good evening everyone and welcome to the Hillsboro Township planning board meeting of February 1st 2024 please join me and a salute to the flag ALG 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 [Music] all please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised according to section five of the open public meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 otherwise known as Sunshine Law Nots of the 2024 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers the Township Clerk post on Township's website and available here at the Hillsboro Township municipal complex in addition application documents and plans have been made available on the township Civic clerk website at least 10 days in advance of this evening's meeting complete application files are also available in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice with that may have a roll call of plan board members and also board and Township professionals Please Mr delor is absent Mr Wagner here Mr scobo here M Smith here Mr rtz here Mr Deb here commit in the py present Deputy Mayor trick relli here Vice chair peas present sarach here K present Bernstein here may here and myself and the videographer are here okay welcome everyone so we do not have any consideration of meeting minutes nor resolutions there is no planning board business and we do not have ordinances for consideration so we will go to business from the floor for items not in this evening's agenda if anyone would like to uh put any comments on the record not involving this evening's agenda items please feel free to come to the mic state your name and address for the record okay seeing none we're going to go to the main event going to the public hearing on application Wesson Road LLC with a file number of 22- PV pb-3 mspv time of decision February 15th of this year this application is being carried or continued from the October 12th 2023 meeting without further notice and I see applicant and objectors are taking their seats Mr grodnick the floor is yours good evening members of the board my name is Michael ogrodnik of savos shock Law Firm on behalf of the applicant Weston Road LLC as indicated at our prior public hearings this application seeks preliminary and final major site plan with bulk variants and waivers necessary for the construction of an industrial build building including 5,300 ft of office space uh as this application has proceeded um the applicant through comment and feedback from the board board professionals and the public revised the application in several important areas this was uh testified to when Mr Ford was last here in the spring the changes reduce the size and intensity of the proposed use enhanced Aesthetics uh including uh an application that reduces the square footage of the building from [Music] 140,000 118 Square ft and uh 5,300 ft of office other material changes including enhancing enhancing the architecture adding building color lowering the building height and slightly Shifting the building Additionally the number of parking spaces was reduced from 139 to 99 and adding uh five electrical vehicle spaces um after our architect uh testified we also added uh an 8T colored concrete wall near the loading docks to conceal the forklift L ramp and provide additional sound attenuation Frontage is on Weston Road uh known as block 185 Lot 1 one property is in the i1 light industrial Zone approximately 18203 acres in size and is generally wooded according to the township planner report the proposed uses are permitted but principal uses in the i1 light industrial Zone site is located on the south side of Weston uh Weston Road across from the chain off Terminus of waterman Lane site's been undeveloped for many years characterized mostly As Upland forests with small pockets of scrub and forested wetlands the northernmost forested Wetland pocket is associated with a stream feature that our engineer had detailed which runs in the northwesterly D Direction the site is bordered to the north by Western Road with residential development Beyond to the east by Conrail Delaware and boundbrook railroad right of way and some additional commercial development there's a privately owned airport Central Jersey Regional Airport uh across the right of way to the Conrail uh Railway to the South is a closed Municipal landfill that was previously owned by Hillsboro Township and some unimproved forested residential area of course additional proposed development includes all the typical Associated utilities access parking walkways trash storm water lighting water sanitary sewer Gas Utilities Communications that will will tie into the existing lines on Weston Road tonight um the applicant will introduce our Final witness Michael Ford uh essentially to update this board you know it's uncommon um that we have applications that proceed for this many hearings and one of the benefits of that is that we have pretty much all the Outside Agency approvals now and so Mr Ford will go over those Outside Agency approvals um go over comments from FAA and spend the majority at tonight's night uh discussing the additional Geotech testing this application was filed in 2022 uh this is the 10th night we've presented testimony from no less than nine Witnesses including four Professional Engineers a licensed architect a licensed planner throughout 22 and 23 this applicant presented expert engineering and geotechnical testimony from Mr Ford architectural testimony from our warehouse designer Steve rasi operational testimony from a aad reef planning testimony from Keenan Hughes and several nights of traffic testimony from Gary Dean in addition to the typical expert witnesses that we present in land use applications the applicant also presented professional acoustic engineering testimony from Zach zabur concluding that the proposed operations do not exceed the applicable noise regulations at the site and the nearest residential projects we received testimony from our air quality expert Glenn Bodner who concluded that it was his opinion that the slight additional vehicle traffic associated with the rest Weston Road industrial building will have negligible effect on local air quality we had additional uh environmental test testimony from Tom offener an additional Warehouse operations testimony from Jim Scott in addition to the expert testimony the applicant has provided several thousand pages of documents available on Civic clerk to the public detailing the history of the project the history of hearthstone traffic data environmental impact studies lsrp phases one and two the history of the site history of the lawsuit and volumes of data in addition to the applicants professionals and the board's professionals there are various Outside Agency who have course handle thousands of land use applications and have reached conclusions since this application has been pending since our first Hearing in 2022 njd uh has determined that the lineation map is accurate the FAA has concluded that the aeronautical study reveals that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or and or on the operation of air navigation facilities Somerset counting planning board uh concluded that the application does not adversely affect the County's facility and approve the project Somerset Union Soil Conservation uh indicated that they've reviewed the erosion control plan and certifies that the plan is in accordance with the New Jersey erosion incent Control Act and most importantly perhaps as it relates to storm water from drcc uh the quote is it it is of the staff's opinion that the proposed project has been designed in compliance with the commission's technical requirements we also uh we will address um the the professional uh engineering reviews that again we believe support the conclusions as it relates to the storm water management plan I understand that our objectors Council Mr Ash and Mr sinkovich has requested to be heard on a legal issue related to jurisdiction similar to last Thursday uh which we've briefed quite extensively several months ago so so i' defer to Mr Bernstein on this next step okay good evening uh my name is Jordan Ash um with the law firm Riker Danzig my co-counsel Mike sovich is with the law firm leverman bler and sovich we represent the Hearthstone homeowners association um in opposition to this project and I'll just note um in response to what was just said said um this board has not yet heard from the expert testimony that we intend to provide um and uh uh regardless of any other agency approval for a specific issue this board has the authority and the duty to uh uh consider this application as before the board uh there is at least uh one outstanding D approval that has not even yet been applied for by this applicant um uh so this board is not bound by any of those other decisions um and as Mr grodnik pointed out there is a jurisdictional legal issue that we think is is very important um and we would like to uh uh be heard on and and and deal with that before moving forward tonight great to quote the great philosopher Yogi Barett deja vu all over again uh this board had has received multiple legal documents on this application as well as at least two others who contend that based on language that occurs in one or more of the ordinances the township committee adopted in the summer of 2023 that somehow this board no longer has jurisdiction over this application uh I will tell you I have not yet prepared a formal legal opinion from for the board on this issue but I am tending to advise the board at this time that the matter should go forward ultimately it will be one of the many issues that the board will have to address at some point in terms of not only jurisdiction but the ultimate application itself but for the time being Mr chairman it is my recommendation this application go forward if obors Council has a problem with that there are Avenues available to them the I'm assuming they can exercise between now and whenever the next hearing on this matter will be okay is there anything you want to put on the record before we proceed or well we we think that to the extent we want to go forward tonight that's fine we think that the record on this issue does need to be made I know letters were sent in um and we would just ask that if not now at some point the record on this issue needs to be sooner than later if anyone else wants to supplement the record they are more than welcome to we'll have that discussion I assume in terms of time frame when the board establishes the next hearing date [Music] okay no I my interpretation is we're not going to make that record right now is that correct that is correct we're not going to make that record right now at some point between now and the next hearing my office will provide all parties with a draft opinion that the board can accept reject or do with it as it wishes as it does with all of my opinions um therefore at the moment there is if you want to make a record once you start because it's my understanding and Mr ogrodnik can correct me if I'm wrong but there's been back and forth emails Mr Ford is Mr ogrodnik final direct witness if objectors want at the start of their application to start a record relative to this issue that may be the appropriate time for you to deal with it accordingly but I will indicate that I have not rendered an opinion for the board's consideration so even placing a record on may not necessar will probably not get you a decision at least tonight understood thank you okay with with that I have our witness who's I believe already been sworn in Mike Ford from vancle Engineering Associates let's swear him in again calendar turned so testimony tonight to be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes I do Michael Ford FD with vancle Engineering Associates licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey and my licens is in good standing okay nothing's changed since the last time no okay that was last here in May of last year um and I'm here this evening to report to the board uh what has occurred uh with regards to the site engineering aspects of the application since that hearing um we were uh directed to uh consider additional uh supplemental soil testing which has been performed um we were directed to consider additional Landscaping to buffer the front of the site which has been included on the plan and we have processed the Outside Agency application approvals that Mr grodnik uh just summarized um in particular with regards to the site the FAA and do uh approvals regarding the location of the site within the airport Hazard Zone and then specifically with the site itself and the proposed construction and site improvements the soil erosion and sediment control approval in May of 2023 which included not only the uh soil erosion and stimate control plan but an acknowledgment of the acceptance of the classification of the on-site soils as D and then uh additionally with regards to the DNR Canal commission we've made um uh resubmittals to the DNR Canal commission and our in receipt of a December 5th 2023 review report that is Mr ogrodnik summarized uh identifies that the proposed stormw management features of the project are in accordance with their regulations which are equal to and if not exceed uh the D and the township standards and then specifically with regards to the site improvements first with regards to Landscaping um there was um uh the as you recall the Basin is located at uh Pond constructed Wetland is located in front of the building there was an emergency Spillway associated with that construction that was parallel to Weston Road that Spillway was relocated and the entire buffer between the two proposed driveways was enhanced and so was the overall uh Landscaping of the site uh and the total number of trees is uh been increased by an excess of 200 trees and um almost well actually 299 specifically shrubs and that is a mix of plantings along that Frontage and that would be buffering uh immediately adjacent to Western Road as well as along the driveway immediately dra into the building and along the front of the building um so with regards to Landscaping those enhancements that were requested have been performed and there were also uh there was was also a directive from the FAA to modify some of the plantings on the airport side of the building and that was done and as acknowledged by the FAA approval met with their acceptance with regards to storm water management um first with uh specifically the soil testing there was a directive by the board to conduct additional supplemental test T in and offer that that testing be observed by not only the municipal engineer but the uh objectors engineer that testing was performed in August and September of 2023 uh incorporated into a uh storm water management report revised September 28th 2023 and submitted to the board on October 2nd of 2023 not aware that we've received any uh review memorandums or comments in response to that report the subset of changes in that report were that uh the additional soil testing was incorporated the analysis was completely done with uh use of the D soil uh all of the pre-imposed sub uh poke uh Peak flows were uh established and the the soil testing was not only submitted to the township but also to the Delaware R Canal commission so as you recall uh with regards to storm waterer management there are uh essentially three uh significant aspects of it quantity of runoff which needs to be addressed in accordance with the standards uh recharge requirement and quality storm water quality first with regards to stormm water quality there were comments and this is before I go to recharge with the aspects of the additional soil testing um the storm water quality treatment for this site has been uh addressed by use of mechanical treatment devices and these are mechanical treatment devices that qualify as green infrastructure or GI there were some comments with regards to specifically demonstrating that the water passing over the motor vehicle surfaces or dirty water surfaces um uh be demonstrated to flow through these devices which are next to standard catch basins and then pass through the mechanical treatment device before they go to the catch Basin uh there were additional details added to the plan and essentially uh and this is a standard with those types of mechanical treatment devices when they sit next to a standard catch Basin they're slightly at a lower elevation than the catch Basin so that water quality storm that first flush is forced to flow through the mechanical treatment device and this is basically a a catch Basin um but within it uh has a filter media and plantings uh and then unlike a standard catch Basin uh so you get a sense of the magnitude which is a catch Basin that's a a curb inlet and a 4X4 box and what you see on the curb is a 4 foot wide great and a you know two feet out from the from the curb line these structures are in excess of 8 to 10 feet deep and uh that or longer uh with on either side of a catch Basin if a catch Basin sits at the overall low point or or on the UPS slope side of a catch Basin if it's on a location where the water passes along the curb line so these are substantial substantial structures and they provide for the water quality measures as I indicated uh the the detention Basin or the Basin if you will that's at the front of the site is a pond constructed Wetland which does offer uh water quality measures however because the overall drainage area to it is uh in excess of a specific requirement there's no credit given or taken for that water quality measure but that actually provides additional water quality treatment that's not I'll say uh Quantified as part of meeting the criteria so the Delaware and RAR and Canal commission has indicated that the mtds mechanical treatment devices can consist of um an aqua Shield there's two of those along Western Road and then uh 19 filterers on site um and um those devices provide for the 80% minimum TSS removal total suspended solids removal of the um water running off of those motor vehicle surfaces and the DNR Canal Commission in their December 25th or December 5th 2023 report which the township received a copy of as well as the County planning board uh concluded Under The Heading of water quality based on the review of the submitted stormw calculations the storm water quality measures have been designed in accordance with the requirements and they go on to specifically State the njac section that it does qualif uh meet the second uh item I'd like to uh now discuss with regards to storm water management is storm water quantity as I indicated there's a basin uh a pond constructed Wetland that's at the front of the site that that Basin as Mr ogrodnik indicated um virtually a year ago when the building was reduced in size that Basin basically doubled in size and the that offered opportunities to not just meet the standards and the criteria for reductions in the peak flow for the 210 and 100-year Storm from the site but substantially uh meet them in ex well in excess of what the stand standards are that is for the 2-year storm you're required to reduce the existing Peak Flow by 50% the 10-year storm by 75% or B at 75% and then the 100-year storm uh 80% in this case um what the uh DNR Canal commission concluded is that based on the review of the submitted stormw calculations the proposed stormw management measures will provide will provide enough Peak attenuation to meet the specific runoff quantity standards of njac 7 semicolon 45- 8.6 parentheses A1 and then specifically with flows to give uh a sense of the amount of reductions there's two drainage areas one uh drainage area um uh with which we call POA one uh to an existing uh drainage feature under Weston Road and paa2 the storm Wier management um measures for poa1 which goes to a pipe under Western Road that then leads uh into the uh existing storm water management Basin on the west me uh complex or Hearthstone complex on the north side of W Road the area draining to that existing um pipe from this site has been reduced substantially uh so that the contributing flow to that is reduced substantially by virtue of reducing that drainage area and there a sense of an understanding for the existing uh storm water management rainfall data the allowable Peak flow low uh from the site to that location is 12.76 uh cubic feet per second and the proposed condition is 1.0 that's literally uh you know it could have been 12 times larger so it's a substantial reduction and as you know we've uh been uh processing this application for many uh months uh and uh I think this demonstrates um an advancement by the applicant to not only just meet the standards but listen to the concerns and one of the initial concerns at uh a hearing I think over a year ago was the flow to the existing uh Basin on the Hearthstone Community uh site and this demonstrates that uh the applicant has uh made substantial uh progress toward addressing that concern the other point of uh discharge from the site is another existing pipe in Weston Road a public road with the flow to it from the site and this is where the proposed uh detention Basin um or the bio the pond constructed Wetland discharges to as I indicated earlier the over the process of uh the modifications that have been made to the plan not just to meet the standards but to uh address concerns uh and and substantially meet the the standards for the 100-year storm existing flow the allowable discharge to that point of analysis is 44.8 CFS and the uh storm winter management features that pond uh controls the release Peak flow at a rate of 2772 CFS so it's substantially below what the allowable release rate is and I'd like you to also understand that that allowable release rate is after making the calculation to say that the standards the standards require a reduction from the peak flow such that it uh at that 80% level so this is you know well below the the the the allowable release rate okay with regards to groundw a recharge to recap and this was discussed at the May hearing um as I recall the uh njd standards for classification of soil there's uh as you should understand there's published data that's um identifies the anticipated soils on a site and uh their characteristics and uh establishes a a soil classification a Hy ologic soil group classification it's not um a classification that was established based on specific site testing on this site um so what the standards permit is that uh if you encounter a site that exhibits soils that are uh not consistent with that classification you uh have a process and a standard number of tests that would be done to establish another classification in this case a Class D classification for this site uh there are two mapped soils uh in the area of disturbance um the minimum number of tests uh in those two uh soil locations uh combined in order to do reclassification is 25 tests that's eight in one soil type 17 another this is uh established and uh um discussed it at the last hearing we've uh to date now done 96 tests at the site uh the that includes the supplemental testing that was done in August and September of last year uh the criteria uh is established in the um njd uh standards uh the uh and I'll like like to just read now what the uh NJ or I'm sorry the Delaware RAR and Canal commission uh reviewed and concluded can we get a date on that Mr Ford yeah it's the same December 5th 2023 report thank you this is Under The Heading groundw a recharge um the nrcs web soil survey assigns a hydrologic soil group rating of C to the relevant on-site soil mapping units however extensive on-site soil exertion were performed within the limit of disturbance by the applicant in accordance with chapter 12 of the njd BMP manual in support of reclassifying the on-site soils to a hsg r ing of D within the nrcs soil mapping unit of Ravel the or rhb re ehb soil limit I'm sorry limit of disturbance 46 soil profile pits were dug relevant to on the soil the Su I'm sorry relevant to the seasonal High groundwater table at a depth of 28 in or less which supports reclassification to hsgd within the nrcs soil mapping unit of PN pnb limit of disturbance 19 soil profile pits were dug relevant to the seasonal high water table at a depth of 24 in or less were determined which supports reclassification to hsgd additional soil Explorations were provided as necessary as necessary in the area where the groundwater properties varied to resolve such differences and accurately characterize the soil present in the mapping unit based on the review of the submitted information commission staff agrees with the evaluation agrees that the evaluation supports the hsgd soil classification therefore the commission consided that the project will meet the groundwater recharge requirements so that's the third criteria what I'd like to point out now is that um Beyond Med meeting the standard um having the drcc determined that we meet the standard uh there was a recommendation um that uh the applicant acquiesced to and that is to provide for opportunities for groundw a recharge on site now given the soil characteristics that were identified at the site the fact that of uh 27 27 Basin flood tests that were performed at the site this is a permeability test to establish whether a rock or Bedrock is permeable all 27 failed to meet the standard and these are tests that are holes dug in the soil or into the Rock uh that are 50 square ft in size so it's not establishing or looking at permeability in a isolated little hole this is a typically 5 foot wide by 10 foot long hole that's filled with 12 Ines of water hundreds of gallons of water and time to drain over a period of time in order to meet the standard it has to drain two fillings of those 12 in of water within a 24-hour period for the first filling and 12 uh hours of the second filling uh to provide and establish a permeability that could be used for an infiltration BMP and as I've indicated we didn't have a single test pass and there were uh additional tests done during that time period of September and August um we had initially 17 tests and 14 additional ones were done since the last last time I was here so I started to talk about um what was done by the applicant to even acknowledging this um lack of soils that support uh any kind of groundwood or recharge or groundwood or infiltration and that the Delaware and R and Canal commission accepted the reclassification of D the can still uh implemented as part of the plans that were submitted in October of last year uh a porest pavement parking area to the west of the building with a stone bed under it to all provide for an opportunity for groundwood or recharge and then an underground uh small scale infiltration Basin on the east side of the building uh under the pavement area adjacent to the Loading uh docks and this was like trying to thread a needle where um through discussions with the board's engineer we actually looked to Pennsylvania regulations not njd regulations because njd regulations wouldn't uh require or um allow uh such a a groundwater infiltration type of U mechanism what we used is what's called a managed release concept it's basically a Pennsylvania standard where they uh have established that state has established where there's very poor soils and poor permeability um these type of um infiltration mechanisms that would allow for groundwater recharge or infiltration of stormw runoff and this is in an effort to uh provide for an opportunity for recharge um and would um theoretically reduce the amount of storm water running off the site so we've provided those opportunities um but in accordance with um I'll say good engineering practices uh because of the lack of permeability on the site and we established um I'll say a analysis Point by taking one of the Basin flood tests we had a couple Basin flood tests that had some movement in them I'll say you know it it was required to have 12 Ines drained within 24 hours but we had some that had some movement a few inches so we use that as a guide to establish areas where it may be appropriate and um I'll say in a sense wouldn't hurt to provide an opportunity for recharge even though it's not required the standard doesn't require it the Delaware and rant Canal commission acknowledged that it's not required um in the May 1 review by the board's engineer there was an acknowledgement that the soils uh met the criteria of a a c I'm sorry a declassification which wouldn't require recharge but in that same report there was a suggestion to consider this recharge the [Music] volume the volume of these underground features um under the porest pavement and under the pavement within the loading area have a total storage area of approximately 40,000 cubic feet and provide for an opportunity of recharge that has been Quantified IED in the report and again this is not to meet a standard or requirement because the standard and requirement of the township and the Delaware R Canal commission have already been met by the extensive on-site soil testing the um manage release concept elements that have been Incorporated part as part of the project um uh have been designed with a fail safe that is um if uh the U runoff going to those uh underground facilities or the poorest pavement exceeds the capacity and these are designed for uh not 100-year storms but low volume storms the overall grading and design of the project already uh accounts for runoff that's in excess of the capacity of those um recharge uh opportunity facilities lastly in the Delaware R Canal commission they also acknowledged that the project uh complies with their stream quarter and they state that the project is located within the millstone River Watershed the uh Royce Brook is located approximately 1,200 feet to the west of the property the Royce Brook does not flow into the Delaware R Canal commission as a result the stream quarter measures of 100 feet from the 100-year flood plane the commission staff finds that the 100-year flood plane of the Royce Brook is located at least 700 ft from the property line this site period therefore the project is not subject to the stream quarter review pursuant to njac 7 semicolon 45- 9.1a with regards to volume of runoff from the site too what I'd like to remind the board is that during this process we made a trip to the environmental Commission of the township and one of the suggestions that the environmental commission made was that in addition to meeting the peak flow attenuation for the 210 and 100-year storm is that that we delay that Peak discharge by an additional time period that is um the flow off the site the volume uh is released at a controlled rate such that not only is the peak reduction uh addressed in accordance with the standards but that volume of flow while it may be an increase over existing conditions is drawn out and released well beyond what the existing conditions would uh release run off from the site uh during the rainfall event the 24-hour event so um uh the the impact uh to the site runoff uh is uh improved and this was demonstrated by a report issued by our office that included not only an analysis of this site the subject site but the entire West um the I call it West me but that's the entire Hearthstone Community utilizing the drainage report from the Hearthstone Community approval and then their uh assessment of this site which flowed through that site and at that time and and still does uh and an analyzed both the existing condition that project built and this site not built and then this site built with their own analysis method and that was um provided to the board in a March 88th 2023 report entitled off-site stormwood analysis off-site stormw analysis um the May 20 2023 uh report or letter report offered by the ejector engineer identified that they uh had that information they had that report but there's not a single comment or acknowledgement that that report demonstrated with not um ambiguity or hyperbole but specific analysis actual numbers crunched that the peak flow at the downstream side of that site is reduced by virtue of the on-site um practices that would be implemented as part of this design so that um analysis I believe demonstrates that um while there could be um emotional Appeals that the volume is increased it's not and that'll you know substantially impact us there's not an analysis that's been provided to my knowledge that demonstrates that while there's been a specific analysis done not for just our discharge at our site which is only requirement that we meet the pre- and post at our points of discharge on our site but there's been an analysis um incorporating the existing Community to the north uh which demonstrates um no adverse impact that the peak flow is actually reduced in the tributary uh that runs through the site yet there's no acknowledgement of that and there was no rebuttal of it think I'll pause there right [Music] here David turned on the AC or the heat and dried me all out thank you Mr [Music] chairman um Mr Ford um in the Delaware raron and Canal commission um submitt I think your office um submitted an an exhibit called a soore log exhibit I'm sorry then here it's soil soil log exhibit do you have that with you yes um maybe you can help the the public understand on a lot of these test pits um there'll be a label for the sore log it'll have the existing grade elevation mentioned and then it mentions models maybe could you explain what that that means models yeah modeling is a discoloration of the soil that um Can indicate uh prolonged saturation or groundwater table and then on the test pits your your log has uh water uh what would that indicate that would be uh a specific direct measurement to uh water in the profile pit so it would be wooders entering the pit or visible or right or over a period of time stabilizes and then um the log also has a term called refusal could you help the public and the board understand what that term means that would be uh where um uh material is encountered that uh cannot be uh broken through or excavated it's the refusal of digging and and that would be based on the equipment utilized that might change a little bit depending on the equipment potentially we could um I'm looking at some of the S logs on that exhibit um we'll just take one that's near the detention Basin and it might be helpful if you do have that available I'm looking at s log uh 16101 it's in the area of the proposed detention Basin it says the existing grade is 64.4 and it says it hit water at 6205 in your opinion and I'll make sure you're you're caught up yeah can you so I'm looking at s log 16101 uh and the report says the existing grade is 64.4 and water was observed at 62 5 um so can you give me that number again I'm sorry I'm looking at SL number 16101 okay and feel free to correct me if there's a lot of numbers I'm quoting so if I'm off feel free to correct me um in your opinion if water is observed at 6205 would that that mean at some point during the year that there's potentially groundwater at that elevation correct um and I noticed that there's several other so logs um nearby soil SL number five and it has watered elevation 60 um I'm looking at SL number 10 has water at 62.2 three um could you explain um in this area you have a proposed detention Basin with just different levels and I believe the bottom of the Basin is proposed at 53 is that correct uh the the soil log exibit you're asked me to look at doesn't have it on that number on there but yeah I I've taken some numbers and tried to transpose them onto your proposed plans do you happen to have those plans or or do you feel like my recollection is close enough yeah the the the Basin the the pond constructed Wetland is a lined Basin they there'll be a liner on it in order because part of the njd manual for pond constructed Wetlands is that there are certain aspects of it that need to be uh incorporated into design ining incl including like a what they term a permanent pool a low marsh and a high Marsh area how how high up does that liner extend I we've identified it um over the entire uh bottom of the Basin so it would be up to is where the walls are okay so to help the board and the public that I think you have a couple tiers in the constructed Wetland the what would be called hide water 1 to fouret of water starting at 53 and then you have the shallow water I guess starting at a ledge at 57.2 and then a another ledge at 57.7 five if I that sound correct yeah yeah the um and I believe the lowest Orphus on the outlet structure is a 5 in diameter or is set at 57.7 which is that top ledge does that sound correct that would be at the permanent po evoltion yes yeah that sounds right okay um if the groundw is in the in these areas um when we mentioned 62 and there's some at 60 and the basin's down at 5775 isn't that below the existing groundwater level right yeah so is there the potential that the Basin is draining the existing groundwater in that localized area uh there's no connection to the outlet structure and the material below the liner the liner is a impermeable liner that would separate the bottom of the Basin from the surrounding soil it this the uh Pond constructed Wetlands is not um it's green infrastructure without an infiltration element so there's no infiltration it's actually I think intended for situations like this where you have these types of soils you mentioned there's a retaining War around the Basin and I think on your plans the bottom of the wall is just above that uh um which is at 50 elevation 58.0 and I believe the wall is approximately 9 or 10 ft high so what would stop groundw that's on the upgrad ins side of that retaining wall from seeping through the wall into the Detention Facility that would be that same liner the liner could be extended above and Beyond the back of the wall I'm not sure that's on your plan but you're saying if it's a concern you would extend the liner up the rear of the correct U proposed retaining walls creating sort of like a bathtub effect right it that's exactly right yeah I believe these are segmental um retaining walls um which take advantage of for the board and the public um geogrids and and for them the function properly most geal Engineers require free drainage behind these systems if if this is based on what you're testifying would that wall then be possibly constructed a different way would based on geotechnical concerns I don't recall this issue or concern being raised before but it could be could be done to address that yes sir well my concern would be for two for the structural capacity and capabilities of that wall and then also that this facility is not draining the local groundwood or table in that area um as I think it was mentioned earlier there are three Wetland pockets on site in order for Wetlands to continue to function they need to have a certain amount of groundwater and um this detention Basin is only 100 or so feet away from the Wetland I would want to make sure that we're not siphoning off groundwater to the detention Basin you you mentioned that um there were 27 Basin flood tests performed Med and that none of them met the state criteria and I think you touched upon the state criteria that um 12 in has to drain in 24 hours and then another 12 in has to drain in 12 hours and for the board on the public that that second drainage is measured and that's how an engineer would determine the infiltration rate correct well on the second filling well for a for a basin flood test that's uh a pass fail test so if it drains within that that second filling of 12 hours it's a pass and the the standards uh dictate a specific uh infiltration or or permeability rate that you would use for any kind of infiltration BMP when it doesn't pass you're not permitted to have an infiltration BMP and what is the state de you're looking for as a minimum tested infiltration weight well the the um use of the design would be 0.5 Ines per hour if a if a basin flood passed so just for the board and the Public's the the state's looking for a a test result that would be at 1 in per hour and then as design Engineers the state requires a 50% safety factor and the design engineer would use5 in per hour correct correct and if it doesn't test at 1 in per hour as you mentioned the state wouldn't allow an engineer who's trying to design a BMP to meet the state criteria they wouldn't allow that infiltration correct correct but if there was infiltration rates less than 1 in per hour there's still infiltration occurring correct yes and as you mentioned you took advantage of that in a couple areas on site to introduce the manage resource concept correct yes you you talked a little bit about um the volume runoff and I believe in your Stoner report it calculates the existing amount of runoff for the site I seem to recall even after reclassifying the site soils to a d or Delta soil I believe your report quotes somewhere in the range of 50,000 cubic feet um of runoff during a two-year storm does that number sound close yes um it's not part of the standard for analysis I'm not using that to quantify meeting a standard or a regulation but it it would be a number in our report yes and likewise using the same calculations and math in theory in Formula your report calculates the proposed volume of runoff during the 2-year storm and I believe that number somewhere around 100,000 cubic feet um so there's an increase of approximately 50,000 cubic feet of runoff during a 2-year storm does that sound approxim well that's not a standard number that we're required to calculate and meet a certain standard I don't dispute what you're saying um Mr Mayo to um to help the board and the public understand what Mr Ford is discussing is the state DP gives design Engineers two options to design um and meet one of the three stormwater criteria and one of those as Mr Ford's pointed out is recharge or addressing the volume of runoff so the state allows an engine to either calculate the existing volume of runoff during just a 2-year storm and then calculate the proposed runoff during the 2-year storm and then finding ways using bmps on site to infiltrate the difference between the developed and the existing in order to make sure the the volume during the two-year storm is not increased in the develop condition alternatively the state gives design Engineers a second option and that is to use a annual recharge spreadsheet where it's it's not just looking at one storm event it's looking at the total amount of precipitation that falls on a site all year long and how much of that might infiltrate into the soil under the existing condition and then do that whole math again under the proposed and as Mr Ford and as the Delaware run Canal commission has pointed out their calculations show that they meet that second option what I want to make clear to the board and the public is you can easily meet that second condition when you reclassify soils on site to a d soil or Delta because the state establishes recharge rates for each soil type it's not not up to a design engineer it's it's in the program that you use from the state and the state's established zero as the infiltration or recharge rate on these soils so when you're using that spreadsheet in the existing condition your analysis is going to say zero so therefore in the proposed condition you won't even need to do onsite infiltration because you've already met it and that's why I want to make clear for the record that on the first option when you calculate the actual runoff and even after classifying the soils on site from what's shown in the natural resources soil mapping as Mr Ford has said it's mapped as a CA or Charlie soil and based on test pits analysis uh Mr Ford's firm has um reclassified the soils as D even when you use that higher runoff number there's still a difference between the runoff in the existing condition and the runoff in the proposed condition um now we've talked about does that matter does that impact and uh I have not reviewed um this was probably before my time the Hearthstone Downstream analysis that Mr Ford had mentioned um I remember years ago and I won't want to give away how old I am but back in the 80s when storm weer management regulations were still being discussed as a design engineer all we worried about was collect the water put it in the pipe and get rid of it as fast as we could and then we realized the sites were creating flooding so we started trying to manage the peak rates of flow but we were still having problems in the early '90s we realized we're still having flooding Downstream because there's an overall increase in the volume of runoff so even though every shopping center and subdivision and building was putting their own detention Basin on site and they were trying to manage the peak rate coming out of that Basin the volume of water coming out that Basin in the proposed condition had increased and there were Downstream impacts to that um and I I just want to make clear and I think Mr Ford's already agreed the volume of runoff coming from the site during a 2-year storm has increased I understand Mr Ford stated that he is restricting the peak flow um but I'm sure as Mr Ford would agree that's extending the hydrograph out and for the board and to the Public's knowledge when design Engineers calculate storm waterer management they generate what's called a hydrograph uh it kind of looks like a belt curve where Flow versus time is analyzed and flow will start out very slow and then as time goes on and the storm intensity increases the peak rate will go up and then the peak rate will go down as the storm intensity decreases and and Mr Ford and and his firm is analyzing that under existing conditions and proposed and they're putting the storms through a proposed detention Basin to try to hold back those Peak flows and as Mr fora stated he restricts that Peak Q or flow from I think it was allowable was 40 and you're producing like a 27 or something in that range um in order to achieve that though Mr Ford your proposed hydrograph will extend out meaning that detention Basin will continue to discharge flows over a greater period of time correct yes because just so for the board and the Public's knowledge the area under a hydrograph is what equates to the volume of runoff and and my concern and and a lot of other Engineers around New Jersey concern is we don't know what's happening a mile Downstream because you have hundreds of of individual sites all letting their detention basins drain and nobody's taking the time to figure out in the predevelopment condition this site would have peaked drained out and then no longer contribute say 5 hours later after the storms moved on it's no longer contributing significant flows Downstream under the developed condition because the water is being held back in this Basin five six 7 8 nine hours after the storm event this Basin will still discharge flows and those flows are contributing Downstream at the same time other detention basins are releasing their flows and it has a cumulative effect as as we can see in places in Hillsboro and Manville and other areas um and so as Mr Ford has pointed out they've taken uh a step to introduce manage resource Concepts to try to recharge some of the flow I Believe in your report it states there's about 20,000 cubic feet of recharge so the difference is approximately 30,000 cubic feet and I would just ask the applicant consider continuing to find ways to recharge that extra 30,000 cubic feet on [Music] site that's all I have Mr chairman y qu I don't have anything to ask Mr chairman thank you okay board members I had a couple questions Mr Ford on your uh soil log exhibit uh you mentioned um August 30th and 31st there were additional tests they all failed um it was over a period that extended into September right so I see the dates August 30th to September 14th of 23 um the Bas and flood results uh either have a fail or an NA is na not acceptable not applicable what's na mean uh that just uh is where a test wasn't performed wasn't performed correct okay um okay that's [Music] it anyone else okay yep cheors thank you Mr chairman uh Mr Ford sticking with that um soil log exhibit uh last Revis November 8th 2023 um I just want to confirm the logs presented there at least for the most recent testing done in August and September of 2023 that's the extent of the logs is that correct correct okay and I want to confirm the the dates you went out um because I I think we were where you went out August 30th and 31st was there additional dates you guys went out to the site it's in the uh soil in the stormw management report all of the [Music] dates they're on the top of each there's there's it was a period from a starting August 30th and extending to September 14th 2023 and was somebody from the Princeton Hydra the objector team there on every one of those days I don't have a record of when you were there or when the objectors is it your testimony that we were invited on every one of those days uh I don't have any knowledge to the contrary [Music] so you said that uh the drcc has now approved of the storm water design is that correct yes all right the drcc uh since your most recent testing did not have have the opportunity to hear from uh any of any of our people have they I wouldn't have knowledge of that you spoke about the change of the spillway Direction correct yeah can you tell me where that Spillway currently points uh to the East and what's to the east uh the easterly access driveway to the site Weston Road correct okay well the driveway is onsite Weston Road is to the north so does I'm just trying to get where does the spillway Point towards Weston Road no when was when was that design changed that would have been uh part of the September 28th review it was part of this submitt in October of last year okay and it and it previously am I correct it previously point pointed towards Weston Road is that correct right okay uh you also spoke tonight of a reduced uh drainage area am I correct that that reduced drainage area is what uh flows to the state open water feature yes okay so this area it includes it was it's four acres that is not reduced to that approximately yes okay um and where does that go now I already testified to that it's uh to a pipe that's under Western Road goes through under Western Road before that does it go to the man-made Basin um not sure what man-made Basin you're referring the constructed Wetland that's being proposed no the area that uh uh was reduced in uh area uh drainage area contributing to it from existing condition to proposed condition is the area of that State open water feature and has the township stream quarter associated with it along our easterly boundary and there's um a wooded area and left undisturbed I appreciate that but what I'm asking is that four acres that you're changing the flow where is that four acres now going to that goes to the uh uh Pond constructed Wetlands so that it can be managed by virtue of the controlled release of the the uh detention Basin so when and if that pwn constructed Wetland fails now we have four additional Acres being sent in that direction is that correct objection speculative well the pond constructed Wetland is designed up to the 100e storm is that correct yes and we know very well in Hillsboro that we sometimes see more than the 100e objection lack Foundation sir hurricane Idol was a 100e storm more are you aware um not sure that there was any specific uh number associated with it was a significant storm yes in your engineering opinion are you aware if it was a 100-year storm or more than that I'm I'm not I I just answered that so was it your testimony sitting here tonight that Hillsboro shouldn't expect like to see more than 100e storm no uh um the the design standards for storm water management features require you to control up to the 100-year storm there's no standard that establishes a storm beyond that what I will say is and I said this in prior testimony this design is already done uh with the analysis of the new rainfall data that is um an except of 12 approximately 12 Ines of hour within a 12 Ines of rainfall in a 24-hour period whereas the standard was approximately 8 Ines of hour of rainfall in a 24-hour period so it's the standards of you know the rainfall data has been adjusted to uh acknowledge the change in precipitation over time but still we have a system designed to withstand the 100e storm is that correct there's no standard beyond that sir I've already stated that so what I said is correct yes that's why there's an emergency Spillway okay understood so again and is when Hillsboro sees more than a 100e storm we now have four additional Acres being sent to this Basin same objection are you directing your client not to answer the question yes Mr Bernstein Mr Ford would you answer the question I think uh if you can answer it yeah the the drainage area on site is not changing it's it's uh the point of analysis one is an area that has a regulated feature the state open Waters there's no development uh established close to it and the area Beyond it where there is the development being proposed includes part of the existing drainage area that goes to that feature so by virtue of the development being proposed uh the analysis at the second point of analysis the the POA to has a smaller drainage area going to it today than it will in the proposed condition but that same detention Basin is controlling that additional drainage area that goes to it I appreciate what you said but that didn't answer my question let give you more CH and and the total drainage area from the site doesn't change POA 1 and po2 an existing and proposed condition combined which then drains to features in Western Road and then Downstream beyond the property uh that drainage we're not changing that drainage [Music] area I'll move on you spoke of uh a total of 96 tests that were performed on this site and your uh quest to change the hsg uh soil characterization is that correct to they establish the soil classification yes sure when you say 96 tests I just want to be sure your 27 is the number of uh uh infiltration tests that were conducted correct 97 soil logs 27 Bas and flood tests that's what I stated yes but not every soil log is a is a is an infiltration test no okay and when you spoke of the recharge being provided on this site this is something that you testified to back in May correct no um as I recall it was uh in the May 1 uh review memorandum by the board engineer that while they acknowledged the classification of D based on the soil test there was a recommendation to provide an opportunity for charge and since that time we we implemented that with this with this basically a Pennsylvania standard okay so just I want to get the timeline straight your testimony is that the this wasn't added before your prior testimony was added since your prior testimony the the Pennsylvania manag controlled or manage release concept yes this is and to be sure that manage release concept is not something that New Jersey recognized as a BMP for recharge is that correct that's correct okay based on the state standards we're not required to have recharge that's New Jersey state standards and if you were required this method would not meet that requirement correct correct [Music] okay so in your November 21st letter to the drcc you summarize the characteristics of the revil series and the pen series soils is that correct it begins I believe on page four of the letter thank you yes all right and is it your testimony that your soil analysis is consistent with the characteristics of the reval series and the pen series on the site uh with regards to the massive Bedrock substratum uh specifically uh as part of the evaluation of the classification okay and you would agree with me that the USDA characterizes revil and Pen soils as as sea soils is that correct that's correct okay so in making this characterization change is it your testimony that we don't have reval and Pen soils on this site or is it your testimony that reval and Pen soils are not sea soils uh the the reclassification is not to reclassify the soils it's to establish the hydrologic soil group classification so we're not re-evaluating the soil type that was established by the somerset soil um report so as you as in your analysis then we we do have reval series and we do have pen series on the site we're we're not even analyzing that we're just analyzing it from the hydrologic soil group standard in accordance with that chapter 12 BMP understood but your analysis showed characteristics similar to those soil characterizations is that correct in in some regards yes [Music] okay and just to clarify something that uh Mr Mayu uh brought up in the delayed discharge that you're proposing um the analysis to actually uh figure out the impacts of that delay to Downstream um uh areas that's something that has not been done is that correct no it actually uh was done it was part of report issued in March of 2023 your own consultant acknowledged receipt of the report it's entitled an off-site drainage analysis yeah he acknowledge receipt but he didn't acknowledge that this Downstream analysis that would lay out the delayed uh hydrograph was included in that report but no as I recall it was acknowledging receipt of it but not speaking to it and as I stated it's the reports demonstrates that the downstream analysis with an analytical not a presumption not an assumption not a speculative manner with with actual engineered calculations that the resulting um storm waterer management facilities that would be implemented as part of the project would result in a reduction in the peak flow so it's is your testimony then that that report that you're speaking of addressed the concern that Mr Mayhew had with the impact of the delay uh discharge on Downstream areas yes okay yeah that's all I have thank you Mr chairman since my name was mentioned may add something to clarify yeah I don't want to confuse the board or the public the downstream analysis that Mr Ford is referring to is analyzing the adjoiner property it's not a complete analysis all the way to the riton Bay it's just a localized analysis Downstream okay y need a break okay before we open the public we're going to take about a 10-minute recess so we'll reconvene at 8:40 according to the clock on the day back okay we've [Music] reconvened okay so we're up at that point I'm going to ask for a motion to open the public Please Mr chairman be before you do could I ask for a clarification which may help the public in the board sure uh Mr for we were talking about the construction of the proposed detention Basin and and I it sounded like there might be a change there from what I was looking at on the plan so I just want to clarify it's your intent to construct the Basin with the necessary liners to restrict groundwater from being drawn into the detention Basin correct okay thank you very much thank you okay motion open to public so moved second okay all in favor all all right okay anyone from the public who's not affiliated with with the director's attorneys or Representatives please feel free to come up to the mic state your name and address for the record and it'll be to cross-examine Mr Ford's testimony thank you my name is William Brites live at 46 thoron um fig will the paperwork maybe we have a definition of a 100e storm somewhere in there or is that something I can Google to find out yeah exactly what the 100-year storm is yeah the 100e storm is um used to establish uh the design criteria for different stormw management features also the the potential 100-year storm elevation within a water course um and as I stated the NJ DP has just adopted new rainfall data that establishes that 24hour um rainfall event within a 24-hour period of approximately 12 Ines of rainfall okay and it was approximately 8 8.2 Ines per uh of rainfall um prior to the recent change so it's basically a guess no uh the it's my understanding that the rainfall uh the the design standards that they utilize this is D setting these criteria it's not uh um uh an engineer doing an analysis we use uh rainfall that that's established by the regulatory authorities in this case njd the township has their rules and regulations and I've already discussed about the Delaware marit and Canal commission and um it's my understanding that they use um historic rainfall data to establish those standards okay I'll move on um the Basin that's being built um it has a a membrane that a liner a liner yes and it's like a a rubber membrane or correct and is there anything to prevent that from floating I there would be soil on top of it that'll stop it from floating correct yeah I I dug out a fish pond one time it was 3T deep I put Boulders in it that I couldn't even pick up and I couldn't stop that membrane from floating when it wanted to float it floated none stopped the water from coming up so uh Mr buron I got to jump in here I heard some Whispering from my client in the back sir are you a member of the hearstone HOA no I'm a resident a resident of the yeah I was unaware you're as a member of the uh group represented by me uh you have to speak through me and the cross-examination is done through us as the attorneys for that group which if if you're a member of and I I thought we've been clear all along I apologize for any misunderstanding forgive me this my first meeting I well then I I apologize I just moved in a couple of weeks ago that would explain some confusion I just wanted to I heard the Rumblings and I wanted to clear things up before it went any further so I apologize but I'm going to have to ask you as a member of my client to not ask any more cross-examination questions because that's the r of theard I I I wasn't I was just stating no no I I wasn't talking to anyone in general really it's just but this this portion is to ask question just my two thoughts when I heard the discussion tonight um you know and to engineer water I was a local three electrician in Manhattan for 40 years and two big projects I worked on one was 140 Factory you're going to get me you're going to get me in trouble here I I I can talk to you privately but the the the rules of the board are because the the HOA which you're a member of since you moved in has hired representation we the mouthpieces for that representation testimony can be given at a later Point by HOA members um and and we intend to to do that with some of our uh community members um but right now and it's not my rule it's the rules of the board um I I before I get in trouble I I just need to stop I can talk but but but if you're interested in learning more about General planning you can schedule a meeting with Mr K's office and you can talk to him I sounds good anyone else from the public that is not represented or part of the HOA Maria jan6 720 East fck Avenue Manville New Jersey I'm also Hillsboro Township property owner block 86 lot 3 2155 Camp Lane Road um did you uh encounter any additional difficulties with regula regulating storm water because of all the wetlands on the site uh the wetlands on site have been avoided to a great extent how avoid it how no those areas are uh primarily are not being developed we have minimal Wetland impacts and and that would require an njd approval so you have nothing to do with the wetlands at all you have the the wetlands are not being impacted by anything that you're doing no uh the freshwater wetlands on the site uh the limits of them have been approved by njd um the project includes um minimal but but some disturbances of those Wetland areas and that's been identified on the plan uh and complies with the njd p standards and by virtue of a njd permit that'll be borne out and and verified so there is only one permit for the freshwater wetlands uh the uh permit would be uh likely one permit but may include uh more than one component there's a proposal on the the plan to buffer average that is make the Wetland buffer smaller in some areas and larger in others there's also a proposed uh disturbance of a wetland um ditch along um a dirt road that accesses the site in order to cross it with a driveway which would require a a general permit and then there's also a provision on the plans to include um extension and access to the township proper property to the uh rear of the site which disturbs Wetlands to what to there's a Township owned land behind the site okay and but would you said something about something of the well in order to get there they there's a need to cross Wetlands for that and that's identified on the site so I'm I'm answering your question regarding the Wetland disturbances and and so all of all of that required only one permit well it's it's typically issued as one permit and like I said would include um multiple components and that was already applied for and and no it has not been applied for okay you you mentioned the the U access because uh uh there is mentioned that the applicants seeking to move the access driveway e easement uh because of the considerable Wetland constraints is that what you're referring to correct so how so um I don't see that anywhere as being something that was applied for the only thing is showing as a a variance for um proposed height of something and uh waiver for buffers uh shouldn't that be something that also should be shown as being uh requested by the applicant to move the access driveway because of the considerable Wetland constraints it it is identified on the plan it what it's it is identified on the plan it's identified but is it is it is it mentioned like these variances are that's not under the perv view of relief that can be granted by the planning board yeah I think you're ref you're referring to the narrative for the application that right because lists excuse me that lists the relief uh that's being sought through the township and for example that initial relief included a disturbance within the stream quarter that's been eliminated but that but that relief that you're referring to doesn't list all the Outside Agency approvals that are not under the purview of the township such as the Wetland permits okay you mentioned also it's hard to find uh regarding the storm water there's an existing pipe on Weston Road that water would be going into yes and where does that so that pipe is exactly where where is it located uh it's shown on the plans there's uh two pipes that cross Western Road along the frontage of the property they're shown on the plans is there something further down or that's just right in front of that property or is it a little further down um don't uh really understand your question as far as where where where does the water discharge from those pipes objection has a form asked and answered no where does that water discharge from the from those pipes it it continues on the other side of Weston Road if I described earlier one pipe is connected to the Hearthstone eventually goes into the Hearthstone Basin and then there's also a pipe that uh continues on through the Hearthstone project and discharges to the existing water course on the Hearthstone project both of those pipes I believe were actually constructed on Weston Road as part of the Hearthstone project because as all right so but we're not disturbing uh anything beyond um where we're connecting on our side of Weston Road disturbing anything but but the uh the Water the storm water is discharging through those pipes it it does today and it and it will in the proposed condition that's correct okay well does today meaning that was approved for Hearthstone but you're looking to get approval to have your project uh uh storm water going through those pipes as well with the all the site storm water has been addressed in the drainage report and it does flow from the rear of the site or the south side of the site to toward the north generally to Western Road that's the the existing drainage patterns to Western Road correct okay um so uh is there is there a pipe that just is uh has a flow out into the road or is this going into something uh specific I know one is the Hearthstone uh uh Basin is the other pipe going into something specific or is it just just discharging out into the road they go uh under the road they're they're within the the township right away it's a public drainage feature under the road but then flowing out to where uh it continues on uh onto the Hearthstone site just onto the site yes all right thank you [Music] thank good evening chairman board members mayor Richard andero 325 North Main Street from the burough Manville I was paying attention earlier and I think I heard conflicting testimony and I want the truth I can ask him the question the question is you proposed that by developing this site it reduces flooding makes it better I what I said is we've um addressed the standards for the discharge from our site at the two points of analysis and that's a requirement and that drainage report is a separate and Standalone report that was last revised September 28th of 2023 in March of 2023 we did an additional supplemental report that's not required which analyzes on a somewhat Regional basis this site and the community that the objectors are representing the the project on the North side and it uh takes that drainage report that was reviewed and approved as part of that project and that project analy that project drainage report included our site because our site drains through that site and it included our site in its existing condition and what we uh did in that off-site what we call off-site drainage analysis is replicated that same drainage report and Analysis and the change in the peak flow at their point of analysis which was the downstream side of that project uh with and without this project stormw management and there's a decrease in the peak flow at that point of analysis that's what I stated so it's reducing flooding then at that point the the flooding would be established by the peak flow in the site um we've uh discussed at prior hearings um the the thought of uh additional volume and um I think I used as an example of I had a funnel and a small bottle of water which is a small volume and poured it at uh a quick rate through the funnel I could overflow the capacity of that funnel and I could take a big bottle of water and pour it through that same funnel at a slower rate such that it doesn't overflow that funnel I think that's uh my attempt at trying to help people understand um that the rate is what is the key element and then with regards to Regional flooding um I understand the the the site we're talking about is a disturbance of approximately 20 acres and the uh Ron River um to the north of this site has a drainage area of I believe over 3,000 Acres so there's a substantial larger drainage area that contributes to this Regional flooding and um wellist sir I'm worried about what's coming out of the Roy Brook and I think is it your testimony that all the storm water produced by this site ends up in the Roy Brook yes it's yes so for the public public here I just want I want the truth tonight so one inch of rain on one acre of forest or Wetland produces 750 gallons of runoff one acre and I'll have Dr Emerson here confirm that fact one inch of rain on a 1 acre parking lot produces 27,000 gallons of runoff 36 times more so are the storm water regulations good enough today Mr Ford in your opinion to hold back that water yeah that's not my uh responsibility or my charge but I do have to follow those rules certainly and and in this case as I've I I don't know how long you were here today but uh we've established that um the allowable Peak rates of discharge from this site are not just meeting the standard we're well below the standard um so we're not just barely meeting what's required and as was recommended by the environmental Commission of the township we've also um held back the water and released it at a slower rate such that it doesn't release it even at a higher um um rate such that um it's drawn out even at a longer time period and that's all efforts to try to uh not just meet the standard but mitigate for for runoff so as part of the new storm water management ms4 standards right there has to be a watershed Improvement plan in every Township wouldn't it be best to leave this property in its native state I have no further questions or comments anyone else from the public okay see nothing you're done Mr Ford thank you sir don't forget your water Michael and Mr GIC you do that no long no wow no other Witnesses no sir okay so I'm going to turn it over to you're reserving re you're reserving re yeah as we discuss for we'll bring Mike back up on rebuttal if we and or whomever else you so deem so since it's before 9:30 we can continue if you have witnesses or we do have our Witnesses here before we get started I I just wanted to clarify the point from earlier we don't want to miss our opportunity to make a record on the jurisdictional issue our Witnesses are here happy to get started um but I just want to clarify that be given so here so here's your moment so we should go now on that point yep okay [Music] thank you board members and uh Mr Bernstein um our position that was set forth in our October 11th letter and then uh further explained in our November 2nd letter is relatively straightforward and that is the governing body adopted ordinance 2308 20238 which removed warehousing shipping and receiving within an enclosed building as a principal permitted use in the i1 light industrial district among other districts on just put it closer or you could switch yeah there we go better so the ordinance when it was adopted it specifically says that the township has the right to protect the public health safety and Welfare of its residents and it goes on to say removal of warehousing shipping and receiving facilities as permitted permissible uses in the i1 light industrial district among other districts is necessary to do so then when you look at the time of application rule set forth at njsa 40 col 55d [Music] d10.4 the time of application rule states in some that development regulations that are in effect on the date of submission of an application governs review of decisions regarding that application however it goes on to State any provisions of an ordinance and this is important except those relating to health and Public Safety that are adopted subsequent to the date of submission of an application for development should not be applicable to the application so In Sum what we're saying is that the governing body in their ordinance specifically determined it was necessary to remove warehousing from the i1 zone to protect public health safety and the welfare of hillsbor residents and therefore the time of application rule doesn't apply because of that exception and our position is there's no further findings needed by this board the governing body already made the determination that removal of warehousing was for public health safety and Welfare and if anyone disagreed with that determination the challenge should have been to the governing body's ordinance and the findings that were made to make the determination that removal was necessary based on public health safety and Welfare um this board just you know follows along with the ordinance which is now amended and our position in some is that because of this the time of application rule because it does not apply the applicant here needs a use variance and this application should be in front of the zoning board um a couple other just brief comments on this is that removing this or moving this application to the zoning board doesn't deny the application or to deny the applicant its approvals of course the applicant just now needs to go through the next the extra step of getting a use variance um going just briefly into a few of the cases cited by the applicant in their objections or opposition to our position they cited two main cases the first case was uh 520 Victor Street Condo Association and in that case the court specifically said that no one contended that the the density ordinance that was that issue there was related to public health and safety and that's why in that case the time of application rules still applied it's a different situation here in which this ordinance and the removal of warehousing was specifically for public health and safety the second case that they cite is the New Jersey Supreme Court case of Shipyard Associates versus the city of Hoboken again a very different scenario from what we have here in that situation the applicant had already received its approvals and it was also within the two-year window of receiving its approvals which affords a protection from any changes in zoning after they got their final approvals and there's no health and safety exemption component to that particular provision in the statute here again and it's specific that the time of application rule does not apply when it's for public health and safety reasons and my last comment on this is the applicant had cited in its last letter um the governor's message or sort of the statement as to why Governor Christie put the time of application rule into effect and if you look at the quote there's a portion of the quote that's there's the ellipses the three dots that's not stated in his letter and that part of the quote States and really makes our position for us that this legislation which is the time of application rule makes Common Sense changes to improve the application process and move New Jersey in the right direction of providing a friendly environment for ever for job creation while keeping safeguards for public health and safety in place so for that reason um there's no case law to the contrary of our position that we are aware of we think this is just a very straightforward position and we believe that the applicant here needs a use variant and this application should move to the zoning board thank you if anyone has any questions I'm happy to answer Mr ogrodnik yes thank you Mr Bernstein on May 5th 2010 Governor Christie signed legislation that represented a shift in some of the longtime land use practices and and what it did was it required it requires this board essentially really to so everybody can understand it that once your application is filed and deemed complete the zoning freezes you can't change it this legislation was known as s82 commonly referred to as the time of application legislation and again it indicates that the application will be governed by the municipal development regulations in effect of the time the is submitted courts have clarified that to say when the when the application has been deemed Complete because prior to that townships would they'd see an application like a warehouse application and then change the permitted use to prohibit warehousing or for what whatever the prohibited use was sometimes in direct reaction to the application so the Superior Court looking at concepts of Reliance and stopel said you can't change the rules of the game mid game essentially so once you file it it can't be just a onepage hey I'm building a warehouse the day before uh you know your your ordinance becomes effective that bands warehousing it has to be a legitimate complete application this was to protect developers from spending hundreds of thousands of dollars like my client and getting uh blindsided by zoning changes that would then uh move this application to another board the assembly housing and local government committee statement explains why this is inequitable and it's obvious okay the municipal land use law under 40 call and 55d 10.5 codifies this concept and it as as stated by my esteemed colleague indicates that not with sending any law to the contrary those development regulations in effect that the date of the submission of application shall govern the review of the application and then it does carve out except those related to health and Public Safety the obor's allegation that this application requires a d variance due to the recent adoption of the ordinance prohibiting warehousing as a permitted use ignores every single case that's been published on this exact uh issue in fact no no court has ever uh taken the position or agreed with the position that they're advancing that if you were to do so this would be the first time this was first explored in Dunbar homes uh versus uh Township of Franklin Housing Development and obviously this would squarely impact the ordinance 20238 which I understand is being challenged in Cor by other defendants and other parties CBS outdoor versus burough Lebanon Township again upholds the time of application rule it is Undisputed that this application was deemed complete by the township via letter dated September 23 2022 which I've attack attached as exhibit a to my letter it's also Undisputed that the planner uh then it was David masy uh opined that the uh stating in its relevant part on November 10th that warehousing shipping and receiving completely when a closed building are permitted uses so I think the logical disconnect is how could a permitted use be so injurious to the health and safety of this community that it would be barred and and this board would L lose jurisdiction the exception relating to the health and safety under njsa 50 5D -10.5 is completely inapplicable to just a regular run-of-the-mill zoning change municipalities are permitted to ban a variety of uses um municipalities are permitted to regulate density courts have upheld 10 acre zoning and even greater and I know your Mountain Zone has 10 ACR zoning courts uphold that courts will uphold a proper enactment of any ordinance that bans any use for example warehousing this is power given to municipalities by our state's Constitution Article 4 section 4 paragraph 2 of The 19747 Constitution delegates the power under the police powers of zoning to the municipalities you know there's hundreds if not thousands of of industrial uses existing warehouse and there's certainly no evidence on the record in fact no there's been no even no testimony that a permitted Warehouse would uh vitiate the health and Public Safety of the public foremost there uh well I would say quite the contrary this applicant has presented expert testimony from air quality noise traffic planning and no testimony has pres has been presented to refute the conclusions of the expert opinions that this project will be detrimental the impact of Public Safety which is obviously a very high bar again not a single reported decision or unreported decision supports the objector position I'm unaware of any board that has relied upon the health and safety language in njsa 55 d-105 to circum event the time of application rule for a zoning change we've cited 420 Victor Condo Association which the Appel division ruled that quote we would we would doubt it would be appropriate appropriate to apply a now passed ordinance today I I've reviewed on my research every single case that references this provision of of the state statutes Shipyard Associates as as Mr bernsteins know is really the case on point it was the Supreme Court case area of uh Hoboken was flooded after superstorm Sandy and um an ordinance was enacted to prevent residential Court said no no time of application rule applies dunar homes as we talked about that's the case most cited for this again time of application one Greenwood versus m mountclair Township planning board upholds a time of application it's a new case of February 2023 Village supermarkets versus burrow of Garwood upholds a time of application Mawa board versus Zoning Board of adjustment just published by the Appel division on October 24th 2023 upholds the time of application 520 Victor Street condo as I cited in brief and RP LLC versus planning board of of Hamilton again upholding that concept the Supreme Court held that ordinances that alter the permitted uses could not be applied unless there's a very uh a Nexus between the ordinance and some safety risk fire hazard uh landslides I was trying to think today of a good example of a hypothetical in where although the courts have never uh agreed where you know where an ordinance would and I I it came to my mind that the city if the city of lahina in Maui had those massive wildfires if you had a residential project that didn't have Sprinklers and the township the municipality said all new construction is going to have sprinklers that to me is is something would that would have that reasonable Nexus to health safety and Welfare if the Supreme Court was willing to unwilling to extend retroactive applicability of the ordinances and by the way it was also D regulations that they viated it is submitted that a land use ordinance Banning a warehouses would be protected by the time of application rule put simply the ordinance Banning warehouses is a run-ofthe-mill zoning power not some emergency to protect the health and safety of the public if you take the objector argument to its logical conclusion any ordinance that merely references health and Public Safety would eviscerate the time of application rule this s side step is precisely what the legislated legislation intended to prevent when Christ's Administration enacted s82 which was then codified in law under njsa 4055 d-105 and interpreted the courts in every single case since including Dunbar consequently the planning board must conclude that this application as a matter of well settled law is properly before this board can I just make a few quick statements I promise I'll be brief the the applicant referenced uh Mr arnik referenced a bunch of cases uh which I've also read um the point that we're trying to make I guess is a few fold number one we're not trying to say the time of application rule doesn't exist or shouldn't be applied in the correct instances what we're saying in this unique instance in which the health and public safety issue is a reason for why the ordinance was enacted the time of application r does not apply there is no court decision that I'm aware of that disagrees with our position either I don't believe this issue has ever come up in fact the cases in in particular 520 Victor Street Condo Association I believe supports our position the quote from that case says the legislature plainly intended that njsa 40 colon 55 D- 10.5 which is the time of application rule would prevent a Zing ordinance passed after an application was filed from the governing from governing that application unless the ordinance was related to health and Public Safety and then in this case what they go on to further say is no one contends that the new density ordinance is related to health and Public Safety our position that we're taking directly from the governing body of the township of Hillsboro is that warehousing was moved because of health and Public Safety Mr arnik asked how could a permitted use be so injurious to be barred that's a question that should be asked to the governing body who made the finding that warehousing needed to be removed to protect the Hillsboro residents their the health and Public Safety of Hillsboro residents the challenge should be with the ordinance and maybe it is being with the ordinance and with the governing body this board now has respectfully has an ordinance that was passed by the governing body that was enacted because of health and public safety reasons and for that reason the time of application rule simply doesn't apply um and with that there's I have nothing further this may come as a bit of a shock to Mr ogrodnik uh in that he contends that we never agree on anything I don't think the fact that any of the cases hold for the proposition that the opposite result is not disproven I.E there's nothing in the case law that says that the time of application rule doesn't apply when you use the magic phrase and by the way that's not the only phrase that's in the ordinance there is also no case Salon point that holds for the proposition that by the use of that phrase in the abstract and I won't get into the issue of the ordinance itself just for the purpose of the record for the board as the board is aware since you are a litigant in three lawsuits involving the ordinance and there were two others not involving there are five lawsuits right now contesting that ordinance and two others related to the township committee's actions involving warehousing so leaving decide whether or not those ordinance will ultimately be upheld or not you're arguing that the phrase used among many other phrases in and of itself undoes the actions of the state legislature not Governor Christie the last time I looked the governor doesn't have the right to adopt laws because if they did we'd be in a lot more trouble um that the legislature in 2010 when it when it went along with the developers Lobby and said it's not fair for us to be in the middle of an application and have the municipalities change the rules so we went in the 180 degree opposite way and said it's now time of application when the rest of us dealt with time of decision I don't see at the moment and I will be happy to see anything either one of you wants to provide including Mr agrad the cases that have come down or Mr sovic since your letters to me that would indicate what position the courts have taken on this issue what I what I'm hearing and just for the record I've seen this argument not only here and but Mr covich's office has raised this issue at least one other board that I'm involved in which is also now in litigation uh but not over that issue per se is the argument that the legislature intended that the use of the phrase except for to Pro except the public safety Health and Welfare which is sort of Ed that the intention of the legislature in 2010 or the courts since then have found that the use of the phrase in and of itself is grounds for reversing the time of decision rule time of application Rule and reinstituting the time of decision rule if you can show me that I will be happy to consider it when I ultimately render my opinion but the mere use of the words in and of itself I don't believe necessarily gives a lot of comfort to my office nor to myself advising the board that they should unilaterally determine that this application has no jurisdiction because if that's the case it'll make our lives a lot easier because none of the applications currently pending won't be here anymore and it will torture the zoning board which is their problem but more importantly I really would like to try to avoid if all possible having this board wandering out into proverbial legal traffic and having when and if the civil division of the Superior Court in Somerset County ever has enough judges to hear these cases that we end up back before this board because they didn't have the right to determine that this case or any other of the ones doesn't have jurisdiction unless somebody wants to show me where somebody whether published or unpublished has at least given some form of guidance on the issue per se um the dunar case as Mr ogrodnik has cited is supposedly the seminal case and ask anybody in Franklin Township how they feel about that seminal case and we won't mention that in polite company uh but it's one of the seminal cases on this issue and I think gentlemen if you want this board to consider going out into proverbial first impression legal traffic you're going to have to show me something to consider sending to this board other than the phraseology use in an or in a wear ass clause in an ordinance saying because of the public safety and health that in and of itself changes it from a time of application to a time of decision I have not rendered a decision as I said earlier I am not rendering a decision now but I do need to give you some idea as courts have a habit of doing in my non-judicial capacity to sort of indicate where we need some guidance here if you provide such material please provide it to Mr ogrodnik if he wishes then to respond accordingly that's fine I believe that when we get to the end of this hearing tonight we're going to discuss another hearing date and at that point I will probably request that the board give me the right to set a deadline for such submission so that I can render a report in sufficient time prior to the next hearing because ultimately just for everybody edification so that there is no misunderstanding from the public because most of the public here tonight are not frequent visitors to these meetings only a handful of the public is um even if I render an opinion recommending to the board that the board does not have jurisdiction over this application the board is not bound by my opinion it is just that an opinion it is ultimately up to the this board to agree to vote on a resolution to either indicate the lack of jurisdiction or not if that's where we go before there is a lack of jurisdiction I aine that I believe there is a lack of jurisdiction the board is not bound by my opinion it is just that so I want everybody to understand that even if I do render a decision that favors the objector position the board can suggest to me what they want to do with my suggestion and therefore no one should take great solace in an opinion one way or the other so thank you Mr chairman okay thank you are we still have time on the clock if you want to not on this uh I know the board's rules we do have our witness we can start started all right you're you're you're under the clock so we can hear a new testimony before you call your before you call your witness Mr um Ash no I had to think I think know who was I think for a second once you start Dr Emerson one would hope that he'll be available for the next hearing one would hope we don't know that date but Our intention would be to make him available as as a thank you I I think the objective is not to have it disjointed have Dr Emerson tell us I can't make it that night I have a better place to be and we're now doing disjointed are you suggesting we talk about the date first so we can make our decision here I think that might not be a bad [Music] idea both of them I just to before [Music] so so I was thinking [Music] okay April 4th yeah get coverage for my other meetings I know it's [Music] [Music] priority Mr chairman uh April 4th 2024 uh would be the date proposed and I will turn this over to the obors I will say that for April 4th only one of our two witnesses is available and if uh requested by the board happy to start with that witness however on that date we would not be able to finish our testimony because our other witness is not available right so another date might be better I guess if [Music] possible um I mean we're going to we're going in to years in this application well I mean can I can I make it can I make look Mr chairman let's be realistic here for a moment the history of witness testimony is we basically finish one witness per night I mean you know it's now 9:30 and we just finished Mr Ford after two plus hours of examination cross examination public examination and the like on a relatively narrow set of issues if Dr Emerson's going to start tonight and continue on the fourth and the planner isn't here on the fourth I have real belief that we will not be done we will not be at a point where we need to put this all further because we will probably still be doing testimony of somebody on your obors between Mr ogrodnik and the public and you who's available on the fourth uh our planner Paul glates then I would suggest you call the planner m and if we'll finish the Planner on the 4th and we'll see where we are on the 4th relative to the next date I don't think I agree with Mr AG try not to fall off the chair Michael um that putting it off a further date so that both Witnesses are available doesn't make this board situation any easier I think you start the planner you see where the planner goes in the fourth and we'll see where we are because I will also indicate to the two of you you have not been here at the board since the first of the year Michael has it is no longer the board's perview to be doing one application a night we have multiple applications sitting in the queue that do not begin with the word w um and we have to get to them because they have their own completeness issue so it's quite possible you won't be the only application on the agenda on April 4th this this is fine I just want to be clear with that we will not have we not have the ability to have our other witness there that night no that's F we also do have lay Witnesses do you not we do yes sir well you may end up taking the lay Witnesses out of understood I'm just trying to be as clear as I can be so [Music] Paul to that with our first witness we're going to call uh Paul GLE or professional planner okay and we'll where [Music] you delet g TZ and Paul um for the uh purpose of your testimony can you please give the board uh your qualifications and um experience certainly I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey I'm also a member of the American Institute of certified planners I have a master of City planning from the blowstein school of planning and public policy at Rooker University I'm a principal of LG planning and I've testified and been planning practice for about 20 years now I'm the municipal planner for bym I previously served as the board planner for number municipalities around the state I've testified before dozens of boards throughout the state including locally boundbrook Franklin R and Somerville wat Chung and I is before your zoning board for an application also in the i1 zone okay and in those locations which you testified were you qualified as an expert in professional planning I was with that I offer offer Mr gleit as a um uh expert in professional planning okay is any objections from the board members hearing none we accept please continue great thank you very much um I did um submit a revised planning report in October 2nd of 2023 um my presentation is going to follow along the general you know outline of that report um I'm going to try not to read it verbatim but there's a lot of points I need to make so I will be reading quotes in here and and and using that as part of my my testimony I mean we're all familiar with the project but I'll quickly restate that the proposed development is uh 130 and uh th000 foot warehousing complex with 125,000 ft of Warehouse 5,300 ft of office I think we're at 99 parking spaces 20 loading spaces 28 trailer parking spaces and then we also have the associated internal circulation of driveways and sidewalks we have storm War DET detention facilities which we heard a whole lot about tonight um lighting Landscaping um all to be developed on 18.2 acres in the LI light industrial zone so my brief summary at the outset is that this um warehouse and distribution center as proposed on the site should not be approved because it does not meet the use definition as intended by the zoning ordinance it does not comport with the existing pattern of small industrial oriented facilities or provide areas for modest industrial operation it does not protect the public health safety and Welfare of the residents of Hillsboro it is in contention of multiple goals of your Township master plan and the applicant has not provided for sufficient proofs necessary for the variance in design waiver relief required by The Proposal so um we all know we're on Western Road it's block 185 lot one we're on 18.2 Acres uh and we're in the i1 zone the purpose of the i1 and the I2 light industrial districts is to create zoning districts recognizing the existing pattern of small industrially oriented facilities allowing the remaining vacant Lots in the same areas to be developed with similar uses and providing areas of modest industrial operations and I want the board to keep that idea in your head because um the applicant has used to term industrial and Warehouse kind of interchangeably um and I think it's not quite the same here so um in the zone we have a number of permitted uses office and Office Buildings warehousing shipping and receiving within an enclosed building assembling finished products completely within an enclosed building research and lumber yards freestanding restaurant and restaurants located in a multi-use building uh but not allowing drive-throughs child care and adult daycare centers contractor facilities indoor recre recation facilities medical offices and veterinary hospitals retail sales of good and Services Limited to products manufactured by the company and uh fiduciary institutions so it's a real kind of mix of uses that's allowed in this Zone both from a retail sense and Industrial sense um with some components of storage and assembly you know contemplated throughout all the uses and the conditional uses include vehicle service facilities dispatch services and internet vehicle processing facilities um as you the existing site is essentially vacant land with uh wooded areas and some wetlands and the proposed use is you know a warehousing Distribution Center um and in some cases I think you can make the argument that it's a truck terminal but I'll get into that definition later the surrounding uses to the site include the Hearthstone and Hillsboro neighborhood to the north to the South you have the west Trenton rail line and then the Central Jersey airport to the east you have 113 Western Road which is minone Construction which is a construction firm and to the West you have 61 Western Road which is a single family home there's additional single family homes as you moved down Western Road so there's one variance required they provided testimony on that in terms of the building height of 38.4 ft or 35 ft is permitted now for the C1 variances was there um it's either C1 or a C2 variance that this bulk variance they require the proofs for the C1 are that they must demonstrate that the physical limitations of the site um such as narrowness or the shape of the property exceptional topography or unique situations on the property create a hardship that is not the proof that they provided they proved the other one the C2 or the flexible C and there's five elements of that that they have to provide proof for to to to gain a a C2 variance that is that the application relates to a specific piece of property that the purposes of the ml would be Advanced by a deviation from the zoning on its requirement that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and that the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment and that the granting of the variance would not negatively impact the Zone plan and the general welfare so they have both the negative elements the negative criteria and then there's this balancing test that they have to apply between the purposes of zoning and the ne negative impacts um created by the variance so the first main topic that's kind of the the framework we're operating here and that's what we've been talking about for 10 nights I guess it's been um so the applicant is relying on warehousing shipping and receiving completely within an enclosed building on that list of principal permitted uses in the i1 zone to support their application as permitted use um and now you all know we just heard a long discussion about that that ordinance was amended in June of last year to delete the use from the list of permitted uses um prior to the the ordinance section was last amended in 1982 41 42 years ago now since that time the nature of Warehouse development and commerce has fundamentally changed so one thing that's I think really important for us to remember is that the term warehousing shipping and receiving completely within an enclosed building is not defined anywhere within your Land Development ordinance it's a use without definition so typically you want to rely on the the the ordinances definition to help you understand what use is intended uh most ordinances do their best to try and Define them and different localities can apply different definitions to the uses listed um so this lack of specific definition for the use kind of precludes specific insight into the type of facility that the ordinance is is recommending or that was envisioned as permitted as this use when it was drafted in 1982 we have no guidance there we just know it's a simple uh warehouse shipping and receiving so when the zoning was created in 1982 the nature of Warehouse development was smaller in scale and typically related to the shipping of products or materials generated on site for transit to wholesalers that then went on to retailers or end users then we saw in the 990s mail orderer catalogs became more popular and we saw a shift to direct home delivery and then as you all know with the internet and then with covid and the rise of Amazon and all these other things that e-commerce has rapidly increased the size of warehouses and now we have a whole different kind of warehouses including fulfillment centers with delivery times that used to be from weeks now to days and in some cases even hours you can expect delivery from uh these online e-commerce sites so since the term Warehouse is undefined in your ordinance and I think it's important for you to look at the purpose of the zone and additional sources to determine what type of use was really was intended what they were thinking about when they were framing this ordinance and what they thought was supposed to to be built in this zone so again I will reiterate that the purpose of the i1 and I2 light industrial distri districts is to create zoning districts recognizing the existant pattern of small industrial oriented facilities and allowing remaining vacant Lots in the same areas to be developed with similar uses and providing areas for modest industrial operations these were not seen as large um Highway interchange nearby Port type large Industrial facility areas the the whole intent of these two zoning districts was for small um small and scale infill type development that you've seen throughout the rest of the i1 and I2 zones so you know to kind of specifically understand what was meant by recognizing the existing pattern of small industrial oriented facilities um I did an analysis of the existing pattern of development um throughout the zone and so appendix a of my report is is that I hope you've been able to review that is that lot by lot analysis of each Zone every lot their uses the scale of the development and the type of development on those properties I will not go through that now unless you ask me to provide further information as I go through this but I'm able to summarize these different zones the property in question is in what I'm calling the Western Road Western Road i1 Zone which is the second smallest at 37.6 acres and there's six Lots two of which are developed the entire zone is bound by Western Road to the North and the rail line to the South the surrounding zones in the context of the zone is the retirement community to the north which is the Heartstone at Hillsboro development the ra residential agriculture to the West is mostly large lot single family res residential in the CD corporate development Zone to the South it's composed entirely of the Central Jersey airport Access for this Ian zone is exclusively from Western Road the sunny me Road i1 zone is nearby to the Southwest it's the second largest of these zones at 91 a 12 acres it has 11 Lots six of which are developed per the i1 type um uses two are residentials or farming type uses two are vacant and one is Township property the surrounding zones there are the Royce book plan residential development to the West which is the current site of the Royce Brook Golf Club and is Zone to permit a golf course Community the ra um Zone to the north is again mostly large lot single family residential and the r8a to the east is mostly vacant and is a futural affordable housing site for a settlement agreement in 2019 um with Eminem realy Partners so um all of the properties in the i1 zone um have access from Sunny me Road in the sunny me road i1 the camplan road i1 zone is to the north it's the largest and is primarily located north of camplan Road and new US Route 206 South of the Conrail norol Southern Lil line and it's at 100 it's more than 145 Acres this Zone contains 54 different Lots this is the Zone that's most developed of all the i1 zones and this features the mix of uses that kind of meets the intent of that zoning District when you drive around that zone you see a pattern of small industrial oriented facilities and you see um similar uses and you see modest IND industrial operations you've got the ra Zone and the highway surface Zone to the South the ew the Ed Economic Development Zone and the highway surface Zone and a little bit of residential that's the public Green Park to the north and you have a residential to the west and high density residential in Manville to the east so the properties in this i1 Zone you have access from US Route 206 camplan Road and Old camplan Road and these are more designed to have this kind of larger traffic better access more developed you know wider rideways providing access to kind of what the i1 zones really designed to look like um and the fourth i1 Zone um which I'm calling Park Avenue i1 is further north it's the smallest and it's kind of at the street ends of Park Avenue and Brown Avenue it's just over 14 acres and it contains seven Lots so this zone is Bound By The Ed zone of the West the highway surface Zone to the south and east and the open space cultural landscape to the north which is Duke Farms so this is zone is accessed from the incomplete Street ends of brown and Park Avenues um so then you know this analysis you know um shows us that none of the Lots in the Western Road i1 are developed as warehouses or shipping and receiving facilities the largest building in the zone that the property in question is on is a 29,000 ft building used by a construction company and has no loading docks the rear building of 10,400 sare feet at the vacant pen color Incorporated site has two loading docks at the rear of that building these represent modest light industrial type properties the sunny me Road i1 Zone has one cold storage Warehouse which is preferred freezer services and that's a 55,000 ft cold storage building with five loading spaces and 35 five loading spaces and 35 parking spaces the building that building is about 42% of the size of the building that's proposed with this application and the next largest building in that zone is a 34,000 squ foot building for the truck trailer dealer the Park Avenue i1 Zone has one large building the East Coast media building that's 20,000 ft 20,600 Square ft and has two loading docks and an Overhead Door none of the properties in the I any of these i1 zones appear to have active rail sightings and they all rely on the local Road Network um and even the camplan road i1 Zone has a few large buildings that been developed the valley business the Valley Park business park has two buildings with a combined Square U square footage of 79,000 square ft but that is divided into 24 different suites with no loading docks and no Overhead Doors within the rear the dco business park has three buildings that combine for um just over 40,000 square ft that has 11 loading docks and a few overhead doors and the peror industries building is about 50,000 square fet with one loading dock and six Overhead Doors the PS pns Enterprises Warehouse is 31,500 Ft with two loading docks and two Overhead Doors all the remaining properties in that zone have buildings that range in size from 6,000 ft to 20,000 Square ft for a variety of light industrial buildings none of the buildings in the zone are larger than 50% of of the size of the building proposed on the property in question or nor do they have the same number or extens extent of loading docks and overhead doors as proposed all the properties in the camplain road Zone I mentioned before have direct access to US Route 206 or get to you get to 206 from old camplan and camplan road so the size and scale of the prop proposed Warehouse does not comport with the existing pattern of small industrial oriented facilities and it does not provide areas this is not a modest industrial type operation it's over 130,000 foot Warehouse complex with the with the parking spaces 20 loading 99 parking spaces load in 20 loading spaces and 28 trailer parking spaces this proposal represents a much larger type of development than was proposed in the I for the i1 zone and does not match the existing pattern of development in any of the i1 zones so when when we continue to examine the Land Development ordinance for the for Hillsboro there's one other ordinance there's one other definition that is I think relevant to the application and that's for a truck terminal the definition the defined truck terminal is an or an originating or terminating point for trucks which may include servicing facilities and trucks for trucks and comfort facilities the existence or proposed location of of storage or warehousing of items transported by trucks should not be deemed to change the nature of the character of the use which means the foregoing definition of truck terminal so and this definition is pertinent to the LDL ldo section 18897 C1 which prohibits Motor Freight terminals motor and truck transfer station motor and truck Depots motor and truck storage sites truck stops and truck repair facilities all of those listed uses are prohibited within Hillsboro so per the testimony of the applicant the traffic engineer and the logistics experts they kind of they clearly describe the proposed operations as bulk Goods being shipped from overseas to the port of Elizabeth and prepack containers those containers are then trucked to the site where they unloaded by hand the materials are stored on site and then the materials are repackaged for consumer or retailer delivery then reloaded into containers that are then trucked to third party carriers such as FedEx or DHL for shipment to end users so the trucks with containers from Port Elizabeth terminate at this facility and the trucks with containers for delivery originate from this facility no construction fabrication combining or insulation of any kind was described as occurring on the site with any of the materials or the products and the architect testified that the Comfort facilities for truck drivers will be included in the building so again we're talking about 20 truck loading spaces 28 parking spaces to service this facility this is an indication the kind of truck traffic they're expecting for this facility or that this facility can accommodate and this is the same kind of truck trip generation I think you could expect from Motor Freight Terminals and truck terminals so if anything the type of proposal that they have before you is more akin to a truck terminal which is prohibited then to the small scale light industrial that's envisioned by the i1 zone that they're proposing to develop um so that's kind of my examination of your land use ordinance and how it relates back to the proposal before you um moving on we've heard some testimony and some mention of uh warehousing becoming an issue throughout the state as you well know you're a part of that larger discussion your neighboring towns are part of that larger discussion because we housing has become such an important discussion throughout the state the state planning commission's office of planning advocacy has been offering guidance to municipalities in the wake of this Warehouse construction boom um that has occurred throughout the state um and it's kind of a unique report they don't publish these reports on an annual basis this is a new type of report that the OPA is putting out and I'm quoting directly from that report the most important consideration when planning a logistics facility is its location large warehouses located near residential areas over burning communities or other sensitive receptors Expos people to air pollution noise traffic congestion and other environmental impacts that they generate even a warehouse located in an otherwise ideal location can result in substantial detriment to the transportation network if it is if its intensity is out of scale with roadway capacity infrastructure truck traffic can present substantial safety issues a detailed analysis of all such traffic and road safety aspects should be required of the developer and specified by ordinance the truck study analysis should include information regarding upgrades and costs needed to address project impacts and necessary improvements to to conflict points diminished levels of service and other related Transportation capacity concerns along with identified anticipated routes reviewing board should ensure that propo proposed truck routes can be identified that are away from downtown commercial retail centers main streets residential areas school zones recreational parks daycare centers over burning communities and other sensitive receptors so this is the kind of guidance that the state is giving the municipalities and what they should be looking at as they review these applications now again I've quoted some additional definitions in my report so from the geography of Transport Systems fifth edition um warehouses are essentially Freight facilities used to support Freight Transportation um they come in many forms and types traditional Warehouse is used for restoring goods and materials in inventory for extended periods of time and then releasing them on demand so they could be multi-tenant facilities and they use you for medium-term leases the main difference between traditional and distribution warehouse functions relates to the time the inventory spans within a facility the latter distribution facilities See Much Greater product loading and unloading flow velocity usually less in a few days especially at fulfillment centers where delivery Goods where which delivery Goods directly consumers within less than 48 hours in high throughput facilities so the OPA um guidelines kind of gives us some some scales to think about a major distribution center for a large scale Regional Interstate distribution typically would have a minimum gross floral area of 500,000 to more than 1.5 million square feet a large fulfillment center would have a gross floor area of 150 to more than 500 and a medium would have 250 to 350 a Last Mile fulfillment which is the local smaller area fulfillment center that serves local markets would be between 50 to 150 square feet and that can include even down to 3 to 3, to 25,000 Square fet um so warehouses are um changing to adapt to Automation and reduction available space by reducing Footprints um so they have they've even started to create these high Cube and automated Warehouse type facilities High Cube warehouses are highly automated with sised racking and for forklift retrieval systems and allowing them to get much higher loading and unloading speeds so all of that is the background of the information that the state Planning Commission wants you to consider when you're hearing these types of application um the testimony of the applicant the site engineer the traffic engineer and and the logistics expert included many deferred answers to questions asked by the board the public and objectives councils the use and operations of the proposed Facility by Miracle Brands was not really fully described there was inconsistencies throughout of how they intended to use this some of it was based on their existing facilities some of it was based on projections um and none of it was was clear so um and much of the testimony was unclear about operations outside of their immediate two to threeyear window this facility can be leased to additional users and it kind of makes this proposal speculative in some way it's really a spec development in some cases because Miracle brands does not need they testified they didn't need the whole facility um so it's the whole entirety proposed facility is not needed and the office staff for mcal Brands was testified to that they're going to remain at home they're going to they've been functioning at home they're going to remain at home and so they might not even need to utilize the office space in the building per their testimony um so I think it's important to note that at 130,000 square feet with about 125,000 square feet of air of warehouse space um this proposed use could be a number of these distribution types you can have a large fulfillment or a less mile or you could have a high CU Warehouse based on the height of the proposal so each of these type of facilities especially with the loading Bays proposed could really have more could have more truck traffic than was testified to um during this application [Music] process the planners report also talked about prior approvals and settlement agreements that kind of controlled the the use of thejason the Hearthstone site and kind of it was brought up to kind of say everyone knows this was going to be an industrial site why are we surprised that this application is before the board so in describing the areas surrounding the property in question the applicant's land use planner um his his report from 2023 stated that the history of the Hearthstone and Hillsboro application in geria subject proposal and he provided details from a 2003 planners memo a transcript of a public hearing from 2003 and the public offering statement of the hearstone at Hills barel Community an attempt to establish the use of the property in question as proposed as well EST and he proposed that it was well established and known to the township and to the neighbors so you know none of this history relieves the applicant of his obligation to comply with the L use ordinance and other laws but and so far as I may provide any guidance whatsoever it should be put in the proper perspective so the parties recognized that due to the airport Hazard Zone that the property in question was not suitable for residential development and would remain zoned as i1 and that the property in question would be developed for the intent and purpose of the Zone plan which would be to allow for the remaining vacant Lots in the same areas to be developed with similar uses in providing areas for modest industrial operations and the approval at the time was for a nine lot industrial subdivision on the public offering statement for harona Hillsboro states that the property in question has been approved for development as a light industrial park so again 13,000 foot Warehouse complex with 20 loading spaces and 208 trailer spot SPAC trailer parking spaces were never mentioned in any of these documents a nine lot subdivision with a separate lot for storm water management on 18 Acres would be expected to consist of 1.5 to 2 acre lots with principal buildings with a floor area of about 19,000 sare ft to 26,000 Square ft based on the i1 Zone requirement of a maximum F of 0.3 the current proposal for this large warehouse and distribution distribution facility creates a building that's 6.8 to five times larger than any individual building that could have been developed in that nine lot subdivision industrial subdivision light industrial buildings of the size permitted under the nine lot industrial subdivision would not have generated the same kind of truck TR same kind of truck traffic you'd see from 130,000 ft Warehouse with the parking spaces and the number of loading Bay proposed so this proposal is not for a light Industrial Development but a large Warehouse so the residents are not giving unequivocal disclosure that 130,000 foot um Warehouse would be proposed um and then there's other uses listed as being industrial warehouses in the vicinity um and I reviewed them in my earlier testimony that none of them approach the scale of proposed development 284 Sunny me road is the 555,000 Ft cold storage building with the five loading spaces 101 Western Road is a vacant industrial site with two buildings of 12,500 and 10,400 square ft 113 Western Road is a construction firm with 29,000 ft building and one Overhead Door the properties on Kennedy Boulevard range from 2400 to 9 9500 Square F feet and they have limited parking and loading areas none of the properties listed in the planers report approach the size scale or nature of what is proposed on the site um before I started my testimony there was a whole discussion of ordinance 20238 and I know there's opinions were given by both sides and everything else I don't want to I'm not a lawyer I'm not going to rehash that but I do think there are it's important that I think it's gerain to the application from a planning perspective not necessarily from a legal perspective so I'll address that for now um you know so the findings of that of that ordinance were that Hillsboro has experienced a high volume of Warehouse application due to the rise in e-commerce and consumer expectations for same day delivery services perpetuating the demand for large scale warehousing and storage and distribution facilities while these warehouses generate economic activity jobs and ratables it should not be at the expense of the public good many of these Warehouse facilities are located in close proximity of sensitive land uses including environment sensitive res and residential zones warehousing facilities produce negative impacts to the public including noise truck traffic and air pollution the rapid growth of warehousing facilities in the state of New Jersey has affected the state and thus we have this state Planning Commission report which provides guidance and the township has the right to protect the public health and safety and Welfare of its residents to preserve the natural landscape of the community which directly aligns with multiple goals of the master plan and the township Pere believes removal the warehousing facilities as principal uses in all the following zones is necessary to do so so the findings of that were not just one single magic phrase there was actually a number of findings within the resolution that RI on a number of facts and factors that have been affecting the local community that the governing body was reacting to um and then as part of the adoption process this very board that you sit on reviewed the proposed ordinance in in June of last year and you found that that proposed ordinance that is removing this use from the Zone was consistent with the township master plan and you recommended and fully supported adoption of the ordinance that resolution recommending adoption was adopted unanimously by all members of the board at the time so um the resolution that you adopted stated that you concurred with those same findings that the township had in terms of removing this use from the zone so um and again the time of decision language and except I'll skip that for now because that was part of the the legal testimony so but from a planning perspective as we think about my prior testimony so far is what did they mean in 1982 in terms of a warehouse and what does that mean now and what does that mean in the context of the i1 Zone that's designed to be small scale light industrial and infill type development I think the intent of the governing body is clear that the removal of the warehousing and shipping facilities is necessary to protu to prot protect health safety and Welfare which is one of the purposes of zoning that's mentioned later on um the applicant um it's also uh prior to ordinance 2023 um the only the last time the council looked at it was in 1982 41 years ago um so the governing body and this board have determined that wehousing facilities produce negative impacts including truck noise truck traffic air pollution and that this is necessary to protect the Public Health and Welfare so this board should can and should use this information with additional information to determine this application in the zone at this time in this particular location does not promote public health safety and Welfare um uh I'm going to move on to additional impacts I think that are uh created by this application um I'm not a traffic engineer so I'm going to be speaking about traffic Ino impacts from a planning perspective and from your planning documents so the traffic impact analysis categorizes Western Road as a local roadway under Hillsboro Township jurisdiction the roadway has a general East West orientation in the site vicinity and provides one lane in each travel Direction with a 40 m per hour post speed limit Western Road serves predominantly residential uses and some commercial industrial uses along its length when in fact Western Road provides access to One commercial use Minister own construction and as I talked about before that's a 29,000 ft building with one Overhead Door the adjacent pen color Incorporated appears to be vacant at this time I think there's even monting Wells on the property so that's not an operation at all the remaining properties on Western Road are residential there may be some home-based businesses but none of those properties have any kind of additional significant commercial site improvements there's no further analysis of Western Road in the traffic impact analysis there's no detailed analysis of all traffic and road safety aspects and there was no analysis that proposed truck routes can be identified that are away from downtown commercial retail centers main streets residential areas all those receptors that the state Planning Commission says should be avoided um the traffic engineer testified that no other analysis was done on the surrounding Road Network since the proposed Warehouse was you proposed Warehouse use was permitted in the zone so and that the township Council had established I think his words were the blueprint for development in the town and the de developer was following that blueprint so no further analysis was necessary um given that Western Road does not does not have a shoulder or very little shoulder for most of its length I think you'll find this lack of analysis is in is insufficient they really should have looked at Western Road and what it could really not just skip all of that analysis because it was a permitted use in the zone uh the traffic study also assumed that 50 52% of the traffic would travel to to the east um would travel from the the west and 48 would travel to and from the East travel to and from the East would likely be to access US Route 206 via Falcon Road and sunny me Road and then Western Road this route passes through ra development um and includes a 90 degree turn on Sunny me road which is surrounded by um residential um single family homes but Falcon Road does provide full turning movements in a signalized intersection with the US Route 206 travel to and from the West would enter Manville at Kennedy Boulevard and would require a difficult turn on the South Main Street to access the Manville Causeway to Western Canal Road to get access then to Interstate 287 this route includes impacts to downtown commercial retail centers main streets residential areas overburden communities and other sensitive receptors specifically identified by the state Planning Commission as areas to be avoided by this type of truck traffic and I'll just close in terms of traffic and saying that you know I've sat through dozens of traffic impact analysis testimony and they always focus on two hours of the day the peak morning and the peak afternoon they don't care about the rest of the day so when you level when you limit the traffic impact analysis to the level of service impacts on the road Network during the morning and evening Peak you do not provide the full analysis of all the potential impacts of The Proposal on the surrounding area areas as the state Planning Commission is advising you to do in terms of environmental impacts again I'm not an environmental scientist so I'm going to try and speak about these in a broad sense from a planning perspective the environmental and health impacts of diesel truck emissions are well known and documented in April of 2023 the EPA Federal EPA announced new more ambitious proposed standards to further reduce harmful air pollution emission from light duty and heavy uh light duty and medium duty medium vehicle starting in 2027 and the state Planning Commission guidelines clearly state that warehouses exposed people to air pollution noise traffic congestion and other environmental impacts and again your ordinance 2023 stated those same types of impacts from this type of use your eal Sciences environmental impact statement use Statewide data to address the issues of air quality and the njd data data cited um were annual quality reports air quality reports from the state and had nothing to do with their proposed location of the facility or the impacts of the local area using projections based on that proposed facility fine particles the PM 2.5 exceedence levels were recorded those were based on the wildfires we saw from the US and Canada nothing was presented to address the impact of the increased truck traffic idling trucks on site or other emissions from the proposed facility on the surrounding area and then the Bodner engineering air quality impact analysis was based on a number of assumptions one of them was that the prevailing winds would disperse vehicle missions away from harstone and Hillsboro but there was no meteorological data to support that other than the notion of prevailing winds vehicle traffic at the warehouse was presumed to be very limited with two inbound and three outbound trips per day and Peak traffic of seven trucks and inbound and 10 trucks outbound that analysis was not supported by any other testimony either by the applicant or by the traffic engineer surrounding highway traffic volumes illustrate an area with air quality issues to begin with this proposal is only going to exacerbate the situation it doesn't reduce the impacts it just makes it worse um the southw of Nork data is not relevant to the application in any way no testimony was provided that interpreted that moves three data that was presented in the memo um the analysis was just well bakeries produce we measure the stuff in pounds and that's why we measure it in pounds so we measure it in smaller but doesn't it didn't that was a very general broad review of the type of things the EP regulates not the specific um emissions that need to be controlled at the site or could have impacts from the site uh the industry specific information has no relevance to the proposal and honestly describing on Hillsboro as a not of a community color or low wealth area and not incredibly and then therefore it's incredibly unlikely to see an explosion of truck traffic was really just kind of offensive conjecture really about the demographics of your town versus other areas um so standard operating procedures for the site were difficult to ascertain from the direct testimony container trailer movement on the site was to be done by thirdparty contractors on some sort of on call basis which we think is going to increase truck traffic and idling um and again the vehicle information is speculative about ships in the industry and the electrification of the US vehicle Fleet um so again I think there was lacking specificity in the testimony you heard about the impacts that um need to be addressed when you're reviewing these type of applications I'd like to move on to the master plan your Township master plan and your master plan documents there's a number of goals and objectives in the township master plan that are not Advanced by this proposal um am I okay to keep can you just slow down for the court reporter sorry I thought I was speaking slowly and deliberately so I'm [Music] sorry Bard and rais in Jersey so I apologize moving on to the master plan so the goals and objectives of the 2008 master plan re-exam were carried forward to the 2005 master plan and then in 2018 they were reviewed and recited and under land use management I found two goals that are in contravention of The Proposal one goal was to provide a future land use pattern that includes agriculture recreation employment residential and public services and a safe and healthful environment and the township wants to continue and expand upon land use policies that guide development to suitable locations and at appropriate in intensities and provide for higher densities only in areas with the public water and sewers and all other necessary Public Utilities as as well as Transportation infrastructure are available or provided I don't think we have adequate Transportation infrastructure at the site for to and that's therefore that makes it an ins suitable location for the proposal under Community design you want to encourage the development of employment areas near residential neighborhoods with design that ensures the peace and Solitude of the residents you also want to require all non-residential development IE industrial office and commercial use to be compatible with nearby residential neighborhoods um and I don't think this proposal meets those goals as well um under natural resources you want to prod protect a number of environmentally sensitive areas including wetlands and you want to utilize the findings and recommendations of the environmental commission whenever possible you also want to promote land use and management policies that provide for clean air and protection from noise and light impacts under transportation you want to minimize the impact act act of transportation systems on the environment including air and noise pollution under Economic Development you want to provide expanded employment opportunities by encourage development in appropriate areas for this purpose and consistent with available infrastructure and supporting services you also want to promote employment opportunities and Commercial Services in locations compatible with existing and proposed development again those are laudable goals that are not met by The Proposal before the 2018 master plan master plan reexamination also had a number of recommendations about preparing a new goal statement and condensing all these down um to because they were found to be rambling um and you wanted more clear and ppace of goal statements uh one other recommendation on the re-exam that is relevant to the to this application is um trying to reduce the the number of zones total zones within um the township you have 40 separate zones ranging from 13 acres to 9,000 acres and they mentioned redundancy in zones and for example there are five light industrial zones i1 I2 I3 Li and T tecd and one General industrial Zone GI a cursor review of the zones indicates minimal substantive differences they could likely be consolidated into three zones along the lines of light General and commercial industrial and I think you'll find that the i1 I2 zones were in that light pocket of condensation that was proposed um in the re-exam and the uh one other thing was that under camplan Road in the one of the other i1 zones they talk about the remaining Residential Properties fronting on the south side of camplan should be rezoned from Industrial to residential which is not really Germain but one more item about the iones so again when you go through all this I think you can make the conclusion that the project location is not suitable in terms of Transportation infrastructure because Western Road is a secondary local Road the project does not preserve peace and Solitude of residents and is incompatible with the adjacent residential development The Proposal will have significant impacts on the residence in the adjacent Hearthstone at Hillsboro neighborhood the development will negatively impact air quality and will alter the hydrology of the impacted Wetlands um and there are a number of recommendations made by the Environ environmental commission that have not been incorporated into the application the project does not minimize noise or air pollution and in fact the proposed will have significant air quality and noise impacts for the adjacent residential neighborhood and the other residents along those proposed truck routes and the Project's not consistent with available infrastructure and supporting services is not compatible with existing and proposed development Western Road is a secondary local Road not suited for heavy truck traffic um and I think you'll find that the township Council and the board made those similar findings in their adoption of ordinance 20238 um I also reviewed the circulation plan I RW all their master plan elements but I I found some findings in the circulation plan that I think are important for you to note the circulation circulation plan element of the master plan has not been updated since 1992 and 1996 there was a minimal Revision in 2013 for the street Network in the town center but a comprehensive revision has not been done since um the early the mid 90s the 1996 circulation plan considers Western Road to be a secondary local Street and again I apologize but I'm going to read you verbatim What the description in that plan is what they consider a secondary look local street I'll go slowly secondary local streets consist of streets serving individual properties the street should be 50 ft in the in the RightWay width with 20 to 35t cart ways depending on the type of area building setbacks off street parking and similar features for example in rural areas and on short Loop streets or culde saacs where traffic volume is considerably reduced primary efforts should be made to design the street to this reduced need EG 20 to 24t cart ways and concentrate on Landscaping greater building setbacks and other aesthetic treatment to reduce the visual impact of the street within the neighborhood by reducing the paved widths of the streets in appropriate circumstances I.E lower residential densities and where no curbside parking will occur least cost housing is considered is encouraged and long-term maintenance cost by the township are reduced to the extent of the reduced Paving secondary local streets should be designed to discourage their use as through access streets so that is the context in which I think you need to think about Western Road and not just the fact that it was lumped into the zoning code as being a permitted use and therefore you don't have to consider any other op any other ideas about Western Road the economic goals and objectives of the 2008 master plan hold on a second chairman I think it's 10:30 I think I it's obvious you're not going to finish tonight so I'm not I won't finished I think it's time that we uh we move to continue it's getting really good though I know we're losing a few people back here but that's but that's the Cliffhanger we make sure everyone comes back well thank you I appreciate it we need to talk about time with decision and continuing April 4th well that's where is the time of decision all right June April 30 okay all right Mr chairman we're seeking a motion to continue this hearing without further notice to Thursday April 4th 2024 at 700 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard this may not be the only application on and the time of decision rule has been EXT the date of decision rule has the application rule to complete has been extended to April 30th 2024 and without further notice without further without I indicated without fur second okay we have a motion in a second roll call please Mr Wagner yes scobo yes Smith yes Mr rwit yes commit leani yesi yes yes yes okay we'll be back just real quick just a reminder we do have a meeting next week on the 8th at 7 p.m. and with that I'll entertain a motion of adjournment I'll make that motion second all in favor I I we adjourn see everyone next week night