e e e e e e e e e say they use it as like they weren't even on The Zing board good evening everybody we're going to call uh to order tonight's uh Township of Bernard's Zoning Board of adjustment um the first item on the agenda is black salute so if you can stand please us to the flag the United States of America and to the stands Na godible and justice for all in accordance with the requirement of the open public meeting law notice of this meeting of the board of adjustment of the township of Bernards was posted on the bulletin board in the reception hall of the municipal building Coler Lane Basking Ridge New Jersey it was mailed to the Bernardsville News whipy New Jersey The Courier News Bridgewater New Jersey and it was also filed with the Township Clerk all on January 8th of this year it was also mailed electronically to all those people who had requested individual notice the following procedure has been adopted by the Bernard's Township zoning Board of adjustment there will be no new cases heard after 10:00 tonight and no new testimony heard after 10:30 uh Miss keer can you do a roll call for us certainly um Miss Balman Miss Pichi Miss poar are all recused and Mr helverson has indicated he is unable to attend this evening uh chairwoman Jers here Mr Cambria here Mr Krauss here Mr T here M Herrera here Mr Warner here Mr Fisher here Mr Quinn here here and for the record Miss keeper is present um Madam chair I'd also like to advise that Mr Krauss has viewed the video of the last meeting excellent thank you and thank you Mr Krauss um at this time I'd like to entertain a motion to excuse the absence of Mr Heston who I think did did let us know in advance he would be unable to attend tonight so move second thank you all in favor I opposed abstain thank you thank you um next on the agenda is the approval of a resolution I think there was a revised um Edition uh that was circulated with additional edits and comments um so if everyone had had an opportunity to take a look at that I think only uh a few of us are are eligible to vot and Mr okay so just the gentleman to my right so if there's any um comments or edits otherwise um a motion to approve as drafted chair a motion to approve the resolution as drafted thank you Mr tank I have the second thank you Mr Krauss Mr Krauss yes Mr T yes okay well done then um next on the agenda is the public hearing which has been continued uh from April 11 2024 and and well before that as well uh is for Signature Acquisitions which is ZB 22028 good evening Madam chairwoman members of the board uh and members of the public and the professional staff Jeff larer Le reer from the law firm of D Francesco baitman representing signature Acquisitions LLC um I'm not going to delve into uh anything in the past I I'm going to talk about where what this meeting tonight is probably going to entail and then um I wanted to make one quick Point uh my understanding is that uh Mr seckler our traffic engineer and Mr um mosell were uh Prov provided additional testimony based upon the revised plans and so that any questioning of them by Witnesses by opposition Council and the board would be limited to the new testimony um and I would like to add that um that uh I I I don't want to keep getting up and objecting and saying you know we've talked about that we've talked about this there were four hearings on that this is really just based upon the new testimony that they provided and it was fairly quick um and so I I just want to make sure that the public is aware and that you know like last time I was called a bully by somebody in the audience I don't want to be called a bully I'm just will object if someone gets up and starts to talk about old issues that are unrelated to the new and revised plans that they testify to understood and then after that I believe that um I will be closing my case in Chief and then um I understand that Miss uh Smith has a uh a witness to present a planner um I don't know if we'll get to that I believe we will I hope we do and then there will be um uh um uh from what I understand Mr Mr Berlin issued a submitted a presentation we can talk about that at a later time I don't know if this is the appropriate time I uh to do that but I have objections if he's going to present that and I would like to um make make those objections at the proper time okay we'll cross that bridge and we get to it thanks so Madam chair I believe we're going to be proceeding then with cross examination of first by Council we have it's my understanding we uh are backed up to back up to the number of three objetives well I strike that uh uh we have two objectors councils uh Mr Vin and Miss Smith um but we there is a third Council who has entered an appearance and maybe it'd be best to uh uh have that appearance entered formally during the proceedings now on behalf of the Board of Education my understanding not as an interested party please you can speak to your client better than I hello thank you uh my name is Marina steinley STI NE of Clary jacobe alferi and Jacobs on behalf of the Bernards Township Board of Education the Board of Ed has some just concerns about traffic that we wanted to ask questions um based on the revised plans and reduction in the building so that's all I'll be doing tonight engineering questions and some traffic questions so you'd like to cross examine the two witnesses yes okay would that be the if I may Madam chair even though it's traffic uh would you like to cross examine both a civil engineer and the traffic engineer yes if if permitted understood certainly well I expect the chair will permit yeah that's fine and and if you could be mindful to keep it um focused on the new testimony I think that would um be helpful okay thank you so we will call you up I think the order for tonight is we'll start with um Miss Smith and then we'll go to Mr Berlin and then um we'll go to you Mr thank you I'm gonna bring up Mr michelo Rob michelo welcome back good evening thank you and I I open it back to the board good evening everyone for the record again my name is Jennifer Philips Smith and I'm the attorney for Fellowship Village uh I am going to be asking Mr Michelle about the plans that were submitted so if we could have the screen pulled down and the plans pulled up I'd appreciate it Mr Michelle like questions are going to I'm looking for the file yeah just give me a second to find the right PDF here uh I think it was this one it was that one right there 42 2024 let me see what comes up oh the revised that's right right oh wait no this isn't uh that's the right that's the right one yeah that's all be all right Mr michelo we're looking at the revised plan that you submitted at the beginning of April is that correct let me just check the date hold on one second because yes this is their plan and you haven't submitted any further revised plan since that date correct have not so we're going to compare this plan to the plan that you previously testified to I guess about a year ago and comparing those two plans what is the difference in the square footage of the buildings it was reduced by approximately 14,000 square feet so what is the proposed sorry what is the proposed number of square feet in the buildings that you're proposing right now 2 44,1 128 ft how I'm sorry sir sir this is um a cross examination so if you have questions we'll try and give the public an opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses but you have to hold your questions and certainly your comments what is the overall lot size was uh 28.2 acres and at 28.2 Acres uh what is the square footage that would be allowed to stay within the permitted floor area ratio it's 15% I don't have the exact number in front of me can we do the math on that I think it's an important number for the board to know sure actually just to clarify going off my survey the lot area was 28304 Acres what is the difference between your survey and the plan there was two different surveys that were initially prepared we updated our survey to 28304 acres for the property so that's that's the number that I'm using why the change cuz we updated our we did our own survey on the property what was the survey used before we we I'm just there were two different numbers that I refer to one was an initial survey that was done before we updated our survey to 28304 Acres that's the survey of record that we submitted okay so the area that's allowed under the ordinance is 184,185 Ft so you're allowed to have 184 9384 Square ft and you're proposing 244 128 Square ft is that correct yes what is the difference between the number of square feet you are proposing and the number that would be permitted if you were to conform to the F limit in the ordinance during the last meeting though did you not I presented the elevations did you also present the floor plans no there was an exhibit put to get where I did not present the floor plan I don't recall is there going to be anyone that does present the revised floor plan to the board no so do you know anything about the the proposed floor plans just the square footages and the footprint that I presented on my exhibit do you know what the square footage of the portion that's marked marked as LM D offes the office square footage I think it's on the plans as LM office well no LM is light manufacturing the other one is office so which number you looking for well when I look at the plans you'd like to the exibit the exhibit up here is that uh a four site plan rendering last Revis March 14 2024 correct Mr Michelle yes thank you okay just want to make sure we have a reference of the exhibit on so so here's the chart on the plan that was submitted that breaks down the light Manufacturing in the office square footage for both buildings and is that what's reflected on the actual floor plans that's what's reflected on my exhibit yes but not the floor plan exhibit I did not I'm not looking at the floor plan exhibit I'm presenting this exhibit and so any questions about what the revised floor plans show should not be asked to you correct I'm showing the footprint of the building is the revised floor plan going to be marked as a exhibit that the board is considering the the architectural exhibits were entered and I presented the elevations the floor plan is the footprint of the building that I show on my site plan that was reduced by the square footage I testified to so if I wanted to ask you about the notes on the plan that you're not the proper person to ask about that on the architectural plans no no if I wanted to ask why a certain area was labeled lm/ office you're not the appropriate person to ask about that no and if I wanted to ask what area was going to be used for storage versus other light manufacturing um types of component uses you would not be the right person to ask about that no how about if I were going to ask why the office area was sized the way it was sized in the revised plans are you the right expert to ask about that no not the architect okay going back to your plan then um you show the Ring Road on your plan correct yes now have there been any changes to the location or size of the Ring Road between the plan that you previously testified to last year and the plan that you have submitted the Ring Road no it it's in the exact same location it was previously the Ring Road is yes all right does the Ring Road then still go through the wetlands again M chair we're talking about testimony that was presented weeks months ago and we talking this is not about this she's not asking questions about the Madam chair if I could weigh in on that my advice to the board is to allow the Lana of questioning uh it was what if any change to the Ring Road I think that's appropriate what if any change as a result of the revisions is appropriate my opinion and and and and Council should be given a latitude on quest to address that if you're so inclined to rule that way Madam chair yes I I you I I think I think that's fair I think we did cover some of the Ring Road on the on the last me meeting so let's you know try and keep it focused on on the new testimony but please go ahead understood so between the last plan and the new plan in the prior plan you testified that the trucks would travel the Ring Road down through the wetlands area is that still the case the Ring Road hasn't changed and so the circulation around the site hasn't changed so then there's been no change to the Ring Road of the circulation patterns on site and since the last meeting that you testified have you received the D permit that you were required we've not received the LOI yet on the property no Loi was there any other permit no other dop no other D permits are required for the project okay but the LOI still hasn't come through correct all right the traffic engineer previously testified to changes to the access driveway that were needed to accommodate the overhead bar and to prevent trucks from turning are those reflected on your revised plans no it's not reflected on the exhibit so is it is your exhibit correct or are the is the prior testimony Mr seckler correct what Mr seckler testified to is correct this exhibit has not been updated with that information yet no let's talk for a moment about height you testified concerning the elevations correct the height of the buildings yes and did you prepare those elevations no I did not what was the height that was proposed in the prior there were two different heights that we were asking for uh deviations on one I believe was just give me a second for the numbers one was 52.6 and I believe the other one was 50 feet in height and what is the new proposed height of both buildings both buildings will comply with the ordinance of 48 ft but what is the height 48t each they will both comply at 48 ft yes now is that 48 ft to the top of the building line or 48 ft to the top of the Mechanicals no to the top to the building height that's measured for Building height Mechanicals are excluded from that calculation so the Mechanicals will be above the 48 ft is that correct yes and how high will the Mechanicals go above the 48 ft well the whatever height is permitted under the ordinance we not asking for a deviation from it but you can't testify as to how high the Mechanicals will be above the roof line the the maximum ordinance allowed whatever that is I don't have the number in front of me but it will not it will not it will not exceed the ordinance allowable so is that 20 feet or no I don't I don't remember the exact number last time you were here you testified as to a number of variances so as we go through I'd like to know the impact of the revisions on the variances that you saw it so you were here last time you requested a variance for the number of parking spaces how have the revised plans changed your request for a variance the number of spaces required for the project has gone down and what are those numbers now 300 now I'm sorry three now 610 spaces are required as opposed to 639 so you've had a reduction in the requirement of 29 spaces correct yes and how many parking spaces are you proposing without the double credit for the EV we'll get to that in a moment so how many physical parking spaces oh I I believe it's 300 and two and then we get a 12 space credit but I have to confirm that 314 spaces are being built okay and how many Spa physical spaces were being proposed in your prior plan 314 so is it correct to say that you did not use any of the new open space to increase the parking count the parking count has not changed no previously you testified concerning a a need for a variance because the buildings did not meet the 100 foot required residential Zone setback are you still requesting that variance we were requesting a variance for I believe this was the canopy for the canopy setback from the um building setback of 92 actually 5.5 ft for the canopy not the actual structure itself but the canopy on the building when you revised the plans and reduced the building footprint did you reduce the need for that variance no we did not did you move that canopy closer or further away from the lot line it did not change previously you requested a variance for disturbing steep slopes because you're oh from between 20 to 25% slope are you still requesting that variance yes we are so when you're you revised the building to reduce the floor area did you do anything to eliminate or exacerbate that variance no we did not it it remains unchanged and I'll ask the same same question for steep slopes in excess of 25% are you still seeking that variance yes we are if you could just remind me to make sure I'm talking about the right steep slopes which of those steep slopes are the ones that are along the Ring Road so I make sure I'm asking my right L there there was only two areas of steep slopes there were only two areas of steep slopes along the Ring Road one was on the western side and one was on the Eastern side and they were man-made steep slopes and those are the ones that were disturbing all right you also require requested a variance for retaining wall height in a number of locations when you revised the plans did you reduce the magnitude of those variances no we did not you previously requested a variance for having private access to a non-residential use through residential lot have you done anything to revise the plans to eliminate that variance that variance has not been eliminated no you previously needed a variance for construction within a buffer area when you reduce the size of the plans did you do anything to reduce or eliminate that variance no and you previously needed a variance for the removal of existing trees and vegetation U within a 50 foot buffer when you revise the plans did you do anything to reduce or eliminate that variance no and without going through each and every one you previously requested several design exceptions have you done done anything to reduce or eliminate those design exceptions no those are still being requested one other question just on fire Lanes there was a a comment previously about conforming the fire Lanes to address comments by the Fire official was that revised on your plan no we've not revised anything on the plans about the fire Lanes we did agree with the Fire official to make some adjustments to the curb lines which we would do but that waiver is still there based on the way the wording is but those changes to the curve line are not reflected on your plan no not in this current plan no all right then just to conclude when you reduce the footprint of the building what percentage smaller are the buildings now from what you previously testified to well they went from I just do the math here if you give me a second they went from 200 what the number went from 258,000 down to 244,000 so about a 6% reduction in floor in floor area overall okay last question there was testimony previously about the split between office and light manufacturing uh in your experience as a civil engineer have you ever designed a light manufacturing Building without office space I'm not an architect I don't design buildings have you ever been involved in a hearing involving L light manufacturing use that did not include office space they typically include some form of office space yes those are all the questions I have for Mr michell thank you Mr uh do you have questions for Mr michello walk a little slower take take your time good evening evening good evening sir good evening the only variance that the new plan eliminates is the hype variance correct um yes that is correct just making sure there are a couple of U variances where you reduced U them isn't that correct that is correct which ones did you reduce we reduced the F variance from 21% to 19.83% um we deleted the height variance as you just mentioned we reduced the parking variance um that was required from reduced that down from 639 to 610 and then the rest remains unchanged now did you reduce the loading spaces we did reduce the number of loading spaces yes from what to what we went from 12 loading spaces per building down to eight loading spaces per building how did you decide that uh that reduction I did not that was decided by the the CL the applicant I'm sorry I did not decide the number of loading spaces the applicant decided that I'm sorry the applicant signature acquisition yeah yes yes sorry yes um and um beare with me a minute I no problem um by reducing the uh footprint of the original proposal which was uh 258,000 roughly yes to 244,000 yes all right so you then then uh there's a difference of 14,000 correct correct roughly 7,000 in each building correct um is there any reason why you didn't use that 14,000 uh to create more parking spaces space um per our traffic engineer those spaces are not needed for the project I'm sorry per our traffic engineer those spaces are not needed for the project well you had nothing to do with the reduction of the U uh uh with the parking spaces is that correct well no we didn't reduce the number of parking spaces reduced the footprints of the building but there was no necessary need to add additional impervious coverage in the form of parking spaces on the project site well the code required if my figures are correct uh on your proposal 610 parking spaces did it not it did and you're saying that uh you could use the 14 we've already talked about traffic and and he's asking we're talking about revisions and plans and he's going back to cars Mr Mr uh Mel never talked about cars in his in his last presentation his last discussion okay I I I think he's asking about parking spot I'd like to let him continue um noted what you said but I'd like to hear your questions on you you you never considered using the 14,37 uh Open Spaces created by reducing the size of the building to create more parking spaces that conform to the code no all right why because the way the project is designed with the buildings our traffic engineer testified to the number of parking spaces that are needed on the project site and therefore there's no need to add additional parking spaces for impervious coverage well you say need uh did you uh did you have any input and determining what the need was I think that's up to our traffic engineer for that sorry our traffic engineer can ex extrapolate on that comment okay but you had nothing to do with that correct no okay um can we agree even though the parking expert the traffic expert will comment on this that the more the side of a building is reduced the less parking the code requires correct that is correct and the more footprint of the building is reduced the more space there'll be for parking theoretically yes all right now you uh reduced the floor area ratio from 21% to 19.83% correct yes uh did you make any attempt to reduce it to 15% no why not that was not part of what we were asked to do who who asked you to do what the applicant directed us to reduce the flow area ratio to 19.83% that's what we did but you never did you ever despite what the what signature acquisition wanted uh did you uh make any determination as to whether it was possible to build a light manufacturing facil Mr uh I wish you would at least let me finish my question well I'm glad you doop stop arguing Gentlemen please with the chair's permission uh the and why don't you allow mrin to finish the question now let me REM remember my question did you give me you've done a good job inter Mr Mr bin reasonable time will continue to be allotted to each and every member of the public and attorney cross-examining everybody's got to use their time yeah I understand okay um you personally made no uh uh attempt uh to determine how many square feet uh for space uh could be created that would abide by the 15% f is that correct that's correct okay was that what you thought keep going let's just keep going all right um now you reduce the loading Bays from 12 per building total of 24 to eight per Building 16 correct correct uh why did you reduce it to that figure to eight to eight per buildon that is what we were directed to do by the applicant okay um are you aware that the code requires only a minimum of six that's actually not true let Mr Blair with the chair's permission please let me finish the question and then you you're free to make an objection can you can you repeat that can you repeat the question please for a 244,000 square foot building total two buildings assuming there are approximately the same size that uh uh there'd be a minimum of three in each building parking spaces spes I didn't understand the question I I want to understand this question and I didn't understand I'll withdraw it okay now under your revised plan how many parking spaces will be under the buildings I I don't have the number exactly but it has not changed well originally it's my understanding it was 88 in building a and 89 in Building B so that's the same yeah the same has not changed okay there was testimony in this matter that the original proposal will result in 89 uh truck trips either in and out of 150 Allen Road per day um how many truck trips can you tell us uh your proposal I would defer that to the traffic engineer all right uh were you part of any discussion in which it was discussed as to the new proposal about lowering the truck trips no okay we can agree can we not that that the new proposal of two buildings totaling 244,000 either 649 or 767 uh um trees uh how many of those trees are being removed on your new proposal there there's no change to the tree removal numbers on the new plans right so even though the building is being reduced somewhat uh the destroying of trees is not being reduced is that correct the removal of trees is remaining the same okay um the disturbance of the slopes under the new proposal uh is there going to be a lessening of the disturbance of the slopes no okay um and I believe you've already commented about the canopy there'll be no change there still needs is a problem with the canopy going into an area still variant is being requested for the canopy now and there'll still be under the new proposal uh uh construction within the buffer zone correct correct yes now if the variances are not granted all right will the 244,000 square fet of building uh be accommodated on the lot that's a hypothal question no it's a it's a very important question right let me I'll rephrase I'll rephrase question was asked objection was made uh the um I'll withdraw the question and rephrase it okay all right can you build a 244,000 120 8 square foot building on the 28 uh 28 Acres without requesting variances again for for a question like that I did not prepare a plan that looked at that so you can't tell us one way or another correct correct all right are you aware that the Lots West of lot three are residential lots yes all right now you testified correctly that the two areas of the 16 loading docks eight in each building uh face Route 78 is that correct that is correct why why was it planned that way it's the way that we laid out the plan on it's the way we laid out the plan because again you have a highway so the loading docks were angled towards the highway why because you a major highway that's there so we angled the loading docks that way what difference does it make just the way we laid out the property because we had a we had a highway on Route 78 so we angled the loading docks that way are you also aware that the properties across Allen Road from the subject property are also residential yes all right uh did you consider that and coming up with your proposed plan no we did not look at the properties across the street we we laid out the pro we laid out the plan the way it shown to accommodate the buildings on the lot now we can agree can we not that light manufacturing facility requires trucks yes of course uh under the new proposal um strike that and and coming up with a new proposal uh is there any way that it could be revised to reduce the number of trucks trips truck trips I'm going to defer a traffic engineer on the number of truck trips related to the uses in the building all right now there's some testimony that the new proposal will benefit the community because the employees will shop in town are you aware of any marketing survey that indicates that I'm I'm not privy to that information so you're not aware I'm not privy to any information such as marketing surveys not that you're privy you're not aware I object all of this you don't have to object with the chair's permission Mr Val asked he answer that you don't have to BU he answered the question well let's see if uh the lot can accommodate a light manufacturing facility that eliminates the most variances most of the Varian and exceptions uh let's let's do a plan of one building okay of 150,000 Square ft the the 150,000 square foot would be larger than either building in your proposal isn't that correct objection and I'll tell you if you want my objection I'll tell you why if you want that but not a matter of want you have the right to assert an objection and and an obligation explain why you're objecting ahead he's asking a hypothetical question the plan is the plan what is his question about the testimony of Mr Michelle from last Madam chair hypotheticals are allowed of experts that's why they're experts uh so that they can Prov answer hypothetical both of their own applicants Council in this case and and cross examination relevancy is another issue uh and and my advice to the board is Mr Belin the board should give you some leeway in what if it were this or what if it were that can you do this or can you do that within reason because in land use the board has to consider the application as made uh with the VAR is associated there with Steve could you do me a favor in talking to the microphone oh I'm sorry thought thank you yeah you have some leeway uh with this but only some to sum it up all right my question is I'll repeat my question um uh the assuming 150,000 square foot building which is larger than either building in your revised plan um can that uh let's assume that's the building we're going to build okay okay all right um how many parking can can that building be built conforming to the parking spaces uh set forth in the code at 15,000 square ft I don't know well if I told you it was 360 spaces uh would U would 150,000 Square ft accommodate 360 spaces if that's the C if that's the calculation I haven't done it but we okay we'll assume that it is for the moment um by reducing the building from 244,000 square feet which is your proposal to 150,000 Square ft you would create 94,000 of new open space would you not don't know well let's let's subtract uh 244,000 from 150 you're assuming that you'd become open space I don't know what it would become I didn't prepare a plan that shows 150,000 ft building with 360 parking spaces I I didn't ask you that my question doesn't go to parking spaces my question is by reducing the building from 244,000 Square ft to 150,000 Square ft there will be 94,000 of new open space not necessarily what do you mean by not necessarily if you're going to reduce the building to 150,000 s 150,000 square feet and we're speaking in hypotheticals here I can make that parking if I want to on the site good right it does know it's not open space thank you because that's my point uh you could make that Park you could fit the parking within the 94,000 square ft to make it comply to the code correct don't know that I don't know if it complies to the code you're saying I could make it parking I don't know if I could all right now assume that you could okay right and you could do it without parking under the building maybe so if you could do it without parking without parking under the building there would be no need to reduce the size of the parking spaces under the building that's obvious isn't that correct again hypothetically you're you're asking me about all these variables that can go into laying out a site plan and and you're asking in absolutes and that's not necessarily the case here what I'm asking you sir is a series of questions to show that these variances are unnecessary if you built a building of 155,000 square ft that you would not need any of these variances I can't make that statement because I don't have a plan in front of me that shows a building at 150,000 ft you cannot answer that question correct no I I did not submit a plan that shows that no I'm not asking you what you submitted I'm asking you whe as a as a engineer uh whether or or not such a building could be constructed without variances that I don't know because I didn't put a plan together that shows that your question is your answer is you do not know is that correct that's not what I said Mr Mr Berlin he did answer the question well he answers the question with added on to it requires either he knows or he does Mr B can you hear me okay now yes than okay Mr belind he did answer the question at least once okay um if you built the that 150,000 Square ft building uh uh would the U disturbance of slopes uh be U uh reduced again I don't know all right uh if you uh built that building of 150,000 Square fet on 28 Acres uh could the building be built without the I have an objection about all of this and I'm going to put it on the record he is not talking about one question about the old the new testimony that Mr michelo has provided it is all about theoreticals hypotheticals and the client is saying and and the expert is saying I don't know how many more times does he want Mr Michel to say I don't know as enough as enough as I go through each one of these well I think it's just absurd and and and more than that it's it's just repetitive and it's also Irrelevant this is a engineer who designed a project reducing the size of the building literally minimal excuse me stop gentlemen gentlemen is this gentlemen gentlemen thank you the uh Mr Belin in land use law with applications for development they an applicant presents a plan if your point that you wish to argue is if it were smaller might you be able to f fit it Andor might you be able to have less or possibly even no variances you can make that argument again because I suspect the board that is very sophisticated as well as the public why I suspect is very sophisticated already got your point um so my it may be behoove you and your clients to ask cross examination questions with the time reasonable time available on another area are are you speaking for the board when you say the board got my point I I think I I think I'm not speaking for the board I'm advising the board uh and the board will decide whether or not you've your questions are relevant but they they are not specific to the revised application or even the original application and uh frankly my advice is that at this point I'd have to agree with the objection they're irrelevant you are advising to rule that this line of questioning that a 150,000 square foot uh uh light manufacturing uh facility can be built on this property without uh substantial variances is there relevant no what I'm what I'm what I'm telling you is he already asked answered the question repeatedly that he doesn't know he hasn't he hasn't done a plan on it and if that's going to be his answer to all those questions that'll give you a lot more time to ask questions cross-examine him on other areas that I suspect you want to ask and I think Mr Berlin you'll have an opportunity to to make the points that I think you're trying to make here during a comment section you we're not in the objectors case that you and other obors will be presenting I think the hypotheticals are diff you know are difficult and and the witness um has said that you know he doesn't know on a hypothetical so I think we can assume that that will be his answer for the rest of the hypotheticals now you reduce the F to 19 something 19.83% I reduced it based on what I was directed to do by the applicant I reduced it based on what I was directed to do by the applicant okay and that's the same with the loading docks you you reduce the loading docks in accordance with the instructions you got the requirement not the instructions you got from signature yes it answered yes okay these loading docks that um uh you are proposing um how many of them are size for light tractor trailers they're sized for a tractor trailer fulls siiz tractor trailer yeah large tractor unchanged yeah they've been unchanged they have the same they're unchanged I'm sorry they're unchanged from what was on the previous plan so all of them are so sized yes okay yes bear with me in proposing in creating your proposal are are you aware that there was testimony from the director of uh development and Mr Lair it's October 12th 9 UM October 12th um 2023 page 75 L1 we created these buildings with a solution that can accommodate at that time 24 spaces which are now 16 but we would build it with the Knockouts depending upon the user um may only be a couple or three Bay depending upon the use were you aware of that testimony when you did your new proposal what context is this is this question did he consider that testimony did he consider that testimony when he drew the new proposal I don't know I object in what context was that question you you read did you read what you understood to be the testimony from the director of development in October I read it from page did you hear what he read Mr yes I heard I heard what he read okay I guess the predicate question is is you asked was do you recall that do you recall that I I'm I don't recall the exact testimony but I remember discussions about knockout knockout panels on the building okay want to proceed Mr well in in uh in formulating your new plan with 16 loading docks uh did you consider that they all may not be used I I designed the plan to accommodate 16 loading docks if the owner or the applicant decides to not construct certain doors on the building for loading spaces the pavement would still be there in case they want to put it in in the future so the pl the plan's designed to accommodate 16 loading spaces if they decide to build less doors it's still there to accommodate those 16 spaces how did you arrive at the 16 I said that was get that was the direction of the applicant you arrived at the direction of the applicant even though the applicant said uh they may only need uh a couple of three loading Ducks is that correct it was asked an answer but he can answer it again the applicant if from the words you're saying there says they may only but nonetheless the plan is designed to accommodate up to a maximum of eight loading spaces per building even though only three or four may be used maybe okay if again a hypothetical if you reduced the number of loading docks would that have any effect upon the number of trucks using the facility I'm going to defer our traffic engineer for that yes all right now the director of development testified on May 4th 20 23 uh page 14 Council the client uh excuse me that's incorrect uh the architect testified on that date that the client decided on two buildings is there still it is still the case that it's the client who made the decision to have two buildings yes all right now there's been testimony about um storm water Provisions correct yes did you design those yes okay so it's not the traffic engineer no he did not design the storm water am I correct that whether the square foot of the building is as originally proposed or as new proposed or 150,000 Square ft there have to be Provisions for storm water uh problems correct storm water management yes however the smaller the building the less storm water Provisions will be necessary isn't that correct the building doesn't necessarily dictate the storm water runoff the overall site does okay were you aware when revising the plan that the vice president of development and renting on October 12th 2023 and Council uh page 56 I I again object he's talking about testimony from Mr travalini what does this have to do with the testimony from Mr uh Mello last month uh Madam chair my advice is to allow him to Contin I don't think you finish the question why don't you finish the question were you aware when reviewing the plan that the vice president of development and uh renting on October 12th 2023 testified that the buildings could be made smaller than 200,000 Square fet uh but it would compromise viability and marketability uh did you consider that testimony when you reduce the size of the building no okay why did you not reduce the building to 2,000 uh uh 200,000 square feet or less I reduced the building based on what my the applicant asked us to do all right I'm going to make the chair happy because this is my last line of question I'm always happy that's not really NE please just ask we have to have a little bit of humor through these hearings oh I'm aware okay um when you cut the square footage of the building to the present proposal were you aware that the vice president of development and renting testified on October 12th 2023 Council page uh 57 we tried to fit as much building as we possibly could on the site without expanding loot coverage that was our initial plan yes all right and you you were able to accomplish this were you not by eliminating much of the 800 parking spaces that existed for the office building we reev yes we eliminated the parking spaces to accommodate the new layout on the site yes as to viability uh can a light manufacturing facility to your knowledge operate uh in a 15,000 square foot building light manufacturing facilities operate in all sorts of buildings all right did you ask signature Acquisitions or do you know why signature Acquisitions tried to come up to suggest a proposal that fit as much building on the site as they possibly could I I think that was already covered by Mr travalini testimony Council I refer you to uh the um testimony of the director of development on August 9th 1923 at page 149 was it here 1923 2023 I missed it 2023 I think you miss 2023 okay at that time the vice president of development and Rental uh testified and I quote it is important to understand that the triple rents that we can get for industrial space far exceeds net operational income of an office building that you can get only $24 uh or $25 uh I got to object to this what does it have to do with Mr melo's prior testimony you find out if you let me finish the question it's a stupid question hang hang hang on M BL no no that's okay M BL did you say you're almost finished with your cross examination I'm not finished he interrupted no no you're almost finished correct I'm sorry did you say you were almost finished you only had a few I'm almost through okay why don't you finish asking with the chair's permission your question yeah all right are you aware uh that uh he testified on the date at the on the page that I gave you it is important to understand that the triple rents that we can get for industrial space far exceeds the net operational income of an office building that you can get only 24 to $25 uh uh for an office building but the $25 will have 10 or to 11 do worth of operating expense to clean maintain the buildings plus commissions and uh uh uh tenant improvements about $5 per square foot thus the network may be $4 per square foot where the 16 rents uh for uh industrial uh uh buildings I can get Triple rent for this space is the question is he aware of that testimony yes okay I I I do not recall that in that specific detail well were you here when he testified he doesn't recall Mr Berlin all right is that not a good reason for maximizing the square footage of the building I'm not an economic Professor so I'm going to defer that question okay I have no further questions okay thank you Mr Berlin okay Miss uh steinley am I saying that correctly steinley okay do you have questions for Mr michelo I do have a few questions okay hello all right um again Marina steinley for the Board of Education uh it was established that you or your office prepared exhibit A4 dated March 14th 2024 which is being displayed that is correct and at sever several prior meetings there were questions and concerns raised from the public about school traffic conflicting with trucks going to the site knowing those concerns did you evaluate School traffic and transportation and making these revisions I'm not the traffic engineer so I wouldn't have account I wouldn't have evaluated the um School traffic so not for traffic but when making the revisions to these plans did you consider School the neighbor would not be considered in me make in my revisions to the plans what if there was a school across the street from the site it it wouldn't it still would not have factored into the design of the plans that we have here not of okay and prior testimony indicated that one of the proposed tenants was a plastic or paper stamping company was that anticipated tenant consulted regarding the reduction in the building size I do not know if any tenants were consulted or potential tenants were consulted I do not know okay so only who did you consult when making the revisions oh I'm just I was directed by the applicant to reduce the building square footage I didn't consult anybody and prior testimony indicated that the building could be operated for 247 light manufacturing would that still be possible with the reductions in the building size um I don't recall the exact timing of the operation um so there's no change to the hours of operation that we testified to on the record so the building now that it's smaller could still operate at 247 whatever whatever we testify to on the record is would it operate at and now that the plans have been revised are there plans to permit tractor trailer parking or storage on site there's no plans for uh tractor trailer parking beyond the loading Bays that are there okay so no overnight parking of tractor trailers besides the loading Bays I have to defer back to the applicant on the um the the park I don't remember if there's any overnight parking beyond the loading Bays okay those are all my questions for thank youy okay I think um we will give the public an opportunity to ask questions I think um to keep it efficient it might be helpful um to bring up our other witness we'll go through three cross-examinations again and then open it up to the public to ask questions to either witness is that okay it's reasonable in my estimation Madam chair again the me to make clear the next witness as I understand it is the traffic engineer to be cross-examined by the three attorneys and then all members M of the public have an opportunity to ask questions of both among other things if you're not sure which one answers which question you'll have them both presumably one of them at least will answer the question Mr Mr Michelle has to be somewhere else is it possible just ask the public ask him questions um he has he has another place to be and unfortunate he had mentioned it to me but um think this was going to go on as long as it did but he has somewhere else to be can we let the public ask questions okay so let's let's do that we'll open it up at this point to the public just as a reminder it is questions specific to Mr michelo so if you have traffic questions please hold them you'll have an opportunity to um hopefully tonight to ask our traffic engineer but these are questions specific to Mr michello and again specific to the new testimony that he provided at the last meeting thank you are there any questions from the public for Mr michelo come on up please same as before as you know just give your name and address please and and also I think we're going to ask you to sign after you ask the question sign it um sign your name stand or you can sit you can do whatever you want to do just I'll just ask you to speak right into the microphone please and a question to Mr Michel uh my name is Sala living 42 vendera Drive can you spell your um last name for us uh ma ma yeah and your first name Shan uh s h a o c h n g thank you okay and your address again uh 42 uh vender V drive thank you and questions for Mr Michelle yeah uh I just have uh um some question pull up question after you and uh the cross please speak in the mic sorry um uh I think um uh you reduced the footprint by about roughly 14,000 square ft yes and uh um I forgot his name but he ask uh you didn't uh use those uh reduced space to create more parking space because that's not not considered needed by your Cent client right that is correct our client our traffic engineer determine that we don't need spaces you um you still um request a permission for the variance because the parking space is uh short as the regulation required that is correct so my question would be does meeting regulation is part of the need that your client gave to you when make the plan is meeting the regulations part of the need yes I think that what we looked at on the plans was what is the building what is the building itself need and I think there was adequate testimony from our traffic engineer that documented why we only needed the 310 spaces on site as opposed to 600 spaces that are not needed for that size building or size buildings and another question is also um there's hypothetical question that uh if you can build a smaller size um building then you can comply with the parking space that you need then you don't need a variance um your answer is uh because that's not the plan you provided so you couldn't give the answer that's correct right uh my question would did you ever try to make a plan that uh comply with our regulation without applying all the variance needed no we were not asked to look at a plan that comply with the code that comply with the F so your uh your your your uh customer didn't ask you to make a plan to meet regulation and you didn't think there's a need we not we were not asked to prepare a plan for the F to meet the f is that part of the need that why the regulation exists we were directed to prepare the plans prior applicant based on what's submitted to to the board okay that's all my question I think Mr that the the argument will come later y but we heard the questions and the answers thank you okay I just want ask my questions no I don't want to create an argument here but I just want want to make my point I think it's clear okay thank you thank you for your questions this well and just is a reminder for anybody who wants to yes well Mr ma did you sign the sheet if you can remember to do that and just as a reminder anybody who has a comment for or against an argument that they want to make there will be an opportunity uh when we hear all the testony are there other questions for Mr Michelle yes please come up hi I'm sorry just Alisa Naru 37 sorry can you speak up a little bit Alisa Naru 37 Sentinel Drive Basking Ridge New Jersey okay um so can you tell me hi um what is going to be engineered what is going to be manufactured or rather you're an engineer right I'm a civil engineer civil okay what's going to be manufactured that I don't know you don't know all right so how come um there's so many truck trips and remind me how many truck trips a day how many that that's a better question for our traffic engineer I say I know that there's a lot so all right so as an engineer a civil engineer a civil engineer someone who measures and looks at the land and all the slopes that you mentioned um How can you engineer and plan for someone you don't know what they're going to be doing the kind of business that they're going to be in sounds like you're just being told what you have to do like that's your answer just a question okay so um so how are you able to do that how are you able to engineer when you don't know what you're engineering for we're engineering the site to accommodate a building or buildings of a certain size what goes on inside the building is the the the I'll say the the tenant or what they need to do inside the building but the exterior of the building the circulation around the site the design of the site that's what we focus on there are variants that that are needed like variances that are needed right can I finish what I was saying first so we we design the site based on what we feel the access to the site needs to be and how the buildings need to be accessed whether they're manufacturing Widgets or some other form of something whatever goes on inside the building is sort of irrelevant to the exterior of how the site is accessed and how it's how it's um designed how many variances are you looking for to be made yes I agree with that okay so remind me then like there are a lot there are a lot I do I do remember that so when why does someone ask for variances because of what reason are they asking for the variances I think our plan are covered why variances are requested okay do you want to remind us then we don't need to be minded if it's been covered well I think that and correct me if I'm wrong isn't it like something you said I heard somebody say say it was because of hardship that you've requested variances because of hardship and and this is In fairness to members of the public uh who don't do this every night the the uh there are different Witnesses who answer different address different uh areas of land use in a development application the civil engineer generally addresses storm water management grading sight circulation that that type of thing I'm not done Madam please thank you for the benefit of everybody so we could help I know and I'm trying to do it too because I don't want to take too much time and I'm trying to help you as well the the the the uh so those are the questions if you heard his testimony that's his area of expertise so those are the types of questions you have to ask him if you want if you're follow so as a civil engineer when you look for a piece of land or when your client rather looks for a piece of land that they're going to do the thing they want to do at that nobody knows what it is but when they do that why are they looking for a piece of land that's unsuitable for what they want to do that they have have to ask for so many variances wouldn't it be more important to look for a land that's already got everything you need that you're not asking for so many Varian there's a lot of factors that go into looking for a piece of land so the variances are a byproduct of the design of the site so there's variances for many different things and our plan and our planner covered the I'll say the scale of the variances and how they were related to the project site so I'm going to I would defer his testimony on what he covered people are going Way Beyond the the questioning of Mr Michelle as to his testimony I asked at the beginning and I not you know continually get up and and object she's not asking this woman is not asking questions about engineering and his testimony from last time she's asking questions in a general sense which have no bearing on what his prior testimony was so I I understand we're giving the public a little bit of leeway we know you don't normally do this um and we will try to help help direct the questions to the right witness um and at the same time we're trying to keep it specific to just the recent change in testimony for Mr michelo so you keep your questions there and in within his umbrella of expertise so the your expertise then and correct me if I'm wrong is like the proper use of land and how the land is set up on the it's the use of the land use of the land so whenever someone would ask maybe correct me if I'm wrong ask for a variance it's because they have a hardship perhaps right not necessarily no okay so when someone has to ask for variances it's because that something isn't zone for that that the the town deemed it an in a certain character of the land that they want a cur a c a character of the land and the intent of the land that's there so barans are asked and for the reason that um the land is isn't really suitable perhaps and so they have to ask for variances of the land and you're there to tell how you have to change the land because it's not really right EXC for what you're trying to do right we need to we need questions about his testimony and I think the board recognizes that everyone's doing their best This is complicated it's difficult there's a lot of things that need to be considered and and most people members of the public don't do this every night um if you followed his testimony uh the questions have to be relevant to the what he testified on the revised plans that were drafted storm water management questions grading questions site circulation questions and the like as best you can if you have those types of questions and you're able to ask them you can ask them of this witness in my opinion right and I promise that I know people want to make a lot of comments about a lot of arguments understand I promise that everyone is going to get an opportunity anybody who wants to make a comment the board will hear it yes we're going to give everybody an opportunity it's just not now I understand and I was just because of your job as simple engineer I'm just trying to understand why a manufacturer or light manufacturer warehousing company whatever Trucking Company why someone would look to make what they want out of a parcel of land that's not really meant for that that it has to be asked so many very es that's what I was wondering and I thought maybe you are the right person to answer it that question I think would be as a more of a planning question not an engineer question instead of land use then no it's it's a planning question as opposed to an engineering question do you think should be concerned hear your concerns okay you I'm sorry we're being strict no it's okay it's all right you have to be I if the law requires the procedures and this is questioning of the witness on his testimony okay right on his testimony yeah I mean my only question is it sounds like you am I correct in assuming that you are just doing what you're the person who employs you asked you to do I heard a lot of that in the answer that you may not have a lot of information about it but that you just did your job no no we designed the site based on the parameters for the building size what the user of the building is going to be has no relevance to what I designed the site for okay so you are able to design a site when you don't know what they're going to even be manufacturing yeah and you can do it when you don't even know who it is or what they're going to be building or anything I know what we're going to be building outside the site what they're going to do inside the building is up to the tenant it's not my purview to to dictate what the tenant would do inside the building but you do know that there are a lot of trucks that are going to be driving you had sorry what what's the question you had to be the question is you had to design for a lot of truck traffic no we we design for truck access to the site volume of traffic is up to the traffic engineer we design for truck we design for truck maneuverability around the site no difference than an office building I don't I don't worry about what is occurring inside the office building I designed the site to accommodate the office building so it was originally meant for 24 and you reduced it to how many now 16 is that right the site originally had 24 loading spaces we reduced it to 16 yes 16 loading spaces eight per building right correct okay all right I have no further questions thank you very much thank thank you all right would you please sign I I think there's another please everyone please stop it's just I think there was another question in the back unless it's been asked come on back there thank you if you can state your name um and address for us and then sign the paper when you're done and your questions go to Mr michelo sure it's a rangan gurum morti 66 Liberty Ridge Road I'll sign this in lat you can do it at thank you can you it's g r u m o o r t h y thank you and if I can ask you to just speak right to the microphone it's a little difficult to hear okay so uh Mr Micha you mentioned that the f is 19.8% correct 19.8 3 yes right so in the last meeting Mr Hughes repeatedly kept arguing that that based on the area of the light manufacturing facility alone the f is under 15% right excuse me do you agree with that line of reasoning yes how so because we we said here right now that the f is 19.8% right yes okay but then are you still saying that that complies with the F requirement of 15% just because the f is relevant only to the light manufacturing area no I I believe and I put some testimony on the record as to this so I can state to this that the F of the light manufacturing portion of the building is 15% and the remaining F brought it up to 19.83% of the office space inside the building that's the break that's the breakdown of the floor areas as noted on my drawings right but the rules for applied to the entire area not just the light manufacturing is that correct yes that's correct we we didn't say that was it was different okay thank you yes okay thank you sorry same drill here your name and address for the record and then we'll ask you to sign the sheet and your questions are for Mr Michelle yes uh Paul Falcon 539 Mount AR Road on corner mount Aran Lions um quick question uh Paul your last name please pardon me uh what do you needan my spelling of my name Falcon F Co n so in your design of circulation uh through this new new design you have certain tolerances that you design two plus and minus what's the rate of truck movement in and out that this facility could manage let's say tractor trailers per minute per hour you I would use a Max and a MIM n we we we just go we go for design based on um Dimensions the traffic engineer could talk about volume in terms of how many trucks could access the site over the course of an hour you your design has to accommodate certain siiz truck and a certain rate of truck movement correct we we're we're designed to accommodate a certain size of truck rate rate is more towards the traffic engineer but it's it's it's sort of it's sort of it's sort of separate from from the circulation circulation is not the the design that you gave us is not really built around the number of trucks that can come Ingress and egress it's built to have trucks maneuver around the site oh so so trucks could could move around the site is the way it's designed so so how many trucks can move around that site at one time I mean the Ring Road the ring roads rather large so you could Pro you could have more than one truck maneuvering around the site time how many do you think the Ring Road could accommodate I I don't know it's it's it's long it could could could be it's a couple trucks a couple trucks yeah without any yes and what's the length of a uh tractor trailer they vary depending on the size anywhere from anywhere from 40 sir let him finish the question I know you're pardon me they vary in size anywhere from 45 to 65 ft depending on the truck size typically it's a tractor and the Box yeah correct yes and so what's the length of this new designed road the road is well most of the Ring Road was existing but it's over a few it's over a few thousand square feet if I recall uh could the Ring Road accommodate standing trucks standing trucks meaning stopped slow Ingress and egress yeah the road can accommodate a slow moving truck yeah this Mr Michelle uh you're answering site circulation not truck volume right now so it's within your expertise correct talking I understand but there's some my advice to the board is to give leeway because War you've been giving leeway all night you I got up and I said to you I know this is going to happen keep getting my advice to the board my my my advice to the board my advice to the board the board will make the decision through the chair my advice to the board is it's difficult to focus solely on a revised uh plans testimony without at points in time comparing from how the change you know from the change from original to to new so there's and these are members of the public they should be given some Fair leeway and I think that the questions that are being asked thus far are are relevant and the and the chair and the chair will decide whether he may continue this line of questioning or not let's talk about that for a second Mr because I hear what you're saying and and I know you're trying to be fair but every time someone gets up they are not addressing what Mr Mich talked about that that that's your opinion I've given my advice to cherl Ru yeah I I we're trying to give a little bit of leeway and In fairness Mr Lair it it is the reason I wanted to do all the public questions after we had both um both Witnesses because I knew there would be some confusion and some crossover so I thought the most efficient way would be to do it all at the same time we were not able to do that and because of that I have to give a little bit more leeway so we'll give a little bit more leeway um and we'll jump in if we can't you know if we can't keep it moving okay uh thank you chairman uh a quick question also on the um turning radius you've designed for the uh tractor trailers yes that's part of your expertise yes it was part of the site design we we provided a plan on these pads uh turning radius will accommodate how many trucks at once the pads are designed to accommodate a truck maneuvering so I again I didn't look at multiple movements at one time through a to a to a loading pad how you designed it with a certain tolerance plus and minus right so when you align your pads you are making certain assumptions knowing the turning radius of these tractor trailers you have to accommodate for the probability of maybe one or more tractor trailers turning correct when I'm so my question is in the new design sir I I need to hear his answer we're listening to your entire question but if you could just let him finish one at a time so so when we design a site we look at certain tolerances as you said but at the end but when looking at the design you have to account for the fact that if you have more than one movement a truck will at times especially when dealing with loading areas will wait for one truck to make their movement before they make their movement so you have to take that into account and the design of the loading areas if that's what you're referring to are industry standard I I okay fine so industry standard accommodates what number of trucks per pad or we we design we designed eight trucks per loading dock uh at one time not at you say one time they're not all maneuvering at one time that's not what's happening yes so so in the new design in the new design the the probability of several trucks pulling out at once is not included in the new design it it number one it's not a probability if you have trucks parked in a loading base they're going to pull out in a safe manner one at a time if they're all were to leave they're all going to pull out all eight spaces are not all going to try to leave through the the space the site at one time so so the reason I ask is I'm I'm concerned about the Ingress and the egress and the rate of movement and the rate of standing trucks within the new design and I thank you very much for the opportunity to bring that up that wasn't okay I was going to ask I was going to say you have to ask a question but I guess that was a sir would you sign in please oh where over here yeah please please sign the sheet well done in the back oh pardon me on up did you sign the sheet sir here you did okay thank you your name um my name is uh mon I live at 58 car Road basing Ridge just now the Board of Education attorney ask you if you can the school nearby you said no when you design a site can you confirm you never consider the safety of The Rance including children and students when you design the site I didn't say that I did not say that I'm sorry we're we we have one person asking a question and one person answering there are no comments from anyone else please okay did you hear the question I did okay and I said I did not say that I did not say that okay yeah but I I heard that do you have any further questions as a designer a design designer for the site in the residential area are you willing to take the responsibility for the future possible truck um accident related the trucks to this manufacturing site we design sites based on what zoning permits and this site permits light manufacture in which allows truck traffic which are allowed to be on the local streets yeah but this site is very different from 40 years ago I know that you you said is follow standard 40 years ago now it is a residential area very different sir sir sir sir sir there'll be a time when you're under Ro to make your points do you have a question do you have any other questions from Mr michell yeah I don't have other questions thank you okay thank you thank you please do make your points under oath when we have public comment sure thank you thank you okay your name um and address please my name is Paul sputo 367 Mount AR Road can you just spell your last name for s p e r du t o I had simple question believe in your perview so your original submitt all what was your coverage of the land uh it was um was percentage Yeah I like 30 I think it was like 39.8% the and the new proposal we took it down to 37% change so a 2% change 2 and half% 30,000 foot reduction in in in coverage that answers my question thank you thank you any additional questions for Mr michelo this time M Madam chair yeah I'm did we ask questions last time because I have one question please do but if it's a question for Mr michelo this is a good time okay just just one about your testimony last time the M you testified last time uh two numbers around the F the 19.83% what your testimony is about the 14.99 and what you're asking us to what's your testimony about well my testimony was just pointing out that the area of the building that was light manufacturing as noted on my plans came out to 14.99% that's it that was yes okay so it was the percentage that was dedicated to the light manufacturing okay seeing no other questions for Mr michello there's one more for Mr michello okay come on up your name and address please uh Jus Han H last name 33 Liberty year old uh followup question um so just want to confirm with you your design didn't consider w't consider the nearby school is that correct there's no school across the street so when we say nearby I don't know the distance to the closest school okay do you consider the surrounding residential um residence near the road no the design is based on what the ordance allows okay your design you mentioned that consider by taking into the highway 78 into the account is that correct well when we laid out the buildings we just pointed the loading docks towards Route 78 correct okay so is that right you're selectively consider the surrounding areas for example 78 highway but ignore other parts of theing area no we we just angled the loading docks towards 78 cuz that's the highway side and the trucks we're facing that side the other side of the site as I pointed out in my initial testimony has a over 100 foot wide high tension power lines that go across it so we just angled the trucks on the other side okay but you want to consider other factors for example residential areas there's no res there's no residential adjacent to the property on the west side of the site well there is a fellowship Village there but that's that's Northeast of the site that's not adjacent to the site so okay so if there is the residential like area just opposite to the road do would you consider it in your design in well we considered the site in terms of the layout but the res there's no residential that's adj directly adjacent to this that's currently in use that um that would be affected by the design so in other words Your Design only considers you know the factors adjacent to the area that correct well because it's based on what the zoning allows correct the use is based on what the zoning allows and that's how the design is is looked at on the site okay is that you know the design is that because of the industry standard or the training received a t to do just it's a I think it's a fair question Madam chair so if he can answer the question you can answer the question I mean the the design is based on a number of factors that go into looking at a site what a factor you does rest standard what the training you received the training I received I went to school for an engineering degree for for site planning so you know I consider like I understand your design consider the 78 highway but but no other factors is this because of the industry cons standard or the training well when I said industry standard I was talking about the size of the loading areas okay there's a lot of there's a lot of design criteria that goes into a site layout uh and you look at a lot of different factors in this case we were working with an existing site that already had an office building on it had over 800 and something parking spaces on it so we looked at how can we modify the site to fit the use that the client was asking for on here and and that dictated the layout that you see here okay uh let me be specific you know there is a public officing area nearby right what public office public office yeah you know the building is for public office use so just adjacent to the the place there's there's Office Buildings adjacent to the property did you consider that when you designed the client I don't see how the Office Buildings the site so you didn't consider not that I didn't consider I don't see how they affect the site okay you only consider 78 highway right no I cons when I talked about the highway I said I faced the loading docks towards the highway I didn't consider the highway in my design will you finish Mr michelo with that answer yes okay okay any other questions for Mr michelo okay Mr micheller you are dismissed thank you okay I think we have another um witness okay is he gone we have a runner we a he's stuck in traffic yes do you want to do that now okay while while we're getting the other witness we're just going to take a quick five minute break and I will be back everybody e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e right okay everyone we're going to be back on here so if I could ask everyone to take their seats and quiet the conversation if you can and we'll try and keep this um moving I think uh we have uh our traffic engineer uh expert which uh we've heard from before but I think we're going to open it up to cross examination I'm just going to open it up to the board first if if we can just to see if there's any residual questions for our traffic engineer of course we're always um welcome to ask questions as we go but if we have some right from the GetGo Jamie do do you okay so what are you okay if we start there Miss Smith of course thank you so in one of the earliest meetings we had a discussion about the fact sorry microphone oh sorry in one of the earlier meetings we had a discussion about the fact that there is access when you're exiting the parking lot you can make a right and go towards another set of buildings and lots is that correct yes and one of the concerns and if this has been addressed please tell me one of the concerns is while you can't make a left as a tractor trailer from this lot would you still be able based on the plans as they exist now to use that access road cross into one of the next slots and then make a left onto Allen Road okay sorry Mr R I just want to for the benefit of the board and the public just to make sure that we know what you're talking about you're talking about that access road that we can see up on the screen before yes at the top but inside on the lot that goes across to the next lot right it goes next to there's several Lots in a row and you can use that road all the way towards the top of the triangle to access those other Lots has it ever been addressed keeping tractor trailers from doing that and then making a left onto Allen Road I think we testified can't hear it it wasn't addressed by Mr seckler it was addressed in in in an agreement we made with Rob Simon's clients that we would put signage at that intersection that would say no trucks no trucks allowed okay but so it's just signage it's not the same measures that were taken correct to ensure that if they ignore the signage they really actually can't make that left turn is that correct yes okay thank thank you Mr any other questions from the board at this second I just had two okay but and that's fine and remember we can ask got questions anytime but I'd like to give the board difference here okay uh this is about that uh 14.99 number um and in terms of the F does that have any impact on any of the analysis that you're doing or are you looking at the uh 19 83 in your analysis we looked at the manufacturing square footage and the office square footage as two different calculations so as one went down it brought the trip generation and truck generation down in one measure the office number didn't change so that aspect of trip generation stayed the same because the office F remained the same it was only the light manufacturing F that that's my understanding yes and and so your analysis wasn't based upon a change of the overall f it was based specifically on a change to the light manufacturing F it's based on the square footage calculation yes and the the square footage of the light manufacturing F solely yes and then that change I believe you testified was it went from 89 truck trips to 83 truck trips correct the square footage went down 7% the truck percentage the truck values went down 7% and so I know in your original testimony you had testified to the percentage increase to truck trips on Allen Road meaning if it was an additional 89 truck trips on Allen Road you testified that there was going to be a certain percentage of increase of truck trips on Allen Road when the number was 89 with the number of being 83 now what how does that change what is the percent increase of truck trips on Allen bro given your new number I'd have to recalculate it but it'll be a lesser percent increase probably probably like two or 3% less because we're dropping the trucks by in that direction about four trucks a day okay but you don't remember what your original testimony was but whatever it was it's two or 3% thank you just off of his question there's nothing preventing using that a lotted percentage of office space for light manufacturing meaning if we now have you you met the F on light manufacturing you made it 14.99% correct so but there's nothing keeping that percentage from going higher and cutting into some I believe I believe there is obviously with any type of Co or inspection the delineation of walls would and what the uses on each side of the walls I imagine is reviewed and inspected and do you agree with that Mr Sly like if if the plan say 14.99% for light manufacturing I imagine the board would entertain having it Asing happen to read a condition of approval right that limits the light manufacturing square footage to whatever is ultimately uh ends up being perfect and can I just ask you you said four lower truck trips is there four or six it was that question I think was specific to trucks I think that was going in that one or no I think it was actually on um that percentage I gave earlier I think was about Martinsville road so not every truck hits that section of Martinville road that we were talking about I was specifically talking about Allen Road oh sorry okay I I I remember discussing the truck trip but yes it would the truck reduction is six so it would be 89 to 83 84 was what the number alen for Allen Road yes and some other number for marville yes and with that is it still your testimony that the percentage reduction of the increase of truck trips on Allen Road as a result of this project is whatever your prior testimony is minus two or 3% yes and just one obvious question is is is we haven't defined the use yet of this project it's still an open building right so all the averages that you're using are dependent upon either a high usage or a low usage and an average of that usage correct okay so we still hav Define that 89 or 83 is an average it isn't a definite because we don't nothing's changed in that scenario exactly you'll hear I think many answers of mine is that the calculations way they were done has not changed the numbers just got slightly smaller that's right square footage only square footage got smaller the all the process all methodology methodologies is unchanged just the ending point got a little bit smaller that's the testimony okay I think you're up excellent Mr seckler in the testimony that you gave this evening and the testimony that you gave at the last hearing when you you were talking about the numbers you used as far as determining the number of trucks that arising out of manufacturing were you still assuming that the use here would be land use code 140 manufacturing yes I'd like to dive into the 84 truck trips per day number that you testified to and talk a little bit more about that methodology so in order to arrive at your conclusion that there would be an anticipated 84 truck trips per day what was the exact square footage of manufacturing that you used it's probably on this plan it was 18457 now the buildings themselves are large than diving into this calculation of 84 truck trips I'm sorry is it 84 or 83 it's it's 83 but every truck that comes in has to leave so I round it up to 84 yes okay so along those lines in each of these buildings is there one use or two uses from a zoning perspective or from a traffic engineering perspective from a zoning perspective again I think we're seeking approval for a light manufacturing use which has accessory office and from a traffic perspective you're indicating you analyzed it as two different uses is that correct as per the instruction of the board's traffic engineer in a review letter okay could you calculate it as a single building of light manufacturing use you could okay so let's talk about that if you were to calculate the entirety of the building square footage here of just over 244,000 Square ft how many truck trips would you anticipate in a day I don't know if this is related to the testimony I gave at the last hearing or not well it is because you indicated there would be 84 truck trips and I'm trying to establish how you came to that number all right the I don't know the number because I don't have the formula before me okay uh if I gave you one of the prior memos that was used for the formula would you be able to calculate it sure okay so I have Mr I have the Bright View engineering report from February 23rd of 2024 and that indicated that the ratio you used that you multiplied at that time albeit on larger larger buildings was 0.45 truck trips per 1,000 square feet of GFA so you're asking if I did the whole building which I think is 244 the total square footage of of both buildings combined which I believe Mr michelo just testified was 244,000 be 110 truck trips a day if the whole building 110 an overlap sorry 244,000 truck trips per day if we calculate that way which was not how your boards traffic engineer asked understood okay now when you came to that multiplication that you just did you did square footage times4 5 correct correct where did that 045 number come from the it which again was used as a meth methodology during the original testimony I gave okay so now that we have different square footage I just want to ask if you look at and I think if you go on the screen there Mr sches already opened up the Bright View Memo from February 23rd 2024 and if you go to let's say the third page of that memo I think that's it okay so to get to the 84 or as we just calculated 110 trips you multiply by 045 how did you come to the 045 number right here on the top left is the average rate calculation for this land use it's 045 so that would be uh the increase per th000 square feet in addition if you charted out this dashed line that goes through the center of the page and graphed it um graphically it would get you that same calculation now with the new building sizes being a total of 244,000 square ft in change were there any actual studies that looked at buildings that were that size cumulatively studies I perform no no studies that were used on this chart here from it the combined it combined approximately 244,000 no was there a study that was a little more than 200,000 square feet Yes there looks like there's a study that was a little more than 200,000 Square fet yes and for a building that was a little more than 200,000 Square fet in in the study that the it referenced how many truck trips were expected looks like about 10 85 so I understand that you did not use that rate that you used 045 but if you were to take the 185 which is the study of a building of the same cumulative size as the two buildings here and you multiplied that by the 244,000 square ft how many truck trips would that generate uh I'd have to do the calculation but again the reason why we use the average rate formula is there's also a sample that is at 370,000 Square ft and it generates about 80 truck trips so clearly there's a wide range in truck trips which we've discussed at the previous testimony which is why the average rate is used and not a singular Point did the revised plan the range of rates I'm sorry the range of rates is that for every data point on your graph there yes that means there are manufacturing sites that generate zero truck trips per day and an example be of a manufacturing site that would generate zero would that be like a vacant building no no these are operating sites this is truck Trips Again some manufacturing developments may not get tractor trailer deliveries or may not get them on a daily basis okay okay so the range that's up there 0o to 5.5 is for the data points that are included in the study correct I'm sorry go ahead sure in the revised plans that you submitted your client submitted in April were you proposing a building that was about 370,000 Square ft no were you proposing a cumulative total of square feet that was between 2 and 300,000 no I was using that as a to show that there's a wide range in truck rates which is why we use the average and not a singular point right I'm just talking about what you actually submitted the build the total building size square footage for both buildings was it between two and 300,000 Square ft yes and is there only one study that I looked at with a cumulative building total between 200 and 300 sare ft yes sorry 200,000 and 300,000 square feet yeah y and and you just testified that that particular study that it had referenced 185 approximately trips per thousand square feet correct correct right so I understand that the testimony you gave at the last meeting did not take that into account and use the average instead but if you did have a manufacturing use that was similar to the one study it did for accumulative square footage between 200 and 300 Square F feet at 185 truck trips and well I would say actually that data point is used in the calculation of the average rate so it's not like we ignored that data point that data point was used in my calculations it just wasn't the only data point that I used if I used the two building sizes independently we would actually get a truck trip calculation of less than 100 trips so obviously there's many ways you could P pull out individual data points here which is again why we use the average of all 20 points so understanding there's many ways that you could analyze the data points here if you used the one study that was for a building of between 200 and 300,000 ft and you multiplied the results of that study at 185 trucks per 1,000 square feet what would the truck trips be2 * 244 about 200 about 200 and when you did that multiplication just now did you use the full 244,000 ft yes okay and I think I asked you this last time but there's no way to tell on this graph how many buildings make up these total square footage could be four buildings could be one giant one it would be a site it would have to have some driveway so it could be one big building with a single driveway it could be five buildings with this application it would show up as a single data point if it had been built with two buildings it would only be a single data point this site it likely you'd have a single data point because you'd likely count on the driveway out drive if there was an easy way to differentiate the buildings you could enter it as two different data points okay do these studies ever have you ever seen a study that had a specific use meaning it's going to be this type of manufacturing and there's date on it or this type of manufacturing on like would you have you ever had to look that up on specific uses and give calculations versus just a general use the it doesn't share or you know utilize specific end users it's looked to be a generic okay so we don't have specifics on any of these locations is there in your profession ever stats on specific uses that you've used I don't know if I've ever done it for this type of use you know certain fast food restaurants operate differently than others so you may study a specific chain restaurant chain fast food but I haven't had that with any type of manufacturing use okay all right so Mr michelo just testified that the difference in square footage using the Revis plan between what would be permitted under total f and what is being proposed is I believe he said 59,800 189 Square ft of light manufacturing what would you anticipate the number of truck trips to be for that amount of the whole building no I'm asking about the Delta the Delta will be about 27 truck trips a day and if you calculated that out that's per day so how many truck trips per week would you expect from that Delta of roughly 59,000 Square F feet again I'm going to assume that it's primarily during weekdays only so I'm going to multiply by five and make it 133 and over the course of a year then how many truck trips would you anticipates from that Delta of roughly 59,000 ft I'm going to multiply it by 52 yes and that'll be 6,914 6,914 trucks now have you in your professional experience ever seen a light manufacturing building built without office space no I believe there's always some sort of office and under the it definition of manufacturing does it take into account that a light manufacturing use contains at least some office component yes do you have the actual definition land use 140 I think it's actually in the memo that you're on the screen one page up that's helpful yes and I think that I previously testified and read into the record the definition and I don't think that that's changed since my last testimony and it says that in addition to the actual production of goods a manufacturing facility typically has an office correct that's what I previously testified to so when you indicated that the light manufacturing component complies with the F at 14.99% you're assuming that's a building with no office space is that correct I don't believe I testified regarding F compliance okay just a few more items um last time you were here you testified that you had received comments from the county on October 17th 2022 and March 21st 2023 have you received any new County review letters from the County planning board I have not no have you resubmitted the plans these revised plans to the county I don't know if these plans went to the county I wouldn't have been the one submitting them okay you're not aware of it uh Mr michella testified that the exhibit that he testified off of did not include the changes to the driveway is that correct that's correct but all of the testimony you put on the record about the clearance bar and about the shape of the driveway all of that is still accurate as far as what the applicants proposing correct and you're still planning to remove uh vegetation of along the driveway is that correct vegetation in terms of for sight distance purposes yes yes and can you quantify that because I don't think that was on the revised plans when you say quantify like a square footage amount square footage amount no what we were referring to was at the driveway itself to clear some vegetation from the right of way so right away okay now as part of the testimony that you just put on the record both at the last meeting in here did you do any additional traffic analysis that was submitted no so did you perform any additional queuing analysis no anywhere did you perform any queuing analysis the first time the analysis we prepared as part of our traffic study includes uh Capacity Analysis delay analysis and queuing within the actual uh program so all those outputs that were provided to the boards traffic engineer uh would include queuing data was that site onsite or offsite offsite offsite and did you provide queuing data at Allen Road the intersection of Martinsville Road uh that would have been included within the uh outputs from the uh program that we utilized okay so they're in the report yes and they haven't changed um again we did not resubmit the report because the traffic went down on the basis of the building shrinking so all the conclusions in our report are the same except slightly slightly better than what was previously testified to okay and is it still the case case in the revised plan that all tractor trailers have to make a right out of the site onto Allen Road correct that has not changed has not changed those are all the questions I have thank you Mr Berlin do you have any questions for a traffic engineer do you mean me or do you mean the public I meant you Mr Berlin now the engineer um referred many questions uh to you that the the the opinion of the traffic engineer is that correct so can I assume that you were involved in the discussions that resulted in the um new plan that's a pretty wide openen question uh no one asked me what square footage the building should be so I don't know if that was your question no my my only question is were you involved in any discussions that result Ed in the reduction uh I SP that where you were involved in any discussions that resulted in the revised plan yes I was in some discussions what was your involvement uh I it was discussed in terms of what the square footage of the building would be they asked me what that would do in terms of the trip generation and I provided them those values they asked me what that would do to the projected parking generation I provided that value as well okay now um um do you agree with the U uh engineer that a lot of what went into the revised plan were the result of uh requests uh by signature Acquisitions I don't know can you restate that question would you read back the question you ask the question again that's okay can you read it back do if you have it well can you do you mind should just reads it back do you age a lot of what I would say yes as well as other uh requests from other individuals what what who who made the other requests I believe there was a settlement that Pro that had some changes that resulted in some changes to the plans I'm sorry which you canot speak there were some there was a settlement that resulted in some changes to the plans as well anything else any other inquit no okay now um do you know or did you strike that did you know when you participated in the talk about the revised plan um how many tenants would occupy the facility no did you know how many uh employees would work on the premises no do you know what type of light manufacturing will be performed on the premises no can we agree that uh the smaller a building uh the Lesser number of truck trips yes number of light manufacturing is that yes yeah yeah as light manufacturing goes down the truck trips square footage goes down the truck trips would go down can you tell the board how many uh strike that yeah can you tell the board how many truck trips you could estimate if the light manufacturing facility was 150,000 ft I think it's an okay question let answer if we had you said 150 yes if we had 150,000 sare ft of light manufacturing use and only light manufacturing per how we calculated due to the board's Traffic Engineers request we would have 68 truck trips a day 68 68 now you testified on um January 3rd 2024 at um Council of page 103 uh that uh you are trying to be sensitive uh to the neighbors correct that do that wasn't my most recent testimony so I don't know if that question is relevant well you you've had cross-examine since that point decide whether it's relevant or not again I'm going to object because are you objecting on relevancy grounds on relevancy grounds yes because it has to the the the is it going to lead to another question Mr Berlin if I Mr Berlin is it going to lead to another question that's Mr bin is it let me finish the answer to question is yes that I know you're answering the question I'm asking uh is it going to lead to another question or that's going to relate to his revised plan testimony yes please continue with the chair's permission no let me repeat the question you testified on January 3rd 2024 that in formulating the proposal uh that you were trying to be sensitive to Neighbors my question is in formulating the new proposal uh were you still trying to be sensitive to neighbors yes I believe that was related to the way we've designed the driveways and that is unchanged and the number of truck trips have gone down so yes well how does the driveway affect neighbors I believe it was related can I ask a question what is the context mrin is asking these questions because there is no context he just making STS there was a statement made well do you understand the question Mr Su well I think can you answer the question the one question that I would have is when I said sensitive to neighbors what was the sentence before that or question that that's my I don't frankly I don't understand the objection um Can Can you provide any further context Mr bind let me let me try are you just Mr bind are you just taking that one sentence out and that's all you got the problem well let me ask the rest of my questions and then you can Ru on it okay um my questions will be um how were you trying to be sensitive by reducing uh by five or six trips is that being sensitive to the neighbors were you trying to be sensitive uh to the people in the Hills how about residents of Mount Ary Martinsville Road were you sensitive to them how about residents of Fellowship Village were you sensitive to them as to the new proposal do you remember the context in which you were talking I don't remember the exact context I'm assuming it's related to the driveway design and not having the trucks make the left turn out which is still in its place well the trucks could still make a left turn correct trucks tractor trailers cannot make a left turn out of the site onto Allen Road tractor trailers cannot make a left turnout onto Allen Road but what about trucks smaller trucks yes well any type of truck that's not a tractor trailer correct correct a UPS truck can make a left turnout now based upon that um when you when you put input into to the prop new proposal uh what did you do uh to be sensitive to the neighbors again we reduced the amount of square footage which reduces the number of trips both tractor trailers and cars all right in making your estimate of U truck traffic how many of that of those trucks were tractor trailers it doesn't specify so that is a mix of tractor trailers and other you know single unit trucks box trucks so there's not a specific calculation so the answer is you cannot tell us how many are truck trailers correct correct all right it could be any number any number up to the full amount zero or zero yeah any number up to the total trucks yes yeah I should have been more specific now can we agree that truck traffic can present a substantial safety issues to um other vehicles on the road itim I know you want to give come on I don't think it's been answered at all Madam chair do you recall that question being asked and answer I I do personally and I just I'd ask you to keep it focused on his revised testimony only so we have covered those views unless you feel like there's something that we missed all right but we'll get to it different really okay as to parking spaces uh in your uh new proposal uh the planner use uh testified that uh Bernard's Township as to parking spaces is Antiquated do do you agree to that I believe that the Bernard's Township ordinance as it relates to this use uh is out of line with what the it which is has recent studies of parking at sites like this so therefore I do believe that it is likely Antiquated uh but it clearly doesn't uh match modern Trends well do you agree that only the township uh government can change the requirement for parking spaces but Madam chair I think respectfully Mr bind that that's a planner question sir are you you have to speak in the microphone that's a planner's question that's a question for the planner well I'm asking if he did the planner answered that question and I'm asking him if he agrees with it but but it changing ordinances and and and and the governmental functions and how that works is really for a planner or a lawyer perhaps but but this is a truck uh excuse me a traffic engineer tpoe is my advice to the board can I ask a question between this um based upon the number of parking spaces and this isn't a parking space question it's is there another way to evaluate um the truck traffic is it only size of building or is it also employees in building you know I'm just curious is from the standard studies you're referring to did you use the only standard study based upon space of building or is there another General amount I'm sorry calculation that you can do upon number of employees at a building we utilize the square footage the reason why we didn't use a variable like employees is because the employee number is unknown but the square footage of the building is known at this point there is another study that's based upon other factors besides size of it does have for certain land uses variables such as employees I don't know if they have truck calculations for manufacturing use with employees as the variable but again that would I would have used if we knew a 10 coming in and they said we're moving from parcion we have 60 employees what's the trip generation but without those values all I know is the square footage you could only do it in this case based upon the number of parking spaces so you know that the maximum number could be whatever the maximum number is now I'm just asking if there's even another calculation I'm not going to go in detail just in general yes but I'd be careful in associating employee number with parking space just because not every parking space may be used and things like that yeah just like your calculation you have right now it could be very small very large yep spaces could be 100 Ed versus 400 based upon the use correct okay if I may Madam chair in a circumstance where you might use the employee data as well would you still also use the square footage data or is there does it depend there are times where you use multiple variables to come up with like a average between them kind of give you a range uh if it works well you get them they line up the square footage lines up with the employee uh count uh formulas is that the industry standard for for calc or or you're given leeway within the industry to utilize employee as well as square footage where applicable typically if it's an unknown user you're using square footage if it's a known user you would be using the employee count you're uh exclusive and not together with the square footage correct okay thank you but um I know I asked this question and excuse me for repeating it uh but we don't know how many employees are going to be employed in this facility isn't that correct that's correct and we have to have a parking space for every employee who's going to drive to the premises correct yes all right are you of the opinion that 80 three or 84 trucks per day uh driving through the streets of Bernard's Township will have will have will not have a substantial detriment on the residents testimony it again Madam chair's nodding in the affirmative before I advise uh correctly in my opinion that's a planner's question you I so it's a planner's question so he cannot answer that correct it's a planner's question I know so question is it's not relevant for this witness okay fair enough I have no further questions okay thank you Mr Berlin uh Miss steinley do you have questions for our traffic engineer I think she sit down Mr BL I think from I'm sorry I to leave hello thank you again Marina steinley for the Board of Ed um what is the difference in passenger vehicle trips now that the building has been reduced compared to the prior office building use I'm sorry was your question passenger vehicles passenger vehicles yeah when you say prior office use you mean what was on the site previously yes so it was on the site previously it generated 273 am trips and 266 PM trips that are passenger vehicles with the change it would be let me get your number 24 am trips and I believe 29 PM trips so it's a reduction okay and that's specifically to the site that oh that was the total that was in and out in and out okay just so I understand M with your permission the the the original numbers were the office calculation prior to this application correct correct and the new numbers were those the old plan or were those the new plan those were the new plan car numbers yeah passenger vehicle that I got and and that's what I thought but I just wanted to confirm thank you can I just ask why why the direction of the numbers changed like what why is there more at night on the new plan versus oh so so the land use code for office has a formula the land use code for manufacturing a formula for the morning and a formula for the night yes and my assumption is is that the I I don't I don't want toine but I believe there's slightly different commuting patterns for Office Buildings versus manufacturing buildings in terms of when people will be leaving and coming to the site even though it's office space on okay right and what is the difference in truck trips to the site now that the building has been reduced compared to the prior office building use now that the building has been reduced my my my advice to the board is is even if it was let them answer we can move that's a quick one question is old office new plan comparison yes so it would be approximately 84 truck Trips Again the old office building maybe got a truck a day so maybe it's 82 so there were one or two per day previously possibly now you testified that already to 84 okay so in your April 19th 2023 report is that the most recent traffic study that you performed on the site yes that was the most recent update and that report indicated an 8% of Journey to work traffic coming from the West along Allen Road eastbound to the site has that percentage changed with the reduction in the building size nope that would be the same be the same and what is the difference in the truck trips at Somerville Road and Allen Road going westbound through now that the building has been reduced compared to the prior conditions so just repeat the streets that you asked the intersection Somerville Somerville Road and at Allen Road so that we would not be sending any tractor trailers in the westbound Direction because our driveway is designed to prohibit tractor trailers from going westbound in Allen Road so it was Zero before and zero after all right and now Eastbound at that intersection truck trips eastbound again we testified extensively about where how we believe tractor trailers that would be coming let's say from 287 or 78 would get to the site we don't believe that they would utilize Allen Road to get to the site in the eastbound Direction uh because we believe 78 is a more efficient route for them so it would be no change but it's not prohibited from a truck coming in that direction and you testified earlier that the reduced f for light manufacturing drives the reduced number of truck trips to the site correct does anything else impact the anticipated reduced number of truck trips based on our calculations It's So based on our formulas it's only based on the square footage of the building does the decrease in the number of loading Bays impact the truck trips not based on how we do our calculations but it's conceivable that it does but not based on how we did our traffic study does the time of day restriction on the truck traffic impact truck trips um likely not uh no okay testimony at the last hearing or maybe it wasn't testimony but there were representations at the last hearing that indicated that trucks would be prohibited from leaving the site from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. will trucks be permitted to enter the site during that time I believe so but again I wasn't the one who gave that testimony right um what are the peak a M and P PM times for truck trips now that there's a time of day restriction on the truck traffic again typically uh truck traffic would likely occur just a the peak morning would be typically right after the morning peak hour on the roadways so in this case it would be me get you the exact time it would be likely yeah uh likely after the N9 after 8 to 9 is the peak hour of traffic on the roads would likely be 9 to 10 or 10 to 11 those would be the most likely am peak hours for trucks and what about PM PM peak hour for trucks um would also likely be uh either right before the evening peak hour right after the evening peak hour um which would be 345 to 4 45 or 545 to 6:45 okay again neither one of what you will see is the peak hour for trucks over the entire day is actually typically in middle of the day but if you're asking for the rush hour time periods that would be closest to when the trucks would be at their Peak but again typically for manufacturing buildings you would see you know anytime between 11 and 1 being your actual highest truck levels okay okay and did you perform a revised traffic study now that there's been revisions to the plan no the conclusions would remain the same again but 7% less traffic on the roads and if you were given this revised building proposal today how would you Scope the traffic study the same way I did before the same way what if there were was a school within a half mile of the site if there's a school within a half mile of the site again uh we may end up counting a little closer to the School dismissal period um we likely would not change the morning uh time time periods though okay what about if there was a school within one mile of the site one mile of the site we likely would maintain the same study Network that we had previously same time periods and what about two miles with we would have kept the study the way it is um what if you were aware of the number of student drivers that were traveling on Allen Road at the peak truck hours in the AM and PM would that have influenced your scoping no would you have performed an additional traffic study if you would have found that found out that there was a significant number of student drivers on the road if the traffic volumes at a different hour were higher than the peak hours we studied than I would study during those time periods the nature of the driver wouldn't be the reason it would be the volume of drivers that would be the reason okay are there any additional measures that could be put in place to mitigate conflicts with school traffic now that the plans have been revised uh I don't see any but again we're happy to work with the board's professionals if there is something all right I think th those are all my questions thank you thank you m okay does anyone from the public have any questions for our um traffic engineer why don't we start with people who haven't asked questions tonight why don't we go in that order it'll be the same drill please state your name and address for the record and we'll ask you to sign that sheet before you go back and sit down thank you Sher Nelson 195 smokerise Road um I have a quick question the first time you gave the number of the 89 truck trips you gave us a six per hour estimate but then when you gave the 83 or 84 you didn't give us a per hour estimate are you able to give us that now yeah the the number I gave uh which was six per hour that was during the peak hours on the roadway so the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour was about 6 when you revise the calculations I believe believe one of them goes to five just because of the rounding nature of it and the other peak hour is still six okay that's all I wanted to know if it was the same or significantly different thank you thank you you can go next your name and address you can start okay Kira Naru um 37 Sentinel Drive um in your most recent calculations with the new plan did you determine what percentage of trucks entering the facility will be arriving from Point North meaning likely coming down by 227 or uh or leaving the facility and then J Jour journeying on to Points North meaning going back to 287 the percentage is unchanged from my previous testimony the amount would go down 7% uh could you remind me I uh unfortunately I was not in that our estimation was about 25% would be either coming from or going to Points North and 75% would basically getting on to 78 at this interchange okay and and so um you also just said a few minutes ago that for Points North the likelihood of turning left onto Allen Road would be low because they could go to 78 that you just you said that about five minutes ago I'm paraphrasing it that correct yes the the statement I was making was that if you're going northbound on 287 let me reiterate words you're going northbound 287 we found that it was faster to use 78 to come on Via you know uh and come in Martinsville Road left and Allen Road than it was to get off 287 directly and come through the hills to the site to make a right turn in as as a resident I think most of us will know it's question okay hold that com so um so I guess my question is as a traffic engineer if if you were a truck drive if you are thinking about a truck driver who's determined tired wanting to get on his or her way needing to go north would they would they circumvent your prohibitions on turning left uh and find a way there's actually four paths to 287 Points North that are actually faster than 78 in your expertise as a traffic engineer would do you agree that that's possible to point two points North and again I was stating going northbound on 287 which is different than two points North two points North the fastest route out of this site if you're going north on 287 is to go make a right turnout left turn and take Mount ARA all the way up to 287 not go backwards through make a left to through the hills to get on 287 in that direction but are you aware that that is a a very fast and straight path to go straight up the hills and out to 287 North at slay Mountain again we previously testified this is not related to new testimony I've given and we showed Maps utilizing Google showing the estimated routes usually taking various rout taking various routes to 287 or from 287 and using Mount area was deemed to be the fastest so I I understand that and I understand that you're a traffic engineer and you put a lot of energy into into these theoretical studies but what assurances can you give us residents and taxpayers of this town that truck drivers weary not knowing their way around will just Google Maps and go you know what I'm just going to go straight up through the hills through this through past two schools 5,000 residents with families and on to 287 instead of turning right right right right right and then back on 287 what what assurances can you give us that they won't circumvent the the the counter measures you say you're putting in place to prevent a left turn so if they try to make a left turn their clearance bar would basically hit the top of their truck they would probably have either a busted Tire or a ripped side from the sign and the other piece that I think your board's Traffic Engineers helping design a deterrent from a uh to make a left turn basically over the island we've designed and there's a signage indicating no left turn we've also narrowed the driveway in that direction as well so again other than putting in uh you know uh uh strips on the ground preventing trucks making left turn I think we've gone above and beyond preventing cars trucks from making a left turn at that intersection so what you're saying then is if as a traffic engineer you're saying that based on this study you'll just make them go left and then they'll just take like you said take a left on Martinsville Road and go up to mount Ary Road and get on 287 that way disturbing other residents not us again this is a okay no I just wanted to clarify he's going to answer answer your question's answer this is unchanged from the previous testimony again this is a manufacturing use which is permitted in the zone trucks are generated from this use it's utilizing County roadways all of which do not have truck prohibitions on them so trucks are permitted to take those routes to get to uh this site using County roads to the interstate highways um are you are you last question are you aware that we obviously as taxpayers and residents of this town we we don't want to be unwilling participants in a theoretical traffic study that when it turns into the real world will probably be anything but what you've described I don't think that's a question that was related to my testimony of Ed fair point I I'm thank you thank you please everyone please the Applause do not help us keep forward progress here do you mind just moving that sheet when you're done with it to the table over there this way we can have a better flow can you state your name and address please for us Jen PRI bloga three Rose M Cote last name b a ga b as a boy B as a boy a GGA uh my question is regarding uh your traffic study and its relation to the number of loading docks is there any relationship there is no relationship between the number of loading docks in the truck or traffic generation based on the formulas in the it uh obviously you can opine that more or less may result in more or less trucks but I have no data or studies to conclude that I know uh today there was a lot of discussion regarding business right the signature acquisition made a decision that we are going to do this we're going to do this and uh the employees or the contractors followed so following the same thought process as they reduced the number of loading docks from 24 to 16 did they analyze the business impact it may have from a point of view of the the type of clientele they might lose that's not a question for the traffic engineer he he's traic not he's an engineer traffic engineer that was hired by signature that's probably relevant to Signature your business decision so to me to me well you can't you can't arue you have to ask him questions about his traffic testim maybe you can help me formulate the question better or I could come back in the comments section that's okay I might have I I think I'm giving you my context and I have a question behind that okay I think ask the question behind it and we'll see if we get there ask the question behind I will wait till the comment section it's not we we are here we're not going anywhere this go if you have a question this is your time otherwise I think the comment I have is not a comment sir question I'm thinking we guessed we guessed that I'm inspired by Mr L guess that okay U the question I have for you is that do you really in your professional judgment believe that there is no correlation between the number of loading docks and the amount of truck traffic again I stated that you could probably assume but I have to work with the formulas that my industry has collected and utilized if I came up with a conclusion on my own your board's experts would question where is this coming from what's the data that supports this so while I agree that having less loading docks would likely lead to Less trucks I don't have a study that could point to yes by reducing two loading docks you've reduced the trucks by 20 I don't have the foundation of your traffic study is based on a beautiful plot which showed a range between 0 and 5.5 per th000 GPA right yes do you have any idea if the number of loading docks were different at different data points I assume there were differences but it was not collected so I can't draw a a conclusion or see a relationship do you think that isn't it a responsibility of the applicant to actually do a relevant study which actually means something rather than just following the regulations again we are utilizing the process that is followed by the Department of Transportation and uh all land use boards in the state of New Jersey that I've worked with in terms of providing them uh trip generation based on the it calculations and not my own calculation means you just check the box and we go on we'll be back that wasn't a question I don't think um okay sir how many can I ask from the public how many more have questions for the traffic engineer I don't know if we're gonna get to all of them tonight so we'll see how we go I'm Bruce shandler from 11:14 Bruce schundler from 1114 Fellowship Road bassing Ridge I just have one question with your revised plan there's 84 truck trips do do the it formulas um are they based on 8 hour days 16 hour days 24hour days is it would would it change if it was 24 hours days versus a typical 8 hour day it's over a 24-hour period I would assume some of those sites were open for 24 some of them may have been open for 10 some may have been open for 20 it's just counting the amount of vehicles in a 24-hour period so if the board chose to really restrict when truck traffic could go it would really reduce those numbers potentially or it could Peak them during certain hours and then they then they went crazy the rest of the time potentially again it really depends on the user on the site okay thank you thank you okay in the back yeah hi my name is mon I live at 58 car Road Basking rage I have a few questions about your data analysis and your data plot uh in your data bring it back up that yes yes can we um bring back up the I I think he wants the chart with the um dotted projection yeah there we go is that what you wanted sir yes yes I mean this uh leadar regression is not um is not a good analysis from my persp yeah okay my question is that sir I think you got it but don't testify it's asked him the question sure uh I I think um you was commented that some points come from the sites um that are not fully used is that correct these are fully operating sites that were counted the sites the data points are there from fully operating sites okay my question is that some of these points are outliers and influencing points so they have very uh substantial impact on the linear equation and uh the results have you done any sensitivity analysis for your data plot you your uh data are highly influenced by some outliers I think you know what I'm talking about okay what was the question I question about other Liars I think she he need to do I understand that what is specifically the question are you asking why he didn't take out the outliers yeah did he do any sensitivity analysis and robust analysis right did you do that okay we did not do a sensitivity analysis and we did not remove any potential outliers from the formula yeah but all these sites are chosen by yourself right so you have the uh you have the uh choice to choose which point no correct No in fact I utilized all the points were provided by the it I did not pick and choose any specific points I used all I think it was 19 or 20 of them to draw the conclusion and I also heard as you mentioned that you considered multiple variable variables in your analysis but this seem to be a just a very simple uh single linear reg question where is your analysis the multiple linear equation or multiple uh analysis again we utilize this formula which I agree is a linear relationship but I heard that you said you you did consider multiple variables I said that within the book there are multiple variables that are that may be utilized but all but there's not a multip multiple variable equation essentially there will be a linear relationship or some mathematical relationship between square footage and trips there may be another one that would be a comparison between employees and trips there's not one that's multiple variables in the sense that you look at trips employees parking spaces square footage and then get an entire formula I understand I understand so that thank you for the confirmation okay you have a lot more just uh one simple question my question is to understand the basis of his data so we and we know that the there are a lot of variability within different sites if you want to do a unbar analysis you need to consider all the of variables related with response and adjust them in the analysis your question so have you done that have you done no we utilize the formula and the data points that are shown on the screen okay yeah that's my question thank you thank you thank you okay sir would you please sign in thank you thank you and just as a reminder to everyone and with respect to Mr L's comments the questions for the witness is supposed to be focused on the changes in the application we've already heard from all these Witnesses we've already questioned them and we've done cross-examination so the questions at this point in time are supposed to be specific to the new changes right the reduction uh in the size of building and the reduction in the loading duck so if we can try try very hard we're trying to be very patient with everybody and get everybody in it's also 10:30 so let me ask how many um people in the public still have questions for the traffic engineer five five okay yeah okay I think I think we're going to we're going to limit the it we typically don't go past 10:30 we'll try and get the questions in but we're going to end it at 10:45 tonight um and we'll do our best to to get the rest of the questions for for Mr SEC so I'll ask everyone to be very focused and keep their questions in question format and specific to the new testimony this way we'll get everybody in um before the end of the night in the back please state your name and address um for the record and then we'll ask you to sign the sheet on on your way out thank you my name is Justin Han C Liberty Reg Ro right into the microphone so can hear you Justin Han 33 Liberty reg Ro Liberty Rich yeah thank you so my question also is about the average rate rate you obtain based on the data so you mentioned that you uptain the data from it correct correct so they only provide you with 19 data correct for this land use and this yeah I only see 19 yes correct so what's your assumption about the data so the the data like represents a different industry right it's manufacturing uses so are they from manufacturing industry excuse me are they are from like all of them are from the IND manufacturing industry or different Industries this is all manufacturing they're separate for different in Industries warehousing that'll be separate so what kind of uh statistical methodology you use to feed the line here I didn't fit the line the it fit fit the line I didn't check their statistical computations do you think the result is statistically reliable um I based on your profession it's the industry standard I did not seek to determine if this was reliable or not so do you like does did it provide you with the confidence interval along with the average rate can you repeat that did the it provideed you with the confidence interval along the average rate I defend this question is strongly relevant to the excuse me my question is started tonight by me asking a favor of the board to just limit it to the new testimony we have deviated he's been here four times four times and now we just keep asking the same questions over and over again will you do you have anything new to add did somebody ask this question before yes yes okay so remind me the question the answer please well one don't you go through the yeah we can't do that we so everyone please please let's show some decorum and maturity please yeah I we're not it's not about whether your questions are relevant or not relevant everybody's question is relevant the the importance here is that we have already been through the testimony he's already been questions and we have closed the questions for that period of time so we're only trying to address his most recent testimony with respect to the changes that they've made all of your questions are relevant we're not saying that they're not okay thank you uh chair okay um one more question so the newly provided number is 84 right for the trips uh did you also provide the maximum number or minimum number for the trips daily so again we provided the average I think through the cross exam that uh Miss Smith provided I think that would be the minimum maximum numbers I believe it was Zero because it could be zero uh per th000 square ft and the other other rate was 5.5 which I think resulted in which should be 1342 if we use the entire building as light men manufacturing versus how your board engineer had us break out the office from the manufacturing do you think the max member would substantially impact the local traffic still no uh I did not run that analysis so I don't know okay but you mentioned that there the traffic won't greatly impact the local traffic right based on the average rates it would not impact the local traffic in a substantial nature but how about is maximum number I haven't R the analysis so I can't conclude it okay uh one more question you mentioned that the traffic from I2 uh 87 um won't would use uh 78 but like uh instead of Allen Road what about is that a PO like is is that a plan written in the application or just your believe because I believe I heard you said that you believe so we provided testimony showing the projected routes from all the cardinal directions of the nearby Interstate routes East to north east and west on 78 north and south on 287 going to and from the site we provided that testimony that is unchanged and again we showed the travel times from different directions uh depending on which uh which way the truck was traveling so it's a written in the application or just your testimony it was in testimony I believe there was also exhibits provided before the board okay got thank you thank you Dan Kong 118 patri Hill Drive Kong kg as in King Kong um all my questions is pertinent to today's testimony not previous um and I just want to pull this up I question can you confirm what you said that around at this exit this driveway to 150 Trail uh tractor trailers will not be able to make it left because this physical barrier is that accurate yes um and earlier you said that but smaller trucks like box trucks they are able to make a left is that correct depending on their size some of them will be able to make a left turn like an Amazon van will be able to make a got it uh and then this will to this adjacent uh property can trailer tractors and other trucks make right turn so we've indicated as part of the settlement that would be prohibited prohibit through signage correct through signage I also believe it's may be difficult for tractor trailers to make that turn as a narrower stretch got and I believe Miss Herrera was asking this question I wasn't sure so perhaps let me ask again because this is perent to today's testimony so if trucks were able to come make it right into this adjacent lot can they make it left from this point on to Alo I don't think there's anything prohibiting if they made it to that driveway but again the the turning radius for a truck to make a right turn onto there and then a quick left is very difficult and I don't know if a truck would be able to make that s maneuver but can the truck make it right go into this lock make a maneuver come out and then make it left uh yes or no please I haven't studied that parking lot to know okay if okay next question I want to make sure other people have question next question is that but you also have to let him answer the question understood go ahead please okay go ahead k h to you just kid go ahead there's only one one royalty and that's the queen that's the queen where the roof okay I'm sorry go ahead please please answer I answered okay so if a if a truck makes a right onto alen Ro can they also make a right in here and then come back out and make a left I don't know the circulation of that nearby LW okay thank you okay thank you excuse hello hello everyone uh my name is g b last name is uh B h8 and I live at 27 talid Lane okay um I hear all these calculations all that is great now consider a situation where there is an accident God forbid an accident of one of your trucks um there are multiple questions coming out of that has um the township um I don't know who gives permission have you um gotten permission for an alternate route in that situation again I don't think it's relevant I don't think I spoke to that in the last hearing as part of my testimony uh the reason yeah I'm asking is this could be the reason is testimony so but can you answer the question again uh there are multiple routs to Points East and North again depending on where the accident is I guess uh there are likely alternate routes uh let's say the accident is on uh the single Lane Allen Road have and that would be the most relevant situation and I would assume that you have already thought of that and you have already asked permission for an alternate route which would be a definite alternate route you're testifying and making assumptions what is your question of Mr sa question is have you have have you obtained a definitive alternate route if there is an accident on the single Lane Allen Road if there's an accident between between um Liberty gner Martinsville cross-section and where you turn left into your facility so again if we if there's an accident there we likely aren't getting tractor trailers into the site so there wouldn't be any tractor trailers leaving the site we need to get the trucks in in order to get the trucks out and if that's if there's an accident on Allen Road it's likely impacting the ability for incoming traffic yes so I'm talking about the incoming new trucks where will they be routed to again I think that would depend on where the police have detour set up but I'm pretty sure that when you have gone through the pains of these detailed calculations question yes you have um uh you have asked permission permission for a alternate route because then that leads to calculations on traffic on that route because that alternate route did ma'am I think he already said he didn't ask for permission for alternate roots he said there are alternate rootes or may be alternate roots so okay uh oh yeah I understand so this is um it may not be a question but possibility of new study on that alternate route okay that's not a question okay did you have any additional questions that's fine I just wanted to make a point there that point at the end point or later the points are later there will be a time for that it's just not now it came to a point now yeah I understand with due respect I came to a point because it was a definitive question and I understand that um they haven't worked on it that's the answer okay correct okay thank you very much that is the answer would you please sign in okay thank you have minutes my name is rishard wallo 12 Sur Lane right into the microphone so she can get all the information o l w l o w i c I would like to ask you what's the difference between manufacturing facility and warehousing facility okay wait wait is that with respect to traffic I see everything here is manufacturing manufacturing manufacturing and when I look at the building that's warehousing based on his test testimony you're asking him why he used manufacturing uh it code as opposed to some other code there is different calculation for manufacturing when 200 people work and it's different for warehousing when 20 people work for your new test for your new traffic analysis similar to your old traffic analysis why did you choose manufacturing code as opposed to some other code is that essentially the traffic question you're asking yes this is a proposed manufacturing use which is permitted in the zone that we're proposing it I don't believe a warehousing building is permitted which is why we did not propose one at this location and we didn't use that land use code my other question is did you study traffic right now Alan wrote how it is the most recent counts we did I believe were this I think it was this spring or at theend end of the winter of 2024 were the most recent counts we did we've done counts uh continuously now I feel like over the last three years we've been before the before the board and how many bicycles is driving over there every day uh we did Count bicycles um again I don't think that's relevant to the new testimony I provided since that was in the traffic studies that have already been cross-examined about uh again I believe there was a handful of bicycles that we counted on uh in the morning uh along Allen Road in right now when I'm leaving 78 takes me around 5 minute to get home with your sensitivity to the neighbors you know did you calculate how much it's going to take me after the facility open 20 minute half an hour we didn't that was testified to at previous hearings so we have all the answers in the files thank you thank you how many more questions are there two all right let's try and get through them was there more over here okay my name is radan gurum morti 66 Liberty Ridge Road and my questions are related to Mr sackler's response to Jennifer Smith's question on the data plots that were put up so can we data back up there or you okay M can we go a little higher so we can see the range and standard deviation okay and and can we ask you to speak right into the microphone so that we can capture your question so on January 3rd you had testified at 3 hours and 5 minutes that the number number of data points that you had considered was 50 right now if you see this you have considered 19 data points right so which is correct I don't recall without the context if that was the peak hour data set which was let answer which was a different data set or if it was the the passenger car daily trips or it could have been the parking counts we testified a lot in January and I believe you cross-examined me related to that that at that time okay but with respect to that data graph right there this dat 19 points right uh if you go to the 3our 5 minute Mark you will notice that your statement was related to truck traffic and you said that there were 50 data points but that you couldn't provide you know how many uh loading Bays were associated with those right that's the point you made so right now we established that it was not 50 but it's 19 right I at the transcript if that's the case this 19 right so the the second point is that um I have brought this up previously that the standard deviation is something that should be considered I raised questions to you previously and in today's um discussion Jennifer brought out the point that if you look at the 200 uh roughly 200,000 Square ft you have several instances where you have truck traffic of around close to 200 per day right so my question is this right given that you have such a huge dispersion if you look at the standard deviation there it is 34 the average is 45 that means the standard deviation is 75% of the average just to give you before are you asking him th far I'm telling him do you agree I agree that the standard deviation is34 which is about 3/4 of the average that's right please continue your question sure so let let me give you an analogy right let's talk about let's say the height of the American population right so if you see the height of the American population that's let's say 5'9 right if you look at the standard deviation associated with it it's about 3 or 4 in so that's 5% of the average now here you have a case where you have a standard deviation which is 75% of the average and yet all your calculations simply rely on using the average to come up with a truck traffic estimate when you question is and my question is why did we not consider the standard deviation in the calculation I understand you will tell me that the it formula does not take this into account but it doesn't it make isn't it common sense to use the standard deviation when it the data is so dispersed that that's your question yes again you already said what my answer was because I've said it to you last time again we utilize the average rate which is what's used in the industry to calculate the projected number of trips for this use but but here do you agree that there are multiple outliers which like if you look at the 200,000 ft Mark you have at least two instances where the number of trucks is roughly 200 per day given this shouldn't an expert use additional information that is available this is provided by the it the the standard deviation right so that was the question shouldn't an expert use additional information was that your question that is correct let him answer the question we utilize the average rate which was viewed by your board's traffic engineer if they wanted to see a different trip generation rate which they did ask us to calculate it differently in this specific case we would have done so we utilized the industry standard because that was what was asked of us for this project I will also go on to a question related to the peak C traffic if you look at do you have the data for the peak C traffic I for the record for the record I am continually arguing that you are bringing up new it's a continuing objection it's duly noted on the record uh Mr L but he's talking no Mr stop please we can't have back and forth with the witnesses and Council the the are members of the public Council the the you're asking questions you're asking questions about this chart now that's relevant I suspect then to theant to what to to Prior Mr L Mr leair re relevant to to the hopefully the new new testimony why don't you ask say that can I explain why don't you ask the ask your next question of Mr sa sure so we can decide if it's relevant or not or Mr Sackler my questions are all based on the points that Jennifer Smith made right about the outliers I asked the question so my question now is regarding the peak traffic have you looked at the peak traffic numbers the the the chart for the peak traffic I have can we go to that chart car truck no no so we are talking about this one we talking about the peak of traffic right so average rate and standard deviation I'm sorry I'm sorry as the hour gets later yeah it's getting late how much longer do you think you you're going to have for your questions two more minutes two more minutes two more minutes two more minutes I heard okay you are in the right place okay you just is looking at it's the 34th page of the Bri view letter dated I think February 23rd 2024 so this is related to the peak cover uh traffic do you agree yes now if you see the average rate is 03 and if you see the standard devation it is 04 so in this case you have a standard deviation which is 133% of the average okay okay so you came up with a number of six for the peak traffic but given that there is such a large variability right and since you do not know who your client is going to be do you agree that that Peak C traffic could be close to 18 or 19 given the high standard deviation could also be zero could be but you the question is answer the question okay yeah could be zero and again I don't think I testified to the peak hour truck trip chart that you're referring to in tonight or previous the earlier most recent night on April 11th the a lot of these questions have gone back prior to when people already had an opportunity to cross-examine Mr seckler in essence getting now what they referred to in court as a second Fighter the Apple that's a legal phrase the the the uh the uh you have to focus in on the new stuff well it is newair has been overly I'm not asking for argument the chair has been overly indulg it's really important that we focus on just the new testimony which is with respect to the reduced phase and the reduced F okay I mean my question related to the Daily traffic was connected to Jennifer Smith's questions and his response this is similar to that just ask the question right so do you agree that that what I have described here for the peak traffic has the same kind of characteristics as what we saw for the daily truck traffic in terms of standard deviation being a very high percentage of the average the standard deviation as you said is 04 and the average is 03 I'm not drawing conclusions because I didn't run a statistical well it is 133% do you agree of that I agree that that's 133% of that number okay so the two are very similar in terms of the relationship between the average and the standard deviation you agree right again I'm not a statistician I don't know if that's similar or not okay I I'm done with my questions thank you thank you y you got it yeah you're going to sign that I think we had one more one more questions question okay I have a quick quick question on traffic yes it's a it's a question about traffic can you state your name again will my name is Alisa Naru it's 37 Sentinel Drive and I'll sign it again if you want too okay my question about traffic I learned something tonight and I'm going to ask you to clarify it when you mentioned that it's going to be 84 trucks a day are they going to be only on Allen Road those 84 or are they going to be elsewhere too so I just want to clarify it's 84 truck trips number trucks are likely half that because if a truck comes in and leaves the same day gets double counted okay okay and the route leaving the site would be making a right turn out on Allen Road some trucks we assume 75% of them would make a right towards 78 25% would make a left go up towards Mount are and connect to 287 Points North that'd be the leaving route leaving the incoming route again what we had found the most likely route coming in from everything other than southbound would be using 78 MH making a left on Allen Road left into the site and if you're coming 287 South Points North you'd be making a left on Mount AR Road from 287 coming down all the way to Martinsville area make a right on uh on Allen Road to get the site now again we did allow for a tractor trailer if they're coming eastbound on on Allen Road to make a right turn in because if we didn't in a truck approach that way right they would have to figure out how to turn around to get in so so how many do you think they'll in that case we don't we we are not projecting that as the most as a route that would we likely be taken again we have the ability for a truck to make that turn in so they don't get here and have to turn around in some driveway or parking lot or some residential neighborhood so they have the ability to make it in but that's not the fastest route from Northbound 287 or southbound of 287 to get to the site and this is just all averages and um you know it may end up being the max when I look at the chart and I see at the very top where it says well it's not there now but it was the number that had the range on it that was 5 something these questions were asked and answered multiple times this evening I know and with so much traffic though doesn't it feel to you a little bit like this really is like a warehousing a warehousing kind of thing does it feel like that to you it feels like that to me okay sorry okay thank you yeah I know thank you thank you very much okay thank you okay I'm going to ask okay I I think we're done with um the public questions for the traffic engineer for for tonight do you have anything else you're resting okay so case is resting okay thank you and thank you Mr sheer for many nights and many uh hours here appreciate that I think we have some scheduling I think uh I think we do so I think so today's May 16th I think Miss Keir we have a regular scheduled meetings which has a fairly light agenda on June 5th is that correct correct so we're happy to uh continue the signature Acquisitions on that night although it won't be exclusive because we do have a residential case that will um will'll hear first but you can take uh the rest of that meeting on June 5th Madam chair sure also for the benefit of the public uh uh and the board members for that matter my understanding is now that the applicant has rested their case in Chief we're moving to an objector case uh it's my understanding that Miss Smith has a uh on behalf of her clients has a witness a professional planner correct Miss Smith that's correct we have Don a home do you have any Witnesses uh that you intend to present with respect to your objectives case who fact fact Witnesses and who may those fact Witnesses be I'll have to get that okay so we will have you'll have fact witness Fact one fact one witness Our intention is to have one witness yes one witness and expert witness planner Mr Berlin one witness of one fact witness is but I'm not sure the number okay you're not sure of the number I'll give you PL but there will be quick Witnesses well yeah well the obor's case will proceed the next time we pick up so and then members of the public also will have an opportunity to make all their points uh swor morning in testimony Etc uh along with the obors and and I don't know if the board of education is having any Witnesses or not I think she might have just left okay but that's fine thank you the DAT we're working on the date now we're working on the date I I have a few items just to put on the record if I may um first I do want to just make perfectly clear Mr Lair that you have rested your case but you are not presenting an architect to testify to the revised architectural plan so any questions that we have regarding the revised architectural plans and the relationship to F and the contention that you should be looking at office separately from light manufacturing you are not having anyone testify to that those documents or those facts the we have said that we would meet the height we have said that uh the um the office will be a certain percentage we said that the the light manufacturing would be a certain percentage but no I have no no in of bringing back Mr neighbor so any questions that I have or the public has as to the actual use on the floor plans based on the revised plans you submitted there will be no one brought forth to answer those questions the revised plans from the architect have already been submitted to the board correct but no one has testified to them you submitted them without any testimony NE the burdens of proof as you well know are what they are understood I just want to make sure that it's not something that we're ipating I think said no one no one else no one else okay so as far as uh scheduling Madam chair we have some scheduling difficulties so U Miss Holquist is here today uh she's our professional planner I'm not asking she that she come up today I just want for the record she is here that's a good choice but uh we did Fellowship did retain a planner who was prepared to be here on April 11th and was in fact here today but due to the changes in plans obviously the case took a little longer than we thought uh for the applicant to complete his his case um we know with the upcoming meetings on June 5th and the 13th on June 5th Miss Holquist is unfortunately not available she's a solo practitioner she's the only license planner in her shop and she's not available on that day uh and and just also for the for the record on June 13th is my son's 8th grade graduation and so I was asking that if we could please not have that date Miss hquest and I are both available for the the meeting on July 11th that is scheduled we are both available on that day okay um Mr Berlin would you be um ready uh if we continued and you were first up on June 5th with respect to your fact Witnesses because that's our um next schedule meeting it's a couple of weeks from now three weeks um so I'm would go before the we're going to let you go first Mr B yep you and your fact Witnesses June 5th we got to keep the hearing moving it's objectors case now there's only two objectors represented by Council currently uh June 13th is our potential special meeting I don't know if we voted on that yet but we have a special meeting date on June 13th set aside J is that good for you June 13th is the day I cannot make that date I have if you would like go forward with your fact Witnesses on the 13th I would not have an objection to that I just wouldn't be able to put forward my case that day 13th would be better thought we were talking about Madam chair can you hear me yes I can you know this is the 14th hearing on this matter and my client is I count them actually my client is is also spending a considerable amount of money carrying this property appropriate for the it's appropriate for the object to to to move forward at this point it's the obor's case this is their opportunity the board will give all obors and members of public home opportunity but it can't be if and when in the future you decide you want to do so we have to we have to have the case now so I think at this point Mr Belin your Co obor Council can't proceed on June 5th possibly even on June 13th so so I think the board is looking to Mr to proceed with the one or more fact witnesses that you have to make your obor's case and then she'll come in with about the 13 fifth and the 13th are both available the 13th no the fifth could you do the fifth Mr Berlin we'd like to do it on the we'd like to use the time June on the 5th I mean we're I would have trouble pulling it together for the 5th 13th will be fine three weeks it has been over a year it's three weeks yeah it's really only a difference of seven days are you saying that you will not be ready and you need that additional seven days I wouldn't be ready on the fifth I could be ready on the thir it's only AEK it's a month of carry it's not a [Music] week regular meeting not their special meeting that's what they're trying to ask so the board doesn't have to come back twice and okay we're going to schedule the next uh signature hearing for June 13th we we'll set a special meeting for June 13th so for members of the public I'm sorry do we know we'll have a I I have not taken a a count we have some people here this evening I I can anyone not make June 13th other than Miss I do know that Mr hon will be able to make the 13th any any issues June 13th Thursday no issues okay so we're going to set the next signature meeting Mr La for can you make June 13th Mr thank you uh for June 13th so for members of the public we will have a meeting on June 5th we will not hear signature at that time we will hear residential cases um and we will hear it on June 13th where we expect Mr berglin uh to bring some fact Witnesses and you'll start you'll kick us off uh and if anything changes you can join us otherwise and Mr berin you have to you have to give the board and all councel the name or names of the individuals you intend to call as fact Witnesses and provide any and all exhibits in advance as well as has been done throughout Jennifer Smith is part of a large firm I am part of a large firm I understand personal issues I that I have to have surgery in another month so I I'm going to have to have other people handle things I'm not sure I understand why another person couldn't come in her place like Michael silver came in my place pleas in order to in order to answer ask questions of the Planner on the June 13th night I think I'm sorry M chair but the the the the your objection is noted it's on the record In fairness I think uh uh it's reasonable for the board to determined that if we can utilize the June 13th date for one of the obors council and his one or more fact Witnesses uh and accommodate uh uh uh Miss Smith and her expert and have them come in first or second meeting in July presumably with the uh uh with their expert testimony and their obor's case at that point and members of the public uh can then make their comment I think that's also reasonable and certainly well within the discretion of the well you haven't really answered my question could does she have the availability to bring another associate in to ask the question spess I'm going to allow her you know that um flexibility we've allowed other allowances over the past 18 months also on the signature side so on this particular one at a point where it's going to be her case with her witness I'm not going to ask uh I'm not going to ask her to have someone else do it at this point Thank you madam chair in the interest of fair to everyone can we just set the July 11th date for me to come in um that way we know that Miss Holquist has the day I have the day we're th that's that's the special me your your second meeting I personally am not I I can't commit at this point in time I I need to look at calendars okay um just to make sure so we'll get back to you offline I think see if we can do that but maybe we can take a straw poll at a separate time when board members are home to make sure cuz as get into the Summers that's the intended dat you do have a regularly scheduled meeting on July 3rd but I think the public you're going to cancel that okay yeah we're going to cancel that one thank you yeah and we're also mindful of the public we don't want to continue these on July 3rd or dates where people AR going to thank you Mr yeah we this will be carried uh to June 13 7:30 p.m. uh the same location without further notice with an extension of time to act through the end of the month of June if not July I'd ask respectfully of Mr Blair and his client if somebody could just send us an email thank you I I will talk to you about that yeah not going to put it on the record right now okay that's fine okay thank you I very much appreciate your courtesy yeah thank you thank you will the public be able to talk at that time on those two dates like June and July at that at that point in time we may open it up for questions from the public depending on what the cad of those nights go for I would assume it is not going to be public comment time okay we'll try and give everybody a heads up as we're getting closer to that but given the fact that we're going to have additional Witnesses now from an obor's case certainly not going to be at the next meeting we'll try and give everybody enough heads up so that we can plan for that we it is not lost on me that we will hear a lot of comments thank you so thank you for for those of you who are leaving now if you can do so quietly because we're going to do a couple other we're going to do a couple other things thank you thank you okay okay so miss Keir we have one case I think for June fifth yeah it's a pool it's a pool so we can rejoice in that there there was one case for us on June 5th um okay's okay um are there any comments from Members any comments from staff any motions to adjourn motion several second all in favor thank you thanks for staying late every e