. Can you state for the record whether you're affiliated with any of the objectors? I'm sorry. Whether you're affiliated with any of
the objectors like SWAT or No, I am not. Just wanted to give a tiny bit of history. Years ago when there were to toxic dump sites or ash dump sites rather, some toxic, some are not toxic,
they were being considered in Hillsboro and Montgomery. I went around uh I was part of a civic group called Refues. We talked to each of the municipalities in Somerset County about
our concerns about the possibility of the dump sites that were that were um made necessary because of a state mandate. We we went to each of the towns in this particular town. Um Beyond was
the um the mayor at the time. His number one concern was not the the dump site because it was not toxic, but the trucking and the traffic that was going to come through the town and in this particular area. The roads simply could
not handle it in his eyes. And he was right. Since then, all we've we've built our concerns around the traffic. Recently, or not recently, but
a few years ago, we had we took care of part of that, alleviated it somewhat with with the bypass. The amount of trucks that are about to possibly come in to this warehouse is
going to supersede any anything we've ever done to alleviate the traffic. We're talking about I think it is 90 bays. 90 bays. How much how much traffic can that generate? Much more than this
than this community can handle. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? There we go. Tara Baldwin, 36 Franklin Drive. I'm not affiliated with any of the objectors on this
application. I have some questions for Gary Dean that I was planning to ask him tonight. I am unable to attend the June 5th meeting. The questions I have for Mr. Dean relate to the proximity of the sites used by Mr. Dean as a basis in his analysis. None of the sites used in Mr.
Dean's analysis are located as remotely from an interstate as this Homestead Road site. For example, 10 Knox Drive, cited in his report, is less than one mile from 287 and traffic flows through an industrial area. Homestead Road is
more than 10 miles from 287 and traffic must travel through residential areas to get there. In fact, none of the sites used in the Dean report require tractor trailers to travel through residential neighborhoods to reach an interstate. These may be details that Mr. Dean did not feel are relevant when he prepared
his analysis, but these trucks will be traveling past my street where my son will eventually learn to ride his bike, and it's very relevant to me. Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] Twan Le for Ivy Lane. I'm not affiliated
with any of the objectors and I'm not going to repeat what other people said. I I truly appreciate the amount of time that people who are committed to this township have for all these committees, the planning board included. Um, what I
wanted to point out was that when you go to the building department, there's a sign. You know, first there's 100 best places to live in Hillsboro. But right underneath it, it says, "Attention, incomplete applications will not be
accepted." And you have heard tonight and you've heard for three years how incomplete this application has been. You can tell from the when it hasn't met some of the zoning requirements in the TECD zone as well as
some of our um ordinances and I don't see why a professional developer or you know someone who's uh represented by Mr. Geianetti would be allowed to even submit such an
application. Thank you for your time and I and I do this is I had a prepared speech. I'm leaving it for the next meeting. Um Oh, you can't. Oh, okay then. I'll get it. But So, you came in late after the the announcement was made. So, I'll let the
chairman tell you. Yeah. So, because we're going to need to continue June 5th, there was a decision because we still have Mr. Dean has to return for cross exam that we're giving the public that came tonight the chance to offer their opinion tonight but not June 5th
so that we can maintain anyone right can't come inth so if you've got your speech go get it no actually a lot of it really has been uh said by many of the residents here so I just want to say
that we've you know because we have uh a caring community. We all these people keep showing up meeting after meeting as well as you, you know, and and I think that uh as a resident here for 30
something years, 34 years or so, uh I I'm proud of living in Hillsboro, too. And and I know that the weight of your decision is a heavy one. I I know that as a former board of ed member it, you
know, it's something that you have to weigh take, you know, into consideration many factors. When my compass when I was on the board of ed was what's good for the students. And so I ask you when you vote
to please consider what's good for the residents because they've all spoken so clearly what the problem is. Thank you. Yeah. Bob Hollings said 31 Winding Way. I'm going to skip over the railroad bridge. We heard about how narrow that is. Mr.
Hollings, just state for the record, you're not affiliated. No, I don't know anybody here. Pick the mic up a little bit, too. Okay. Uh, Winding Way and and Spring Valley Drive are on wells. I don't know if everybody knows that. And there's a
cam contaminated well in the site and an old landfill in the southeast corner of the property that no one knows what might be in it. Was done years and years ago. Uh, when the ground is disturbed, any contamination could seep into the
groundwater and get into our wells. Um, I'm going to reiterate the uh turning of the building, Mr. Miu's idea. Um, and I'll go to the transition. The
two buildings have a total of 537 299 square feet. Uh, a typical footprint of Winding Way House is under 2,000 square feet. So that means that 268 of our houses would
fit in these two buildings. 268 um just in general the tenant or tenant is not known. So how is it possible for the applicant that predicts traffic, hours of operation, number of trucks or anything with any accuracy?
Um, as far as buffering from the neighborhood, if you stand on Spring Valley Drive, you can see all the way to Homestead Road, it's not possible to shield the neighborhood because plantings are not permitted on the 172 foot wide pipeline right away.
Also, um the building is going to be roughly 70 feet above grade on winding way and you add another 25 for lights, we're going to have lights like 100 ft tall. Thank
[Applause] you. Anyone else? Okay. I want to ask a question if I may, which is how is this P David Brookke? I
live in Hillsboro and as I've told you before, I would never be part of an organization that would have me as a member. So, thank you, Grancho Marks. But I'm not speaking because I have something to say. But what is the plan here? You're going to go forward with
the hearing again and then you're going to open it back up to everybody else who hasn't spoken tonight. Right. And that's going to be June 5th, I'm understanding. Okay. Okay. Correct. All
right. I'm not here. Thank you. He got up to the microphone. I'll let you object on the fifth. Anyone? Okay. Yep. Mr. Chairman, um members of the
board, there were a couple of items to be concluded relative to a question that Mr. May you actually had raised relative to any additional report. If the board is so inclined to is so inclined to
entertain a last report from Mr. Mi Mr. Mayu or Mr. Kois and the objectors relative to the limited issue relative to comments as to Mr. Mayu's report themselves, not to Mr.
Dean, not to Mr. Ford, Mr. Mayu, or Mr. Kois's other reports. They are all due by the close of business, Thursday, May 22nd, 2025. That's basically a little more than 10 days,
but because the Memorial Day weekend and related items, no more reports from Mr. Geianetti or his client. I'm sure he and his client will be thrilled not to have to spend any more money on any more
reports. Uh, with that, Mr. chairman with the understanding that anyone who has gotten up and spoken with the exception of Mr. Brookke will null will not be allowed to get up and speak at the June 5th meeting
for the public portion. Mr. Dean will be here. The board has another application before we get to Homestead Road or at least an update. And there needs to be a motion to extend this meeting to June the
Thursday, June 5th, 2025 at 700 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard without further notice. Time of decision extended to July 31st, 2025. Okay, with that, anyone would like to
make the motion? I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I'll second. We might as well because you're not going to be here. So, okay. Roll call, please. Uh, Mr. Wagner, yes. Milani, yes. Deputy
May, excuse me, Mayor Cherelli. Yes. Vice Pen, yes. Sra, yes. Thank you. Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before you adjourn, I want to place on the record and remind the board
members who I have spoken to who are eligible to hear the remand on Harvard Way LLC. That matter will be heard on July the 10th, 2025 at 700 p.m. or soon
thereafter the matter may be heard. Notice will be provided by the applicant in advance. council for the carrier will be here. We will need an executive we will need executive sessions Mr. Kois for that meeting as we had proposed for last week's meeting.
Okay. And should we be cancelling the May 22nd business meeting? Okay. May I have a motion to cancel the business meeting of May 22nd, 2025?
Second. I don't know. I don't know. Did that. Roll call. Mr. Wagger. Yes. Mr. Flag. Yes. Um, Mr. Smith. Yes. Committee. Yes. Really? Yes. Vice Chair Pas. Affirmative. Chair Sarra. Yes. With that, I will entertain
uh Mr. K. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Just before the entire public ends up leaving, just please uh friendly reminder, we have a survey that's still open for the master plan. Uh you could find it in the back. You could also go to engagehillsbbornj.gov it.org.org.
Oh, that's something. It's one of the dots. Excuse in the back, Mr. Brook. And can please uh be quiet till the meeting's over. [Music] Thank you. It's your chance to participate in our master plan. So, uh
please do so before it ends on May 18th. Okay. With that, I will entertain a motion of adjournment. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I We'll see everyone on June 5th. Good night.