good evening everyone and welcome to the Hillsboro Township planning board meeting of April 11th 2024 please join me please join me in a Sloop to the flag PL alce 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 me 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 knows of 2024 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers the Township Clerk posted on the Township's website and available here at the Hillsboro Township municipal complex in addition application documents and plans have been made available on the township Civic clerk website at least 10 days in advance of this evening's meeting complete application files are available in the plan and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the with the public meeting's notice and with that may have a roll call of board members and also board and Township professionals [Music] Please Mr SCH absent Mr Wagner here Mr mener here Mr rowitz yes here M Smith yes here Mr Deb here mapani present Chelli here M present sarach here Mr President Bernstein here may here and myself and the videographer are here okay good evening everyone um we do not have any meeting minutes for consideration or resolutions no planning board business and no consideration of ordinances so I will move to business from the floor for matters that are not in this evening's agenda if anyone has anything any comments for the board please come up state your name and and address for the record and also please refrain from any discussion of warehouses directly or indirectly you kidding me nope been saying that probably for two years now can I ask you a question when can I comment during the application numerous application meetings and it never gets open to the public it's not open because it's not open to the public yet you get to do that at the end you can also cross-examine any Witnesses okay sorry to interrupt but maybe I'll put it in the paper [Music] yep anyone else okay seeing none we are moving to public hearing on this evening's applications I am assuming we Mr chairman before Mr ogad gets up I would ask if the board would suspend the order of business and deal with the Sherman track phase two first we have a representative here who wants to explain the situation at hand and probably shouldn't take more than a few minutes okay so evening board members walk into the mic and the mic doesn't have long range just keep it close do the hard wire do the hard one [Music] make sure the green lights on there you go okay can everybody hear me okay uh good evening board members uh my name is Eric Alvarez I an attorney with the law firm of the Wine Garden law firm uh we represent Eminem at camplan Road LLC we're respectfully requesting that the uh current application be be uh carried to the next meeting as planned um due to an issue with the notice uh there were two residents that we could not confirm received proper notice in advance of 10 days uh accordingly we request that uh the the the application be heard at on the at the board's next meeting Council for the purpose of the record can you indicate what your clients objectives are between now and the May 2nd meeting in order to comply with the uh requirements a absolutely um the issue dealt with uh the fact that we did not receive a proper or a certified mailing list in time uh we have since received that certified mailing list and we'll make sure that uh that I'm speaking of our firm um and that we will be sure to double check triple check all of the notices that go out and confirm that we have adequate time to have the hearing next month uh any member of the board have any questions Mr Alvarez all right Mr was May 2nd Mr chairman I would ask that the board move to adjourn this hearing to May the 2nd 2024 7 p.m. or as soon therea as the matter may be heard with Reen notice preemptive in nature that representatives from Eminem camplain LLC be prepared to start their application this is and Mr Alvarez is simply here as the might will refer to as the victim uh they have we would like this application to start this is the third time we've been unable to start it so I would like that provision in there as well I'm sorry could you repeat that provision the provision is that we start this hearing on May 2nd okay can I ask just one question just a clarification sure you are fully prepared to present is strictly you're asking in Germany because of the notice issue only it is strictly because of the notice issue so we should not have any other issues to be raised last minute at the next meeting I anticipate any issues none I'm telling you there better be none all right understood thank you okay so may I have a motion for inurement this evening carrying it to May 2nd this year with re notice along with the provision as say it I'll make that so moved so there you go there you go okay any additional comments hearing n roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr Vander yes Mr rtz yes M Smith yes Mr Vitali yes commit in the pony yes Deputy Mayor Chelli yes chair PE yes chair Sr yes thank you all surek you okay we are now moving to our first application J&J steel and tubing Inc with file number of 24- pb-01 D mspv with time of decision of July 16th of this year it's block 143 lot 1.01 Otherwise Known or commonly known as 301 roycefield Road uh the applicant and seeking a prelim preliminary and final major site plan approval SE both variances and waivers to construct a 15498 square foot building addition to the existing building on the property in the I2 light industrial Zone and just so that you know we since we have a second application this one will end the round 8 30 uh thank you members of the board Mr chairman um my name is Micha grodnick I'm an attorney at savos shul law firm in Somerville um I'm here on behalf of g&j steel tubing Incorporated we're here seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval to construct a 15, 498 Square fot building addition to the existing manufacturing building to Service uh g& steel and tubing operations it's a property that's located 301 roycefield Road Vincent Lane site access is currently provided via two Fint driveways along Vincent Lane additional site improvements include the construction of a concrete curb concrete sidewalks trash enclosure and Associated drainage improvements um this property as you know is located in the I2 industrial 2 zoning District where manufacturing use is a principal permitted use this property is surrounded by other industrial uses uh and and is subject to various uh recent approvals for other industrial uses this application has uh variance relief from section 188 106 um for impervious coverage 60% is allowed 66.5% is existing and under 67% is proposed I'll have Mr Ford go over um some of the tweaks that we made to get it under 67% which was a uh condition of approval imposed uh on a prior application for a subdivision um from 2016 um for lot width 300t is required we're at 250. 72 setback 50 foots required um 40 is existing in 25.5 is proposed rear setback 100t required 66 2 ft is existing and 20.9 ft is proposed landscape buffering 20 foot is required 21.1 existing and 5 ft proposed and parking where 60.2 spaces are required and 43 spaces are proposed the applicant is also seeking approval for uh one of the two onsite trailers which are not permitted uh in the zone and violate the uh the rear yard setback whereas 100 foot is required and 9t is existing and proposed and the sidey guard setback where 50 foot is required and 32t is existing and proposed as for waiver relief the applicant requests stream Corridor protection waivers found in 18864 d uh to the rear of the lot towards the woods at the end of the C deac the proposed improvements uh will not result in a significant amount of impervious area when we filed this application we anticipated an increase of approximately 752 ft uh we believe that there will be no increase of of uh coverage um we've proposed roof leaders catch basin's trench Lane trench drain to mitigate storm water runoff from the subject site and connected to the existing storm water management system within the Hillsboro Township right away um G and J steel tubing ink was founded in 1976 and had has more than 40 Years of fabrication experience they have 50 employees who've been operating in Hillsboro since 1990 g&j is a production Med metal tube fabrication company and uh We've prepared uh a video that talks about the operations and takes a look at what they actually do and manufacture um there's numerous employees that reside here in Hillsboro Township um and what they do is they manufacture mid to high volume parts for for customers their services include manual and robotic cutting bending coiling end forming whole forming stamping Machining welding and assembly fabricating a variety of metals including carbon steel stainless steel Copper Brass aluminum nickel Alloys uh customers include Stanley Black & Decker DeWalt air compressor coils and air braing for the Tesla X this expansion is necessitated and directly directly related to uh an award of contract for the production for the manufacturer of handrails for the r211 Kawasaki trains and for the MTA for New York City Subways other customers include railings for major mass transit systems for New Jersey Transit specifically for stairway rails and double decker trains for the Bombardier and handrails for Amtrak systems and trains tonight uh we we we have a potential of four Witnesses my intention is to introduce two witnesses John turki on behalf of the applicant he's the owner of the company um to go over um what he does and why we're here tonight and why we need this additional manufacturing space uh and again we've prepared a a video an audio video presentation that's two or three minutes long so not too long that just takes a look at some of the some of the more specifics on on the business we also have Michael Ford from vanle Engineering Associates here to review the existing and proposed site conditions um Ranna kirchof uh is our traffic engineer um from Dean and Dolan Dolan and Dean uh to discuss any traffic issues um which we don't think we're going to need the testimony we've submitted a traffic impact study but she's certainly here to answer any questions and uh John manino is our architect again wasn't going to introduce him given our limited time as well as not particularly um uh interesting I was to say interesting uh not not particularly uh meaningful uh architecture for this application I'm not I'm not sure which one of that is more insulting so far just stop while you're ahead Michael yeah so unless there are any legal questions we provided notice consistent with the ML and I would ask that we swear in all our Witnesses go one at a time we generally go one at a time so all for you do you for any testimony give tonight is gonna be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth and we need to use Mic but could you state spell your name please uh my name is John turki I'm president and owner of g&j Steel and tubing thank [Music] you so why don't you just give a narration of why we're here and give a history of your business sure absolutely uh so g&j steel and tubing we are are currently located at 301 roycefield Road and as Michael said we are a metal tube fabricator [Music] um better and the presentation shows the the the current building and a a portion of our crew um we first moved to Hillsboro in 1990 and we were at 399 roycefield Road then we moved catty corner across the street in 1994 to 406 and now we're currently at 301 roycefield road so you can obviously see see we love roycefield road so we've been here for 33 years and um at least 10 of our 50 employees live in Hillsboro [Music] Township uh one of the products that we produce is the lead screw for the omnipod if anybody's familiar with the insulin delivery system uh there's a lead screw that goes into the omnipod system we manufacture all those parts at g&j uh we produce about 600,000 Parts a week of the lead screw um and if anybody has an omnipod system you know how terrific they are and so we are approved for medical on that and this is the clean room we have in which we are producing and inspecting in the clean room the lead screws for the omnip pod uh another customer of ours is Stanley Black and& Decker um if you've sorry if you've been to Lowe's in Home Depot uh you probably most people own one of those pancake coils inside the coils we have two of our parts we produce about 40,000 Parts a week we've been manufacturing for Stanley Black & Decker for since 2014 and we have a fully automated facility where we run these parts uh Rob IC [Music] Ally additionally we have contracts that are generated out of the in infrastructure uh deal in the uh the US infrastructure deal uh coordinating with the Department of Transportation and the bi America act one of those contracts is for uh Bombardier that's um Alon Bombardier we are making the handrails you can see where the handrail is going to be used I'm sorry I got fat fingers excuse [Music] me uh the this is the double-decker uh parts of double de buses for New Jersey Transit we make the handrails for that system additionally uh I'll skip that okay and this is a quick video uh of handrails that we manufacture for the r211 for for New Jersey Transit I mean for uh New York City City this is how we manufacture the handrails uh these handrails are produced at g&j steel and tubing when we first started uh we were making about five car sets a month we are now up to 30 car sets a month ultimately New York City will be purchasing about 3,900 rail cars uh all of those will be manufactured at g&j steel and tubing this is the reason why we need extra space these handrails are pretty big and they take up a lot of room and that's the inside of the the rail car that's what it looks [Music] like rolling out brand new Subways on its tracks all part of an initiative to increase service local and [Music] there every one of those hand rails was produced in Hills new jerse service on the G J and M lines new trains are it on the g j officials say they to keep this momentum going MTA rolling out and there's the rendition of the um the building [Music] expansion any questions Michael we're going to mark this as A1 yep and you'll provide a copy to the planning department for civic sure I will email it to Deborah um Mr try could you talk a little bit about uh you had indicated in in my introduction that there's two trailers on site uh and that you're asking the board for the one trailer to remain and I believe it was that clean room could you describe why the clean room can't be with the rest of the manufacturing you want to keep that seate for that insulin device yeah this is a a medical approved um clean room just for the manufacturing of those lead screws so we need to keep it separate from the rest of the building it has to be certified it's have has its own separate security system uh it has its own um process that's self-contained uh based on the medical requirements uh we don't want to mix that in with the rest of the facility and that's the reason why we have that clean room trailer um and just to touch on um some of your hours of operations and your employees and uh what's your anticipation for your increase in uh in you know hours number of employees uh demand for parking things like that so the purpose of the expansion is that we as we ramped up the number of car sets we need to produce for New York City uh we temporarily have to have to house them in our current facility um until we ship them so we really need the space mostly just for the space required for us to process the um current contracts we have uh we have no um uh anticipated plans of increasing personel or uh increasing uh any other usage we just need the space because of the amount of contracts we're producing in terms of our operations our typical hours are uh 6:30 to uh uh 11 that's two shifts um that spans um all the requirements we have most of our systems which you saw in portions of the video most of our systems are fully robotic so we don't actually need to increase Personnel um we're very stable at 50 and can produce uh the products that we need to [Music] produce I have no further questions for the witness it's right here thank you Mr chairman sir I wonder if you could help me um address one of the comments on our review letter dated April 4th that had to do with potential truck movements uh is it your experience and would you be testifying that uh you don't anticipate any trucks delivering greater than a uh the Su 40 vehicle that was shown on turning movements yes most of our materials are delivered in box trucks um occasionally we'll have a flatbed but for the most part we can handle all of the incoming work and outgoing work using your typical box [Music] trucks um Mr chairman I do not have any other questions for this witness okay thank you Mr thank you Mr chairman I don't have any questions thank you board members questions okay have a motion open to public so moved second okay all in favor I I if there's anyone from the public that would like to question this witness on their testimony and it's strictly their testimony um please come forward stay your name and address for the record [Music] please good afternoon we are Alpine construction we're opposite from John our your name and address what's that your names and address please Joseph Chesler and Kevin Chesler 303 roycefield Road you our main concern is the parking as you know we have do you have a question of the witness that's what this portion of well don't we have to talk about the parking to you and him too no no no no you if you want to ask a question of his testimony you can provide okay commentary at toward end on your parking you have everybody and we brought pictures everybody's parked on the road makes it impossible for us to get out with our lowboy I mean we've been running over the lawn and we've had we've had your trucks ask to come in to turn around in our property so that they could back up their tractor trailers they're not box trucks and they've been running over the lawn so we have that's that's our issues is is the traffic how are we going to handle the the traffic and when the parking on that street is I don't even know if there's a parking allowed on that street if you can answer the question yeah I can answer I know that um in our application we've had we have addressed the parking we're going to go double it so all of our people will then move into our parking lot are your your all your 42 spots are going to be in your property yeah because the you notice they park on the street only because we only have one side right so we're opening up a second side so that will fill all those spots but the cars that are parked please use the mic sorry the mic the cars that are parked with in the property along where the addition is there's 15 spots there are they still going to be there or are they getting eliminated no they're all sorry excuse me just for the sake of the record and you know this is being recorded uh if you could just go one at a time please and so when you speak just say your name so that this could be properly the minutes can be done thank you uh my name's Kevin chesla and my question is currently there's 15 parking spaces where the existing or where the proposed addition is going will those 15 spaces be eliminated so um I guess Mike should handle the the plan so he has the plan and I'm sure that's going to address the issue of the parking so in our plan is the discussion of parking okay because currently you have 15 on the side and just today I took some pictures there's 13 on the road so a total of 28 are you adding 28 spots to that I I'll let Michael address it I mean we have a plan of appropriate parking for I mean our our main objective is just so we could get help no I understand you know that everything you're doing is fine we don't we our concern is just getting out of our our access no I understand completely understand completely Mr chairman and I know Mr Ford's going to speak to this but if to speed things up i' I'd be happy to to answer the parking question uh on Mr Ford's plans uh sheet three it's called site plan it identifies the parking uh that ex identifies 47 spaces existing and 43 spaces proposed he still needs to test so so I I I think it might be best to wait till Mr Ford gives his testimony okay because I think it's okay to address any parking issues okay hi hello uh Valerie Parker 7 Post Court Hillsboro um I'm a local resident to GJ and I'd love everything about this I have no problem but could we this is very superficial but could you design it a little better like to make it look roosefield road is not pretty so if you could design it a little better to make it look like your current building well actually this is going to be behind the building so what you're going to see is what you see today which is that A-frame that beautiful cool so this building is behind it so you're seeing it from the side okay the building is being built behind so it won't change the front profile so when you drive down roycefield you can still be proud of g&j stealing to there okay thank you so much anyone us okay I don't need to formally close do I no okay next witness okay our next witness is Mike Ford flea engineering he's our professional civil engineer who did the site work on this and I'm assuming your license is still in good standing Mr Ford yes well first we're gonna swear him in then he can answer so if you can't plug the thing in he doesn't get it you think you might want to put the plans on the other table I'm good to you yeah we need bigger [Music] tables any testimony give tonight is going to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do for the record State yes Michael Ford FD with Van CLE Engineering Associates a licensed engineering planner in the state of New Jersey and have appeared before this board uh numerous times and nothing's changed since the last no it has not excellent and uh what I have on the um screens are uh colored renderings of two plan sheets that were submitted as part of the application um we've submitted PDF copies of this to the planning department at the township and it's the existing condition plan sheet two with you know aerial image color over it and then the second exhibit is uh the proposed site plan conditions with that same aerial image and the colorized areas where the onsite changes are taking place can we Mark the first one I'm assuming is 82 I assume you're starting from there Mr Ford I can start right there and continue yeah [Music] okay so perhaps to pick up rate where the discussion left off with regards to parking and and perhaps I think it'd be easier actually if I flip back and forth between them is are currently A3 my there's an in the existing condition there are two driveway accesses to the site and as uh Mr tury indicated the parking along the front of the building along Vincent's Drive H is single loaded in other words there's only parking spaces on one side of the driveway and I'm highlighting that now at the bottom of the page and then when you go to the proposed condition one of the uh proposed improvements we're proposing is to add parking spaces on the Vincent road side of that access driveway to provide for more efficient parking and um bring back uh the spaces that would be lost by virtue of the addition being constructed over the existing and I'll go back to existing the existing loading area with some parking spaces that's on the west side of the building or the left side of the site as you face it from Vincent's drive just Mike real quick can you clarify what A2 and A3 were I think there's a little confusion on okay a A2 is the existing condition plan sheet two of the plan set and it's basically the same sheet that was submitted as part of the application except for colorized and A3 is the prop osed condition exhibit which is the site plan that was submitted as part of the application again colorized for this evening's presentation thank you you're welcome Mr Ford can you for purposes of reference indicate where is home or is roycefield and where is Vincent's yes uh roycefield road is on the right side that would be the East uh of the property Vincent's Lane is uh uh accessed uh to roycefield uh and as I think the one gentleman the two gentlemen from the public I think the site that they're referring to Alpine is at the bottom of the page you can see their access driveway and a portion of their parking off of Vincent's lane and then Vincent's Lane right now ends in a culdesac uh continuing with a a description of the surrounding properties ends with a culdesac and there is a access driveway at the end of Vincent's Lane which I understand is access to lands that are part of the LMI landscape ink uh facility and operation on roycefield road which is just to the south of this site uh and then you'll see a wooded area along our uh Westerly boundary and then at the top of the page or north of our site is an existing or a pre-existing uh rail right away which has been abandoned um and then a vacant property in front of the prop uh site along um roycefield and Vincent and as U Mr turki described um probably most people that have been down Vince or down roycefield uh Road would recognize the unique uh architectural characteristics of the existing building which is uh like A-frame um Gables if you will looking at it from uh roycefield Road and that won't be interrupted or change this part of the application that's uh this uh Gray colored existing building the addition is on this exhibit highlighted in beige and then a substantial portion of the existing impervious coverage to the rear of the building beyond the addition where there's existing pav and gravel will be turned to Grass um there is one loading uh bay that would remain in the existing building and I'm highlighting it now at the southwesterly corner of the existing building with access off the end of the culdesac at Vincent's Lane uh and uh with regards to the outdoor trailers that Mr ogrodnik described and Mr turki uh discussed uh as as the application was submitted uh there are existing gravel areas at the rear of the building and containers that have stored materials they would be removed and the gravel area would be removed uh but as part of the initial application submitt there are two trailers to the rear of the building one larger one and I'm highlighting it now which is 9 ft from the property line and then the longer narrower trailer that's closest to the building is that uh medical clean room processing trailer which we'd like to maintain and keep uh as part of the application and the second trailer closer to the property line would would be removed along with those containers and gravel that are being removed and what that would result in is a reduction in the impervious coverage so while the initial application bought relief for a slight increase in existing impervious coverage on the site from 65 I'm sorry 66.5% to 67.4% the removal of this uh existing trailer would bring us under the existing condition of 66.5% So Not only would be below the 67 uh percent threshold that Mr ogrodnik outlined as part of his introduction we would be slightly less than the existing condition so there would be a net decrease in impervious coverage on the site as part of the application so that's an existing non-conformity but it wouldn't be exacerbated or increased as part of the application and that goes toward the built standards but it also will tie into uh some storm water management um discussion that I'll get to in a moment so that would be a reduction in impervious coverage by almost 300 feet uh we have um other bulk standard requirements that are part of the application the existing lot withd at setback is an existing and proposed non-conformity Camp it's not being created by this application would remain so that relief would be required with regards to impervious coverage I just described that so that relief would be maintained albeit over 60% allowable but less than the existing condition and then uh there are two uh uh side yard and rear yard relief requirement uh requested first with rear yard uh the proposed uh addition rear yard is 20.9 Ft from the rear property line while uh the existing building is 62 66.2 where 100 ft is required but we're also eliminating that trailer which right now is 9 ft from the property line and this is the rear property line coincident with that abandoned rail line right away and then with regards to sidey yard setback there's an existing condition on the east side of the property I'm highlighting it now at 25.5 ft setback that obviously would be unchanged by this application where 50 ft is required and then the proposed condition on the west side of the property where the addition is being created there would be a sidey yard of 40.6 feet where 50 is required that's the extent of the relief there are design waivers uh with regards to uh setback to parking along the front right now our setback to parking is uh approximately thir you know 20 feet or 30t is required and it would go to 10 ft by creating that second row of parking for a more efficient uh parking layout with uh double stacked or or parking on each side of the access [Music] aisle while I'm turning Pages uh in my notes the the existing site is serviced by public sewer and water that would remain unchanged uh all the utilities for any needs within the building Edition would be serviced through the existing building um so there'll be no new uh utility connections and with regards to uh fire suppression again that would be through the existing building into the addition and we had received a review memorandum from the Fire official dated April 10th 2024 with about eight comments and we would agree to address each and every one of those comments to his satisfaction as part of any uh conditional approval this board May Grant so there were no subsi of comments from the Fire official regarding this application that could not be met by simply uh addressing the building in a manner uh to his satisfaction providing a lot box and other typical comments and requirements for uh site improvements within the township with regards to uh tree mitigation there are uh approximately 28 trees or 27 trees on the site now eight of those would be impacted by the proposed addition the uh Township tree mitigation ordinance requires a supplemental planting to mitigate for those eight trees to be removed we had as part of the initial application proposed a contribution to the township tree fund uh the planers memorandum outlines the cost of that uh and the applicant would uh continue to honor that proposal in accordance with the Township Code however there was a suggestion by the environmental commission and we made a visit to the environmental commission uh a few weeks ago and they uh outlined their comments in a review memorandum dated April 10th 2024 and one of the few suggestions that they had made was to try to uh plant some of those mitigation trees on site and perhaps even along across the front of the building and uh at the board's pleasure we'd be um glad to honor the enironmental commission's uh request and put as many of those mitigation trees on site and any trees that couldn't be planted on site would be compensated for in accordance with the ordinance by a monetary contribution to the tree [Music] fund okay something we said perhaps I can jump right uh to stormw a runoff and um the the two review memorandums that I haven't mentioned uh first um with regards to stormw runoff uh it's you know our intention Now by virtue of not increasing the existing impervious coverage on site to uh you know any actually have a net decrease that there wouldn't be any adverse impact the stormw runoff from the site had a discussion with the board's engineer about concerns regarding stormw runoff and the comments in there April 10th is a popular date April 10th 2024 review memorandum to the township uh planning board uh and we would agree to addressed the stormw runoff comments in the engineer report to his satisfaction and if that meant some type of storm waterer management BMP such as a rain Garden uh along the left side or west side of the building uh we would uh accommodate that as part of uh revisions uh in accordance with a conditional approval to the board engineer satisfaction and we do have a pending application requesting a jurisdictional determination from the Delaware R Canal commission we received the March 20th report from that agency requesting additional information so that they can make a final determination on the uh jurisdictional determination and if they were to take jurisdiction there perhaps would be some type of stormw management uh requirements uh by that agency and I would just ask that you know the that would be resolved and that this is was discussed at the environmental commission as well any uh communication with the uh and submittals to the DNR Canal commission would be uh providing copies to the uh Township planning department and we would work in with you know with the DNR Canal commission and your board engineer so that we could address any stormw management concerns they might have together and I think that's typical of other past applications and projects um lastly with regards to uh comments in the review memorandums by both the town's uh planner Mr KO and the board engineer Mr Mayo there is and this was actually discussed at the environmental commission as well and I believe it's in their report um at the end of Vincent's Lane there's existing storm water and I'm highlighting it now collection system that has a pipe extending uh off V the end of Vincent's lane and then discharges to a ditch that then continues to run in a Westerly fashion away from our site our drainage from our site predominantly drains toward that point and toward the west there was um comments about whether that ditch should be classified and and uh accommodated for is part of the Township's natural features section of the ordinance 188 -64 and the required stream quarter setbacks uh be accomodated if you uh from that ditch went 150 ft in either direction from the top of the bank of that ditch and I'm highlighting it now obviously that would be off our site but if you actually took that 150 ft uh quarter and arked it back toward Vincent's Lane um that would clip uh the end of Vincent's Lane and some of our existing uh our existing Westerly driveway as well as some of the existing parking which is also slated to to continue in part of the proposed parking so in the interest of a conservative uh Viewpoint uh applying the 150 foot stream quarter from the end of that pipe that discharges to the ditch back onto our site I would uh request uh that the board consider it a hardship that the existing conditions already being in that area on site those existing conditions include Disturbed areas uh that don't really serve any environmental benefit to the stream quarter in their current condition and that the board could Grant uh a relief in the form of a waiver for those existing and proposed conditions to you know be maintained uh due and virtue of the hardship of the existing site layout and to the extent we can continue to preserve existing trees along our property line we've endeavored to do that uh and then um let me just go specifically so I I've spoken to the environmental commission report uh I'll go to the uh it's April 4th April 4th 2024 review memorandum uh to the board by uh penon Associates I've spok into the um storm waterer management other details I can highlight at this time is that we've proposed three Make Ready EV charging stations Mr koise points out in is review memorandum that only two are required so we'll provide the minimum two um but they're make ready and that would be something that could be converted or completed as uh electric vehicle charging stations and The Proposal complies with the township ordinance and the state statute regarding uh EV charging stations so we fully comply the existing parking area that's along the front of the building would remain and not be resurfaced that is in good condition I've spoken to the tree mitigation um there's uh comments in the review memorandums regarding wetlands and I'll go back to the existing conditions so all of the proposed improve site improvements are over existing loading parking Disturbed areas there's no Wetlands identified on the site we've submitted to njdep a fresh Witter Wetland letter of interpretation presence absence determination request at DP uh so we have that application pending um the only uh item that I would offer for the board's consideration and I had a conversation with one of the staff members today about this is the hardship that the current state operation presents on applicants we're re we're uh uh understanding that the due to Staffing at the njd that these Lois are not processed uh very timely and and this is not a significant you know size project it's an expectation that we'd go to construction as soon as possible you know given uh you know we secure all the outside agents you know all the all the U approvals necessary the freshwood or Wetland footprinted disturbance is really an insurance request it's not uh a permit that's required we're not disturbing any Wetland areas we're just uh seeking and the state's verification that what we believe is true which is there are no Wetlands on the site and we're not disturbing any Wetlands so what we would suggest is to the extent the states or the township staff could help us uh prod the state to review this in a timely fashion we uh you know welcome that and that uh it not be a a specific condition of approval in the sense that the the it's an outside agency it's not under the jurisdiction of the township and uh the township or the the applicant could at his own risk proceed without that verification because it's not a permitted do something it's just a verification that you're not disturbing any regulated areas and the areas that we're disturbing now are all existing Disturbed areas so what I would uh also offer the for the board's consideration if there were a determination that there were I'll say a wetland buffer wouldn't be a wetland because it's it's all parking and loading now in Disturbed areas but a wetland buffer there are permits available for special activity waivers for for redevelopment of areas that are already Disturbed within the Wetland buffer so even in the most um highly unlikely situation um where something's identified as regulated there is a permit available to do it but our our pre our preference would be to get the njd freshw L Wetland um exempt I'm sorry letter of interpretation it's only really the timing of it because being told uh it's a year to two years for those types of processes although this is a very small [Music] [Music] project I think that really unless there's something in the professionals reviews that I need to speak to or thank you Mr chairman um Mr Ford and I have spoken uh before the meeting and based on Mr Ford's testimony this evening um and their willingness to introduce a small BMP uh our office is confident that uh the storm water issues would be resolved um based on Mr Ford's testimony about the potential Wetlands off site uh our office would be comfortable proceeding without waiting for a New Jersey D presence absence determination um could we put in one condition if they did find something your office would pursue the appropriate permits absolutely yes um and based on Mr Ford's testimony this evening I do believe a case has been made that um prohibiting the activity within the stream Corridor could present a hardship based on the configuration of the lot and the configuration of existing improvements on a lot and considering the fact that there's existing driveway entrance and Paving in the corridor in this location now I think there was just one last item that wasn't touched upon our office had pointed out that some of the um proposed wall pack lighting it would be preferable to have it downward facing to to block the um the Lumin a if your Al agree to that yes that would address all of our concerns Mr chairman okay thank you s thank you Mr chairman uh all the questions I had were were addressed by Mr Ford I have no further questions thank you Mr Ford for purposes of the record during your testimony you indicated that regarding the tree mitigation your client was willing to plant them not only on site but on a contiguous site is that correct yes for the purpose of the record and I believe that's a three up there could you indicate whether or not the where your client's contiguous property is this front lot and that I believe and correct me if I'm wrong according to the environmental commission is block 143 lot 11.04 yes and your client is proposing to put trees on that site as part of its obligation under the tree mitigation yes you have any idea how many trees it's uh 28 trees for the mitigation um right now we we have the green area that we're establishing at the rear of the property there'll be additional green area by the removal of the one trailer and then there's an opportunity along the front of the building to plant trees so it's 28 in total approximately how many trees are your is your client proposing to build along the front of the building I we haven't developed a landscape plan for that yet so there's not your client your client also willing to commit that if he should develop Andor sell the property for development that the trees they plant in the front on this Pro on 114 will remain yes thank you Mr Ford board members any questions see clar about the paring situation once again please the appropriate person to ask the question yes uh just before and after how many parking spots exit today how many are po so there's there's 47 existing and many of those are in this rear loading area which um might not serve as parking spaces on the daily basis because of Materials stock back there so that's the 47 existing 43 are proposed and I uh also as part of the discussion uh with Mr Mayu this morning we did actually also talk about another potential uh minor change to the plan that I think would be an improvement and that is we had proposed a trash enclosure along the Westerly driveway uh and I think it was you suggested that we relocate that to the end of the um alley for the truck moving truck turning templates and then that would offer an opportunity for two additional parking spaces where the trash enclosure is being proposed now so that would bring us up to 45 parking spaces so let me see if I understood this right 47 existing correct microphone thank you 47 existing and uh sorry 40 yeah 47 existing and once re-architected it's going to be a total of 43 is that what it is that's what it is on the plan now and I just described a change that would make it 45 correct I quickly uh this is just for my own edification I pulled up the um Google Map here right um just at snaping a point kind of a picture um a satellite picture from the sky uh the west side of the property right I see there about you know like packed together about 19 cars right so I'm assuming that's where the 15 would be right and then on the South Side here there are about 19 more and I believe uh uh the gentleman from your neighborhood uh that's that's probably was his concern as well there were four on his property as I see so 19 on the uh South Side when you say on his property you mean parked on Vincent's Lane right that's what it appears on the uh uh so at this time I'm looking at about 38 right in here right and it seems like a pretty packed space um we still think there there could be 43 more parking spots out here is that what it is the proposal is 43 and I just described a change that would make it 45 correct okay thank you on site correct Mr Ford um couple things I wanted to touch on um Mr Deb talked about some So based on the square footage the required number of spots are 61 or something to that effect well 61 6.9 excuse me 60.9 yeah 61 uh but actually the provisions now with EV charging stations uh give you credit so that so that and this is outlined in one of the board professionals review memorandum the required is 58 so so we are we are deficient we we're seeking relief um so also the um the fire you know the fire lanane I'll call it which is delineated the no parking fire lane which will which is the west side of the building where uh that's just basically open to be left open for the truck to turn around and in case of there's a fire no parking exempts correct nothing's to be stored there um and I didn't see in the the fire department's review mum they didn't request any kind of access to the back of the building for their apparatus in case of a fire that's correct okay um interesting uh yeah that's actually why uh we thought of the shift in the location of the trash enclosure because there's not a request for any access down that Westerly side of the building okay um and second there there is a there is an indication of a fence that's existing is that a gated fence to it's ac across the driveway right so that's a gated fence to correct for security um so the the I think Mr ver asked the lot 114 is owned by the by the by g& g tubing I don't know the legal whether it's just one party or the same parties but there is some stake in that ownership correct was there any conversation of that lat line that kind of makes an S turn there to be straightened out to be added a more square footage to the lot and then possibly add some parking there to Del to take up the missing spot there hasn't been any discussion in that regard okay um it was interesting I didn't know that there was possibly the same owner which would allow for a simple lot line adjustment to give them that additional part so here's here's my concern though I appreciate the the owner and the history he has in Hillsboro and wish he stays here you know so if at some point he would decide to move to a bigger facility and somebody else would move into this facility I'm concerned about the deficiency in parking um that is that is uh presented in this plan um and you know that's and also clly I'm kind of concerned that the fire department didn't ask for an access to the back of the building like they have for other buildings of this size uh for fire trucks so moving the trash enclosure to the end of that parking area or that area would preclude if they had to to get a vehicle back there would prevent them from even if they had to drive on the grass from getting back there right and that that actually is the area that's the area that um the board's engineer had suggested for some stormwood mitigation bmps [Music] too uh the green area not the obviously the paved area but [Music] do and I guess the so in the past the back Lots were being utilized for storage so that was the problem with the deficiency in parking that people didn't actually have the lots available to use because they were storing stuff in the parking lot right there's there's parking in the loading area but uh on one of my visits to the site I saw materials in that this this area back here so it wasn't fully utilized there were some cars parked there but and we've had lengthy discussions with the applicant and the their operation and they feel that the proposed number of parking spaces is adequate for their um operation and as Mr tury you know testified and and presented um while the building size is increasing much of their operation is automated and this is also warehouse storage area for for the operation the staging how many people and maybe you don't know that answer maybe are it's a two shift there how many how many employees are there for each shift I think that' be better for them you know them to answer directly I think it's approximately 50 total but I don't that's that was was already discussed this evening okay uh that's all I have for now if any other board members might have some follow-ups see chairman may can you leave a two up on the screen which you have now Mr Ford there appears to be two access points to the building is that correct um there's two access driveways yes yes one off the cesac and one which appears to be beyond the current property is that correct yes your client has an easement for that access it it's uh was recorded as part of the actually there was a subdivision that was processed by this board 2017 that that created the front lot and I don't have knowledge of just what rights were established as part of the title for that Mr Bernstein were you the engineer at that point no it wasn't Mr h no it was uh engineering and land planning Wayne Ingram okay yeah we actually referenced their minor subdivision as part of the application so you have no idea why the subdivision was proposed no thank you yeah okay any other questions from the board okay I have a motion open to public no yeah that's true still open yep we're still open so all right if there's anyone from the public that would like to question Mr Ford on his direct testimony please come up state your name and address for the record please Kevin Chesler 303 roycefield road yeah in Hillsboro and this gentleman over here who went on Google pretty much hit it on the money there's like 19 cars on the left side the Wester Westerly side that I'm assume is going to be eliminated the parking will be eliminated yes and I just have some pictures I took today I made some copies for everyone if they would like [Music] them cop right this Mr [Music] Bernstein so there's approximately 15 on 15 cars on the left side and there's about 15 Ser pass these out who took the pictures when they were taken I did today and what they show they show the cars both in his lot but also on the [Music] road sir I need to swe all right sure I do you just spell for me please k e v i n c h e s l a suggest that they have no parking [Music] got what for parking paring as I understand there's a deficiency in parking so ultimately when this is all done there still will be 10 or so C is still on the road our big concern is just that we can get out of our driveway if they're welcome to park wherever they want but if we could have a No Parking Zone from our driveway to his easterly driveway heading towards roycefield we would have the swing radius with our tractor trailers to get in and out we have a 70ft lowboy tractor trailer and it's imp possible for us to make a right turn out or actually even a left turn in without running over our lawn in our entrance way which you could see in picture two and if you go to picture three that's actually a tractor trailer that's pulling out of the back of John's property and you could see if I was to park a car on my side there there's no way that that tractor trailer would have the clearance to get out it's basically what we have we're experiencing now now even whether whether it's only uh four cars or 10 cars or visitors parking in front of our driveway is the ideal spot to park for even a visitor because it's closest to his front door when there's no interior parking so all we're really looking for is like if if Vincent could be designated no parking striping on the road and maybe a couple parking no parking signs for whatever that may be 75 or 100 ft or whatever between our driveway and John's driveway we would be able to get in and the cars could park anywhere including on our side you know we don't mind that we just are hindered on getting in and out it's basically uh covers our our parking issue other than that we're perfectly happy with everything that John's doing that's it thank you thank you [Music] sir Kevin sorry can you come back up I have a couple of questions about the pictures sure and we're going to mark this Mr chairman P1 for public you indicated you took them today roughly what time of the day can see if I have it if my camera tells me but it was probably afternoon after lunch today [Music] okay I don't know if the pH uh 127 p.m. okay was the one with the tractor trailer pulling out of the driveway and what about the others they're all within minutes of one another okay so roughly between 1:15 and 1:30 this afternoon I would have to go to each picture but somewhere somewhere after lunch okay are any of the cars to your knowledge from your business no no that that's a typical day um on any given day are are cars normally parked in the beyond the culdesac West I see one car in picture four yeah picture four shows four cars uh in the parking lot and yes that's that's Al also employees of John's did you see when you were taking these pictures any empty spaces in the parking lot well people come and go all day so there there may be one or two that pops up but as soon as one pops up the other ones close in early in the morning like I said that's a typical day throughout the day whether it's 1:00 or 9:00 in the morning that's basically the the congestion that that's on the road there one last question sir picture [Music] seven is that a landscaping truck yes that's a trailer and I think John uses the same landscaper as we do if I'm not mistaken right and right there that picture happens to be of wood ships being spread on John's property you could see the guy with the pile of wood chips yes thank you sir thank you thank you Mr chairman okay thank you anyone else everyone gets to race up here [Music] so Susan Gord on Club Road um I have a question the yellow line is showing the outline of the lot correct okay and to the left is woods and to the right is a grass correct or farming grass um which one to the left of the right is I didn't realize they owned one or in some form one of them owns one of those properties is it the one on the right correct okay I want to follow up on what shaan asked about um it seems as though you could eliminate the hardship of the existing lot add eliminate a lot of your variances if you could adjust that lot line over to the right even if it involved a purchase between two different corporate entities um why wasn't that considered any idea well actually it wouldn't help us with our relief because the the addition the front of the building right now it's it's be because of the existing configuration the the current building has offices across the front so it wouldn't and that's where the sidey yard setback is already 25 ft the addition where the non-conformity is is is on the on the west side not on that right side or east side where the so that new relief with the sidey yard setback is with the addition on the west side not the east side so moving this property line wouldn't eliminate or make the you know the side yard setback uh relief any better if they okay they've had to move the business three times was it already um and it appears to be a growing business I was just wondering why they didn't just merge the lots and do their expansion from there which would also help with your storm water management well the the storm water were were not increasing the impervious coverage from existing conditions so overall that should have no adverse impact and then it's it's really primarily due to the existing configuration of the existing building and that type of structure and like I just said with the office it would it would be a situation where and I'm sure the applicant can you know speak to this perhaps in a more direct way than I can but it's it would it would be also if the the warehouse and storage area or the storage area once to be on the west side of the building because of the existing building's operation doesn't want to doesn't doesn't fit from an operation standpoint to put an addition or or expand on the east side of the building okay thank you welcome anyone else uh Mr Ford I I notice that there are already three let's round up to four spots in lot 1104 so moving the sight line is kind of moot because there's already spots there's already parking spaces on that lot so would it be helpful to consider making up the deficiency in parking spaces in that area we might lose a tree but there's already lot so so it kind of you don't have to move the property line because there's already there's already spaces on 1104 and if you expand that out you might be able to make up that deficiency so it's something to consider unless they're already part of the count pardon unless they're already part of the count yeah they're part of the count that's the access driveway um but to your point um on the the opposite side of that where the where the where there is a tree yeah where we're expanding along the Vincent lane side M just visually it looks like there's room for another four or five spaces in that area that would would again encroach onto that neighboring lot just like the driveway and the other existing spaces do right so there might be some flexibility there yeah and the applicant would agree to that I mean we do shared parking access eement all the time especially in more urban areas so we could um work with your engineer to um both address the turning radiuses and any signage and any lines that would facil proper turning movements out of the adjacent properties uh driveway and uh we would certainly uh you know contribute the cost necessary for the signage as well as the uh lines and any of the off-site parking that could be subject to a cross access parking engagement just for the purposes of the record members of the board I'll remind you that parking on Vincent Lane is not in your purview it's in the purview of the township committee I'll take that under advisement well I'm just making the point that that but I'm making the point I appreciate John is that if there were to be a condition on it and the committee would to decide not to take that into consideration the condition wouldn't be [Music] applicable Mr chairman um if I could help clarify um what the applicant may be making a suggestion to the board that would have to be considered by Council uh if the engineers were asked to look at that issue I wanted to clarify are we looking at introducing uh say a WB 50 turning out of the property uh across Vincent's Lane making a rightand turn out and a leftand turn in and suggesting parking restrictions to allow that movement unrestricted and also making sure that we consider trucks turning into the subject property and out of the rear [Music] exit I see heads being nodded so I yeah I understand what Mr Mayu is just suggesting and okay that's a you know an engineering exhibit that would help identify exactly the suggested limits of the on street parking okay where the signage might need go and just looking at the plan that still leaves opportunities on Vincent Slane for on street parking correct yeah that's all three access the two on the current property and the one across the street um I let's clarify I don't believe the goal is to provide truck entrances to the Eastern driveway to the subject property correct that would also have to be somewhat that would have to also be addressed accordingly well I I let the applicant describe whether there's a need for that or not but if there's not what I think Mr for and I are saying is introducing these turning movements still would leave on Vincent Lane on street parking available that would not inhibit the turns we're trying to accommodate right I know that we're going to have to come back again uh but we could we entertain uh with our engineer of as Mr uh can CH said to possibly look at parking along this radius there since it's already already an in easement that would give us another 7 10 spots well you know they're G have to come back so you guys can discuss that kind of and then present that again later because you're going to have trees that you're going to have to take down well yeah there there was actually in the board Engineers uh comment that there may be another tree or two that would be impacted and that would uh change our our mitigation it we're still compliant with the tree ordinance So the faunal plan would obviously have to you know comply and mitigate so if the number of mitigated trees goes from 28 to 33 or what have you we would accommodate that with the landscape plan and we could look at the parking along the right side of that entry driveway as well yeah I was just going to suggest Mr leani that maybe the the easier more efficient addition to parking would be as Mr Ford I think touched upon is adding five spaces along the road that's designated as 17 uh up against pincon Lane I think Mr Ford you alluded to that earlier I'm highlighting that on the exhibit now okay right there um because those those spaces would be perpendicular to the aisle it would be safer to pull in and out and there's less impact to trees and utilities I'll leave it up to you guys to come up with a plan but I think I think we should get closer to that 60 spots if [Music] possible okay probably got two minutes before break time so I'm not sure there's enough time to introduce a new witness Mr chairman we're we're not planning to introduce any more witnesses at this time uh we as I said we do have uh an architect uh here to answer any any questions or any uh any comments as well as our traffic engineer but I I'm I'm comfortable and resting on the testimony addressing the comments from the board professionals through the applicant and and our engineer Mr chairman I think should be the option of the board if they want the traffic engineer and or the architect I think they engineering issues that have been raised along with the parking right and it probably makes sense for this to continue to another meeting I agree your availability Mr ogrodnik and your clients from May the 9th since you're going to be here anyway I'll be here thanking for for help you uh the proposal Mr chairman is May the 9th it would be after a couple of applications that Mr ogrodnik will be here for anyway at 7 p.m or soon thereafter as the matter may be heard without further notice [Music] have you'll be there too so you go with that Mr baric May 9th y you'll have your okay may have a motion okay Mr Deb moved is there a second second okay roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr Commander yes mrtz yes Smith yes Mr V yes Le P yes may Chelli yes chair PE yes yes thank you thank you and we'll take Mr Mr chairman before we take the break please just note my recusal on the Homestead Road matter okay thank you I also believe Mr Vander is going to be parying at the break right anyone behind me and you two are you're staying or [Music] leaving you can't just save each okay okay all right 15 minutes Mr chairman Mr yeah 15 minutes will convene sharp at 8:45 okay we're back in session we've got our next applicant Homestead Road LLC file number 21- pb25 DMS back mspv time of decision of May 1st of this year the application is being continued from our March 7th 2024 meeting without further notice and with that I'm going to going to turn it over to start with counselor to introduce themselves sure yes good evening chairman members of the board Craig Janet the law firm da Pitney on behalf of the applicant Homestead Road LLC okay an objector it's roll call go with objector number one uh Mike pisaro policy director for the Watershed Institute objector John ranahan [Music] I objector two Scott gross Brian Tarantino representing plat okay we don't have the fifth objector tonight no fifth objector taking it easy not that the the objector from Southland isn't here tonight correct excuse me so good evening uh again chairman members of the board uh this is a continued application for preliminary final major site plan and minor subdivision approval for property located at 189 and 203 Homestead Road uh in Hillsboro Township property located in the tecd transitional Economic Development District zone uh where the applicant's proposing uh two warehouses uh on the two subject lots to be created as part of the subdivision we've had a number of hearings at the application I think I lost track but we're in the double digits um we were last year on March 7th and we presented the uh or continued I believe the testimony of Ed cook our uh environmental Wetlands uh and flood Hazard area expert an ecological expert we uh finished cross-examination by the uh numbered objectors he also was subject to cross-examination by the public and when we hit the witching hour it was I believe four members of the public that were left or had their hands up to ask questions of Mr cook so he is present and Mr cook you recognize that you remain under oath I do uh so we're prepared uh to proceed and continue with the public questioning do I need to reopen you need to open okay I have a motion to open to public so moved second all in favor all all right okay if there's anyone from the public that would like to ask Mr cooka any questions of his testimony please come to the mic state your name and address for the record gaale Martin Hillsboro [Music] Road and Miss Mor just for the record you're not represented by any of the obors no I'm not okay thank you with respect to your right to farm and the reduced buffer requirements do you believe that the buffer requirement impact for these two huge warehouses is better for our Environ ironment than farming and if it must be done is this the best way to do it I guess we break that up into a few different questions I guess start with the first question I I believe was [Music] uh do you believe the buffer requirement impact for these two huge warehouses is better for our environment than [Music] farming thank you for that question excellent question um the issue arises based upon the characteristic of the existing property okay um and and what we have is with with the pro the the proposed project is incorporating the township stream card or ordinance which is requires 150 foot buffer zone to the stream which is which is terrific in my opinion okay and what that enables it to to do is to protect the habitat and and provide benefits to the streams and so on and so forth um with regard to Right to Farm um and again I don't want to get any Farmer in the audience angry at me um but unfortunately um The Ugly Truth is farming can be one of the more detrimental land uses to water resources and with regard to the right to farm what one is permitted to do is with a 35 ft buffer that's it just a 35t buffer to a stream okay one can put down herbicides pesticides um no erosion control no flood control measures okay and and a farmer is allowed to do that and that and that's fine because that's their right to farm um when you have a change of land use what this change of land use will do is yes it will incorporate two warehouses and and and everything but with the with the recommendations and the requirements to accommodate the the added buffer zones and then uh uh with with the different types of plantings that would be recommended and so on and so forth um I think at the end of the day from a water resources standpoint it's going to be in a in a better shape because of the buffering because it h this project has to comply with the New Jersey storm water management regulations which are the toughest in the country um with regard to water quality flood control and things like that um I I I think at the end of the day from a from a water resource standpoint the the water resources are going to have a a a better net gain in your testimony you stated that this was a lesser evil I'm confused as a bugs and Bunny guy for your testimony do you really believe that farming is worse than warehouses that that's a load of question okay because just like I said um if if a development is done correctly and if a development or or a change in land use um accommodates benefits to the ecological resources that a farming activity won't um then it could be um if it can incorporate the creation of grassland bird habitat which presently doesn't exist and if it's going to be if it's going to be actively farmed you're not going to have grassland bird habitat but with an alternate use one can require that this type of habitat be created and maintained so at the end of the day it can have a benefit why do you think there are no Town County and state programs to preserve of architectural land and agricultural land and no such programs dedicated to build build warehouses objection a assumes facts not in evidence and B that's beyond the scope of his testimony okay Mr you could just say you can't answer that I can't answer that yeah okay not that I don't want to answer it but I I can't that's not myal we talk outside okay sounds good you speak of the alien and invasive point plant species on the property in a very negative way do you believe that two huge warehouses and Associated impervious surfaces better than vegetation the the alien invasive species that presently dominate the property have minimal if any uh use to to Wildlife Resources from a food standpoint from um from a habitat standpoint and so on and so forth um so so there you have to understand that an alien invasive species is is a detriment to the existing ecological value right um if you can have an alternate land use that then incorporates the the the creation of quality habitat um again that's quality habitat with quality habitat components that didn't exist there at present then it would be a it would be a benefit yes you also mentioned in your testimony proposed grass lands on the site how many acres is the proposed grass lands I believe if the area that I was hoping for in a in a central area which my recommendation was uh I think it overall with the contiguous Corridor and the other corridors associated with it it could be planted I think was uh in upwards of 20 acres do you believe the size of the Developers grasslands is better than the current vacant land of over 50 acres I do yes in your opinion what is the optimal grassland size for our native birds thousands of Acres um unfortunately that that that's that's the impact that grassland bird species are having is is uh is there you know large contiguous tracks of habitat just don't exist anymore um you can have uh you know certainly any habitat um that you can create that's you know in excess of 5 Acres can certainly be utilized by grassland species um obviously the larger the better what would I like to see I would like to see thousands of Acres that would that would be nice and thousands of Acres maintained but unfortunately we don't get that but anything over 5 Acres that's maintained in that kind of habitat should be utilized to some extent by those grassland species you said that this is not a prime carer for bird habit habitat why do you believe this because of the habitat associated with the corridor now with remember what I did say is the stream Carter habitat associated with this property and properties to the north um are really good okay that's what was my recommendation not even just from from a water resource standpoint but just from a habitat standpoint uh to preserve it to protect it um and you know to all extent possible um from an overall standpoint we we no longer have an undeveloped you know Thousand Acre Corridor anymore okay we we've got development we have residential development we have 206 bypass so therefore we have to start looking at the property specific and that's why we have it with to the stream Corridor any other contiguous grassland Birds habitat that we want to create or that I want them to create and you also said that birds birds need trees in their habitat do you believe cutting down over 200 trees supports that with regard to the trees where they well first of all within the stream Carter which is a wooded habitat they're you know with the exception of their um utility Line crossing and their storm water outfall structures there there there is no disturbance of those trees in there um you know sporadic trees throughout you remember again a lot of the trees that are throughout this particular property again are you know honey locust atanus not higher quality trees uh where I would consider the the highest quality to be is where my recommendation was to the project to incorporate these buffers to that stream Carter and create habitat where they can there was a sighting of a BAL Eagle on Willow Road not far from the proposed site do you think building why she's asking a question and there's no evidence of a sighting of a bald eagle I have a picture that stamp that's stated first of all why don't you let her ask the question before you object counselor then we'll see whether or not we go from there thank you there was a sighting of a bald eagle on Willow Road not far from the proposed site do you think the building will affect them I have a picture with the location and date stamp if you need it um before you answer don't before you Mr Keet deep breath M Martin would you come forward with the picture Mr gianetti the picture I have to get my phone well I'm going to object you it's fine but but show you the picture and then you can do whatever you want but I'm just you know let's at least try to maintain the record you may not like the picture you may not think it has any value but at least let's see [Music] it [Music] here you go Mr [Music] keti I'm sorry it's your again I mean she she hasn't been sworn in well we could do that quickly enough Mr you s we did that already yes I do 237 Hillsboro Road Gail Martin I mean she hasn't laid any foundation for the picture first of all I wanted her to show you the picture so at least you weren't dealing with it in any abstract if Miss Martin for the purpose of the record so that Mr gianetti can put a much more complete objection on the record can you indicate who took the pict picture when the picture was taken and what does it represent a neighbor of ours took a picture there's your there problem number one okay who is the neighbor who took the picture Suzanne [Music] then then I would suggest that at the appropriate time when Mr Tarantino presents his objection testimony that would be the time to address the issue and Mr Genetti will address it at the appropriate time and the expert witness can't testify on it at the moment again it I guess from and I'll leave it to he we're not he your client isn't going to he's me I can't talk his client your client isn't going to answer the question the picture is not in evidence if at some point the individual who M took the picture is introduced by the ejector who she's a member of that's when we'll cross that bridge with the picture agree okay next question move on Miss Martin I'm done okay thank you thank you thank you Miss Martin for the purpose of the record can you have Mr Tarantino provide that picture to everyone sure no problem thank [Music] you [Music] good evening uh in River 24 t h Trail uh Mr C I would like to clarify some things um so last meeting you talked about how the land proposed for the warehous is overgrown with with invasive species right all the majority yeah and such and you said if left alone we'll have only more invas species if it's Farm it will if it's farmed it's the most harm harmful for the waterways so it sounded that the enormous Warehouse is a very good option for this land so my question is are you familiar with sustainable and restorative farming are you familiar with environmental one question at a time oh sorry and for purp famili and for purpose of the record you are not represented by any you're not a member of or represented by any of the obors no thank you [Music] um so are you familiar with sure sustainable and Resto restorative farming are you familiar that there are farmers who actually care about ma'am one question at a time you got multiple questions there ask him the first question I understand what you're asking um yes I I am familiar with that are you familiar with environmental organization that actually remove invasive plants plant native species and restore habitats yes do you agree that there are better option for this land than building this huge Warehouse especially taken into consideration that it will be operational 24 hours that means during night disturbing the wildlife if you can answer um toward the [Music] mic with with regard to the the utilization I i' I've never said that you know hey the the best land use on a property is to build warehouses or residential houses or or what have you okay um what my testimony indicated was per the existing conditions of this property as it is um what would happen if it was left alone or what would happen if it was developed in a manner that that's that's being proposed okay um fortunately for me I'll say it again because everyone likes it the the bugs and bunnies guy kind of thing um you know it it's not my job to get a project approved okay my job is to say what's on a property and what impacts a proposed project will have on a property okay it's it's not I I haven't been asked by the municipality to say hey could you recommend the absolute best Land Management program for this property so all I have to work off of is what do we have out there now and with what's being proposed how can I recommend or put recommendations in that will minimize ecological disturbance and maybe even benefit it okay thank you so uh how about the the fact that this Warehouse is allowed to operate during night so it will be noise and light pollution that's correct and with the you know with with the buffering that it has to the stream Corridor um with the with regard to the extent and continuity of what my recommendation would be for the grassland habitat and so on and so forth um you know those those disturbances are you know do get tolerated by a variety of different Wildlife species and there I I I would see no reason why they wouldn't tolerate it okay thank you all right thank you sorry just a point just a point of clarification grassland management you've referred to it a couple of times is that is that in the objection is that in the current application or Mr tar know I suggest you ask that question after the public is done well excuse me SWAT already cross-examined this witness was just a point of clarification do we have this I wanted to know if it where it is in the docket you could object for using that term if you feel hasn't been presented I object there you go get it on the record say you to the extent mret that you witness can indicate where the grassland discussions are in his report no I'm sorry was that his question of an identified grassland area no my question you Mr cook you've referred a number of times to a grassland Management program and I believe you mentioned it at last month's hearing as well and so I'm just wondering where this is objection he's he's cross-examining our witness I'll ask the then I'll ask the question today anywhere in your report it no it was a recommendation to the landscape the final Landscaping plan it would be done for the property thank you see how easy Mr there anyone else from the public you give them an inch they take a mile I'm I know what you're doing and I'm just trying to get the record through Susan Gord Hunt Club Road hi hi again um Okay so you are stating that there would be I'm sorry oh no I'm not represented by anybody um I forgot um that it would be 20 acres or more which is what is recommended by the utaban society in order to reestablish grassland Birds um and I'm not a fan of luns which my neighbors will attest to [Music] um the noise fume salt and runoff from the roads and the trucks would that affect the grassland Birds coming into this as a habitat well first of all with regard to all runoff associated with this project has to go through the storm water management plan okay and that storm water management plan has to abide by and and has been approved by the D being districted storm water management regulations in the country um you know that that being said there is you know any storm water discharge from this project has to be H has to have been approved by the D which it has okay um and you know therefore being treated for water quality flood control so on and so forth so so therefore that would not have an impact to I mean first of all it will have a lesser impact than present to the stream Corridor because now we're getting treated storm Waters going into there whereas presently we have untreated storm Waters um with regard to uh discharge into any proposed grassland habitat uh am I allow to say that um uh there there is not there's not a proposed discharge into any area like that okay so that would take care of the salt and the runoff the noise and the fumes from the trucks any for the bir birds for grassland Birds yeah I mean the what surprisingly they they they they accommodate that okay I mean in in all seriousness um you know uh what what they need more is they need habitat they need nesting habitat they they need they need blade Leaf grass okay to Nest okay um and once that I mean right now we have nothing okay once that's established and so on and so forth there yes there is going to be a a land use there that has disturbances of course um you know they they would accommodate that what about lights and windows um lights they accommodate um with regard to Windows um from the architectural plan I don't think these buildings have a a lot of yeah I don't think literature has I mean big glass buildings if these if they were proposing big glass buildings I would have a recommendation against it whether they would listen to me or not who knows but my recommendation would be against it because bird strikes or whatever with these kind of buildings without the big pain glass and so on and so forth I I don't I don't think you're going to have a lot of incidental bird strikes to it okay um with this grasslands are not just grass growing there's certain regulations about when you can cut it going through it so you don't crush the nests things like that would this be would these regul recommendations be built in would it be some type of conservation easement required how would that be handled um per my recommendation and the applicant has already agreed to it okay and one of the one of the the neat things about having it done this way and excuse my enthusiasm with it um a lot of people think that farming even a ha you know a hay field is great for grassland Birds okay but and it should be but the problem with it is is trying to convince a farmer when to take that first cutting and so many times in order for it to be financially beneficial they take that first cutting when they're still on Nest so you lose it or they do it in the wrong direction exactly with with what will be recommended here number one will be the area number two will be you know the the species and number three will be a maintenance plan so that you know first of all that it is being cut on a periodic basis okay because otherwise the other problem with grassland Birds is that natural succession ruins them left alone shrubs grow up trees grow up grassland bird habitat is gone if we do nothing what's neat about something like this and whenever you can is to get these areas that you can actively manag okay then the trees on edges of grasslands grassland habitat can be a problem even as they're growing the hedges and things around the edges because it turns the poor little grassland Birds into to prey um how but you have mentioned having edges I don't know what to call them Hedges buffers around the edges with given that you have 20 acres spread out how do you stop them from becoming prey I mean I know there's a certain amount of prey it's Mother Nature yeah um we we wouldn't the the the the objective on something like this when I look at it from a you know from a wildlife biologist perspective um isn't we're not just trying to manage for one species we're trying to manage for diversity of species okay the more diverse species of more diverse habitat the more diverse numbers and greater numbers of different populations of species we have and and like it or not they the the pine species will be prey and they will be prey to the sharp Shin Hawk um and and not that I'm you know uh you know I'm I'm trying to make food for the sharpin hawk and stuff like that but in a sense I am because what we are with a with an increase in that kind of habitat we're going to increase likely habitat both of prey species and predator species so no we're not I I wouldn't have a desire to just protect grassland Birds I would like for to encourage grassland Birds along with the whole Realm of the Predator ladder to come up to it okay cuz we've had um Duke Farms try it and one of the problems with designing that was the 20 acres which you said is taken care of caller question I'm seen he's leaning in he's getting ansy thank you thank thank you [Music] okay my name is Eric buer I live in Montgomery Township and my big problem big problem I see here you're going to put in a warehouse you can build a warehouse any place question of okay the question is this bypass is a on Lane Road a question of his testimony only his testimony is he can ask so what it's got to be environmentally yes that's the question he's taking right now concerned about the pollution from the trucks cuz you only got a on lane road we've already had bypasses of monstrosity a on lane road going each way Montgomery Township okay sir pollution on the road there sir you're out of turn right now this is not the not when this question this there's been 12 hearings on the appli have trucks with no roads you have no roads we had the traffic engineer already here okay all right uh Greg colmer Taylor Avenue um Mr go thank you for all your testimony I'm sorry I'm not affiliated with SWAT thank you um have you questioned this witness yet I have not good uh my question is overall percentage right now I did I hear 50 acres is right now about the property size I don't know how much size is it if you know it may not matter but I'm really looking at a per I think the overall property is 60 some Acres uh don't need to know specifics it's more like the the percentage as what is habitable right now it sounds like the stream Corridor is the most habitable area for this property in its current condition that's what I gather from your testimony is that correct and what percentage is that right now for the whole property that's like problem with with with say inhabitable okay I've I've determined what areas of the property okay would in my opinion have significant ecological uh um significance okay one being the stream caror the wooded stream caror okay that runs alone in northern part of the property um even though they're not greatly vegetated the the tributary streams to run down through there and the reason why is first of all they're you know they have the potential for Habitat continuity second of all they're a Water Resource okay and we want to protect our water resources and fishery resources um so so therefore that they were considered as um significant ecological resources to me what percentage of the area is a significant ecological resource right now in it's in its state the the stream Corridor you figure takes up what um I'm I don't I don't have that calculation but I would assume that the wooded area associated with that stream Carter and the woods that are on the other side of the stream that are being protected um probably in excess of 25 30 Acres okay so we're we're we're at a third to to a little little more than a third 30 to 40% or or less or less 20 to 40% after the proposed what is then going to be habitable or I'm sorry a significance of ecological features thank you for that language well unfortunately I can't give a quick answer which is going to get everybody mad but um I at present the existing habitats throughout the property with the exception of the stream cardor okay which is great okay which is what I want protect it um the tributary streams I like them because of of the fact that they're Water Resource and the potential that they have because what the project has to incorporate is the project has to incorporate a stream Corridor and that stream Corridor at present is of those tributaries are dominated by alien invasive species correct after post project they have to plant those okay they have to plant those not with mugart and Russian olive have to plant them and maintain them so those areas you're actually surprisingly are actually going to increase usable habitat for diversity of wildlife species more so than you have there at present because of the alien evasive species and it's the suggestion to improve that area that's what I'm hearing so it's going to be an increase that's correct do the buildings there's a stream Corridor buffer that's almost at the 150 ft of maybe building one on the left hand side if I got that correct um was that and has Warehouse 2 and the one on the left is Warehouse 2 one on the right that's right up against the side right and is 150 ft good like are we taking up area from that stream quter which is the most significant one of the most significant you know features of ecological concern by going so far up to that stream Corridor buffer are we eliminating because of that building for the wildf to even utilize it no what yeah I mean yes what's pretty cool about this is that what my recommendation was and and a lot of times you know they an applicant can't incorporate all of my recommendations remember what I said right from the get-go one of my first recommendations on this was to utilize existing development existing Disturbed area okay um that's what this Warehouse is doing obviously it's already Disturbed it's already you know it it's got minimal or negligible ecological value right now okay I like to see that used and and that's what this project was able to accommodate that recommendation of mine thank you um would it surprise you uh to find uh it would it surprise you to find out there are potential bald eagles that uh could utilize the streem quter at it pres at its present moment would that surprise you I like the way you asked that question that was that was really good you got these lawyers twisted around there I like it um and I'm allowed to answer that question okay um not even a lawyer wouldn't surprise me at all okay that's one of the reasons why I said it's such an important area however I believe in my testimony before um it was it it was the the young lady from the the sourland whatever um and I said you know unfortunately given the given the characteristics of the stream carder in the width of the stream and the depth of that stream okay we're I I don't think you're going to have a high utilization or regular utilization by bald eagle simply because of the fact um that it what it's fishing in doesn't necessarily have that that type of type and size of fish that it's looking for okay can it am I saying that it can occur there absolutely not um as I said before if I had if I had to produce a picture of a bald eagle in a year would I sit out in this dream Carter and do so I would not okay but could they be there could they utilize it they could which is why I consider this one of the many many reasons why I consider this a critical habitat for followup now post development would it be as equally a chance for as you say for a bald eagle to perhaps and this is speaking of hypotheticals but in sort of protecting that area for bald eagles to uh have the limited or whatever you know chance I understand where you're going with that um again I'm going to have to go back to what I said is is that this is not prime bald eagle habitat okay so if if you asked me to manage for bald eagles I would say this is not your property okay um simply because the existing habitat's just not preferred habitat for it it it it could utilize it and if it was going to utilize it that's where they would utilize it you know or you'd have the greatest chance of it but what I manage for no it's too small it's too narrow and so so on and so forth but that being said as I'm sure you might be aware um there's a lot going on with bald eagles in the state of New Jersey now okay um so much as the fact that there's you know a lot of consideration even in the state to take them off the endangered species list and the reason for that not to Pat ourself on the back as former biologists with fishing game but we did a darn good job of managing them okay and now their populations are really thriving okay and surprisingly the what what's surprising a lot of people myself included is the tolerance that bald eagle and bald eagle nesting has to disturbances to Industrial disturbances to residential disturbances and so on and so forth um it's it's surprising and that's um so so with that in mind I don't I don't think warehouses on this site are going to chase bald eagles away because it's not prime nesting spot for bald eagles anyway is it fair to say your testimony is that the likelihood of a Bald Eagle Landing in the Stream quarter utilizing these features within this property is equally likely prior and post devel say characterization okay thank you all right thank you okay counted four so we are going to go yeah did you ask a last well you should have jumped up because I I want to if they cover my question I would you get two minutes because we got to get Miss Kone started Rich Garmin 53 Winding Way I'm not associated with anybody hi Rich how you doing okay can we get back to the argument that originally brought you up here in the last meeting you say it's a ditch you guys say it's a stream right correct me if I'm wrong but you stated that the which as you call it collects all the water from the impervious surface that's correct okay so is it fair to say after a certain amount of time when the rain stops the water dissipating into the stream from the ditch would stop that's that's correct okay just wanted to yes okay yeah thank you okay that's it we're at 929 so move on to your next Witness [Music] thank you very much thank [Music] [Applause] youth yes it's Christine the zero n a zz a r o Kone c f o n e business address is 125 Half Mile Road suet 200 Red Bank New Jersey 07701 and testifying this evening as a licensed professional planner I have been practicing as such in the state of New Jersey for 28 years now I have been qualified here in Hillsboro before both the Planning and Zoning Board as well as about 450 other planning and zoning boards throughout the state of New Jersey I teach Planning and Zoning courses for the Ruckers Center for government services I licenses are current and valid and I'm also a court appointed affordable housing special Master okay is there any than you mrrone I asked the board accept Miss Kon as an expert in the field of professional planning any objections hearing none we accept please proceed sure I guess Mr Kone I guess initially if you can just explain for the board you know obviously your role and and what you reviewed in preparing for uh this application of course yes so what we you know what we typically do we didn't do anything different on this application even though this has been an extraordinarily long application this is not any any different than what we've done on any other so we review all the application submission documents the things that our team prepares um and then we review your professionals review letters um originally with Mr masky's review letters and then Mr qu's review letters I visit the subject property I review the Township's master plan the township zoning ordinance uh visit the site a couple of times during the the processing of the application part participate in the numerous conference calls with our team that we've had on this to uh plan and prepare for testimony and it's pretty much typical practice for this and the other hundreds of cases that I testify on so in in somewhat of a unique application obviously the the the use is permitted and and we're not seeking any use variance or any relief with respect to the use of the property is that correct correct the use is permitted as of right in the Tec uh Tec District uh when this application was originally reviewed by the planner Mr Mas you asked the yes or no question I heard yes and then a description beyond that can you elaborate thank you oh I didn't realize I just had to answer yes or no so I apologize I know it's rare CHR I didn't realize that that was part of the um the procedure was that yes or no answers were the only answers allowable so I'll do my best Mr Bernstein to keep it to yes and no if your if your attorney asks he yes or no question if he doesn't that's up to you and him okay but when he asked have you is this is this zoning is this type of application permitted in the zone I think the answer of yes suffices and then the description of why is sort of immaterial I don't know if I necessarily agree with that expand on that so miss Kon in addition kind of unique with the uh this site plan application you know we're there's no variance relief being sought in connection with the application is that correct correct and uh we are seeking and there was prior testimony with respect to the uh stream Corridor uh waiver in the road Crossings and the Texas pipelines Crossing is that correct yes and you heard that testimony previously from our both our civil engineer uh or from our civil engineer on the subject yes if you just kind of further uh explain the justifications for that that relief so the relief is a waiver and not a variance and the waiver is for The Crossing for the uh Road associated with lot 32 lot 32 so there is an existing Road on that property and as was testified by Mr cook it was his recommendation that we utilize that road and only that road and in prove that to the extent necessary to develop the property as he stated in his direct testimony he was overruled but not by the applicant but by the officials from Hillsboro where the Fire official specifically recommended a second means of access requiring a second Crossing of that stream so in my opinion the relief required is the waiver is reling to one an existing condition and second the ability to meet the recommendations of the town Fire official so therefore it is my opinion that the waiver is necessary to um to develop the property and to and we certainly can do that to meet the intent of the ordinance so the waiver is certainly justifiable and I think you addressed a little bit in your report uh as well and I guess we'll get to the board planners review letter dated April 12th 2023 uh you were present or either uh reviewed the transcripts or watched the video of when the architect testified on this application can we get a time frame I'm sorry can we get a time frame Mr when the architect testified and I'm raising that as an issue Mr gianetti pursuant to back and forth correspondence we have had your client produced a your client produce report I believe dated August 23rd 2023 I'm just trying for the purposes of the record determine whether or not this preceded that report because as we placed on record before the last hearing if there was going to be an amendment to the planner report it was due honor before March 14th of which we have seen none so that's why I'm trying to get a time frame it's only take a step back you're aware in September 2023 the architect testified in connection with this application yes before his testimony did you consult with him on the issue of Mr Ko's April 2023 uh review letter cons questioning whether or not a height variance was required yes may may I one more question can I finish my questioning uh only to complete this part of it was that part of your report in August of 2023 of my what that she talk to The Architects seriously her that her report includes the conversation or conversation she had we're not going to play this game that that she has to say who she spoke with okay M Kenny we're not playing a game we we have established a series of rules regarding the reports from the experts everybody these experts that's are these rules anywhere in the town ordinance or in the planning board's rules or is this just special to us no you're not special I bad news but you're not special it's been the it's been the position of this board for at least the last two years regarding planners and other experts providing reports putting them together turning them in at least 10 days in advance of their testimony we asked in this case if your client was going to update her report in advance of that because of the holidays and the way in which the dates work the only item we have received since our August 23rd report is an updated CIS that she provided which I'm assuming we're not testifying to at this point therefore I'm just trying to ascertain whether or not your client's testifying on on matters that come subsequent to her report which is outside the scope of work she can testify to unless she's going to amend her report and Miss cfone in your report did you specifically refer to a May 9th 2023 letter from the architect to the board addressing the height issue yes and you had that letter available when you prepared your August 2023 report yes and May comes before August yes the this last part was unnecessary and I appreciate the clearing of the record on that thank [Music] you and so can you just uh following on The Architects letter to the board uh as well as a testimony that you've heard uh in the comment in the review letter just also upon on the subject my opinion on the subject is based on the Township's definition of height that the height variance is not required and based upon that definition uh you know where is is height measured from and how is it measured in Hillsboro Township the definition of Building height is the vertical distance from the grade to the top of the highest Gable slope of a hip roof or otherwise the highest point of the roof when a building faces on more than one street the height shall be measured from the average of the grades at the center of each Street Front So based upon the town ordinance if if you're a corner lot fronting on two streets you take the average from this the a or from the center of the building facing the street correct of both streets both streets it says sh and it tells you it directs you to both street frontages so the sh language is a requirement it's it's not aspirational it's required so it would in my opinion in that scenario that you presented be from both Street frontages and logically to follow when there's no when you're only fronting on one street and as the architect testified too you would measure it from the center of the building facing that one street per the ordinance definition you would take the height to be measured from the average of the grades at the center of each Street front and you're in agreement with the the architect's testimony as to uh the height conforms based upon that definition yes and that height is 39 ft and 11 in correct now there was a question uh in the board planner's review letter uh if you measured it from the rear uh where the loading docks are uh it could be you know there's points where it's 43t 11 in and if you can explain I know the architect testified to it and address in his letter but how that measurement is made so the architect testified that on both building one and building 2 if you went to the elevation of the building where the loading docks are given the fact that those loading docks grade down that there would be a 3ot and 11t distance above the maximum height requirement in that area however given the fact that that's not the elevation that you calculate the height from we don't need to seek relief for that in the event you did have to seek relief uh with respect to that dimension on the rear of the building of the 43 ft 11 in uh would the applicant you know if you walk through and maybe explain a the positive negative criteria for such relief and whether the applicant satisfies it yes so in the event that relief was required which I do not think it is I agree with our architect and I agree with Mr masi who originally opined on this application in his review letter that we meet all the bulk requirements of the tecd Zone in the event that it were determined that we need the variance relief I believe the relief could be justified under the C2 section of the municipal land use law and what that is is the i c where in the absence of any hardship the board can grant the variance relief if you find that one or more purposes of the municipal land use law would be advanced in my report I cited criteria G which talks about sufficient space in appropriate locations the additional 3et 11 in can certainly be supported on this site the site is larger than the minimum required for the zone and substantially so but even more importantly than that the setbacks for this structure are well beyond the required in the zone for example the structure on lot 32 which we refer to as building two is set back 484 ft to the side yard setback to the East and 191 ft to the West it maintains a front yard setback of 8849 ft from Homestead Road so in my opinion these site can certain they are certainly appropriate um space for for the building on building one similarly the setbacks are substantial the rear yard setback there is required to be 150 ft where we're proposing 375.70 ft of setback um and again a substantial setback to the front of 190 so the these loading docks are occurring on the um the rear of the building they're not facing streets and they're certainly set far far in excess of what the Zone contemplated for setback so I do think sufficient space is appropriate um criteria I talks about a desirable visual environment these are athe aesthetically pleasing designs for warehouse buildings they will certainly not be um particularly visible from any vantage point and we provided um elevations that depicted that and lastly criteria M talks about an efficient use of the land the subject property falls well below the coverage requirements for the Zone I believe that this is an efficient layout that takes advantage or and takes into considerations not takes advantage but takes into con consideration the environmental constraints on the subject property and provides a development um that is certainly consistent with the Zone plan statutorily the board has to find that only one or more purposes of land use law are Advanced I cited three so if you didn't agree with all of them or if you agreed with one of them we meet our burden of proof with respect to the the negative criteria for the granting of the C2 variants the land use law does not ask you to hold us or any other applicant to a standard that there be no detriment just that the benefits of the grant of the variance outweigh any detriment here you have a a conforming substantial tax producing rable that is being developed in accordance with the permitted uses as well of the stated purposes and all of the bulk criteria of the tecd zone so I see no sub substantial detriment to either the public good or the Zone plan if the board were to find that that variance is required and Grant the relief which again I do not believe that based on the structure of your ordinance and based on the definition of height which uses that language shall right when an ordinance encourages something it says it should or it should strive to or where appropriate those are things that we use in terms of art that we use as planners I'd say it's not really required but if you can do it in it makes plan good planning sense then go ahead and do it that's not how your ordinance reads here it reads shall and when I teach Planning and Zoning courses to new planning board members and planning board secretaries one of the things that I teach is that each ordinance is different when I talk about how ordinances can be different one of the things that I utilize is the definition of Building height or floor area ratio to talk about how different towns do things differently so because that's how you measure height here in Hillsboro doesn't mean that's how Branchburg is doing it or Montgomery is doing it so we have to be governed here in Hillsboro how you define height so I have a hard time when your ordinances say and state specifically and clearly that it shall be calculated from each Street Frontage to then take elevations of a building that don't front a street and apply the height calculation to that nonetheless I have provided the statutory criteria under the C2 section of the statute if it is determined that the relief is required in addition in the uh board planers review letter dated April 12 2023 uh there was uh included the definition in the town of a truck terminal um and question whether this use would uh qualify as a truck terminal if you can provide any testimony on that subject and that was also addressed in my report as well um I think that that is certainly not a position that I agree with the definition of truck terminal in the ordinance in Hillsboro is an originating or terminating point for trucks which may include servicing vehicles for trucks and comfort facilities the existence or proposed location of storage or warehousing of items transported by trucks shall not be deemed to change the character of a use which meets the forging definition of truck terminal so this to me is certainly not a truck terminal when um when I look at that ordinance definition I look at that specifically to say you can't have a truck terminal and then tag on some warehousing or storage and say oh but we're really a warehouse so I think very clearly the ordinance intends to limit those things that would be a truck terminal and a have an anary warehouse and then allow the use the ordinance specifically prohibits Motor Freight terminals motor and truck trans for stations motor and truck Depots motor and truck storage sites truck stops and truck repair facilities so in my opinion um when you look at what a truck terminal is truck terminals would have things associated them like with with a truck terminal you may have reservable showers you may have public laundry you may have game rooms you may have mechanical facilities for the trucks this is not a truck terminal this is exactly as was descried by the applicant as a warehousing and potential distribution facility it is not a truck terminal it it is not in my opinion a truck terminal is not consistent with your ordinance definition of truck terminal which in my opinion actually discourages you from trying to bring a truck terminal in under the guise of um having ancillary warehousing of items so this is not in my opinion what I would I would consider a truck terminal I don't think that this is what you're ordinance contemplates as a truck terminal and I believe that this is uh consistent with the tecd Zone the use and in addition in the uh the board planers review letter uh it wasn't entirely clear on the comment it's on page four where it says I have significant concerns related to the entirety of the proposed use and whether it complies with the Township Code and master plan on a variety of levels ranging from scale and size of the project to the nature of the use that the applicant's proposing just to mention a few and the applicant should address these concerns uh and and demonstrate compliance with the regulations and the ordinance of the town uh if you can just comment on the size and scale uh of the project so I I can comment on that objection objection not addressed in any of your memos so I don't think you can comment on that yes she can she concluded that from a planning standpoint the proposed building mass and intensity approach in the context of the site in the surrounding area did not address scale and scope in any of her [Music] memos can we point out in any of Miss kon's documents provided that we does that she address scale and scope of the project page four so M Kone in your opinion is is building mass in intensity synonymous with uh scale and scope absolutely and those are the objections before I I realized we we try to fly over counselor I was just about to say Mr bson you asked a question of where in the report it is right Mr G edti then continued to ask a question not where in the report is it so Mr Tarantino's objection which you seem to have been the least exploring is still standing and we still don't have an answer as we in the report let's try again where in the report Mr gianetti is the discussion of scale and scope specifically mentioned page four not building Mass not building we we's report so it's on page four of my report which starts a new Point lastly from the planning standpoint the proposed B what's the date of that report which date the AUST 17th there were there are two reports question so on P wait wait let everybody take a look at it in case somebody has an [Music] objection it's at the top of it's a second paragraph on page four right above the headline fiscal impact report it neither refers to the tecd um uh requirement nor mentions the word scale or scope Mr chairman in fact mr's letter doesn't say scale or scope either Mr chairman can I SC okay hold I want to hear my attorney Mr chairman can I suggest that Miss cfone answer the question and that Mr tarantine or any of the other objectors of the public have questions regarding this testimony there's an appropriate place and time for that I would however Mr Genetti caution that your client is very good at running through things before everybody else is done talking so can she wait until all the other discussions before she answers the question all right just to be clear though she's not my client well your she she's your client's representative how about that she yeah she's our witness thank you that's okay you no no I'm good so so I'm still not understanding the um the board isar the board is going to permit Mr Tarantino the answer to that question if you believe that it is not addressed anywhere in her report and or have issues regarding her testimony the appropriate time to request to deal with that is when you cross-examine misc confir okay I I thought she wasn't permitted to testify on anything she hasn't put in a report well it's apparently it's in her report now you may disagree that what whether it is or it isn't but the contention is that it's on page four of her report so I mean I think as long as you're talking things with specifically the words mass and intensity that's that's the language that's used in report so let's keep ited to mass and density M gone you you uh including your report in in uh your opinion as to the proposed building mass in intensity was that in response to Mrs Mr K's uh review letter where he noted his concern about the scale and size yes and you just elaborate on that I will be glad to elaborate on that my report walks through several different topics it refers to required design waivers it requ it refers to a design waiver standard no this this is the question relates to where the issue in response to Mr K's comments we've now deviated again on the issue of what's covered let's stick to the question asked if you're unclear what the question is I'll ask Mr lomber doy to read back the question I'm going to say this was limited to the height variance issue only because that's where your comment about mass and intensity comes into so anything other than height variance hasn't been put hasn't been addressed even though if it's Mr KO you're signing Mr Ko's memo or report the only here we're talking about mass and intensity is with regards to a height variance so the section of my report by stating lastly from the planning standpoint is intended to be a transition from one point to another we use that term lastly because we're transferring into making a new point so on page four of my planning report I say I State and it reads lastly from the planning standpoint the proposed building mass and intensity are appropriate in the context of the site in the surrounding area then your next section is going into fiscal impact report and then from there talking about truck terminal so I'm not sure because where You' placed that you placed it in a section that is that it says height variance so I'm I'm sorry this game we're playing is ridiculous let me finish because there's objections here so we're trying to clarify so you just want to Pruder from testifying on the subject if that is that's what the board's ruling is let's make to the what your witness is saying is that paragraph is talking about something beyond the height variance with the section that that paragraph is put into but her testimony is that's what it was referring to if you don't want to hear her T scooter from testifying on it let's just get that in the record and we'll move on the they're going to have an opportunity to cross-examine she's not finishing tonight so they're going to hear her testimony and they're going to have weeks months whatever it's going to be to cross-examine her there's no surprise there's no shock but if the board's ruling is you're going to preclude her from testifying on R not but you keep asking the board to do that hoping that the board will say that the board wants your client your client's representative to answer questions related to the context upon which is being asked for the purpose of the record this will not drag on for months and years to come the the objectors will not get months and years to request to cross-examine the fact of the matter remains is let's you want to put stuff in the record it can be put in the record in accordance with the record if you're addressing responses of Mr Ko's report let's deal with Mr Ko's report and the context here has been height variance and why the height variance that Mr K determined was in existence according to miss cfone doesn't exist I believe it's all in the record next but what's but his the paragraph she's addressing on Mr I mean Mr Co say what what he means by that and whether it was just in relation with the height variance okay and the answer to that question is it's your client's rep it's your representative's report here you've got Mr K's report she's disagreed with the reports so I authored the report my report and I can tell you what the intent of my report was we walked through our my opinion on whether the height variance was required and then the statutory proofs positive and negative and we concluded the negative and then we moved on to another point which was the mass and intensity which I as a planner practicing for 28 years is direct directly and inextricably linked to the scale and scope of a project that's my opinion and I agree I'm just saying and this is what's causing the objection you didn't create a new section of this report called whatever you want to call it uh scale and scope scale and scope he didn't create a scale and scope section here so this anyone reading this could interpret this that the mass is strictly addressing the height variant with all due respect chairman so what she's going to testify to it and they're going to have plenty of time to cross to I'm done wait till I'm done they'll have plenty of time to hear tonight review the transcripts watch the videos and then cross-examine her at the next meeting what's the pre what is the Prejudice to the objectors the so what is that we don't believe that this has been addressed in in Miss kon's report and nor did we have uh such a such a report to um have our planner address uh address the size and scale and scope in response to uh to miss kon's arguments so we didn't have an opportunity to have our expert uh produce a report that uh that would address Miss kone's arguments so it's news to me today that this sentence in the section around Building height is somehow addressing scalin scope that's news Well building mass and intensity is the same as scalen scope just so we're just wasting our time and we're not going to get through the witness and you're precluding her from testimony so my my my comments to this is Miss Kone went through Great Lengths to chapter and verse all the statutes or is from the language uh language from the ordinance but she didn't use scale and scope she used different words so the report is silent on to that she didn't she didn't testify to that I mean excuse me report on that she used different words and she was very clear with reciting the statute word for word and she got to the ordinance and now we're creating a new meaning that's not in the ordinance the words mean density don't SC no no scale and scope is not the same that's not what the ordinance says who's referring to the ordinance we're referring to Mr K's review letter which he doesn't even say scale and scope he says scale and size building mass and intensity is the same thing I can't believe we're arguing over this you want toine your report that apparently is an issue well they keep saying the ordinance talks about scale and scope and it doesn't we're talking about a review go ahead Mr [Music] [Applause] Co I'm unsure how I could opine related to trying to say what Miss Kone is referring to is what your my in my report has to do with yes I used a different word but I was it was coming from the reference that's made in the ordinance about size and scope that's that's where that was coming from that's that's what I wrote those words in my report sorry this microphone's not working very well um let me go back to it so on April [Music] 12th I made a reference to who have significant concerns related to the entirety of the proposed use and whether it complies with the Township Code and Township master plan on a variety of levels ranging from the scale and size of the project to the nature of the use that the applicant is proposing and then I say just to mention a few uh that is coming from a section or I was inspired by the section of the ordinance that requires that the development has to be uh developed that their appropriate size and scope or size and scale apologize let me see I am I am in here let me take a look so in 18817 point2 B it states permitted principal uses all uses shall be provided at a scale and size that is appropriate for the district it goes on to say something else but it has to do with the uh other principal uses so I wasn't going to further elaborate on that is there anything else you'd like me to answer Mr bery I appreciate and I'm assuming Mr Gan that Mone report is a response among others to Mr Go's so why don't we all try to use the same phraseology that to Mr K's report as a response in the extent that it is addressed in her report of August of 23 sure miss cfone in that statement where you referred to building Mass uh in intensity if you can just a was in response to that comment and and your opinion with respect to that sure so when you're talking about the scale and scope of a project or the building mass and the intensity of a project as I referred to it they're governed by scale and size part of the reason I suspect we have spent the last five minutes going back and forth on this is because we're using words that we're not ever used to begin with so let's deal with scale and size and not scale in scope okay thank you so as a planner I would be unbelievably challenged to find that a project where the lot coverage was so far below that permissible in the district at 23.1% versus 60% on lot 32 which is building 2 at 31.9% where 60% is permissible on lot 33 or building one where the setbacks are so far in excess of what is required in the underlying Zoning for both side and rear and when you have a zone that has setbacks as the Tec does where it increases the setback for a sidey yard for when you AB but residential it increases the side yard from 20 ft I believe to 150 and then for the rear yard it increases it from 75 ft to 150 where you're AB budding a residential so when you have a zone that already addresses scale and size with its bulk criteria and then you have an applicant that is not violative of any of the bulk criteria setbacks or coverage right coverage is one of the things that we use as planners to regulate scale and size I am very challenged as a planner to come to the conclusion that we are somehow out of character with the scale and size of the development envisioned for a Zone when we don't actually violate and are quite far under the Lion Share of the bulk criteria regulating development in that zone so I'm going to object to that entire testimony because none of it literally none will was addressed in her report not one sentence that she said was from her report so all the things that she talked about setbacks talking about um you know the in the how much uh you know coverage of the property none of that was addressed in her report so I'm not really sure how we're supposed to be applying this rule that says uh that she's that the experts are not permitted to testify on topics that they don't address in a in a written report this is I so I I strongly object to that last s that last statement counter a again this rule I don't know what rule we're talking about it's not in any of the board rules it's not in any of the ordinance it's just as we let me finish two she's not testifying to anything new months ago Mr Ford has testified as to the coverage as to the setback you look at the plans that information is right there she's not testifying or pining as to anything new as to what the coverages are or what the setbacks are y I mean first of all I believe there is a board rule about uh about plan specifically for planners planners having to only be able to testify on topics that are covered in their report I believe there is a board rule topics topics they don't have to say word for word what's in their report yeah and the fact that you're trying to limit the testimony is only transparency of you just don't want to enter the record because you're not going to like what you're going to hear okay Mr Bernstein I think we're at time well I would just ask we don't have any further direct testimony of Miss cfone we believe we covered Mr Ko's comments in his review letter I would just ask if you felt we haven't let us know so we can make sure to address it at the next meeting I'm sorry you're ask you're asking you're asking me yes can you repeat that again sorry so this is new yes we don't have have any further direct testimony we believe we covered the questions where you basically said either the applicant should present testimony or would like to hear we want to just make sure we've covered it and if on the topics and if not just identify it and we'll make sure to address that the next meeting thank you understood we'll do I I'll have questions myself so sure we're ending okay course we need I'm I'm what Mr designated schedule for the moment time he fing this [Music] yes we're looking at a portion of the evening of May the 9th no so we have a our witness has a conf you didn't have the Dan your the WT can't do it I that night I guess you I'm trying to offer up time so you know the next time I have available it's a portion of June the 6th and I'm underline the word portion we already have two applications on I would I see uh July 11th is open are we invited Christian to go to London we can all go to London July 11th Mr gianetti yes why [Music] can't um oh I'm sorry I'm sorry uh May May 2nd uh I thought May second is gone May 2nd we have an affordable housing application that we are determined to get started and hear more of because it imp but it seems like it doesn't get started so if it opens up it's going to get started by hell or high water and and actually I think it would be better if we can try to get you here for full three hours because there's a lot of you know sure sure all five objectors or at least four out of five will be cross-examining you know and let alone members of the public so I if we could have if we could have July 11th that's open that would be all right July 11th so therefore we need an Extinction on the to I would ask for September the 30th and I make that request because the board does not meet in August normally and it isn't going to meet in 2024 either so uh for September the 30th for to I'm just I don't know what the next date will be but I'm just saying to you we're not gonna this the July 11th meeting is the last meeting until after the board's normal recess in August and I don't know what September is going to look like right now well I guess if if uh if we're going to give an extension to September 30th can we also get a hearing date in September SE we're not finishing on the 11th September [Music] 12th uh I would want check Mr K at the moment it's not on my schedule but let me make the point also to objectors you need to start making sure that your a your Witnesses are available and B your reports are [Music] [Applause] in I the whole meeting September 12 September 12th and that may also be a partial right now we're a very popular board you would think that we were giving things [Music] away was there a second date the second date is September the 12th so Mr chairman it's a motion to extend this hearing to Thursday July 11th at 700 p.m. or soon thereafter the matter may be heard and an extinction of the time of decision till September 30th 2024 at the July meeting we will indicate the continuing Extinction for the September 12th hearing okay so right now this is this is the hearing for the 11th right so may have a motion to continue to the 11th so moved second okay roll call please Mr ragner yes Mr I can't vote is not here M Smith yes uh Committee in the py yes mayor chil yes uh Vice chair P yes chair s yes thank thank you thank you all right thank you so I also would like a motion to cancel the April 25th 2024 business meeting moved second roll call please uh Mr Wagner yes M Miss Smith yes Mr rali say yes Mr de in the P yes Deputy Mayor Chell yes shair PE yes Sheri yes so just a reminder our next meeting is May 2nd 2024 700 p.m. or soon after we start as soon we start and it is going to be Sherman property right and it's it's going to be a good one for you for the newer members so with that I'll entertain a motion of adjournment so move second all in favor I weour see everyone few weeks