##VIDEO ID:oRUuzUMDnPA## good evening everybody Welcome to Thursday September 12th planning board 2024 uh everybody join me in a salute to the [Music] flag flag of the United States of America to the republ for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all this meeting has been duly advertised according to section five of the open public meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 known as the Sunshine Law notice of the 2024 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers the Township Clerk posted on the Township's website and available at Hillsboro Township municiple complex application documents plans have been made available on the Township's website and at least 10 days in advance of the meeting complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice uh can I have a roll call please of all planning board members and [Music] professionals um Cher sarach and Mr vital are absent Mr Wagner here Mr vet Mr rtz here Mr scobo here Smith here Mr Deb here in the P president mayor Chelli here M chair peas here Mr Co is here M ball here Bernstein here may here here and myself and the videographer here okay thank you uh consideration of meeting minutes seeing none uh moving on to consideration of resolutions seeing none planning board business uh 1170 Millstone LLC file 22 pb09 mspv extension of time submitted through December 31st 2024 counselor we need to um approve it okay do I have a motion so moved second roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Mr scobo yes Smith yes committe Lani yes Vice chair PE yes um okay moving on Business from the floor for matters not on the agenda tonight and anybody come up please refrain from any warehouse applications or anything related to thereof state your name and your address and limit to 5 minutes Maria Janus 720 East fck Avenue Manville New Jersey I'm also a Hillsboro Township property owner block 86 lot 3 2155 camplan Road excuse me at the last planning board meeting that was held last Thursday uh the planning board approved a revised resolution for the application of Eminem at camplan Road LLC which is for Block 86 lot 2.02 the Sherman tract uh a resolution had been approved after the application had been approved so um how is it that now there's a revision to the resolution was there another meeting uh what was changed and when as I indicated Mr chairman at the meeting when the resolution came up last week Where Mrs janicek was present there was a condition that was not in the resolution regarding meeting and provision of the conditions of the approval by the planning board related to phase one of the Glen Gary site in which this was a recognition that they had met the requirements of the resolution by putting through this application for Sherman Phase 2 oh I I don't recall all of that being uh explained um attorney Bernstein and why wasn't that if that is a condition why wasn't that put in the original resolution because because the Glen KY uh application um I I believe was discussed and that's part of the settlement and so that um that should have been put into the original resolution why wasn't it I answered the question Mrs kesc okay um the um the Hillsboro planning board gave approval to the Eminem at camplan Road LLC for the development of the Sherman track phase two on block 86 lot 2.02 does uh Eminem at camplan Road LLC own block 86 lot 21.0 02 at this time did Hillsboro sell that property to um Eminem at camplan Road LLC I don't believe that we've officially transferred the ownership so when that when that approval was given to Eminem at camplan Road LLC they are were not and still are not the owners of that property no they're the designated redevelopers as I have said so many times I've lost track so that is uh okay to approve a development to a developer who doesn't own the property it was the same thing we did with RPM which is the neighboring property was the same process and the same process that you asked the question about een years ago I guess at this point it is the same no the same process they did not own it till after they were designated and then at that point the process will move forward to transfer the property at the proper time this was strictly the the plan to designate the redeveloper and approve the plan as part of the resettlement agreement that's it okay so uh and you the question RPM you're stating that RPM developers did not own that property before they were given approval for phase one of the Sherman tract when they came in for the application it was the same process so they didn't own the property but they and you ask the same question then I'm asking just the yes or ask answer did they own the property before they were given approval for the development no and I told you that already no okay so this this land use board gives approval to developers before they own the property called contract purchaser that's what it's all about okay anybody else a seeing none uh move to close don't need to move all right onward applications for public hearing uh up is three o 30390 Amwell Road file 21 pb17 mspv counselor uh good evening my name is John DeLuca I'm from the law firm savos shock and I uh represent the applicant J mj4 AEL LLC uh I'm here tonight requesting an adjournment of this hearing uh to the board's December 12th meeting or the next available hearing date thereafter uh with no notice being uh required that is our request but of course if the board determines notice is required we will issue those notices uh the reason for this adjournment request is the property is under contract to be sold and uh pursuant to inspections in connections that in connection with that sale uh certain um area areas of environmental concern were noted on the property they require further investigation uh before we're prepared to move forward with a hearing okay counselor any comments I believe we have correct me if I'm wrong Mr Co a Extinction for time of decision through the end of the year correct so uh council's request to have it placed on the agenda for December uh for the second meeting in December is in line with what we're do dealing with tonight is that acceptable Mr K yes okay so moved is there a roll call required any a motion to Second for thank you this is a motion to to carry uh this application 303 Amwell Road J mj4 a LLC file number 21 pb17 mspv to December 12th 2024 at 7.m Orum thereafter the matter may be heard without further notice okay uh we have a second also okay roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Mr scobo yes Smith yes leani yesus yes thank you okay thank you counc I also have the next one I [Music] believe it's an Extinction David no public hearing on an Extinction you want to raise the issue raise it okay next application yep okay next application uh Mr rtz will take the chair well no not yet M next application Mr chairman is Homestead 279 LLC PB 22- pb-05 DS mspv uh Mr chairman you are recused on this application uh since chairman saki is also not here this evening we are in need of an acting chairman for this application so therefore the Board needs to designate a member of the board to be the acting chair for this application does anyone have any motion to do so I make a motion to uh Fallen told Mr rowitz to uh to be chair I'll second that all right there is a motion to second is there anyone else who wants to take on I'll second that one all in favor Noti have my jacket [Music] on also Mr chiarelli also needs to recuse himself on this [Music] application so I'll make [Music] it and I will point out for the record that Mr Vander and Mr Deb are on the deis but neither one of them are going to participate in this application so it is Mr scobo committee mapani acting chair rtz Mr Wagner and secretary Smith are the eligible members for this application uh this is an application block 200.2 2.02 Lot 12 formerly block 200 pointb lot 28 applicant seeking preliminary and final M major site plan approval sea bulk variances and waivers to construct the second 13275 foot Warehouse building on the subject lot with internal office space Associated parking loading spaces lighting storm water and improvements on property in the LI light industrial zoning District revised packet routed September 19th 2022 further revised plans documents and reports received on June 20 8 2023 through June 30 2023 this was last heard by this board on May the 9th and adjourned without further notice uh Council if you'd like to indicate for the record and I is the objector here uh my name is again John DeLuca of the law from Salos shock I'm here on behalf of the applicant Homestead 279 LLC over there [Music] [Music] break Mr ionella for the record could you place your name on the record and who you're sitting there with my name is Sandro ionela 747 Route 206 and I'm sitting next to my planner Chris mik uh the application is here this evening Mr Duca uh I believe you have a request on behalf of the applicant I believe Mr ranella has his own comments he wishes to make and then we'll see where we go from there thank you Mr Bernstein yes uh similar to the last application uh the applicant here is seeking an adjournment um this adjournment request uh is to be placed on the April 3rd 2024 agenda or the next available meeting date thereafter uh with Reen noticing of the application to be required uh and the reason that uh we believe that that Reen noticing will be required and that we're seeking the adjournment in the first place is that um in line with the comments contained in the board professionals review memorandum um the applicant is exploring alternative uses for the site other than a warehouse uh town houses are are being explored so in order to be able to uh flesh out that plan and prepare those plans we're requesting an adjournment to that a April 3rd date year 202 [Music] correct Mr Ryan yes hello I'd like to put this on record um on May 9th 20124 Mr Bernstein indicated the September 12th meeting tonight 2024 meting meeting be a perator hearing he stated that if the application is not ready to go at least 30 days before September 12th 2024 then the applicant will either withdraw the application or the board will render a decision based on what is before it as of this date the applicant has failed to supply the board with the information to satisfy the question of standing accordingly I am asking the agenda for the September 12 2024 meeting B revised indicate that the board will render a decision based on the information has before it contrary to the statements made by rcom's attorney Michael oric this application has been delayed because the applicant chose to submit a plan lacking submit a plan lacking compliance and factual proofs that support a reasonable application the application seeks to place blame for the long drawn out process on myself as the objector from the last meeting and the planning board for doing nothing more than requesting that they reasonably comply to the township ordinance and the state requirements as for blaming outside agencies like the DP for also delaying the process this is simply a false statement the applicant has caused its own delays not completing the required BMP soil testing as required by the NG njde all of these changes and versions of the plan have been submitted are simply not feasible redcom has failed to do the required sour testing to confirm that indeed uh they indeed had a v viable plan surely in two years they could have produced this at least one test that was done properly I met with the representatives of revcom over two years ago and prior to the first hearing to discuss their intentions uh to discuss their intentions and they chose not to listen to my concerns as they continue to do now my concerns have not changed since that initial meeting redcom continues to misstate and downplay the property consist of two residential lots of mine homes that housed families living there as well as mine my concerns have Merit and they will affect not just my property's value for instance but families of their design of the proposed Warehouse also not to Dem not to mention the township with traffic and all negative impacts it brings I have been forced to spend a considerable amount of time and money on the objector to protect my property for severely impacted by an improper plan tonight I'm supposed to be at my daughter's back to school night and I can't even be there because I'm here again after two years this is the time and money taken away from my family and my life that I should not have to be subject to do redcom continues to ignore the request by the planning board and Mr Bernstein to provide information and adhere to timelessness finally I ask that since redcom has once again disrespected and engor the planning board by not not addressing the standing issues for this upcoming meeting following through with the required soil testing and submitting a new revice plan the board render a decision tonight's meeting here and based on the information it has before and stop allowing them to continue this mockery and farce uh you wish to add that place that on the record Mr I yes I do all right uh mark this as o1 this is an email that the board received yesterday it came from Mr inl was distributed to the board was distributed to Mr OG rodnik's office and was placed on Civic CLK so any comments Mr Duca before I were asked the chair to open this to the public uh yes so obviously we we are seeking an adjournment as St as I stated previously the reason for that adjournment is to rework the plan uh and and address the comments in the in the professionals review memoranda as I stated uh part of that is revising the plan not to build a warehouse but to build tow houses in in this residential area as Mr inel pointed out and just to specifically address the issue of standing um standing is determined by whether whether or not uh under the municipal land use law whether somebody meets the definition of an applicant and a developer uh those those definitions are forward of SE in sections three and four respectively in the municipal land use law an applicant means means a developer submitting an application for development and a developer means the legal or beneficial owner or owners of any lot of of any land proposed to be included in a proposed development including the holder of an option or contract to purchase or other person having an enforcable proprietary interest in such land um my client does hold an enforceable proprietary interest in in this land uh as of September 9th 2024 the the owner of the lot executed uh an owner authorization and consent for adjournment this was provided to uh Mr Bernstein Mr Co and I believe distributed to the board if not I do have copies that can be provided here um but right here in in this authorization it does refer to my client Homestead 279 LLC as the contract purchaser uh we do have a written contract I will state that that contract is uh under negotiation to be amended and extended uh given the reworking of of the plant from a warehouse likely to tow houses so uh that that's that's my my rebuttal to Mr inl's comments about my client standing uh here before this board so just to reiterate my request I'm seeking an adjournment uh out to uh April that would be the April 3rd meeting or the next available hearing date thereafter uh that would require uh Reen notice and we understand that we're prepared to to make that Reen notice and make a full plan presentation before the board thank you Mr chairman before I suggest to the board the board make a motion open this the public I would like to place on the record the owner's authorization and consent for adjournment because I think it needs to be part of the record owners authorization and consent for adjournment applicant Homestead 2 79 LLC redcom Hillsboro planning board owner 279 Homestead Road LLC property block 20.02 Lot 12 updated September 9 comma 2024 owner authorization to file application with amendments and site walk authorization this application consists of one parcel identified on the tax map as block 200.2 Lot 12 the owner has reviewed all plans and specifically the amendments to the plan as proposed and plans La revised last letter via letter dated November 30th 2023 from contract purchaser Homestead 279 LLC I Brian MCN is a soul managing member of home of 279 Homestead Road LLC does hereby consent to the experment of the pending Warehouse application while the parties explore alternative alternative land uses the following provides authorization on behalf of the fee simple property owner I thank Mr mcnali for pointing out one of the many problems that has gone on in this application which is this is a one this is one single piece of property of which there is already a building on the one single piece of property we've been led to believe the possibility that there may be an alternative option there even may be an alternative property alternative contract purchaser so for the for the purposes of the record I deci I asked that this be also place it's part of the application record and at this point Mr chairman what might be the appropriate is a motion to open this to the public excuse me Mr chairman unless Mr Co has any comments he wants to make or Mr May or the board but that's if I just may advise the board uh residential is not a permitted use in the LI Zone and if the application is amended to include tow houses or residential of any kind it would have to go to the Zoning Board of adjustment unless the Zone unless the zoning was changed just commenting on it as it is exactly today it being in the LI understood and noted uh members of the board any questions or comments I think we let the public speak then I'll Reserve comment after that fair enough motion to open to public [Music] comment roll call please just open public y yes motion to all in favor should just say all all in favor hi hi hi okay any comments please come up state your name and your address David Brook s Winding Way in Hillsboro um ever since this application came in it was convoluted confused used flag lot we're going to change it we're going to adjust it it's I hate to say it kind of like a joke although it's not a funny joke simply because of the fact that it has dragged residents and ourselves out for meetings to talk about why it's a bad place for a warehouse why it didn't fit the zoning and I think all of you are in a position to act tonight in a decisive fashion um it's one less Warehouse which I think everybody says good but it's also as Mr KO has indicated not amendable for residential so instead of delaying this whole process I say drive a wooden Stak Into the Heart of this warehouse and end it and let the applicant come back with a whole new application if they choose to that comports with zoning I think you are all in a perfect position to Simply vote no and eliminate this thing and let it come back as a clean application that makes more sense and doesn't have this crazy history that has gone along with it which we've all followed and I have to admit scratching our head that it's going to be a condo it's going to be leased back it's going to be this it's going to be that it doesn't fit and I think to allow it to continue will add to the confusion for all of you to ultimately decide what to do with it and thus I say to you please vote no tonight thank [Applause] you Joe oconnell White meow 20 white meow Road um I have have to agree with him completely and if you hadn't noticed one of the little comments that he just made too was that if it's not a warehouse or or condos or perhaps something else I mean just kill this thing and let it go and stop wasting our time thank [Music] you no applauding please [Music] Susan Gord on Club Road um this is pretty radical this evening to hear suddenly they want to completely go over to a completely new design so I guess well this is for comment but the question would be at what point are the change is so radical that it's a new application that it's just withdraw the old one start from scratch I mean at some point the changes are just like Beyond even just changing an application they're just submitting a new one thank [Music] you anybody else [Music] um Maria Jan 6 720 East f Avenue Manville New Jersey I agree with Mr wood I agree with everyone who came up here there's an application before this board for a warehouse the uh attorney for this application is saying well give us a chance maybe we'll figure something else out I don't think that's right it's a warehouse application here the warehouse application thank [Music] you any additional comments sorry I Brian Tarantino Fairfield Lane I won't repeat what folks are saying the only thing I'll say is that I think that you I've been here for all of the meetings and I think you guys have demonstrated incredible patience and giving the applicant another chance a second chance a third chance and with Specific Instructions you know you're not pushovers but you know please come back with this information with this design with this answer to this question and the applicant hasn't done that and so I think that to um to then afford them additional um you know additional chances I'm not sure you guys have to decide whether that's appropriate at this point but I mean it doesn't sound like they have a viable plan they're talking about tow houses and it's not zoned for that so um I would suggest that uh that you just deny this application thanks [Music] any other comments motion to close so V second second all in favor I I I uh public comments are closed any additional comments from the from Council or the objector yes I would like to say something and David Koy I do agree with you um my residential lots on 206 is in the zone of Gateway B the properties are joining us behind us is light industrial the Len buildings and everything back there is light industrial including the building on this lot now I'm hearing tow houses are going to be proposed to me that's just a scare to me to say oh okay I'll let you put the warehouse up and it'll be a lot better than having all these people live behind me well that's not the issue the issue is still going to be the main concern of where the water's going um lighting um you have a a a light industrial lot that's still a flag lot they still have no Frontage for the back I don't understand that how can even be proposed when it's the same exact issues if it's a warehouse if it's a shop right if it's tow houses or a golf course is the same issue it's light industrial so again I kind of feel that was a scare to me to say hey let it go let's do the uh you know the warehouse so I don't have to see tow houses back there but I'll still fight it because it's still against my property and it's the same exact issues I have with everything going on thank you uh my only comment would be that the my statement that we're pro possibly exploring tow houses there's no way intended to be a scar tactic uh my request for an adjournment is on the record my reasons for that request are on the record and I'll rest on that thank you very good Mr chairman before the board comments I would like to place on the record so we make it clear there is no other application of any sort before this board tonight uh possibilities of what could go on this property depending on what happens or doesn't happen is pure speculation and the board should not render a decision based on the possibility that could come on May the 9th when the Mr ogrodnik was here and we were back again for another how many more chances I advise the board went along that tonight was a pre was a peremptory hearing and the 30 days before tonight there was supposed to be either a revised set of plans or standing by whichever one of the several sets of plans that Mr Co Mr Mayu Etc have been reviewing on this application for over a year August 12th came August 12th went and there were no plans so you are here tonight you have now an a request for an extenstion for the possibility of a future yet to be determined application that may or may not be before you versus what you have before you which is the really the only issue that's before the board tonight [Music] but the board does have to consider the German request and rule on that to consider the adment request but I would point out to the board the adjournment request as to the POS what what this is is an attempt to keep multiple applications before somebody in the possibility that if everything doesn't happen we still Reserve our right to possibly develop the site as a warehouse with which the original application was grandfathered under since the ordinances are no longer in effect that give jurisdiction to this board for warehouse applications other than those that were grandfathered previously to the adoption of the ordinances by the township committee last year understood any comments from the deas um so I'm looking at the date here it's we're just passed pass our second year on this started September 1st of 2022 got to know a lot of my fellow Hillsboro people during these applications and I give you credit for your your due diligence and your dedication um and I know the plan has changed several times and we've talked about standing which says really the plan has changed several times the footprint the um the fact that you're coming here today to say that you're asking for adjournment to again to April of next year of 2025 um to me is disingenuous um and quite honestly unfair to the applic to the to the objector and to the public and to this board who have put time and hours and patience into this application um the fact that you are doing this at this juncture um I I at a point where even if you should come back it's a completely different plan you would have to probably almost resubmit for for a new application anyway and go through through whatever you bring in to make sure it fits the Zone if it does fit the Zone number one which one of the applications you you suggest it doesn't and two uh would have to be reviewed as if it was a new application from the beginning which would deem reson deeming it complete so uh I I see no real benefit to um granting any further extension and you seem no desire to really present the application as you have spent two years submitting so I would I would I would not Grant the extension and I come to a [Music] vote any other comments I mean I agree whole wholeheartedly with what Sean said he said it very well exactly my thoughts sorry this will come before sorry um this will essentially be it sounds like it will be a new a new plan altoe so then it's what we have before us is immaterial and there's no point in giving an extension to something that will not be in front of us in April so I I don't see any point in giving an extension on this thank you I'd like to see Mr iell get to his class for his daughter and I think he might be wasting this time very good so we what we are potentially looking at Mr chairman is two votes the first vote is a mo motion to approve or deny the extinction correct depending upon that vote there may be a second vote as to what to do with the application as a whole understood so do I have a motion to approve the request for [Music] extension I have a motion to deny the extension I'll second I point out to the board that a yes is a denial a no is not it's in the affirmative so yes roll call please Mr Wagner I vote not to extend that's a yes yes that's why that's why I love motions in the in in the negative Mr scobo I'm with the board yes yes um Miss Smith yes commit M Le Pon yes and acting chair rtz yes with that Mr chairman since the board has now denied the application Extinction and we are right I believe on top of the time of decision for the underlying application in the first place and this was a preemptory the issue is whether the mo board is prepared for a motion to approve or deny the application based on standing issues uh the issues relative to what plans were actually before the board whether they meet the requirements of the zoning whether they meet the requirements that the board has placed on the applicant throughout this process including at the last meeting and any and all other comment the board has made throughout this application understood I I think first if the objector of council want to put any statements on the record any comments from Council or the objector no I have no further statements no comment thank you excuse me so it would be a motion to um well you can make a motion to approve the application is submitt and see if anyone actually will make that motion correct so would there be a motion to approve the application as submitted hearing none the alternative is would a motion to deny the application as it presently stands for the reasons stated on the record exactly I'll make that motion is there a second I will second that roll call please Mr Wagner he say yes to Yes uh Mr scobo yes M Smith yes commit M the Pani yes and acting chair rtz uh yes applic ation is denied very good thank you for your time thank you with that would you like to take a five minute break why we take a five minute break so Mr rtz can escape Mr P can come back and we can move people around we are coming back for Homestead Road which means I believe Mr PTZ is with us along with Dr Emerson here yeah okay welcome back everybody we're waiting for waiting for SC Mr waiting for Mr scobo see out there before you get to that point Mr chairman I want to place on the record I apologize for not putting it on that Mr Wagner had signed the certification of absent board member for HBO 27 Homestead 279 LLC and was therefore eligible I'd like that place in the record Mr thank you Mr part of the transcript related to that application thank you thank you and while we're doing housekeeping matters I need to recuse myself on this matter so I will call it a night and go home and revel in my my coming out Mr Ritz thank you for your [Music] service all right we're waiting for one more uh planning board member to make it back to his to his chair to the de that's the question we watch him if Mr rwit sees Mr scobo outside he can give him a give him a gentle [Music] nudge I ended up getting I'm having a double while we wait for Mr uh scobo Mr P and I'd like to place on the record when he does return that I have a certification of absent board member examination of record eligibility to vote for Mr scobo for viewing the April 11 2024 video of this application therefore he is eligible to be to participate in this application when and if he returns thank you noted one moment we getting note from the back he will be here we're almost [Music] there okay okay so next up is Homestead Road LLC file 21 PB 25 Ms mspv time of decision to 11:30 244 um counselor and objectors introduce yourselves once again yes good evening chairman members of the board Craig janetti the law firm Dave Pitney on behalf of the applicant Homestead Road LLC good evening board members my name is Mike pasaro policy director for the Watershed Institute objector number [Music] one Scott gross objector number two uh John Lanahan objector four I believe Brian Tarantino uh representative of SWAT obor number number three is objector number five here this evening she's not there's been some issues all right the answer is she's not here that's let's let's leave it at that okay okay uh I believe Mr chairman that where we were was Dr Emerson was awaiting a cross Examination for Mr gianetti am I incorrect Council you you are correct um why don't we swear Mr Dr Emerson in again sure you any testimony tonight it's going to be the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth I do record from State certainly uh clay Emerson uh c a y m r s o n thank you as for the record uh on August 8th 2024 uh the applicant engineer submitted to this board as well as objectors Council uh a letter enclosing uh an updated drainage report which was a drainage report updated uh as part of the njde uh flood Hazard review process and their review of the storm War stor storm water management which je you recall this application did receive uh a flood Hazard area permit from the DP in November 2023 uh so that updated report was submitted along with uh a updated site plan last revised February 2024 but really there was no changes to the site plan other than some minor uh adjustments per the EP review with respect to the Basin uh that Mr uh Mr Ford highlights in his letter and then kind of walks through Point by Point uh how the updated uh drainage report um updated through the review of the D address a number of the issues raised by Mr Emerson uh we submitted it so there would be Advanced time for Mr Emerson to review it uh I'll have some questions for it probably on Cross examination um but I just wanted to highlight for the record that that information was submitted and if I may just to Short change a little bit of this um you know on I believe it was August 13th we did submit we did receive the revised drainage report um couple things I want to point out one that was between the direct of actually during the during the cross examination of Dr Emerson uh but that report dated October 16th 2023 so the applicant has had this in their file on their shelf in their computer storage um for 10 months 300 plus days before submitting it to anybody in the middle of August I will tell you know this board despite my best efforts I got it about a week and a half before I went on vacation uh and they came back to an extremely packed schedule so I have not fully gone through that drainage report uh I'm not you know Dr Emerson can testified to what he has reviewed and has not reviewed but I think it is beyond the scope of direct I think again having held it for 300 plus days um it is not quite frankly reasonable to expect anyone to have gone through a 900 page report several pages of Rise documents including the addition of an additional infiltration Basin um which I would not necessarily call minor uh and then show up here tonight and expect a full uh evaluation of what Mr Ford did or did not do there has been no testimony by Mr Ford or anyone else from the applicant is what those documents are why they were done and what they demonstrate uh so frankly I will anticipate probably some issuing a few objections to any cross- examination so I guess first the report wasn't held this is common when you're going through multiple Agency Reviews at the same time uh you know for instance a lot of the review letters we got you know through the board's engineer we've agreed to comply with certain conditions and make certain revisions uh that an updated plan uh drainage report would be provided as part of that we're not even done through this process there could be even further updates to that drainage report uh so they've had the time the the report a lot of the stuff that Mr Ford testified to is not necessarily from his drainage report it's very technical as you heard from the testimony of Mr Emerson last time this is pretty technical information uh he didn't go through step by step of the drainage report it's a lot of background information on how things were determined how things were calculated that the engineers can look at Mr Emerson can look at it pretty quickly and determine a lot of the issues he's raised were addressed in that drainage report so much so the D has determined that our storm water management complies with the D storm wage management regulations the Delaware uh and R uh raring Canal commission has reviewed it and determined our storm waterer management plan complies with the D regulation so you know he can continue to talk more about uh storm waterer management but you know the fact of the matter is it's been reviewed uh by two agencies and have determined we complied with those regulations it's either complex or it's simple and can be reviewed very very quickly uh so again you know Mr ganti will certainly ask his questions and I will certainly place on the record those objections I feel to be appropriate um Dr Emerson is free subject to those objections to testify to what he can and cannot do but again holding it for 10 months it's it's not like d issued their approval in July I revised the report to comply with those and then I submitted it and that doesn't doesn't mention the May 30th 2023 revision the last revision that this board had on civil clerk that we talked about that uh Michael Ford the applicants engineer testified about I believe was the March 23 20123 report um so but okay noted Mr chairman yes for the record I point out to the board that Mr Ford's latest report is not in evidence before this board it has not been placed into evidence and Mr Ford at some point in order to get it into ev's going to have to come here and support it so Mr Genetti can raise his issues Mr uh zaro can deal with his objections Dr Emerson can answer accordingly but just for make sure that everybody understands for the purpose of the record Mr Ford's report is not before this board officially thank you should have mentioned that myself and you if it is appropriate occasionally they uh and if appropriate and necessary we would bring that Dr Emerson to address any of those additional testimonies if necessary M sure and I would point out it's doctor eming just for there I guess technically we're both doctors as well if we want to go that yeah thankfully yes and the fact that we don't allow ourselves to be called that is a whole different issue I just move the mic a little closer to your thank you sure thank you Dr [Music] gianetti so I I guess we can continue you we left off Dr Emerson is uh with respect to um the drainage dish that you've uh classified as a stream under the town's uh stream Corridor ordinance um and I just wanted to be clear too with that 1971 uh aerial figure two from your June 28th 2024 report uh can you identify how wide that uh ditch is um yeah referring to figure two of of of 05 um not not not with any uh Precision you know there's there's roads and other features that perhaps you could you could attempt to scale off but to say that it was 5T wide or six feet wide would would not be uh reasonable how about how deep it is can you tell from that photo how deep uh the uh guess the channel is as you described it uh no same same or similar response you can tell that there's some relief there because of the the Shadows um but the exact depth um with any Precision would be difficult to uh ascertain are you familiar with the uh United States soil uh conservation service yes and uh they prepare County soil surveys correct they do uh in those uh and just for the record it's the nrcs um that that you're referring to used to be called the SCS the usscs okay so do these County soil surveys illustrate regulated streams I'm sorry what was the question do these County soil surveys uh that are prepared by are you say the NR CS versus the what I think you said SCS which was yeah it's the nrcs yes uh do those surveys illustrate regulated streams on them um no I mean they they may depict streams but whether or not they're regulated or not it that they don't um the nrcs soil surveys do not um dictate whether a stream is regulated or not well I guess if there is a regulated stream not not necessarily identifying it as regulated but would it show up on those Maps no not necessarily uh uh so any would any streams show up on the maps I'm sure some would yeah I mean the I don't know exactly what Maps you're talking about but um because you can view the that same information in a in a number of different uh formats so to the extent that a stream shows up in an aerial photograph perhaps like the one in figure two of of the report you referenced um if that aerial photograph is used as the underlying uh base map uh for the S server then the answer would be yes it would it would show up just as it does in figure two of 05 so it's your testimony if it was viewed at that drainage ditch uh on the aerial you shown in figure two was considered a stream it would show up on that County Sur uh County soil survey that's that's not a summary of of what I just said um what I said is if the aerial photograph used as the base map on the soil survey happened to be figure two from 05 then the answer to your question of if a stream were uh present would it show up on the map my answer is yes because it shows up based on my review of this aerial photograph and and the current aerial photographs as well so um you know I I guess I don't I don't understand uh your question beyond that I mean if if an if a stream is present in an aerial photo and this the nrcs uses aerial photos as the base map underneath their soil mapping units you know then it then the answer is yes it shows up andan there aren't the the paper maps that you may be referring to the Antiquated the older you know the SCS quote unquote uh paper maps that's not uh uh the current data that's not what's used today that's not what your um your engineer used on this application either but I guess you're I mean they're County Ser soil surveys from as far back as 1976 aren't there no I think they go much further back than that yeah uh in your aerial photos from 1971 correct uh this one is from 1971 yeah okay do you believe the drainage area associated with this subject drainage feature to be less than 50 acres I do uh and I believe you answered this question last time but have you ever represented an applicant in FHA verification application to the D I have uh can the D consider a drainage feature that has a drainage area less than 50 acres to be a regulated water um I think in some situations they can but generally the threshold for um a water we to be regulated by the flood Hazard area rules which is what your previous question was referring to that threshold is 50 acres so you're saying in no instance uh will the flood haard area regulate anything with the drainage area less than 50 acres is not what he said oh that's why I'm asking him to clarify not the question you asked no yeah I that that wasn't the uh the response to uh my my response to your question I think there there may be some situations um where um DP would Define a regulated stream uh with a drainage area of less than 50 acres but 50 acres is the threshhold the the typical threshold for a flood Hazard area um uh and that's uh that's that's the answer to to your question uh have you reviewed the uh flood Hazard area verification issued for the property on November 6 20123 uh I have seen it yes and does that verification uh issued for the property consider any of the subject drainage feature to be a regulated water wait could you repeat the the previous question so I'm going to object because whether DP regulates this stream is not relevant to whether this Township regulates this stream as a stream under the stream Court ordinance it's very relevant especially when their the ordinance specifically says it's not meant to conflict with the ngd regulation so how the njd treats it is very reg relevant to the application of the ordinance he may disagree and he can argue that on closing but I'm allowed to ask about it I no my objection is it's not and frankly as we discussed many many meetings ago whether it is a stream under the stream Court ordinance is a purview of law not um whether D regulates it under the flood Hazard freshwater wetlands or surface water quality standards so you're you're saying whether it's applicable as a purview of law should we strike Mr Emerson's test or Dr ers testimony then since he's talked about the applicability of it no whether it is what it is what it shows on the topography what the vegetation is what the area maps is but whether D regulates it under the flood Hazard area act Control Act whether it is considered an Open Water of the state of New Jersey under the freshwater wetlands protection regulations which is a combination of not only the freshwater Wetland protection act this Water Pollution Control Act the surface water quality standards Etc again it's a matter of law whether the Township's ordin supplies or not and you can argue that closing but I'm allowed to ask question about what he's reviewed whe with respect to our D permits and how they classified it what what he reviewed let let Dr Emerson answer if he can't answer that's fine or declines to answer that's fine as can you ask can you repeat your previous question Mr GTI so you you indicated you saw the D flood haszard area verification from November 6 2023 so I I think I confused uh what you said I did not see uh I don't know if you're talking about the application to D or the permit from D you didn't you didn't specify um and I did not I did not see the permit so I may have incorrectly answered your question I think I said yes the answer is no is that on uh civil clerk yes it is okay you turn it in provided to I don't I mean we talked about it before what I provided to Dr Emerson or not would be work product and I'm going to direct him not to answer that one but he said he didn't see it or doesn't recall seeing it [Music] so how about the uh njd Wetlands Loi did you review that I did see that [Music] that and uh does that Wetlands Loi issued for the property May 25th 2023 verify the limits of the subject drainage feature I think you asked me that question uh on in July and and my answer is the same it it it doesn't include that um it refers to that as a a a ditch I believe um and I think we had a discussion about whether not that feature showed up in the application materials for that Loi as well we did have a discussion but the LOI issued by the DP did it or did it not show that drainage feature in the limits of it it yes it yes or no does it show it or not because you keep saying this application submitted a while ago didn't show it the one approved by the D did it show it I don't recall [Music] does the wetlands Loi that was issued for the property classify the subject drainage area as a state open water do you recall that uh it does [Music] not now you do recall it was classified in that Loi as an ordinary resource value uh Wetlands ditch yes uh and ordinary resource value Wetlands disches regulated by the freshwater protections act I don't know you said you prepared Lois before and submitted applications to the D for Lois in the last hearing I I don't believe that was my response to that question at all that was in reference to flood Hazard area [Music] verifications uh but you said you also dealt with Wetland permits correct yes uh is the securement of a Wetlands permit required in order to dist disturb an ordinary resource value Wetland Stitch uh yes I believe it is and if someone Disturbed that ordinary resource value ditch without any permit from the D they'd be in violation of D regulations is that correct yes do you believe the tributary or the major tributary of the Royce Brook which flows along the northern uh border of the property to be a significant ecological importance yes uh and do you believe that is a tributary that supports uh fishery and aquatic ecosystem system uh I would expect it does uh are you aware of any Downstream flooding concerns associated with the Royce Brook I would anticipate that there are flooding concerns Downstream of the Royce Brook [Music] yes now as it stands today uh with this drainage and is located uh near the parking area where vehicles are stored isn't that correct that's correct um do you know of any water quality pre-treatment of that runoff today uh prior to being discharged into that ditch well I I would love to answer that question and the plethora of other questions that you've already asked and are likely to continue with and and I believe we did request the opportunity to see the uh quote ditch in question or and I believe we were denied access to do that um you're not entitled to access correct we're entitled to ask but no we're not entitled to to to uh do you know if the d uh inspected it when they issued its flood Hazard area permit or the wetlands Loi I believe your your expert testified that they did so uh well you heard the testimony from Mr cook then also that the uh the current drainage being collected in that area and going into the ditch is untreated from that vehicle parking area and discharg into that ditch do you recall that I recall him saying that I I don't necessarily agree with him you don't agree with him in what fashion that there's water being collected from that parking lot and where the vehicles are being parked and going into that ditch why I believe his his um his reasoning ultimately was that the complete removal filling of the the streaming question was a net benefit for Royce Brook and I I strongly disagree with that um conclusion putting putting aside that conclusion you were that's difficult for me to do understand yeah but that you're you're I'm not asking you to app on conclusion I'm asking you to aine with respect to what you heard with respect to his testimony as to the facts of the situation sure I think his testimony speaks for itself though do you have any reason to disagree that that drainage ditch next to the parking lot with those trucks is untreated drain or storm water going into that drainage dish uh I do have reason to to not agree with that and that is that he also testified that the the stream was you know full of uh vegetation suited suited to those conditions and if you are familiar with the storm water rules um and the recent changes discussing green infrastructure and and that you know runoff in contact with soil and and and vegetation provides water quality improvements and and um so I I do disagree with a a lot of things um in his testimony so it's so it's your testimony that the vegetation in that drainage is sufficient for uh treatment of storm water management is that is that your testimony no no that's not what I said okay well I guess I was referring to it as untreated storm water runoff as he did and you're saying no it's not untreated because there's some sort of vegetation in the ditch that's treating [Music] it yes to some extent before it gets to uh Royce Brook uh the main the main stem is is this vegetation that you believe is properly treating the storm water management do you find that better than the storm water management treatment features being propos as part of the application again that that's not that's not what I said so then is is it properly or not properly treating it because I said properly seems like you guys took issue with that is it not properly treating it the treatment that's required by the storm water rules is is different in many uh in many ways than than the treatment that I'm talking about in that happens in uh a reparan area or a stream a vegetated stream channel so um whether or not the runoff from the parking area uh whether or not there's any treatment before it comes out the end of the the pipe into the stream I don't know because I haven't been on the site um but I do know that there's vegetation in and around the stream and I I do know from years of experience that that improves water quality um and I believe again his conclusion that I strongly disagree with was that the net um destruction filling elimination if you will of this stream was in some way shape or form a net benefit from a water quality standpoint was countered to Common Sense to begin with um and and my experience um and and everything that I've known and learned in my career frankly so in your opinion uh the storm water management features being proposed as part of this application and all the various treatment being proposed with it uh is it better than equal to or less than the current treatment of the drainage going into that ditch I mean that's that's a comparison that I'm I'm just not going to make um I mean obviously the stream doesn't necessarily need to be eliminated filled destroyed um that that's a design choice that the applicant and engineer have made so I can't compare I can't make a simple comp comparison whether it's better worse or the same as the storm water management um that that might come along with it with its destruction I guess so you don't believe this existing drainage ditch to be a degradation to the tributary of Royce Brook no no not at all and and and that that was a a much quicker way to get to the the same point [Music] yeah but again I guess you the same time at some point you say well you don't know if it's untreated because you haven't been out there but you're able to conclude uh that it's not a degreg to the Royce Brook tributary no that that I I think you're misunderstanding uh no I understand everything you're saying let him finish the no let let me let me finish the water that goes from the parking lot and ultimately comes out of what I I think is an 18 or 24inch pipe may or may not be treated I think your professional said that it it wasn't treated but at the point that it's discharged into the stream that stream provides treatment before it gets to the larger tributary so you're kind of mixing those two things about whether it's treated or not I don't know if it's treated coming off the parking lot before it goes out of the pipe again your your expert testified it wasn't it may not be I haven't had the opportunity to see it but from that point from the discharge of that pipe to the receiving larger tributary it's my opinion from what I have seen that there is treatment occurring which will be obviously eliminated when the the stream is uh eliminated per the The Proposal is that treatment better or worse than the treatment being proposed as part of the storm W management of this application not going object he's already you've already asked it he's already answered it no he was answer he he was he was answering as to whether it was a degradation of the tributory he said it wasn't gentlemen can we please let each other at least get out what they have to say before we argue over each other transcript that it's going to look even better when we figure that out so I I believe that was the same question you you previously asked me and and and again the treatment that is occurring within this stream um is different in many ways than the the treatment in a proposed Pond constructed Wetland that is required by the um d um so it's it's not a comparison that I can make what so I don't know same same answer is as [Music] before you heard us talking about earlier the uh [Music] uh August 8th 2024 submission by vanle engineering uh to this board which included their updated uh drainage report have did I hear you say that it was submitted yes yes and do you have an opportunity to review that I had a limited opportunity to to review [Music] [Applause] [Music] that and to be clear that that was submitted uh after um more than a month after my direct testimony [Music] correct despite being prepared I didn't ask there's no question pending [Music] [Music] [Applause] on your June uh 12th 2023 report there's figure two uh where you do a comparison of appendix J J of the drainage report um do you see that I do and do you recall your testimony uh uh concerning uh that line and that appendix uh about the allowable uh Peak flow rate I do and in reviewing uh the updated appendix J of that drainage report does it not address that okay again I'm can I sorry I'm going to object again that drainage Port is not in into evidence Mr Ford hasn't testified to that updated report he said he reviewed it he said he reviewed the letter whether he reviewed the drainage report and he said I've generally reviewed it it's not I don't believe that's what his testimony was and again not into evidence there's if he said he reviewed something I can ask him about it you can answer it or not answer it Dr Emerson I review I think what he asked me was whether or not I reviewed he said August 8th 2024 letter submission submission I think I think you said letter I reviewed the letter in detail I have I have read its entire contents the appendix whatever you mentioned page 800 something perhaps of the drainage report I I have not seen um in detail have you seen the drainage report I have seen the drainage report I I I wouldn't that be one of the first things you looked at since you spent half the night at the last meeting testifying to it wouldn't you want to look at that to see was that addressed again my objection that this report sat on someone's desks from October 16th 2023 the middle of that has nothing to do with my question and whether he has skimmed it or looked at it in detail and has an opinion when it's not into evidence again if you want to put it into evidence and you want to testimony you more than welcome to bring Mr Ford here and will come back and testify to it but he's reviewed he said he's reviewed it I can ask him questions about it of what he's reviewed what he's not reviewed whether it's impacted any of his opinions well the answer to your your your question is no which question you did so you didn't review that no that wasn't your last question your last question was isn't wouldn't that be the first thing you look for and the answer is no okay you want to talk about the letter fine you want to I'll ask what I want to ask you can object and then we can move [Music] on now in your report uh you stated there was no consideration was given to fill material and compaction pertaining to the subsurface infiltration basins that's correct uh did you review sheets 24 and 25 which include tables notes and cross-sections of the acceptable fill materials and the compaction and density requirements if you could clarify which version of which plan how about either one do you want to tell him which plans you want him to look at or ask whether he's reviewed the plan the pl the plan the plans he reviewed was there a detail on sheets 24 and 25 uh yes there is and the plans that I reviewed just for the record are the March uh March 23rd uh 2023 plans and I believe on that on those sheets there are details manufacturer details uh but they don't report the information that your questions suggest they [Music] do does the uh New Jersey stormw best management practices manual indicate that post construction testing must be performed on o on as built small scale infiltration basins to ensure the subsoil is sufficient permeable [Music] uh can you be more specific in in the reference to the BMP manual how about does chapter 9.8 of the New Jersey storm water best management practices manual indicate that post construction testing must be performed on an as-built smallscale infiltration Basin to ensure that the subsoil is sufficient permeable that that sounds like that would be the section it would be in yes [Music] so then you agree the the issues you're raising the concerns you were raising that testing has to be occur that testing has to occur to confir confirm it still complies uh with d regulations with respect to the Basin no no I it's my opinion and I think as is outlined in the letter that the plans have to be sufficient enough in detail there have to be enough known you have to do the required testing so that this board has a um a reason to understand that the the system will be compliant it's not although that statement May well be in section 9.8 of the BMP manual it's this board's responsibility to ensure that you know it's not left up to post construction testing and what's in the plans um does not does not give me the the Comfort the knowledge the assurance that this system will work but it gave the D Comfort knowledge and assurance I cannot speak for the d d it gave the Delaware and Raritan Canal commission Comfort I don't represent the Delaware Raritan Canal commission either fortunately for us is that a question [Music] wow I advise the board to disregard the last comment Mr gianetti stick to questions please [Music] please in your report you State uh I'm sorry which report the June the June 2023 the June 2023 Report with the uh with respect to the retaining [Music] walls the um which retain retaining walls there's I think you indic the retaining walls did not have an adequate distance from the subsurface infiltration basins I'll try and find the exact page but do you recall that statement I mean you testified to it at the last meeting also I mean yes generally I mean I think there's over 4,000 ft of uh retaining wall proposed on this uh project and I I think I do think the letter refers to it in a couple couple different places and I certainly referred to it in my uh direct testimony as well now now I know we asked some of it talked about some of this at your last meeting but I don't know if I asked specifically about this have you ever written a structural soil report uh do you mean like a geotechnical report like when you say structural soil I don't I don't know exactly what you mean you never heard of a structural soil report well typically if we're hired to do what I think you're talking about when you say structural soil report that's not a a term that I'm I'm familiar with where we go out and hire you know do borings hire driller uh do tests on the soil to estimate bearing capacity things like that U USCS uh classifications along with USDA uh I don't know we typically call that a geotechnical report um and you're asking me if I've ever done one the answer is yes how about uh structural soil inspection or if you want to call it a geotechnical soil inspection do you mean overse in test pits or overseeing uh borings test borings the answer is yes and designing retaining walls I think we asked this last time you did and the answer was yes so uh are you familiar with any general standard for an adequate distance uh for subsurface infiltration Basin uh from a retaining wall being 70% of the height of the wall no I'm of that an infiltration Basin can be 70% of the height of the wall is that you said the distance yeah the separation plan view what was the number again 7 70% of the height of the retaining wall so if the retaining wall is 10 feet tall you can have an infiltration System 7 feet away correct yeah that sounds like a bad idea I have not heard of that [Music] should I have heard of that is there a reference no I'm just asking you have have definitely not [Music] that's all I have Mr Emerson or Dr [Music] Emerson okay thank you objectors questions objective number one any obors none public open motion to open public y motion to open the public I make motion second all in favor I I any member of the public would like to come up and ask questions of Dr Emerson related to his testimony and his testimony only come forward okay seeing uh none motion to close public we just leave the public we leave the public open next witness okay next witness or next Crosser I don't have anything further Mr ERS Dr Emerson you know what I don't have any redirect okay thank you okay thank you thank you Dr Emerson thank you who next objectors Mr gross [Music] you want to take five yeah we're going to take five everybody come back uh when everybody's synchronized watch at uh 8:46 8:46 I think it's safe to say we're back in uh session uh we have our next uh objector uh I please identify yourself and your witness please my name is Scott gross objector number two representing uh local citizens against traffic alcat I'm introducing uh Mr kenman you the truth truth truth I [Music] do okay uh Ken Housman ha us [Music] Maan uh Mr hman could you introduce yourself um and uh include your relevant education licenses and experience in the area of traffic analysis sure sure so let me uh I guess present my kind of General experience first I have two degrees in civil engineering with a focus on Transportation uh from the University of Maryland and College Park which I received in 1984 and ' 86 uh shortly after graduation I moved to New Jersey I got my professional engineering license here in New Jersey in 1991 and I've maintained it since uh for most of my career 97 through 2019 I had my own small business and I focused on travel demand forecasting traffic analysis for large Transportation infrastructure projects have you sorry have you T testified before any boards um as far as testifying before boards I have um represented an applicant in uh city of Orange Township in Essex County and I recently did a similar role to this uh where I live in Edison Township apologies Mr gross continue is your license in good standing by my license is in good standing been paying my fees we're all good we're all good are there any questions about Mr housman's professional qualifications anybody I'd ask to be he be accepted by the board that's fine continue [Music] okay a few questions if you don't mind sure have you read uh Dolan and Dean's uh original traffic report his supplemental letter and uh the supplemental trip generation summary uh right so I initially I read the initial report and I prepared my own review uh dated October 6 2022 did you do that yourself without any in from others I did without any input from others uh and then subsequent to that I um reviewed the other materials that you had said there was that uh paper with some traffic count data there was a SE letter uh and there was also a fair amount of uh testimony and questions have you either watched the videos or read the transcripts of the testimony uh watched all the videos and uh pretty much read through most of the of the transcript okay and then I prepared a second report uh dated August 27th of this year that covers those additional uh materials and what do you intend to go over today well what uh let me talk about kind of my experience in reviewing uh traffic impact studies and what I plan toh present here um usually I'm involved in large infrastructure projects and my clients could be a municipality more typically a county or the state do so when I am asked by the state do to uh investigate the conceptual Road improvements say here on Route 206 what I would do is I would obtain traffic forecasts from the regional planning agency which are based on population and employment and then I would also review any approved uh traffic impact studies because I need to add that traffic to the regional background growth uh now when I do that work I become responsible for my entire report and recommendations so when I am reviewing those studies if I find an error or if I find a conclusion that I am uncomfortable with it falls upon me to make a correction and then carry forward that correction through the end of the study whether it's in the traffic counts the trip generation the trip distribution the route assignment or the traffic analysis that all falls on me now this project is a bit different there's one traffic impact study here the applicant has has prepared it and if there are errors or questions about the uh traffic impact study it's the responsibility of the applicant to address them it's not the responsibility of uh the objectors or me to develop alternative methods for the applicant to do his work you've prepared a number of slides today can you describe where that content came from sure I guess we can do that uh one at a time all of these slides uh were previously presented in either the original report or the supplemental uh 2024 um and I think I've provided a source for all the information that uh uh that's included in the slides okay Mr gross are we going to Mark Mr housman's two [Music] reports I don't know what you mean they've been uh they have been submitted do we just need to mark them yes why don't we Mark as 07 there's a hous first one's from from 106 2022 and the second one is from 827 2024 that'll be 08 thank you should we proceed um sure let me let me begin let's go to the first slide and set up our presentation all right here we go [Music] again what do you do as SL yeah if you hit you on the top ribbon [Music] bottom bottom it's not [Music] going all [Music] right it's going too well [Music] here we go can you describe this table please um sure did you want to go SlideShare so we just have the full uh either way whatever you [Music] want okay so I was asked to review the uh traffic impact study that uh Dolan and Dean had prepared um I'm not this is 09 where is it from Mr Housman this is uh it is Page um four it's from page four of the first report of of the first report that I submitted in 2022 take four of 07 you're the author correct thank [Music] you I'm a traffic expert I am not a warehouse expert so I needed to uh become familiar with uh Warehouse operations and what I did is I went back into the IT trip generation manual which uh has been mentioned a lot uh over these hearings and is the standard that is used and the it trip generation manual they had um authorized the study which was done in 2016 to address this concern at the time about the different types of warehouses I would say starting in the 1990s or prior to the 1990s you know warehouses are much different than what they are today so this study in 2016 was designed to um determine how you identify the different Warehouse types and then what they had done is they had collected data at the different Warehouse types uh the data was collected in Southern California and then develop trip generation rates for those different types now how do you know what type of Warehouse the operation is going to be perhaps you know who the um owner and OCC and who's going to occupy the site such as Amazon but perhaps it's just a speculative operation so if you want to know the type of operation what you can do is you can look at two different ratios one is the ratio of the number of loading docks to the square footage of the building this gives you an idea of the intensity of the use and the second is the amount of truck parking versus The Loading Docks um and again uh knowing these two values you can see what type of operation is possible so for a standard warehouse an old-fashioned warehouse loading dock to square foot ratio 1 to 20,000 it's the first line in the report we go down to the last two lines which are the proposed site for the proposed site the loading dock to square footage ratio remember it's 87 loading docks across the two buildings the ratio is 1 to 6,000 which uh meets or exceeds all the different Warehouse types this building according to this table can be used for any type of Warehouse the ratio from truck parking to loading docks um for the two buildings 2.5 to one and 2: one again this is the highest ratio indicating that this building could be used for [Music] um any different type of Warehouse if we can go to the next slide this is 010 from where Mr hman uh this is page six of7 correct thank you now whenever I do uh this type of review and certainly when I'm reviewing my own work I like to go through a process called validation validation is where I identify an independent source of data and then I see how my results the assumptions that I made line up with this independent source of data because if I'm making assumptions if I'm applying my engineering judgment what I should find is that the result of that engineering judgment is consistent not just with the first set of data that I have but with other data that's available so in order to validate the work in this traffic impact study I went back and I looked at the local zoning requirements for a warehouse in Hillsboro and also looked at the capacity of a warehouse with 87 loading docks per I'll say some standard references that I found on the internet so a warehouse as defined um uh by Hillsboro Township local zoning uh it's a little bit difficult to see uh one loading dock for the first 5,000 square ft and then an additional loading dock for either 30 or 40,000 Square ft which translates into a total of a requirement 15 to 20 loading docks for the warehouse that's proposed it's kind of the Hillsboro definition and you know that's an older Warehouse that's what you would see number of loading docks again this facility has 87 what this suggests to me is that the um usage of a building with 87 loading docks is going to be different than a Warehouse that has 15 to 20 let's go to the next slide [Music] [Music] please 01 then this is I am looking for the [Music] page number here it's at the bottom of page eight of 07 correct thank you so I made some assumptions about the operation because at this point and certainly back in 2022 when I prepared this report we really didn't know what this operation was going to be we didn't know whether it was going to be one shift eight hours three shifts 24 hours uh as well as what the uh tenant mix might be so I made some assumption 87 loading docks I assumed that they were going to be 90% occupied that the building was going to operate 24 hours a day and that the time that it takes for loading and unloading um between 2 and a half and 3 hours and what that translates into is 772 truck trips per day and assuming uniform operations that would be 31 trucks per hour Mr hman you've uh referenced a uh uh a standard way of Performing that calculation is that correct um yeah yeah it's um you know I've made some assumptions here uh my assumptions regarding the occupancy of the building uh the 24-hour operation and then I I think that that two and a half to three hour number has been confirmed by the applicant um as far as the appropriate loading unloading time do you recall how many truck trips per day the applicant um is represented throughout this process um I'm going to get to that the the applicant suggested um that he was that the it was appropriate to use uh the it land use for um I'll say standard warehouses that's land use 150 which suggests a much lower number of truck trips I believe the number is 160 and I have that on another slide keep going yeah if we can keep [Music] going and now I'm moving on to report 08 um page eight 012 that correct Michael 02 [Music] now the it trip generation it's two parts I'm sorry where where is this in your reports it's in my second report it's page eight page8 of 08 is 012 thank you I'm sorry the August 27th 2024 is 02 no August is 08 okay this is going to be 012 got it oh no no no this is page eight from that report right which is going to Mar as2 I misunderstood thank you the objective is to confuse everybody [Music] here so the it trip generation there are two parts to the manual there is a handbook which describes how the manual is supposed to be used and then there is a book of data which has many different land jues many different independent variables uh at one point they had different types of equation although I think over the past few years they've made a decision that the relationship should always be linear and it relies on the engineer to select the appropriate independent variable to use and provide some general guidance as far as selecting the appropriate land use type now one of the things that they talk about in the it trip generation handbook is that the best independent variable to use is population and employment and this is accepted in transportation practice this is actually the federal guidelines on what you have to use if you're forecasting traffic population and employment and the reason is that there's what uh we call a a causal relationship between trip generation and population unemployment meaning that there's a a real world relationship between the two that all of us make the I'll say the same number of trips it's not a function of whether we live in a single family house or a town home or a condo although the itte trip generation has three different rates for single family homes tow houses and condos and the reason it has three different rates is because it makes an assumption as far as the number of people people who are going to live in each type of unit now why does this matter well if you apply the it trip generation manual incorrectly and I have I forget what townships seen this done let's say an applicant proposes to build 150 100 single family homes and he uses the it trip generation and he comes up with a trip generation rate for a 100 single family homes and these single family homes are going to be three bedrooms each and then he says well wait a second I have an alternative plan I will build 125 three-bedroom homes that are going to be tow houses and now he goes into the IT trip generation for tow houses and he finds that 125 three-bedroom tow houses are going to generate less traffic than 100 three bedroom single family homes this doesn't make any sense more people don't gener more people more houses don't generate fewer trips I'm going to object there's nothing in his report about this type of analysis of residential traffic generation uh and differentiating of it I think he's illustrating a point in how the it uh manual is being used I understand but he doesn't talk about it in his [Music] report uh that's not true I I I do talk about it in my report [Music] where which report are you looking at let me find the page and I will give you the report and the [Music] page I talk about causal Rel relationships versus mathematical correlation and uh things that are not mathematically correlated that's on page four which report the report submitted in 2024 so stage four of [Music] 08 and then I actually wait a minute Mr Housman Mr K at least take a look at it see if he has any issues yeah I see he talks about the causal relationship between unit type and number of people living in a house uh but going into the trip generations and how that's figured out is what my objection was I'm I'm not sure I understand the objection if you want to talk about that causal relationship fine but I was under the impression you were giving testimony as to trip generation with respect to residential uh developments by unit type um that's what I'm doing because what I'm trying to show is that you can use the it trip generation manual you can select two different land uses you can use the average rates associated with both and G single family homes town houses those are two different land use types but if you didn't go into the handbook and understand what those land use types actually are you're going to come up with an answer that uh makes absolutely no sense you come up with an answer that building more homes that have more people is going to generate fewer trips because those people are living in tow houses and what I'm trying to do is relate to the experience that all of us know that the number of trips that we make are not a function of whether we live in a single family home or a townhouse now I could make the same example perhaps with other land uses but residential land use is something that we're all familiar with that's why I'm using it as an example now I I was also looking [Music] for right the preferred independent variable and now I'm reading from page eight in the middle of the page of the 2024 report preferred independent variable which is a very important part of using the it trip generation manual because there are many independent variables that you could select or the the manual actually recommends that if none of those independent uh uh variables meet the needs of your specific development you should go and collect data and the applicant did go and collect some additional data and select your own independent variable so preferred independent variable quote appears to be a quote unquote cause for the variation in trip ends generated by a land use causal relationship refers to population and employment that is why population and employment is the federal standard it's used for traffic analysis whenever you're looking at roadway improvements and it's the best variable independent variable to use for a trip generation study now frequently we don't have that information we know the number of houses that are going to be built we don't know the number of units we know the square footage of the warehouse we don't necessarily know the number of employees but the number of parking spaces can G give us a hint but that's a choice that we make and the it provides some additional guidance that if you're not going to go with population and employment and you're going to go with a different independent variable these are the things that you should be look looking at and I think we want to go to the next slide oh you know what can you go back to that other slide right and now I want to get into the math and this is in the third column of the same page and what they talk about and um I'm going to use a couple of other mathematical terms one is correlation what is correlation correlation means that there is a math mathematical relationship between the number of trips and the independent variable correlation is not causation you can have uh you can use an independent variable that's well correlated but you need to be careful in the it guides you this way that if you're using data that is not similar to your proposed land use you're going to have a problem when you try to use that data um to predict future trip generation or you can also have an indep you can select an independent variable where the number of trips is poorly correlated where there seems to be no relationship between the number of trips and the independent variable and when that is the case what you should do is Select another variable and the mathematical guidance it talks about the standard deviation stand standard deviation is how is the data spread um over the different values so for example let's say you had three data points the numbers are 40 50 and 60 the average is 50 and the standard deviation is small if you have 050 and 100 it's the same average 50 but now the standard of deviation is large standard a large standard of deviation is indicating that you have a poor fit and what it recommends is the standard deviation should be less than or equal to 110% of the weighted average rate if you're above 110% of the weighted average that's telling you poor choice of the independent variable select something else the other term that we use is the r squar the r squ tells us how closely we fit um to our estimated value how closely the data um how close the various uh data points are to the average value and uh again the trip generation gives us guidance here R squar should be 75 or greater greater than 75 that's acceptable less than 75 select a different independent variable I think we're ready for the next [Music] [Applause] [Music] slide okay so here is warehousing 13 from where Mr Housman this is page five of the 20122 report page five of 07 [Music] and this is the data that the applicant recommends Warehouse use 150 we're looking at the number just to be clear this page is also in the applicant's report the applicant did not produce this page of daily trips they only produced the pages of morning and evening peak hour trips um this um um number and this graph was very important because what I wanted to do as part of my validation is I wanted to look at the capacity of the building and the estimated number of trips so according to this graph if we're generating 150 truck trips it seems kind of excessive or crazy excessive to have 87 loading docks can you just describe the chart what's on the x- axis and what's on the y- axis sure so the x axis is square footage and I think it goes from 0 to 400,000 square ft and the y axis is the number of trips so we look at this a bit more closely excuse me where do those X's come from that you've got on the graph then those are the data points where do the data points come from sure so the it collects um uh traffic studies that meet their standards and they have uh well defined standards that need to be met before they'll include the data and what we can see up above is that there were 12 studies that were conducted so this is based on 12 data points and the average square footage of these sites was 115,000 Square fet 115,000 Square fet quite a bit smaller than what is proposed for this development okay so now we take a look at the um at the average rate versus the standard deviation and what we see is that it does not meet um the it criteria and if you go to the bottom um and you look at the r squar the r squar is61 which again doesn't meet the it criteria of 75 and when you look at this data what you see is that there are three sites I circled them in red the size of the sites varies from 200 to 400,000 square ft but the number of truck trips generated is basically the same there's no relationship for those three sites between this amount of square footage and the number of truck trips generated there's got to be some other difference between those sides that would result in the same truck trips uh same number of truck trips being generated um maybe it has to do with the occupancy of the site maybe it has something to do with the uh number of loading docks maybe it has something to do with the type of operation although here they're claiming that these are all uh meeting the criteria for 150 I don't know and um what this graph is telling me is that you can't use this independent variable that's what the graph is saying now let's move on let's take a look at the morning and evening morning and evening we're looking at the same data there was 14 what [Music] page right these were actually in the applicants [Music] report Mr hman do you know where in the applicant report they are uh I think we're looking [Music] now let's see what the next one is here right so the am graph is it's part of the appendix um the appendix pages are not numbered in the applicants report from [Music] 2021 and then the PM is um it's two pages later in the applicant's 2021 report what's the date on that report Mr Housman uh December 22nd 2021 what page and Mr Dean's report it the pages are not numbered it's part of the appendix okay thank you part of the technical appendix just to be clear you're saying this what's up on the screen is within the uh Dolan report of December 22nd 2021 they're corre appendix of the original report submitt by they both in the technical appendix [Music] um about 15 or 20 pages in into the [Music] appendix and to be clear there's red marking on it is that from Mr Dean's report um I the red marking which is mine uh references the r squ value which here is basically zero meaning that there is no correlation between the number of trips and square footage and I also made a computation uh comparing the standard deviation to the average rate standard deviation uh it says should be less than or equal to um the average rate for the morning morning the standard deviation is 2 and a half times the average and in the evening it's um three times the average I'm sorry is this is this in your report that's marked up this marked up version this marked up version is not in my report correct I don't think you should be testifying to it if you didn't submit it I'll place my objection noted well noted he didn't submit it he shouldn't be testifying to it well I think it's it's it's something that was submitted by your your testimony and your and your and your professional he's just referencing something you submitted go to your second report and analy right right right I'm I'm um sorry Scott just pointed out to me that actually I included all of these uh in the appendix of my second report 17 and 18 of the second report thank you Scott Pages 17 and 18 of of the second [Music] report [Music] okay and again we take a look at the data on the graph without doing any computations and I think it's pretty clear that there's no Rel relationship between the number of trips and square footage you look at the morning graph I highlighted these in uh with red circles you have a site that's 500,000 Square ft you have a site that's close to 3 million square ft and they have basically the number same number of truck trips in the [Music] morning when one facility is six times the size of the [Music] other something else is different between between those two facilities than the square footage in the evening we see something [Music] similar where we have approximately 30 trips 32 trips for a facility that's less than 500 square fet 500,000 square feet there to the left and we have approximately the same number of truck trips for close to 3 million square fet again these are not similar Warehouse operations to have the same number of truck trips for such a large difference in square [Music] footage and standard deviation uh larger than the average rate also flagged by the it that this that you should not be using this variable now is this the case for every land use um can you I don't have that one have the report uh maybe I should have given to this well let um in page 19 of uh the second report that I did I provided a graph of the number of trips versus square footage for General light industrial because using square footage as the independent variable uh um for trip generation is not something that's inherently good or inherently bad you have to look at the data and make a decision for this land use what you see is that the r squar it's got to be greater than 75 perfect correlation is 1.0 the number is 0.92 so what we're seeing is a close correlation between the number of trips in square footage standard deviation is less than half of the average average rate the data all the data points and for this there's 44 studies are very close to the average rate so for this land use selecting square footage as your independent variable would be totally appropriate I'm sorry did you say totally appropriate or totally inappropriate totally appropriate for General light industrial because if you reviewed um the it trip generation criteria R sar92 75 is acceptable 1.0 is perfect standard deviation um less than or uh this is less than half of the average meaning the data is all closely spread among the average rate this is for a different land use you're just demonstrating that the it uh recommendation for General light industrial using uh square footage as an indicator of trip truck trips is a valid use just as an example but it's not for the warehouses that you just went over right there's a lot of different in I mean it's I guess it's not a book anymore back when it was a book I mean it was thousands of pages of data lots of different independent variables to pick from there's not one uh independent variable that works across all different land uses you have to look at the data and follow the it guidance if you were doing General light Industrial you would find that the relationship between trip generation and square footage is great you would definitely use square footage if you were doing warehouses land use 150 and you went to look at the data underlying the graph you would reject using that independent variable because it doesn't give you accurate information thanks [Music] now this is a graph that was also I'll say what report Mr it is in um I'm sorry what number we up to er5 correct Michael using all my fingers [Music] and do I not have this one this was originally submitted by uh Mr Dean on 1129 2023 you happen have the page Mr Dean's report it wasn't in his report this was submitted at the request of the board this was this is [Music] A10 or I guess are you representing this is A10 yes it's the same exhibit that we use as A10 correct thank you mrti can you describe what's on this table um yes so the applicant went to one two three 4 5 6 7 89 uh Warehouse sites in New Jersey he identified what the square footage was and he also did a traffic count um to determine the number of trips and the initial concern I had with this graph is that it does not meet the it trip generation standards for inclusion in the manual I think we can go to the next as part of the it standards you need to identify the percent occupancy of the [Music] building and the applicant testified to this the applicant testified implied that the percent occupancy was a key feature and quote unquote to the best of his knowledge all of these facilities were 100% occupied um he didn't there wasn't any additional data provided uh as a way of checking whether these facilities were indeed 100% occupied however when you're doing a traffic impact study the Assumption of the traffic generated that needs to be accommodated we assume that the facility is going to be 100% occupied [Music] [Music] what this is in the append is in the second report right no I think it's 05 because what was going to be 05 was actually A10 didn't mark what he put the last one it's page is leaving as just page n second report it's it's I'm I'm sorry it's page nine in the second [Music] report now um one of the questions that was raised uh by a member of the public to Mr uh Dean mentioned that one of the facilities uh did not seem to be fully occupied I went to start looking I uh went to the first facility on the list 111 kbry Road I went on Google Earth and found an aerial photo from I would say a similar time to when the traffic count was conducted and to me that doesn't look like a facility that's 100% occupied can't be sure can't say definitively that it's not applicant though it's on the applicant to provide the evidence that it's 100% occupied I sorry is [Music] [Applause] [Music] this is this marked in is this in the page 12 and 13 in the second report o [Music] 16 an advertisement right and then I went to look if there is today space available at that facility and what I found was that today I guess it's about 40% of the building is available 320,000 Square ft out of 750 total I'm I'm sorry you say this is page 12 and 13 correct 12 and 13 left and right from the second report so when you said you went today we went to the same what did today conf I went to look at the space that is available on the day that I prepared the report I look he you how did you astain the information I went on the internet and did a search for space event ailable at 111 kbry Road and this is the information that was provided what is up on the screen now what is up on the screen on the left is a image from Google Earth which is dated uh within a couple of months of when the traffic count was conducted what is on the right is and I'm looking for the date when I prepared the second report August 27th August of 2024 how much space was available at the facility in August of 2024 this is not proof that that space was available in 2023 but we have no proof that the space was 100% occupied in 2023 when the count was conducted again I object it doesn't even identify all he said was the internet doesn't identify where he's getting this information from Mr gross you need to ask your client to expand on how he went about getting it do you recall which website this was from um well similar to the um data that drove this whole discussion with the additional information about the traffic count which was submitted separately after Mr Dean made his presentation uh can I do the same thing for this graph would that be acceptable to the board to provide the website I think the question being asked is how did you obtain this information and how did you obtain the information you just testified to as to and I'm using your words you acquired today including what website so the record including including what where on the internet you found and I am asking if I can provide that information because I don't have it here in front of me separately similar to how the information that drove this entire discussion was not submitted as part of any report it was submitted separately to you at the conclusion of testimony yeah well you know the information that you draw off the internet um you know doesn't I don't think is is 100% reliable that that space is available or not available I mean sitting up there on Loop net or whatever it doesn't mean it hasn't been leased already or wasn't leased a year ago or was leased I think more reliably would be the actual listing agent or whoever was to have a reliable testimony to that so I I I think that's that's I agree with that 100% And I also think it's the responsibility of the applicant to actually obtain that information that you just discussed and provide that to the board to show that the facility was 100% occupied on the day that he did the count okay because percent occupancy is part of the it requirement and I don't think it's sufficient to say to to the best of my knowledge it was 100% occupied and provide no other information okay well well he can say it doesn't mean it's going to be binding or on the board if you wish if the objector wishes through this expert to provide test to provide information that contradicts A10 then I would suggest you do it prior to the next hearing with a base upon which you came to the information you came to otherwise here we're going to have the to the best of your knowledge between Mr Dean and yourself as to where you came his his assumptions and your assumptions will equal assumptions yeah and and I think also we're we're probably not going to finish your testimony tonight as we're we're going to be approaching 1 p.m. so um you know maybe we can have that you clarify that uh next meeting um that would be great again I just want to reiterate it's the responsibility of the applicant as part of the traffic count that he provided because according to the it standards you're required to show percent occupancy okay well you're you're testifying now at this point in time so that's the board will take into account Mr Dean's testimony and the ba the underlying basis for Mr Dean's testimony when it makes the ultimate decision objector experts wish to place into evidence before the board items that either contradict or disagree with either assumptions and or actual evidence there is a c a certain amount of obligation on that behalf as well okay I don't disagree applicant has the burden but if you want to address it more um expanded then you have that right to do so and I would suggest Mr kise this matter is scheduled again for when I do not have my [Music] comp I'm not trying to end individual's testimony I'm trying to set up a time frame for reply okay and then yes we can continue on to the next I just have one more we will have the date in a let's try and get them I just have one more graph to go sounds good thank you skip this one yeah we'll skip that one since applicability the next date we can go back next graph or next question Mr G thank you right is this the next graph this is the next graph and this is so that we're sure on the numbers Mr lomber DOI and it is Page 20 one in in the report from 2024 so it's page 21 of 08 and this exhibit Michael is because as I said I run out of toes 17 17 thank you so what I did here is I basically did the same analysis that the it trip generation man ual does except that I used the data that the applicant provided um so on this is for the nine warehouses in that chart that we were looking at a few minutes ago correct correct this is the applicant's data I am looking at the sum of in and out it's the green dots and it's the green dotted line it's the morning data and the top graph it's the evening data in the lower graph and if there was a relationship between square footage and number of trips in the data that the applicant provided even in that data what you would see is that all the green points would be closely spaced around the dotted line and what you see is green dots that are double the average value and you see green dots that are less than half the average value and when you go and do the same statistic statistical analysis that the it recommends that you do what you [Music] find and I'm going to go with r s first remember R 2 75 is an acceptable fit um 1.0 is perfect correlation in the morning the R squ value is 045 pretty much Zero versus 75 and that's what we were seeing for you know the other data that the it collected and then in the evening um I guess a bit better the R squ value is 0.11 again far less than the uh required [Music] 75 and I guess I also computed the standard deviation you got to talk into the mic I'm sorry I also computed the standard deviation and for this set of data the standard deviation was approximately equal to the average [Music] value again another flag from it that uh square footage is a very poor choice of independent variable to estimate truck trips [Music] and let's not show that slide because I think I that's a paraphrase of what I had in the report so I think I can just talk to that [Music] instead so um Warehouse operations it's changed significantly over time and this is why the it uh commissioned the study in 2016 to identify different wherehouse types and how to determine whether a specific facility would be acceptable based on the relationship between parking spaces and square footage and also loading docks and square footage and the result of that showed that this proposed facility could support any type of Warehouse operation um from a standard warehouse like we saw uh um from the hillsbor zoning which only had 12 uh loading docks up to an operation and yes Amazon facilities typically have a million or more square feet however those same Amazon facilities have the same relationship between square footage in parking and square footage in the number of loading docks as this [Music] facility um and then I guess the last thing that I wanted to say what I've tried to do here is to provide some additional facts and data uh in order to help the board make a decision about what to do about this application and I guess at this point um so just just to be clear so uh Mr Dean used a method um using square footage to generate uh truck trips which he used in his traffic impact analysis and you're saying that uh there's no correlation between building size and truck trips and and the numbers used then in the traffic impact analysis are invalid the it data showed that there was no correlation between the number of truck trips and square footage the data that Mr Dean submitted to you also show that there's no correlation between the number of truck trips in square footage and yes based on that I would say that the use of square footage is inappropriate for trip generation for this site and then the conclusions from Mr Dean's traffic impact analysis would be incomplete because they don't have proper truck trips correct correct I mean trip generation is pretty much at the start of the process you know once you have the correct trip generation again you can go through the steps of trip distribution and there were some questions about how Mr Dean did the trip distribution and the truck traffic which I'm not going to discuss and also uh the traffic analysis and whether that was correct or not all of those things need to be redone in order to determine what the actual impacts of this development are going to be I haven't done any of that analysis it's for the applicant to [Music] do I would recommend we have uh Mr asmin come back in November so he can cite the references that were asked about earlier for those rental properties and before we start the cross it's 10:00 I don't think you're going to no I'm not going to start cross tonight all right uh do we determine it's November I'm fine if he wants to submit it in writing I'm I'm I'm trying to November 7th is the next date or November 14th which one yes attorney Bernstein they are already on for November 7th I'm asking the planning department are they on for November 7th I have I have many jobs but I am not the booking agine here yes they're already on for November 7th okay I would ask Mr gross that your expert provide whatever documents he needs wants to provide relative to the graphs and other documents no later than October 27th which is 10 days in advance of the hearing provide them to Mr K's office they will distri attributed to Mr gianetti and the other objectors okay can I ask question with the scheduling no I going to ask anyway yeah when I was looking at the uh website come you got to come up John okay it's sorry my bad I did not see the seventh on this calendar for any planning board meeting did I miss that I just want to make sure there's not a where were you looking were you looking at Civic clerk on Civic it's just yeah we it's not posted that far in advance it's a date that's on our approved calendar yeah we're got it got it yep we're only a couple ahead in terms of and just for the record uh so November 7th and then the to for this time of decision uh that's signed is to November 30th 2024 yeah uh based upon earlier this evening it seems like the board's agenda might be freeing up and we know we're we're not finishing on no actually it isn't freeing up but that's okay the fact that we got rid of an application doesn't free up the other one every few keep staying here long enough there'll be nobody left yet I think that's the objective the November 7th meeting is the next available meeting that's available for your client there's only one meeting in October correct I I'm looking for the one after November 7th since I believe right now that is currently being held for another Warehouse application correct November 14th is is booked fully booked cannot have anything added to it how about after November 14th Thanksgiving would we you all want to stay away from your families I don't so after that after November 14th uh we have a December 5th 2024 meeting uh there's only one potential item at this moment on that agenda uh that's for campus Associates to come back with an update related to their uh last extension that they received but we have nothing else pened in at the moment and then that will depend on if there's anybody else who's got a complete this time frame for an application correct but we do have two meetings scheduled at this point uh so that's December 5th and then we also have December 12th 2024 and we only have 303 Amo Road just there for an extension of the township doesn't close on the purchase of that property so right now uh those are the only two uh that are open but uh like Mr Bernstein alluded to yes we do have n a number of other applications that we're going to have to find uh find meeting dates for understood soon you get rid of of us the more it gets open nah he's still got others if only you're were actually holding up some of the other Lin that's what I'm saying if we that would break the log chain all right we we'll we'll cross the bridge on going forward at the November 7th [Music] meeting your your client your expert will be here on November 7th yeah do I hear a motion then to I I want to confirm I'm sorry that November 7th is I I believe that's okay I'll I'll confirm with with with you assuming for now it's okay we'll let you know otherwise to be clar me we've had that date that that was scheduled since the last yes cor correct and Mr Tarantino your witness will also be here that day correct thank you all right make so do I hear a motion to continue this application in November 7th November 74 at 7 p.m. we're soon Afters the matter may be heard without further notice I'll make that motion thank [Music] you do we need a roll call Mr Wagner yes Mr scobo yes M Smith yes commit in the pony yes may Chelli yes yes being nothing further do I hear a motion to sorry housekeeping issues motion to cancel the business meeting on 26th than you do I hear a motion to cancel the business meeting I'll make second roll call roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr vanderley Mr scobo yes M Smith yes Mr Deb yes in the pony yuty mayor chy yes sh yes please can you keep it down we're still finishing up a meeting please folks folks thank you Mr chairman I would remind the board the next meeting will now be Thursday October 10th there will not be a regularly scheduled meeting of the board on Thursday October the 3D because of Russa Shana you're welcome um you're looking at me like I oh I'm just waiting for I know are you looking at me no me uh Mr chairman just a Shameless plug for us with our master plan uh for the public that's currently here please be aware that you could go to um engag hillsbor nj.org to participate uh we have our first survey related to the master plan effort uh so please help us shape the future of the township if um you could also visit the Planning and Zoning website and for the link as well thank you Mr Co okay now can I hear a motion to adjourn second all in favor I I we adjourned thank you Mr chairman