##VIDEO ID:VKDCVr4hg8s## good evening everyone we're going to call to order uh tonight's Township of fard Zoning Board of adjustment the first item on the agenda is the flag salute so if you can stand please do so to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all in accordance with the requirement of the open public meeting law notice of this special meeting of the board of adjustment of the township of Bernards was posted on the bulletin board in the reception hall of the municipal building colier Lane Basking Ridge New Jersey it was also mailed to the Bernardsville News whiy New Jersey The Courier News in Bridgewater New Jersey and it was also filed with the Township Clerk all on August 27th of this year and it was mailed electronically to all those people who had requested individual notice the following procedure has been adopted by the Bernards Township zoning Board of adjustment there will be no new cases heard after 10 o'cl tonight and no new testimony heard after 10:30 tonight um Miss keer can you do a roll call for us certainly uh chairwoman janers here miss Balman Miss pich and Miss poar are all recused and not present this evening Mr Camry has indicated he will attend but he will be a little late Mr K here here Mr T here Mr hon here M Herrera here Mr sovi here Mr Quinn here Mr SCH here and for the record Miss Keir is presid madam chair you have a quum you may proceed great thank you Miss kefir and thanks to everyone for coming on this special special meeting right um next on the agenda is the approval of resolutions uh the first one uh was ZB 24003 I think it has been circulated in advance it was antipasta uh block 2603 does anybody have any um comments or edits or motion on that one and Madam chair you are eligible Mr Krauss Mr tanre and Mr helverson are eligible on this and the next two resolutions great all three Madam shair I move to uh approve the resolution as drafted great thank you I'll second thank you Mr Krauss Mr house yes Mr Tedy yes Mr hon yes um chairwoman Jers yes thank you thank you um the next resolution was mcfaden which was ZB 24011 same drill was circulated any um comments or edits or motions motion to approve thank you Mr is there a second second thank you Mr Krauss Mr yes Mr CH yes mron yes chairwoman Jers yes thank you thank you and then the final resolution was cook zb2 4012 I'll make a motion to approve as Dro it thank you Mr Krauss second thank you Mr Mr kuss yes Mr Tedy yes Mr hon yes chairwoman Jers yes thank you great and chairwoman would you like to have a vote to excuse the absences of our three recusals yes we have a motion for there's three who are recused we'll leave Mr Cambria to the side for now expecting him so thank you second second thank you all in favor I opposed abstain thank you thank you and then as we mentioned we do expect Mr Cambria to to join us as as we go here um will announce uh when he joins us here um next on the agenda is the public hearing for signature Acquisitions which was continued from August 7th 2024 M chair I was quickly point out um the applicant did re notice for this particular special meeting tonight um published notice uh both in two different newspapers Burnville news and The Courier news on uh September 5th and also sent notice by certified male of all Property Owners within 200t of the subject property on uh also on September 5th so noce is good board Contin jurisdiction great thank you course um and I think where we left off Mr lar you were going to have a um Cross of the planner is that the right word cross cross examin cross examination of the planner so I think um that would be a good place to start um first of all thank you for uh I just wanted to say is is it okay that I not wear a jacket because I'm still wearing a a sling we'll let it go this time thank you I'm getting there um so I wanted to just app say to Mrs Holquist I appreciate her uh flexibility and her ability to come here tonight uh I know that we had to juggle some schedules but I do appreciate her being here are you ready Mr there yes real quick Mr your man under oath um your license is still in good standing yes it is okay still okay sure thank you that's actually a good reminder we've had several reminders um from members of the public and other members of the board to remind everyone to speak directly into the microphone um so that we can pick up everything that you're saying and actually this is good timing because Mr Camry is joining us so if you we can just give him a minute to get situated and he will not have miss anything yeah I do the pressure um I was wondering if Mr Sly could pull down the screen for the three exhibits that were presented by Miss Holquist at the last at the July 11 meeting I see them here got yes I I will get there in a moment I just have some other question they're loaded here I see them okay I will get to them in in a few moments um thank you Miss homequest for being here and I just have a it won't take terribly long but I have some questions yes um in terms of um based upon the testimony you had given in July there were some things that came to my mind about some of your qualifications um and I just have to ask initially what percentage of your practice is devoted to objector work um I'm going to guess maybe a quarter to a third okay and what um how about applicant work it it's pretty equal about a third and how about Municipal Works about a third yeah we we try to spread ourselves equally okay and how many municipalities do you currently represent um currently uh two right now yes the burough of Riverdale and the uh burough of Englishtown in Mammoth County and how many Master plans uh have you prepared in the past 5 years um my firm has done two that would be a master plan Amendment for the township of Livingston and a master plan reexamination for the burrow of Riverdale okay you mentioned multiple times in your testimony on July 11th that you have 40 years of experience in sitting through hearings yet you testified that you received your planning license in 1990 which is only 34 years what accounts for the other six years uh I I began while I graduated college we go way back uh 1985 and I started working for uh a firm called Malcolm castler and Associates I don't know if you know Jason castler but he's Malcolm's son and I worked there for five years um at the same time I was going for my master of urban planning um so I left that firm I worked there in 19 1985 to 1989 for Malcolm castler Associates and I attended um planning board meetings although I was not licensed so if it called for license testimony a principal of the firm uh attended and and gave that but I worked on Master plans um housing plans site plan reviews Etc and then I received my master of urban planning in 1990 and then that is when I went to work for an engineering firm that used to be known as vulmer Associates at stanch now okay um several times during your testimony on July 11 you focused on lot two uh which is the adjacent lot uh and you ultimately determine that a D2 variant not required you're right on that L D1 uh but that a D1 but two D1 variances were required do you recall that testimony yes okay one of your planning theories for a D1 for D1 relief had to do with the fact that under Section 21-2 21.5 of the burnard's code private access through non-residential users shall not be through a residentially zoned lot do you recall that testimony yes as a planner when testifying about zoning ordinances the zones are normally broken down by principal uses permitted uses prohibited uses accessory uses and conditional uses would you agree with that generally yes and section 70D of the municipal land use law uh speaks of a use or principal structure in a district restricted against such use or principal structure is that correct yes so a single family dwelling would be allowed in the R2 Zone would it would it not yes you characterize the public utility on lot two as a principal use do you recall that testimony yes are you aware that section 19 of the municipal land use law which guides Boards of adjustment and planning boards States quote this act or any ordinance or regulation made under the authority thereof shall not apply to a development proposed by a public utility for installation in more than one municipality for the Furnishing of service if the public utility receives approval from the BPU okay I'm I'm looking at the section of the land use law that you're citing and it's 4055 d-19 appeal or petition in certain cases to the Board of Public Utilities that's correct and which which it's very lengthy which portion of of this are we calling attention to here well the portion that says this act or any ordinance or regulation made under Authority thereof shall not apply to a development proposed by a public utility for installation in more than one municipality for the Furnishing of service okay that's the second paragraph right would you agree that the BPU in all likelihood proved uh a public utility for electric Crossing much of the township and into other municipalities I I would assume that yes okay and title 48 call in 2-13 dealing with the powers of Board of Public Utilities provides at section A as follows the board meaning the Board of Public can I just interrupt that that's not you're now you're not out of the municipal land use law you're out of something that I'm unfamiliar with okay so I'll it General supervision and regulation of and jurisdiction and control over all public utilities as defined in this section and their property property wies equipment facilities and franchises so as far as may be necessary for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this title So based upon my read is it still your opinion that a public utility is a principal use in the R2 Zone yes that that is I'm a planner so I look at the uses of of the property I've never seen or reviewed the section of law that you're citing um and it's not something that I think I would well it's part of the municipal land use law that says utilities are not subject to the jurisdiction of under the municipality uh under the municipal land use law so so again is it your opinion that a public utility is a principal use yes it is as a planner that is a principal use that's your answer the the other principal use you said existed on lot two is the access easement which serves lot three and several other lots to the east is that correct well I I think my testimony um if I could recap that was that a road is proposed to connect the subject site to Allen Road and it will Traverse The residentially Zone parcel we'll get to the the use of proposed in a few minutes does that access easement serve lot too there is an e an existing easement yes does it serve lot to yes is there a driveway that cuts off of lot two to Pro to serve a house on lot two cuts off of lot there is there is no house okay so how could it serve lot too it exists the easen exists there is a paved surface and it connects Allen Road to the subject site I'll move on um the other D1 variance you testified about was that the access road on lot two Services a non-residential Zone correct the subject site is in the E2 zone so that is a non residential Zone and lot two is in a residential Zone well during your testimony you said that you had looked at the resolutions from the 1980s do you recall that testimony yes uh and on page 133 of the transcript from the July 11th hearing you stated quote as I understand it no variance was ever granted for that and by that I mean the access on Ro law to and the prior development was office and it was office in conjunction with a subdivision from the 80s that basically hatched if you will all the office development do you remember saying that yeah could you clarify what you mean by the word hatched the I I reviewed the resolutions from um 1987 and 1986 and um I did not have the maps that were approved in front of me so I was going basically just off the language and resolutions and my knowledge of of the properties in in the study area so how much how much real time and effort did you take in reviewing those old resolutions maps and other documents in other words to use an analogy did you just stick your toe into the pool or did you do a deep dive into the history of the access road well I spent a lot of time and I'm very thorough in my work and when I form conclusions they're based on the facts that I have in front of me let's take a little bit of a deeper dive I have copies for the board members I ask are these exhibits are Mr Bly and I said that I had copies for everyone else Jeff real real question though were these submitted ahead of time or this is your these no this is a part of cross examination but these are all public records okay these are all public records and none of it is new meaning that I've created it or anything else they're all public record for the record purposes for this record correct it's an exhibit so it's an exhibit so I would like to call it A6 A6 does that s you does that track with okay my objection though is that these not submitted ahead of time and I will also say that we submitted op request over a year ago for all files that were pertaining to these resolutions so these are new public records that we did not have access to and new public records that were not part of the application seems unfair this okay I I would think that this is being submitted we haven't heard how he's going to use this but I would assume it's coming out of the planner's testimony and it's presented for cross so I only answer what Miss Smith said by saying that they're public records I did my homework I did a deep dive and I wanted to just talk about them because they they really respond to certain things that were said um my question was where were these documents obtain from will you give us the background on that yeah the they're Municipal records that I had asked for and and they were provided to me just as M Smith's entitled to look at all the entire history of that area for the past 40 or 50 years which is really important okay thank you um so so how much so Mr lar I'm sorry so this is exhibit A6 A6 do we have a title for this yes um zoning map highlighted zoning map it is a 1974 zoning map of the township of Bernards and what I would do is ask um Miss home qust do you see where and I did highlight that the yellow area uh do you see the area highlighted in yellow yes okay and can you tell us what that property what what it's zoned all of that property which forms the area that we're talking about Lots 2 three four five all of it can you can you tell us what it's zoned it's very okay this is the first time I'm seeing this map uh it's really difficult to read the street names on here okay surprising if I told you it was Z commercial well it looks like the dots of commercial can I read the names of the streets uh to be certain of where we are no I can't okay um I think the board knows where the property is public knows where the property is and it's zoned commercial um that I justed is that mr's testimony well I I would ask any board member to tell me that I'm wrong is is that a representation it's not testimony it's representation um I'm now going to introduce to you exhibit V think I think you mean exhibit A7 I'm sorry A7 you can ask when did you get this document that you couldn't give it to us before 3 minutes ago when did when did you get it in your session um probably a month ago and you can submit it but I'm just wondering why well I was going to submit it and talk about it during cross examination but everything else all it's all public information usually we get everything before he can bring exhibits real time just to be clear I didn't prepare anything I didn't prepare it my engineer didn't prepare it it's all public document I I didn't prepare anything Mr Krauss they were all public documents ask you if you prepared it I said when did you receive it okay when did you pull it when was in your possession you responded and that was all we needed okay thank you um Mr exib A7 um A7 get a title for this please the public s down Miss hquest can you uh you know what this document is well I can can I just ask the public to please silent uh it's really hard to hear we're doing our best to hear um the testimony so I can ask the conversations to be held at a minimum 4 Z the the title is uh preliminary and final subdivision and site plan approval science Management Corporation right and the applicant was Joseph Hilton right if if I told you that the 1983 approval was for minor subdivision of what existed then as lot seven in blocks 177 in order to create two lots one of which was to be used for a medical research facility to be built at 140 Allen Road and the other to remain vacant namely current lock to would that ring a bell would that sound familiar okay so when I look at this document the the block and lots are are different than they are now the block the block number is different get to that and it also refers to um E1 and E2 zones and l14 so the zoning map that you had me look at first does not correspond to the zones that are um listed in this resolution so I'm let's let's let's get there one step at a time okay okay so I'd ask you to take a look at paragraph I uh page four condition number 15 and maybe maybe you could read it out loud or if you'd like me to read it I'll read it well why don't you read it because there's two pages ahead of it that I haven't had a chance to look at it says at such time as the remainder of this tract or other property to the east shall develop combined access for all the property shall be constructed site plan contemplates use of a portion of the property in the vicinity of the sewer line eement to be used for Combined access along with adjacent properties um the applicant shall make such modifications to their own access as required by the township engineer to bring about permanent access to the SMC facility and shall allow the use of their property for Combined access should additional easements be required to construct the combined access then the owner shall agree to granting such easements assuming the request is reasonable and you see that the approval was granted by the Bernard's Township planning board and not the zoning board correct um no I'm not clear on that where where are you telling me that I see that so take a look at the front page and it says um look at the whereas yes whereas the planning board of Bernard's Township the the last paragraph on page one correct and then if you look at yes that's that's correct that's the where it states the planning board so would it be fair to say that the access road was created by the planning board in 1983 in other words it did not exist before the 1983 approval I don't know that I would feel 100% sure um and I and I say that because it in the paragraph that you picked out on page four just talks about contemplates use it and again I you know I'm at a disadvantage because I haven't had even a chance to sit down and read this entire document so I don't know what it says before this but um I would feel uncomfortable agreeing with that because I don't know what else existed I'm not looking at a map of of the property so let's let's give you a map okay so the next exhibit I have is A8 thank you thank you R three E2 just as an objection and Clarity on the record I asked previously if A6 had been submitted with the application I just want to clarify that A7 and A8 also had not been submitted Miss Smith I'm sorry could you could you come up to a microphone and point that out please so I just want to clarify for the record I previously asked for confirmation that A6 had not been previously submitted with the application I just wanted for the record clarification that A7 and A8 had not been submitted as part of the application documents you speak to that please they public records they were not submitted as part of the application I was able to receive them uh through through Oprah request through my own due diligence but they're public records um Miss homeit yes you you've given me another um site plan I guess this is right um Let me let me get to the question we we don't have well we don't have all the sheets you've selected I guess there's nine nine more than nine sheets there's many many sheets to this site plan submitt and you have selected three and it's again it's very I mean I'm trying to read the titles to see which sheets you've picked out okay one is subdivision plan so that's sheet one Mr L I assume take us through the sheet I will um I'm giv the opportunity um so if I could tell you that this was the subdivision map that created the two lots that um one was for 140 and the other one was the remainder parcel so you have what was ident if as lot one where the new building was for science Management in 1983 and then you had the other large larger lot to the to the West identified as Lot 2 40235 acres and do you see a access road coming down from Allen Road all the way to 140 Allen Road Site um the the map that I have I'm looking at L1 and there's yellow highlighting on portions of the map and where I look at uh what adjoins Allen Road um the yellow highlighting seems to indicate I I don't know that it shows a road um it might just be the easement I'm not clear an easement or a road it's let's call it an easement and I okay I'm sorry but I can't I I can't see I can't read the labeling so you know you're you're asking me to assume things and I I don't I don't think that that's what I need to be doing up here well in July you stated that you looked at you looked at records from 1985 and 1986 and that there were no variances granted I don't think what what I'm I'm getting at is you didn't look far enough into the history to see that before that the axis Road was actually required as part of a planning board approval which I'll get to so let me let me just get further from these two documents is it is it plain to you that the planning board in 1985 approved the one um I'm sorry let me let me go back based upon the 198 three site plan that's before you does it surprise you that this was all originally one L large lot all one lot right before it was subdivided in 1983 and that map is the subdivision page one of them is the subdivision page that breaks the two lots out would it surprise you that this was all one large lot at at at that time before the subdivision occurred well I see uh on the first page where it lists the sheets um sheet L4 is site survey and I I don't think we have that do we we don't have the site survey um and I I really um you you see I am reluctant to make assumptions on incomplete information I understand that I'm putting you right on the spot here tonight but you you stated on the record that these that the axis road is proposed number one and you also stated that it was you looked at the the resolutions from 1985 and 1986 that's all you said you looked at but if you look deeper you will see that that act that easement existed in 1983 and created two lots I went as far back as 1986 I'm looking at my notes from uh the resolutions that I reviewed so it was 1986 um would you would it surprise you to know that the access road was built across a single parcel of land which was then known as lot7 which while it may have been constructed on land zoned residential it wasn't a condition of the 1983 planning board approval for the 18 140 Allen Road science management building again I have to object Mr laar is putting facts into the record that were not put into the record by any other person testified not his planner or anyone else this is cross examination I'm entitled to ask questions but as far as establishing what Mr laar is saying as facts they cannot be established as facts based on his line of questioning it's a public record yes but you're not asking someone to verify the public record you are saying this is what the public record says I normally do not see planners presenting the kinds of exhibits lawyers present these exibits to show the record and and your your client testified on the record that the the the the access road was not created by variant well it wasn't I'm going to show you why right it is not for the attorneys to show why respectfully what has happened here is the planner that was presented on behalf of the applicant testified that a D2 variance was required the applicant submitted an application that provided the prior resolutions and did not provide these resolutions and now during cross-examination Mr Lair is trying to get Miss homequest to talk about facts that were not previously in this record were not part of this application and I have to object to the evidence coming in this way if Mr Lair would like to recall his planner to walk through certain documents and present them to the board that would be the proper way for this board to evaluate actual facts and not Mr lair's summary of documents I would ask just question marks at the end of whatever you're asking I'm going to just continue but I understand her objection but I I don't agree at all that it's proper cross-examination and in in a proper cross examination in a land use context the The Rules of Evidence are not strictly adhere to and I'm allowed to present whatever exhibits I want to refute what she has said and these are public documents and I'm going to take it slow I'm not going to push them through if the Board needs time after this hearing to review them then so be it I'm I am I do not think I need to recall my my planner Mr I continue yeah could I ask you do do you view this as a as a matter of law or a matter of fact it's a public record I view it as a matter of fact yeah um I would just ask try to keep questions you are kind of leaning into more statements representation just and just so I'm clear as I'm listening to this in terms of the matter of fact versus the matter of law versus the opinion the matter of fact are the papers we have in our hand right as distinguished from the characterization from the papers meaning these are the facts is there any other that's what you're here to decide is whether the representations Mr BL is making true the back but I'm sorry the board is here to is the fact finder we're here to decide what the facts AR so I think when you're asking is a matter of fact or matter of law what they're arguing about is whether or not Mr Lair can ask these questions that's a matter of law whether or not the representations he's making or the statements made by the objector planner if are true or not that's for the board to decide as a matters of fact does that make sense I think so okay we'll see okay I I we note your objection Miss Phil Smith I I actually I want to hear what Mr L has to say because I I do feel that you know he's been arguing for a very long time that that D1 is not required on on that access um and your planner suggested that it is so I'd like to give a little bit of leeway in terms of uh the cross with respect to that question uh I'm going to move just further um there in order to um I'm going to provide you with a document which I'm I'm actually just going to let you take a look at this would be A9 and you can have several copies copies which document is this this is a n okay this is A9 for you Mr before we go any further just I want to close the loop on exhibit A8 for the purposes of the record so this is exhibit A8 this is a four page uh set of plans consisting of a cover sheet sheet L1 sheet L7 and Sheet L8 of a what is this a subdivision plan trying to get a title for it so that's true okay great and these are what are the what's the date on this plan so um I believe that it was it's 1983 I believe uh if you just give me a moment I thought it was seem to see a June June 204th 1983 does that sound correctly June of 1983 okay thank you um we need one more of these down here for us do you have one more of this A9 we get two you wait did I put up here we got a couple keep track so miss H do do you know what this document is that it's in front of you it's entitled deed of ement right I refer you to the fourth whereas clause in this de of easement and um can you re I'll I'll read it but it says whereas in connection with such construction the municipality has required the creation of parcel a and the remainder of lot seven which is the larger lot block 177 of a single roadway system to provide for Ingress to and egress Farm parcel a and the remainder of lot 7 block 177 onto Allen Road so the next one I'm going to show you is one this this one if you look at it is from the grantor the person giving the grant is from Raymond Von Cullen and others to uh Joe Hill SMC Associates SMC Associates is the same name on the subdivision plan that I had previously given you as A8 as the applicant so this was a an easement that memorialized condition number 15 that required by the municipality a an easement a cross access easement to build the cross access easement that we know now know as the lot to access easement and again subject these are not facts in the record there's been no one to testify that this document A9 is linked to any of these other with all due respect Miss Miss Smith you your client stated on the record I did my homework and that I looked at all the records and and she and I asked did you do a deep dive and she said I did a deep as deep a dive as I could or or something to that effect well I don't think she did and the truth of the matter is is that the N the access easement was created in 1983 by way of a mutual access easement and it was required by the municipality so your your argument that D1 relief it all goes to that it all goes to this and if you let me finish I'll just get there I just note for both counselors the board understands that any M any statement from Mr Lair is a representation it's notor testimony not given away absolutely but unfortunately I can't cross examine Mr so let me just show you the next document a A10 do we get an official title for 89 Mr L what dated Aug 1983 to block s I'm sorry lot s block 177 and Miss home I did not give you a copy I was wondering about that so um what I'm showing you is the opposite side where the owner of lot two what is currently lot to granted an access easement to the owner of uh the 140 the rebalance of the land where 140 was built 140 Allen Road and if you again again the third the fourth whereas Clause says whereas the municipality has required the creation over parcel a and parcel B of a singular single roadway system to provide for Ingress and egress from parcel a and parcel B onto Allen Road and in order to effectuate the common Ingress and egress roadway system here and above described grantor has agreed to Grant a grantee as the owner of parcel be a non-exclusive easement over that portion of parcel a here and after described for the purpose of providing Ingress to and egress from parcel B onto Allen Road in exchange for grantee granting a similar easement to grantor over a portion of parcel a so I'm getting to the point where I'm telling you the board I'm I'm representing to the board that the Deep dive that was done really didn't disclose that the municipality required this cross access easement in 1983 and if if I'm going to hear from Miss Smith that well you know I did my homework well maybe she didn't do enough and I'm saying to the board we keep talking about this as a variance I'm submitting that it's not let me just keep going well can I can I make a response um I'm not an attorney but when I have seen easement agreements there is usually an exhibit map attached to them that clearly identifies the properties that are are being you know given in consideration or or part of that and the reference was to I think parcel a and parcel B and when I'm looking at the subdivision map that was um distributed as an exhibit I don't see parcel a and parcel B on there so I I with what I with what has been selected out of these easan agreements having no map attached to them and having only a subdivision in front of me that doesn't reference as far as I can see because it's very difficult to read this uh if not near impossible I do not see a a parcel A or B so I I I do not have anything in front of me that leads me to believe that that this pertains to the the yellow coloring that was distributed by Mr Lair it's a fair enough point I understand I'm just going to move on okay um Can Can you well I I I I mean I can argue but I'm not going to do that I want to move on okay um MERS of the public please right the next one is A10 and um Mr are you referring to A1 you gave us new one no that's a I'm sorry a that would be A10 this is a 11 I'm come up so there is a website called historic Aerials um are you aware of that yes I I am okay and and it's a public access app correct yes and and you use it as a planning tool on occasion okay so if I tell you that I did that as a lawyer okay as a lawyer and I and I found 1984 aerial of this area okay and I show it to you are you going to object and say well it's hearsay or are you going to say that it's it's it's permitted I'm going to just I don't think I said here say I don't think I said that oh so you didn't pay for the image Jeff huh I see it has the watermark on it oh my okay so this is uh this is 11 11 so do do you see the um access easement on this historic well 1984 all right you you've you've handed me three pages right the first page uhuh something's highlighted in green right or yellow green and I can tell you that I did that but follows a a line from Allen Road where it bends with that little semicircle is all the way down 40 building and Crosses over what was what is now lot two that's the access easement but that's what the way it existed in 1984 I'm telling you that this is my research so what you I have a question the following two pages just the same thing but just in a different configuration what am I supposed to be listening to what I'm I'm just confused as a board member what it is hearing right now I thought you were doing cross-examination like the questions of the I'm just confused I get a little bit of um Clarity on what we're doing sure I'm sorry what I'm doing is trying to impute the the statements made by the applicant's planner no I meant with this document well that's a historic record from off of a off of a public document a public application that anyone or me or Miss Smith can go to and find out what existed on an aerial map in 1984 at that area in the area that we're talking about but when I'm just confused when you're talking about what it is that I'm looking at am I supposed to take what he's saying as the truth he's making representations I'm making represent you put as much weight onto it as you want but I can tell you that that is my representation that that is the ACC okay it's not SW testimony it's just a representation thank you Mr Lair when you looked at these images were they clearer than the ones that you're presenting to us because what I'm looking at I I can't tell what most of these images are the Deeds are self-explanatory but the images it's very difficult to see what we're looking at they're unclear maps are I will provide you with a an UNH highlighted version and you you and all up closing Council and um members of the board to show you the UN highlighted version so you can make your own decision as to whether that access easement existed in yeah you I mean you you you I don't want to ask you to do this but if you have a computer you can find it on historic Maps the application and you'll see you'll see what what I'm talking about is that is that permissible like are we allowed to go and as long much like much like yes much like if you were driving by a property youd have to put on the record that you drove by as Miss Pichi does actually I get the drive by but being direct website like we can similar thing if you're if you you're going to you look at this up online on your own and you're going to use it in your Calculus when you decide on this application you have an obligation to put it on the record that you observed it to give the applicant plus obor an opportunity respons but I think as a practical matter it might be a better idea Mr to provide I'll provide that yes um a12 I think I'm at a12 thank you I got it thanks oh Mr lar I have an extra uh here if you need so miss homequest can you tell the board uh that the bottom of the first page what the title says preliminary and final site plan and minor subdivision approval Allen Center Bigalow D quinland Properties Inc and at the top of the page what does it say planning board correct and I'm asking you to uh from well let's let's just go let just go on and I'll get you the other exhibit so that we can read them together so Mr L just to be clear exhibit 812 is a copy of planning board minutes dated or from the meeting uh June 27th 1985 that's correct thank you thank you um can you tell us this home Quest what this exhibit is the map the map um well the title says Subdivision plat now what it says under that I cannot read it it's blurred on my copy okay so it says subdivision PL Carlson and Associates Richard W Carlson um and it has a date on it of January 18 1985 and can you tell us what this map shows you as a planner the The Zone boundaries are uh delineated on this um uh very difficult to read I there's a number or something in a circle I don't know if that's the block and lot I really cannot read it um I see Allen Road at at the top of the map so go do me a favor go back to the resolution and look at look at finding the fact number two on page two because the two go hand in hand they reference the same map the resolution references the map that your is is in your hands and condition number finding a fact number two says the applicant proposes the subdivision of set property along the zone line in two lots and the construction of an office building in the E2 lot after subdivision all is shown in accordance with plans entitled Allen Center Bigalow quinland properties Township of Bernards dated I'm sorry the date is March 19 19 1985 prepared by Chapman and Viber consisting of 14 sheets I've only given you one one sheet which is a subdivision sheet okay um so one thing I want to point out in the paragraph that you just read paragraph two on page two of the resolution um it it says prepared by Chapman and bber Bieber I don't know how you say it um the company in the title block of the map that you gave me it says Carlson and Associates um so I you you you stated just now that this map goes with this resolution and I I don't know about that and even even before that in the first whereas it says Chatman a Bieber so I don't know where it references Carlson and Associates subdivision PL yeah well I'm based on what you've handed me I'm not going to agree that that map matches this resolution all right fair enough but it says owner on the map it says owner subdivider Bigalow grenland Properties Inc 41 Schoolhouse Road Lane Morristown New Jersey is that is that correct yes okay so from these two documents is it claim to you that the planning board in 1985 approved the 150 Allen Road office building and the further subdivision of the property along the E2 and and the uh R1 Zone boundary lines okay well as I said it's very impossible for me to read the the block and lots that are on this Subdivision plat okay I I I did get them together from from the town so they all were in the same folder but um I'm going to put on the record that they're part of the same subdivision if you want to find that I'm wrong then then please do so that's your assar Mr is a part of this that's a representation by Council um so would it be a true statement that it was not until 1985 that what is now known as law 2 was created all right I'm looking at the the resolution that we're speaking of right now right and you're talking about lot two I the block and lots are old you know I guess they were revised at some point I don't know of of it says property shown as Lot 7.02 10 and 14 block 177 I don't know if one of those became lot two and I um the map that you gave me I I really cannot read the numbers on here right so but you do see the zone line R3 Zone and the E2 Zone and they ultimately became the new lot line because it says Zone and new lot line do you read that on the map yes okay yes I see that all right um I believe it was your opinion that this Access Road quote simply occurred do you recall that testimony simply occurred no I I I don't recall that choice of words but uh I I can tell you those are the words in your in the transcrip but I'm not fair enough would you now agree that the access driveway lawfully exists on lot two you you've produced documents that show an easement I don't know these these um documents that you put forward tonight I don't know what the zoning was obviously it was different because it says R3 right and and it's it's R1 now right it's R1 now correct okay so still residential so no no variance was granted that was what I never said that yeah well my question is we never disputed that there was an easement do you believe that the driveway lawfully exists on lot two it would have if it lawfully existed a variance would have been granted for a commercial connection through a residential lot would have been granted for uh development on the E2 parcel whatever the block and lot is on this Subdivision plat that you handed out tonight and there would have had to be a a variance granted well if it were all one law and it was all applied for to the sub to the planning board why why would it not lawfully exist if mandated by by the board by the planning because that that's not what a a pre-existing non-conforming use is it's it's something that lawfully existed or was granted a variance to exist well I didn't mandate it the board the planning board did soting to you is is if it lawfully existed is it your still your opinion that it it's a pre-existing non-conforming use no my opinion is that in easement was uh effectuated or implemented and no variant was given well are you saying that the town screwed up in that it didn't Grant the variant to allow access to seen a lot of screw-ups in my uh 40 years I guess I guess my question is if planning board approval after planning board approval and there's more I'm not done provides that planning Bo the planning board granted approval for for all of these buildings why are you now is is the applicant saying that the that this applicant is required to obtain D1 relief over over these Lots after 40 plus years because the ordinance the zoning ordinance is very clear and it's because only of this application but if you look at all the prior resolutions and the prior approvals they were all granted by the planning board those are planning board resolutions and you're saying that the planning board made a mistake I have seen many resolutions that are in error in my career move on would you if it doesn't lawfully exist is it your opinion that it unlawfully exists there's an easement that's not a question right that is not a question that an easement exists but there is a site now that has nothing on it because your client demolished the building somewhere during the pendency it's very relevant because my testimony was there's nothing on the site and so to make this connection this private roadway go across a residentially Zone parcel where right now there is no structure on the subject site you definitely need a D1 variants for what you're doing now okay is it your opinion that the zoning officer should have issued a zoning violation for the access road based upon the documents I've shown you in the 1980s yes I I don't I don't even know if there was a zoning officer in Bernards in the 1980s okay would you agree that means of access through the existing driveway unlock two was the subject of a previous approval yes are you also aware that the planning board continued to retain jurisdiction over the site plan applications affecting Lots three four five and 15 in 2011 and 2019 yes okay and I have those handouts if the board wants to see them but I don't think I need to all I can tell you is that the planning board retained jurisdiction irrespective of the claim that variance relief was needed for this access easement by by objecting planner are you aware that in the previous planning board approvals in 2011 and 2009 the approving resolution specifically referenced the cross access driveway yes is there a difference between an existing driveway that was the subject of a previous approval versus a proposed new driveway that was not the subject of a previous approval as I said there's nothing on the site now true there is no structures on the site your argument is that because the building was demolished the the variance relief is now required yes okay so is that a legal argument or is that a planning argument that is a planner okay assume for a moment that if lot three was constructed with a medical clinic used instead of light manufacturing and improvements were not required to the existing access driveway on lot two would D1 relief be required for the driveway on lot two yes I I gave testimony that in my opinion any new use on the subject site would require a D1 variance for the access well I'm getting there is there any use that can exist on lot three lot three the subject lot besides Agriculture and farming that would not necessitate a D1 variance on lot two for example let's say the applicant was to construct a larger office building that would in turn increase the number of cars that would use the access driveway would that require a D1 variance any new construction on this site yes would require that planning argument or legal argument I'm not a lawyer so yes it's as a planner are you aware that the existing driver on lock two provides access to all of the uses on locks 3 four 5 and 15 to the east I know it connects to the adjoining uh the adjoining parcel that the uses on lock four are not traditional office uses for instance RMA is a medical infertility Treatment Center Surgical Center and research laboratory laboratory were you of that Reproductive Medicine Associates located at number 140 yes I'm aware of that are you aware whether the existing driveway unlock 2 ever accommodated a tractor trailer in the past no I I don't know that so you don't recall the testimony by Mr travalini who testified under oath that the existing driver unlock 2 was used by tractor trailers to access the 150 Allen Road site on lot three no I don't recall do you agree that the access driveway and its current condition and based upon the testimony provided thus far can physically accommodate a tractor trailer I'm not a traffic engineer Well you certainly had a lot to say about it last last time that was based on Cross examination of the applicant traffic engineer it was direct examination you used the word it several times which which implied to me that you knew a lot about traffic so my question is do you agree that the access driveway can physically accommodate a tractor trailer I don't know during your testimony you spent a considerable amount of time talking about the crossbar on the access he's been taking away from the quote buic character of the area do you recall that testimony yes I do can you define what bucolic means rural undeveloped can I tell you what Webster's Dictionary defines it as sure of or relating to or typical of Rural Life MH is that truly the way you would characterize this area yes are you aware that the crossbar improvements was the result of suggestions or requirements imposed on the applicant by the board's traffic professional I thought it was a settlement with objectors to prohibit the left turn out of the driveway that was my understanding I I think if you looked at the record it was require it was a request of Mr Fishinger in his report do you believe that the proposed improvements to the driveway on lock two will allow the existing driveway to function more efficiently and safely as so as to better accommodate an increase in tractor trailers well that was the testimony of the applicant's traffic engineer and I don't think it was refuted by the board's traffic engineer do you think that these requirements that were imposed by the board and its professionals upon their belief were imposed based upon their belief that they would provide some benefit to the general welfare it was designed to prohibit left turns out of the driveway but do you believe that that the board's requirement put a crossbar there was to advance the public benefit I don't feel that it's a public benefit to my client Fellowship Village to have all the truck traffic forced to make a right turn and go right past their property no I don't see that as a benefit under case law you have to look at not just your property but the area itself is there a community benefit not just to Fellowship Village in requiring a crossbar to prevent left turns there are over 250 residents in Fellowship Village and that is they have one driveway in and out and all of this truck traffic which we Quantified um the additional per the F variants that it's excessive there's no benefit to my client there's no benefit to your no benefit to my client by this F variance I didn't go there yet there's I I talked about the crossbar and you said and continually talked about during your testimony that the crossbar was in was didn't promote the general welfare I said it's out of character with the area correct not promoting one of the purposes of planning in the ml which is Aesthetics right and a desirable visual environment whose Aesthetics Fellowship Village or to the community this structure that is proposed to limit left turns out of the driveway is going to stick out like a sore thumb when I drive this section of Allen Road right in front of the subject site all I see are trees there is a freestanding sign there very uh nondescript and um low visual do do you know that this is a requirement of the board's professionals I didn't recall that okay if the app if the board is requiring that the applicant make improvements to the access driveway on loot two could it be argued that the improvements which trigger D1 relief satisfies purpose a that the proposed improvements do Advance the general welfare no no okay that's your that's your response no because there's many facets to that and Aesthetics is one of them let's turn to the D4 relief for a second you began your testimony by saying that 6,914 additional annual truck trips are attributable to the believe that you're correct because I I believe that what we testified to was that the exceedance was on based upon the office which but it was not based upon the light manufacturing component which was at 14.99% that's another issue with this application and there was testimony from your planner I believe or I'll say from the applicants experts uh that they were trying to say that the light manufacturing f comports with the 15% there's nothing in Bernard's ordinance that allows you to separate out office and in fact the floor plan that accompanies this application it says light manufacturing and then in the smaller uh section of the building it says light manufacturing sloff or office light manufacturing so why that was separated out why an issue is is being clouded we look at the entire building square footage and U that was listed on the applicant zoning table as 19.83% is is allowed can you can you define F that's the ratio of all floors in the building uh relative to the lot area and why hasn't the applicant done that with the 19.83% what do you mean done that the applicant has right we're talking about two different things yes I said in your in the applicant zoning table they call out the 19.83% testimony separate out as though we're only supposed to consider the light manufacturing I didn't say that I said I misunderstood is it is it a legal or improper or do you know any case law that says that you can't you can't allocate the f space between light manufacturing and office for a variance it is the entire Flur area of the building I'm not arguing with you it's 19.83% but when you say separate it out allocate what on your on your plans you did allocate separately right correct and you don't think that's you don't think that that's quote legal or well that's also on the box that you submitted as a floor plan that shows no uses no functions within the building it's on that floor plan how can you evaluate the impact of the F if you don't separate it out impact the value the the the the excessive F we look at what's around the site we look at the impacts to the area that's what I spent all of my analysis all of my exhibits were laying the foundation for the fact that this F variance has no merit do you do are you aware that the mention to the excessive F in this building is almost equivalent to the sections of the building that are labeled light manufacturing SL office well were you also hear when the architect realized that he had made an AR a mislabeling uh mistake and said that he would corrected on the final plans I'm aware that no architect testified on the revised plan will aware that the engineer testified on the revised plan the architect did not I I didn't ask you that question well no one was testifying about the functions um that are going to occur within this building and what different uses are going to occur on the floor plans that have been presented we still after two years or whatever it is 13 hearings or something like that you we have no more detail on the uses within this building one of the things that you hang your hat on is that is that there's this quote mistake in that it's called light manufacturing office but that you don't recall the testimony of the architect when he said and he acknowledged that it was a mislabeling mistake and that the mistake would be rectified no I don't remember that okay do you remember that there was a settlement agreement between the parties between my client and and one of the parties the opposition Council uh the The Hills right the residents of the hills I believe you're talking about it was settlement with who I don't remember the don't either couch Browns dorf title and I'm not familiar with this at all okay did you read did you read that settlement agreement no I didn't I refer you to section 3G of that settlement agreement which reads as follow hang on is that part of the record that settlement it is part of the record I don't think the board it was presented as an exhibit and and present it to the board and can we just check that because I I thought the board didn't not see that because we did not want to see it so just hang on for one second something exhibit that I think something was entered Madam chair let me let me refrain it let me if the exhibit was not can I just on the public please we're continuing we're not on break the terms were put on the record yes that is true but the exhibit was not I take that back right that's so as it relates to in the settlement we stated on the record record that the maximum square footage of the light manufacturing buildings inclusive of office space on lot three shall not exceed 2ou 244,000 square feet and the F of the light manufacturing space exclusive of office Bas shall not exceed 15% and the total F on lot three shall not exceed 19.84% okay so but the total the total number is different than what was on your plan your latest plan the total number is different testimony where it said the AR said I made a mistake and I'm going to correct it so what was the number you read as the total for both buildings the total is 244 176 okay but on the plans it says 24428 Okay um it's still your opinion that there will be 6,914 additional truck trips attributable to an exceeding of the office space by 59,000 ft no that is not what I said that is not what I said what did you attribute the exceeds to I said that your traffic engineer under cross-examination calculated that number he calculated the square footage excess which is the F variance that's being requested here he calculated can I finish I'm sorry I'm sorry yes he calculated that number at and he also calculated the truck trips that are attributable to that 59,0 189 and what I said was that close to and the light manufacturing space and what your planner has done is used the exceedance on office to allocated to truck traffic that's incorrect fiction that's a total misrepresentation of what my testimony was I'm telling my my my question to you is was that a madeup a some kind of a madeup story about the exceedence on the truck traffic your the applicant's traffic engineer was very clear in his calculations and those are the numbers that he calculated I believe it was May 16th if anyone wants to watch the video I'm pretty sure that was at the May 16th hearing the plans or the plans correct yeah but you're misconstruing you're I don't know what the legal term is you're making it very confusing when it's really really clear no no no Mr lar I'm really clear about what I'm saying okay I'm saying to you that the exceedence is based upon the office space and not the light manufactur well I disagree with you okay because on the floor plan it says office SL LM it does not say only office let me move on why did you annualize an analyze the F standard under the medich criteria which is used for D1 variances I don't think I did that well why didn't you use the Coventry Square analysis you I never heard the Coventry Square term used once uhhuh okay because we're we're looking you know the Coventry Square case yes I do do F case that deals with the standard to be used in a f case correct yeah and there's also positive criteria negative criteria for every variant whether it's a D1 a D4 a C1 C2 you have to meet both standards positive and negative criteria and my testimony was that the increased truck trips calculated by the applicants traffic engineer that's 6,914 was going to fail on the negative criteria and I laid the foundation for that conclusion by presenting very detailed exhibits and giving calculations of how much of the land in the study area is residential um and what the existing environmental considerations are of the study area you familiar with the Coventry Square case yes and what does it essentially say as a as put it in layman's terms you calculate the F what is a standard it it talks about uh that you under the positive criteria you're supposed to look at the impacts to the site by the deviation or the relief that's requested and how the site will function so it's it's really the question is it's twofold on the positive criteria is whether the site can accommodate the exceedance of the F readily accommodate the exceedance of the F irrespective of the deviation correct okay and on the negative criteria it's whether the the benef whe whether the there's a substantial detriment or substantial impairment to the zoning plan irrespective and the irrespective of the deviation in the F correct okay you've referred to an overall average F in your study area is that how f is measured in the zoning ordinance uh well it depends if if you would look at one individual lot you would look at the building square footage on that lot and the lot area and come up with that but as you could see from the exhibits that I presented I looked at a very large study area because I was looking at where the impacts of this excessive f would be evident are you aware that the amount of office bait has not changed from the original submission to the revised building foot microphone please are you aware that the amount of office space has not changed from the original submission of to the revised building footprint I'm not aware of that I I don't know would it be a true statement that based upon the approvals we are requesting the amount of office space shown is what the developer has put in place to allow for flexibility in terms of what they will actually need well I I would assume that labeling it on the floor plan as office SL LM is your applicant trying to give flexibility to themselves well I guess you didn't hear again The Architects say it was a mislabeling I said I didn't remember that testimony we have to look at the revised exhibits presented in April shouldn't we saying he represented that he made a mistake on the plan I don't know that he did okay I don't know that what I'm saying to you is that what I'm saying to you just wanted to object because just so we're clear you're suggesting that there was testimony by the arch as to the original plans but there was no testimony to the architect as to the revised correct but there was testimony by the engineer as to the revised plans the revised architectural plan correct no I think I objected to having the engineer testify as to the revised plans um I don't recall that but I do remember him talking about his plan do you remember that his revised plan the civil engineer spoke about his revised plan he was no architect to testify as to the revised architecture but the engineer did talk about the allocation between office and and light manufacturing space on the revised plan correct the civil engineer presented his testimony but he did not testify as Aral can we present the first exhibit that you you had how did you dist this is what called o1 if I'm not mistaken correct uh I don't remember the um the exhibit number I'm sorry I don't remember the exhibit number do you know if it was o1 Miss keeper do you remember if this is of1 first exhibit introduced by the plan I know there were two of them I don't have right now you know what hang on a I can find out I can tell you I looked at the trans it's o1 okay that's my representation okay um how did you determine the study area in other words what is the purpose of this exhibit the purpose of the exhibit is is to uh delineate where I think the impacts would be uh reasonably observed uh of this development and this in particular it's entitled land use um figure one and um we're representing the different land use classifications of property in the study area isn't it true that you did not include the i78 corridor in the study area even though it's behind the site and is more significant to this site than the uses along Allen Road when you say the i78 quter it the the interstate is shown on the exhibit at at the bottom of the map I don't it's not included in your study I should have included the highway right of way you mean the part that's that part that's in adjacent to my client's property are we talking to the left of the map I really don't know where you're referring to I mean we tried to follow the boundary of the properties that adjoin i78 it's below the site it's below the site were we a little shaky with our our Green Line you mean is that what you're talking about well you don't show any of i78 within the study area correct the parcels adjoin i78 but it's not within the study area okay I'm I'm looking at the applicant site plan and I see why our line is not straight on the southern boundary where uh the property is a join i78 because on the applicant site plan it's not straight either so what are you talking about I I guess what I'm saying is did you use use this as your study area because you needed to include your client's property well I was hired by Fellowship Village but but is it a proper study area is well I would say absolutely because we know all of the trucks are going to make a right turn on Allen on Allen Road as a planner and you've been doing this a long time yeah isn't it common to assess the impacts by delineating a radius around the subject property or employing other established boundaries to define a study area not for a planning study no that radius that sounds like uh notice requirements 200 foot what's the planning rationale for this exhibit since the E2 Zone allows light manufacturing but we have residential uses in Fellowship Village we also have farm and open space we have private open space we're trying to show uh what the veled character is of this area did you review the permitted uses in the E2 of course I did okay and you know that my client's proposal for light manufacturing and office is permitted in the E2 correct light manufacturing is a permitted use yes would would the development of these types of uses also impact this sensitive area as you suggest well we're not arguing about the uses we're arguing about the excessive F and the other variances that have no merit for this application so why didn't you include the east side of the subject site as part of the study area does it not have a number of Commercial Business businesses in it the east side we we have uh many areas colored office to to to the east of the site I I don't follow there are a number of commercial businesses further to the east why didn't you include that in your study are we talking about a property that front on I'm going to call it Martinsville I hope I'm right with that road name are we talking about that can I use the cursor is there any way that I can go ahead demonstrate go ahead what's that oh the mouse yeah the areas that I'm pointing to here right that's why aren't they included in your quote study area all right well they don't front on Allen Road just for the record that's the area east of the study area on yeah to the east of the green line boundary of the study area would be an accurate would it be an accurate statement that by defining the study area as properties fronting on that portion of Allen Road you left out properties in the same zoning District as the subject property we're talk the the study area is how I delineated it it's my professional opinion cor correct but why didn't you include other E2 properties in it because that wasn't the criteria what's in the E2 Zone was not the criteria the criteria was where do I think the impacts are going to be discernable from an excessive F variance well while we disagree with your rationale for H for how you chose your study area if a if a planner were to accurately create a study area with properties fronting on roads to and from the site those on Martinsville Road South of Allen Road would certainly be including included wouldn't they not I disagree with testimony or opinion professional planning opinion that you're offering I guess of where the study area should have extended to the east no I don't agree with what you're saying at all your determination of a study area is your determination of a study area doesn't necessarily mean that it is an acccurate depiction it's your determination of the study I have given a foundation a logical foundation for my delineation are you are you aware that the seal spout site at 50 Allen Road is a light manufacturing property yes why didn't you include it it's on it's on there are you kidding me it's right across from fellowship Village I'm I'm sorry never mind are you aware that are you aware that lot 4 has a principal use as a medical clinic including scientific research labat can you repeat that because I didn't hear the whole question what's that I didn't hear your whole question there was commotion are you aware that lot 4 has a principal use as a medical clinic including scientific and Research Laboratories and that law four also utilizes the access road on Law two yes are you aware that the driveway on Lot 2 was originally constructed to provide access to 40 gallon Road and we talked about that being approved in 1980s as an easement yes when the reproductive Medical Associates was established on lot four they were not required to obtain a D1 variance for the use of the driveway on lot two right I I did not see that no are you aware as to whether RMA transitioned from being an office to a medical clinic with Laboratories and research facilities with now without needing a D1 variance yeah I I don't believe a D1 variance was granted given that the Township reviews The Master Plan regularly with the most recent right reexamination occurring in January of 2023 wouldn't the township have removed light manufacturing from the E2 Zone if it had had wanted to well we're not we're not uh contesting light manufacturing we're contesting an F that's over what's permitted well you talked about the master plan and its goals and objectives correct isn't it true that the governing body and the planning board have not touched the permitted uses in theun zone for decades yeah we're getting some requests just to be a little louder if you can isn't it true that the governing body and the planning board have not touched the permitted uses in the E2 zone for decades I don't know that I would agree with that um as far back as uh 2010 uh that master plan that I looked at specifically called out uh concern about Fellowship Village and quality of life and managing um neighborhood character I I showed you a map from 1983 and 1985 it showed subdivision Maps showed you the E2 Zone District it goes back as far as the 19 80s why are you saying it only goes back to to 19 to 2010 or 11 you said you said that that there's been zoning changes you said over the years there been zoning changes you the Zone this map from 1983 so the the E2 Zone has existed in its configuration has existed within the township since the 1980s so if they really wanted to change it to allow other users why didn't they well that's the E2 Zone delineation I have no idea what uses were permitted in the 1980s I didn't review a zoning ordinance from the 1980s my second exhibit in your testimony uh this was of2 the zoning base map correct uh it's entitled 1 150 Allen Road zoning uh figure two in your testimony you argued that this site can't support this use do you recall that testimony the site can support the use I said the use was conforming let me repeat it in your testimony you argue that this site cannot support this use do you recall that testimony I said that the statutory criteria for D4 F variants was not met are you aware that the applicant strategically designed this site so as not to extend beyond the existing Ring Road I wasn't part of the design have you read the transcript of Mr seer's testimony given on five separate occasions I've I've watched the videos and and read the transcripts yes for all the hearings are you aware that this use will produce only a fraction of what the traffic would have been have been generated had this been a fully occupied office building well he limited his analysis to the peak hour are you aware that the slope deviation are less than 1% of the total site I gave testimony that the slopes have been previously Disturbed I didn't ask that question are you aware that they constitute less than 1% of the total site um I don't have uh the the total steep slope calculation in front of me I only have uh what variances were requested so um I I don't have that I assume there was a table on the site plan that calculated I don't know you asking me the question or well you're asking me for a number right you're asking me for a number I don't have a table in front of me that would give me that number so I can't answer the question my represent that it's less than 1% of the total site okay for a site like this as a professional planner is it abnormal to have bulk or SE variances to bring the site up to Modern standards the site is um let's get this right the E2 Zone requires a 5 acre lot area and this is 28 Acres I I didn't ask that question well that's very relevant to what you're asking for a on a site that's five times the minimum lot area I wouldn't expect to see C variances uh for setbacks or anything like that have you ever testified about a site with more variances than this uh what do you have 37 I think was the count by the excuse me there arean and there are there are seven variances and there are design waivers okay so I mean it's really a lot are do you recall an application you did in Jefferson Township called industrial outdoor storage where there were two D1 variances and 15 bulk variances and you were the attorney for the applicant I was the planner for the appli the planner I was call application of course I do okay so so so is it is it I'm going to go back to my question is it abnormal to have bulk or C variances to bring a site up to Modern standards I don't know why you're bringing up that application that was in Jefferson Township Morris County it was on a state highway it's totally apples and oranges so for you to try to say that I represented an applicant with a lot of variances and why am I standing here now on this application what saying something different I'm not saying something different we're talking about this application and the relief that your client is requesting and I do not believe in my professional planning opinion that it satisfies the criteria for the grant of the variances you heard Mr seer's testimony correct yes and assume he said assume one truck equals three cars in length in length in terms of length of a tractor trailer versus vers it takes about three cars to equal the length of one tractor trailer that was his testimony okay you remember that I'm not going to refute it if you say that's what he said okay even if we assume it takes three times a standard car length to maneuver the access road is not really being intensified is it since there's there's an overall reduction in trips between this proposed use and a fully occupied office building we're not talking about the peak hour trips that's why Mr suckler was asked to do that calculation on an annual basis because he limited his analysis for this board to the peak hour but then then he also testified that mostly uh truck drivers avoid the peak hours and then he also testified that it probably would be peaking for trucks between I think it was uh this was in the Board of Ed uh letter so I assume it's accurate uh between 11:00 a. and 1 p.m is what it said in the Board of Ed Council letter to the board where she was recapping do you recall Mr Seer testifying about the following numbers the previous use 1,884 trips per day proposed use our calculation and three trucks three cars equals one truck, 1885 trips per day the proposed use the obor's calculation of one car equaling three one one three cars equaling one truck 1,379 trips per day do you remember those no culations don't no I don't you mentioned that the curvature of Allen Road as a reason to not Grant the requested variances are you aware of how long this condition has existed I don't know when Allen Road was constructed could you pull up your third exhibit please I'm getting there Madam chair this was what you identified as O3 site context right uh figure three yep first is there a particular reason why you chose to include properties outside of your study area in this exhibit that was just a representation of of the wetlands and uh flood plane flood way uh flood Hazard area to show that it is much more extensive um than just in the study area to do a proper analysis and shouldn't the properties within your study area have been identified as your in your exhibit o o O3 I think it would have been awkward if I understand what you're asking me you're saying why didn't we just cut off uh within the green line boundary of the study area well it's it was your exhibit that was your study area that's right it's my exhibit that's right and that's what I chose to present to illustrate to this board that the environmental constraints do not just end within the study area they extend quite far beyond the study area which has implications to every everybody in Bernards regarding this exhibit you testified that the site is quote environmentally sensitive and you relied upon GS M GIS mapping correct yes and and the applicant also submitted uh the wetlands delineation mapping and D correspondence you're aware that the subject site has been developed for decades right and I'm aware that it's vacant now yes and that the sensitive areas in your exhibit are based upon Statewide mapping which is historically unreliable at best would you agree I don't think it's unreliable no are there any sensitive areas on the subject property um if there are any sub sensitive areas on the subject property wouldn't the njdep have jurisdiction over these areas uh there were Wetlands delineated by your uh consultant your environmental consult receive a letter of interpretation yes on July 18 2024 that's correct and it identified all of the areas where it can and cannot build because of wetlands that's right and and and none of those areas preclude where the development is taking place correct that's right do you think it would be interesting indeed to see how much of the Bernard's Township as a community would be considered environmentally sensitive if if it were mapped in the same manner you did with your study area well those Maps exist in the master plan of of of the township you testified there is an impact to the master plan by this application and that the applicant has not put on the not put on the record how this site does not do damage to the master plan do you remember that testimony yes as a planner are you aware that a master plan is a comprehensive document that includes many recommendations as well as goals and objectives yes and that the most relevant recommendations at a site specific level with regard to Future land uses the land use plan um classifications in a master plan are the underpinning of the Zoning for a community and the two documents are supposed to be consistent land land use is mandated the others are discretionary correct a master plan is a planning board document a zoning ordinance is a governing body the land use element of the master plan is a man for the board to consider future land uses is that correct it's a required part of a master plan yes right and the other elements are are just discretionary the housing plan is a mandatory element as well is it not also true that we have already established that the burnard township master plan continues to recommend the subject property for the uses permitted in the E2 Zone correct yes isn't it true that to cite broad goals Rel related to environmental preservation or Wildlife protection is less relevant for a developed property that is already served by infrastructure and located a short distance from an interstate highway than a site that is vacant no I don't agree with that um Redevelopment which is what I would consider this site since the building on it was demolished so this is in my opinion Redevelopment of the site um no it's it's all relevant every part of the master plan is relevant how how can you realistically as a planner testify that the Redevelopment of this site with a permitted use would have a substantial negative impact considering the context of other developed properties and Roads that already carry significant traffic well I've been out to the site and along Allen Road many times um during my involvement with this application and I did not encounter traffic or delays or anything of that nature uh during the times I was out there so I think uh the introduction of all this truck traffic that is related specifically to the F overage will be very noticeable and very detrimental when you talk about the F overage you're talking about us meeting the 14.99 the 15% requirement yes there is no overage there is okay we're going to go through it again I told totally disagree with everything you said on that subject you testified that the applicant has not addressed the natural and mature vegetation and Wildlife you recall that testimony uh yeah there's a requirement um for uh tree preservation and I don't know if I have the numbers but you're asking for relief from that um substantial relief so on a 25 Acre Site I I don't know why uh the tree ordinance cannot be complied with how can you make that statement when the applicant is only developing within on a 28 acre parcel he's only developing a roughly 4 point something five acres and he's and he's developing within the existing Ring Road where development has already occurred well because we're we're starting from scratch because your client demolish the building you keep saying that but but we have a vacant site that's your opinion correct is it IL legal I think that's a fact the building doesn't exist I don't think any of this is funny Madam chair it's not I don't think any of this is fine it's not continue the question is we have submitted a site plan to the board that shows development within a Ring Road I don't care whether the site's been demolished the question is the development that's shown on the site plan is done within the Ring Road correct yeah you're redeveloping at a greater F than you're permitted okay so what's so funny about that um and is it is it correct to say that the njde wetlands maps are generally inaccurate no no they're not they're not they're not generally you rely upon it the the the weapons Maps well if you this is why developers have a certified expert go out and delineate the boundaries and we did I know you did I I think we acknowledged that like 15 minutes ago have you ever gone into the field and flagged Wetlands yourself yes I have it's nasty ticks bugs you name it no not for me um but I understand how it's how it's done now so okay have you ever submitted an Loi to the NG no no can I ask what the blue area on this exhibit is sure uh for simplification purposes and again we took this from uh New Jersey GL web which is the New Jersey GIS and for EAS of uh presentation we combined um the flood plane the flood way as one color blue so that en encompasses 1% 2% flood and uh regulatory flood way we didn't differentiate uh among different colors we so combined it if I were a Layman and I were looking at this wouldn't the Blue Area imply and suggest it to the board members that this entire area is underwater no not underwater but uh under threat of inundation in certain uh circumstances does the flood plane border the subject property no how many vehicles of any kind cross through the alleged flood Hazard area3 identifies there's a bridge uh over on Allen road that uh traverses uh that blue area and that blue area uh kind of uh goes on either side of Dead River which in your submission I think in some of the environmental information um I think you submitted an e talks about it being a tributary of the Pake River have you ever seen or have any history or had any knowledge of all of the Blue Area being ever inundated to the point that's shown on your exhibit of3 I have no knowledge of that was it not your testimony that they that these two LM buildings are out of character with the surrounding area I said the f is out of character with the surrounding area and many of these uses are non-residential in the area correct many of these uses um there is a handful of of office there's a hotel how about the ones in the E2 Zone they're not in residential they're office yeah and how can these uses possibly be quote out of character with the area they're permitted well you're not looking for a use variance for light manufacturing you're looking for an F D4 variance for an excessive F you testified that none of the C variances are warranted are and are quote self-created other than the steep slopes and that none passed the test under C1 or C2 correct that's right but does this property involve the development of a previously developed property it's a vacant site okay I I'm not going to I'm not going to argue with you and and that from a planning perspective the whole point of allowing for SE variance relief is to recognize that some townwide or districtwide standards can't be met but that's such deviations are appropriate in specific circumstances if the statutory criteria positive and negative is satisfied the board is empowered to Grant variances you testified that there's no benefit to the public in granting the requested C variance relief and that the variance variances do not constitute a better zoning alternative for instance you testified that the canopy variance is self-created correct that's right while it is true true that the strict language of the C2 variant requires the benefits of a variant to substantially outweigh any detriment have the courts in this state broaden the scope especially in light of the pollen decision which talks about looking at the site in its entirety as opposed to a focused view of a certain area we're talking about the canopy I'm looking or all the C variances all the C variances well the applicant has chosen to demolish uh the existing building on the property and has a site plan application before the board for two separate buildings and um they really haven't given an explanation of a proposed user why two buildings are necessary and they have separated these buildings by about 50 ft so this is all created by the plan that's being pursued not by uh situation regarding spr in the property and it is of no benefit to the public or the community at large do you recall during your testimony that one of the board members and I believe it was Mr Cambria asked wouldn't it make more sense to redevelop the site even if it requires some minor variances instead of letting it sit vacant do you recall that no let's into testimony I can tell you okay so as a professional planner why why would you ignore the fact that this Redevelopment is occurring within the existing Ring Road that's not the criteria for granting sea variances doesn't it make a lot of planning sense to redevelop the site within the existing Ring Road I don't understand how that relates to the SE variances well you kept arguing that this is a 28 acre parcel of land but we have developed made an a concerted effort this applicant to develop entirely within in existing Ring Road there is no development activity taking place beyond the Ring Road are you aware of that yes wouldn't it make sense to do that as opposed to expanding the footprint and go outside the area that it already developed in I don't perspective okay I don't understand why there has to be two buildings on the site with this uh 50 foot separation in terms of the parking variants you testified that one should not rely on the it hand book for the parking standard and that the local parking ordinance is not quote Overkill as we stated as was stated by by by Matt seckler you remember that no I don't what site did you review to determine that the town's ordinance is the appropriate standard the township has a a parking requirement and this applicant is about 300 spaces short I think I think I may have said that in my experience when I'm representing an applicant and they need a parking variance I would expect that they would be providing user specific information to uh support if we were looking at it standards for parking demand that they would have some practical real life information to give the board a measure of comfort not just merely stating oh we we apply with it is it is the is the standard that is used by Traffic Engineers is that correct yes okay and and the local ordinance calls for a much more significant number of parking spaces for for the office use correct uh for the office isn't it four spaces per thousand is that what it is for uh I don't have it in front of me I just know that the total deviation is uh required 610 and with the Make Ready spaces 328 are proposed it's is it half is your opinion that the current zoning ordinance for light manufacturing is not Overkill the applicant is proposing a total building floor area combined uses of 244,000 by their 328 spaces I think I come out with a ratio of one space per about 744 Square ft I don't know whether that's reasonable or not because no real life information was given no information was given about the potential user of this site and uh their business operations so you didn't do any analysis independent analysis to make your conclusion that that um the Mr seckler didn't do his job properly in identifying it as the proper standard I don't think I ever accuse Mr seckler of not doing his job or anyone else on your team of not doing their job what well you kept referring to the significant deviation from the the township standard I don't think I spent a lot of time on that I don't think I did I think the the numbers speak for themselves I just gave a ratio and if the board feels that one per 744 square feet is reasonable based on the testimony given by the applicant then they do and you provided no data to support your conclusions what conclusions you're saying I said Mr seckler did not I would first of all I would never say another professional even if I inside thought it I would not say that you said that all of the all of the variances C variances were self-created yeah that is not saying that your professionals did not do their job I don't know where we're diverging to that is it possible and even likely that a Township's parking ordinance dates back to a time when there was a greater need for labor to support light manufacturing sites I don't know that it's possible you went even further by testifying that neither the board's traffic engineer nor our planner challenged the use of it as the big basis for parking variances of the parking variance correct they relied on it you're not a traffic expert no so why do you think that you as a planner are more qualified to determine the correct standard for parking than the board's traffic engineer I did not give a standard for parking in terms of the retaining wall and site size you challenged the variance for the height of the retaining wall in two locations on the site do you recall I cited uh that at 8 foot height is the maximum required and I I may have gone through uh the retaining walls that are proposed and the height that they're shown on the plan we've established time and Tomy again tonight that the applicant made a concerted effort to keep development within the existing Ring Road correct you're also proposing two buildings which forces the development outward wouldn't it be as better zoning alternative than creating new Disturbed areas on the site by using the ring R well you're making larger buildings by virtue of the F uh variance that's being requested and you're also proposing two separate buildings which utilizes more space on the site let's return to your bucolic confer uh reference you're aware that this site is located next to an inter State Highway yes I am close to an interchange uh relatively close yeah with its character defined by a range of non-residential and residential uses in heavily traveled roadways I would also add there's a lot of open space I think I gave testimony on on the amount of land in the study area that's um devoted to open space so so it's your opinion that the presence of some wooded areas in the vicinity makes this site bucolic uh it's very substantial amounts of property very substantial should I go through it because I have the acreage and everything on Allen Road and starting with the I'll call it the park um that's at the I guess I'll say Northwestern end that's 23 Acres there's a farm qualified parcel opposite that of 58 Acres Pinson Farm is 38 acres there's municipal open space of uh combined about nine acres it's really substantial it exerts a huge influence on the character of this area let's talk about the study area the area along let's talk about the area along Allen Road would you consider that to be a bucolic area along from from Martinville road to Allen to 140 or 150 Allen Road yes I would okay you testified that there are two purposes of zoning which have not been satisfied in this application purpose a the appropriate use of land and purpose I the promotion of a desirable visual environment and to support this you testify that the clearance bar the only thing you used is that the clearance bar is out of character and a visual intrusion do you recall that testimony yes you stated that the clearance bar changes the character of the area did you not yes are you you aware that the clearance bar again was asked for by the tra the board's traffic engineer that doesn't matter to me how it how it came to be part of this application is irrelevant to my opinion on the impact of the visual character I have two more questions during your testimony you went into areas such as excessive noise excessive vibration pollution from trucks truck impact to schools do you believe that you were qualified to make those conclusions in Your Capacity as a professional engineer I don't know that I testified anything about impact to schools that was the board superintendent there was one reference to 80 to 90 net decb for truck traffic that you made I can find you the site yeah but that's not me saying impact to schools the schools are a mile away I'm not talking about schools you you said schools just now stated that I said a bunch of things I know but you're recapping my testimony so it's important to me Mr Blair can you may rephrase the question let me rephrase it you stated in one portion of your testimony that trucks create between 80 and 90 DB that's right they do are you qualified as a sound expert to make that determination I'm not a sound expert I'm a professional planner why did you why did you make that statement because among my 40 years of experience I've worked on environmental impact statements where I've assessed noise impacts based on use so so you you are a tra I did say that any professional planner could pick up an environmental engineering handbook and look at the decb that would be generated by a heavy truck I have nothing further Madam chair okay thank you Mr Lair I think um for the benefit of all of us we're going to take a f minute break and then we'll come back okay okay I think we back on okay terrific thanks um we are uh back on the record and I think all board members are accounted for so that is good okay Mr Lair I think where we left off you said you were finished um for now okay excellent um so I know Miss um Philip Smith we're GNA have a redirect uh Mr bin do you have intentions I do you do indeed is that okay with you Mr it's your witness so I just want to make sure are you okay with it the of efficiency beir asked questions okay Mr berin why why don't you take a seat um in In fairness you I want to make sure that we get to myth uh Philip Smith's cross redirect redirect sorry of of the planner so I want to make sure we get to that um so I will allow um you uh 10 to 15 minutes oh you surely kidding no I'm not kidding so just please make the most of it for it's 10 to 15 minutes and then we're going to have it I'm sure you want um Miss Philip Smith to be able to have the time to um redirect redirect her witness well let me point out to you U Can you please take a seat at at the um at the chair and speak right in in to the microphone please sit down there no no no I just I want to make sure that everybody hears what you're saying they can hear what I'm I'm saying and I you know obviously we want to give the public a chance if they have anything to say and obviously we're trying to get to a position where we can hear public comment um also so may I make a suggestion uh the applicant's attorney represented to you that he would take one hour at the last hearing he's taken two hours okay I I had heard a longer time but that's neither here nor there I I have gone through my presentation I have had conversations with Jen Smith uh about trying to do our best not to bring back this witness again uh impossible uh my my questioning will take go ahead my questioning will take before listening to what went on tonight my questioning was going to take about an hour it's going to take a little more than that in light of the a little more than an hour is that what you said what was your time one hour except in light of the Cross examination that I just heard it's going to take longer than that okay um in the spirit of getting Miss Philip Smith's ability to redirect on that I think that is the priority here so I'm going to allow you 15 minutes please um make the most of it the when you say 15 minutes that's going to be my entire course yes no way okay do you want to have any time now or no I I would like to and I understand the witness can come back I'd like to continue with the October meeting okay I don't know whether our planner will be back then and she can we've checked that out okay I don't know that we're going to ask her back I'm allow ing you 15 minutes I think it's a reasonable amount of time especially since it is not your witness and I think out of a courtesy we're going to allow my witness but it's my cross examination oh we'll allow you a reasonable amount of time which I think is 15 minutes after the applicant took two hours yes this is okay Mr Berlin this is a a co- obor's witness first off um njsa 40 call 55 d-10 D um allow the board to impose reasonable time restrictions on testimony reasonable time after the applicant took two hours surely you're kidding again Mr Berlin this was this is a co- a co- obor's witness I cannot not possibly cross this is not an adverse part if you want me to start for 15 minutes and then adjourn I'm allowing you 15 minutes so you can do what you want with it but we're eating into it now right and and not only that Mr belind there's also members of the public who may want to ask questions of this witness we give them an opportunity going to be back so please use the time you have wisely that's what I would suggesting and after you cut me off in 15 minutes I'd like to make a proper proof on the rest of my okay do you have um do you want to start because that's the most efficient use of your time because I am going to call Miss Philip Smith back up for her redirect of the planner may I call you Donna of course yes and you didn't call me Don okay fair enough um I agree with all you testified to with one exception you testified that there was no testimony from the applicants witnesses as to why the proposal exceeds the allowable F requirement by square footage that exceeds U the 15% allowable the office building had a footprint of uh if I'm correct 54,1 199 square fet and the proposal has two buildings with a total footprint of 244,000 square ft so the board can get a better understanding of the size of the proposal of the proposed Bill well let me skip that I'll come back to there's something more important if I'm only going to use 15 minutes just bear with me you you rais the question as to why they are exceeding the F correct yes and you indicated that you didn't know uh what that reason was and let me help you out of I just let me get to the portion of my you're with me I'm just having trouble finding what I want to get to so just bear with me here we are and let to go back you raised the question why is signature acquisition submitting The Proposal that exceeds the F requirement are you aware that the vice president and director of development of signature acquisition testif ified on August 9th 1923 this is a quote 2023 20 2023 you said 1923 no August 9th 2023 Sor oh I'm sorry just an attempted letter and this is the quote it is important to understand that the rents we can get for light manufactur ing spaces far exceeds the net operational income of an office building he then explained why the net rent for light manufacturing is $16 per square feet and it is all income the net rent for office space is $4 per square fee because of the expense of creating and maintaining Office Space and by the way we thank the director of development for supplying that information I wouldn't have known it if he didn't testify to it are you also aware that the vice president and director of development testified on October 12th 2023 we tried to at fit as much building as we possibly could on site without expanding the coverage full lot coverage that is the reason why signature Acquisitions submitted this proposal that it's four times the footprint of the office building and exceeds the F by approximately 60,000 square feet is that not correct it it's close to 60,000 yes is that a reason to Grant variances no if I have to stop that's I wish to stop I I the rest of my examination any part of it will go over 15 minutes okay still here in about 9 Minutes Mr okay and I want the opportunity at the next meeting to make a proper proof of what I would rest uh this witness and I was allowed to do so you may not have that opportunity so I I want you to you know if you are going to give up that time now that that's your choice my next line questioning will take more than the remaining time of 15 minutes okay then at this time uh if it's okay with you miss Philip Smith I'd like to ask the public if they have any questions for the planner um before you um finish with your redirect there's one please come up guess you can sit at the table if you want to Sir sure I'll mind you just to speak right into the microphone please absolutely and uh name and address for the record sure my name is Harvey geart 416 mountary Road here in bassing Ridge so I've been going through the master plan and everything else I'm not a planner uh tractor trailers the um did the applicant um in regard to noise vibration you brought noise vibration and particulate matter from the exhaust of tractor trailers uh did the applicants uh traffic engineer here discussed the effects that this would have on Mount Avery Road residential areas going to Route 287 no do you think that the applicants engineer should have discussed this as it will have would have a major impact on the property values of people alongside that road I can't speak to the property values but environmental impacts are are certainly relevant do you feel that the traffic engineer report was valid or flawed in regard to Moun Road I I can't speak to that okay why is there no um user specific details on what is going to happen uh at the uh site that is being built I don't know I don't know does the applicant in your opinion does the applicant have an obligation to uh let people know what will be happening at that site I think to meet the statutory criteria um any applicant um has to give enough support uh for a board to feel comfortable granting the variances and the Omission or um inability to provide that is uh something that I think this board should consider greatly um the applicant spoke about only about the specific site did you see anything about the effect on the rest of the neighborhoods in the area no um the um the master plan is readily available on website and it's worth reading uh did you find any mention in the town master plan as to how the application conforms to the requirements of maintaining quality of life in our community and is there anything positive in regard to the impact it will have on a joining neighborhoods no the excessive f f variance and other variances uh will have uh in my opinion substantial detriment to the public good good do you find that the applicants uh properly addressed the negative criteria that uh criteria that would have on the neighborhood particularly mountary Road especially in view of the board board of education um report the Board of Education I believe uh questioned at length about the impacts uh to their schools okay um okay um in regard to I I think i' leave it at that um do you um when you go through when one goes through the master plan uh that is provided by the township that's online there is a tremendous amount of information there in regard to um effect the effect the requirement to maintain adequate quality of life um let me just go through this here uh do you feel that the master plan violates these goals in regard to uh protection of open spaces and control and calming traffic in town okay you said master plan but I think you meant the proposed plan right the proposed plan violates those right yes I'm sorry does the proposed plan violate the master plan in regard to those aspects yes it does okay does the ma does the proposed plan uh did the app can provide any negative information uh uh in regard to uh groundwater aquifer surface surface Quality Water things of that nature no um in the transit from Mount ARA road to 287 you have to get on to off Allen Road uh those the applicants plan uh protecting anyway the Suburban and Rural aspects of our town there will be increased truck traffic as a result of this development and the F overage uh exacerbates that the master plan also says that um the uh that uh traffic circula that there are traffic circulation objectives um do you feel that the applicant for fails short here as well I think that that's more a traffic engineering question than a plan in question was there any traffic volume analysis done by the applicant they did a a traffic impact study but my recollection is um they did for example at Mount Mount Ary or Martinsville that is the same road I believe yes um they did not analyze the the stacking of of a queue um at the intersection you know I'm going to object to this I don't understand how she is testifying as a traffic engineer this is not traffic engineering this is planning and and it relates to the master plan no it's traffic testim all right guys let's relax Mr geart how how many more questions do you have this uh just two more um using up a lot of time so please okay uh you know I can stop there um traffic problems are not rectified um and the Board of Education problem is there as well which has to be taken care of but by the way counselor a car is 14 ft long a tractor trailer is sir you're going to stop right there I'll stop can't do that thank you thank you for your time and we're going to strike the statements that you made from the record because they weren't you weren't sworn not your questions not your questions we take your questions this is only the question time yeah oh yeah sure thank you very much are there additional questions before Miss Smith okay questions questions only please okay hang on we're going to go one at a time okay that's okay okay my name is Alisa Naru I live at 37 Sentinel Drive in Basking Ridge thank you I know you know this but just as a reminder it's questions based upon you know the new um testimony that you heard and keep in mind that we're trying to get to uh allowing the lawyer okay to do her cross so if you can keep it focused and keep it um that would be great because obviously we're trying to get to the public comment I know you all want to make comments so absolutely thank you okay I want to ask the planner if um if there was any kind of error made back in the earlyer mid 80s but then something different is listed in land records now would the most recent land records take precedent over previous land records or how does that work you mean if there was an error in a resolution um sometimes if it's uh like if an applicant realizes there was an error or they they want to change the resolution they come before the board and ask for um either an excision of uh certain conditions but as far as I think you're alluding to what applicants Council was introducing as exhibits and how that flows I think that's more of a legal issue yeah I was curious and asked the question that's okay you to explain from from what was and what is I feel like what is maybe that's more important I don't know all right in your very experienced planning 40 years experience yes in your line of work what kind of companies have you come across that would need 16 tractor trailer Bays what kinds of companies light manufacturing or other um you know I I don't know why they have uh more loading spaces than the ordinance requires um I I don't understand the foundation ordinance requirement for loading B I just wondered what types of companies since this questions please my biggest question would be what is going to happen at that what will be manufactured there but I know we don't have an answer okay um please questions of of the witness based on the testim the witness okay do you agree I'm wondering if the proposed trees are taken away and the lack of tree replacement do you think that would change the topography and would the taking away of trees trigger environmental changes is that possible well I think what we have here is a a a site that the building has been demolished and I think that to restore um the Ecology of the area the more trees the better um since we are in an environmentally sensitive area I also wondered about why do people ask for variances is it because of hardship that they may have not necessarily um in the land use slot stipulates the requirements for different types of variances so it varies okay and my last question is in the line of work you do as a planner do you feel that tractor trailer trucks traversing roads where there are 25 M an hour and 35 mph speed limits where children ride bikes scooters children walk to school children play people walk do you find that this may cause a dangerous situation in addition to the lack of quality of life for the people who live in the area the horizontal and vertical curvature of of Allen Road is certainly an element of the area that the Board needs to um be cognizant of in making their decision on this application do you worry or do you feel that it we should worry that it might be dangerous the amount of truck traffic that was testified to by the applicants engineer that is attributable to the F variance is in my opinion substantial thank you that'll be all thank you other members of the public question I think there was one more question I think there was one one did you sign your name please come sir you can come up if you have a question for the planner just a reminder questions to the planner great can you just um speak right into the microphone please and can we get your name and address please yes my name is my name is Ricker I live at 40 uh Mount uh 40 left at Lane in Basking Ridge New Jersey thank you um several years ago I had a stroke and I'm constantly walking out on Mount ay Road and many times during school hours sir there's I'm very sorry I'm I'm not trying to understand got a stroke but you need to ask a question yeah my question is what sort of safety features do you have for all of the uh High School children that are on the end of our street waiting for the buses to come and when the roads get plowed they have to walk over these big piles of snow and literally stand in the road how has that been addressed uh that's a question for the applicant I believe sir just to be clear this this homequest here she's been retained by Fellowship Village she's a planner testifying against the application it seems that your question was should have been directed to the applicant the one who is proposing this she is not in here to support the proposal she is here to do quite the opposite of that quite frankly okay so I think that question might have is more intended for another witness I don't know if your questions are related to The Proposal itself but this is not the witness that you would want to ask and and as a reminder everyone in the public is going to have an opportunity to make a comment we'll give you some guidance around that and that will be the time if you want to make some statements and testimony that's a different thing that we're doing right now okay just there's certain procedural formalities we need to follow yeah no I understand thank you oh sure thank you you're okay thank you so okay are there any other questions from the public before uh Miss Philip Smith come back your name and address please and um right into the microphone please Karen loosa 11 Morgan Lane basking Rich that's up in the hills thank you very briefly um sorry right right here are you aware are you aware um of whether there are any development easements on any properties um within the Clos vicinity of the proposed development I'm not aware of that um you're not aware of whether there are any development easements that affects this subject site that I'm aware of you're not you're not aware if there were development easements that were um paid for by the township County or state on the same road would that support your um what you've declared to be abolic nature if the town was taking development easements to stop development or maintain Tre oh conservation easements cons you're talking about um that's that's a relatively common thing with environmentally sensitive properties it can affect Residential Properties as well um I think that if the township were um implementing conservation easements it would give support I'm sorry not when you say conservation I mean I guess I'm misunderstanding you I'm sorry I'm talking about specifically development as in main the property owner holds the property we're not talking about um conservation easements for Wetlands a development easement so the property cannot be further developed but in in general development rights okay would that tend to support the area being deemed bucolic um that's done with Farmland uh frequently um to prevent development and and transfer the development rights to uh an area that can handle U more intense development okay um the English farm is that I'm not sure if you're aware where the English farm is you can it's north in the Liberty Corner section yeah um if you're not I'm not sure if you're familiar but um is that was that included in this the study that you did I wasn't able to catch that no uh the study area was delineated with the green line in my exhibits I'm sorry I couldn't just couldn't see whether it or not it was um and in your testimony you seemed I'm sorry as a planner um is there typically a planning value to to something such as the blocking the turns for from to prevent trucks to go into a residential neighborhood is there typically a residential value in directing trucks away from residential areas yes that that protects the character of the residential area okay that's all thank you any others okay Miss Phillip Smith Madam chair yes I had one question are we going to ask after Miss are we going to ask questions after the redirect or do we do that before probably do you can do it now do it now before the redirect give her CH yeah okay so I just have like one thing about the D1 in your testimony tonight around the the D1 I just want to make sure I understand it your testimony is that any construction on the site would require a D1 variance of the access road yes and the use there and that's the same use as as well it wasn't a change if there's office if if this application was for an office development yes but the access road was going to be modified me was going to be widen or change or anything like that to change that road do that would that require a variance my opinion is that any development on this site because there is now nothing there would require a D1 variance for access across the residential zoned property but if they just were going to if they were going to keep the if I know it's hypothetical I'm just trying to understand it if they were going to keep the building that was there but they needed they wanted to change the access road and they wanted to widen the access ro road or they wanted to make any changes to the road itself would that require a variance well there is a section of the code that that prohibits um non-residential access access through a residential uh zone property so I don't know what the ordinances said in the past but based on my reading of the current ordinances I would say that it would be prudent to get a D1 variance if the planning board or whatever was put into these documents comes out to be accurate the way in which it was um the information from the 1980s that was shown to me tonight board permitted this access and then it was built does does the owner then have the ability to change and widen that road and put structures over it in any shape or form after it's built and been permitted or do they need to would that require variances to widen or build things around the road uh based on what I saw tonight no variances were granted um so I think a variance is needed and that's regardless of any variance that they're asking for yes it's all if all they wanted was the canopy if that was the only variance in your opinion they need the D1 because they didn't have it yes because my reading of the ordinance is that that is not permitted and no variance was ever granted that I can tell for that and so they would need that now thank you any other questions from the board okay sorry Miss Phil Smith thank you for allowing some additional questions I'm G to keep this actually very short because I know the time is tight tonight well you can have as much time as you want so it's your it's your witness thank you I just going back to clarify a few items that came up during cross examination so first uh is the applicant a public utility no were you present for the testimony of Mr Hughes the applicant's planner or did you review the testimony yeah I I think I watched the testimony yes do you recall if Mr Hughes gave detailed testimony concerning when the driveway on lot two was approved and constructed uh no no no or we don't believe he did I I don't recall um it's not coming to mind okay even after all the representations that were made this evening are you aware of any prior approval that allows the driveway on lot two to be used to service an industrial use no we talked about or Mr Lair talked about the Coventry standards yes is it your opinion that this site will accommodate the problems associated with the proposed permitted use but with the larger floor area than permitted by ordinance well that necessitates the C variances and and then as a planner I look at are is the statutory criteria met and in my opinion it's not I don't know if that's answering your question so just in short do you believe that the statutory criteria for a D4 variance has been met by the applicant no and along those same lines even after all the questioning tonight is it still your opinion that the applicant has not met the statutory criteria for the granting of a C1 or a C2 variance for any of the variances requested that's correct that's all I have thank you okay thank you um Mr Lair anything else from you okay thank you thank you 1025 okay I I assume there's there's no more witnesses we don't think at this point in time not up and M Smith no more witnesses for you I am not presenting any additional Witnesses thank you okay all right lo and behold we might be at public comments not tonight not tonight but we we might we might be there I I do just have one clarifying question at the end of public comment before we go into close before everything is closed out I do think we need to deal with the exhibits this evening and whether they're being intended to be moved into evidence despite the fact that they were not you know identified by any witness we can have that discussion at a later date and we won't dok y but it's noted and we'll we'll put that okay we will get back okay so I think um we're gonna carry this hearing to the 9th is that right now miss kefir that is correct okay we have no um residential uh cases booked on that night we have the N for uh signature which is our regular meeting time okay so we G that is the I'm here by making the announcement Madam chair this matter will be carried to October 9th 20124 7:30 p.m. right here in the municipal building of burnard's Township uh this is your notice me telling you this the applicant won't be required to Ren notice at least at this point um so yeah if you want to come back the end the anticipation is that we're going to start public comments on that date um we'll see how far we get yeah so can can I just guess by by show a hands on people here tonight how many people um intend on making a comment okay that's okay that's okay I see I see hand see the and I assume there will be a few who might not be here no we're not no no we're not doing it tonight thank you definitely we are not doing it tonight um let let me just share a couple of my thoughts just around um public comments um I I appreciate that there are a lot of people who want to make a public comment and the board's going to make every effort to hear um each person and in that Spirit I'm going to ask people as they think about their comments to keep them focused um and uh try to keep it in a length of 3 to five minutes that's you know we the board will have discretion around people who who come up but In fairness I want to give everybody an opportunity to speak and you know out of respect for everybody's contributions I'll ask you to keep your comments to three to five minutes um just as a reminder we're going to try to avoid duplicate comments and I appreciate that you're going to work at them at home and and be ready to speak but remember we want to always be respectful for people who are making comments either for or against the application the board's going to hear them all so we expect to do that at the um at this next meeting I just want to ask a question for clarification Miss Holquist is now finished correct she's finished and not expected to return she's not expected to return thank you not at this point in time thank you um and then just so the the public knows we'll we'll do um public comment and then um and then it'll go back to the uh attorneys to do summations before the board deliberates okay okay right thank you all for that um keep in mind that our our meeting is not officially over so if I could ask everyone to remain quiet you don't have to remain seated you can leave um but just so that we can finish up here um are there any comments from Members let's talk about this what's the process going to be when we have people for comments are you G have sign yes we're going we're going to yes yep we're going to have a process where we can try and have a couple people online um we'll have a a a sheet you know to sign um if people are represented um they can so people who are represented by Council they can still make comments so we you know there's going to be a fair amount of those yes there there will be so we're going to try and keep the process moving but obviously you know if there are a large number of people and it's 35 minutes it's a long time we're going to try and make a line and we'll give them instruction and we'll try keep the moving the very best we can I think we tried to remind them about duplicity of comments that's people prepare their comment they're ready to read so we'll try we'll try we're going to do the best we can um from um the meeting schedule Cindy I think we have in theory we have both meetings blocked off for Signature right October 9th and October 17th is a special meeting so both the 9th and the 17th are blocked off for um signature signature our next meeting that will be small application the first meeting in November will be in November okay so we you know we haven't made a decision on the special meeting yet but we know October 9 for sure is going to be signature the plan okay that's okay um yeah Mr Krauss and Mr halison do you know um you know we can cross that bridge when we get there but if you guys can check your schedule for October 17th because it seems like we may not have a quorum so we'd like to know that in advance so I'll ask every member of the board to just check their calendars and if you can um email um Miss kefir with your Ava availability or lack thereof that would be great for October 9th October 17th yes and then if it's not October 17th it wouldn't be until maybe November 14th but for now let's just focus on meeting if we don't have after the 17th the next available meeting for Signature would be I think I believe it's November 14th November 14th so for now let's just focus on October because we know for sure it'll be October 9th I I assume there could be some spill over onto the 17th but if you can check your calendars and just let us know but for right now all we're saying is the nth so if we do the 9th and 17th 9th is public comment 17th is statements and deliberation it it could be if we finish if we finish public comment on the N that's the way it would lay out um yeah um are there any comments from staff thanks very much for coming um on this special special night thank you that was that was very big I do have I have a comment for you all of you chairman J chairwoman J Cambria Mr Krauss Mr helverson and Miss Herrera you need to respond to me a statement of Interest Miss keeper this it's a bad time to ask people I I realize every I see that email I'm like I realized it's a tough time to do that give us the maximum amount of time to respond um motion to return motion second all in favor thank you everybody