okay good evening everyone welcome to the Hillsboro Township planning board meeting of January 25th 2024 please join me in a salute to the flag Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all D please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised according to section 5 the open public meeting act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 otherwise known as the 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's Civic clerk website at least 10 days in advance of tonight's of this evening's meeting and complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice first we have an oath of office we have a new member joining us tonight alter repeat member back well yeah he he spent he spent enough time away that he he forgot about it so would you raise your right hand I state your name I do solemnly swear just swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I sh I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of New Jersey and the constitution of the state of New Jersey that I will bear true faith that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and allegiance to the same and to the governments established and to the governments established in the united states in the United States and in this state and in this state under the authority of the people under the authority of the people and that I will Faithfully that I will faithfully and partially and partially and justly perform justly perform all the duties of the office of all the duties of the office of planning board member alternate number two planning board member alternate number two to the best of my ability the best of my ability congratulations so welcome back Raj okay okay with that we may have a roll call of board members and also board and Township professionals please uh Mr delor is absent Mr Wagner here Mr scobo here Smith here Mr rtz here Mr Deb here commit in the pony present mayor Chelli here Vice chair PE here here pres here may here uh and myself and the videographer are here right videographers in the back room so oh he's not here well he is here he's in the back watch running right yep running the show he's in the back hiding okay first up we have a couple of uh meeting minutes for consideration first may have a motion to approve the January 11th 2024 reorganization meeting minutes uh members eligible are Mr Wagner Mr scobo Mr rtz committeeman leani Deputy May chicarelli Vice chairman Pon and the chair thank you I'll move that Mr chair second okay any comments from D hearing on roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr scobo yes Mr rtz yes uh excuse me commit in the pon yes Deputy Mayor Chelli yes Vice chair peas yes here is Rog yes next may have a motion to adopt the regular meeting minutes of January 11th 2024 all members eligible except Mr rtz who voted on the reorg meance I'll make the motion you second okay any comments roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr SCA yes Committee in the P yes Deputy Mayor Chelli yes Vice chair PE yes CH Roger yes next we have a uh resolution up for consideration cost seino with a file number of 23- pb-8 dsv eligible members Mr chairman are Mr Wagner Mr scobo Miss Smith Mr rtz Deputy Mayor chiarelli Vice chairman Pon and cheris arachi thank you may have a motion so move Mr chairman I'll second okay any comments from the D hearing none roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr scobo yes Miss Smith yes Mr rtz yes Deputy Mayor Chelli yes Vice chair peas yes here's Rog yes next we have plane board business the 2023 Board of adjustments annual report which was adopted January 17th of this year Mr uh thank you Mr chairman uh another way to describe this is basically correspondence this is an FYI action that was taken by the board of adjustment and sending it over to the planning board so no action necessary from the planning board okay thank you and for all those similar report that uh that we uh had drafted uh two weeks [Music] ago okay we do not have consideration of ordinances uh since we kind of moved along pretty quickly I will go to business from the floor for matters that are not on this evening's agenda there's anyone that would like to Pride commentary please come up state your name and address for the record again I asked to refrain from any discussions on warehouses directly or indirectly and please keep comments to 5 minutes and also a reminder this is not a Q&A session however you're free to ask questions the board's not obligated to answer them but they may choose to do so Maria Janus 720 East frck Avenue Manville New Jersey I'm also a Hillsboro Township property owner block 86 lot 3 2155 camplan Road um the the governing body of Hillsboro had a reorganization meeting at the beginning of this month uh there was information given regarding the appointment of Township officials uh professionals professionals but there was no information given regarding the identity of the planning board attorney is there a reason why the planning board attorney is not included uh with the um professionals at the beginning of the year because we do a planning board attorney is an appointed by the township committee according to law right the township the planning board appointed me on January the 11th at reorganization so the planning board uh right all all the planning officials or or professionals you see here we we approved or voted on them for this year here at our reor the township committee does not do that so is there a contract between uh attorney Bernstein and either the township or the planning board yep there's kind one there one with the town There's an agreement on file and that I believe is on on file and I believe I have contracts to review and sign regarding the planning board I'm sorry I have contracts that I have not yet reviewed that I've received from the planning board regarding the planning board so so there is a contract for your position as planning board attorney yes there is but it is not it is not on file yet and that's with the planning board that is with the planning board y it do you also have a contract with the township yes all right and and payment is made by the planning board to you payment is made through the township either relative to the general files through the township planning board budget or through the applicants escrow accounts all those happy people sitting behind you uh and their clients pay for my fees Mr may use fees relative to Escrow accounts so you're chosen by you're chosen by the board members uh are the board members all volunteers yep yes okay and so who who would be signing the contract for the plan for the uh planning board with Mr Bernstein he would be the chairman okay um now this board this Hillsboro planning board is a quasi judicial board um is are there any requirements uh of the the persons who are on this board as far as uh knowledge of land use or or any any kind of requirements I guess whatever stated in the ordinance and then um there's some training that is provided particularly for the newer newly appointed members of the boards whether it is this board or the zoning board are required to take a course that is given by the New Jersey planning officials I believe within 18 months of appointment otherwise no and the appointments are based upon the provisions of law in terms of what class of member they fall under so there there is some kind of training that the board members do have to uh um the new board members only and and what and what is that what length of time is that I believe it's 18 months from appointment 18 months from appointment when they have to have to they have to take the course if they fail to they may be removed so they have 18 months from the time they're appointed to make to take that course correct so initially they don't have to take that course but they can be on this board and make decisions on this board correct okay uh now the position of um attorney planning board attorney um I I I think Mr Bernstein is here already 23 years is it is that an automatic renewal or do you have to apply it's an ual requirement to be tortured on an ongoing basis it's an annual contract I have just been reappointed to my 24th year 24 as planning board attorney and it's an annual appointment determined by the board so there I I know where you're going to go with it towards the end of the year every calendar year there's requests for proposals for all of our professionals their one-year contracts and who it's it's open to the you know it's it's noticed publicly anyone is free to submit a proposal based on uh the various you know criteria that's set forth in that RFP and then whoever submits it first we have to deem that submission is complete then there's a um I say I'll say a small committee that each individual member will rate all those applications and generally the high schore or will be the one that gets recommended to that governing board and then on the reorganized is when that name gets brought up for that position and it's up to these board members to either you know vote yay or nay so have there been other applicants or is this just um attorney Bernstein that this year I was the only one change right I guess nobody else wants to torture perhaps this downside of uh broadcasting our meetings okay and for the position of chairman is that also an automatic renewal or how was the chairman of the board at reorg every year at reorg I mean Mr Bernstein actually chairs the reorg meeting until a chairman is chosen and it's same nomination process very similar the township committee does when choosing mayor and Deputy Mayor um it's you know it's an appointment fellow MERS so is there a time limit time limit when attorney Bernstein has to uh U submit that contract signed contract more than 10 minutes after I've gotten it which was tonight it'll be on file probably by next week Miss Janice SEC so you can have a copy okay thank you thank [Music] you is the mic on David David Suzanne oxy 425 Willow Road uh a question about the process I do see that there's a vacant seat on this board and wondering what the process is for applicants residents to apply for that yeah that that that that's one of probably the hardest seat for us to fill because that person is going to be serving both here and on the environmental commission it's a special seat that is serves as a lison between the two boards so the vacant seat number six has other you're saying it's an environmental commission representative they will be on both boards so that person has not been appointed yet I haven't nothing's come onto my agenda yet so um that's it's an important committee so I'll give you so there were people that were asked that were existing people that were on so Mr Julian who left had been our dual member for I don't know 15 years or so maybe long time uh and it's so it's a lot of meetings and the people who were existing on the EC at right that were asked if they'd like to said they could not they were too busy which is you know it's a it's a volunteer position right so uh there are some new members that were appointed that we will poll once they became members of the EC to see we can't ask them until they're officially on the EC but we are at the how do we say this we are at the uh mercy of the applicant to agree to be on both seats because by law it has to be someone from the EC cannot be another seat uh and also to be fair the applications have been so ongoing some of these applications for two years a new applicant even if they were on the EC would be have to pretty much recuse themselves from most of all the applications going on right now unless they wanted to watch some 300 or 400 hours of testimony to be qualified to listen to it not that much they would have to recuse because they would have to watch all the video of all the meetings yeah and sign an affidavit that they would then be allowed to participate in the meeting do your members have to do that too your if they miss a meeting yes they do and the brand new members the brand new memb Mr Deb obviously would probably not be able to listen to anything that is from prior testimony because he just became a member so he would have to recuse himself till he was caught up and uh the environmental commission is filled are there vacancies on that I believe we filled most of those I'd have to re refresh my memory but yes okay good um Al U my second comment is to you Sean uh leani is to thank you for inviting the public to have a seat it is much more comfortable and uh I appreciate it so thank you for that it was very gracious okay anyone else from the public David Brook seven Winding Way um just to Echo Suzanne's concerns I would hopefully present to all of you how important it is to have that environmental person on board as I'm sure you all know so many of these applications involve Wetlands uh traffic air pollution other kinds of issues like that with which having that person as a resource is so critical for helping aist assist the planning board in its decision- making so um please help yourselves and help all of us by strapping in somebody who won't know what they're getting into to come on board thank Youk you okay anyone else before we move on okay we're g to move on to uh this evening's applications public hearing uh first up coherent Corp file number 23- pb-5 dspv with a time of decision of March 18th of this year block 200. 06 Lot 19 and with lot 18 referenced commonly known or referenced as 132 Striker Lane and also 126 Striker Lane is referenced the application is Seeking a minor site plan approval seabulk variances and waivers to install an additional 6,000 Gall uh okay ln2 I'm going um liquid n Liquid Nitro liquid nitrogen above ground storage tank on a concrete uh pad base on the property which is in the LI otherwise known as the light industrial zone so I know representing the applicant is a familiar face Mr gr good evening members of the board it's been a few months uh I've still watched all your videos uh so you want to be a in my spare time that's what I do suffering from insomnia I here my name is you got a free night don't you I know um my name is Michael ogrodnik I'm an attorney at savos shock Law Firm on be on behalf of the applicant coherent Corporation um this is an application as summarized to construct a 13x 29 concrete pad uh to hold the liquid nitrogen tank uh in an area where there's an existing equipment pad on the east side of the building um this is this there there was there's already a pad there that that holds industrial gases um and this pad uh was approved administratively under application 98 PBS 21sr on January 4th 2001 um this company's been uh here in town uh for for well over 20 years um we're proposing essentially to double the tank size so we can reduce um the amount of deliveries and to have enough Supply liquid nitrogen is colorless odorless non-corrosive non-flammable non-explosive um and is used for specialized manufacturing processes uh coherent Corporation is a global leader in manufacturing networking and lasers is a vert vertically integrated manufacturing company that develops manufactures markets engineered materials opto electric components and devices and lasers for Industrial Communications Electronics and instrum instrumentation markets coherent was founded in 1971 operates in over 20 countries and as I indicated first got approval back in 2000 2001 site is located generally at the end of Rader Boulevard if you recall a couple years ago we came back um the town vacated Rader Boulevard at the end when the bypass was built and uh Hillsboro Park expanded those two buildings on the end um the applicant is the only tenant in that 22,500 ft industrial manufacturing building um again owned by Hillsboro park with the consent of the owner they're of course a subsidiary of Lin Associates one of the oldest developers in town um site is adjacent to the route 206 bypass is uh in a heavily wooded area um by my math we're almost 600 feet away from a house at the end of the Steinman Road uh again there's a all separated by a heavily wooded uh buffer again in the light industrial Zone which does permit outdoor storage as a permitted use uh so long as it's uh not within the 20-ft buffer or or well beyond that um this application uh was noted to necessitate two bulk variances uh one which I'll talk about in a moment was to allow for outdoor storage in the front yard that's 188 107 C1 however um when I was reviewing this today I had recalled that we did the last application and that um that roadway was that public RightWay was vacated uh I do have a copy of that vacation that was just recently filed at the end of last year by the township attorney so we don't have that um variance for the storage in the front yard uh that so that's been eliminated so the only only variance in this application is under Section 188 10782 where we're proposing a 6- foot fence or yes we're uh 5 foot is permitted um as our witness uh Paul fivar will explain um there's a 6,000g liquid nitrogen tank holds about four to five days of Supply we're trying to double that which will reduce trip generation from Air Products who's the supplier um Paul's our facility maner manager at this facility we also have uh Henry gber who's a PhD and he's the main scientist at this site if anybody has any questions about the Manu manufacturing processes or may wants a little more detail onto the science of this uh our second witness is Joseph Freda he's our professional engineer with the Falcon group who will explain the existing and proposed s plan conditions proof of notice publication in newspaper and to adjacent Property Owners has been provided in accordance with the ml uh copies have been submitted to the board and unless there any legal questions I would ask that our Witnesses be placed under oath okay can be we'll get you when you come up sure thank you you SAR any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and for the record just into a mic can you state and spell your name please um yes Paul fold Paul PA L fold very f o e l d v a r i thank you can you just explain who coherent is and and why do you why you're here tonight um yes thanks we are a division of the coherent Corporation as said before it's a large international corporation um we produce only one product basically and it's a photonic uh component of a laser device laser devices um that that's what we sell um our production we have 42 people employees uh right now and the way our production is going right now fortunately um it's it's uh it's a very good uh rate but uh our 6,000 gallon n liquid nitrogen tank gets uh as stated gets filled about every four five or six days at the most and we are concerned that when it gets down to a very low uh very low rate that the delivery um is either uh postponed or in C cases the Air Products will do a force measure because the nitrogen comes from Bethlehem PA and sometimes whether it's a weather concern or other concerns drivers can't get their tank trucks in there so what we're proposing is to put a a sister tank is what it's called another 6,000 gallons which would then in normal production give us a um a fill up rate of every maybe 10 to 12 days that you know that that's all around A Better Deal only because less truck traffic in the area um we only get one delivery then um every 10 to 12 Days um and that's That's the basis of our uh of our requirement for the 6,000g tank um there was an issue on the uh on the visual impact of this and it is uh it does extend a few feet from the building corner but we are at the very end as stated we are at the very end of the landlord's property um and oh by the way we are tenants uh we do not own the building or the property um anyway we're at the end and there is dense Woods all around to the north and east and the only visibility is when you're directly in our parking lot or maybe in the parking lot across the uh our parking lot from the two new buildings that are there and only on the North side um that that is it we're looking at the the 6ft fence we have a 6ft fence around that whole equipment area on the east side of the building and in that whole equipment area we have our our Chiller um which produces um uh production chilled water for the production um we have an emergency generator we have an air conditioning unit for our ups room um and we have um blowers uh fans for our um uh acid and Lead fume scrubbers and that's all protected by the six foot fence um it's locked all the time um and secured with lights at at night and so on and the reason for the six foot fence is really just protection against you know kids I guess or somebody that wants to just do something so that that's basically our um our requirement any further questions for Mr fber May thank you Mr chairman um can you help explain there's an existing tank I noticed on site what is the um structure that's to the south of the existing tank oh that the silver looking thing that's an evaporator um it it's like uh develops um I guess some condensation on the exterior yeah that's that's correct and I'm not I can't technically explain but the liquid nitrogen which comes in as a liquid then goes through the evaporator and turns into gas and so we use the gas in the building well I'm a little bit confused by the the plan that's on the screen it shows two tanks um the more Northern tank appears to be where the evaporator is located are you relocating that yes they will have to be relocated because the two tanks according to Air Products and then one of the drawings that we submitted the two tanks are connected directly and two um I think that plan only shows one but the basically the same exact evaporators will be next to each other connected Al so in addition to uh a second tank there will be a second evaporator that's correct I guess it was hard to to determine that from the and you're not going to relocate the existing tank and the existing evaporator are you yes oh you are but to a new pad right there next to it in other words there's a new uh I think it's 29 ft uh extra we have to build a new concrete pad and all the specifications for that are designated by Air Products okay so I apologize I I couldn't understand that from the drawing so though you're relocating well if you're relocating existing tank see where it says tank um written sideways above the proposed improvements what goes into that area where the existing tank is the two the two um evaporators so there'll be I again this is this is a an old old D but the the drawings that I submitted that we submitted from Air Products are a much cleaner uh um designation of exactly how they equipment will go um let me well I guess you've clarified it so at the end of the day there'll be two tanks and two evaporators that's correct and the you know the evaporators are required next to the tank in order to use the gas yes understand okay I think the only other questions I would have Mr chair well and maybe you're the appropriate are there any precautions that the facility needs to take for potential leakage um no the tank as I the the tank have their own um pressure relief valves uh and the only the only concern here is pressure it is nonf flammable it is non explosive or anything like that but the pressure relief valves are audible so in other words if we ever hear any kind of a whistling or we were told by Air Products um to call them in the seven years of my tenure as the facility manager we've never had an over over pressure situation and I understand that we didn't have one before that either I understand also from Air Products that the tank itself has uh blowout uh panels in in the case of real over pressure but we have been um again we've never had any incidents so if if the public or someone was in the parking lot which is not very far away it's just on the other side of the fence there's no precautions that need to be taken no additional no okay I I think Mr chairman the rest of my questions would be directed to the site civil engineer that I'm assuming will be coming up shortly thank you Paul wait do no no no I'm sorry it's a I I have couple so to be clear because you're removing the existing tank and adding two new tanks no we're just relocating the existing [Music] tank okay so the two tanks that are shown that picture that are say two new tanks and then there's the tank that is as as um Mark was saying that's label tank is that being uh decommissioned or is because so there's two the two tanks you're only adding one tank and moving the other tank that's correct okay all right so that makes sense so you're just moving it to a new pad and adding additional tank that's it okay um is there uh the existing fence that you're replacing with another fence is that just to make it newer because of the pad increase why no we're there is a fence and existing six foot fence right there now and we actually just have to make it larger for the for the new pad so you're extending the existing fence moving it okay that's correct um and the do you um is your facility a 247 facility is it 7 Days of it is no it's a 24-hour so there people on site all the time to monitor the tank that's correct okay thank you Mr any uh thank you Mr chairman I believe my questions or any of my suggested recommendations outlined in the report would be addressed by the next witness is that correct Mr goding yes sir thank you okay any other questions from from the de Okay so I'm going to open the public motion to open the public so moved second all in favor I I if there's anyone from the public that would like to uh question this witness on his testimony please come up state your name and address for the record and just keep in mind he's not the engineer so he's facilities environmental health and safety but technical questions will be for the next Witness Susan Gord Hunt Club Road sorry I know we have a history um I have one question about a comment you made um is there a more recent design than this one shown you said there's a more updated or cleaner design or is this the one they're voting on no I I I submitted the Air Products um designed for the new oh I'm sorry yeah uh we did submit the um Air Products designed for how the pl the how the tanks will be located along with the evaporators so they're the the same as this one just more applied to Air Products as opposed to what you do that's correct this is a site plan um for reference on the property but these are what's shown right now is a Air Products illustration of the tank itself there's another plan that shows the actual the local how do we bring that up I don't know which one do you want um do you have the other two I have this I have the site plan I have the tank drawing do you know the name do you know the name of the one you would like um let me can you get my book let me get my book here I um I can give you I forgot [Music] [Applause] my [Music] [Music] [Applause] well it looks like it looks like this we should Mark this as an exhibit I believe we submitted it but just in case yeah I I know it was submitted but I don't see that one so um this is a document entitled integrated layout it's from Air Products uh it's the um details of the equipment and i' ask that it this be um labeled as a one um and I will sign and date it [Applause] do you have a question to ask on that point yeah then um what they're doing is the board will be voting on a combination of what you've just been provided and what was shown previously as a whole yes okay thank you okay any other members from the [Music] public David Brook s Winding Way I'm not sure if this is engineering or if it's facility but I will try to ask the questions and then we'll find out um at your facility do you use any other compressed gases besides nitrogen no okay um with regards to the different equipment that you mentioned do you know there are I'll call them air conditioning units that are outside I don't know whether you call those chillers no those are regular air conditioning units okay do you know how many of those you have that you use we use all of them they're technically called rooftop units because that model usually goes on top of a roof but because our building does not have a flat roof they're just on the outside perimeter and do you know the actual number of them I think we have eight okay you mentioned an acid scrubber yes is that on the ground or is that on the roof the a they're inside the building in our utility room okay so as far as the equipment that's outside there's the air conditioning units um there is the tank are there any other items that make noise at your facility outdoors I don't think so no okay air conditioning units blowers of any kind you mentioned a blower of some sort yeah they're that's correct I mean they're just fans they're exhaust fans and those are on the roof or those are there's on in the area of the fenced equipment area on the east side of the building and what purpose do those blower motors serve um we have the equipment that's called fume scrubbers that take these fumes out of the uh production process and then just um evacuate them into the atmosphere and the fumes are composed of what um it well it's one is called lead and the other one is called acid um that we use some asset in the production process however um I can tell you that they are all um approved and and we have the documentation about how they work you know the state approval from the EPA and and all of that so so they're just normal processes and the the lead is Airborne is that what I saying it is but it is extremely U minute again I can't speak for the actual chemical composition but it is extremely minute and I'm sorry no I just wanted to clarify that um at one point uh the state did an ishra study on our facility isra ishra uh industrial site remediation act okay and looking at the for example looking at the lead scrubber they they took samples on the roof they took samples at the end of the Downs spout of the rain coming off through into the woods and they found no uh no detectable um lead okay the acid that you mentioned what type of acid is that it's um uh well it's a the phosphoric yes thank you and is that held in a tank that you use it's not held in a tank we actually use it um we order it and it comes in bottles and it's used in a very small dish on a on a um exhaust fume sink um it's used maybe twice a week to etch the product that we have and do you have equipment inside that scrubs this stuff before it comes out into the to the outside air that's correct that's what yes that's what they are yes and with regards to the units that you have um have you ever done any measurements of decibel levels that are generated by the air conditioning units and all the other equipment that's running no no we have not there um we didn't think it was ever necessary there's nobody around and it's just a normal I mean as far as again I'm not an engineer but it's a normal sound of an air conditioner running is is that the question I should be asking the engineer then as far as decel levels or nobody's done them I I have not okay all right I live nearby that's why I hear your place at night and so I guess the question is um if one were to inquire of your company is there anyone who would talk to with regards to making sure those numbers are not super high sure that would be me I think okay very good thank you I didn't okay Maria Janus 6 720 East fck Avenue Manville New Jersey um your business is is coherent Corporation yes and what is Air Products Air Products is the company that supplies us with the liquid nitrogen uhhuh um so you are an existing business at this location yes for how long uh over 20 years okay so in order to have this business you needed to come and get approvals originally from from from Hillsboro from the planning board originally yes I'm I was not here but yes I mean that's how it started okay so I don't understand how this is before the planning board now when these are changes to an existing business should this go before the board of adjustment the use is permitted so there's no relief that's necessary before the board of adjustment the use is permitted correct okay uh so I think in the paperwork you're saying that there is uh what you want to do is add a um 6,000g extra tank but that's not all you're doing because you're also rearranging how things are on site right right where the where the tank where is the orig the tank that's there uh now in relation to where it's going going to go couple of feet away and oh I'm sorry yeah it's um it's gen it's basically uh going to be a couple of feet um right now where the tank is they're going to have to move it to the new uh pad that's going to be constructed and how how big is this pad uh I think it's 13 by I can't 29 29 13x 29 okay and the location where it's going to go what is the surface uh uh covered uh currently is it is it P or impervious uh I I guess right now it's it's perious it's pervious so you have to add so you so you'll take away uh um that you you you'll now have impervious uh coverage there that's correct technically we're adding a couple of hundred F feet but we are in as far as the original site plan goes um we are at 60% of the requirement so this is not going to affect or or exceed any threshold okay but now you you're going to put two tanks and two evaporators here so how much coverage is there going to be of that of that of that we're only adding one extra concrete pad the existing concrete pad where the tank is today stays that nothing happens to that we're just adding an additional uh adjacent to it we're just adding another um but I thought I thought you were moving the the the original the tank that's there currently I thought you were moving it yes that's what I said yeah once we make the new pad the existing tank will move into the new into the new pad onto the new pad right so all right so how much how much area is that because you're not just moving one tank you're moving two tanks and uh the evaporator is going to be there also on whatever your on the existing on the existing pad how it's close enough to the the the area where the new tanks are going to go couple of feet apart uhhuh okay um what is this what is this this uh uh this gas liquid nitrogen okay now um you've never had a leak there you say that's what what are the dangers of a leak what what what what happens to someone who comes in contct with with um this liquid nitrogen I think we can explain that nitrogen um uh is 78% of our atmosphere to begin with um and if any of that escapes it just goes into the air and you don't know it because it's existing already okay but isn't there isn't there a danger uh caused by inhalation of this gas yes um I'm sure there is if you if you concentrate it and and you know that you do nothing else would Breathe that but in the normal in the normal air it's just so if something were to happen to one of these tanks and this liquid and this this liquid nitrogen went out this this would this would have a very detrimental impact because it's very uh dangerous for people to breathe this is Miss Janus SEC you you're not an expert to ask that's why I'm asking well you you kind of making a statement that there is a danger no no I asked is there a is there a danger if you inhale it and he already answered that what did he say no no there's no danger to inhaling no if if there were there there were a lot escaping from this tank there would be no danger to anyone in the in the area no because we have the No No there wouldn't we have the fence we have the driveway so in other words it's not in any enclosed area it's totally out into the open okay so something were happen to 6,000g tank that God forbid somebody sabotaged it or did something there would be no danger to anybody that's correct well thank you y uh Rich Garmin 53 Winding Way I got an easy one are you really changing the delivery schedule you're putting in a second tank because if you run into an issue with delivery you could lose production I guess right yeah oh yeah okay so you said there' be less deliveries are you changing the delivery schedule or are you going to keep it on there oh no we would we would definitely change it it's actually a benefit for us as well as Air Products you know to have less of a delivery right so only one truck can fill both 6,000g tanks well I don't know that I don't know I can't tell you however um the 12,000 would not immediately all um evaporate so in other words any fill at at uh at 12 days you know at the other end so it would either be one tank or the other so there would always be the whole idea is that there's always that Reserve yeah I I totally understand that but if you cut the delivery schedule you could run into a situation that at day TW day 10 they're going to deliver and they can't you miss two days you still miss production so that's why I'm asking are you change schedule and reducing deliveries or are you just going to keep the six day schedule and always have reserved no the idea is to reduce the deliveries okay thanks okay seeing on Clos to public on next witness well don't we have to reopen it I don't know and okay our next witness is our civil [Music] engineer thank you okay [Music] Mr Freda Could you um be SW War the truth the truth the truth I do uh Joseph Fraga last name spelled f r e g uh could you just um give the board the benefit of your U professional experience as a as an engineer and and how long you've been licensed how long you've been doing this sure um I am I have a bachelor of civil engineering degree from NJIT and I have a master of engineering civil engineering from um Stanford University I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey since I believe 2008 as well as active in 10 additional jurisdictions at 1 Point 23 total um I have not appeared before this board board however I have been accepted as a witness at numerous boards throughout the the state of New Jersey as well as uh New York State and um and state of pen Commonwealth of Pennsylvania we would ask that Mr fra be accepted as an expert in the area of civil engineering okay any gaps or actions taken against your license no okay board members we're okay please proceed could I could I have the site plan so as Council has already discussed um the applicant is proposing um that's fine um is proposing the installation of one new additional 6,000 gallon uh liquid nitrogen storage tank and as the council's as applicants first witness spoke about we're also going to be relocating one existing tank that's already on the uh at the site um we're proposing to install a concrete pad to support this new and relocated equipment um it's going to be located just to the south of the existing um you know equipment location area and it's going to be placed in the sort of little um grass area adjacent to the parking lot um we're also proposing to install a 6ft fence around the perimeter um and besides that the installation is relatively minimal relatively straightforward um we are not proposing any other improvements to the site um there will be some nominal you know removal of some existing features such as a Ballard and and um a portion of the existing fence but um this is to in my opinion a very straightforward um equipment Utility Equipment installation at a you know permitted use in the in in the township and um you know in an existing industrial [Music] facility um just there was a comment regarding uh the replacement of of two trees and of course the applicant would agree to replace those trees I would just ask that the location of those trees be deferred to the township professionals will put them wherever you want be acceptable condition to the approval [Music] Mr Mayu thank you Mr chairman um you mentioned that the fence will be extended will the fence have um slats um to provide a little bit of uh screening similar to the existing fencing it we can we can definitely well I'm not asking for it I just want to clarify if it if it is yes do you anticipate that creating any line of sight issues for the parking lot in the aisle um I don't um you know it's it's a relatively large parking lot um but I I I don't anticipate it having any impact on drivability in that area now okay um did you get a chance to look at a review letter dated January 17th yeah and I guess the only comment we haven't touched upon at this point is comment number three about the increase in impervious cover um it was brought to my attention this morning that possibly there may be a stormw Management Facility that was constructed in the early 80s possibly as part of this overall uh Industrial Park I don't know the sizing of the base I don't know how much it was designed for certainly the regulations have greatly changed since the early ' 80s would your applicant be adverse to trying to address the um the runoff from this increase in perious air so um you know and and let me help clarify we're not asking for a detention Bas we're not asking for a lot of storm calculations I think the simplest thing is simply some kind of dry well that accommodates the increase in the twoyear vine um you know I yeah we would we would we would be definitely willing to investigate um any means to you know you know remediate that additional um that additional sort of in our opinion di Minimus change in in impervious coverage um you know it's true we we it's not really clear about the storm warer management facilities servicing this property um you know we are right now under the allotment per the ordinance and the increase of the impervious coverage here is as as I've already said sort of a DI Minimus increase um so but we're we're you know the applicant is willing to work to satisfy the requirements of the board and satisfy the requirements of the ordinance um the fact that it's a small amount would make some kind of combination fairly simple yes you would agree yeah okay yeah Mr Mayu do you have any an opinion on the location should it be in the end of the island yeah could be right there local I got a we're a little bit constrained because they're not the property owner um but I I don't think that's going to be a problem so long as uh the applicant will agree to that uh Improvement great okay thank you very much that's all I have thank you SC thank you Mr chairman uh all of my questions were addressed and thank you Mr Mayu okay board members I have a a quick question um can you confirm I see the uh detail for the for a Ballard but it and I'm assuming that there's eight of them it looks like there's about eight of them all the way around the fence but I can't it only points to the one in the back so just can you confirm that they are indeed around the entire perimeter I believe so yeah they are okay thank you anyone else that was my question okay good okay so we're open to the public anyone from the public would like to question his witness on his testimony David Brook s Winding Way uh Mr fra as the engineer for this component have you done any other work work for coherent as an engineer I have not no okay thank [Music] you um according to the resolution that was part of the um documentation with this with this application uh resolution for Len Associates and the application number was 98 pb21 MJR says that there is a um conservation uh easement is that going to be impacted in any way no so these changes won't impact won't impact that no how about um freshwater wetlands any impact to that no all right thank you okay it motion to close move second all in favor I I s Bernstein I know we always save you for last I have no questions to the witness okay thank you gr um we have nothing further for okay the board thank you last comments from the public as to the application yep so we got to reopen right open to public for last comment on the application so moved second all in favor if there's anyone from the public that wants to make any final comments on this application you're free to come up me all right okay we see none now motion close now motion to close all moved second all in favor all right Mr Bernstein Direction any last comment comments Mr ogrodnik on the application no I just wanted to emphasize the one thing that I forgot to mention um is that you know we're at about 46% impervious and it's 60% that's permitted so we're well within the uh requirements of the ordinance thank you for your time okay Mr Mayu Mr Co any other conditions or issues you want to address I don't I think we've touched upon everything that we had brought up thank you agreed thank you Mr chairman with that then the issue is what action if any does the board wish to take on this application subject to the various comments in the reports of the Township's professionals as well as the conditions agreed upon by applicant and its Witnesses during this hearing in other words does anyone make a motion to approve B based on the conditions that were agreed upon Mr chairman I'll make a motion to approve file 23 PB 15s PV I'll second that okay any final comments from the board members okay that a roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr scobo yes Smith yes Mr rwit yes Mr Depp yes commit in the pon yes Deputy Mayor Chelli yes Vice chair PE yes yes okay thank you you're done thank you how you [Music] doing it shouldn't be long I just say that operative terms okay next up is Homestead 279 LLC file number 22 dish PB yep -5- s back SL mspv with time of decision of January 31st of this year this application has been continued or reschedule from December 14th of last year without further notice Mr grodnik uh good evening members of the board uh Michael grck on behalf of the applicant from the saos shock firm um this is an application that was filed in U in May 11th of 2022 for uh minor subdivision and preliminary and final major site plan approval uh for the construction of okay uh Mr GIC just a moment I got a couple of board members that need to recuse themselves before we go further let the record reflect that Mr chicarelli and Mr P are accusing themselves I don't know if objectors council is here yep he's walking in now okay very good all [Music] right okay Mr G continue before Mr oric would would objectors Council please place his name and firm on the record please yes certainly John Malco Simon Law Group on behalf of the objector sandrew Anella who's present okay thank you um again this is um I think this is meeting number 10 on this application we filed back in 2022 originally uh this application was for the construction of 1 37,43 ft² industrial building uh for the back portion of block 200.2 Lot 12 also known obviously as 279 Homestead Road uh property is located on the north side of Homestead Road in the liite industrial district um predominantly surrounding Ed by industrial uses um we're here tonight um on a request for a jurisdictional determination um as you recall um the original plan was for uh essentially what we're doing here which is a subdivision uh and a lot notab butting the street variance with a Perpetual easement uh 50 foot 53 foot right away to the to Homestead Road we had gone uh and proposed uh you know to address some of the comments to uh a a condominium form of ownership which is governed by Statute uh and there was um a conclusion or a legal opinion that um that change would be so substantial that this would actually be treated that would be treated as a new application so that was briefed extensively by objectors Council Mr Bernstein's office and our office um and and in light of that uh we are reverting back to the original um concept of you know your typical minor subdivision um this application that we've provided by way of concept 35 is uh has some alterations from the original application most notably the building has been reduced from 137,00 13 Square ft to 105,3 40 ft a reduction of approximately 25% uh the application also um looks at reducing the number of shipping Bays which was comments that we received throughout these public hearings as well as re reorientation of the shipping Bays away from 206 and to and towards the existing industrial uses that are adjacent uh on the east side of the of the proposed structure uh a final alteration related to relocation of the storm water management detention Basin uh was made after uh again Consulting with with the board as well as Consulting with the objector and the objector professionals uh so these are the four changes the primary changes that are related to this application um the applicant is proposing to subdivide Lot 12 uh which is about a little over 17 acres into two lots proposed lot a which is about 5.4 Acres would continue to front on Homestead Road and contain uh the existing commercial use operating for many many years as strike a Botanical the rear uh 11.7 Acres of Lot 12 would be subdivided off into proposed Lot B for the construction of an industrial building with access to Homestead Road provided by way of a Perpetual easement Acro across proposed lot a that's also detailed in the concept 35 uh that was prepared by uh Josh Tiner the applicant um as we had submitted um in collaboration with the with the seller uh a certification just confirming that um to uh the uh the applicant here is the contract purchaser of the site should these uh approvals be granted um they're under contract uh with 279 Homestead LLC to purchase just the rear portion of the lot as detailed on the site plan the subdivision plan there's a written contract between the parties of course that deals that which has been extended a numer numerous times in light of uh the protracted public hearings and is still current um Mr Bern's memorandum dated this week January enter 18th confirms that a contract purchaser has standing under the ml uh as a developer uh it's actually it's codified in in statute as well as case law I filed a legal brief today just highlighting those cases and I agree with Mr Bernstein's conclusions um the certification also confirmed the updated owner's consent for this uh conceptual uh site plan which again incorp at those four four main changes that were requested um tonight we're just asking the board to make a finding on jurisdiction um because you know we've redesigned this site I think really four or five times and um there's a there's a fair amount of work especially with Geotech to redesign it again uh so we're asking this board to retain jurisdiction um we've also EXT extensively briefed I would call it a secondary issue related to as I indicated whether changes to the site plan constitute an amended application or whether boards can consider and uh you know impose conditions impose uh you know perhaps uh conditions that uh lessen the intensity in this case significantly less lessen the size of the building less lessen the uh loading Bays um and and I don't think we have to really get into it too much but I will I am prepared to uh review that case law with the board um and I think that the courts especially the Appel courts have been very consistent that uh that a board has the authority and the ability to continue to hear an application and make changes to it especially where there's again a significant reduction in the scope and impact Act of the proposed improvements um Mr quis also uh has reviewed this concept and recommended consistent with what I think is pretty well settled case law that uh this board should retain jurisdiction of this application as we redesign it for the fourth time um should the board determine that this that this planning board should retain the jurisdiction of this application then again the applicant will fully engineer the site plan have to read to all our outside agencies I mean we are on the edge of D approvals for this as Mr cook can tell you who's who's going to be your next witness um so given the scope of the engineering specifically the Geotech we're going to need at least three or four months to get um to get all that done with so we're asking for uh you know again a vote on the jurisdictional issues and then an adjournment and of course we'll extend time of decision I was thinking through the end of May to start um and the only I I guess I'll allow my colleague to uh to thanks very much Mr ognik uh we similarly want to vote on the issue of standing and jurisdiction we feel that it hasn't been established um my eyebrows chewed up at the idea that this deal has been extended numerous times and yet it's just today shortly after noon today that we received this proof of a contract and proof of the beneficial and legal ownership that redcom has in the property if it's 5 months ago today that U Mr Bernstein's letter with his decision and recommendation to the board that there isn't standing I'm at a loss for why if this contract existed it couldn't have been produced or at least the same certification in correspondence couldn't have been produced 10 days ago a month ago 100 days ago and so it seems to me that there's additional proofs and verification that need to be provided as to the issue of standing even if standing is established I think there's still the issue of creation of a landlocked uh lot that would be a standout from the the neighborhood and the permitted uses and I think that the uh the different case law that's been discussed uh certainly extensively by Mr grodnick and by Mr Bernstein and by my predecessor uh in representing Mr aella Mr toriello that there are substantial differences in this application from the circumstances that were presented there notably none of those uh cases presented an issue where it would create an entirely landlocked parcel at this scale and at this time we would ask that the board take the vote on the issue of standing before further testimony is taken so that we can move forward on that basis um just a few things so talk you know I also was reading Mr toriel's memorandum and and raising my eyebrows because he relies on this idea that it's unlawful because request we're requesting a variance which obviously any land owner has an opportunity to to request a lot not auning a street variance and we testified to that and and the you know and the case law on that really talks about access and safety so for a section 35 36 variants uh just because we need a variance for a lot not a budding and Street doesn't mean that it's unlawful and and we don't have standing so that's an odd argument um I'll also note that Mr torello argued in his July 28th memorandum on page four and he stated well red quote redcom lost its ownership interest when the application was changed to withdraw the request for the subdivision I would submit that inverse logic dictates that according to the objector argument if subdivision then standing uh therefore we agree with the logic and the position of Mr toriello that we do have standing because we're back to the subdivision which was the original application I would also submit that uh the objector is uh judicially a stopped from arguing a contrary position when it suited them uh when we were looking and exploring the condominium option they said nope has to be a subdivision uh in order to have sanding and now they're arguing the exact opposite of that position and that's not Lo that's logically flawed uh and as I said earlier as for the proposed changes it should be fairly obvious to this board who's incredibly experienced that an applicant doesn't lose standing when a board when a board asks an applicant to lessen the intensity of a proposed structure by substantially reducing the size reducing the number of loading Bays Etc um and I will just end on um the standard that we've asserted that the central focus of the application hasn't changed that there's not substantial changes um and there's a presumption that um boards I'm going to quote Gant and doy versus town of ham Hamington which is an Appel at division case relatively recently it's 2004 quote generally a board retains jurisdiction over an application until a decision has been rendered and an appeal filed with the law division so this board has jurisdiction in this application we've had 40 something hours of testimony uh and just because we've reduced the size and reduced the orientation and we don't lose that jurisdictional standing we would we would argue it's not the thrust of argument that the reductions in size and intensity is what constitutes the substantial change but that the significant changes in moving from first a sub subdivision then to a condominium and again back to a subdivision are a substantial change if I was to stand before you do a double somersault and say I and land on the same spot and then argue I never moved you wouldn't be very much convinced and I think that these changes represent essentially the proposal has been a moving Target and there have been huge changes and it's Mr Bernstein's own opinion in his uh August 25th memorandum and recommendation decision that the the change from subdivision to condominium was so substantial a change that it did require a new application so by the principle of inverse Logic the move from a condominium to back to a subdivision would also be so significant a change that a new application is required and so we asked the board to in its experience and with its discretion make that decision you're up Mr Bern and people wonder why I keep coming back every year I think for the purposes of the record Mr chairman we have not had 40 hours or of testimony maybe four hours of testimony but definitely not 40 hours of it may have felt like I agree with committee and leani but this has been a stop start for a m there been there's more been more legal argument and more legal brief generated on an application than I can remember in my history in this in this behalf of this board um we are back to ostensibly square one with a smaller Square uh I have set forth in multiple corresponden to this board various and sunry positions regarding what we've had and we don't have I have also had a chance to to review Mr Ko's latest iteration on the plan that is now before at least has been filed before this board as I indicate in my last letter I believe at the moment that this board has standing with a caveat and it it's sort of the same caveat I've had all along it's gotten a little better but I don't think we've gotten there just yet and that is yes Mr MCN keeps sending us love letter saying that yes Mr ogrodnik client is here at H behest because he is the contract purchaser and the latest document seems to get closer but I think what we need at least for the record and I'm not suggesting that it has to be tonight Mr chairman but for the record that Mr ogrodnik provide us a copy of the deed that his client is proposing to obtain from Mr MCN which I assume is part of the contract that he is the con the not the contract he has entered into with Mr MCN uh Mr ogrodnik on record is indicating to me and I believe it's on Civic clerk that ostensibly the property being acquired is what is in the proposed application and I have no reason necessarily disbelieve Mr rodnik's comments I still however think for the purpos of the record and related items that a copy of the deed or the copy of the proposed deed or acquisition setting forth exactly the meats and Bounds of this to be acquired subdivision would be best for all concerned the board the applicant the objector Etc uh as has been stated back and forth the boards agree to continue to hear this application does not in any way indicate that the board intends to approve this application either as currently in its current iteration or in some other iteration to come depending upon the board's thoughts and comments over the hopeful testimony finally of this application uh that includes height operation Etc it is however my opinion that based on the current situation and with the condition I have placed on it assuming that Mr ogad can produce that which I assume he can that this matter can move forward if the board wishes to retain it's up to the board ultimately if it wish to retain jurisdiction the board could reject my advice wouldn't be the first time may not be the last time and indicate that they no longer have jurisdiction and that Mr ogrodnik and his client need to go elsewhere um if Mr ranella if the objector is not happy with the ultimate board decision there are options available for them as well in the short term Andor in the long term but I believe at the moment based on what we have before us with the condition I've indicated that this board can continue to retain jurisdiction of this application at the present time that does not however preclude the board from determining depending upon this appli itself whether or not It ultimately does have standing okay thank you Mr CH any additional words or comments I have nothing additional I stand by the uh the memo that I gave to the board thank you Mr chairman yep thank you Mr may I don't want you to feel left out I just can't imagine what you might have to com Mr Mr Mayu I will indicate to the board to save Mr Mayu from having to speak has not commented on the application because he would advise that there was no escrow for him to comment on the application so it was basically Mr Co and myself dealing with this issue I'm sure Mr Mayu will have other comments to make on this application as it goes forward again okay board members thoughts comments I would indicate before board members speak that our newest member of the board unless he's going to state that he has reviewed all of the should not be voting nor participating in this discussion he can sit up there for the time being for the moment but just for as he is well aware from a from a prior life having you've been on the board you might sit for the moment for the prior board um the eligible members are Mr scobo Mr leani yourself Mr chairman Mr Wagner Mr rawitz and Miss Smith for the purposes of this discussion and a vote okay I mean essentially I do concur with the Mur I'm going to call it the Missouri Doctrine by Mr Bernstein as in show me in the show me state you know that we would want to see something if we decide yeah I mean I have no problem with that I mean if you look at you know again it usually you do Deeds as part of resolution compliance right right before you file the final plans um so we're going to have to get surveyor uh to confirm it but yeah it's exactly what's in concept 35 which is I think almost to the you know to the exact number what was in the original application it's 11.7 acres for the rear lot carve out and then the existing uh lot a to remain at the 5.4 Acres which is exactly consistent with the initial application almost two years ago okay I would I would make one last Point Mr chairman before the board and this was raised by objectors councel I want the public to understand I believe the board does already understand that the issue of the infamous flag lot and the easement and access to the back of the property is still an issue that the board will review as part of the overall application and if the board determines that this application has standing the board has not made a determination on the overall itself including that aspect thank you Mr chairman um and with the 40 hours of testimony aside that we've all put in here um I'm dis I'm a little concerned not concerned but disappointed that we are still dealing with all these issues and I want to get forward through an application so we can see it to its fruition so uh I would like to make sure in plenty of time that all the necessary documents that we're asking for are submitted so that only us our professionals and our esteemed colleagues across the the aisle there have a chance to read it and I'm not saying 10 days in advance but I think the standing letter that we're asking for the deed I would like to see that a little before that days I think if we can have it within 30 days so that that puts to bed that conversation and we can move forward with the rest of the application I would appreciate it and if that's agreeable I would I would allow that that we would have standing and uh allow a adjournment to a date to be termined later okay was that a motion that's a motion I'll second that motion okay any final thoughts comments before I ask for a vote okay roll call please Mr wag yes Mr scobo yes Smith yes Mr rtz yes commit in the pony yes CH R yes DL Gren let's talk about timing uh when is your client proposing to have the material separate and apart from the deed issue before this board and sufficient time for everyone to review it not only the board the board professionals but objector and objectors professionals um I was told by the engineering team that uh the earliest would be May so are you proposing to Grant a Extinction on this application to May 31st yes sir and to be placed on the 2 May agenda I would pencil that in with a light pencil well I think we need to set a date down so we don't have to go through further notice so that new council is it Mr malcha is at least aware of when he's supposed to be here again and I will certainly uh give him an email and keep him updated as we progress through the engineering what's that date Mr K the second meeting in May May 9th May 9th okay yeah yeah all right so this is this is a motion Mr chairman for the extension of time of decision on this application to May 31st 2024 and for the scheduling of this hearing at May 9th 2024 at 7.m or soon thereafter as the matter is heard Mr ogrodnik I don't know if you've been here since the start of the year I can't recall it's sort of melded lately um the board is intending to not with the one exception for next week it does not believe intend to be hearing Warehouse applica a warehouse application as the only item on the agenda so you will be sharing the agenda possibly with another one of your applications but she'll be sharing an agenda a motion to pay the M planning board members uh some type of stipend per year you'll have to ask the legislation change the law that's the motion Mr chairman okay is there a motion sorry without further notice without further notice okay do we have a motion to extend this application I'll make that up well that was for standing now okay sorry okay I'll make that motion okay there second we have a second final comment I'm sorry who was the second yep okay roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr scobo yesth mrtz commit him in the py yes CH yes Mr chairman can I suggest we take a recess for multiple reasons including finding our two missing members uh and sending Mr Deb home unless he wants to sit here listen Okay and Mr rtz is recusing on Homestead Road LLC change Prett same okay so it's just about 8:40 8:40 according to the big clock so it's 8:40 on this clock yeah it's 8:20 8:30 it says 8:30 there so we're going to give it 10 minutes 8:40 on the clock on the days0 on the Mickey Mouse lock okay okay everyone we're back in session all right so next up all right Mi Mr chairman a couple of procedural items before Mr gianetti introdu himself as well as objectors counsel our objectors um again for purpose of the record Mr rtz has recused himself uh Mr Dove is here he is listening but he cannot participate until such time is he decides he wants to sit and listen to the 40 hours of testimony um Mr Pon Vice chair peon and Deputy Mayor chiarelli are back on the day their recusal from the last application does not apply here um I do have a couple questions of Mr janetti but I want to get um appearances on the record Mr chairman okay well first I'm just going to announce who we or what we have in front of us right which is Homestead Road LLC file 21- pb-2 DMS back mspv with time of decision of February 29th of this year as applications continued from our last meeting on January 11th of this year without further notice David I may ask you someone have a question something up [Music] from okay I will get there yeah David you're asking to see the report okay okay jetti yes good evening chairman members of the board Craig janetti the law firm Dave Pitney on behalf of the applicant Homestead Road LLC okay objectors good evening Mike pasaro policy director for the waterers shed Institute oh sorry is it on Mike I think so yep sorry Mike pasaro policy director for the Watershed Institute right tantino um representing swad and just to just to correct something that Mr Jan Addy said last time um I've been an objector since September of 2022 which was a number of months prior to Mr G [Music] Council John Lan Obed number four Lucy Sandler obor number five representing the sain Conservancy Scott gross objector number two Mr chairman one procedural item and then a couple of questions for Mr gianetti before he starts his latest uh I would indicate that I have received a certification by absent board member examination of record eligibility to vote a sign certification from Miss Smith that she reviewed the video of January 11th 2024 board meeting therefore she is eligible to participate in this evening's application and going forward Mr Co take it before I take it home item number two for the purposes of the record I don't know if people notice on Civic Clerk or not I did receive this past week from Mr gianetti that I sent to Mr K on Monday a copy of a civil action consent order entered by judge Sue in regard to enhanced Acquisitions LLC versus John and Linda Shockley which reles to issues that were raised at previous meetings by members of the public regarding same I thank Mr gianetti for providing me with that information however it opened up another couple of questions that I'm asking hopefully for an answer not tonight but an answer nonetheless hopefully before your next appearance on the 8th of February all of the material that has been filed with the planning board through the planning Department in applications and the like discusses the concept that the applicant is Homestead Road LLC this is obviously enhanced Acquisitions is nowhere in any of the applications now I know you've indicated at least on the record that they are somehow one and the same I would appreciate for the board's purposes and I suspect possibly for one or more of the ejectors those who have a license to practice law and those to wish they had a license to practice law um would like to understand the uh affiliation or coordination Etc between the two parties so we can try to close that Loop uh and as I said I do not suggest you answer that I simply suggest if you can provide it to me in advance of the February 8th get it to my office we will then provide it to Mr Co and to Civic and to the obors and go from there thank you you we'll do thank you so good evening again chairman members of the board uh again Craig janetti the law from Dave Pitney on behalf of the applicant Homestead Road LLC uh I know we have some new board members that weren't at the last application we just heard but I assure you if I tried to do a front double somersault I wouldn't land in the same spot um so this is a continued application for preliminary and final major site plan approval as well as minor subdivision approval for a lot line adjustment involving property located at 189 in 203 Homestead Road uh block 20.10 Lots 32 and 33 property being located uh in the tecd transitional Economic Development District at least at the time of the application um and the application is proposing in addition to the minor uh subdivision you know the site plan for the two proposed warehouses uh warehouse number one appro approximately 3 69,000 Square ft and warehouse number two approximately uh 168,000 Square ft at the last meeting uh we completed the testimony of our traffic expert both uh direct presentation and cross-examination and questioning from the board uh at prior uh meetings there is a um opinion given by board professionals as to the town stream Corridor ordinance and the applicability uh we also discussed um the uh the wetlands permits that were issued and were submitted um so at this point we have with us here tonight Ed cook uh who uh was involved in the wetlands process and we'll be talking about the uh man-made ditch on lot 33 uh that is a subject of that stream Corridor ordinance uh Mr cook is with eastern states environmental Associates Inc and at this time I'd like to have him sworn in how do I know if my mic is on be is red that's not good you're in trouble I talk loud I'll fix it I'm not qualified to fix it but I will fix it or let see green I I could use Craig you probably care to listen to a bugs and bunnies guy more than a lawyer anyway um anyway uh sorry he's GNA get someone's gonna swear you win oh you did you weren't paying attention sorry I think I maybe I didn't hear you through the mic um name is uh Edward last name cook spelled KU and Mr cook could you please just State your experience qualifications and licenses in the field of U njd Wetland delineation and permitting sure thing for the board that doesn't know me I serve as a principal ecologist for eastern states environmental Associates for the last 34 years where I'm responsible for conducting and overseeing the ecological resource inventories and evaluations that we do pertaining to natural habitats uh Wildlife threaten endangered species and jurisdictional wetlands also serve as Chief uh the chief representative of our clientele both public and private including Hillsboro Township on uh various state and federal environmental related permits probably about 75% of my work these days pertains to Wetlands and flood Hazard areas in the state of New Jersey uh prior to joining eastern states environmental Associates I served as an environmental specialist for the New Jersey DP division of fish game and Wildlife who I was responsible for the various research and management programs that the division did responsible responsible for troutstream classifications throughout the state also was responsible for providing input to the Wetland resource value classification criteria for the then proposed New Jersey freshwater wetlands protection act I also served on the New Jersey D stakeholders committee uh responsible for developing and reviewing revisions to the freshwater wetlands protection act in New Jersey and uh well I guess at this point I'd ask U Mr cook be accepted as an expert in the field of uh environmental permitting particularly with uh wetlands and flooded area permits okay any objections okay bu head shaking no so we accept please continue and I guess you Mr cook in addition to your obviously your expertise uh how about particularly in the town of Hillsboro uh your experience with you know Wetlands uh delineations and permitting and flood hezard area permitting um in in Hillsboro Township uh throughout years I have represented and at present represent uh many applications for to the New Jersey D for Wetlands letters of interpretation General permits Wetland transition area waivers and flood Hazard area verifications and permits and so as part of this obviously you work regularly with njd on these Wetland applications and flood flood Hazard area permits just about on an everyday basis and as part of this application uh you were asked to review and analyze njd Wetland regulations that's correct and uh speaking of those regulations did you have a role in actually preparing those regulations uh yes as I said earlier um during my time with the New Jersey D division fish G Wildlife I was responsible for uh providing input to the to the then proposed freshwater wetland protection act with regard to Wetland resource value classification criteria and as I also said I was also involved with the New Jersey DP stakeholders committee that was responsible for developing and reviewing different revisions to the freshw wetlands protection act and can you please State for the board uh what your role was uh with the applicant in the wetlands uh permitting process sure I was retained to review the project and to presentent uh make recommendations to the proposed project with regard to jurisdictional Wetlands compliance and then to represent the proposed project to the New Jersey DP for the relevant Wetlands permits that were required and in that role what did you do in uh preparation for an investigation well first of all I reviewed all the documentations that had previously been submitted to the D uh the wetlands letter of interp pretation application was not submitted by myself it was actually submitted by vanle engineering the project engineer and you're walking over to me you're good okay good deal I didn't like that look um concerning me uh so I uh reviewed all the the wetlands surveys the wetlands mapping uh and so on and so forth also conducted uh multiple field inspections to uh you know personally see the jurisdictional wetlands and wetlands limits and the characteristics of those Wetlands that were being represented to the D and so you're familiar with the various uh Wetland features on the property I am very familiar with the wetlands features on the property yes and the D in fact actually issued a Wetlands letter of interpretation dat of May 25th 2023 that he did yes that's correct uh I guess for purpose of tonight testimony I'd like to focus on the man-made drainage ditch on lot 33 object I'm sorry I'm I'm objecting there's been no testimony regarding man-made or not on the ditches I believe Mr Ford testified previously that this was a man-made ditch but we can get that elicited out through Mr cook I guess Mr cook the ditch on lot 33 if you could please uh you know describe the board uh you know that ditch and and you're familiar hourly with it sure thing um the the subject ditch that seems to be the question here um is a man-made feature on lot 33 um it is approximately 400 ft in length narrow man-made uh the origin of that ditch is from multiple inlets throughout uh the existing property and the um when you say inlets on the existing property what do you mean by Inlet before before he even gets the word the phrase manmade has been thrown around even during the witness's testimony he needs to set a foundation as to how he came to the conclusion it's man-made Because unless he dug it himself he had to have acquired that information from somebody else so why don't we at least try to put it on the foundation on the record Mr gianetti sure the the characteristics of that feature are very linear um very defined Banks to it um it's a feature that doesn't show up as a stream or or any kind of water feature on any kind of Aerials or other Maps um the inlets that are throughout lot 33 which are actually inlets that receive storm water from the impervious surfaces that um come from the vehicle storage throughout there that water goes into those inlets and is discharged at the origin of this ditch um this ditch then conveys those storm that storm water straight out in a northly direction to Royce Brook um that particular ditch um again linear narrow um consist 100% of alien in uh Alien invasive vegetation mugart um that that ditch was not designed for water quality that ditch does not look like it's designed for anything but storm water conveyance from the outfall from the inlets that had untreated storm Waters from the vehicle storage area and was there any consultation with the property owners with respect to the ditch or and the features on the property yes Mr shley had indicated that that indeed was a man-made ditch uh and was this ditch uh included as part of the LOI application again for the record I did not deal with the I I did not perform the actual delineation and I did not submit the LOI application in the original Loi application uh this ditch was not represented as a jurisdictional wetland and then how did it become part of uh or how did how did that drainage just become part and include as part of the Wetland application well pursuant to D's review of a Wetlands Loi they um they perform field inspections they actually performed multiple field inspections on this particular property and those field inspections are to um to verify the proposed limits of jurisdictional wetlands to determine if there's any areas that should be expanded um and to get an idea as far as what the resource value classification could be per those D field inspections it was requested by the DP to add this ditch as a jurisdictional wetland area and so the D it was at the D's request that this ditch be included in the wetlands application well just to be clear the the wetlands application what was submitted with the wetlands application did not include this ditch as a flagged or jurisdictional feature uh per D's field inspections the DP uh requested that this particular ditch be added and included as a jurisdictional wetland and why was it uh required to be included well with regard to jurisdictional Wetlands um before you even get into the the issue on is it a ditch is it not a ditch what the classifications are basically one looks at does it satisfy the criteria to be considered as a jurisdictional wetland regardless of what it looks like regardless of what its shape regardless of what its function jurisdictional wetlands are areas that satisfy vegetation soils and hydrology criteria so therefore based upon D field inspection it was determined that this feature um does satisfy it does include hydropic vegetation it did have hydric soils and it obviously had hydrology so therefore the D required this to be considered as a jurisdictional wetland area under the freshwater wetlands protection act and the LOI that was issued by the D on May 25th 2023 included the drainage ditch that's correct that's correct and how was it classified in that uh letter of interpretation from the d uh the D classified this feature as an ordinary resource value Wetland area and uh so then as part of that Loi and is classified it was considered a regulated Wetland by the D if you just explain how so correct as I said first and foremost before you even get into the classifications of the in the freshwater wetlands protection act first it has to be determined is it a jurisdictional wetland if it's an area regardless of what it looks like if it satisfies a vegetation soils and hydrology criteria it's a wetland area it's a wetland area Reg ated by the New Jersey D freshwater wetlands protection act Beyond on once it's established that as a jurisdictional wetland area then we get into the resource value classifications and the resource value value classifications are you know determine what kind of buffer zone or Wetland transition area is going to be required uh the DP had determined that this particular feature satisfied the criteria of an ordinary resource value Wetland area now are there other types of ditches uh or other ditches that are not regulated by the D or not identified as Wetlands uh yes we can have uh this particular feature this particular ditch so happen to satisfy vegetation soils and hydrology criteria we can have ditches that don't satisfy all of those criteria and therefore they would not be considered as a jurisdictional wetland area this particular feature did satisfy all of those criteria so therefore the D considered it as a jurisdictional wetland so not all ditches are wetlands it all depends on the features of that ditch of whether it's considered a wetland or not that's correct uh and did the applicant uh apply to the DP for a let me take a step back as part of the D regulations are are applicants are Property Owners allowed to apply for a general permit to fill Wetlands yes they are there there is the freshwater wetlands General permit system that allows for authorization to disturb certain types of wetlands for certain different purposes so to say and uh did the applicant apply for a general Wetlands permit uh to fill this particular ditch actually we applied for multiple freshwater wetlands General permits one of those such permits was was a fresh Wetlands General permit number seven which pertains to ordinary resource value ditches um part of our application package included application for freshwater wetlands or or or commonly called a gp7 and are these General permits generally issued as a matter of course uh meaning if you satisfy certain items they're issued there's really not kind of a discretionary aspect to it sure the um the General the general Wetlands permits are are are basically called stipulation permits you satisfy the stipulations of those particular permits you get the permit actually when we made the RS these permits were made to be reviewed and issued in a half hour not years as we have it right now as as Mr Mayu will will will attest to um but uh only a a Statewide general or uh they used to be called Statewide General Wetlands permits now they're called freshwater General permits only a gp1b which is a long roadway Crossing requires an alternative analysis none of the other General permits require an alternative analysis and then there's separate individual Wetland permits uh that applicants can seek that are more involved correct if if a project is proposing disturbance that's not covered by a general Wetlands permit they have the opportunity to apply for an individual Wetlands permit individual Wetlands permits are extremely difficult to get uh they require an alternative analysis and the proof that if they are not being issued that one is being denied a reasonable constitutional right to their property very difficult to get now in this case if the applicant did not seek uh this General a general permit to fill these wetlands and just filled it on its own uh would it be in violation of the D regulations yes it would since it is considered as a jurisdictional wetland um in order to disturb it or its Wetland buffer zone uh one has to get the appropriate permit through the DP if you disturb a jurisdictional area without a permit that's considered as a violation and the notice of violation would be issued and I know I think you indicated uh the the man Mage drainage ditch was is classified as an ordinary resource value I don't know if did you identify the zero foot buffer I might have mentioned it but I'll mention it again a ordinary resource value Wetland area does not require a buffer zone uh so what does it mean ordinary resource value zero foot buffer compared to other other resource values this was my bag with with regard to the freshwater wetlands protection act jurisdictional wetlands are classified or are separated into into three different classifications that's it three the first is exceptional resource value exceptional resource value wetlands are wetlands that drain into a tra production water or documented habitat for wetland dependent rare threaten or endangered species that's exceptional resource value um those such Wetlands require 150 ft Wetland transition area the other end of the spectrum are ordin AR resource value Wetlands ordinary resource value wetlands are those Wetlands that have been determined have negligible if any ecological resource associated with it um examples of ordinary resource value wetlands are isolated Wetlands less than 5,000 square ft and surrounded by greater than 50% development drainage ditches drainage swells on storm water man-made storm water detention basins and retention basins those are ordinary resource value ordinary resource value Wetlands require no Wetland transition area everything that's not exceptional resource value or ordinary resource value is considered as intermediate resource value um which is what the remainder of the wetlands on this property uh were were classified as intermediate resource value Wetlands require standard 50t buffer on now you mentioned the the exceptional uh resource values have 150t buffer uh similar to actually the town stream Court ordinance also requires 150t buffer and then the intermediary has a 50-ft buffer what what are the reasons for having these buffers with these types of wetlands well it was it was determined based upon the the the the criticalness if that's uh a word uh and in you know importance of that particular Wetland resource okay um if uh if a particular Wetland was determined to have a high critical value such as a wetland that drains it into a trail production stream or has a documented occurrence of rare threatened endangered species that is one of our highest priority wetlands in the state okay that should therefore require the highest buffer zone which is 150 ft now mind you during the Inception of the freshwater wetlands protection act we went back and forth for a very long time on what buffer zone distances would be how we could reduce those buffer zones could we have different resource value classifications along the same Wetland line those were all things that were ironed out during the Inception of the freshwater wetlands protection act and are there any other critical functions at these uh these exceptional intermediary resource values provide uh other you just discussed yeah I mean from a bugs and bunnies guys standpoint and Mr quiz will laugh at that um I of course if uh if there's a wetland area that has an influence on a high quality water such as a trout production water or has the ability to serve as a habitat for rare threatened endangered species then that indeed has a high value and and should have the highest buffer okay um when you get down to the ordinary resource value Wetlands it was understandable at that particular time when the freshwater wetlands protection act was was created that there would be features and there would be areas that would indeed satisfy vegetation soils and hydrology criteria but what was there what was their function did they did they have a function uh you know did did they serve uh did they serve an a a higher function that deserved uh more protection the resource value classifications also determine what permits are applicable to those particular Wetlands for instance if it's not an ordinary resource value Wetland area and it's not an isolated Wetland area we can't get a general permit just to fill a wetland area for General development you fill a Wetland a general permit for a roadway Crossing utility line Crossing things like that but if it's not an ordinary resource value Wetland area gp7 does not apply and in your opinion uh does this man-made drainage dish perform any of those critical functions for the exceptional or intermediary uh resource values no again this subject ditch is serves to convey untreated storm water in a linear fashion from a developed portion of the property um in a in a direct manner right down to Royce Brook with with zero treatment and as part of this new development there's going to be a new storm water management system in compliance uh with d regulations proposed to handle storm water management on the site that is that is correct as part of the flood Hazard area individual permits uh the D with uh with literally in my opinion the most comprehensive and most strict storm water management regulations in the country um this project had to develop a storm water management plan to be represented to the D and the D approved that plan and that permit was issued on November 6 2023 November 6 2023 and and what was issued there there were joint permits that were applied for both Wetlands permits and flood Hazard area permits flood Hazard because we have two regulations flood Hazard area Control Act rules which regulate streams flood Hazard areas and repairing zones and we have the freshwater wetlands protection act that regulates areas that satisfy the three criteria for for jurisdictional Wetlands um yes in on o u November the 6 2023 the the FHA individual permits were issued and also attached to that was the FHA verification which verified the limits of all regulated Waters and assigned the repairing Zone associated with those regulated Waters so that kind of answered my next question that the flood Hazard area rules and those permits uh deal with the regulation in part deal with the regulation of streams by the D that's correct the flet hazard area Control Act rules regulate jurisdictional wooders and repairing zones and flood Hazard areas and did the njd require anything uh from a flood Hazard area perspective with respect to this drainage ditch no in accordance with the flood Hazard area verification this drainage ditch was not considered as a regulated water um it does not have have a flood plane and it does not have a repair in zone associated with it so the D did not consider this drainage ditch uh to be a stream or part of a stream Corridor that would acquire uh a flood Hazard area permit that's correct now you're aware in some of our correspondents back and forth with the board uh professionals uh that they're of the opinion that this man Mage d uh drainage ditch is a stream under the town stream court or protection ordinance and claims 150t buffer is required on either side are you aware of that yes I am now uh the town's Land Development ordinance defines stream uh as the following and this is section 188 D3 of the ordinance a water course having a source and Terminus Banks and channel through which water flows at least periodically uh you familiar with that definition I've been made aware of it yes and what is your opinion as to that definition well being entirely respectful um that has to be one of the vaguest definitions that I've come across with regard to uh description of a regulated order um first of all it's it's extremely vague as to what it relates to um however I think in that one of the things that that I would pick out is I think a key word in that definition perhaps the author of that definition meant this I think one of the key words in that definition is is what's used what they say water course um generally a water course is is a natural water feature um that has a resource associated with it um it's not just a feature created to convey storm order and uh kind of going along with the uh uh the board professionals and the objectors interpretations would that mean any drainage ditcher Swale in Hillsboro would require 150t buffer including a roadside dish or a roadside Swale using the vague the the vague definition most certainly um any any roadside ditch would have a source a Terminus Banks and a channel but again the njd did not consider this a stream under the FHA rules didn't require any sort of buffer uh designated it as an ordinary resource value Wetland with a zero foot buffer that the applicants allowed to fill with a general permit is that correct that that's correct uh referring back again to the town's stream Court of ordinance this is that section 18864 uh capital d uh sub paragraph little e you know it states that the stream Court of protection ordinance is not intended to conflict with any applicable regulations from the njd which shall govern is that correct that's correct in your opinion based upon the njd regulations okay I'm I'm going to object on this question Bas on your opinion all I said not an attorney um he didn't I'm assuming did not write this ordinance given his current testimony um and I'll go back to my original objection back in December uh Mr cook um and I've given latitude here but none of I think 95% of what has been testified at at this point is anywhere in a report anywhere um in anything that Mr cook has submitted I would say a all I stated was based upon your opinion I didn't even ask a question uh second I'm not asking for a legal conclusion I'm not asking whether uh in his opinion there's uh any sort of [Music] uh usurp of the law being occur uh occurring uh ask any legal opin opinion just based upon how the D the D permits whether he believes it conflicts uh with the town's ordinance n ask it's it's not a legal conclusion I would I would I'm not done yet second uh in response to the back and forth uh that the letters back and forth to Mr Bernstein back in September I included a letter from Mr cook that outlined a lot of this he didn't he's not saying word for word everything in the letter but the subject matter of what was in that letter he's testified to tonight uh and the permits that were issued by the D and the regulations speak for themselves I I would disagree there's nothing I believe in any of his reports about man-made discussions with Mr shley or he doesn't have to put that in a report he was was giving his analysis and his conclusions he's now providing the foundation for it as well as the rest of his testimony just like when our planner comes she's not only going to be limited to word for word every single thing in her report I re reiterate my objection I disagree with you so now's asked a question so we know what the question is continue Mr cook in your opinion based upon the mjdp regulation and the permits issued to the applicant thereunder do you believe it conflicts with this uh the stream quarter protection ordinance conflicts with the same or applying it conflicts with the same as I answer that if I could for the record um read in what that section of the regulation basically States um that's an a purpose in scope of the freshwater well en protection act njac C7 colon 7A 1.1 subtitle C that indicates that uh the freshwater wetlands protection act on subsequent to July 1st 1988 shall supersede any law or ordinance enacted by any municipality County or political subdivision thereof regulating freshwater wetlands or freshwater Wetland transition areas except the Pinelands no no municipality County or political subdiv Vision thereof shall enact any law ordinance rule or regulation requiring a transition area adjacent to a freshwater Wetland except that the Pinelands commission may provide a more stringent with with that since this ditch was considered by the D to be a regulated Wetland area without a buffer zone since it is a regular at Wetland area it it would it would be my opinion that we have some conflict with a municipal ordinance applying a buffer zone to a state regulated Wetland area from an environmental perspective is there any reason in your opinion that there should be 150 fot buffer on either side of this man-made ditch again I'm going to reiterate my objection there is nothing in his report talking about resour excuse me sorry there's nothing in his report to which a basis for any discussion on ecological value water quality values or anything um it's not there and if I'm wrong I apologize but it's not there this is an expert giving an opinion uh there's been no report on this there has been no discussion of it uh and so I object I mean first again I would knowe uh our prior September correspondents included uh the letter of uh Mr cook addressing a lot of this second he's also pining based upon uh the freshwater wetlands permit that was issued I mean those those documents also speak for themselves I mean let's not forget the njde Department of Environmental Protection that is the role of the EP protect the environment zero foot buffer ordinary resource value no flood Hazard area permit required not considered a stream he's allowed that's part of what Mr cook does is apply for these permits interpret these permits and I'm asking in his opinion whether he believes uh from an environmental perspective whether there's a need to have 150t buffer with respect to this manmade ditch I think you should answer it and I think the board would want to hear it again I'll just repeat my objection and it's found it where in that letter does is there a discussion about the 150 foot buffer well it's his opinion and it's it's not this the first time he's offering that opinion on a 150 or is there something in you in in that letter or report that he provided well no because the opinion is there was no there is no 150 foot buffer required and there's a reason why there's not 150 foot buffer required the the question is while he that may be his opinion where in any correspondence is he indicated to the board how he came to that conclusion other than his testimony here this evening so I just his his opinion was whether or not the ditch was within the wetlands jurisdiction it's not opining upon buffers and whether or not it applies in this particular case and that's the issue that was briefed back in the fall was whether or not this ditch comes under the stream Corridor ordinance or whether it doesn't has nothing to do with the buffers because if it falls within the ordinance then the 150bt buffer uh applies if I recall if I recall the the uh board tabled that decision towards the [Music] end that part is a board decision the issue is not what the board did or didn't do the issue is whether or not we've been provided with any of this in a written form other than testimonial which Mr Chin is allowed to ask but understand that it will probably open up to more issues and it will less what the board agreed to deal with was a request made that the board deem the application denied because the stream Corridor would therefore prevent at least one of the opposed buildings from being built and the board determined that it was not going to make that decision in the abstract and was going to deal with it as part of the overall application that hasn't changed any can I move on I mean the issue is really are these things that he's testified to in his report were in a letter and he said a lot right he talked about the the D field notes he talked about conversations with uh with Mr Shockley he talked about you know he doesn't have to provide that in a report he identified it as a man-made ditch and he asket I know it's fun to talk over people we tend to do it as lawyers and each other but Mr Tarantino who has been quiet this evening get his two words in that's really the issue it's the issue is um Mr cook has Tes has said many things and um the public and we as objectors have not had an opportunity to vet that information you know to say is this you know his definition of what a a man-made stream is because it's linear and um you know the field notes that he's referring to and uh the conversation that he's talking about there's no documentation whatsoever of any of that information so he's just talking about it but we don't have why have a report if it's not required to be in it he's an expert and he's allowed to testify it he's identified as a man-made ditch in the letter he doesn't have to identify every single reason why he's testifying to it you want to vet it vet it he's here you can also bring your own expert and have him submit a report and then we'll have an opportunity to cross-examine it but the board has every right to hear from the expert who's issued two reports in this application so you're saying he's going to revise his report to include the rationale that he's just presented in his his verbal testimony is that what he's going to do what rale was all part of his rationalist conclusions in the letter he's allowed to expand upon that that uh he talked about field notes he talked about criteria for what is a what is man-made none of that is in his report so is so he's allowed to just say whatever he uh you know to testify to whatever he's an expert yes he can well I'm more interested in understanding the uh contradiction or whatever wants state that the Township's ordinance isn't applicable here I'm not sure there was anything in in a Mr chairman can I take a couple of minutes I want to speak to Mr Mayu and we can come back to this two minutes you want two minutes I'll give you three what time are we at 9:30 so it may not me too just no one leaves the room thank you Mr chairman thank you we're back okay Mr bernin I had a question Mr May you he answered my question okay thank you chairman I would also like to highlight uh as part of the D application process Mr cook and his office prepared several reports that were included in part of the application process all that was submitted uh to this board on Civic clerk so they have the opportunity to remove everything with respect to the wetlands the flood Hazard area and how the conclusions came to what they be it doesn't have to have every single word he's saying here tonight has to be found somewhere in a report he's giving his expert opinion if I and I only have uh he's giving his expert opinion Mr gianetti as to his interpretation his conversations with Mr Shockley are not expert opinions his field notes in the absence of everyone else seeing them are not expert opinions he can give an expert opinion on his interpretation of the process but and but rely but rely on any experts allowed to rely on the understanding that it's here either hearsay or questionable Foundation I'm not saying he can't rely on it I'm just pointing out to you that making being an expert doesn't allow you to in and of them in and of itself talk to people and then therefore Define it as an expert opinion he defined in his testimony that having talked to Mr shley it is not it is a man-made ditch that may be what he has but understand in the absence of Mr shley or anything in writing it's hear say testimony in the traditional sense of the word as you and I both know it true but in the traditional under court rules and experts are allowed to rely on discussions and and it wasn't just the discussions he described the features of the the answer is reliance is one thing determining it is an expert opinion is another he can give an expert opinion on his interpretation of the application of the D regulations to the situation at hand his interpretation of other potentially legal issues is ultimately up to the board to decide whether or not it wants to give it weight or not but merely being an it doesn't allow you necessarily to aine to everything you aine on is necessarily therefore base because I am an expert he's an expert on a limited issue and he's a pining on The Limited issue correct he's app pining on the impact of the D regulations related to this application and the permits issued and the permits issued let's try to if objectors have their issues they can raise the issues on cross-examination um and or make requests of additional information from the individual on Court's examination because I'm assuming correct me if I'm Mr Wrong Mr Janet Mr cook is not planning on supplementing his report no unless I mean it's all in the the letter the reports the D report submitted uh or he's not planning on supplementing correct thank [Music] you and I guess one last question uh given your extensive experience in Hillsboro Township including work that you have done for Hillsboro have you ever seen the township apply the stream courter protection ordinance to a man-made ditch man-made drainage a ditch I'm allowed to answer that yes okay I think before he answers it he needs to qualify exactly where and when he came up with those opinions on behalf of the township CU he's now being asked in all the time he's done work for the township you want to change the question you can change the question but the implication is that having done work for the township he has given opinions regarding same if he has when where and how if he hasn't he can comment on his interpretation these are ones where we had ditches and part aess was just so yeah again I'm not asking opinions he gave or expert opinions he gave on behalf of the township I'm asking his experience in dealing with the township and dealing with the ordinance has he ever seen it applied by the township that's a factual question he he he cannot make that comment in the abstract there's got to be specific times dates and places where he has either seen it by his own involvement Andor he's been provided to it by the township and oh by the way irrespective it doesn't necessarily bind this board so can you give any examples where it hasn't been applied sure the two this thing on the the two most recent ones uh one was the application represented for Hillsboro Township for the Brown Avenue Extension rection isn't that the same question he's now going to testify on his experience when it wasn't applied how is that not the same as when it was applied we're we're back we're back to the same we're back to the same issue your client is now being your your witness is now being asked which by the way raises a whole another question as to whether or not he can in fact testify before this board because now he's going to give testimony related to experience he may have let me go back a step have you ever represented that done any work for the township of Hillsboro I represented permits for the town of Hillsboro related to items of this nature related to Wetlands permits correct when was the last one you did it was the Brown Avenue Extension actually Hillsboro Township was not the formal client the engineer Reynolds Engineering Group was the client I was the consultant involved with dealing with the D for the Brown Avenue extension and the freshwater wetlands permits that we got for that which was uh Statewide General Wetlands permit number 10B when I don't have that date with me I can get that for you recent I believe yes yeah uh the other one Apex Sports um Mountain View Park that was actually a gp7 which we had multiple ditches coming through the property that we had to fill under gp7 on behalf of whom on behalf of Apex Sports right so that was an let let's deal more with the brown Avenue Extinction issue Apex you were representing a private client and whether or not the board or the township Etc dealt with that issue is not necessarily gerine to this application but you did however apparently do work for the township is that correct for Brown Avenue it was the the town was a beneficiary of the permit that was secured the town was not my client for this M Engineering Group was the was the client uh the township of Hillsboro was not my client uh Mr chairman I'm going to want a few minutes with members of the township who happen to be sitting on this board to get a better understanding because I'm not totally sure I concur with that consideration but if the board would allow me a few minutes with Mr chiarelli and Mr Leon certainly we're back in session Mr chairman yes thank you Mr chairman uh I for the purpose of the record I asked to speak to committee man leani who before his current position was the mayor for several years and the current Deputy Mayor Mr chiarelli I think Mr janetti that if your client intends to testify related to I assume his argument that the township has chosen not to apply this issue in other places he needs to reduce the writing exactly what his contentions are and the basis of such because one of the possibilities is there is a potential conflict here the Brown Avenue Extinction project is an ongoing coordinated project between the township and the county and I think we need understand that I think we need to understand where he's drawing the analogy from Apex and I think his testimony alone is not enough not enough for the board to consider not enough for the objetives to consider not enough for the public to consider and there's also as I said the issue I have a concern about whether or not there's a potential conflict conflict in what sense he's not he's here on beh he has done work for the township which may prevent him from being able to testify on ongoing related to an ongoing project that may have an impact on whether he can testify in this matter against the township and the board because that's what his testimony is his testimony extensively is that Mr mayu's con determination has I'm assuming you can correct me if I'm wrong assume is not consistent with what may have been done by others not necessarily this board and that's why there is no consistency between what's going on now and what has gone on before in the township am I wrong with my determination yeah I think it's more of like I said given his experience in the town has he seen it applied to drainage stitches before if he's testifying in again I think we need to have a better understanding than simply his oral testimony as to how he's claiming is an analogous situation because that's what he's being he's you want him to testify to the sensibly he's seen other situations where the township has not applied what is potentially being suggested to be applied in this application otherwise I don't need I don't think you plan on using his testimony for any other reason on that issue on that question no we can get that information for you thank you and I suggest that that this point you move on to something else for the moment that's all I have of questioning of Mr cook but I guess along those lines and on that subject in my November uh 29th letter to the board uh I requested that Mr mayew and Andor Mr Bernstein to to the extent Mr Bernstein knows identify a past situation where the township has applied the stream Corridor to a man-made ditch in town uh well we're not first of all I don't believe the B my office nor Mr mayu's office is required to prove or show where it has or has not been it's definitely not within my purview uh your argument is it hasn't it doesn't apply and the regulations don't allow it you got an opinion slightly different from Mr Mayu who knows what his ultimate opinion will be I don't believe it is my obligation nor the board Engineers obligation to show where it's been used this you know every application as you are well aware Mr gianetti and your capacity as the chair of land you day Pitney stands on its own and what may have been done in X doesn't necessarily apply to Y where the facts are not necessarily the same and or the situation is not NE your argument is the township has never done this before and the township shouldn't be doing it here I think that's Mr Cook's testimony boiled down to its ultimate conclusion is that the interpretation is wrong it's wrong on because it's contrary to D and it's wrong because the ordinance doesn't allow for that determination I don't think I have to prove the opposite I think nor does Mr Mayu Mr Mayu is entitled to his professional opinion currently and whatever he ultimately may or may not determine after the testimony of your client and the objetive situation and the like but I don't think we have to prove the negative so again just to be clear too it it wasn't offering the testimony that the town's never done that because I I don't think Mr you asked me whether or not show me where the township has applied this ordinance to a man-made that's not my obligation nor Mr mayus your contention is you disagree not you let me rephrase this is not a you and I your client disagrees and his expert concurs that the determination of Mr Mayu at the at the time of his opinion and his current one is incorrect and the board should ignore it am I wrong no you're not wrong okay but I think but I think it's a legitimate question this application has been pending for a number of hearings the first time the streem ctdor ordinance relief from this ditch only came up when we were way into the application we're disagreeing the application I think it's a legitimate question to ask have you applied it to this Mr we we Mr Mayu and I will have a discussion about it and if I we choose to answer the question we will as for where it came up in the course of events planning board applications and you've sat through two this evening before you got up tonight have a habit of moving are moving targets as they go on if it got brought up at session number 29 and it's legitimate it's still legitimate no matter when it got brought up if it got brought up at the beginning or the end and you and I have both sat through applications where in the middle of the application we've seen the infamous aha moment on both sides of the aisle so I would like not to try to indicate that this I'll put this in quotes late situation makes it any less or any more important wherever it turned up in the application I gather Mr cook is done with his testimony yes he has no further test direct examination Mr chairman it is 5 minutes to 10 I realize I have asked for a couple of extensions this evening and I suspect the uh board is willing to go a few more minutes longer but I'm assuming that all the objectors have questions and the board may have questions so I would suggest the board asks his questions and let's see where we are okay should I turn it over to our professionals anything to question at this point but uh thank you Mr chairman going have to talk into the mic mark thank you Mr chairman um Mr cook you earlier discussed the definition uh in Hillsboro Township ordinance [Music] it's not it's just the word water course is the word manmade contained in the definition of a stream in the Hillsboro ordinance no it's not is the word natural contained in the definition in the Hillsboro Township ordinance no it's not um I I already know to answer this question but you've you've gone to the site and you've and you've looked at this uh feature in question correct correct and um I think I heard in your testimony this feature terminates at an intersection with a tributary to the Royce Brook that's correct and I believe uh You' mentioned it has banks that it does and it has a channel yes yes it does um and it has a source the source is the outlet of the storm water inlets if the uh and I've been to the site as well and um I noticed in fact we were both standing there when we saw there's a head wall at the correct at the farthest Upstream point we'll say from uh the Roy Brook tributary if if the head wall wasn't and you mentioned the head wall is and of course we don't have detailed drawings we saw both saw some inlets on site and we assume there's storm pipe collecting water from inlets and leading to that head wall correct safe assumption correct um do you know if there weren't inlets on the site and and there wasn't a storm piping do you have an opinion where the storm water would flow that would in my opinion that would be based upon the topography um I believe that the way that the Topography is of the developed parking lot and storage area for the vehicles um pitches down towards those inlets that then uh you know combine everything discharge them into the the origin of that ditch to then convey off to the to to the brook um I would assume if there weren't those inlets there uh we would probably have Overland flow and um if we had Overland flow at some point would you assume that that Overland flow was is entering the ditch at some point then perhaps we'd really have to look at the at the Topo on that uh because obviously the the the toppo of the existing development pitches down towards those those inlets um to help to help the board and and the public when you mentioned the toppo I know you and I understand what you're saying but generally when runoff hits the ground ground it's going to move perpendicular to contour lines that's correct it's going to flow to a lower elevation correct thank you um so if we looked at the toppo on the site that would help us identify which direction the stormw runoff was heading correct okay um it it might be helpful if um we looked at there is a an Loi that was issued and it has uh some topography on that plan maybe that would help to to look at that drawing is the the approved Wetlands survey map referenced in the LOI yeah yeah mine's pretty small oh have it up um Mr Ko's put that maybe Mr Co if you if I can just say David more comfortable could you scroll over to the bottom right just so everybody understands what drawing we're trying to show uh on the screen and I can already tell it's so Whited out I don't know how U Mr cook or I are going to be able to see any Topo or contour lines it is a very large document so it's just going to be a little bit slow I zoom in a my issue is uh my issue is you can't identify contour lines from that uh exhibit so we might have to try to get a darker print or something onto the the screen for the next meeting well that that does look better than the screen on the side if Mr qu if you could where would you like me to go if you could just Pan the screen up a little bit so we're missing at the northern part of this is the um tributary to the Roy Brook in the center of the drawing to help every budy this is the D issued Loi um so you could see it the northern part as Mr cook has testified this um this feature we're discussing uh connects with the tributary to the Royce Brook but if you could pan David so that we can see more of the Southern portion I guess okay we're panning and if if we could stop right there and I don't know how to do us without but just as Mr cook and I were saying if these these Dash lines right here are contour lines which is we call the topography they're identifying different elevations usually in this case looks like every one foot is identified and as Mr cook just said it when rainfall hits the ground it's going to move perpendicular so Mr cook would you say as I'm trying to explain on the plan here there's a 95 Contour 94 the water is going to be moving sort of Northwest towards the ditch in that in this particular that I'm demonstrating yeah uh Mr qu is it possible to pan further up you know what mark it it looks like the actual that that Topo that's on that Wetland survey might not represent exactly what the existing conditions are out there okay because that uh uh you know what I'm saying the the storage area does it showes it show the parking lot so Mr cook and I would like to see more so here just to help the public and the board U Mr cook and I have both talked about a head wall at at the southern end of this water feature and that head wall it's not labeled but it's be right at this point would you agree correct correct yes so the head wall there and if David if you could hand the screen up a little bit more what we'll start seeing is see that direction go down yes okay okay so and uh I believe when we were walking out there this is one of the storm inlets it's not labeled but there's a storm Inlet on site and we and we believe that there's probably a pipe from that Inlet to that to the be and then we believe there's some additional as you keep David if you can keep in and up yeah so that that uh the existing parking area for the vehicles is kind of roughly drawn in there um I believe that that parking area actually goes further back to the North or at least his Vehicles parked further back to the north now but if you could stop right there while the and then this looks like we're going to see another storm Inlet but generally what we're what where I think we're agreeing is if water fell in this area it's going to run perpendicular to the Contours and and maybe head over to this Inlet right here that's that's correct and as I was trying to say earlier you know if the inlet was there not there or clog then this runoff is going to continue to the lowest point which is going to flow north as you can see these Contours start directing it towards that water feature that's correct so the the source of water for the water feature is could be partly the head wall partly from Storm pipes and partly from runoff from the surrounding areas in your opinion could you repeat that so there were some double negatives in there I'm sorry um well let me let me back up one um you would agree that water flows at least periodically through this feature of course yes there was water flowing the day we were both yes correct and the source of that order in in your opinion would you agree it could be partially from uh piping from Storm inlets but it could also be partially from Overland flow from the surrounding area um I guess based upon my observation Mr M I I did not see any indication of any kind of concentrated Overland flow going into that ditch uh from from either side um it seemed to me that that the whole um Argent and source of that particular ditch was that head wall was that pipe that collected water from all of those inlets there um I did not see any any concentrated Overland flow that would uh you know it would indicate that we had a a a definitive flow from any of the surrounding areas into that ditch in and of itself I think the drainage area is kind of small for that could there be sheet flow across the based on the Contours and topography we talk water is going to and David it's better if you let us see more of the bottom the southern part based on the Contours and we discussing how water flows is it possible there's Overland sheet flow heading in that direction I would say that that Overland sheet flow would have to be pretty extensive to get through that area and into that ditch um um what if the inlets were clogged MH where would the Overland flow go it would ultimately follow the topography and it would ultimately have to go into the ditch I uh Mr chairman I think that's all the questions I have for right now if I could based on other testimony other questions follow up at some point later I'd like serve that opportunity okay thank you thank you sure Mr Mr chairman I don't have any questions at this time thank you okay board members [Music] okay following along his line of questioning could the ditch have been there originally in some form or another and then been inh hand by Mr shley to allow for water to drain more efficiently down to the Roy Brook um in in looking at past Aerials and and including uh soil surveys and so on and so forth old soil surveys from the 1960s um have a tendency to show all indications of drainage features and so on and so forth um in in no former old aerial or map that did I see any indication of a water feature there none whatsoever none but the topography would indicate that it would have done so the topography would indicate that there could be Overland drainage going in that direction which could be why he chose probably to enhance what was potentially already there to some small de grade perhap being the lowest area that would probably be the most relevant part to have drainage go down to yes correct yes okay anyone [Music] else so Mr chairman I assume that the objectors are going to have a number of questions based on the colloquy during Mr Cook's testimony we are back here in two weeks well no Mr cook is not back here in two weeks I'm gathering we were hoping we were going to be able to complete Mr cook tonight and get to our planning on the 8th uh given it was a narrow scope but I didn't realize I knew there was other stuff I I thought some of it would and there will be other stuff on the eth too um and he's not available on the eth and I also don't want to start our planner until we complete Mr cook uh then I'm assuming you're asking for a date in March yeah uh yes I believe2 was Extinction to yes I guess once we understand what the schedule looks like Mr is there any spots on there NE in March David he had when he started I have some hair thank you it's true could we take could we take a two minutes why not everyone else has that day Five Guys is closed anyway so so has everyone got a huddle around you David just to compare calendars so Mr Jan what's the time of decision extension till uh we can give a time and decision April [Music] 1st okay all right just just as a clarification I'm assuming that we would be able to question Mr cook about all of his report other aspects other other parts of his report you get to cross examine yep okay it's on the record y great okay all of this Mr chairman thank you all March 7 uh this is an extension of this hearing till March 7th 2024 at 700 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard they're going to split it with another application they'll go first and the time of decision extension to April 1 2024 can you and for the public edification my my boss is telling me that there will be no application there will be no hearing on this application on February the eth with no further notice right so with that may I have a motion I'll make that motion second okay roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr scobo yes smth yes uh Deputy excuse me committee leani yes Deputy Mayor Chelli yes sh PE yes he moved yes musical chair okay so just to remind everyone we do have a meeting next week February we have two me we have meeting next week and the week after but only want to do one at a time yes we have a meeting next week with another Warehouse application no don't say it I said it sorry shoot me so with that Homestead Road uh well not beginning with the word Homestead even better motion Jour okay is there a second yeah all in favor I okay see for those of you who will be here on Ladi