thank you Nick rasi OPI from the law firm of rer Danza here again representing Red Bull Arena Inc let me first say we're always happy when we're back this is the town hall of our new home and U we feel even more at home when we have technical difficulties um anyway so we are here tonight as I think most people know uh for amendments to the November 2022 site plan approval and to amend the timing schedule of the general development plan approval that's really it the purpose and Mr amaros is going to speak get further into the purpose of the Amendments but essentially as the Red Bulls program uh for the property evolved and reduced so did the size and the scope of the proposed facility again the professionals will go through this in further detail of course but in essence we are seeking really three categories of amendments the first to remove one floor of the main building except for a small area to house the Mechanicals inside they were outside we're bringing them in so you'll see that uh bump in the building the architect will go through that that there's changes related to that reduced uh area uh and and the reduced uh building and scope such as a reduced and modified loading area you'll see those and then finally some changes to uh the Landscaping which puts the focus on the buffers because we know they're important and reduces Landscaping in some of the other areas and trees where they're not needed because there's a lot of buffers already existing there's some smaller changes of course which uh again the professionals will talk about but those are the major items that's really it we are not asking to because I've heard some rumors we're not asking to extend the time of the lights we're not asking to put lights in any new area change the lights in any way add any Fields we're not we're not not asking to do any of that in fact I want to stress that we will continue to comply with and are not asking for any changes to the conditions which are already included in that November 2022 uh site plan approval and so as typical um and as pursuant to the ml we would ask to keep the public questions to the amendments to what we're seeking here tonight and not to things that happened in the past so if there are no objections we have three Witnesses tonight first Mr Amarosa will give an overview of the purpose and nature of the requested amendments then Brent cutshaw of Gensler the architect will discuss and illustrate the requested architectural changes to the facility and then finally rich barington the engineer of wsp will discuss the engineering details as well as the revised Landscaping plan now one suggestion I have and obviously we defer to the board but for efficiency sake since Mr Amarosa is really going to give an overview of what we're asking for and then this the the professionals the architectural professional the engineer professional will get into the details I thought it might be more efficient to wait for for example the architectural questions until not after Mr Amarosa speaks but till after the public gets to see the renderings at The Architects uh show and the same thing then with uh Mr barington so what I would suggest is that uh we defer questions of Mr Amarosa until the architect goes and then they could ask questions of both Mr amaros and the architect and then after the engineering professional goes Mr Amarosa and the engineer I think that would be more efficient but of course we we defer uh to the board yeah I think that's very reasonable just not that we don't have to sit there and say we'll wait that's coming up exactly we'd have to say that a number of times just to be clear Mr chairman if I may the the certainly well within the discretion uh of the chair and the board to do it that way and particularly since uh M rashop said uh made it clear that when the questions are asked of the architect they can also be asked at that time of Mr Amarosa who if I understand correctly is going to be doing the broader view not not the more detailed view so I would like to also for questions of Mr GRT that may relate to some of the overview questions that oh of course same thing that's what yeah I agree so we'll separate two rounds of questions for those absolutely both are questions can be asked also yeah he could be available for both along with the engineer and the architect respectively of course yes okay thank you so um Mr Amarosa be oh uh I think I don't know if you've been you haven't been sworn in yet right and Jim we can't share yet you you're logged into the zoom loged into the zoom part where uh yeah can't share it his but did he change the Source or no did but I should be able to share you want to swearing The Witches War Jim stepped out so he'll be back in a or you could swear in separar everybody get there he is here he is any here well all those will be testifying including our board professional please raise your right hand all of you swear to God are the testim about gave us the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth you procedur thing came to mind with help and so just to make clear when the matter is uh when the we come to our vote uh I believe it be prudent to vote twice Steve your mic's not when we get to the vote uh an applicants Council Mr R the I think yeah when when we get to the vote uh uh since there is going to be an amendment to the GDP as was noted the timing schedule as well as uh an amendment to the site plan approval I think it should be two separate votes primarily for the purpose of having uh in the event it's an approval as to both uh having the GDP uh Amendment approval first uh sequentially and then the site plan approval second vote that is uh I think that that would be apprent course because the GDP was amended first before the site plan approval occurred and I statutorily that would be the appropriate sequence I don't know if I could have explained it any more confusing but I think did you see the glaz believe it was not my intention to make it as confusing as possible but but I do do what I do for it's not you have to understand that he's he's buying time here thank you for for the defense committee men I owe you the one two on the vote the case the the actual Beane in psylvia [Music] we're having trouble sharing I've run out of material the situ I know many have hoped for this day but I no one actually saw it coming well there is song There's Always song and dance watch how about you think maybe shut down and try to [Music] offer public can't see those too small I can barely see them and I'm right here yeah let's go direct again we're only using only using if they they they can't comment anyone so he still sh screen he he just excuse me we just do [Music] a well because they for hope he's in favor of your project is yes this thing for some reason is not connected think on the I don't know Shar screen oh they hav somebody's gonna yeah how do we communicate I guess John there we go okay they just had to join we got the first onek okay we are ready Mr amaros are we ready yes I believe we are okay Mr Amarosa before you get started would you give um the board just a little bit the history of your involvement uh with this project and and how you represent Red Bulls here and very first name and business address okay sure it's John Emarosa o r OA 1207 ready Avenue Kate Bay New Jersey thank you sorry to interrupt sure and uh for from 2007 to 2021 I was a a director of construction for the New York Red Bulls and Red Bull Arena Incorporated involved with this project I'd like to say since get closer to the mic oh sorry does that work better little Clos thank you all right no no um so from 2007 to 20 21 I worked for the New York Red Bulls as director of construction for both uh the Red Bulls and Red Bull Arena Incorporated and I like to say I've been working on this project since 2007 so we started out when I first came to the organization looking for a place to uh build a new training facility ultimately we settled on a temporary home in Handover Township where we currently operate uh from the time we opened that facility we recognized that it was not large enough to handle all of the programs of the team and of the full organization including the academy and youth programs so we constantly started looking for a new site and it took us until uh 2020 to locate this particular piece of property and I've been involved with the planning and design of the project since the very beginning and I was involved with the U uh planning board testimony back in November of 2022 for the project so I like to say I've been living with it for the last Almost 21 years or whatever it is I can't do the math I'm an engineer I need a calculator 17 years 17 years thanks Paul so thank you and and would you give the board the benefit of uh the reasons why we're seeking these amendments the programmatic uh changes that inform some of the revisions we're seeking here tonight sure as of with all projects uh there's an evolution that occurs uh you know you're at a point where you think you you you understand exactly where you're going and you want to bring everything to the table and uh get it approved uh but then you realize as you're going through it that not everything needs to come to the table and one of the things that we looked at there was a business decision made to leave the uh Red Bulls the New York Red Bulls front office operations in Harrison at Red Bull Arena and uh that's just very specific because most of the work that that organization does is circles around what happens at the arena uh ticket sales Communications public relations everything uh surrounding that operation really needed to to stay where it was uh so that was the first thing that happened that reduced uh the head count uh at the site which which made us realize that we should do something and uh when we did that we decided that the third floor was no longer necessary in the building um upon seeing that the third floor was no longer necessary we we looked at reducing the building and of course that snowball into other changes with uh the architecture than having to follow suit so um Mr cutell will get in more detail about that as we go uh later on into his testimony um so what happens when you start reducing employees it reduces the number of meals and things that are served at the facility the amount of traffic that coming in so you're cuts down on the amount of deliveries that are necessary to bring into the site so with the reduction of deliveries and employees and meals uh the delivery count went down and what we realized is that we had overdesigned uh the loading dock area and it was no longer efficient or no longer justified by the business case so we had to look at uh some ways of changing that up to to bring it more in line of what we were actually uh going to be doing at the site and What U the type of uh deliveries that were going to be held and Etc down the line so you know with those uh decrease in deliveries we realized that uh truck counts were going to go down smaller trucks would be coming to the site because one of the other things that we were counting on is if the youth programs portion of uh the Red Bulls organization moved to the facility they get a lot of deliveries around uh items for camps which includes balls they get somewhere in the neighborhood of like 100,000 soccer balls delivered every year it's it's a crazy number that they get delivered because anybody you know they serve somewhere in the neighborhood 50,000 youth every year uh and every kid that attends a Red Bull Camp gets a soccer ball now they're all not the full-size ball that you see uh on the on the pitch but they're there's a I think they're called a number five ball it's a smaller Ball but that those types of deliveries would not be coming to this facility they would continue to go to Red Bull Arena and Harrison and the storage of that would all occur there and continue that way additionally they get a lot of t-shirts and other things that are handed out to the kids and all of that uh would still also go to Red Bull Arena so all of those truck counts went away and so we're we're looking at now that just it's you know the deliveries to maintain uh the meal operation uh and the deliveries that would normally come to a facility uh US mail FedEx uh UPS things of that nature so with that you know we looked at um the uh operation of it and you know one of the things that was talked about in the TCC was limiting the hours of operation to the loading dock and we agreed that that could be easily accomplished from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. we can stay within those parameters without without any difficulty and we would also adhere to all the tou of noise ordinances around uh you know extraneous noise that's occurring in those locations um with that you know what we were talked about is the the number of deliveries and and really the key amount of deliveries is probably going to be more in the way of the normal deliveries you know UPS FedEx and the mail will come every day and sometimes twice a day but those are the type of trucks that'll be making most of the deliveries for Food Service we're looking at that one or two times per week uh trucks would be delivering non-p perishable food items and maybe two or three times a week there would be deliveries of perishable items now these uh trucks are probably more on the the line of of a UPS truck and maybe slightly smaller with the single or double axle box truck or a very short uh you've seen them around the Cisco trucks you proba if you ever go through marown you see them deliver into the restaurants the shorter Cisco trailers that they're about 36 feet I believe is the dimension on them so that's the kind of thing that would be happening there um with um trash and recycling that'll also decrease because obviously we have less headcount less meals being served less other items being having to disposed of uh so we're still looking at that that would be a um removal of trash and recycling twice a week uh usually uh we try to organize that so it's on a Monday and a Thursday so that you know you get the week weekend and then you get the week and you're empty for the weekend again so it we'll probably look at at that twice a week and we would also limit those uh pickup hours to within 7 AM to 7 PM um one of the things that we realized that by moving the loading dock to the uh ground level that we would have to create uh increase the buffering along Stockton drive to uh uh provide a better screening for it and to limit its exposure so you'll see Mr barington will point this out that we increase the height of the burm along Stockton U by four feet to accomplish this along with uh adding additional plantings to create better screening along that that side side of the space um I mentioned that the the third floor oh one of the things that is a benefit of this by uh re changing the loading dock location we reduced the number of driveways on Prescott from two to from two to one uh so everything on on Prescott would go uh in and out the one driveway as opposed to two driveways relatively close to each other um one of the things I mentioned about the the third floor being reduced in size is uh you know we eliminated the business case for it with the the first um excuse me the front office operation staying uh in Harrison and also we had looked at in the previous approval of changing it into a regeneration space which would be kind of a dormatory space for players to recover uh overnight or things like that and further discussion with the sporting side of things it was determined that that really was not something that uh was a necessary it was a nice to have but it wasn't necessary so we decided that it was a good opportunity to reduce that third floor down to just uh to cover the mechanical spaces now one of the things previously those mechanical spaces were still on the third floor but they were in a penthouse area at the south end of the building now they're more towards the the north end of the building as you'll see in the presentations of the uh uh and renderings they're undercover underneath that third floor roof so they're they you know it is a third floor but it's really just a mechanical Penthouse and it was a way of of disguising and hiding uh the mechanical equipment on the roof um Nick mentioned that we would be doing something in terms of landscape reduction you know several things that that happen with any design uh as you're going through it and you're talking to the actual um landscape contractors and nurseries that will be participating in a project you find out that they're very concerned about supplying you with any trees that are of the sizes that were originally specified because they're really concerned about their survivability once they're transplanted larger trees uh do not survive very well when they're transplanted so it's more more advantageous to trans transplant smaller trees or younger trees is really really what it is uh so that was one of the things that we looked at is how can we increase the survivability of trees by going with some smaller trees in some locations we did also look at uh the section and this will get pointed out the section on on Stockton we we were eliminating some trees but it was primarily to maintain the views along Stockton as opposed to coming off of Columbia that there were several tree rows of trees that were eliminated in that direction uh that'll we'll see that later when Rich does some his presentation and finally the the one thing that I need to mention is we talked about the GMP or excuse me the GDP my Contracting hat came on there for a second the the GDP uh required to be updated U because the timing schedule in it has uh changed a little bit from when that was done in I believe 2021 and uh mostly the the changes are it's just moving some of the elements into the correct phases uh we're not changing the timeline at all of the project it's just a re it was just necessary to reorder uh like the one of the things we had the residential Academy dorm was in Phase One and it's really in phase two so we just had to move that down so it was just a reordering of that that's the the change to the uh timing schedule in the GDP and we still anticipate that phase one of the project uh will be completed in the summer of 2025 with that I will turn it over to Mr cutell to make his presentation so uh I have no further questions of Mr Amarosa I don't know if the board wants to also wait for the architectural okay good yeah next slide please well are you gonna talk about this um I can start with one yeah start next one and I'm sorry we did have a I guess an exhibit up right so uh so the the thank you for the it's a rendered site plan the original one if we can go back one back one slide back slide the uh so uh we'll even if it was more than 10 days ago that it was submitted uh why don't we call it exhibit A1 uh or is this whole thing going to be a package package there's two packages two packages uh so we could call the do we know how many pages yes I got it right here numbers on it so we are 10 on the first package okay so A1 could be a 10 page uh compendium of slides uh and they could go by page number so we just we're previously speaking about page one of exhibit A1 and I don't know if we're staying there or Moving on but I'll turn it back over to the W before we get started uh please give your name and address for the record I'm Brent cuta um business address is 101 South Congress Avenue Austin Texas 7874 spell your name cutshaw c t s h l l first name Brent and Brent would you give the board the benefit of your qualifications and experience and projects of this nature that you've worked on for gy yep um registered architect for going on 24 years now uh work in Austin Texas Office of guinsler Sports practice so we are a studio focusing solely on Sports projects here around the United States and internationally um been working on the Red Bulls project for the last two and a half years I joined in schematic design phase very early on been on board as the project manager since and your uh education um Bachelor's in architecture from the University of Florida and a master's in architecture from of Texas I'm and I may not have heard if I may Mr chairman I may not have heard it but uh you're are you licensed in the state of New Jersey I'm not I'm licensed in Florida and Texas okay so so um as you know that the architectural plans that were submitted uh was by a colleague of Mr kuto who's here tonight Mr K yes correct y um and he signed and sealed the plans okay and you were uh you worked with him under his supervision absolutely or vice versa matter so I specialize in the sport side he's the local architect we have an office here in mortown understood and just uh Curious have you been accepted as an expert in the field of architecture by any land use board in this state or any state yes and Texas in Texas not yet at least in New Jersey correct not yet in New Jersey um and I uh and no court in the state of New Jersey no has yet okay least okay refer to the chair um yeah know I think we'll go we'll go we'll go ahead okay the background we vision of the firm certainly well within the discretion of the board to find them as an expert to assist in the process as opposed to lay lay people who are not Architects all right okay so uh you're accepted please proceed and so would you give the board the benefit of the architectural revisions details of the Amendments that we're seeking y all right I'll ask for the next slide page two of the package and um generally what you're going to see here today is a presentation of series of images and renderings that generally start with our original view that was presented back in Fall of 22 followed by a proposed view that way we can speak specifically to the changes so this aerial view of the project was original you'll remember this so we'll go to the next view that's page three next page please page three and this is the updated view of the rendering so things to note that we should point out are the change in the three story height to twostory for the main building a um the location of the loading dock can I get up and point too micone yes Buton you also come out of I believe it that working or not just turn it off all right that works okay so building a as we've talked about is the main prob building here generally we talk about the main building and the academy bar this is where the bulk of the changes have happened some of the changes that John mentioned operationally with the removal of the basement loading dock you'll no longer see the drive Extra Drive accessing Prescott here so now all access for both parking and deliveries comes through this entry point to Prescott um comes up to the loading dock which happens right here on you moved away okay we are we are okay um The Academy bar okay um additional changes that we talked about are uh the how's that better okay all right so removal of additional trees on Stockton um change in the footprint of Building B The Building B footprint changed from roughly 56 feet to 60 feet just due to investigation structurally and what's most efficient in the steel engineering of that so there's a small growth in that building um the only other additions uh that I think we've mentioned is through work with uh the local electrical company we've moved two Transformers there's a new Transformer sitting here next to building a and one sitting back next to building F1 Frank did you show where the Mechanicals were in the original building versus where they are in this building correct so the mechanical units for the HVAC system on building a used to sit down here on the southern end of the roof of building a on the RO correct they had a little bit of a screen but they but they were definitely on the roof and visible we've now put them inside this roof bulge that you'll see here I've got in my next exhibit I'll talk a little bit more about the height of the building and we can look specifically at where uh the mechanical is so with that I'll go to the next slide next page okay we are page four now uh this is an elevation diag iagram which shows the previously approved elevation um with the updated and proposed elevation in the middle and an overlay of the two so the green line represents the previous approval and what you'll see on the southern end is the reduction in a single floor's height this area right here is the area of the third floor in the middle of the building where we've located the mechanical units that's why the overall height of the building is not reduced at its Max point but on the southern half it is reduced in height by at least 10 to 15 feet so with that I'll go to the next slide next page here a series of four General views uh this is the previous renderings you all would have seen about a year and a half ago we'll go to the next slide here's the updated view uh the most obvious foreground a page number time page six thank so we're on page six um Center of building a you'll see the main entry Lobby height is reduced significantly the main entry was roughly 49 feet originally we're now at 29 feet so that's a significant reduction in height and scale um there's a slight materiality change for the Academy bar that we noted uh where we've removed some green wall uh just due to long-term maintenance decisions that was decided to keep uh Justified fiber cement panels there which is what was previously there but we've removed the uh the green wall um the other big change on this page is The Spectator seating area next to field 8 um previously The Spectator seating area was a more formal Gathering now we've gone with a more landscape park-like BM approach where we've got a hillside with some concrete benches in the idea is that parents Spectators might sit on the hillside sit on the bench uh no longer a canopy over it some Landscaping behind uh but a much more informal approach to the seating uh and a reduction in the capacity was previously at 500 persons we're down to 300 based on seating uh next page page seven uh this is the previous View as you enter from Stockton uh coming up to the main drop off um the tall 49 ft Lobby there The Spectator seating to the right we'll go with next page this is page eight here's the updated view reduced Lobby height reduced Building height still have the academy dorms to the left uh and The Spectator seating area is really from this view now just much more of a landscaped uh approach you'll see we adjusted the layout there were some Red Bull bull sculptures which the placement of those got adjusted due to the the placement of the BM and some of the adjustments in The Hardscape in that area um other thing to note here is the change in the aesthetic of the project is really you know previously we had metal panel wrapped in some solar um wood fins uh we've kind of removed those fins there's a lot of reasons for that one of which is we really no longer needed the views both the east and west side of the building we've kind of stripped that down and really focused the attention of the building towards the fields and really just made a more of a solid uh sculptural effect out of the metal panels uh facing East next slide all right and this is the last view um this is the previous View uh with the I'm sorry page page nine AP and so we'll go to the next this is previous View of this is previous view aerial view from the south with the building a and The Spectator seating on the left hand side we'll go to the next slide page 10 we'll see the update to the architecture reduction in height smooth curve form to accommodate the mechanical Penthouse concealed within the third floor and the less formal seating approach to the hillside there and no longer a canopy to cover and there was some minor landscape changes in the area between here leading up to the academy roof but those were really just us coordinating landscape and architecture and trying to get out what the right solution was there believe that's my last slide architecturally so with that I'm I'm complete and the way original building and then right after that but I think so they're open for questions I have no F questions anything from our board professionals I have you say there was a you said there was an increase in the height of the indoor field structure is that correct I believe yes that is the case you remember what what it was Pro what the WID the width the field of building but it's still at the same4 just no no no wrong building okay that's Building C which was the Endor field which hasn't changed at all that's still same right so we're talking about the Fieldhouse Building B which is adjacent to U field a it got a little wider due to structural steel reties got it is there are there any changes at all to the approved signage uh none none okay any changes at all to the approved uh lighting actually I should say to the approved signage we've probably taken away a number of murals and things like that but we have not made any changes to added anything do we know Mur the one that was on Building B was that on the north side of building V is that it yeah yeah I can't think of any other ones okay and what about lighting no changes no changes only landscape around the entry so like pedestrian scale lighting not not any site because the shape changed so there were some changes to Ballard things of that nature low correct Bard p o l l a r DS sorry that's all I have this questions okay with me one second just to see if they're appropriate for this particular [Music] witness say that one um building F3 I believe it's building F3 okay uh is uh I think it was a smaller maybe 1500 foot or there about building is that uh on the plans maybe have been related to subsequent phasing correct but maybe you could explain that and let us know if it's on the plans where on the plans it's I believe in the submitted little louder in the mic it's on the submitted plans as an alternate to the area where buildings okay yeah there's no changes to it it's the same as it was as previously presented I can point it out if we got the exhibits up but it's basically if it's if it's on the plans and there's no changes that's fine I just wanted to make sure that was the case um either either way and again no none of the changes uh trigger any deviations uh from the zoning other than their amendments to the approval that that might be for Council as well but for confirmation purposes cor okay no new deviation uh and is there I don't know if this is the right witness but uh I believe there was a change to a agility area was that addressed or can that be addressed it's still in a future phase it just uh has not changed in the design at all okay so there's no changes to the proposed agility area but it is for a subsequent phase was it previously for the first phase no but I believe it was on the overall uh project for shown on the original drawings has it changed uh as far as its proposal proposed phase or is it still proposed for the same phase whatever the prior phase was if you recall I do not recall exactly we we could check but uh I believe it was always a future phase engineer speak engineer that's fine uh the and as uh as far as noise the applicant has previous uh conditions of approval with respect to noise uh and they'll still be required to abide by those including uh specifically with respect to the new location of the loading area uh and uh uh and I if I recall correctly uh was I believe there was a post construction for lack of a better term audit obligation with respect to noise uh assuming my recollection is correct uh with the applicate stipulate to that not only remaining but also specifically uh focusing on uh uh or in addition focusing on the loading area given its new location we're comp yeah we comply with all noise ordinances and we comply whatever the condition is uh can be if you want to qu it expanded I'm not sure it needs to be to the Loading yeah it'll it'll apply to the new configuration okay uh 7 column 29 being the New Jersey Administrative Code provision uh for noise uh decel levels um think and you get the timings oh you spoke about the change in the timing uh is there um I believe there was an exhibit at least submitted to the board but I don't know if the the specifics of of what that timing change is going to be and it may not need to be addressed in great detail um but uh if we're amending the GDP uh to uh amend the timing schedule therein uh we need to hear and see something about what that change is going to be that was submitted as part of our application as part of our application for the amended General development plan but I think mros could speak about it now yes uh so prior uh the initial uh going looking at the timing schedule um page 17 of the GDP be specific uh it was submitted by letter dated April 12 2024 uh under the Record danig Law Firm cover letter correct that's correct that's correct and uh and as exhibit a to that submission it was the Mars naal planning board's amended General development plan approval dated uh may6 2022 resolution adopted June 20 2022 yes yes okay uh and then there was an exhibit B to that I'm anticipating I guess but uh is that the revised timing schedule proposed for the revision to the amended General development plan no e exhibit B is the original from the GDP the original yes Exhibit C which is the next page is the new new proposed uh change got it okay and maybe it would be best just to perhaps I don't want to tell you how to do your make the presentation but at least for the benefit of the board and members of the public uh maybe an overview of what those changes are sure so schedule absolutely not not a problem uh as I mentioned the timing doesn't change uh but what we did do to uh bring the uh GDP timing schedule in concurrence with the approved uh planning board approval of November uh 2022 there were certain items that had to move from one phase to another to comply with that approval uh specifically in the initial phase um the second item was the construction of the residential academy uh that was no longer in the initial phase and that was moved uh to the uh second phase um the other thing that needed to be cleaned up was the last item of on the construction of fields uh the original uh document uh indicated that six Fields would be constructed in U phase one or the initial phase uh Fields one two five six seven and eight and ancillary components um what that needed to change to was the construction of eight and one half Fields or eight and a half Fields um Fields being one two 3 four five six seven 7 a and eight and inary components um and there was no change to the duration of that initial phase it's still two years uh the second phase there were a couple of items that needed to change one of the things was the commencement uh uh was originally it says commences six months after completion of the initial phase that was revised to commence is 12 months after completion of the initial phase um the main item that happened there is the third item construction of indoor field uh was moved to the third phase and uh phase two also conclud includes the construction of the agility area which remained there and then uh the other item that changed was uh the fields uh that we has said were be constructed in the second phase were moved up to the initial phase so the deletion of construction of three Fields so all of the field well and also that included Fields 3 four and nine and of course nine was removed from the initial approval so that needed to be removed from the second phase duration and that duration still stays at two years for the second phase uh the third phase which is also two years duration would commence one year after completion of the second phase and the only change there uh was the addition of the construction of the indoor field to that phase and there other items construction of women's Pro and construction of girls Academy building remained in that phase those were the changes so there there are no changes to the durations except the lengthening of the time between the completion of the phase one and consc commencement of phase two thank you couple other just for the record uh uh the board did receive a Fire official report no questions or concerns dated April 17 2024 and a cited inspection report uh uh no questions or concerns also dated April 17 2024 there was if I'm not mistaken a construction officials uh memo uh dated April 8 2024 uh and hopefully uh well that that might be bet well it's a mix I guess of engineer and architect but uh if we have no I don't remember so that's uh some specific items from the building building department related to handicap paring space distribution accessible routes you know we can get you a copy of that scene pretty straightforward with some things that need to be coordinated I I believe the civil engineer can testify probably mostly civil engineering so we could hold it too so I have nothing further right now thank you Mr um I have a couple questions I'll start out one is um kind of dealing with the timing also I think specifically you talk you moved construction of a half field into where the indoor facility will be what I don't remember that what was within that space in Phase One in the original so it would have remained as a grassed area so we decided that you know might as well make it into a playable area that could be used for the duration before the the second phase commen uh questions um just a clarifying question regarding the phases and may have said this so I apologize if you did um so the second phase and the third phase are both projected to be twoe in duration correct and is that also true of the initial phase also twoe interation well that was our initial yeah so right now we're so essentially we put shovels in the ground in April of of this year uh and we anticipate that uh substantial completion of the project should be in September of 2025 so it's a little it's about 17 or 18 months not 24 months I have a question I guess really not a question just a point of clarification ation for Mr Amarosa regarding U you early in in your um testimony you had mentioned something about 100,000 soccer balls and other merch that is going to stay at the Harrison facility um are you expecting transportations of of the subset of those to this facility uh for the Youth or or the girls whatever um as part as they go through your training program well it's it's for the youth training program so any camps that would be run at the facility would have balls brought there for for that uh operation but generally you know a camp has maybe 50 60 100 kids or something like that so it's that kind of subset and what happens is the coaches that run the camps they actually have to inflate the balls and bring them to the bring them to the camp so that that that's how they will be arriving in the back of coach's cars okay I just wanted to clarify that it's not a big truck coming in with his thead soccer balls well a lot a lot of times what they'll do is they'll actually bring them to where they're going because they're much more Compact and then inflate them when they they get there they have H little portable pumps that they bring along with a generator thank you yeah I have a question that might be better for the next witness but I'll I'll ask it now just in case and that has to do with the um possible review of this uh revised application by the environmental commission I didn't see any documentation that the environmental commission had looked at this um does anyone have a comment about that yes they had that we did receive their report and I believe I addressed all of their their topics in in my testimony okay than I may not have spoken specifically to the environmental report but I did address what they had talked about uh you and I think the civil engineer will talk a little bit more about Native species and things that they uh wanted to confirm so there there's no changes in those those things there are some changes to the the plantings which I thought they might have an opinion about there are changes to the plantings which I thought they might have an opinion about yes that their opinion was that they wanted to sure that we were not enter in bringing in non-native species that we're maintaining the native species that we had agreed to so there's nothing on the no plant list on the project thank you and they have they have some more questions than that but Mr barington will get to the landscaping and answer those questions and we did receive it the is in April 2024 Memo from the environmental commission was that in the package that the board received no we did not see it anything else well I have couple more questions actually um one again with the timing and a little clear is that you have youve moved the uh construction of the resal residential Academy program from first phase to second phase correct but that's the dorm in building a right so yes that would be constructed at a later dat you're not building that building or you're just building the shell and completing it in phase two no it would be built in phase two it would be built over those wings on that side it's only a a second floor so it bridges over like perhaps Brent can explain this a little bit better but on the east side of that building building there is two there are two Wings the loading dock now and the other wing of classrooms the CL the dermatory wing bridged over the top of those and it's and originally uh there was nothing uh it was open on the bottom there was no no structure on so it will be partially open and partially covering uh the first floor structures so it it'll be built up and over over it in the future so phase one would be the loading dock and the maintenance and all that area the that's correct Andre pule with that um and the other the loading dock again you um said that this you felt more comfortable moving it um above ground and more exposed because the total number of trips and the size of the trucks went down significantly from what you originally planned that that that's and you've also increased the height of the burm and I guess we'll get to the Landscaping I guess that'll be part of that but that cor help compensate for that also that's correct um and agreed that it'll be all the loading do operations between 7 A.M and 7 P.M that's correct day I don't have anything else oh I did have another question the the drawings do Show solar panels on the roof which the old ones did and that was always you know maybe maybe not have you come to decision on that well solar panels are are one of those things that have been worked on since we started this project but uh it is a u we'd like to have them there just is not the right proposal from any of the organizations that build solar panels that make it U you know beneficial well makes it beneficial but not from a from a monetary standpoint but the infrastructure to support them is there so if we do want to add them in the future we' come back for the approval on that but the the infrastructure to support them is there yeah oh yeah just just a quick question I'm looking at the um the proposed Amendment to the timing and it might be clear to others but it's not 100% clear to me the the last sentence in the lead in paragraph talks about the time schedule for each subsequent phase shall begin once the previous one has concluded suggests to me that there is no Delay from from each one phase to the next but then below it talks about a 12mon delay for for the subsequent um phases is this maybe that's just a point of clarification that needs to be made yes I agreed that the last sentence says the time schedule for each subsequent phase shall begin once the previous one has concluded and then phases do have those stipulations in it that the second phase commences 12 months after the first one and the third commences one year after the second one so I think it's pretty clear that there is a step between the two but really what it's telling is there's no overlap between the phases right and and then the other question I have is not on the applicant application itself but it's more to the intent of Red Bulls um I think you stated before that the front office is going to remain in Harrison correct is is it now the uh intention to continue to view the Harrison location as the headquarters for Red Bulls or will the township be considered headquarters I I I would leave that to the business side to to state that but I I I think that you can assume that the front office operation is in Harrison and that's where the front office operation is okay but you can't speak to that no I can't speak to it any for then I would we'll open it up or anything anything else from the Fresh okay then we'll open it up for questions public of these W these two witnesses please step up your name and address any questions that you may have of these Witnesses subject yes hi uh Alfred deiro to aldrid court I was just wondering the i e r o I was just wondering for the architect I'm sorry sir start I'm sorry Alfred deiro to Aldrich court and it's Di i e r o we're at the uh we're right on Stockton facing west and I noticed in all your renderings we didn't see what that facade looks like that we would be looking at assuming there was no burm and plantings do you have any renderings of what that facade side looks like I don't H I don't have any renderings of that view there are elevations in the packet um but there are renderings with the landscape there showing that the landscape will effectively block the view of that elevation could you describe it just briefly what it's it's made up of two primary materials so a metal panel and a fiber cement panel uh looking very similar to um one of the exhibits um I think page page eight of the exhibit uh would give the best in indication of the elevation of that view um where you have up high oh thank you they're pulling up that exhibit right now so page eight please okay I see right so you've got the metal panel there which in this view looks a little Bluer Than in reality I think it's going to be uh that arches up and over the academy bar and then extends further south with the fiber cement making up the lower third or the the lower floor where the bulk of the entry doors and other things happen on that floor okay will that metal panel be reflecting a lot of sunlight no it is it is a I would call it a silver gray but it is by no means polished or mirror or anything like that okay so I think it's fairly traditional what you would see on a but what you're saying is it it doesn't look like a warehouse it's a nice absolutely it has patterning in it and I think you could see that in the in the submitted uh documents that are part of the package thank Patricia Collins for green NOS Road excuse me quick question the generic Court that's going to be next to the basketball court the ten Court what is that for it's it's not defined it just says generic what kind of a court is it it's meant for any type of athletic use it could be used for soccer tennis it could be used for pickle ball it could be used for basketball it could be used for anything but it's just generic in nature it's a surface area for uh the academy athletes to to play on okay just wanted that clarification and once again there'll be no lights on that because we have Assurance there'll be no lights on the basketball there's no change there's no change to the lighting so there's no lights correct thank you that's it question thank you gentlemen Mr barington would you give your name and address for the record Richard barington um from wsp uh business address is 350 Mount kemell Avenue Morristown New Jersey and would get you give the board the benefit of your uh uh qualifications and experience and whether you been accepted as an expert in front of this board and others yes I'm a licensed engineer in New Jersey and several other states um I've appeared before several boards in the state of New Jersey and I was approved as an expert before this board in the previous uh for previous testimony I would ask that may be accepted again as an expert in civil engineering accepted thank you so you give the board the benefit of both the landscaping and the engineering details and and the the Amendments basically that we're asking for you correct I'm gonna I'm going to do three things with my testimony I'm going to go through the landscape changes that were made um I'm going to go through some of the site changes that were made um different site things different utility things and then there were a few comments from the environmental Commission in the building department that I want to make sure we touch on as well and before you go through that are you going to be referring to some exhibits yes in your testimon and can you describe what they are how many pages Etc yes there's another packet a 14-page packet um that I'll use for for landscape and civil testimony and we'll refer to that as exhibit 82 and it's say compendium my favorite word it looks like it's uh 14 pages is that correct correct I reserves the right to have another favorite word thank I think just say oh try it up let him get it up so I can start while they're pulling it up um I have a general introduction as well so in terms of the overall landscape plan for the site um I think what you've seen are several changes there's been changes to the number of trees and shrubs there's been changes to the species types um and there's been changes to the the under story The shrubs perennials things like that um so what I'm going to try to do is just go through different numbers then I'll talk about different areas and I'll just try to go piece by piece in terms of the landscape changes um so the original application that we did um provid did essentially replacement ratio of 1,196 okay that doesn't mean we were proposing 1,196 trees we were actually planting 665 trees the requirement gets to over a thousand because on some trees were larger than others and you get bigger credit the larger your trees are so the previous application had 665 trees for and I'll call it a credit ratio of 1196 um with the new Amendment we're proposing 629 trees so we're only reducing the tree count by roughly 36 however we are using smaller trees in many areas which the total effective ratio is 808 which is much less than the 1196 um in terms of how that breaks out U mostly in terms of we've we've reduced 59 deciduous trees we've reduced two flowering trees but we've increased evergreen trees by by 25 um so there's been a lot of changes in terms of the types of trees in terms of the ratio you know what we said before which was going from 1196 to 808 um the difference from that that 59 deciduous tree reduction amounts to 112 total points um ironically the even though we've increased the evergreen trees by 25 because generally they're smaller throughout um that's attributable to 200 74 points lower than what we had before on evergreens so we've increased evergreen trees but technically it's it's less points because they're smaller trees so those are some of the numbers so let me go back to where where are things um next next page please and that'll be page two okay so one of the points Mr Amarosa made in terms of where were the change is made so what this figure shows is is two things and we're showing in essentially green colored with the the green dotted lines those the key buffer areas those are areas when we did the original design that really we we paid the most attention to we tried to look at sight lines we looked at different tree sizes there was a blend of deciduous and evergreen trees in those areas really no changes to the number of trees where they are to the design in that area so that those were areas we tried to really maintain the buffer and I'll show you we do have perspectives to demonstrate that particularly on the Aldridge court side of the project um where are the reductions so again we talked about reductions and you can see in with the orange shapes effectively there's a few areas where we did make reductions and I'll go through some of the numbers on the reductions as well so the entrance to stockt and drive you highlight those're to see yes the first area I want to talk about is really the the entrance to the site coming off of Columbia and into Stockton essentially there were Street trees planted there we're removing those Street trees um that accounts for roughly 23 most of those were deciduous trees the second location I want to really point out is really near the Red Bull driveway and I'll point that out so the Red Bull driveway really around the driveway and opposite side of the Street we designed the project to try to maintain the existing trees in those areas um so previously we did have some tree we we tried to plant in the Ender story and I think looking at it I think the landscape architect said you know what it's really mature trees going in there and trying to beef up that area with more trees probably not a great idea so we've removed those trees um that accounts for a net another 13 trees lost really in that area the the next area I want to talk about are Street trees along Stockton next to the dilden cap area Deen d d i e l d r i n next is Stockton drive so this is an area we looked at again and essentially putting we tried to minimize trees in there because for every tree we dig there we're digging through an environmental cap so certainly minimize that was was something of interest to that um Street trees lost along the Deen cap area were 12 Trees the last area I want to really point out in terms of trees that we we eliminated was near the service area where looking at some of the islands that we had between sidewalk and between the Utility Yard in many cases we had maybe five or six feet with fencing and it as the design developed it just didn't look like a great place to try to jam in trees in those areas um we did maintain the buffer I think called the green null buffer that we had put in there um no changes to that area as well those were really that's where we lost our trees next thing I want to talk about was that big number in terms of where did we downsize things um and I think Mr Amarosa pointed out before trying to look at survivability of things so there were numerous areas on the site where we had proposed for example junipers um the example I want to give is Fields one two three and four along along Prescott in the original design we had proposed junipers 8 to 10 feet high and the new design were proposing junipers 7 to8 feet all in all that's almost a thousand foot stretch of junipers lining all those fields um reducing that Juniper border results for roughly a change of 218 from where we were before to there so that total ratio difference a lot of it is due to taking those junipers and dropping them down from 8 to 10 to 7 to 8 the second major example I want to give in terms of tree sizing is with the original design we had a series of 18 to 20 foot Norway sprues that were designed along the perimeter of building a um and we've revised the design for those trees to be 10 to 12 feet instead of 18 to 20 working with our contractor talk about survivability there's a lot of logistics that go in with those 18 to 20 foot trees and we just feel that 10 to 12 they've got a greater chance of survival in maintaining that border in the long term um the last thing I want to point out really in terms of the the redesign and and tree sizing is we did redesign the burm to increase the height maximum of four feet um no changes to the types of trees there were some species changes which I'll talk about next but generally that design remained intact there were some species changes um do want to just reiterate what Mr Amarosa said everything that's proposed now is is on the allowable list there's nothing from the Do Not plant list but there were some eliminations species eliminated included the Queen Elizabeth maple sugar maple hop horn beam and the Austrian pine um species added included horn beam which was a substitution for hop horn beam the Autumn Blaze maple um and a a fairly large increase in red Maples so essentially we got rid of two Maples and we've substituted those with different Maples that's really a summary of the trees just trying to talk a little bit about some of the changes with shrubs and ground cover as well um some changes in just in terms of sizes for example the site had a lot of areas with perennials and we've downsized those plantings uh giving you an example a lot of areas with catet um where we propos five gallon catet plantings those are down to one gallon pots um another example of a shrub change was we had a row of boxwoods between Fields seven and eight um I think looking at that and realizing that boxwoods and soccer balls don't necessarily blend well together those box woulds have been eliminated in favor of Holly trees so just changing things like that to try to as the design developed um the other one of the other large changes we made was again size um we had green Giants at 18 to 20 feet um around several areas we've subed those out for 10 to 12 foot green Giants and again a lot of this is survivability um especially something like green Giants that grow so quickly um thought ultimately it benefited to try to get something that's going to survive rather than take a chance on larger shrubs okay now Mr barington before you go further I don't know if you remember but in the original application and during the original uh hearings uh I think the homeowners association uh hired a a landscape architect expert and I think his one one of his criticism his only real criticism was that he thought some of the trees that we were getting may be too mature and have survivability issues do you remember that exactly his concern was Branch yes that he pointed out rightly so that the larger trees or shrubs you start with their chances of survival do get less and less the larger they get and that especially plants or shrubs that do grow rather fast you're almost better off getting something a little smaller maintaining it and letting it letting it transition in so okay um so next thing I want to do is really go through some of the perspectives and similar to what Brent did um it'll be a before and then an after perspective um so next page page three so this is essentially stock and drive this is the original um looking down you can see almost in the background you're seeing building a is really immediate on the other side of the Street okay next page page four this is the after you can denote in the background a change in the building materials that uh Mr kuta referenced you can also pick up there is an increase in the the burm height when you directly compare the two perspectives okay you will know like I said too that trees are the same trees um no change to the trees next page page five this is the night view the original night view um next page page six and this is the revised night view um for that whole area okay next page page seven similar area um just look looking directly out and you can see almost the tan of the building again in the background next next page page eight okay you can detect the the silver in the building and as Mr cutshaw mentioned the maximum height of the building is the same um you're seeing the maximum height of the building this area but you're also noticing that the burm is higher um in this building but there's no change to the trees next page page nine okay and this is the the the one-year growth rendering from this perspective see area can see the the brown of the original building and next page page 10 and you can see in this picture this is the one-year growth the burm higher at least from this perspective does make a difference and next page page 11 moving a little bit further further south um this is the original View okay next page page 12 okay and you can see the BM got a little bit higher again this is the the amended the the new rendering and next page page 13 okay and this is the one-year growth from that angle again the tan is the original building okay next page page 14 okay and in this picture you see I think this is a good one because you see what Mr Kell described how the maximum height stays the same but the majority of the building is smaller and in this case the higher burm combined with the lesser lesser height of the the backside of the building does make a pretty tangible difference so those are the renderings and I guess what I'd like to do now is go back to page one great okay so talking through some of the Sate changes there were a variety of State changes on the site um walkways there were several areas on the site where widths changed material types changed a few examples of those um the drop off area next to building a which was a small five or six parking stall space um that originally was going to be pavers we've changed that to Asphalt change in sight Pathways so there's a walkway between field five and six that was reduced from 20 to 16 feet um and there was concrete seating next to field five in the original application that was eliminated so that's also another reduction in impervious area um addressing one of the comments from the environmental commission the total impervious coverage for the site decreased from 23% to 22.9% um this is due to some of the changes we made in terms of taking some of the Walk ways trimming them down a little bit um so the total impervious coverage is smaller now um even though the building coverage increased slightly so there was that much reduction to to compensate from the increase in the building coverage uh there were adjustments to fencing um due to the changes with the loading dock um the elimination of the the previous Loading Dock Drive changed the fence line a little bit in that area one thing also to note with building a we did create a small called The Wellness Garden it's essentially small fenc in patio outside of building a it was not there previously um next one of the other things we did uh in response to one of the comments from the from Morris Township was several of the the EV spaces that we had previously on site we move those around in the parking lots generally those were a little fur further away from the doors those were moved essentially closer to the front door um primarily in the Pro parking lot um and in the The Phase One parking lot so the same numbers there just things were shifted around a little bit um utility changes several changes in terms of utilities uh water distribution um Southeast Morris County mua had some comments in terms of which fire hydrants they wanted thought should be public hydrants versus private hydrants um there's no changes to any of the hydrant locations um or the number of hydrants however we did have some discussion in terms of what will be public versus private um which did change some of the underground distribution in terms of what is being fed from where jcpnl sorry if I may interrupt and I guess I just did Mr chairman thank you though for the postto permission the the the um you were on the SM cmua letter that's the May 6 2024 letter you're referring to with respect to the uh approvals that you're seeking from them I would say we've been working with them over the on and off of the past year so the reason I asked is I got one in the package and I was wondering if comment comments there in three for under site plan and then Water Service sizing and backf flow prevention we're going to be satisfied or if not otherwise you would be ultimately satisfying them to get the approv we're planning to ultimately satisfy them yes you can't speak to the specifics of what's in the May 6 2024 letter they're still reviewing information that we've given them and providing comment back and forth okay so if there's an approval condition of approval correct thank you um we've been working with jcpnl in terms of the electrical service um and there has been a little bit of a change originally the planned electrical service was going to come in from the middle of the site and come up near the near Stockton into a central Transformer substation area essentially jcpnl had requested that we move that incoming service to the service road location so we've moved that incoming service to that location um there will be no Central Transformer substation anymore there will be one Transformer near building F1 that serves one part of the site and there will be a second Transformer near building a that serves building a um so that's been coordinated with um with jcpnl in terms of the the building F1 Utility Yard just noting as as part of those changes that Transformer does go there a Transformer is being placed in the same location there was a previous um Chiller um The Chiller was a subject of a bulk variant previously the new Transformer would essentially be in the same spot as that Chiller um but that Transformer would require the same variance relief that the chiller had had um so essentially we're swapping out the chiller for the Transformer but it was subject to a variance both both if I may Mr chairman uh Council both accessory structures therefore it's in Ence the same variance or deviation that was previously approved correct um okay and I just for confirmation if I may from our planner Mr Phillips would you concur would thank you okay um and just noting the chiller was eliminated because they've changed essentially as as the building design has developed and Building B building F1 the mechanical design has developed and those won't be served by a chiller anymore field what we're calling 7A so essentially where the indoor half field was um we're proposing in Phase One an outdoor grass field um the original proposal essentially had a level grass area so we're proposing essentially a half soccer field in that area um is it the same size other words it's still a half the same exact size um outside not inside correct thank you uh 7 a correct it will be it will in subsequent phase correct um just a few other things just to run through there were some environmental commission item questions that I did want to make sure everybody understood um one was to clarify the Imp impervious coverage which we do have a slight increase in the impervious coverage from 23 to 22.9 slight decrease decrease decrease um then there was another question about clarification of the replacement trees and the requirement uh the requirement was 720 and previous plan included 665 trees with a ratio of 1196 which the 1196 exceeded the 720 the amended plan includes 629 trees with a ratio of 808 808 is still higher than the 720 requirement um in terms that there is nothing we're proposing on the do not not plan list um I'll say some of the species that were subbed out were were're done in favor of things that are more local more regionally available Meow Mix there was a clarification in terms of the metam miix that to just clarify that this is being used in Li of grasses perennial and ground cover and that is correct um there is a greater use of meal mix on this property it is a native meal mix to be used um and I guess the last last question we probably said it a few times now but yes everything is on there's nothing on the do not plant list um that's on the amended landscape plan at this point so and they asked actually will there be more runoff because of the concrete on the in the bleachers instead of the and how is that being handled I assume it's not the the it'll actually be less there's more I'll say perious area over there than there was previously the the previous concept had a canopy and was all structure um there's less impervious area over in seating area now than there was and that's it yep I have no further questions yeah just I asked question liting and said no changes of lower you elaborate on that yeah so the the area because we changed some of the sidewalk and and planting areas in the entry area entry Plaza area it eliminated some of the uh the ballards and and some of them were reconfigured uh there also were some that were within the site that are really not necessary because of the field lighting at night or the you know they are not occupied areas that would require that but uh it the primary change was in the entry Plaza area where the the ballards were reduced there reduction probably yes yeah that's all I had on your renderings there were some views that showed uh more growth I don't recall but for the benefits of public what was the how far out was that growth projected to fall uh five years so there were some one-year U renderings and fiveyear renderings no question thank Mr chairman the um are you able to address the building department uh memo uh and and if there's four five items I can run through them real quick yes we're willing to work with the construction individual to resolve those we've spoken to him already and uh have resolved several of them it's the charging stations for cars by accessible parking spaces can be satisfied yes parking lot with 216 spaces has four accessible parking spaces should be seven be satisfied we've clarified the design to the the official so there'll be no changes on that item parking lot for building F has no accessible parking spaces is that still the case and is that that will be corrected that will be corrected yes uh site plan doesn't show accessible paths to buildings that'll be satisfied show that'll be clarified yeah and Building A Accessible space is not closest to the building will also be clarifi that was been clarified yeah and um the uh in the event the board were so inclined uh would the applicant be able to stipulate uh to consolidation of lots four and five at at least uh prior to co yes a CO being certificate of occupancy for members of the public um nothing further thank you sh uh couple of questions I'll start off with um you mentioned in the Landscaping you you talked to about removing trees you're talking about removing them from the planting list this you're not removing any more existing trees corre no all trees that have were going to be taken have been taken down number that stays the same correct removing them from the planting list not correct right and to point out that also includes trees that were removed previously from the site by previous developers not just from Lots four and five but it's it's a total so so we're we're kind of you know because we're last in line we're um and then the other you mentioned reducing the size of the junipers along the fence along prate drive from 8 10t to 7 to8 feet how high is the fence uh the fence itself will be 10 feet high and it will also have a scrim on it and then there's also ball netting that's on that that goes up to 30 feet so it's quite a bit quite tall uh and again with question the renderings um the small amount of the buildings that showed through there even in the one year wasn't that the second floor of the dorm that was showing through primary that wouldn't be there at one year yet that's correct but uh you would see the second floor of of the other building plan will be done before all right one year kind of just looking at the timing we we started construction on that BM today actually and Our intention is to try to plant that U at the latest in the fall so that we you know we'll have a full years of growth on it before beforehand okay of w't be able to see hopefully correct any other questions chairman yes one question all the ratios and amounts reduced in all the trees and stuff I guess the question is is there was there before there still a requirement for a contribution to the township tree program or will those be an additional contribution we Satisfied by planting trees on site you satisfied all by planting trees okay thank I wanted to know why you re removed from the plan the trees that you had planned to plant along the entrance way uh the primary reason for that was that uh we kept looking at it and we decided that it was a much better viewscape for it to be open than to be lined with trees a you escaped from where from the from the the somebody driving up the roadway they can see out to the grass on either side to the trees that are further set back we decided a more open more inviting view instead of a a um Tree Line Street a corridor yeah a corridor um then I wanted to ask couple of questions about the burm so the burm will be four feet higher than you had previously planned corre will it be any wider uh it seems like you're going to need to have steeper slopes leading up to the top of the burm is that true the slopes are maximized at a certain slope that allows us to still plant trees on it um so the width is roughly the same but we we have steepened it up but it's about as steep as we can go right now and still plant trees on it and the types of trees that you're planting there will accommodate a a kind of a humped surface that you're planting them on even though they're they're pretty large trees when they're mature right yeah I mean it's a two and a half on one side slope which allows you to plant on the side slope allows you to plant on the top of the BM um and that at that slope you can not only plant but you can maintain it's about 8T about 8T wide at the top of the BM and the overall width of the BM is not changing no is that true okay all right thank you question question public yes again Alfred deiro uh to aldrid court d m i e r o uh you spoke about the surv ability of the trees and I was just wondering what obligation if any will the Red Bulls have to replace a planting that doesn't survive well with the landscape Contracting purchases we have at least a one-year warranty from the landscape planter and then uh you know ultimately it's our responsibility to maintain the buffers and to maintain the trees uh you know we're certainly not going to let trees die and and not replace them okay thank you is that not a conditional I'm about 100 or so so third the way there actually right now I'll find it I believe I think everybody concurs it was in the original approval any other questions Larry Kesler one Aldridge Court uh the Transformer that's going to be uh built will that be seeable from the street or will it be blocked by vegetation or something uh the location in the Transformer will be essentially adjacent to the loading dock and within the those two wings uh so it will not be visible from the street it'll be screened uh there's also fencing around it as well and the Transformer itself is probably I'll say No No taller than six feet but that's a a gas at this point the fencing that you put up now I assume that's temporary fencing and will it be replaced by vegetation or or what's going to replace it yes the the fence that in circles the site now is the temporary fencing that we uh talked about and is part of the original resolution uh and that will be removed uh once the areas are are complete construction is completed um along uh Stockton most of that uh that you'll see will be vegetation along that side the actual security fences are on the other side of the BM so you won't see any fencing along Stockton okay so the security fences won't be visible from the street I I won't testify to to the complete Clarity of that but probably from a good portion of of Stockton uh it won't be visible probably possibly as you get to the corner of Stockton in Prescott if you look to your right you would see it okay last thing whoever wants to answer it once all this is done what's your grand opening projection date September September 2025 thank you don't hold me to it hi good evening Kathy Wilson 20 Beachwood Drive so as a followup to the no changes in the lighting I wanted to ask um uh connecting with the original approval um I'm assuming that the Red Bull are are still committed to obtaining the Ida certification it was a condition of the original approval so yes we are 21 correct it is 21 and when I read 21 um it just says obtain dark sky certification and as I thought back about what was approved there's there's two levels of certification okay and the Red Bulls um agreed to both one was uh Phase One Design analysis and the other was phase two field verification so level one was supposed to take place after the design was finalized and level two was supposed to take place after the construction was completed so I wanted to confirm that that's still part of the plan that's correct it is still part of the plan uh we have recently um finalized contracts with musco sports lighting and uh so they're completing that portion of the design right now we should have uh that documentation within the next couple of months thank you do you think it would be advisable maybe this is a question for our professionals to um include the level one level two in the item number 21 on the resolution because of of you know a common reader of this would not realize that distinction we we under if I may uh as to 21 we understand it to mean quote unquote full do dark sky certification IE level one and two uh but certainly uh if the applicant stipulates we can uh reference that for clarification purposes in the amended approval and if the applicant doesn't stipulate to it perhaps it's something the board wishes to impose how's that for leverage wow that's a little bit of Leverage uh yes we'll stipulate to it okay thank you Mr chairman if I may just by the way I just want to say we would never challenge Miss Wilson because she knew that dark sky better than any of that that that'll be a condition in in in the uh in the resol imp perpetuity you never challenge the but speaking of imp perpetuity just uh uh to alleviate any concern uh qu an earlier question condition 23 the applicant and any successors shall maintain the level of trees and other landscape buffering and screening as stated in the testimony in perpetuity so uh so was a condition and it remains a condition by stipulation um if there are no further public questions uh and applicant rest their direct case then public comment summation after public comment no further Witnesses no further Witnesses no further question public comment okay we have any comments from the public on this application seeing none I guess we could move to the Sun well my summation will be short I I we started this a while ago um and I think the Red Bulls really feel at home now we see a bunch of our friends here from the from even before the hearings because we were meeting them in public uh meetings at the hotel Etc and it took us a while to get here we had some fits and starts but it was a really resp effectful and collaborative process and just today Carrie Cohen who's the council to the Red Bulls said we were initially looking at they were initially looking at some property and Handover she said you know I'm really glad that fell through because I really love this site and this property uh much better so um we're all very happy and and we'd ask that the board approve the amendment requests and remember Steve you'll take care of the two uh votes one for the GDP timing and the second for the site plan approval amendments in that order yes [Music] yes would it help if we address the uh sure after the comments I'd like toate think Chang that less impact on the area thank you we have yeah go ahead no go ahead you go well we have two votes to do votes uh so uh and in the appropriate order uh the first one would be uh with respect and it'll be one resolution uh will'll be but two votes this with respect to the request by the applicant uh to amend the amended GDP uh which is reflected in a resolution as well as a GDP document uh the resolution having been adopted uh in June of 2022 the amended General development plan approval um the request for an amendment is uh with respect to an extension of the proposed timing schedule as set forth on Exhibit C of the submission to the app uh uh by the applicant and consistent with section 45.4 of the municipal land use law uh the board certainly has the discretion to Grant a modification of the timing schedule uh and in fact only this board uh can uh has the authority to to Grant same so as a predicate if the board is amendable the board will vote and if it's a majority uh then the board will have amended the GDP uh timing schedule in accordance with Exhibit C of the submission I'll motion is there a second I'll second that someone's slipping okay so it's it's a roll call Mr yes Mr flow yes Mr rabbit yes yes yes yes yes yes and second the second one's a little longer bear with me it's a motion to amend uh the preliminary and final major site plan approval which approval also at the time had uh variance relief and and design waiver relief uh it was dated it was dated uh November 14 2022 resolution memorialized a full week later November 21 2022 uh and the amendments are as set forth in the application uh with no variance relief no design waiver relief uh in the event the board grants such amendments the conditions would include the following uh the uh construction officials memo satisfaction of the five items therein uh satisfaction of all Outside Agency approvals including the smcmua uh uh the uh limit of delivery time will be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. uh the uh at the loading dock that will be the same for trash and recycling 700 am to 7 PM uh no noise ordinance compliance will continue and uh the noise audit condition and the prior approval will continue uh including with respect to the change in the location of the loading dock and any other reconfigurations of the site all prior conditions of the of uh all conditions of the prior approval will remain in effect to the extent not inconsistent uh not inconsist right to the extent not inconsistent with this approval uh there will be a clarification with respect to the dark sky compliance inclusive of both level one and level two and the Lots four and five will be Consolidated prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy please let me know what I missed no Jim no building department you cover I cover building department y yeah I think I got them all Mr chairman I'd like to make a motion we approved the amended application we go to stipulations and guidelines of our attorney Mr Warner he's back uh before we vote any discussion any comments now goad Mr I just want to say I when this first this project first came to the township committee I was new on the township committee and I just kind of thought that it was like the greatest thing since sliced bread bringing a professional team to our to our town and kind of putting us on the maps as Mars Township and and it has been a pleasure I I I wasn't on the planning board in 22 when this was approved but I have to say that in dealing with the Red Bulls I am so looking forward to the opening day September 2025 and uh uh just being having the Red Bulls in this town is just going to be wonderful and we're looking forward to being able to capitalize on the Red Bulls being here in in every way we can possibly uh do for our our residents so um it's a pleasure to you know to approve this uh when it comes down to a vote so thank you all chairman uh I'm actually newer than Mr rabbit so um as mayor of Mars Township I number one want to commend the Red Bulls um can't tell you how excited we are to have you here how we want to continue this relationship but I also want to commend everyone in this room including not only the Tanta professional staff everybody involved everybody on the planning board and especially to the residents who came forward with your concerns and I wasn't on the planning board but I would listen in on all the pl know through zoom and to me I just felt that at the end of the day this really was like a textbook example of how everybody can work together and try to do the very best for the township so we are all extremely excited we can't wait to be there the day that the Red Bulls have their grand opening so thank you to everybody and we will the township will support you every way we can moving forward anything else I would just like to second that on what they've said manyways um one that the original application was kind of a long dry out process U I think it all worked out and then when I heard we were coming back here we go again so I was pleased to see that you know the changes are reasonable and many ways of reduction reduce some of the problems and some of the issues that were that you know we dealt with before um so it was just nice to see and there things that aren't I think were addressed in a reasonable and rational fashion so I certainly can support it but I'd also like like to Second the thanks to the everyone here involved and and especially the public um for coming out and all those prior meetings and then coming out again and truly contributing to to the to the project and the way it turned out um it's uh say it can be long drawn out and again apologize for and appreciate your patience for tonight specifically for the delay still sat through um but appreciate it all so thank you very much R call please Mr Alo yes order yes Mr flowers yes Mr rabbit emphatic yes M Murphy yes yes M quillin yes yes yes thank you thank you so much Nick don't forget to get your frequent uh testifier card punch so you can get a pizza lat [Laughter] [Laughter] it out hi