okay good evening everyone and welcome to the Hillsboro Township planning board meeting of March 7th 2024 please join me and salute to the [Music] flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for [Music] all please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised coring section five of the open public meeting act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 otherwise known as Sunshine Law notes of the 2024 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers the Township Clerk posted post on the Township's website and available here at the Hillsboro Township municipal complex in addition application documents and plans have been made available on the township Civic clerk website at at least 10 days in advance of this evening meeting complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice and with that we have to do a couple of votes before we go to roll call correct gentlemen if Mr rtz for you got who's moving from alternate seat number one to seat seven and Angela Vitali who's taking Mr R's place as alternate number one gentlemen Raise Your Right hands please I state your name I Bruce rowitz do solemnly swear do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States the Constitution of the state of New Jersey and the constitution of the state of New Jersey that I will bear true faith and allegiance that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same to the same and to the governments established and to the governments established in the united states in the United States and in this state and in this state under the authority of the people under the authority of the people and that I will faithfully and that I will faithfully and partially and partially and justly perform and justly perform all the duties all the duties of the office of of the office of class 4 member member one of the planning board of the planning board to the best of my ability to the best of my ability so help me God so help me God you're now stuck uh I will I will attest uh I think you know the routine just fill them in we'll we'll attest pass it down pass it down oh pass it down pass it down okay [Music] grade my teacher will have to [Music] mark okay so with that may have a roll call of planning board members and board in Township professionals Please Mr wager here Mr redwitz here Mr scobo here M Smith here uh Mr Vitali here did I say it right yes all right uh Mr Deb here commit M the P pres Deputy Mayor Chelli here VI sh seven here chair sarach here Mr K president Mr Bernstein I think I'm here Mr Matthew here and myself and the videographer are here okay welcome everyone uh we do not have any meeting minuts for consideration however we do have a resolution for consideration Hillsboro Center LLC with file number of 23- pb-4 DSP may have a motion to [Music] approve so move second okay any discussion from today is hearing none roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes M Smith yes Mr Deb yes uh commun the py yes yes Deputy Mayor Chelli yes Vice chair peas yes chair sarach yes moving on to planning board business so uh just because Mr rert just took seat number seven that was due to Mr Frank delor a former commitment and mayor and longtime um colleague up here on the planning board you had resigned his seat um last month so I just want to just formally thank Frank for all the years that he put in here he's going to be missed up here uh hopefully he'll maybe he'll come in and just visit us and you know hang out for all time sake so you're nuts I'm an optimist yes thank you Mr delor For All You've Done 100% okay next uh business item 303 ml rad J mj4 A Inc file number 21- pb-1 17- mspv uh looks like we have to schedule they do have a time of decision till June first of this year Mr [Music] quise I have nothing to report on on this one okay where is this are they scheduled Mr Co right [Music] now I do not have Mr chairman I would recommend that the board pass a motion scheduling 303 Amell Road jmj for a Inc for May 9th at 7 p.m. or soon thereafter as the matter may be heard without further notice okay may have that motion go moved second okay I would point out Mr uh chairman that the eligible members are Mr Wagner Mr rtz Mr scobo Miss Smith committeeman leani Vice chairman Pon and your self okay thank you any comments roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Mr scobo yes Smith yes committee M the Pani yes Vice chair peon yes chair sarach yes okay we do not have considerations of ordinances so we will now move to business from the floor for matters not on this evening's agenda if you would like to provide any commentary please state your name and re name and address of for the record and also please refrain from any comments regarding warehouses directly or indirectly thank you uh Greg colmer Taylor Avenue I have I'm just going to read out apologize I like to look at people but I'm going to stick to the script here so first of all I just want to thank the board for their time uh dedicating as a volunteer and one that is electing to represent our town and listen to the public thank you very much uh second just want to acknowledge the efforts uh that you make for the public to question Witnesses engage in discourse with applications that come forward uh so my comment or maybe concern or uh whatever maybe uh in a minute just maybe a little nitpicky but it's more of a question of understanding process uh unfortunately I wasn't able to attend last month's meeting uh or the last meeting but I did watch the recording and my comment is in ref reference to application 23- pb-4 DSP uh after watching the recording I again want to thank the board for offering the opportunity for the public to question the engineer after their testimony however absent from the overall process was the opportunity for the public to speak for against or make a comment on the overall applications itself for the board to hear prior to voting uh it is not the first time I've spoken about this uh I made a comment uh during this for former or Forum about I don't know a year and a half ago or something uh in that case chairman your response was to the effect well it was a simple lot line adjustment and uh those are uh for the board and confirmed with Mr Bernson whether the board needed to open for public comment on such a simple and those are my words application uh I expressed the concern that the public comment uh may not be open for other applications uh you assured the public at the time that the public uh would have their time at another bite of the Apple sorry to use some words that you I hear uh for other applications uh that are opening or or ongoing however the same thing just happened uh there was no opportunity for the public to to be heard uh I noted I didn't want to be nitpicky here but the concern is this and I perhaps other members of the public are confused though when we are allowed uh able to make a comment about a particular application so during this period right now you have set a rule that no comments can be made during uh or towards an open application to protect the record which I understand during witness uh public comment you rightfully so ensure comments are directed towards the witnesses and not towards the board thank you very much however if there's no such opportunity at the end of the application when a motion is made to affirm or deny then uh then there's no such opportunity for the public to make comment on the application itself again the attent not just just to understand the process here and to ensure that's consistent in order to have predictability or reliability to make a comment so if the public cannot make a comment for open applications during this portion of the meeting then uh there's no problem uh uh no no problem then one needs to be provided for after a motion is filed for all applications uh if no such opportunity will be provided then I believe the public has a right to clearly understand when such comments can be made again I want to thank your time and I'll leave it a that okay I will admit I don't recall whether or not we denied the public the opportunity to speak on the appliation at the end but for purposes and I will use this application for the sheer example and nothing more Mr gianetti and objectors at Mr gianetti will at some point come up and continue his a his application and his examination of witnesses at some point he will conclude his direct presentation following that we'll be the objectors and any of their Witnesses following their presentations at that point assuming nobody is coming back for rebuttal that will be the point in time for example with this application that the public will be allowed to speak on any aspect of the application prior to any action being taken by the board which is what the board has done all along and every other application I realize it has been a while and possibly longer than some of us can remember the last time we got to that point in an application because almost all of our applications have been double digit hearings that have not yet found its way but when that time comes that's when the park the parties will be allowed outside of the objectors and the applicant in this case to ask to make comments and state their opinions relative to this application per se okay thank you any other comments from the [Music] public Maria Janus 720 East fck Avenue Manville New Jersey I'm also a Hillsboro Township property owner block 86 lot 3 2155 camplan Road uh could you please tell me uh in accordance with the municipal land use law what is the obligation of an applicant towards Property Owners within 200 feet of the subject property of the applicant notice excuse me they need to notice what kind of notice [Music] written notice of the application that's it notice of dates hearings that's it and that has to be sent how it has to be sent out to Property Owners within 200 feet in accordance with a list provided to the applicant usually from the tax assessor's office has generated by and I'm correct me if I'm wrong David mod 4 which is a program created by the state for such the app applicant relies upon such and sends out the notice that doesn't always mean that everybody who should be in that list is necessarily on that list and they are required to advise the board that they have sent out the notice to the public the green cards are not required to be sent back the only notice is required is that notices have been sent to the following individuals on the 200 foot list but that has to be sent via certified mail with a return re necessar it does not have to be sent by a certified mail it does not have to be sent by certified mail it can it can be and it's not required for the green cards to prove delivery to be turned back that's not required no it's not required the green card to be turned back okay so that there's no requirement of the green card at all because you're not sending a certified mail there is notification that the individual has been provided but the state law does not require that the green cards be sent back you keep saying doesn't have to be sent back if if there's no certified mail then there there is no green card at all never mind about but almost every applicant sends it out certified and usually mail sometimes also regular to ensure that they have in fact have a record that they send out the documents to the people within 200 feet okay because there is an application that was be put before this board that is that is within 200 ft of my property and I did not receive notice but I'm seeing here that the applicant is going to provide re notice how can you provide re notice if there was never an initial notice sent out and in regard to that application which is um chairman tract uh there are two documents that are mentioned uh in the application but yet they were not provided as part of the uh documents that are submitted for the public to to to read and to be able to question and that is the settlement agreement and the Sherman Redevelopment plan those were not provided those documents were not provided uh for that application um my other question is what is the law regarding properties that are the subject of an application before the planning board that are currently not conforming that they they are not uh uh uh permitted in that zone um and they do not have a certificate of non nonconformity uh how is that property treated um that's not an issue for this board that's an issue for either the planning planning and zoning department Andor construction and or engineering or the township itself but it's not a board jurisdiction issue we were informed by the applicant um that they were not um not going to be here this evening and this is what they indicated the applicant will be sending out new notices to the property owners within 200 ft of the subject property and will republish the notice of the new date in the newspaper as well and so we have them for uh April 11th tentatively they of course have to notice and meet all those requirements uh in order to do so so meaning anyone that's within the 200 ft you know need need to be noticed and they need to be noticed sufficiently in the newspaper as well I understand all that but I'm saying what I read was that that they're going to Reen notice send new notices when there were originally no notices sent out all I could say is we did not receive any copy of any notices that they would have sent which makes us think that they didn't put a notice out normally what happens is we receive a copy of the notice but the applicant didn't provide that they provided a a letter stating that they would like to be heard at a different date and does the planning board have a a copy of all of the properties that are within 200 ft it's within it's within the application uh so an applicant receives a list of all the properties within 200 fet from the planning and zoning department so it's within the department it's not necessarily something that the planning board members are looking at individually it's something administratively that the staff is is looking at so uh we're looking at the list on Sherman trct and your house it your name is on the list the what your name is on the list in Civic clerk so as being noticed or as provided by the township to be noticed not not noticed but to be noticed you are on the list though okay and your address and fre road is the is is the address listed to send Avenue not Y and um what I want to what I want to specify is that the the applicant is claiming to be giving re notice when there was originally no notice given and my second question well m j to be fair you didn't receive the notice they notice and they're just saying that sometimes we when they have an application that's that's is moved reos is not required they are saying they are going to Ren notice when they have the date so you're saying that that other property owners did receive notice you're the only one here saying they didn't I'm the only one saying they I didn't that's present uh um I would like to I'm going to request a copy of that of that list it's on Civ my other question just jzac it's on Civic clerk you can look at it yourself it's on Civic clerk what's on what's on Civic clerk the list that you're asking for I didn't see it that's right there he's looking at it right now I okay all right cuz I didn't see it uh my other question had been in regard to properties that are the subject of an application that are currently nonconform in and don't have a certificate of non-conformity how how is that what is the how is that dealt [Music] with I'm not going to answer a question in the abstract ma'am if you got an allegation as to a specific property and a specific application put it on the record and we'll look at it but otherwise I'm not going to engage in an abstract okay so the two properties from Homestead Road um I believe one is a is a residential use and one is a farm use and those are not permitted uses in that zone current are not permitted in that zone excuse me current uses are not permitted in that zone you just rattled off two properties I'm assuming they're tonight's application yes which we're not discussing which we're not discussing but more importantly your contention is that one is currently being used for farming and one is currently a residential and your contention is that neither one of them is a permitted use in their current situation current Zone yes okay we'll look into that part what it has to do with this application is inm materials to what they're currently being used for I would think okay but if it's if it's a non-conforming use H it should have a certificate of non-conformity otherwise it's not in compliance with it's not required necessarily to have a certificate of nonconformity why why is it not required I'm not I'm not I'm not going to get into that disc because I had been told something other in regard to my property thank you you're welcome any other members from the public okay seeing none we're moving to this evening's [Music] applications first up uh I guess with regards to the Sherman track are there any Representatives here or are we just going to read through no representative aware of Mr chairman they have indicated that they have they asked for an adment from the planning department which was then apparently granted and they have indicated they will be Ren noticing all the parties whether or not they notice or not I will point out that Reen notice is a term of art M they may not have noticed but they if they had not noticed they are still required now to Reen notice so in order to conform and that apparently with the board's approval is to April 11th at 700 p.m. as soon as the matter may be heard and they'll be the first ones up on the agenda okay so we need a motion to do so is there a motion to adjourn the Sherman track Phase 2 Eminem at camplan Road LLC with file number 23- pb-1 18- MSP time of decision of May 17th of this year to uh journ till the April 11th 2024 planning board meeting at 700 p.m. or soon after uh the meeting starts with notice of an April 11th meeting Mr chairman I'll move so moveed second okay any comments roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Mr scobo yes Smith yes Mr Vali commit Theon [Music] yesy mayor Chelli yes chair PE yes mayor srra yes thank you Mr chairman thank you so now Mr chairman before you begin on the next matter I will continue my recusal on that matter and wish everyone a good night okay let the record reflect Mr M M Mr rwit gets his promoted seat is now recusing himself as he has prior prior hearings on this application and has left a day is right good evening okay we have Homestead Road LC file number 21- pv-2 DMS slms PV time of decision April 1st of this year uh there continuation from our J January 25th meeting of this year without further notice I'm just going to ask uh everyone to introduce themselves again sure yes good evening chairman members of the board Craig jetti the law firm Dave Pitney on behalf of the applicant Homestead Road LLC evening good evening Mike pasaro policy director for the Watershed Institute green you're [Music] greenp Suzanne oxy I'm representing SWAT I'm a member an official member of SWAT and I'm here on behalf of uh Brian Tarantino okay Scott Bru objector number two Lucy Sandler objector number five representing the saand Conservancy John lahan hold it John Lan chapter number four can I welcome everyone I'm sorry can I get uh Susan's last name again your last name o c h s s [Music] e and just clarify you're saying you're now a member of SWAT I've uh one of the original members you're one of the original members yeah there's documentation submitted to the planning board some time ago and you previously questioned Witnesses before pardon me have you previously questioned Witnesses before have I ever and this application question okay Brian has always been [Music] here it's my understanding that since Brian represents me that I am not permitted to speak is that correct you're not permitted to question the witnesses other than your other than in Your Capacity as a member of SWAT so you are now at least for this evening because I believe the board and everyone is aware Mr teren Ino advised everyone he would not be present tonight that Miss Oxley is basically here in Mr Tarantino's stad and will be allowed to ask questions in a capacity as an objector but otherwise you will not be allowed to ask questions normally from the audience you are wait do I have to have a note from Brian that it's okay no no okay great I think we'll I think we'll accept and I believe you [Music] are okay counc floor sure good evening uh again chairman members of the board Craig jet the law firm da Pitney on behalf of the afcan homest State Road LLC uh this is a continued application for preliminary final major site plan approval and minor subdivision approval approval for property located at 189 and 203 Homestead Road uh property located in the te CD uh transition Economic Development District uh where the applicant is proposing uh to construct two warehous houses on the property we presented a a slew of testimony so far um at the last meeting uh we had our uh environmental Wetlands expert uh Mr cook testify uh there was some discussion as to um what was in his report what he could testified to so on and so forth you know we obviously made the argument he's not you know everything he's testified to was in a report that has been submitted whether it's regard to his environmental impact statement with regard to his prior letter to the board and or the D applications not withstanding since the last meeting we did have him uh prepare and submit a supplement report to his uh ER the ecological resource inventory and impact assessment report uh I have based on that since we were not permitted to go down a certain Avenue at the last meeting I have a couple follow-up questions for him uh and then we can open it up to questioning from the public and cross-examination uh from the objectors and then the public as well okay if if I may just ask a point of order um at at the end of the last meeting um Mr Cook's te direct testimony was ended and twice on the record uh Mr gianetti was asked whe whether there was any intention to supplement Mr Cook's report uh in both in both questions the answer was no um so I mean given that the applicant rested their direct and indicated no supplemental rep report was coming um should that be allowed and I can give sites to that transcript if necessary this is our application and we're permitted to present whatever evidence we want we were precluded from going down certain paths uh that they said was outside the scope of reports at the time we felt we had enough but then we decided afterwards that we want to supplement the report so the record's clear and ask them the questions we wanted to ask at the last meeting I don't see why the board should preclude us and Mr cour we received this at least 10 days before this evening I I could double check Mr chairman I'll submit it was submitted more than 10 days before the meeting [Music] do you recall the name of the report uh it's called ecological resource inventory and impact it's the same you have it report uh justce says supplement report 23r we the date of the prop it's dated February 23rd is that enough Mr chairman you like me to verify okay and Mr chairman just to continue to the record um issues were made during applicants witness about giving testimony outside the scope of his original report um Mr gianetti had issues with it I'm characterizing it that way um and apparently decided my words to see the light and submit an amended report and seek additional questioning so I believe that's this report is in response to the board's requests and I believe correctly if I'm Mr Wrong Mr janetti also respect to Mr Mayu reports I'm sorry with that last part Mr mayu's latest report this is also in or not Mr May what do you mean is it was it in response whether this oh in part yes in part [Music] yes testify yeah where back in truth truth I don't sure first name Edward last name cook spelled KU thank you [Music] so Mr cook at the last meeting uh you presented various testimony concerning the wetlands and stream Corridor on the property as well as your kind of Investigations and evaluation of the property in that evaluation of the property did you find any areas that you would consider as critical ecological significance uh yes I did um first and foremost uh there were areas that um based upon my field evaluations of the property U looking to see what areas on that property would be considered to have significant ecological values uh first and foremost the main tributary of Royce Brook uh that Corridor that runs along the northern portion of the property um that in my opinion would certainly be considered as having a critical ecological resource uh associated with it also what I identified also even though they are narrow and small and and so on and so forth the tributaries that run down through the property uh they are w a resource uh they are contiguous they are naturally occurring um therefore I consider those in my evaluation to have a significant ecological uh importance also on the property um there there's an area in the North in the northeastern central region of the property um that is actually rather free of alien invasive species it's a it's an area that comes about with a mids subsectional field the tributaries and so on and so forth based upon a distribution of the habitats and and the availability of habitat there I consider that portion of the property also um even though not regulated uh to be considered as a an area of ecological importance and aside from Regulatory Compliance issues what was your recommendations to the project for the from an ecological persp perspective well first of all again in in addition first questions asked to me were from a Regulatory Compliance standpoint but of course um having to Give opinions uh you know from a bugs and bunnies standpoint uh my recommendations obviously for the overall project uh were number one to the greatest extent possible protect that Royce Brook tributary Corridor um D required a 50ft wetland buffer associated with it uh the FHA verification required a 50 foot repairing Zone um again like I said uh because of its uh its resource value its ecological resource value um I want to see and made the strong recommendation that to the greatest extent possible any disturbance of that area be avoided and a great buffer to that be incorporated um also my recommendations were to protect those smaller tributaries um even though they are small they are narrow U my recommendation was to the greatest extent possible to avoid disturbance to them and increase the buffer zone to them to the greatest extent that they could the other important thing that I wanted on this particular property that my recommendation was uh was to utilize existing Disturbed areas to the greatest extent possible um any presently developed areas any presently Disturbed areas or manipulated areas I would want to see those areas be developed first and incorporated into the um into the overall development plan before we went extending out into the more natural areas um the other thing that I wanted on on the the the project site was to the greatest extent possible to try to incorporate um contiguous habitat post project and what I mean by that is to try to um with with when you're developing something and you're redeveloping on an existing developed area given the characteristics of the site and the size of the site my recommendation was if the if there was going to be multiple buildings on it that the layout of those buildings be such that we could still preserve and maintain a large as possible contiguous area and contiguous habitat preferably even connecting into the Royce Brook habitat um so that we would have one big main cter associated with it uh finally one of my strong uh recommendations to the project was um to maintain and even create grassland bird habitat um that's what were lacking in the area and unfortunately for grassland bird habitat natural succession unfortunately renders uh an area uh unsuitable for grassland Bur so given the opportunity my recommendation to the project was to maintain grassland habitat um and well actually improve it and and maintain it and has the applicant uh Incorporated those recommendations uh you just discussed in in this project generally yes it was it was um pleasure to have someone listen to the bugs and bunnies guy um first of all uh with regard to the to the Roy Brook stream Carter or or the the tributary to Royce Brook um the project Incorporated um uh increased buffer zones they inced uh included the the buffer associated with it from stream C ordinance in Hillsboro which is great um they increased it to the greatest extent possible minimize the storm water outfall structures associated with it um and therefore minimizing the impact to that and incorporate the you know greatest buffer that we could to that particular area um um building number one I the the larger building uh if if I'm calling that correctly between one and two the when I when I refer to building number one I'm talking about the large one that's right along Homestead Road um the placement of that building was all the way to the east that already Incorporated existing developed area and um you know minimized New Habitat disturbance and and utilized what was already developed and already Disturbed to the greatest extent possible with regard to building number two again it was nice that they listened to me on this particular thing my recommendation was when I was just talking about creating a habitat Corridor or maintaining a habitat Corridor so in order to do that um the recommended placement of a second building if there was going to be a second building was to be as far to the Northwest as possible so that we could keep that large contiguous habitat area in the middle of the property uh and therefore have a Continuum between that and that Ru Brook tributary that they Incorporated um also as far as building number two uh goes building number one's right along the road and already developed area building number two my recommendation was to keep it as close to already Disturbed areas as possible meaning the route 206 bypass and the railroad tracks so that's why the um that second building is tucked up is close to there as possible thereby offering a you know the uh the availability of that large habitat um Carter that I wanted through the middle of the property um my recommendation was that the access road to that second building to incorporate the existing Crossing to the tributary um rather than making a a new Crossing that means they had to adjust the road a little bit here or there but I would rather use an existing Crossing or existing Disturbed area rather than making a new one my recommendation was only to have one Crossing but I was overruled I believe I was overruled by the township on that particular thing from a safety standpoint um so uh so they ended up having two Crossings of that tributary stream but again with regard to that those Crossings are made in the most perpendicular manner as possible thereby minimizing the the encroachment into that resource and minimizing encroachment into the into the overall cardor that we want to you know want them to keep um finally my one of my best recommendation to the thing was that this particular project dealt with storm water outfall structures that required permitting through the D which thereby triggered de storm water review um you guys are probably quite familiar with the fact and we take great you know very good pride in this that New Jersey has the strictest storm water management regs when it comes to flood control and water quality in the country um that's something that's uh that that a lot of people will complain about a lot of Engineers will complain about because it's tough to deal with that um but that's what the project has to do so what this project has to do is and has to comply with the strict of storm water management uh regulations uh and that and that was approved by the D now going back excuse me you testified the last meeting on the town stream Corridor ordinance uh in your review of that what what is the purpose of the ordinance um stream card ordinance at Hillsboro has is great I like it um I think it was um originated by Peg Van Patton um worked with her a lot uh used to be the president of the uh or head of the environmental commission um she was very influential in that um the township stream carer ordinance um is very beneficial when we have a resource and we have a water resource we have a natural Water Resource what it does it serves to give an added protection to that Water Resource and as a supplement to that and as a secondary benefit to that what it does is it it preserves habitat associated with it so whether or not that actual 150 ft adjacent to it is really serving to keep water temperatures down or keep sedimentation down or or so on and so forth even if it does none of that what it does do is it provides protected habitat and protect the corridor that of course is you know any Corridor they could be utilize for wildlife and so on and so forth is a is certainly beneficial so I guess back to your testimony in connection with the ditch on lot 30 3 uh if the township imposed the stream Court ordinance and that buffer on this ditch what would that mean oh just to confirm we're talking about the uh the the the ditch that we had a lot of discussion about on lot 33 correct correct okay um as I said before in my last testimony this this ditch uh this man-made ditch uh was there and created for the main purpose purp to convey storm water from an impervious surface that's utilized as a vehicle parking lot and an equipment storage area um to convey runoff wers I'm object he's testifying to facts and actually test you know we went through this last time there's no evidence there's no expert opinion of why this was built if it was built and when when he provided at the last meeting how he got that information and he was allowed to testify at the last meeting he can continue with this this answering there was a huge discussion with Mr Bernstein about hearsay um so there's a huge discussion would he testify to it please note my objection you all right you can cross-examine them all you want I certainly will but there's a variety of different gr inlets throughout the impervious parking area and storage area that all discharge into uh uh one pipe that pipe at the discharge of the pipe is the origin of this ditch um this ditch then goes in a very linear narrow fashion directly into Royce Brook um this ditch has no water quality capabilities no flood control capabilities it wasn't made for that it was made to convey storm Waters obviously um if the stream Carter ordinance and and and just backtracking at at present wers from impious surfaces that are holding vehicles are going into this being discharged into this ditch and this ditch is discharging directly into the stream cardor associated with Royce Brook um if the stream carer ordinance was imposed on this particular ditch um it would require the preservation of this ditch and preservation of 150 ft around this ditch now at present the area around this ditch is is entirely maintained um consist of impervious parking area buildings lawn a house and a solar panels um that that's what would be preserved from an ecological perspective do you consider this dish to be a point of source of degradation to Royce Brook that I do yes um the reason for that is because it is discharging untreated storm Waters directly into an area that I consider having a critical ecological resource and do you consider this ditch in 150 ft area surrounding it as a separate and distinct natural habitat no no I don't and in my evaluation and mapping of habitats on the property this was all consider I considered all of this under the developed criteria uh meaning something it is uh uh presently manipulated and has minimal if any ecological [Applause] value so in your opinion if if the ditch and the 1 15ot surrounding area were considered as a protected stream quarter by the township this would preserve the ditch that serves as a point of so source of degradation to Roy Brook along the adjacent lands that are already developed and Disturbed which which could continue to contribute or in your opinion with that contribute continue to contribute to the degradation of the royb I know that was a long question yeah that was that was a good question my god um yes U well okay let let me backtrack let me let me let me answer that by rewording the question if I can um yes if that ditch and if a stream caror of 150 ft around that ditch were protected what what would be protected would be a a Continuum of a point source of degradation to the main tributary of Roose Brook because it's conveying untreated storm Waters from impervious surfaces directly into Roose Brook with no treatment did that answer your question yes it does uh uh now does the proposed project include the preservation and the continu of the Stitch um it does not um the proposed project incorporates um disturbance to a large portion of the Stitch uh this ditch is not going to be utilized by the by the project as a storm water conveyance or even a storm water outfall in fact uh as testified at the last meeting uh as an ordinary resource value Wetland with the zero foot buffer uh We've applied for a Wetlands General permit to fill the ditch correct that that's correct there is a a fresh order Wetlands General permit number seven that is pending that uh is for the authorization to disturb the ditches proposed in addition are you aware uh and or present at an inspection of the property with the County Agricultural Council uh yes I was um I was president that um and that that field meeting with the the representatives from the agriculture Council was on December 7th and I was present then and there was an agricultural Council hearing on January 22nd 2024 that's correct I was present at that hearing and what did the uh Council rule with respect to the property what the council ruled um not with respect to the project but to the property is that the present property owner under the Right to Farm Act has the authorization the standing authorization uh to continue to cultivate the property um to the extent that he wants to cultivate it and does that mean with respect to the property and how it's currently operating it does not have to abide by the stream court or ordinance that's correct in accordance with the Right to Farm Act do you know if there's a required buffer distance to a stream there is under the right to Farm Act there is a required buffer zone to the stream and that buffer zone is 35 ft aside from the uh roads Road that's proposed and the utility line Crossings and the storm water outfall structures being proposed as part of this project does the project uh everywhere else accommodate at least 150t buffer to all natural water courses on the property uh yes it does you know with with the exception of those required encroachments for the roadway Crossings the storm water outfall structures utility line connection um on all other waters uh it incorporates uh at a minimum 150 foot buffer zone in most cases in excess of that I have nothing further Mr cook you Mr I have nothing currently Mr chairman [Music] May thank you Mr chairman um Mr cook you discussed the um encroachments proposed within the Hillsboro stream encroachment Corridor and I think in the report that you recently submitted you mentioned there were two sanitary lines two roadway Crossings and three storm sewer outfalls um would it increase um well I think it might be helpful if we're looking at a plan showing those encroachments is it possible to put that up I can tell you which [Music] drawing which drawing is [Music] it it would be sheet five by Van CLE which it's called overall grading drainage utility and Sol erosion plan [Music] [Music] uh I don't know if this is and I think Mr J it was submitted what what sheet did you say it's sheet five of the subdivision site plan set and uh this was submitted back in probably early February uh there I'm unaware of any revisions submitted to the township subsequent to that Mr that that's probably consistent with the wetlands permit plan right I would assume probably because nothing's changed on that so it's got to be that shows everything the the beauty of sheep 5 is it shows the Hillsboro streaming Corridor line I don't know if the D Wetland plan has that [Music] no there would be more of an overall plan I'm trying to find the sheet um just based on generally you would keep scrolling down that looks like you're at sheet [Music] three this one that looks like [Music] it and it is there a way to eliminate the the text on the left so we can see more of the [Music] plan and uh since Mr cook you were talking about the encroachments I just want to talk a little bit about them if we can zoom in I'll I'll follow the same pattern you're calling Ware the smaller warehouse warehouse number two Mr Jia if you can zoom in a little bit in the on that warehouse um Warehouse two yes sir and more specifically if you can zoom [Music] in and I wanted to talk Mr cook about the stream quarter um encroachments that you mentioned [Music] that or proposed I got to have this thing up in order to zoom [Music] in this we could see what I want to discuss uh I'll start with there's a sanitary a the pointer won't work on the screen if you look at the uh lower [Music] yeah I'm pointing towards the lower right corner of the proposed building and this is what's labeled as the senator SE David L and that's one of the a mic around here 15 buffer um and just for the the board and the audience you mentioned Mr cook the two roadway Crossings over the bo over the quarter um the reason for the senary connection into the corridor is to connect with the existing sanitary trunk line which runs along the stream that's correct could we minimize the impacts to the corridor if the senary lateral instead of connecting across open land was run under the roadway and made the connection at the existing sanitary trunk line that's already crossing the roadway unfortunately I'm not an engineer to design that okay um we can we can check that with Mike Mr Ford I think that's better for a civil engineer yeah my uh my my obviously my recommendation is to minimize as much as possible um that question why that why that wasn't done I'm going to have to defer to the engineer on that okay my second question would be there's a across the field open field storm drain coming out of one of the detention basins also crossing the stream cord and it's just off another proposed roadway I would ask why wouldn't we bring that pipe and head wall right along the roadway and again minimize the impacts to the sh and quarter that you were mentioning I I like your idea I yes um but from a again from an engineering perspective um I'm going to have to defer to to Mike Ford as to why that could wouldn't be done okay or or or why it wasn't done um I I would like it yes okay and just for the board's uh um use you know the township has waivers for stream coach stream cordor encroachment but they have to be proven that there's no alternative or prudent or reasonable alternative and I think we're identifying potential Alternatives if we could scroll up in this area you'll see there's a label called wet Lance sale and it's cross hatch right here um and Mr cook I think you mentioned there were some features that the engineer had labeled on the plan and then when you got involved and did the site visit with the D they decided not to call that a wetland feature at the time that that's correct and I'm wondering would it be a better design instead of having the storm pipe King out out the second detention Basin for the warehouse and it's Crossing an open area in the uh stream Corridor could that outlet come over and exit into what's more of a natural drainage area which is the Wetland sale and avoid another impact to the stream Corridor um again I I hate to keep on deferring to the engineer but I'm going to defer to the engineer on that I I like that idea so long as one of one of my main things from a from a you know as I was saying before from a bugs and bunnies standpoint is I want to have something where we could have habitat that ultimately if the project would incorporate and incorporate uh incorporate and maintain grassland bird habitat up through that area um I would like to keep disturbances out of that area so that we could have one nice contiguous grassland habitat post project um but you know I I I from a ecological standpoint don't see a reason why that couldn't happen so long as it would not interfere with the opportunity to to create and maintain some more grassland bird habitat there I guess the other Not only would it remove a a pipe and a head wall and rip wrap from the stream quarter but as you can see on the drawing as it's shaded there was a natural water course I'll call it which was labeled on the plan Wetland sale but as we pointed out the D did not label it or take jurisdiction over it but by discharging the Basin into that feature we would be more closely mimicking the natural drainage patterns of the site I'm in agreement to that to make that recommendation to to the engineer I like it okay if we can move over to Warehouse so that would eliminate potentially three additional utility impacts to the stream court and and and if if that's doable from an engineering perspective Mark I'm I'm all for it if we can slightly take this trolling and scroll this area just to the left so we can see Warehouse one um there are two impacts to the stream Corridor one is the sanitary line coming out and connecting to the existing trunk line the other is the storm discharge running in down to the stream from the rear detention Basin uh I would ask would it be better from an environmental standpoint to minimize impacts of the core and take this detention Basin and drain it to this water feature that we've been discussing about all evening long there's an existing feature here and by draining to that feature we would be minimizing impacts to the stream Corridor and we'd be closely re um reflecting the natural drainage patterns that are occurring there would that be something you would you would support that idea as well I I would support that idea so long as from an engineering standpoint and you know so that you know you engineers make their fancy calculations and everything that the storm water if if they Ed that route that it could still have the um uh that it would still comply with water quality treatment and so on and so forth uh prior to the discharge in into the Stream [Music] so again from a from a storm water management standpoint Mr Mayu I know um Van Cleave had to go through the storm Water Analysis and and storm Water Report with the D and so on and so forth um I like the idea to minimize habitat disturbance yes okay did did the project engineer have to accom accomodate anything specific based upon existing Topo D requirements or things like that that I don't know so for that I'm I'm going to have to defer to the project engineer on but it sounds like Mr Jan you're you're taking notes in that this is questions that are going to be asked because at some point if the project continues to proceed the board would be asked to Grant waivers to the stream quar impacts and I would think you'd have to demonstrate there's no other reasonable alternative um Mr cook um you mentioned the impacts of the occurrent disturbances within the stream Corridor surrounding the um the water feature on lot 33 that we've been discussing for the last two meetings is it possible that there could be a project proposed uh with development that removed some or all of the existing disturbances within the stream Corder are you going to check say that again I this would be I guess a hyp speculating on that like no I I'll just make it shorter and rephrase it is it possible to develop lot 33 uh with improvements that removed the existing disturbances within the stream cor or if it was imposed on the W feature in question yeah I'm going to object to it as speculative and doesn't have bearing on this application you're advising your witness not the answer is that what I'm yeah I'm objecting to the question it's he's having him speculate on some other development that's not being proposed as part of this application he's not our civil engineer he's not our planner he's just our not just but he's our just bu buddies guy he's our environmental Wetlands consult so the answer is your your the the witness is not capable to answering the question and you're advising him not to answer the question yeah I'm the question uh that's all the questions I have right now Mr chairman okay you Mr chairman if I may could you go into more detail you're talking about um and please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is you were talking about how the site layout and design uh basically uh creates a a better idea of of habitat and bird habitat and things like that can you give a little bit more detail in terms of if this development was to go ahead and be approved and built um what sort of things would be put in place that would help protect that are you proposing uh any sort of um you know conservation easements or maintenance plans or anything that would show that the bird habitat would would continue just trying to understand the difference between if there is one between when you're saying about site design and layout but then you know years after this development if it's potentially built are you saying that it could still be a bird habitat and how how would that happen gotcha uh great question thank you um first and foremost with regard to this property and the habitats that are there okay un unfortunately at present the based upon past use past disturbances and so on and so forth um a lot of the actual good grassland bird habitat has either naturally succeeded to a later stage succession which is no longer suitable for them or the areas that are still um potentially suitable for them are now basically taken over by alien invasive species which is common in an area that's Disturbed or Disturbed from farming or whatever uh without Property Maintenance okay that's that's what happens on unfortunately what happens in damp areas frag mighties grows what happens dry area alien invasive mugw grows okay um what what this would have an opportunity to do um if the applicant doesn't strangle me or or whatever but my my recommendation when I see something like this is I see the potential for improved grassland bird habitat there and a way that we would get improved grassland bird habitat there is actually with with the management of that um and that management for grassland bird habitat's pretty easy okay right now it's all mugw alien invasive verious species once a project would be completed and done um those areas they're going to have to deal with some tree planting and so on and so forth which my recommendation is going to be around the stream corridors and so on and so forth but in the other open areas to have a natural Meadow mix planting there okay have that natural Meow Mix planning there and then have a management plan and that management plan can be nice and simple a cutting every 3 years and the timing of the cutting so you would you would time that cutting um after grassland bird nesting season okay you have the you know you have the control of that unfortunately with u you know farming you don't have that control okay um so that that's how I think that this could easily incorporate a lot of Acres of restored good bird habitat it's better than out there right now thank you just for the board's clarification just want to make sure or understand the difference differences between what you're saying in terms of um the benefits of the design but then what is the applicant actually proposing is are there any conditions to put that into place or are you just stating for the record that the design and layout was done in such a way where there's the benefits that you mentioned it's just I don't want there to be any confusion or I'm trying to avoid any confusion even for the public uh when when hearing your testimony about the benefits to the bird habitat and then ultimately there's nothing in the plans from a landscape planning from a maintenance standpoint there's there's nothing stopping what you testified about as a bird habitat and it becoming not a bird habitat so again not making you do anything I'm just asking for clarification what are you actually proposing to the board so that they could be clear okay um let me ask that in two parts number one the first part was the design the overall layout uh and that overall layout allowed for the opportunity for a large contiguous area of that property okay that is presently in mids successional field early to mids successional field area um you know to remain so that that area is not fragmented by a building so that we have a contiguous habitat that was part number one get them to design it the way that I would want them to design it if they're going to develop this thing okay secondly after that from a planting standpoint that's my recommendation from a landscaping standpoint that they ultimately incorporate okay thank we would agree to that as a condition of approval thank you thank you you nothing else Mr chairman board [Music] members I have a question about this last piece if we Sorry about that my question about this last piece out here right if we at all get a plan going I understand the design piece but after that there is a maintenance piece going on right will this entire thing have some kind of a mechanism to administer that like say for example grass cutting that you said right has to be done every 2 years that I hear what if it isn't done will there be any I don't know penal Clauses or anything like how would that be administered CU I think it is a long-term viability which um um I would assume that that those kind of conditions would be put in from a landscaping standpoint and then from an overall Property Maintenance standpoint um and conditions on on you know number one from a landscaping perspective what to plant what Meadow mix to plant there okay and secondly to incorporate into something into the management plan um how that would be maintained just like they would have to maintain the trees that they would plant and so on and so forth um that that would obviously you know could be required to be put into a a maintenance plan so it's understood so it's understood that it doesn't get cut every year okay that it gets cut every third year every fourth year kind of thing and would agree as a condition of approval similar to like how the storm water management there's an operations and maintenance manual that's recorded that we would record some sort of bird habitap maintenance Covenant for the benefit of the town uh and recorded on the property for that area thank you thank you Mr cook hi um can you clarify what you said about the um 150 ft car and the ditch and the existing house and Facilities I I made a note on that but I want want you to clarify what you what you had said about that sure thing the uh the subject ditch that we're talking about is is that is that feature on presently on lot 33 Okay um that originates at the outfall pipe and flows it in Northerly Direction um if we incorporate it the 150 ft stream Corridor around that ditch um what my comment was was the the characteristics of the land would be incorporated in that 150 ft around that ditch include existing impervious parking area existing impervious uh equipment storage area a lawn house solar panels things like that um it it does not include natural habitat characteristics within [Music] there okay thank you thank you [Music] anyone else okay thank you very much um Mike pasaro again from the wers shed Institute D you doing tonight I'm doing well yourself doing good thanks and since we're on this and Mr Gan NY if I can impose could we um sort of focus a little bit on that constructed we 2B for a second that area generally where um if you could just enlarge that northeast corner a little bit or northwest corner the [Music] left you're saying a constructed we yeah so right right there is the below Warehouse 2 is Pond constructed wentland 2B okay so that that's that's within their storm water detention Bas gotcha yeah and I just wanted to enlarge that to show a little bit of the surrounding area so that everyone can see is that uh if you could put the Wetland construct a wetland a little more in the center of the screen and then enlarge it a little more or I'd be more than glad to take over responsibilities of that to hook this up you mean [Music] I do that looking at this area right there right that storm water detention Basin [Music] under that should be fine I think thank you it says buyo ret the the thing that says buyer retention system 20 yep actually I can't walk with that [Music] one should be awesome all right thanks um so if I may sort of in the center of the screen is bio retention system 20 at one point it was labeled uh Constructor Wetland and you had testified that it was your recommendation to your client uh that we make as large of buffers as possible that's correct okay and you would agree with me there's a line and I'm sort of tracing it it goes through the road sort of cuts the corner of the stormw Basin and sort of hugs the stormw Basin and that's the Hillsboro Township stream quarter ordinance that that's correct and it's it's right up there that's correct all right and that line continues and also stays relatively close to the corner of the building and then goes a little bit wider that's correct so we're right up against that buffer in that area yes yeah and if you could uh go back [Music] out and this site has a lot of environmental features you would agree with this define environmental Fe der derogatory or or advantageous I'm an environmentalist I would call them but it has a stream it has several tributaries yes and they all have their own quarter buffer whatever you want to call it unfortunately the the smaller tributaries don't at present have a big veget ated forested buffer as much as I would like but but they're there but D drcc the Hillsboro Township stream court or all would have these buffers of course and that takes up some amount of the land that would be available correct and there is running through basically the center of this site from Southwest to Northeast a um gas EAS correct correct so that that takes up and you can't build on that that would be assumes I assume so okay yeah all right did you have any discussions with the applicant about building a building on the te Texas Eastern uh line there I'm going to object it's outside I'm going to object it's outside the purview of his testimony he didn't disc just the the easement or the developing on it or whether we could or couldn't I'm asking whether he did he I if I recall correctly you spoke to someone about this project whether it was the applicant or the engineer or someone about making sure you had as large of buffers as possible that's correct and um staying out of the environmentally critical areas all right if we could go to Warehouse one please very good and so with the bio retention system to the north right above again the Hillsboro Township stream quarter ordinance really just hugs that bio retention Basin correct in portions of it yes and also is relatively close on the Eastern side of the building as well that's correct all right and the Texas Eastern pipeline easement again is shown just to the north left of that building relatively close correct correct right thank [Music] you and so we we had a series of questions uh from Mr Mayu uh about the drainage feature on lot 33 that has consumed lots of time that it has and you in your report and you've just testified um that it either is environmental degradation or we fill it and manage it with storm water is that paraphrasing your position no no what what what I said was at present that ditch is conveying untreated storm Waters from impervious surfaces uh that have vehicles on it directly into the tributary of Royce Brook which I consider critical ecological value and and by enforcing through this development application the stream Coral ordinance so that the stream or the feature Remains the 150 fot buffer remains and some development continues in a modified manner would not the storm water be managed from the revised plan I'm going to object again being speculative as to some other hypothetical plan that's not the subject of this application all right you you've ained um that New Jersey stormwater control regulation for the strongest in the nation correct would you agree that the storm water rules and as this project implements them there will be an increase in volume running off a site even if it is manage through storm water I'm going to defer to the project engineer who dealt with the storm waterer management plan you wouldn't disagree if he had testified yes the volume would increase I did not hear testimonies all I can't I can't agree to something I didn't hear all right all right and do you know when that parking lot was created that allegedly drains into this feature oh it it it does drain into the feature because it has graded inlets that or in the middle of it that discharge into the pipe that discharges into this ditch um no it it was later than the 60s because it doesn't show up on the on the seal survey [Music] map did you look at Aerials from the 70s 80s or 90s yeah when does do you remember when it shows up I know it was I I I believe it was later into the 70s that that that start showing up okay [Music] and in your report or your supplemental report you would agree with me uh there are no Aerials provided correct all right and in your original report and your supplemental report there are no photographs of this area there were photographs of the area in my environmental report given to the D in support of the freshwater wetlands protection uh the the the freshwater wetlands General permits so but my question is in your ER that you submitted originally for this project and in your supplemental report that was submitted on the 23rd I think there are no pictures of this feature no all right all right and did you do the soil testing for hydric soils for the wetlands delineation for the original delineation I did not do the original delineation did I met with the D to review that Wetland delineation um so you didn't do the soil the soil testing and did you do it for this Fe feature yes when when when I was meeting with d out there see originally this feature was not included in Van C's original um Wetlands Loi submission again I didn't do the original Wetlands letter of interpretation I didn't do the original delineation um I was asked to represent it because I was going to be representing permits for the project so they chose me to be the the lucky one to meet with the D um during such time within that ditch yes we took sural samples between myself and the D and yes they they they were hydric soils in there is that anywhere in your report um no it's referenced as a regulated Wetland by the wetlands Loi that I think that says it all but the the the soil results aren't in your report no they're not all right [Applause] right and any plant survey done in the area other than you reference it being invasive uh and mug wart is not in your report that's correct okay all right um I think you testified and a report you mentioned you've been on the site several times that's correct yes and in the parking lot were there any Vehicles parked yes do you know were they septic uh company uh trucks or were they normal passenger vehicles or what were they they were trucks I believe there's a landscaping business there and there were vehicles for that okay um all right at the January 25th hearing you indicated you had conversations with Mr Shockley about this feature being man-made correct did he tell you that he made that ditch or had it made he said he had it made okay all right and at the 20 the January 25th hearing you noticed or you testified that the water course has a Headway and there are inlets in the surrounding area that presumably discharge is that accurate it has a it has a head it has an opening a pipe outfall correct is it a head wall or is it just a pipe just a pipe okay and on the existing features map of this site is any of that noted do you know and the existing features um I I believe it would have been noted as toppo on on Van clea's existing features plan because remember that was not originally included as a jurisdictional wetland so I believe anle probably denoted it as a um a topographic feature but so let's see Mr Gan Edy if you could put up um sheet too the existing features what's a question sheet two of the existing features of the site plan what's a question with respect to sheet too well this this diagram or this site plan shows buildings and other features on the site correct I think he's looking for the existing feature [Music] propose minutes 10 minutes [Music] there you [Music] [Music] [Music] oops now you're you're going too far go go over to the make it go to the [Music] left we looking at this right yes yeah so that site plan the existing features demonstrates various structures on the property correct that's correct and if we were to scroll down to the road it would show inlets from the [Music] road [Music] yeah [Music] [Music] um my eyesight's not what it used to be I don't know because I think probably probably Inlet from that road would go right right down to that tributary probably I don't think it would cut across it proper all right well it's not clear you wouldn't disagree me if I said the plant show inlets from the road you wouldn't have any reason to disagree with that statement I'm going to object to the question he he didn't prepare this plan right did you review this plan at any time Mr cook uh yes I did okay you would would agree with me none of the inlets in the in the field show up there that allegedly discharge into the feature on this plan that that's that's correct I don't see any that show up on here have you seen any plants that show them no all right all [Music] right and I apologize I'm going jump around a little bit again um [Music] you mentioned one of the things you recommended to the client was that you know all Crossings of the stream be as close to perpendicular as possible that's correct that's a requirement the flood hasard area Control Act rules correct it to the greatest extent possible yes so in short you told your client comply with the rules it's what I'm supposed to yes all right it's better than not comply it's better than not comply very true trust me all right but uh to stay within the limits of what's permitted now under an FHA IP or freshwater wetlands General permit that you know that that does give some flexibility to uh to the engineer to design that again my recommendation was obviously minimize disturbances okay it it better for the environment and better for the permits M all right and I think you testify but I want just double check [Music] um you think there is value to the Hillsboro stream corter ordinance from an environmental perspective oh most definitely and that you would agree with me that wider buffers by and large are better than smaller buffers so long as we have a resource that we're protecting and so long as the the the characteristics of that buffer are are are are beneficial MH and degraded buffers can be restored they certain y all right and so they provide buffers provide benefits from water quality correct they can yes they provide uh temperature regulation if there are vegetation especially trees to a stream that's correct all right and they provide um slowing down of runoff because it's being run through vegetation and uptake through Vapor transpiration that would be correct that's that's correct you're and you would also agree that the D flood Hazard area Control Act uh had a model repairing Zone ordinance are you familiar with that yes okay and that ordinance specifically mentions townships municipalities can be stronger that's correct okay all [Music] right I think that's all the questions I have thank you that's it oh my God I try to be concise thank you I don't always accomplish that thank you and with that we're going to take a brief recess we'll reconvene at top of the hour at 900 [Music] p.m. uh M Mr cook uh you said that you recommended that they increased the applicant increased the buffer and can you tell me how many times they did that and by how much just from an overall stand right sorry about that um I I don't have the count on a number of times it was uh what they've done is to incorporate an increased buffer zone wherever they could on it um how many feet extra and in in some areas it was it was no increase over the the the regulated uh stream Carter in other cases it was uh probably in in excess of 50 60 feet in some areas it was it was basically what what they could accommodate and how many instances was that it it was throughout the project you'd have to look we can see on the plan um you said you did four site visits to the site right four visits to the site no I I was on the site in July of 2021 was on a site multiple times in November of 2021 October of 2022 November of 2022 March of 2023 June of 2023 December of 2023 and January of 2024 and what does that add up to I'm not good at math a lot because there were multiple visits during those times okay and on those site visits when you looked at the so-called stream SL ditch how many times did You observe it to be dry or wet when we were with was the time when I was meeting with the D there was there it was it wasn't inundated but it was it was quite saturated and that was in March of 2023 so one time you recollect correct okay and do you have photographs of that no no okay um the township Engineers uh report included maps from 1943 and from 1963 uh Mr Co is it possible to put up the 1943 map I don't know I do not have that information on the Civic um I don't know what map is this sorry which year is it it's on the Hillsboro Civic uh site for this application yeah thei oh P 45 it was a penon report is that in your report Mr Mayu I believe she's referring to a letter that I that penon wrote to the to your office and the board and possibly might be back in September possibly and there you have that letter with you I don't it's on the website I don't have a computer it's um so and so I you have one right you could find it I I don't know what letter you're referring to we going that report do much stuff is on Civic cler there's a lot of stuff here why don't you try to find Mr kise and want you know where it is ask additional questions so [Music] [Music] week is it from August August oh wait September 23 that sounds potential is a screen uh and there would be attachments to the letter [Music] we I believe she there's a letter dated September 22nd [Music] um we just referenced stream Corridor in the letter of 22 September 2023 so four-page letter with which exhibit keep [Applause] [Music] going keep going okay so this is one of those is from 1943 and one is from 1963 so the one before this could you go back keep going okay no no go back the colorful one okay Mr cook did you look at this map from 1943 I I've I have not seen this map okay and uh what does this map speak to to you about what does that blue line look like to you it's labeled as drainage feature and and this is from this is from 1940s 43 43 I I would I would have to say that the the the the historic Aerials from 1943 and the old remal Maps never showed features that were that small so I'm I'm not sure if this was added in or not did someone draw that line because it says natural draw or what what are you talking about Mr may this is your allow me to clarify that's correct this is an exhibit that we created for the letter um as Mr cook has pointed out this is from 1943 aeriel um the natural draw drainage feature was drawn on them by our office and it's in the letter it mentions that it was drawn on and added to the plan so um you're saying that the owner uh Mr Shockley and built this ditch or stream or whatever you're saying he did it you testify that he said he said that he had created that ditch is is it possible that when did he purchase that property I don't know is it possible that the owner before him enhanced this water course is it possible that this water course was a watershed and was indeed natural depression where there was water and then humans came and ma'am added the pipes and all of that stuff I'll I'll I'll before Mr gianetti that is a compound question if you can try to break it up into segments not that Mr cook will anymore answer it now then than now he may be able to answer but you're asking multiple questions in the same question thank not a problem so understand what she's asking okay um what what what I think one of the best examples um would be uh to to review the um uh the soil survey map of of the property from the Somerset County soil survey um what what's nice about that is that the the the soil surveys back then they they Incorporated streams they Incorporated drainages and so on and so forth and what they even did not that they were meant ever meant to be regulatory but the old so surveys were made for Farmers okay they they weren't they were never thought that we would be discussing soal surveys now with regard to development they are meant for Farmers what they did on a lot of the soil Services if there were drainage patterns and so on and so forth that a farmer would need to see um they would they would mark it not to be regulatory or anything like that if you look at the soil survey um of this particular the the sheet that has this property on it there is there is no indication whatsoever on that soil survey of any kind of drainage feature in this location what was the date of that survey soil survey of Somerset County let me see my references [Music] here um just for my familiarity with it I'm I'm it it's definitely in the 1960s [Music] um unfortunately I I don't have that date of the Somerset County soil survey with me can we look at the map past this that's a 1963 map the one below it bring it down just a little bit Yeah so do you see the depression there I see a change in vegetation yes so there was likely some sort of Ravine there I think it the the normal Topo the topography um generally went down through that area so it looks to looks to me to be the the beginning of a hedro of some sort there so it could have been a wetland that was uh enhanced well maybe that's not a good word but denigrated by the current owner or the owners before um I think I'm I'm going to have to defer to the analysis and evaluation of the New Jersey DP um who did not classify this as a water in accordance with the FHA verification um one of the things that they look for in that is any uh reliable evidence that something could have been uh a form of manipulated stream and a D in their FHA verification did not include this as a regulated order isn't that the Crux of the issue whether it's the the jurisdiction of the town or the DP you're speaking as if the town it's the town is saying that they have jurisdiction is that correct um actually no the the the D has jurisdiction of that feature not in accordance with the flood Hazard area Control Act rules the D determined it was a jurisdictional wetland okay so that feature is considered as a regulated Wetland so it is a regulated feature in accordance with the freshwater wetlands protection act not the flood Hazard area Control Act rules and the the freshwater wetlands protection act um they utilize that to incorporate that as a ordinary resource value drainage ditch so why is the town saying they believe it needs 150 foot buffer for for the same thing that I testified before um the the the town's definition of a stream is is very vague okay um you know the the the town's definition if I may read it and this is you know and I'm not I'm not knocking the town okay because I like the town street car and stuff like that okay um but you know unfortunately the the town's definition of a stream is a water course having a source a Terminus Banks and channel through which waters flow okay that that's very vague okay um any roadside ditch has an Argent a Terminus Banks and a channel um you so that's you know I'm not going to say what the what the uh the writers of the definition you know were we implying about what a stream is is in in Hillsboro back when that definition was made but like I said before in my last testimony I I think the word that's being used their water course um generally when one uses the term water course it's it's it's generally referred to as more of a natural feature not a not a a man-made narrow linear storm water conveyance feature is this possible it was originally a natural water course and changed significantly by the current owner who said he change he did something to it I I don't believe so and the D doesn't believe so okay um you spoke to working with PEG Van Patton yes are you familiar with the um Greenways map that she was responsible for developing that shows this site yes yes do you have a copy of that not on me no and you consulted that I looked at that through and and that was that was actually referenced in the um in the Hillsboro Township NRI and what did that Greenways map do we have can we get access to that map David is it not part of the appli yeah so no Mr chairman U right it's not in Civic clerk so it's not part of the application at this point yeah as the witness said he just made reference to it in his report [Music] so it's referenced in your report no I I I I had reviewed it but it I I don't have any I don't I don't have any specific reference to it um I I deal more so you know the though those old mappings and so on and so forth are they're they're they're useful from a planning standpoint use from a master planning standpoint and so on and so forth um the problem that I have with ones who rely solely on Old mapping and old generalized mapping is a lot of times that they um they they use that in Li of actual boots Ong ground field evaluations um agrees that I can make my recommendations to this development and about this property is because of boots on the ground where where real Carters are on this thing where where degraded areas are where areas that should be considered per this property as critical resources um I'm a little confused by you're saying that the um current stream SL ditch ha ha is putting a lot of pollutants into the um Watershed is that correct that that's correct okay so um wouldn't the owner have to fix that no no they could just let all of that stuff go into a man-made if if it was if it was done before regulations and so on and so forth um you would that be permissible today no you know um do these things occur they call everywhere unfortunately you know one of the uh you know that that's what one of the one of the issues is with our you know some mheds and so on and so forth is until you know until you can identify these Point sources of degradation they can they can continue to go on there's you know he was entirely permitted to do so and there's there's no regulation that says that you have to change it are you aware that the site uh was um cited for pollution issues I know that they had um contamination issues I don't I don't know exactly where that is because that's not my specialty okay but there is there there there is remediation requirements on on other area I think because of hog F anybody looking at that attorney the we had a whole witness come and testify as to that you're having Witnesses no he already came and testified he already came okay um so you're saying that if this development is built that it will that uh degradation that pollution will go away because a building is going to be built on top of it at at present untreated storm water from Vehicles parked on an impervious surface are going into drains and draining directly into this ditch which is going directly into the tributary of Reese Brook okay that's what's happening today that's what's happening tomorrow that's what's been happening okay um when a project comes along such as this that triggers stormw management what they have to do is they have to abide by the state's regulations today okay what that is today so that means post project two things um you know actually three things with the storm water management RS they have to deal with quality they have to deal with flood control issues um and and they have to deal with recharge issues okay which in the they didn't have to do when they developed this site before they didn't have to do that current owner over here I guess you're the owner or sort of the owner I'm not really sure but I don't know you're pointing to it no it's a big question um they have no responsibility for the quality of what they're putting into the Watershed that's correct wow okay um you you said something about the right to farm yes so they have the right to do whatever they want that's not a farm that's a septic s uh septic system no we're um we're we're not talking about lot 33 now we're talking about lot 32 right which is what I know as the kerer track okay so under the rate the farm act that has Farmland tax assessment it was utilized as a farm as a pasture as a hog f farm and under the right the farm act it was decided by the board that they they have the right to continue to farm it and to farm it as they see Fed okay okay that's all I have thank you thank you uh good evening Mr cook Scott gross hi Scott how you doing obor number two fine thank you I'm going to refer back to your original report uh your December 2021 report evaluates the potential uh for air quality uh impacts correct it's summarized at that particular time correct you mentioned after construction the largest air quality impacts would be from V vehicular traffic and heating is that correct that's correct how did you evaluate the air quality impacts from heating for the purpose of that at that that early stage of the game there um those were based upon General determinations General determinations with regard to what uh proposed use would be and so on and so forth there was not uh uh specific air sampling or things like that it was uh it was based upon a relationship to uh existing roadways and and so on and so forth you said an initial assessment does that mean there will be a subsequent assessment there there has been a subsequent assessment um that subsequent assessment was [Music] done by RTP environmental Associates dated August 31st 20 22 which I believe the township has and that was called air quality analysis and the conclusions that it had was that uh the the the proposed use at that particular time would not would not be a significant degradation to the air quality okay uh your report also addresses uh noise generated by the facility correct that's correct uh you mentioned that noise from site operations would be insignificant compared to noise from the 206 bypass does that sound correct in general yes on what basis did you evaluate the noise from operations again this was not this was was General in nature at that particular time not knowing the exact project uh you know uh rooting or or things like that um but that's generally based upon uh noise levels on the property at present uh surrounding noises and and what potential could be uh was there a subsequent report uh included in the other assessment that we talked about like there was for air quality there there has not been did you evaluate noise or potential for noise from backup alarms on trucks I did not uh did you evaluate any noise with any uh you know technical measurements I did not uh do you have experience in evaluating the noise I do not from warehouses okay um are you aware of the New Jersey state guidelines for sighting warehouses it was published in September 2022 um I'm gonna object again we've gone through we're individuals are trying to use that document it is a document issued by the state Planning Commission it is recommendations it is not binding and it's not for planning boards to be used as part of considering their application planning boards review the site plan ordinance is for governing bodies and or counties and determining zoning uh with respect to warehousing are you saying that you're uh recommending we don't follow the uh State's guidance on uh sighting warehouses what I'm saying is it's not what yeah it's not what the planning board follows in determining this is not a quasi judicial body it's a planning board sole question is do we comply with the town site it is a quas Judicial body Zing the answer is the state planning guidelines are what are exactly what they are they they're guidelines the board is not going to ultimately determine your client's application based on Reliance of the state planning guidelines if the objector wishes to question your client on his knowledge or lack thereof regarding it he's permitted as it relates his testimony it doesn't mean that the board is going to be bound by the state planning guidelines if Mr cook is has little to no knowledge and he has been very forthright on telling us when he has little to no knowledge then he can answer the questions but frankly spending time telling him he can't unless you're going to tell him not to answer them [Music] I'm almost done I I'll be brief um at at least with respect to noise levels and I think Mr cook will agree the um uh conclusions are relatively thinly supported compared to some of the other technical analysis that's been done for uh storm water retention and uh calculations and we've met scores of calculations to support some of the other work that's been done on the project that's why I'm deferring to the state's guidelines on noise impacts I guess I'll just ask one last time uh do you have any technical evidence uh to demonstrate that you've performed a noise impact analysis of this property and their surroundings um I'm sorry could you could you repeat do you have any technical evidence that supports a noise analysis uh of impact on the surrounding Community I do not okay I'm done thank you thank [Music] you bless you [Music] sorry uh Lucy Sandler sarn Conservancy hi Lucy how you doing good how are you good okay uh so during your testimony you mentioned several times grassland birds and wanting habitate habitat for them why uh why the f focus on Grassland bird habitat specifically well first of all because we have an area uh that at at one time or or another in in the past uh had open early successional field habitat associated with it um it does still have some early successional field habitat associated with it unfortunately today it's dominated by alien invasive species um grass and birds uh again are a a species of interest to me obviously um simply because of uh you know the the loss of habitat and and and so on and so forth and the need to manage habitat in order to keep them viable MH uh in the environmental impact statement prepared by redcom Design and Construction LLC on page four it's I'm not red I think you might be look looking at the wrong oh um my apologies then I can I can skip that one I'll go to a different one um I'm cook uh sorry so did you not have to review that document or redcom is not a not a redcom application okay um all I wanted to mention from that um is just on the on the project site do you agree uh that there are mamalian reptile OB objection you're that's not our application that I'm saying never mind about that I'm asking a separate question what all right what report are you referring to uh no report I just I'm asking him a question um new okay new question got it new question yes I scratch that I'm with you okay great do you have any concerns that developing the project site as planned will reduce habitat for traveling animals um and could have a detrimental effect on their populations um this this overall property um is you know it's it's got It's got a a nice Wildlife Corridor associated with the with with the tributary stream okay that that that's why I consider that that that thing to be extremely important I I like that it's big it's wide it's got an aquatic resource associated with things like that um the the property overall is it's sort of a a a large isolated area you know uh developing this site is going to impact the site itself obviously because you're going to put buildings on something that could be habitat and that's going to impact it that's that's that's that that's what happens um the development of this site is not going to fragment any larger carard or because it's not you know the it's not part of a larger overall big Carter where where the Carter is have is associated with that stream and even on a on a on a microcosm so to say what I want to try to form on this thing post development um is that if they're going to develop it to in incorporate some type of habitat caror um which is what stemmed from my recommendations on any kind of site layout and and so on and so forth uh you mentioned that the site is not near any major Wildlife Corridor and that is true um because they're shrinking there aren't any major Wildlife corridors at this point near the site but it is less than a mile away from one of the last remaining however narrow it is Wildlife corridors in central New Jersey are you aware of that yes okay um the project site is located directly within an area that's identified by the state as an action region which means habitat and Wildlife corridors are deteriorating in those areas you are aware of that that that's that's correct that's what development does yeah so can you just explain why it makes good ecological sense to further degrade already shrinking habitats for transitory and migrating Wildlife by developing the project site at all well first of all it I I as you heard from my earlier testimony and everything um the characteristics of this site okay um it's how do I say it's not as good as I wanted it to be okay um this this site itself um the problems with it are you know part of it is developed in the Eastern Corner okay the the Southeastern Corner um it you part of it used to be hog farm there used to be um a lot of disturbance associated with it in the central region of it there's a lot of disturbance to it okay um which is you know used formerly as a as a pasture and as a hog farm and so on and so forth resulted in today what we have out there is is you know we've got area and we've got tributaries and we've got you know things that I consider as important but overall the the majority of it you know where we're dealing with um mids successional field for instance you know what what that is today multiflor Rose Russian olive cretus okay um in most of our um I'm sorry that you have to type these things I'll try not to speak Latin um in in the areas it would be considered as as early successional field okay I I don't have Orchard grass and and Alfalfa and so on and so forth instead I've got a predominance of mug work okay um in any damp areas around there okay do I have sges and rushes and sensitive Fern and things like that growing no I've got frag mtis growing okay so overall the the the property in a present State you know doesn't support the or it doesn't present the highest quality of habitat components that that we would like it to on its own okay so you know if if we left it alone right now you know what's going to happen to it more Russian olives going to grow without maintenance okay more Russian olives going to grow um more mug warts going to grow or what's going to happen is under the rate the Farm Act the farmer is going to farm it and again if there's any farmers in the audience I am not against farming I'm not against developers okay but I am going to say something farming operations are one of the worst thing for Water Resources okay and you understand through the Right to Farm Act you know what kind of buffer zone he has to accommodate 35 ft from a stream okay within 35 ft we can unregulated it apply herbicides pesticides not to mention erosion okay um that's what happens that's another alternative that happens to the site it's left alone you consider this like a lesser evil kind like of all the ways development could happen on this site this is the if development has to happen this is like the best case scenario is that what you're kind of getting at I'm the bugs and bunnies guy I I would I you know I you know I I would like to see everything I would like my house to be the last house I'd like my office to be the last office don't we all okay um unfortunately because of Master plans of municipalities and zoning and and you know constitutional rights to use properties they get to be developed that's where what I can do is two things I can make regulatory you know inform about Regulatory Compliance and I can inform about you know if it has to be done the best way to do it thank you um just a couple more from your report table number 4G do3 the supplemental or the original it would be the original I was say I'm not sure so I'm glad you knew thank you 4G do3 4G [Applause] [Music] do3 gotcha Aven species yes gotcha uh so you take the time to talk about the habitat potential on the project site and go over species that either have been observed on the property or could be there could be yeah so one of those species that was actually observed is the sharp shinned Hawk that's correct okay are you aware that that bird is considered a species of special concern by the state of New Jersey that it is okay I want to understand what the professional versus purely ecological line is when deeming development not detrimental to Wildlife so given that the sharp shined Hawk isn't considered threatened or endangered at this point but is on its way there as an ecologist why are you comfortable reducing their habitat by any amount simply because it's your job you kind of have to or no I'm I'm not I'm not promoting development I'm doing an ecological resource and making recommendations on if something has to be developed the best way for it to be developed um if you notice in there uh what I'm saying is that sharpen Haw can utilize any of those habitats but where did I find it I found it in stream Carter okay stream the stream Carter habitat which is associated with the with the forested area which is more sharp Shin Hawk habitat that's where it is proving my point you know to to my recommendation that not only because of a water resource but that stream caror has has a good Wildlife Resource associated with it um if the sh just said if the sharpshin Haw was listed as threatened or endangered would your recommendation about this site change and if so how no it wouldn't um simply because the the the the as I said before the the existing habitat characteristics on this particular property are not prime okay um some of them are are below marginal okay when we have a predominance of alien invasive species both you from ground cover and a and a and a shrub layer um if um if this would entirely would it well I I'll leave in backtrack one of my recommendations on why the stream Corridor is so important is because it's wooded habitat okay sharpshin Hawks prefer wooded habitat [Applause] okay all right and then so on page 40 of your report same same report yes page [Music] 40 [Music] Aven species potential is same thing here we are again here we are again um uh notes the Aven species potentially associated with the site and it includes the bald eagle Did You observe a bald eagle when you were on I did not okay page 45 lists rare Wildlife species obviously including the bald eagle could you briefly explain what um an S rank of s1b s 2 N means for the eagle where we're on page 45 [Music] yes and I can repeat that apologies sorry page 45 was the New Jersey natural heritage program database review um it's I'm looking for the list of rare Wildlife species perhaps I have the wrong page see where we are I can skip it if it's too much of a headache you can you can ask me about bald eagles that's I was just curious if you could explain briefly what an S rank of s1b s2n means regarding a BAL those are those are uh State rankings okay um the the bald eagle even though the the bald eagle is no longer federally endangered or threatened species it still is considered as an endangered species in the state of New Jersey MH and Bal legal mainly Roost and nest in trees correct that's that's correct yes uh how many trees will be cut down for this development I don't have that answer okay um feel free to cut me off if this is not okay to ask but uh how did you determine that removing that number of trees including 88 of which are 13 to 24 inches in diameter wouldn't impact bald eagles or other important Aven species on the site well F first of all from a bald Eagle standpoint okay the the the bald understand what the bald eagle wants okay the bald eagle fishes in a stream okay now this stream Carter my my my personal opinion is I I think this this stream Carter if um if I really wanted to see a bald eagle in the next three days I wouldn't go to this site to see a bald eagle okay okay um the the habitat is just the the it's it's a it's a good habitat to stream card or and everything the the water the water body itself just isn't big enough uh to to Really attract what a bald eagle's fishing for okay I mean and and this yes I said that there's aquatic ecosystem I said there's a fishery resource associated with this um I think our fishery resource associated with this is probably you know in the lines of you know like uh uh Tes lated starters shiners things like that um way too small to attract a bald deagle okay um am I saying that a bald eagle would never land there absolutely not the minute I say that you take a picture of a bald eagle and it's there okay but uh and and that's why I included um another reason is that if a bald eagle was going to utilize any part of this site if he was going to hang out any part of the site if he was going to land any part of the site it be that stream Carter uh no further questions thank you for your time hey thank you you're good okay we got about 15 minutes so briefly yep so I may have a motion open to public I'll make that motion all in favor I I there's anyone from the public who's not representing by any of the objectors you may come up state your name and address for the record and focus your questions strictly on this witness's uh testimony and we are going to have a hard stop at 10 so yeah David Brooke seven Winding Way I'll talk fast don't talk too fast I have to hear you Mr cook as an ecologist do you hold any professional licenses from from the state of New Jersey uh the state of New Jersey does not license ecologist now okay um you and your firm prepare the December 10 2021 report titled ecological resources inventory and impact assessment report for Homestead Road LLC is that correct that's correct were you paid for that report I was do you recall who paid you for that report the applicant could you tell me who the applicant is Homestead Road LLC so you received a check from Homestead Road LLC objection as to relevancy it's extremely objection as to relevancy it's extremely relevant we don't know who the applicant is and I'd like to get some clarity that's not through this witness knowing who paid him can help us understand [Applause] that I'm instructing him not to answer the question totally already answered if you're looking for principles you're probably going to have to do some research outside of this so is it safe to conclude your 2021 2021 report never mentions the drainage ditch in question on the Eastern side of the overall property that's correct because I was included in the area that I consider as developed developed maintained you indicated in your testimony that you were aware of the letter of interpretation submitted to the D is that correct that's correct correct you also stated that van Clee engineering conducted the or I should say submitted the LOI is that correct that's correct okay and that van CLE Engineering in the LOI did not note the ditch as a wetland in their application is that also correct that's correct okay you and your firm Mr cook prepared the February 20 I believe that's the date 2024 report now titled ecological resources inventory and impact assessment report supplement report for Homestead Road LLC is that correct that's correct were you paid for that report objection probably not probably didn't buil for it yet so let me ask the question differently have you build it for it yet objection totally irrelevant it's highly irrelevant it's highly irrev to you it's not relevant to the planning board and the fine you authored the report I authored the report yes that's all I need to know for the wetlands review right you indicated that you visited the site in October 2022 November 20122 and March 23 is that correct that's when I accompanied the DP yes okay was there anyone else who attended those visits with the EP besides the EP I'm sorry no just you and D that's correct do you remember the names of the people from D who attended yes it was Mark Harris attendant one Mark Harris and I believe Mark Davis the section chief attended another and Mark Harris was was another okay did you generate or prepare any notes of the D visits no well let mean let me let me backtrack um what I what I did what I did note is what revisions to the Wetland line were agreed to so that I could provide them back to the surveyor so they could modify their their Wetland survey plan when you say that you mean DP or the applicant I'm sorry no so so that the surveyor the contracted surveyor could revise the Wetland survey map as per the D is it possible that we could put up the LOI map for lot 33 that would be very helpful I think to all of us that's the May 25th uh one that has the stamp of approval from d on um so you did not prepare any notes did you ever produce or send any written Communications to d as to these um visits as it relates to Wetlands I would have put together a transmitt letter with the revised survey saying attached is to revised survey per D's requirement that's not in your report I I assume okay um it would be helpful I think if you could provide some of that information because there is a question here with regards to how did this change take place we identify the fact that van CLE did not put it into the LOI object he's not even asking a question and it's we're not providing anything further this board does not regulate Wetlands the njd did did or does and issued it a Wetlands Loi I'm not sure what the objection is but I'm trying to get information as it relates to a relevant matter before the board the D Loi speaks for itself well apparently not well enough uh maybe not for you but for everyone else that does as it relates to the visits that took place with the EP how did it come about that there was a change in the identification of the relevant wetlands [Music] during our field inspection with the D where the D is reviewing the proposed Wetlands limits and proposed Wetlands areas um determinations are made in the field by the D in my presence that certain areas in their opinion did not satisfy jurisdictional Wetland criteria and other areas did okay and the areas that did got add it the areas that didn't were removed so you indicated on page six of your report New Jersey D required various revisions to the proposed Wetland limits on the property correct page six that's correct do you have any copies of those Communications from D I did not have a tape recorder with me during our field meetings no I we we we walk we look we look at criteria and we and we agree you're saying there there's there's no I mean we have notes on plans on what D wants to see beyond that that's that's what it is Chairman I'm going to object to this line of questioning the D's issued their Loi the town even appealed it and the D dismissed it it's the law of the land as to the wetlands so if he has an issue he should have appealed the LOI when it was issued Mr gianetti knows that third parties can't appeal D determinations and that's not the relevant issue they can they can request an a judicatory hearing the relevant issue is the jurisdiction is this a wetland or not and that's the question the D has already answered that in their Loi it it it is considered as a jurisdictional wetland it's considered as an ordinary resource value jurisdictional Wetland that's why it's referenced Okay so we'll get there um with regards to the changes that you have heard whose responsibility was it to make them was it yours objection again it's irrelevant the LOI has been issued the wetlands have been delineated we can move on please you indicated on page seven that the ditch featured page seven of your supplemental report that the ditch feature that exists on the northeastern portion on lot 33 was added to the Wetland survey map approved by D is that correct that's correct were you involved with the discussions that allowed for that change or promoted that change I guess yes I accompanied D on all of their field visits and concurred with them yes and you're indicating that there were no Communications is that correct if I I'll I'll clarify are are there any written document or was it all verbal Communications it's verbal Communications while two or three biologists are in a field and rating notes on a plan on how it has to be [Music] revised okay um you indicated that the drainage ditch this drainage ditch that we can now see if that's possible maybe we can make it a little bit bigger it's the vertical line on the drawing correct that's correct that this drainage ditch was classified as a wetland by the D on the approved Wetlands deliniation map dated May 25th 2023 that's your statement correct that's correct and did you play any part in that classification of the ditch I agreed with the D that it should be added as a jurisdictional wetland and I agreed with the D that it should be classified as an ordinary resource value ditch okay and we'll go back to that word in a minute so you're familiar with the freshwater wetlands regs that New Jersey's put out njac 7A 7 colon 7 A- 3.1 right that addresses identifying Wetlands yes I am okay I'm sure you're familiar with also the federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands that's the 1989 125 page report that's correct so which in the D regulations means a linear topographic depression with beds and banks of human construction which conveys water to or from a site which is surrounded by Uplands and which is not located within a wetland do you agree with that definition that's correct okay you indicated that three factors determine if a location is a freshwater Wetland right those are the three things relating to hydrology and soils and vegetation is that correct that's correct now you indicated before that there was flowing in this ditch at least one time at least one time there was water in the ditch so does that indicate hydrology when you see it one time that's hydrology at that time uh hydrology is also obvious as evidenced by a channel and other than the visits that you took with the EP what fieldwork did you conduct at this ditch Beyond reviewing the overall site and classifying different areas based upon habitat types I not didn't spend a lot of time with this ditch okay did you take soil samples to determine the natures of the soil where in the ditch in the ditch yes okay and what did you classify those soils as those those soils within the ditch met the criteria for hydric soils do you have any results of those reports in a written format I do not did you put those results in your report I did not did you prepare a list of the plants by genus and species to identify how many of these plants are hydropic by the way hydropic means plant life adapted to growth and reproduction under periodically saturated root zones you know that word again we're we're still talking about the ditch the ditch right did you prepare a list of plants that would identify that they were hydrite plants and no it was observed during field inspection and did you ever write any of those down or put them in your report no there they are not in the report okay and were there hydropic plants in that ditch there are some yes it's it's predominantly alien invasive species but there there are a few indications of a uh sensitive Fern and and sges in in that ditch okay um can you show the board on the map where the wetlands boundaries are for the identified Wetlands should we presume that that is in the area near the stream next to the stream um and identified as Wetland with a line well I again the the survey delineates all Wetlands all regulatory Wetlands associated with the property which on [Music] this on this plan here shows the the line along the the tributary stream and then the line is at it as a wetland line encompassing the ditch and then continues on the other side so that's where I guess I would like to get a better clarification you're saying it encompasses a ditch it does not appear to accomplish to accompany the ditch right what is the ditch called it's called an ordinary resource value ditch is that correct that's correct okay and there are Wetland boundaries that are called buffers is that correct for the actual Wetlands on the delineation the plan shows Wetland transition areas adjacent to the wetlands that were classified as intermediate resource value correct but it's still listed as a ditch why is it called a ditch when a ditch cannot be a wetland the ditch is a wetland okay well we'll disagree then um can you show the board on the map how one can find that the DP not you but the D has labeled the ordinary resource value ditch of wetland where does it say it on the map in a Wetlands letter of interpretation it references these points of the ditch as a wetland ditch is that information in your report I believe I referenced the fact that we got the the the wetlands letter interpretation was issued and that the ditch was added as an additional jurisdictional Wetland that the D required okay um I'm cut we're at 10 o'clock chairman if I if you may if we can just finish this witness the the hearing didn't start till 7:15 if we can have those 15 minutes or at least whatever time is left to finish this cross cross examination from Mr cook three more three questions if you're saying he's done also then I'm then I'm fine then you're fine but we but we have some overtime to consider here too so cost so all right but there're three questions one part each when I okay I seen back to school got 10 minutes three minutes Mr cook you indicated that Mr Shockley told you he dug this ditch that's correct correct what proof do you have to that information I None just him telling me right so it's basically somebody telling you but there's no record there's no information to confirm anything that you were told I have not okay so you have no proof of those conclusions do you objection as a clarification you're talking about the spoken words he's testified already as to other reasons why it's clear to him it's a manm ditch no I'm just you're referring to spoken words I'm just talking about Mr shley you have no proof of that conclusion that he presented to you do you wa again I object to the form of the question he he testified that he spoke with Mr shley and that was his recollection of the conversation right I just wanted to confirm that there's no proof that he has and and again the D classified that as an ordinary resource value ditch right and you also recognize that as far as DP is concerned it regulates water features whether they are natural or man-made is that correct that's correct okay I have no more questions thank you free well done thank you thank you thank you we are going to continue at the next next time they're back here where we're at a time well we're going to have that discussion now so okay yes yes that so let's try to find a date I think do we have to extend time of decision are we anticipating Mr cook continuing I think so because I had someone in the back that was waiting I guess we maybe get a raise of hands okay I see two three we got at least three four members of the public so Mr cook we're going to have to look at your calendar too to see when you can come back you I I you know I don't know of anything better that I could be doing on when I think it's uh Thursday nights is April 11th the next April 11th April 11th there is another application that would be going first uh with at least a time allotted of an hour of an hour and that's the Sherman application okay and so that would make this application available for after that yep so for about an hour and a half I would say hour hour 15 for this application we need to get the other application started before I grow older right now I'm just anticipating the start of the meeting should only take 30 minutes before we get to application so are you available at April 11 yeah yes my braon will be born by then but should be bor by now I had six to eight hours when I when I left and objector April 11th Works go White Club service there you go all right so also need to discuss extending time of decision because right now it's April 1st well since we're not going to have a full night on the 11th uh I believe June 6th uh is the next full meeting if we can get scheduled for that time as well uh I can extend past June 6th we [Music] good so this happens at every meeting so bear with me as I'm going to just keep saying the same thing we we have other applications that are going to be in the process of being deemed complete or deemed complete actually along those lines maybe we'll uh I guess to confirm there's nothing in May there's nothing available at the moment in May but as we were scheduling things we Mr C can we agree that we can give this applicant a majority of the even on the 6th well I think the only thing is I have to we may not have our planner available on the 6th so okay maybe on the 11th we can figure out okay what the next meeting date is going to be speaking of your planner well we're going to yeah we're going to keep that in mind what we're trying to do is we're trying to bundle believe it or not trying to bundle applications together um so why don't we leave it for the at the 11th yes I mean we're we're we're trying to be extremely conscious as we're making those decisions and to try to work with everyone as fairly as possible in between now and the 11th too I'll let you know as to that would be extremely helpful and we're also going to check with other applications to make sure that everyone is supposed to be when they're supposed to be so yes a little bit of a balancing act M Mr chairman on on the planner issue um Miss Kone last provided Mr anetti a report to this board honor about August 17th of last year if you are planning on having her testify as to any items that have occurred subsequent to her August 17th report but prior to her appearance we need another updated report and I would ask it be provided at least four weeks in advance of her testimony so that everybody can deal with it accordingly and I believe there'll be at least one planner from the objectors that they'll do so we can sort of continue to move the process so if you can prep her for more work and more billing thank you okay I believe there's one other item but I think Mr Lam wants to to speak on the issue before I do I'm going to make this really easy voice on rock and roll on uh go sit down I don't want two yeah I'm not looking to have a debate or long conversation Mr Bernstein's letter from March 5th made a recommendation to the board about providing certain documents I'm just wondering I'm asking is the board going to make that recommendation tonight or what is the next step with this the next the next piece of the puzzle and that's why I I could see you were itching to ask the question and I will then go from there um we asked Mr uh gianetti to provide certain documents for them in fact in my letter 17 minutes before the meeting started which I have not looked at because the Wi-Fi service in this place fill in the blank um apparently Miss Curly from Mr G Ed's office sent me a love note Within attachment to it that I have not seen I believe Mr gianetti is also working on getting me some of the additional documents that I have requested he may or may not object we'll see as to the the the uh promulgation of one of them once we get all the documents or I get the responses I'm going to get I'm going to advise the objectors accordingly as to what I have f I would then ask you all to respond if you so choose I'll have all the doc by when Mr gianetti because I'm trying to work backwards when any more I know you're giving me more so we we've provided a certification from Eric r that he's a sole member of both enhanced uh or enhance Acquisitions LLC and Homestead Road LLC it's no different than the certification actually Homestead Road they had a certify he had to give the 10% ownership disclosure which identified him as the only uh one uh will provide a state department division taxation record that promotes the same thing we're not providing a copy of the purchase and sale agreement I showed you before the meeting I would say in camera uh a copy of the agreement certain redactions but showing the assignment provision uh you showed me pieces of two pages just let's get understood but that uh as I said we at the moment I will I will address that issue when I get the rest of the documents I will have everything by next week all right by by a week from tomorrow at the latest sure but but again to reiterate our point you know we're doing this as a courtesy we have the owner's consent for this application and I you know we disagree with the letter in the opinion the ab Mammoth case you cited uh is wholly not applicable that dealt with a condo unit owner a single condo unit owner trying to do a development application when he he does he's not the sole owner of the common elements the whole condo is so we have the standing and it's on file already we'll provide the supplement information uh let let let's let's try very hard at this hour to avoid doing what attorneys do so well which is arguing a point that isn't there um you intend to provide the documents by the by the 15th yes I will give the objectors two weeks or actually just under two weeks but you want to send it to me on Good Friday I don't that's fine good not my holiday [Music] um I will then Endeavor to get an answer by the end of the following week in advance of the April 11th or by that Monday Advance the April and circulated to Mr jetti the board the objectors I am not putting this on Civic clerk any more than anything else is going on Civic clerk until six time has at least been circulated to the objectors and to council for the applicant and the board at that point I'll cross that bridge with Mr KO but we will have at least some response to this issue by the next meeting on that timeline assuming everybody meets that timeline thank you Mr chairman thank you so thank you if I may not to delay the meeting any longer but I did have a request from Mr gianetti and his client would it be possible and permissible to have Prince and hydro come look at the [Music] site for what purpose uh to look at the ditch to look at the site no we're not consenting to that the D's already ruled on this issue we're not reopening for the planning board to decide whether it's a wetland answer is no thank you okay um Mr chair I think we still need an time of uh decision extension time decision rule till when mret May 1st 2024 thank you okay so Mr chairman this is a motion to continue Homestead Road LLC file number 21 pb25 Ms mspv to Thursday April 11th 2024 at 700 p.m. at 700 p.m. or or as soon thereafter as the matter may be reached right whatever that will be without further notice one last question before decision any of the objectors well two parts do any of the objectors anticipate not being here that [Music] night come prepared with a possible witness folks I don't think we'll get there but come prepared anyway I know that's why I'm saying just in case Mr gianetti decides Mr cook is it and he doesn't need the planner which is his own problem but leaving that aside Le thought Mr cook did a great job tonight so I I made stress I'm not a planner okay I'm not an engineer I'm not a planner but I we got that down you will be a grandfather I'm the bugs and bunnies guy so the point is the going forward objetives need to have witnesses either available or potentially available and updated reports as well so that we don't end up at some point with a well we're not ready yet okay thank you Mr chairman okay so a motion as Mr Bernstein stated with regards to the extension or continuation on April 11th within time of decision now of May 1st 2024 I'll make that motion okay Mr SCA made the motion is there a second okay yes Gage that's all I'm going to say um okay roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr scobo yes M Smith yes Mr velli yes Mr Deb yes committ the P yes may Chelli yes Vice chair PE yes yes just a reminder we do have a meeting next Thursday March 14th at 700 p.m. and with that I entertain a motion of adjournment thank you chairman thank you all in favor I weour come on guys